House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund will invest in local infrastructure that has a visible impact on communities across the United Kingdom. It has been jointly designed by the Treasury, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport.
Nick Smith
Having waited so long, I really hope that the levelling-up fund will boost infrastructure in south Wales. I have already written to the Chancellor about the improvements that are needed for the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff line, to help young people especially to get to work, so can the Minister assure me that this investment will finally be seen through?
Steve Barclay
I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to boost infrastructure in south Wales, and he is quite right to focus on young people getting to work, given how impacted they have been by the pandemic. He knows that his area in particular has received additional funding for capacity, and this will enable it to bid for the levelling-up fund to address the issues that he highlights.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
The existing fiscal framework sets out the arrangements for a review following the Scottish elections. This will allow a settlement in the light of a Parliament’s-worth of experience, which is consistent with the Smith commission’s expectations that there will be effective operation of the fiscal framework and that it should not require frequent ongoing negotiation.
Alan Brown
The reality is that the powers of the Scottish Government are not adequate to deal with the pandemic. There are too many constraints on borrowing powers for the Scottish Government; the reality is that councils can borrow more easily under the prudential borrowing code. Does the Minister not agree that it is time the Scottish Government had more flexible borrowing powers?
Steve Barclay
The Smith commission set out the conditions, and they already give substantial borrowing powers. That is why there is up to £450 million of annual capital borrowing, £700 million in the Scotland reserve and up to £600 million for resource borrowing in relation to forecast error, and of course that comes on top of the share of UK Government borrowing provided through the Barnett formula.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
The Government are committed to supporting household living standards during this difficult time for our country. That is why we announced an unprecedented package of support to protect people’s jobs and incomes and to help those most in need.
Drew Hendry [V]
It is approaching two years since this Government said that they would review the way in which dying people were treated through social security. Meanwhile, Marie Curie and many other campaigners for change estimate that as many as 6,000 people have died while waiting for a decision on their claims. This Government have repeatedly promised to end the six-month rule, which is currently forcing terminally ill people to prove how long they have left to live before they can access fast-track support, so can the Chancellor confirm that this long overdue reform will be in the Queen’s Speech?
Rishi Sunak
It would be wrong for me to pre-empt the Queen’s Speech—I know that colleagues will understand that—but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary keeps all these matters under review, and of course we want to ensure that our welfare system is compassionate and effectively supports those who need our help.
John Nicolson [V]
My goodness, what a disastrous week for the UK Government. While they have been mired in scandal and slithering through sleaze, the SNP has committed to doubling the Scottish child payment and carers allowance and to introducing a new winter heating payment. Does the Chancellor accept that these are more noble social objectives than enriching well-placed cronies?
Rishi Sunak
What I believe to be a more noble objective is to focus on the day-to-day concerns of the Scottish people at this difficult time, which involves making sure that the economy recovers, that the vaccines are rolled out and, of course, that our children receive the education they deserve. These are the issues that I know the Scottish people will care most about in the coming weeks.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]
Due to the increasing concentration of wealth in older generations, the value of the average inheritance received by younger generations is becoming significantly greater through time. Does my right hon. Friend recognise this trend and the fact that it means that living standards will increasingly be determined not by skill, entrepreneurship and hard work but by chance, which will have a detrimental impact on social mobility? While it is absolutely right that families can pass on wealth to their loved ones, does my right hon. Friend none the less recognise the strong trend here, and if so, what steps might he consider taking to address this?
Rishi Sunak
I would say two things to my right hon. Friend. First, he will know that in the Budget we recently froze the inheritance tax thresholds for four years, which will provide some alleviation on the concern that he mentioned. Secondly, I believe that the best way to drive social mobility in our society is to provide everyone with the skills and education they need to make a better life for themselves, which is what this Government are committed to delivering.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
The Tories’ two-child limit, and the rape clause, which stands part of it, are having a devastating impact on living standards, with the Child Poverty Action Group and the Church of England estimating that 350,000 families and 1.25 million children have been affected so far. Scrapping the two-child limit would be the easiest and most cost-effective way of reducing child poverty in the UK, so will the Chancellor scrap it or will he push more families into poverty?
Rishi Sunak
Since 2010, over 1 million fewer people are now living in poverty, thanks to the actions of this Government and the coalition, and 300,000 fewer children are living in poverty. That is something to be celebrated, but of course there is work to do and we remain committed to making those improvements.
Alison Thewliss
It is interesting that the Chancellor ignores the findings of the Church of England and the CPAG, which tell a very different story from that which he is willing to tell. In Scotland, the Scottish National party is committed to doubling the Scottish child payment, a new benefit described as a “game changer”, to £20 a week; providing free school meals to all primary children; and extending wraparound childcare. All of those are a huge help to the families that this Tory Government choose to ignore. Does this not demonstrate the choice of two futures: more austerity and more child poverty under the Tories, or a Scotland working hard to be the best place for a child to grow up?
Rishi Sunak
I am glad that the Scottish Government are able to use the over £3.5 billion of Barnett consequentials that have been provided by the UK Government over the next year. Child poverty is of course an important issue and one that we remain committed to, which is why initiatives such as the troubled families programme are making an enormous difference to those families. Crucially, we also know that children growing up in a workless household are five times more likely to be in poverty, which is why this Government are committed to helping people find work and find well-paid work. That is something we have an excellent record of doing.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
David Cameron said that Greensill had
“the mandate for the UK Government”.
Greensill said that it was the
“sole provider of…supply chain finance”
across Government and that it had a model that brings several benefits to the UK public sector. Does the Chancellor still believe that he was right to bring in real-terms pay cuts for public sector workers, while allowing David Cameron and Lex Greensill to target their pay packets and giving them the run of Whitehall?
Rishi Sunak
With regard to public sector pay, I do believe it is right, at a time of extraordinary strain on our public finances—when those in the private sector have seen more than 1 million jobs lost, hours cut, wages cut and many millions furloughed, with the impact that that has on them—to take a fair and proportionate approach to public sector pay. That is why this Government have said that those on the lowest pay will see a pay rise this year, as will those in the NHS. Combined with all the other pay progression, this means that a majority of people in the public sector will see their pay increase this year, despite the difficult circumstances. Of course, the national living wage is also being increased ahead of inflation, making sure that those on the lowest incomes see an uplift in their take-home pay.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
The Treasury is considering the merits of differentiating products based on their place of retail as part of its alcohol duty review. We are currently analysing responses provided by stakeholders to our recent call for evidence and will provide further updates in due course.
Giles Watling [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. It is all very well conducting calls for evidence and creating reports, welcome though they may be, but we live in extraordinary times that require extraordinary measures taken quickly. I implore the Minister to press her Department to act on this matter now. Hospitality in general, and pubs in particular, are facing closure every day. Will she act?
Kemi Badenoch
I know that my hon. Friend is a fierce advocate of pubs and brewers, and he has been proposing a duty differential for several years. I should stress that I am personally very interested in this proposal, but there are a number of complex issues associated with it, including how producers and wholesalers would account for and manage their stock of beer; how to ensure that any reduced rate is not exploited fraudulently; and how any differential would interact with the existing small brewers relief scheme. However, I would like to reassure him that we are looking closely at the proposals he has put forward.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
At the Budget, I announced the location of eight freeports in eight regions of England following a highly competitive process. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is now leading a cross-Government effort to support the winning bidders to establish their freeport, and we expect the first freeports to open later this year.
Paul Holmes [V]
My right hon. Friend authored a report in 2017, which found that freeports could easily create up to 90,000 jobs if they were as successful as the US foreign trade zone programme. Does he agree that, by voting against our Finance Bill and the setting up of freeports earlier this month, such as the Solent freeport near my constituency, the Labour party has shown that it has no interest in creating jobs and levelling up opportunity across the country, as this Government are committed to doing?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I congratulate everyone involved in the Solent freeport bid. This Government are using freeports to boost jobs, investment, trade and growth. Local communities, from Merseyside to Teesside, Humber and indeed the Solent, all agree with us and it is a shame that the Labour party does not support their aspirations.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
There are global challenges in the steel industry, with vast overcapacity and supply outstripping demand. However, the Government have supported the steel sector extensively, including providing more than £500 million in recent years to help with the cost of energy. Our unprecedented package of covid support is still available to the sector to protect jobs and ensure that producers have the right support during this challenging time.
Stephen Kinnock
Steel is central in terms of good jobs, national security and combating climate change. There can be no post-pandemic economic recovery without a strong and healthy steel industry. Will the Chancellor therefore commit today to recognising the pivotal strategic importance of the steel industry by using the power of the Treasury to reduce the exorbitant electricity prices faced by our steelmakers—currently 82% higher than in Germany—so that our steel industry can compete on a level playing field?
Kemi Badenoch
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is something that we are doing. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, we have already spent £500 million across the sector specifically to deal with that point. Further, we are taking a number of steps to support the decarbonisation of the UK steel industry. For example, we announced the £250 million clean steel fund to support the decarbonisation of the steel sector, including its transition to new low-carbon technologies and processes.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Jobs in the steel industry are crucial to the people of Hartlepool. In June, the first instalment of the EU research fund for coal and steel will be returned to the UK. Are the Government planning to ring fence that money to support the decarbonising and modernising of the industry, given the vital importance of protecting steel jobs for the future?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I mentioned in my answer to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) the steps that we are taking to decarbonise the UK steel industry. As I said, there are global challenges in the industry and we have been supporting various companies. For example, last year, we provided a £30 million loan to Celsa, safeguarding a key supplier to the UK construction industry and securing more than 1,000 jobs, including more than 800 positions at the company’s main sites in south Wales. The Government will continue working with businesses to understand the issues that they are facing, including continuing to engage business sectors that are affected by covid and our changing relationship with the EU.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Our plan for jobs supports retraining and upskilling by tripling the number of traineeships, expanding sector-based work academies, incentivising apprenticeship hiring and providing funding for new, free, advanced technical courses and digital skills bootcamps under the lifetime skills guarantee.
Gary Sambrook
People across Birmingham, Northfield remember only too well the impact that an economic shock can have on livelihoods and jobs in the community following the collapse of MG Rover many years ago. Does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor agree that things such as the lifetime skills guarantee will allow many adults to to train and retrain to get back into work so that they have the security of a pay packet as we ease out of lockdown and build back better following the coronavirus pandemic?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Across our nation, over 10 million adults do not have a level 3 qualification. Thanks to this Government’s lifetime skills guarantee, they will now be able to get one, and we know what that will do: it will boost both their employability and their earnings, providing them with the opportunity of a better future.
Alexander Stafford
No matter where in the country people are from, everyone should be able to get the experience and knowledge they need to get the job they want. Does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor agree that the new flexi-job apprenticeships that he announced last month will boost opportunities in sectors key to Rother Valley, especially in high-end manufacturing, creating more chances for people to experience the life-changing opportunity that an apprenticeship can bring?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We were delighted to announce at the Budget a £7 million fund to create and expand flexi-job apprenticeship schemes, which enable people who need to work across multiple projects with different employers still to benefit from the high-quality, long-term training that an apprenticeship provides. That is particularly important in the industries of high-end manufacturing that he mentioned. I know that this will make a difference in his constituency.
Dr Wallis [V]
Young people have been particularly affected by the pandemic, including in my Bridgend constituency. Can my right hon. Friend outline to the House what support he is putting in place to help young people get back into work and to boost opportunities?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of our focus on young people. More than half the jobs that have been lost since the start of the pandemic have been of those under the age of 25 and their rates of furlough are much higher than others. That is why, acting very early last year, we created the kickstart programme, which is creating hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I urge all Members to talk to their local businesses to get them excited and joined up to the kickstart scheme, and to provide young people with the chance of a brighter future.
Marco Longhi
Small and medium-sized enterprises are often referenced as the beating heart of the UK economy, employing the largest number of people. That is certainly the case in my Dudley North constituency and across the west midlands, so will my right hon. Friend commit to working with colleagues in the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and with business to ensure that we improve engagement with small businesses, in particular in the design and funding of apprenticeship schemes, as they need providers to deliver much more at foundation level 2, which the current funding framework is less able to deliver? This would help to bring about the retraining revolution that our brilliant Mayor Andy Street talks about.
Rishi Sunak
The brilliant Mayor Andy Street is right to talk about the retraining revolution that we need and that he is implementing in the west midlands. My hon. Friend makes an important point about the flexibility of the system to support SMEs. I am pleased to tell him that starting this August we are implementing a new scheme to allow SMEs to link with larger, levy-paying businesses through a new matching and levy transfer service that will help SMEs to access that funding and to provide the level 2 or 3 apprenticeships that he rightly identified as being important. He should also know that that scheme was based on, I think, a pilot programme that was launched in the west midlands.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Throughout the pandemic, the Government have sought to support businesses across the UK. To do this, we have put in place a package of economic support for businesses and individuals worth £352 billion since the start of the pandemic. The Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England have highlighted that without this intervention the UK economy would be significantly worse than it is today.
Mrs Murray [V]
What additional financial assistance can my hon. Friend give the all-important tourism sector in Cornwall to ensure that it is fully ready to greet the G7 in June?
John Glen
Cornwall hosting the G7 is a fantastic opportunity. I know that my hon. Friend has welcomed this chance to showcase all that Cornwall has to offer. Many organisations in the broader tourism sector have benefited from business grants of over £34 million provided to her constituency of South East Cornwall, as well as business rates holidays and a temporary reduction in the rate of VAT. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has recently announced the £56 million welcome back fund to support safe local trade and tourism as economies reopen.
David Simmonds [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and particularly welcome the support being offered in the form of extended business rates relief. Looking to the future and with reform of business rates in the pipeline, what discussions have taken place with Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy colleagues about the potential to balance the need to secure the correct revenue to support vital local government services and boosting high streets like mine in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner through the reform of business rates?
John Glen
My hon. Friend brings a great deal of expertise and experience to this matter. The Government have committed to over £16 billion in business rates support for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure property since April last year. When combined with small business rates relief, this means that three quarters of a million retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England will pay no business rates for the 15 months from 1 April last year. The Government are, however, undertaking a fundamental review of the business rates system and have invited stakeholders to contribute their views and ideas for reform. I know that my hon. Friend will also be very pleased to see the £16.9 million of business grants that his constituents have received.
Kevin Hollinrake
Warren Buffett once said:
“What we learn from history is that people don’t learn from history.”
With a 50% rise in the number of companies in significant financial distress, to prevent repeating the historical mistakes of post the last financial crisis, inflicting all that scandalous treatment on SMEs, will my hon. Friend consider working with the banks to extend the very fair and sensible provisions of the pay as you grow scheme and bounce bank loans, and also transfer that into CBILS—coronavirus business interruption loan scheme—loans?
John Glen
The Treasury has, as my hon. Friend will know, amended the CBILS rules to allow lenders to extend loan terms from six to a maximum of 10 years, and that would assist borrowers in that repayment. CBILS term extension will be offered at the discretion of lenders, unlike pay as you grow options for bounce back loans, because they are different in terms of the guarantees that the Government have offered. Extensions are limited to those borrowers that lenders assess are in difficulty and will benefit from that extension, and only for the duration required. That customised approach, as I am sure he would understand given his vast business experience, is appropriate given the nature and scale of that different intervention.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
When Lex Greensill was given his No. 10 business card, he had no contract and no job description, and there have now been reports that during the pandemic, the financial empire that he built may have lent Government-backed money based on invoices to companies that had never done business with his client, GFG, some of which say they had no intention of doing so. Will the Minister look into the issue of how this financing was structured and ensure that hard-working British steelworkers do not pay the price for Greensill’s collapse?
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I can assure him that this Government are fully committed to examining all those matters through the review process and complying with all requests for information in order to get to the bottom of this matter.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The Government announced at Budget 2021 that the self-employment income support scheme, or SEISS, will continue until September, with the fourth and then the final fifth grant. This provides certainty to business as the economy reopens, and it means that the SEISS will continue to be one of the most generous schemes for the self-employed in the world, and one of the few where support is committed until September.
Dr Huq
Is it not the case that under this Chancellor the Tories have gone from being seen as freelancer-friendly to the party of sleaze with their selective texts and promises of favours for their pals? If not, can they fix— their expression—the situation for up to 3 million people who have been excluded from all the grants the Minister mentioned, and from universal credit, and have been forced into bankruptcy, debt and worse, with 19 self-employed suicides in the past year? What are they doing about it?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady will know that the SEISS is one of the most generous schemes of its kind. The range of overall measures that the Government have taken is one of the most comprehensive of its kind in the world. I think she also knows that I personally and my officials have leant in as hard as we can to understand and to work with those groups to see whether we could extend the schemes. It has not been possible, because of features of the design of the tax system, but we have absolutely spent every effort possible to try to make it so.
Bambos Charalambous
More than 900,000 people who were self-employed at the start of the crisis, including many in the creative industries sector, now say that they are having to leave the sector as the crisis comes to an end. Does the Minister agree that the lack of support for the self-employed, who are not covered by the existing schemes, risks damaging the recovery we so desperately need?
Jesse Norman
A very large majority of the self-employed are, of course, covered by the schemes, and therefore I think that the hon. Gentleman’s concern is misplaced. Of course there will always be change in employments of different kinds, and in a dynamic economy such as ours, that is to be expected. If we can get through this desperate crisis—the worst for 300 years—with anything like any of the projected outcomes, that is something we can all, self-employed or not, be profoundly grateful for.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
In a recent letter to me, the Financial Secretary admitted that 710,000 freelancers who receive a portion of their income from dividends have missed out on covid support schemes. He recognised that most people are honest in their dealings with HMRC, but said that concerns over fraud meant
“it has not been possible to support everyone in the way they might want”.
The Government have had a year to put in place a process with adequate safeguards. Why have they given up?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Of course, there was no admission of any kind. He asked me a question, and I responded comprehensively and fully to the question he put. The fact of the matter is that many of the people we are talking about have other forms of income. They may have pension income. They may have dividend income. They may have property income. What we have tried to do is use all the sources of information that we have that are properly assessed and certified in order to get schemes up and running—as fast as anywhere in the world, and that is an astonishing achievement. We continue to use those schemes, and we continue to work with groups to see whether others can be included.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The temporary reduced rate of VAT aims to support the cash flow and viability of around 150,000 businesses and to protect more than 2.4 million jobs. As was announced at the Budget, the Government extended the temporary reduced rate of VAT to 31 March 2022, with a phased return to the standard rate. This relief alone is estimated to be worth more than £7 billion to the tourism and hospitality sectors. Applying it permanently would come at a very significant cost to the Exchequer, and that would have to be balanced by increased taxes elsewhere or reductions in Government spending.
Steve Double
The past year has clearly illustrated just how important the hospitality and tourism sectors are not only to our economy, with the jobs and businesses they support in the supply chain, but to our overall wellbeing and the contribution they make to social mobility. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, I know just how important this cut in VAT has been in supporting those businesses, but will the Treasury take another look at the merits of making this reduction permanent to further support the sector and the growth in jobs that it can create?
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this has been an incredibly challenging period for the tourism and hospitality sectors, and it is also right to recognise that many organisations within these sectors have benefited from the measures that I have described, including the extensions to the employment schemes, business rates holidays and the VAT reduction, as well as the very important wider restart grants and the additional restrictions grant. As these restrictions are lifted and demand for goods and services in these sectors resumes, temporary reliefs are being phased out and in time will be removed. Bridging that transition to a standard rate by applying a temporary 12.5% rate will help businesses to manage the change. We should want them to get back to normal trading and the support that they offer through that to their communities and the economy.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
We speak to our colleagues on a regular basis about a range of matters. The Department for Transport is in regular contact with the Treasury regarding the challenging circumstances facing the aviation sector as a result of covid-19.
Ruth Cadbury [V]
Furlough ends in September, which is of no help to the aviation sector and airport communities, which will take months to recover even partially as we wait for the world to unlock. Many aviation businesses are on the edge financially, and they employ staff in safety-critical roles where there is a risk of skill fade if they cannot be supported. They are seeking longer-term support, as are communities such as ours in Hounslow, where tens of thousands of people depend on the airport for their livelihoods. Will the Treasury address the specific challenge of the aviation sector and airport communities well before the furlough scheme ends in September?
Kemi Badenoch
The Government recognise the challenging circumstances facing the aviation industry, which the hon. Member described. The industry can draw on the package of measures announced by the Chancellor, including not just the furlough scheme but schemes to raise capital, flexibilities with tax bills and employment support. The aerospace sector and aviation customers are being supported with over £11 billion made available through loan guarantees, support for exporters, the Bank of England’s covid corporate financing facility and grants for research and development. In addition, the renewed airport and ground operations support scheme, which the Chancellor announced in his Budget, will provide support for eligible businesses in England with their fixed costs for a further six months up to the equivalent of their business rate liabilities for the first half of 2021-22.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Stimulating private sector investment will be key to our economic recovery. The recent Budget announced multiple policies to help achieve that, including freeports, the Help to Grow programme, the future fund breakthrough, the life sciences investment partnership, consultations on reforming R&D tax credits and, of course, our radical new super deduction to support business investment as we recover from the coronavirus.
Mr Fysh [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend and the whole Treasury team for the extensive package of support and investment incentives over the past year; I know that businesses and employees in Yeovil are incredibly grateful for that. There is a very welcome focus in the defence review on local prosperity in procurement decisions. Will he work with me to ensure that Leonardo and our wonderful local supply chain for the helicopter industry can take full advantage of that into the future?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for all the advice and support he has provided for me and the team over the past year as we have sought to develop policies that will help businesses, including Leonardo in his constituency, which I know he champions. He is right to highlight the opportunities of better procurement, particularly for our defence supply chain, and I look forward to working with him and colleagues to ensure that we can support his local businesses and many others across the United Kingdom.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The Government have put in place a number of measures to facilitate trade with the EU, including publishing comprehensive guidance on the new arrangements. HMRC has produced step-by-step guides, videos and webinars for small businesses that may be new to customs processes. The Government have also provided a £20 million Brexit support fund to assist small and medium-sized businesses in adjusting to new customs procedures, questions of rules of origin and VAT rules when trading with the EU.
Mohammad Yasin [V]
Just over a month ago, the Paymaster General told me that she would follow up on my invite to Bedfordshire chamber of commerce to hear the widespread concerns of businesses that are really struggling to overcome the new and complex operational challenges around her Government’s Brexit deal. I have heard nothing. Will the Minister attend a meeting with the chamber of commerce to hear about how customs paperwork is impacting viability, or would the Treasury also prefer to ignore the problem?
Jesse Norman
The Paymaster General is always happy to take inquiries from businesses, as am I, so if the hon. Member wishes to write to me, I am perfectly happy to respond to his questions.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
The Government have supported the steel sector extensively, including providing over £500 million in recent years to help with the costs of energy. At the summer economic update, the Government announced an ambitious £3.05 billion package for housing decarbonisation designed to cut carbon, save people money and create jobs. Alongside that, our covid support package is still available to the sector to protect jobs and ensure that producers have the right support during this challenging time.
Zarah Sultana [V]
My constituency is home to Liberty Pressing Solutions, part of the Liberty Steel Group. The threat of the company’s collapse risks losing good, skilled, unionised jobs in Coventry and across the country. This would be a disaster for the city and for British manufacturing, so rather than waiting for the company to go bust before taking action, risking workers’ jobs, terms and conditions, will the Government step in now, with all options on the table, including bringing the business into public ownership, guaranteeing its future and retaining the skills we need to rebuild and to tackle the climate emergency?
Kemi Badenoch
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details of individual companies, due to commercial sensitivities. We are monitoring developments around Liberty and continue to engage closely with the company, the broader UK steel industry and trade unions. I recognise that reports around Liberty cause worry and uncertainty to the affected workers and their families. What I would say to the hon. Lady is that there is a lot of stuff that the Government are doing that will help her constituency. For instance, we are helping to create new green manufacturing jobs by providing support to drive the electrification of the UK automotive sector, supporting thousands of high-quality jobs in the west midlands.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
Our plan for jobs will help young people find employment opportunities, including through our youth offer and the £2 billion kickstart scheme, where 180,000 kickstart vacancies have already been created.
Gordon Henderson [V]
I appreciate that the Government are helping to create those jobs, but it is important that young people have the confidence to learn and master a skill after leaving formal education, so how will my right hon. Friend ensure there are funds for people to do that in my constituency, including in Sittingbourne, which is the largest town in Kent that does not have its own further education facilities?
Steve Barclay
I agree with my hon. Friend that young people should have access to the skills and training opportunities they need to access great jobs. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has provided £126 million for traineeships in England to enable an additional 40,000 places over the next academic year, and why he has incentivised apprenticeships, with up to £3,000 for employers who hire new apprentices of any age.
Mark Menzies [V]
Measures such as the kickstart scheme are a fantastic way to help young people into work and reduce the risk of long-term unemployment. Many young people will have taken part-time or casual work to support themselves through the pandemic, such as in Fylde’s hospitality and leisure sector, and may not be claiming universal credit. What steps will my right hon. Friend be taking to help young people get the skills and industry experience to help them move from casual employment and launch full-time careers?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and that is why, as well as the fantastic kickstart scheme, which he points out, the plan for jobs also expands existing programmes with proven employment outcomes, including traineeships, sector-based work academies and incentivised apprenticeship hiring. At the spending review, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced £138 million for the lifetime skills guarantee to fund free advanced technical courses for adults without A-levels or equivalent and to expand employer-led skills bootcamps.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government have provided £25 billion in cash grants for businesses, and that includes the £5 billion of funding allocated at the March Budget for restart grants and the discretionary additional restrictions grant fund. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has been working closely with local authorities to ensure that these grants are delivered as swiftly as possible and directed towards the businesses that have been most impacted by the pandemic.
Mrs Lewell-Buck [V]
It is clear that equitable distribution of covid business schemes is not a priority. Only those on this Treasury Bench would have the gall to claim fairness when the Chancellor and his Ministers were consumed with pulling out all the stops to support their friend the former Prime Minister on behalf of Greensill, while 3 million people were excluded from support schemes, some so distraught that they took their own lives. So to clear this up once and for all, can the Minister explain what news did Treasury officials report at a meeting on 24 April that made Greensill representatives “very pleased”?
John Glen
As I have said previously, the Government are committed to co-operating fully with all reviews on these matters. I do not accept what the hon. Lady has said with respect to the schemes that the Government have put forward over the past 14 months. Her constituency has had £16.7 million in business grants and 1,206 bounce-back loans totalling £30 million. In addition, 12,700 of her constituents have benefited from the furlough scheme, and 2,000 have benefited from the self-employed income support scheme. That is a significant contribution to help her constituents.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
Promotion or enablement of a tax avoidance scheme is not, in and of itself, a criminal offence, as we have regularly debated in this House. However, there have been numerous cases in which Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has made arrests or prosecuted people in relation to fraud, and particularly in relation to disguised remuneration loan-busting schemes.
Dr Lewis
My understanding is that very few promoters of these schemes have been prosecuted. Is it not rather shocking that so many people who were mis-sold the schemes on the basis that they were perfectly legitimate are being pursued so relentlessly, while the promoters are in some cases being allowed to continue their work unhindered?
Jesse Norman
The suggestion that promoters are being allowed to do just anything is quite wrong. If my right hon. Friend had looked closely at the current Finance Bill, he would have seen a range of measures in that Bill alone aimed at preventing the promotion of tax avoidance schemes and at the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes, as well as other measures. HMRC takes such issues extremely seriously, and that is why the avoidance tax gap fell from £3.7 billion in 2005-06 to £1.7 billion in 2018-19—a fall of more than 50%.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
This Government have supported our economy through coronavirus with more than £350 billion to protect jobs, families and businesses. As we approach the next phase of our road map out of lockdown, our support continues to ensure that we emerge from the pandemic stronger and more united.
Christian Matheson
The Financial Conduct Authority has asked John Swift QC to investigate the mis-selling of certain business loans to small businesses, as well as their response to complaints about that mis-selling. The review has refused to take into account any loans that were settled with non-disclosure agreements between the businesses and the banks, giving a skewed view and a skewed outcome. Will the Chancellor speak to the FCA and ask John Swift to ensure that all evidence is taken into account, so that we get a proper review of the FCA’s dealings?
Rishi Sunak
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which is on an important matter. I welcome the conclusions of the Swift review, and I hope he will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment or intervene on the scope of that review, as it was set up to be completely independent of Government. That said, we have always been clear that the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products is wrong, and nothing that the redress scheme does means that businesses cannot still go to the FCA, the Financial Ombudsman Service or the courts if they wish. If he wishes to raise particular circumstances with either the FCA or the Swift review, he can do that directly.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) [V]
Rishi Sunak
Fishing is at the heart of many of our coastal communities, and I pay tribute to Mr Chapman and my hon. Friend for their commitment to the sector. I am happy that the Government are also championing and committed to the sector, and we have announced a £100 million fund to modernise our fleet and infrastructure. That is on top of £32 million that will replace EU funding this year, and £23 million that was made available earlier to support the sector, while adjusting to new export requirements.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
A year ago, the Chancellor personally announced the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, or “our loan scheme for large companies”, as his Department put it. Allowing Greensill Capital access to that scheme put hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and thousands of jobs at risk. The Prime Minister said he would publish every personal exchange related to covid contracts. Has the Chancellor published his every communication relating to Government business on Greensill, including with David Cameron—yes or no?
Rishi Sunak
We have actually responded to all the requests that I have been asked and, indeed, gone above and beyond in providing disclosure. I would say a couple of things to the hon. Lady. First of all, I am very happy to co-operate fully and constructively with both the independent Boardman review and the Treasury Committee inquiry, and those processes have begun. Secondly, on the substance, it is important to remember what was going on. We were in the midst of a financial crisis and we were keen to explore all avenues to support small and medium-sized businesses. We have heard in the House today that there are still challenges, so it was right to examine all avenues to do that. This was just one of many strands of work that the Treasury and I conducted, rightly and appropriately. It is important to notice that, in the end, we rejected the taking forward of any proposals on supply chain finance.
Anneliese Dodds
I will take that as a no. It appears that the Chancellor is less committed than the Prime Minister himself to transparency. That is not what I would call levelling with the British public. Let us see if he can level on another significant Government failure: the delay to imposing restrictions last autumn, which cost lives and our economy dear. In late October, when I asked the Chancellor if he was blocking a circuit breaker, he said,
“I agree with the Prime Minister”—[Official Report, 20 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 889.]
Now it is being suggested that he sided with others against the Prime Minister. We have grown used to the Chancellor chopping and changing his mind, but can he explain whether this change of heart is driven by science and the needs of our economy, or by the internal politics of the Conservative party?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady is confusing multiple things. She has asked me previously about circuit breakers. At the time there was a debate, appropriately, about whether a national intervention was right at a time when the epidemiology across this country was incredibly varied. That is something that the deputy chief medical officer himself spoke about at a press conference, and he said it would be inappropriate at that time to take forward national interventions. That is what I was referring to.
To go back to the shadow Chancellor’s previous comment about transparency, in fact I voluntarily published extra messages to aid the transparency of this process for people. I am fully committed to working constructively with the inquiry, both the Boardman review and the Treasury Committee inquiry. It is worth reminding the shadow Chancellor of something she herself wrote last April in The Daily Mirror:
“The ‘Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme’ seems to be stuck in the banks, and not getting to small businesses in particular, where cash flow is desperately needed.”
Well, the Government were also looking at how to get cash flow to small businesses, and I am sad and disappointed about what a conveniently short memory she has.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
Rishi Sunak
In my previous job as Minister for local government, I enjoyed many conversations with my hon. Friend about local government matters. He will know it is not for the Chancellor or indeed national Government to implement redress processes. There are established redress processes, which I would be happy to write to him about, so he can seek redress for his particular concerns.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are committed to levelling up opportunities across the UK, including in Rother Valley. The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund will invest in infrastructure that improves everyday life across the UK, including by regenerating town centres and high streets, upgrading local transport and investing in cultural and heritage assets. I look forward to working with him for his local area.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) [V]
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
As I said in answer to earlier questions on this issue, the Government are providing unprecedented support to the steel industry. If the hon. Gentleman has something specific to bring to my attention about the steel industry in Hartlepool, I am happy for him to write to me and I will look at the issues, but I have already answered the question and talked about the measures of support that are in place.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
There has been no change in the Treasury’s position since I updated the House in January 2019. The relevant records—the data relating to all payments made under the scheme—are retained, and will continue to be so for as long as that is legal. Contrary to the press reports, there are no plans to destroy records. There is a complaints process provided by the scheme, and those who are not satisfied may take their case to the independent review panel which resolved such cases before closure. Further to the oral evidence session to which my hon. Friend referred, the permanent secretary to the Treasury will be writing to the PAC to provide similar reassurance and clarification. Since the scheme has now closed, there will be no further funding on this matter.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
Kemi Badenoch
I am not sure exactly what reduction in air passenger duty the hon. Lady is referring to. We are increasing air passenger duty in this year’s Finance Bill.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
Steve Barclay
Of course I would be happy to look at the report to which my hon. Friend refers. He knows that addressing future local authority resourcing is a matter for future spending reviews and the local government finance settlement. However, I would remind him that at the spending review 2020 we provided an estimated 4.6% cash increase in core spending to local authorities. That is on top of the largest real-terms increase in their core spending at the spending review 2019, and that is in addition to the about £11 billion of support that has been provided as part of the covid response.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
Rishi Sunak
I am very sorry for the hon. Gentleman’s loss, and I know the whole House will join me in passing on those condolences. I am not aware of the particular proposal that he mentions, but if he writes to me, I will be happy to take a look at it.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
John Glen
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. On modern slavery, the landmark provision in section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 includes institutional investors that fall within the scope of the requirement and meet the criteria requiring them to publish an annual statement.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
Rishi Sunak
The Prime Minister has appointed Nigel Boardman to conduct an independent review of these various matters. With regard to covid in general, the Prime Minister has also said that at the appropriate time there will be all the necessary lessons to be learned.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he will know, we have covered this quite extensively in this debate so far. The self-employed scheme is very wide ranging and comprehensive. We have worked very closely with groups representing those who believe they have been excluded from the schemes—I have personally met many of them—and we have tried everything we can to incorporate them. We continue to engage with them, and we take the issue very seriously.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I salute the people of Carlton and I rejoice in the businesses of Mapperley. I encourage businesses across the constituency of Gedling to take advantage of the Government’s unprecedented package of support, including the £5 billion-worth of grant support that the Chancellor announced at Budget, which is providing a lifeline for businesses as they relaunch their trading safely.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Petition
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
Many of my constituents have been in touch concerning dog-on-dog attacks, and more than 150,000 people have signed the petition launched by my constituent, Emma Gambrill. I therefore present this petition on behalf of my constituent Emma, and note that this petition goes alongside her online campaign.
The petition states:
The petition of Emma Gambrill,
Declares that current legislation in the form of the Dogs Act 1871 and Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 does not account for dog-on-dog attacks where the dogs behave dangerously and are clearly out of control of irresponsible owners; further that this means that owners of dangerous dogs do not face robust action when their dogs attack other dogs; further that this problem was recently horribly highlighted in the case of Enfield North constituent Emma Gambrill’s dog, where her beautiful border collie, Blue, was attacked and mauled to death by two Cane Corso dogs that escaped from their garden, and where the owners who were present in their garden and were witness to the event were unable to control their dogs; and further that attacks such as this leave owners and families distraught and traumatised.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to review the Dogs Act 1871 and Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, to set out whether this problem could be addressed by making dog-on-dog attacks a criminal offence, and to ensure that irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs face more robust action.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002661]
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
Iran’s decision to sentence Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe on further charges is totally inhumane and wholly unjustified. This Government remain committed to doing all that we can to secure Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s return home to the United Kingdom so that she can be reunited with her daughter, Gabriella, and her husband, Richard. It is indefensible and unacceptable that Iran has chosen to continue this wholly arbitrary court case against Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. The Iranian Government have deliberately put her through a cruel and inhumane ordeal. We continue to call on Iran in the strongest possible terms to end her suffering and allow her to return home.
Since her arrest in April 2016, Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe has faced terrible hardship and appalling treatment. This Government have relentlessly lobbied for an improvement to both the conditions endured by Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe while she was in prison and those conditions still experienced by others, including Morad Tahbaz and Anoosheh Ashoori, who are still incarcerated. Although Iran does not recognise dual nationality, and therefore views Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe as only an Iranian citizen, that has not stopped this Government from lobbying at every opportunity for their release, and her return home to the UK. We have never been granted sight of the judicial process, or consular access to our dual British nationals detained in Iran; however, that has not stopped our ambassador in Tehran consistently pressing for her full and permanent release with senior Iranian interlocutors, most recently today, 27 April.
Since I was last at the Dispatch Box, the Foreign Secretary and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials have been in regular contact with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family. Our ambassador in Tehran has visited Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe at her parents’ home in Tehran to reiterate the Government’s commitment to do all that we can to secure her return to the UK. The Foreign Secretary has spoken with both Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her husband to underline the fact that the UK Government, from the Prime Minister down, remain committed to doing everything that we can to achieve that.
Since Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s arrest in 2016, we have raised the case regularly at the highest levels of Government. The Prime Minister has raised it with President Rouhani, most recently on 10 March, and the Foreign Secretary’s personal ongoing engagement with Foreign Minister Zarif continues, with their most recent call being on 3 April. That lobbying of Iranian interlocutors at every opportunity has helped to secure the release of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe in March 2020 and the removal of her ankle tag on 7 March this year.
As I have said, however, what we ultimately seek to achieve, and what we are ultimately working towards, is the release of all British dual nationals held in arbitrary detention in Iran, and their ability to return home. The UK continues to take concrete steps to hold Iran to account for its poor human rights record. At the Human Rights Council in March 2021, we strongly supported the renewal mandate of the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, and we made clear to Iran that its repeated violations of human rights, including those of foreign and dual nationals, are completely unacceptable. The UK Government also joined the Canadian initiative against arbitrary detention on 15 February. We continue to work with G7 partners to enhance mechanisms to uphold international law, tackle human rights abuses and stand up for our shared values.
I assure the House that the safety and the treatment of dual British national detainees in Iran remains a top priority for the UK Government. Iran is the one responsible for putting Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe through this cruel and inhumane ordeal over the last five years, and it remains on them to release her to be reunited with her family, and to release the others. We continue to stress that these second charges are baseless. She must not be returned to prison.
Tulip Siddiq
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. The whole House will be aware that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, my constituent, has been in prison in Iran for five years now; from last March, she has been under house arrest. The Iranian authorities dangled the possibility of freedom in front of her by removing her ankle tag, but then, yesterday, announced that she had one more year in prison and another year of a travel ban—effectively, a two-year sentence.
As the news unfolded yesterday, I watched with great interest as the Prime Minister talked about redoubling his efforts to get Nazanin home and how he was working as hard as he possibly could to secure her release. If the Prime Minister is watching now, I would like to ask him what efforts he has put into trying to release Nazanin in the first place, because from where I am standing I have seen no evidence on the part of the Prime Minister so far.
At the heart of this tragic case is the Prime Minister’s dismal failure to release my constituent and to stand up for her, and his devastating blunder in 2017, as Foreign Secretary, when he exposed his complete ignorance of this tragic case and put more harm in Nazanin’s way. The Prime Minister did not even arrange for UK officials to attend Nazanin’s recent court hearing, which might have ensured that she got a free and fair trial. He still has not got his Government to pay the £400 million debt that we as a country owe Iran. We MPs might be many things, but we are not naive. We cannot deny the fact that Nazanin was handed a fresh new sentence a week after the International Military Services debt court hearing was delayed. Bearing that in mind, I have a few questions to ask the Minister. I would really appreciate some proper answers from him.
Will he acknowledge that Nazanin is being held hostage by Iran and is a victim of torture? In light of the recent adjournment of the IMS debt hearing scheduled for last week, what are the Government doing to ensure the debt is paid promptly? The Prime Minister said yesterday that he was working with our American friends on this issue. Can the Minister please explain what that involves and why the US has had more success in securing the release of dual nationals than we have? Tomorrow, another British-Iranian dual national, Mehran Raoof, is on trial in Iran. What link does the Minister see between development in that and Nazanin’s case and upcoming talks on the Iran nuclear deal?
The Prime Minister and other Ministers might not listen to me, but perhaps they will listen to someone from their own Benches. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee said today that Nazanin is being held hostage by Iran. Please, Minister—please, everyone on the Government Benches—get Nazanin released, stand up to Iran and bring my constituent home.
James Cleverly
I completely understand the passion with which the hon. Lady speaks and I can hear the anger and frustration in her voice. However, her anger and frustration are misdirected, because Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other British dual nationals held in arbitrary detention are being held by Iran—it is on them. The situation with regard to the charges that have recently been brought against other British dual nationals, and indeed the sentence that has been handed down for Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, is because of Iran, and it should be towards Iran that we direct our attention.
With regard to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s treatment, our priority has always been her full release and her ability to return home to the UK. The UK does not and will never accept our dual nationals being used as diplomatic leverage. We recognise that her treatment has been completely unacceptable. It is totally inhumane and wholly unjustified, and we call upon Iran to allow Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe to return home to the UK and to release from detention all British dual nationals that are being held.
The hon. Lady speaks about international co-operation. Of course we co-operate with our international partners on a whole range of issues with regard to Iran, including the United States of America and the E3, and, as I have already said, we are working with Canada on the work that it is doing on the initiative against arbitrary detention. We will continue to focus our efforts on getting Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe home to the UK and the other dual nationals in detention fully released.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for agreeing to the request from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for an urgent question. It is absolutely essential that we keep a focus on this cruel and inhumane treatment of a mother being held captive as a hostage and a pawn in order to get ransom money out of others and to extract diplomatic leverage. Let us keep that focus where it really belongs: on the brutal, tyrannical regime in Tehran that treats its own people as hostages and pawns. As we focus on that, can we please focus on why the regime is doing that? It is doing it for personal profit, to sow violence in the region, and in order to mask its crimes. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what sanctions are going to be brought against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which has so profited from this violent regime, and, now that corruption is permitted as a reason to use the Magnitsky sanctions, how that is going to be used to ensure that the regime’s pockets are emptied and not filled.
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee is absolutely right to say that the blame lies with the Iranian regime—not even with the Iranian people but with the Iranian regime. He will understand that I am not willing to discuss sanctions designations for fear that that might be prejudicial to any future success. We do, of course, recognise that Iran’s behaviour is unacceptable in a number of ways, not just on the detention of British dual nationals, but with regard to its international and regional actions, and we call on Iran to step away from the dangerous and self-destructive route that it has taken and to rejoin the international community and be a regional partner that behaves in accordance with international rules and norms.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) [V]
After having completed a five-year sentence, for Nazanin to be given a further one-year sentence and a travel ban is truly appalling. Let us be clear: Nazanin was put on trial on a trumped-up charge of promoting “propaganda against the system” and found guilty after a sham trial. Sadly, we are seeing a sustained failure of British diplomacy. Now the Government must demand Nazanin’s immediate and unconditional release in the strongest possible terms, so that she can return to Britain and be with her family. As the UN special rapporteur has said, it is totally unacceptable that Iran is imprisoning UK nationals, Nazanin and others, in an attempt to exert diplomatic leverage. Let us not forget that other British nationals are also being unfairly imprisoned in Iran. Anoosheh Ashoori has been held for three and a half years and says that the UK Government are not doing enough to secure his release. My question to the Minister is this: clearly the Government’s approach to date has not worked, so what are they now doing to secure the release of Nazanin and the others so that they can all come home?
James Cleverly
The Government work on behalf of all the British dual nationals, whether they be held in detention, open prison or elsewhere, and indeed of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe so that she can come home. The UK has had some positive impact. For example, Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release on furlough and the removal of her ankle tag were in response to lobbying by this Government. We want to do more. We want to ensure that the people who are held in detention are released and are all able to return home to their families. We will continue to work hard at every level of Government to ensure that that happens.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this urgent question and on ensuring that the family of Nazanin and the imprisonment of Nazanin herself are at the forefront of our minds in this House. Iran has a dreadful human rights record, with the largest number of executions anywhere in the world and the oppression of its native people. Does my right hon. Friend not find it ironic then that the United Nations Economic and Social Council elected Iran for a full four-year term to the Commission on the Status of Women? Will he therefore take that up at the United Nations to say that it is totally unacceptable for a country that suppresses women and imprisons them without proper process even to be considered to represent human rights across the world?
James Cleverly
The UK Government take the rights of women very seriously, and, indeed, one of the priorities as set out for our official development assistance expenditure is girls’ education. The election of countries to various roles in the United Nations is ultimately a decision for that multilateral forum, but I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised about Iran’s treatment of women. We call upon Iran to do the right thing, and we will continue to lobby for the release and return of British dual nationals and also on a whole range of other issues where we believe that Iran’s behaviour is unacceptable.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
The SNP’s condemnation of the Iranian Government for the painfully outrageous detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is unequivocal. Iran has never followed the rule of law in Nazanin’s case and she has never received a fair trial. Its cruelty, it seems, is boundless. The precise nature of the charges and evidence in the second case remain unclear and indistinct from the first case. What confirmation have the UK Government sought on the detail of these charges and whether Nazanin will be returned to prison, or put under house arrest, as a result of this new sentence? Furthermore, it is easy to forget that Nazanin’s case is yet another matter that the Prime Minister has blundered into and made much worse with his grossly incompetent mishandling while Foreign Secretary. He cannot continue to wash his hands of this case. Will the Prime Minister be making an apology on record to Nazanin and her family, and will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office now do all that it can with the utmost urgency to undo the damage that the Prime Minister has done to secure Nazanin’s release?
James Cleverly
What we have seen in recent days is the completely arbitrary nature of the detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and of other British dual nationals in Iran. This is the action of the Iranian regime and we should not let them off the hook by attempting to divert attention elsewhere. It is down to the Iranian regime. We will continue to work to secure the release of those incarcerated and the return home of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. We are seeking detail, because the detail was quite sparse initially, on what exactly this means and we will be lobbying in the first instance to say that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is not returned to prison. We will continue to push for her return home to the UK and for the full and permanent release of the others who are detained.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Iran has proudly announced that it is now enriching uranium to 60% purity, a move that puts the country perilously near the threshold for weapons-grade uranium. Given this latest provocative nuclear action, Tehran’s ongoing support for terror proxies and its detention of British citizens, including Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, does the Minister share my view that it would be dangerous to ease sanctions on Iran?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an important point about Iran’s broader destabilising actions. I will not speculate as to future decisions about sanctions, for the reason that I gave to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but we are very conscious that Iran’s behaviour on a number of fronts is unacceptable. It should return to compliance with the JCPOA, and that is what we are calling on it to do.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
Liberal Democrats join colleagues across the House in their condemnation of the Iranian regime’s actions. Our hearts have to go out to Richard, Gabriella and the whole family. This must feel like one step forward, two steps back. I sincerely hope that the Government are considering Magnitsky sanctions, which are surely the next step.
I am concerned about Nazanin’s current state. Redress says that Nazanin
“has already suffered severe physical and psychological impacts from the torture and ill-treatment”
and that if she is subjected to more, it could cause “irreparable damage” to her. What immediate attention have our Government directed to the Iranian regime to ensure that Nazanin’s medical needs are met in full?
James Cleverly
We are very conscious of the health of all those detained, particularly in the light of the covid situation. We lobby the Iranian Government hard and regularly to ensure that British dual nationals held in detention have adequate medical treatment, and we will continue to push for the thing that we are all ultimately trying to achieve, which is their full release and their ability to return to the UK.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this question and for her tenacious campaigning for Nazanin. I also thank the Minister for mentioning Anoosheh Ashoori and Morad Tahbaz, the other dual nationals, because they, too, have families who are desperately upset by the incarceration of their loved ones.
What will the consequences be for Iran of this hostage diplomacy, other than words? We know that it does not fundamentally care what we think or say, and it has to know that there will be consequences. We have to do our part by settling the IMS issue, which, however unjustified, is being linked to Nazanin’s incarceration, and that is taking a very long time. Ultimately, what will the consequences be for Iran of continuing with hostage diplomacy? Otherwise, it is all bark and no bite.
James Cleverly
I thank my right hon. Friend for reinforcing the point that, as well as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, there are other British dual nationals incarcerated. The UK Government work tirelessly to secure the release of all those people. Some of them are household names and others are less well known, but we work on behalf of all of them. I assure him that we will continue to lobby to try to secure the release of them all and that we will investigate the full range of options, but, as I said, it would be inappropriate for me to speculate at the Dispatch Box as to what those might be.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on her tireless work on behalf of her constituent and other dual nationals held in Iran. It is disgraceful that they are still held. It is disgraceful that Nazanin has had another sentence imposed on her, and she ought to be released. In the many negotiations that are no doubt taking place with the Iranian Government, what other issues are raised by Iran? Is the issue of financial dealings between Britain and Iran in the past raised? What other discussions does the Minister propose to have with Iran in order to secure the early release of all the dual nationals?
James Cleverly
The UK does not and will never accept dual nationals being used for political leverage, so I am not going to amplify whatever claims the Iranian regime have made about them. Our message and the message that I hope the right hon. Gentleman and every other Member of the House would echo is that the Iranian regime must release our people.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend will know, in 2019, the Foreign Secretary visited Iran, where he raised the case of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe with Foreign Minister Zarif. Since then, what other discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Minister to try to resolve this and is any progress being made in each of these communications?
James Cleverly
As I have said, we engage regularly at the most senior levels with the Iranian Government. We had diplomatic engagement to secure Nazanin’s initial furlough and the removal of the ankle tag. Our ambassador visited Nazanin at her home last week. We raise the case regularly; the Prime Minister raised it in his recent call with President Rouhani and the Foreign Secretary did so in his call to Foreign Minister Zarif. The British ambassador to Tehran has formally protested Nazanin’s continued confinement. We will raise this on every occasion where we have an opportunity to speak with the Iranian regime. We will continue to push this until all our British dual nationals are released and allowed to return home.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Last year, Nazanin’s husband Richard Ratcliffe said he feared that, if she was not home for Christmas, there is
“every chance this could run for years.”
Was he right, Minister?
James Cleverly
I sincerely hope that he is not right. We will continue to work to bring Nazanin home and for the release of all British dual nationals. Their incarceration is unacceptable, unjustified and arbitrary, and it must stop.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
We are strongest when we work together with our international partners. I understand that several western countries have citizens who are dual nationals and suffering a similar dreadful fate to Nazanin. Will my right hon. Friend update the House as to what discussions he has had with our western allies about how we can work together for the release of our citizens?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for the points she raises about the international nature of this situation. Of course, we work closely with our international partners —as I have said, with the E3 and the United States of America—in particular with regard to our policy towards Iran. We will work with any and all international friends and partners to bring pressure to bear for the release of their and our dual nationals in detention. The challenge is that Iran does not recognise dual national status and therefore denies us a number of the consular access opportunities we would normally have. We will continue to work to secure the release of our British nationals in Iran.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her urgent question, and all that she does to champion Nazanin’s case and get her home to her family. It is a shame that the Foreign Secretary is not here today to answer the questions himself. In Newport West, the case is personal because Richard Ratcliffe’s sister is a constituent of mine, so I was determined to speak today. The United Nations has previously ruled that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s imprisonment is unlawful and ordered Iran to release her, so what are this Government doing to work through the international community to put pressure on Iran to follow their international obligations?
James Cleverly
As I said in response to the previous question, we work with and will continue to work with our international friends and partners on a range of issues with regard to Iran and its destabilising behaviour, both globally and in the region.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Is it the view of Her Majesty’s Government—or, indeed, of any previous Government—that we do, or do not owe any money to Iran?
James Cleverly
The legal situation with the IMS debt has been settled. It is a multi-decade-long problem, and we are investigating ways by which this can be resolved.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
My constituent Sarah McCullough is one of many who have been in touch over the years to express their concerns and solidarity with Nazanin and her family. Nazanin’s continued detention is a mark of failure of this Government, this Minister and his predecessors. What confidence can British citizens have in the ability of this UK Government to protect them abroad?
James Cleverly
The situation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other British dual nationals held in detention is the fault of the Iranian regime. We must never lose sight of that. It has the power to release them, it should release them, and we regularly call on it to do so and allow them to return to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom gives travel advice to help to inform British travellers when they go overseas, and we have an extensive network to give support to British travellers. We absolutely do everything we can to protect our British nationals when they are overseas and when they find themselves in a situation such as the British dual nationals in Iran have found themselves in. We work tirelessly in all respects, in all cases, to support them.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I know that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) looks forward to the day she does not have to bring this case to the House, and we are with her on that. Nazanin has an extra year in prison and another year of not being able to be at home with her family. As the Minister says, this is both inhumane and unjustified, and it is squarely at the feet of the Iranian regime. Was he as surprised as I was when the United Nations, in its wisdom, elected Iran to the Commission on the Status of Women? That shows a couple of things, not just about the United Nations but also the fact that Iran wants to have credibility on the international stage. So will the Minister impress on the United Nations that one way for Iran to hold its position is to allow Nazanin and other dual nationals home?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend—my dear hon. Friend—makes an incredibly important point. If Iran wants to be taken seriously and to speak with authority on the international stage, it must change its behaviours on a whole range of issues, but most notably with regard to the release of the British dual nationals held in incarceration and their ability to return home to the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his update. We all share the same frustration and that goes without saying. To say that the situation is distressing is a gross understatement. While I understand the issues highlighted, it is my opinion that something must be done to reunite this mother with her child, husband and family. Is there nothing that can legally be done by the UK Government in conjunction with other Governments, such as those of the USA and the EU, and with the UN to stop the persecution of this British citizen and the desecration of this British family?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this whole House shares the frustration at the situation that these people find themselves in, through no fault of their own. We will, as I say, continue to work with international partners on a whole range of issues with regard to Iran. We will continue to lobby Iran to change its behaviours and to come back into the international fold. One of the most high-profile and perhaps one of the easiest things that it could do is to release these people and allow them to return home.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s decision to grant Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe diplomatic protection to help her to resolve her case. This is the first time that this tool has been used in recent memory. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what further steps the UK is taking to help to secure Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for his point about the granting of diplomatic status. That sends a signal to Iran of how seriously we take the issue of our British dual nationals. This Government remain committed to doing everything we can to secure the full, permanent release of all dual nationals, including the return home of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. We constantly review what further steps we might take—as I said, that is not something I am willing to speculate about at the Dispatch Box—to secure the release of all our British dual nationals and allow them to return home.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Like many other Brits abroad, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been completely let down by this Government through a litany of errors, including the Prime Minister’s gaffe. Nazanin and her family will doubtless be experiencing serious mental health pressures and anguish at this point in time. Indeed, her husband, Richard Ratcliffe, has previously stated that the Government’s inability to secure his wife’s return is a “failure of diplomacy”. Would not the Minister agree that this further sentence proves that he is right?
James Cleverly
Sadly, what this sentence proves is that Iran is willing to do anything to attempt to apply diplomatic leverage, using British dual nationals as the tool. We will never accept that. We will continue to lobby for the release of all the British dual nationals. As I say, the fault sits wholly, squarely with Iran.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I join colleagues from across this House in our condemnation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s further imprisonment. Could I press my right hon. Friend a little further on Iran’s election to the Commission on the Status of Women? This is not just an empty title; it confers status and suggests a commitment to gender equality that Iran does not have. Could we not use our position on the UN Security Council, in conjunction with allies, to consider our own participation with the commission for as long as Iran remains a member?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The various functions within the United Nations are separate from each other. However, she does raise a broader point about the treatment and status of women in Iran. This is something we take incredibly seriously. We will continue to lobby for improvements for the status of women, both in Iran and globally, as part of our force for good agenda.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
The news that Nazanin will be forced to spend another two years in Iran, far from her family, is completely devastating. Anousheh Ashoori, who is also being held in Tehran in prison as a hostage, is dearly missed by his family in my constituency of Lewisham East. Over the past few days, his family have been concerned that he is showing severe signs of coronavirus. What urgent action will the Foreign Secretary take this week to ensure Anousheh gets the medical furlough he desperately needs?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Lady for the point that she has raised and the work that I know she has done in support of her constituent. We are aware—we have been in contact, and we are aware—of the concerns about the medical situation in the prison, and we have pushed the Iranian regime to allow access of medical professionals for, as I say, Mr Ashoori. We will continue to push for the better treatment of our British joint nationals while they are incarcerated, but ultimately for their release and ability to return home.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Post Office Court of Appeal Judgment
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
On Friday 23 April, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment to quash the convictions of 39 postmasters. This is a landmark judgment, and I know that colleagues on both sides of the House will join me in welcoming the court’s decision to quash those convictions. I will turn to what more needs to be done to address the wrongs of the past and to ensure that injustices such as this do not happen again, but I will begin by setting out the context to the judgment.
Over the years, the Horizon accounting system recorded shortfalls in cash in post office branches. The Post Office at the time thought that they were caused by postmasters, and that led to dismissals, recovery of losses and, in some instances, criminal prosecutions. A group of 555 of those postmasters, led by former postmaster Alan Bates, brought a group litigation claim against the Post Office in 2016. In late 2019, after a lengthy period of litigation, the Post Office reached a full and final settlement with claimants in that group.
It is clear from the findings of the presiding judge, Mr Justice Fraser, that there were real problems with the Horizon IT system and failings in the way that the Post Office dealt with postmasters who encountered problems or raised complaints in relation to Horizon. The findings of Mr Justice Fraser led the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the convictions of 51 postmasters for appeal: eight to the Crown court and 43 cases to the Court of Appeal. The Crown court quashed the convictions of six postmasters back in December 2020, and 42 further appeals were heard in the Court of Appeal in late March.
The Court of Appeal was asked in late March to decide whether the convictions of those postmasters were safe based on two grounds of appeal, namely whether the prosecutions were an abuse of process either because of the postmaster being unable to receive a fair trial or because of its being an affront to the public conscience for the postmaster to be tried. On Friday, the Court of Appeal announced its judgment. The Court decided to quash the convictions of 39 postmasters. The Court of Appeal also concluded that the failures of investigation and disclosure were so egregious as to make the prosecution of any of the Horizon cases an affront to the conscience of the court. In the remaining three cases, the convictions were found to be safe.
In response to the Court of Appeal judgment, the Post Office has apologised for serious failings in historical prosecutions. Tim Parker, the Post Office chair, has said that the Post Office is
“extremely sorry for the impact on the lives of these postmasters and their families that was caused by historical failings.”
The Government recognise the gravity of the court’s judgment in those cases and the hugely negative impact that the convictions have had on individual postmasters and their families, as has been highlighted on a number of occasions in this place. The journey to get to last Friday’s Court of Appeal judgment has unquestionably been a long and difficult one for affected postmasters and their families, and the Government pay tribute to them for their courage and tenacity in pursuing their fight for justice. The Government also pay tribute to colleagues across the House who have campaigned tirelessly on their behalf.
However, while the Court of Appeal decision represents the culmination of years of efforts by those postmasters, it is not the end of the road. The Post Office is already contacting other postmasters with historical criminal convictions between 1999 and 2015 to notify them of the outcome of those appeals and provide information in respect of how they could also appeal. The Post Office’s chief executive officer, Nick Read, is also leading a programme of improvements to overhaul the culture, practices and operating procedures throughout every part of its business. The Government continue to closely monitor delivery of those improvements. The changes are critical to ensure that similar events to these can never happen again.
Last week, the Post Office announced the appointment of two serving postmasters, Saf Ismail and Elliot Jacobs, as non-executive directors to the Post Office board. I wholeheartedly welcome those appointments. Their presence on the Post Office board will ensure that postmasters have a strong voice at the very highest level in the organisation. As part of the 2019 settlement, the Post Office also committed to launch a scheme to compensate postmasters who did not have criminal convictions who had suffered shortfalls because of Horizon, and who were not party to the 2019 settlement. The Post Office established the historical shortfall scheme in response.
Applications to that scheme were much higher than anticipated. Consequently, in March 2021, the Government announced that it would provide sufficient financial support to the Post Office to ensure that the scheme could proceed, based on current expectations of the likely cost. Payments under the scheme have now begun, and the Government will continue to work with the Post Office to see that the scheme delivers on all of its objectives, and that appropriate compensation is paid to all eligible postmasters in a timely manner.
While those are positive steps in the right direction, the Government are clear that there is still more to do. Postmasters whose convictions were quashed last week will also now be turning to the question of appropriate compensation, which I know will again be of great interest to the House. The judgment last week will require careful consideration by all involved. The Government want to see all postmasters whose convictions have been overturned fairly compensated as quickly as possible, and we will work with the Post Office towards that goal. I commit to keep the House informed on this matter going forward.
Finally, it is essential that we determine what went wrong at the Post Office during this period to make sure a situation like this can never happen again. To ensure the right lessons have been learned and to establish what must change, the Government launched an independent inquiry led by ex-High Court judge Sir Wyn Williams in September last year. The inquiry has made swift progress already, having heard from a number of affected postmasters and a call for evidence has recently closed. The inquiry is now planning public hearings. The Horizon dispute has been long-running. For the benefit of everyone involved, it is important that the inquiry reaches its conclusions swiftly. I look forward to receiving Sir Wyn’s report later this summer. As the Prime Minister said, lessons should and will be learned to ensure that this never happens again.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
This is the largest legal miscarriage of justice in our history: 900 false prosecutions, each one its own story of persecution, fear, despair, careers ruined, families destroyed, reputations smashed, lives lost, and innocent people bankrupted and imprisoned. I want to congratulate each and every postmaster and their families who withstood this onslaught of false accusations and fought back. I want to congratulate the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance and the Communication Workers Union who campaigned to get at the truth for over a decade. I want to congratulate hon. and right hon. Members across this House who fought for justice for their constituents.
I wish I could congratulate the Minister and the Government, but I cannot. I am pleased to see the Minister here making today’s statement, but the Government have consistently failed to stand with the postmasters in their quest for justice: investigations delayed, claims denied and not one word of explanation or apology as to why the Government let it take so long to clear these innocent victims.
Now, to add insult to injury, the Government are failing to deliver the proper statutory public inquiry that postmasters, their families and the British public deserve. Let us be clear: Friday’s judgment vindicates the postmasters, but to deliver justice we need a statutory inquiry with genuine subpoena and witness compulsion powers, and a specific remit to consider compensation claims. We have the greatest respect for Sir Wyn Williams, but his inquiry has no real powers and key questions about compensation, the criminal prosecutions of postmasters, and the responsibility of civil servants and Government, are outside its remit. As such, the inquiry is toothless and may even lead to a whitewash. Postmasters have been clear that they will fail to recognise and participate in such an inquiry. How can the Minister stand there with the wreck of hundreds and hundreds of lives before him, and say that this scandal does not warrant a statutory inquiry?
The sad truth is that this horrific miscarriage of justice did not happen overnight. For a decade now, we have known that there were serious problems with the Horizon system, but the Post Office denied all wrongdoing, pursuing the victims and imposing huge lawyers’ fees on the claimants. Even after the High Court ruling vindicated postmasters in 2019, the Government refused to act. Given the long litany of Government failure, there are a number of urgent questions for the Minister. The Government are the Post Office’s only shareholder, yet time and time again the Post Office was allowed to abuse its power over postmasters. That was the finding of the court. Will the Minister acknowledge the Government’s failure of oversight and due diligence with regard to public money? Will he apologise to the victims and their families today?
The postmasters were criminalised for a culture that assumed technology is infallible and workers dishonest. How will the Minister change that and what are the implications for algorithmic management? The faulty software was provided by Fujitsu. What steps are the Government taking to hold it to account? Will ongoing Government contracts with Fujitsu be reviewed? Paula Vennells led the Post Office during this time and was honoured with a CBE. Is it right that she continues to be so honoured? The Minister referred to what he described as a full and final settlement for some postmasters with the Post Office. Their compensation was largely taken in lawyers’ fees. Does the Minister agree that they should be considered for appropriate compensation? Finally, does the Minister agree that actions should have consequences, and that it is therefore essential that there is a thorough criminal investigation into any potential wrongdoing?
In recent weeks, we have heard about the special access and power that millionaires and billionaires have with the Government, Ministers and the Prime Minister personally. Compare and contrast that with how the postmasters have been treated. They did not have the Prime Minister’s personal phone number. They did not have a former Prime Minister lobbying for them. They were not millionaires looking for tax breaks. They were ordinary working people. This speaks to a broader question of whose voice the Government hear and whose justice they deliver. On behalf of the working people who have had their lives ruined, I urge the Minister to apologise, own the Government’s mistakes and commit to a real public inquiry so that justice, for far too long delayed, can finally be delivered.
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady makes some important points about the length of time and the egregious nature of the situation that the former postmasters have had to suffer. She talks about the time it takes to get justice, and that is one of the core reasons why we set up the inquiry under Sir Wyn Williams. The average length of a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 is nearly three and a half years, which is a long time. We want to get answers now for the postmasters so that we are able to answer questions about who knew what, who did what and at what point, and learn lessons.
The hon. Lady asked about the Government’s role in this. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working well with Sir Wyn Williams, and we are participating fully in the inquiry, as are the Post Office and Fujitsu. Sir Wyn Williams clearly feels that he is getting the support, answers and participation that he needs from the relevant organisations. If that changes, clearly we can review that.
The hon. Lady talks about Fujitsu. As well as the inquiry, there are ongoing investigations with the police into wider aspects of the case. She talks about Paula Vennells. People will talk about Paula Vennells’ positions and awards—there is an independent forfeiture committee to consider awards—but I am particularly pleased that, having stepped back from her other roles, she has committed to participate fully in this inquiry. It is to be welcomed that the former chief executive of the Post Office is doing that.
Finally, the hon. Lady talks about the Prime Minister not being on speed dial, or however she described it, for the group of litigants and the other postmasters. I can confirm that the Prime Minister is incredibly interested in and exercised about the situation, as we all are. He wants to make sure we work with the sub-postmasters to get them the justice they want and compensation for the prosecutions, through discussion and dialogue and by working with them and the Post Office in the first instance.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Knowing who did what will matter, but it is clear why it happened. In 1999, the Government withdrew from the contract and it became one of the worst private finance initiatives ever.
To know what happened, people should pay attention to the investigative journalists and what Lord Arbuthnot said. Computerworld in 2015, Computer Weekly in 2009 and Private Eye in 2015 laid out what the problems were. Second Sight, in its report, showed 12,000 communications failures a year between the terminals and the centre. There was a suggestion that some of the machines’ recordings of tax disc income, cash machines and other things were not coming through. I want to know whether Ministers and senior people in business, whether suppliers or customers, will pay attention not to glossy reviews saying how good things are, but to investigative journalists who say how bad things might be for the innocent. Until those innocent people, who were forced to plead guilty when they were not, are reimbursed the money they had not taken, we cannot sit quietly here in this House.
Paul Scully
I thank the Father of the House for his comments. There is no sense that this inquiry is glossy in any sense. Sir Wyn will get the technical support that he needs to understand exactly the points that my hon. Friend makes, including the testimony in the court cases. In the call for evidence, there is an opportunity to listen to the magazines that he referred to, including Computer Weekly, and other journalists who have covered this.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. He will hear from both sides of the House, and we are all going to be beating the same drum, but I do not apologise for repetition in this important statement.
The Minister stated that the chair of Post Office Ltd has apologised, but I note with regret that there is no direct apology from this Government. Yet again, this Government are acting as though the Post Office has absolutely nothing to do with them. I remind the Minister that the Government are the single shareholder in Post Office Ltd and civil servants sit on the board, and therefore the Government must apologise—in fact, the Prime Minister should apologise.
The Court of Appeal’s decision shows that there has been a devastating failure by Post Office Ltd during Paula Vennells’ leadership. She should be stripped of any titles and any additional compensation received as a result of her inexplicable decision to continue legal proceedings in spite of what was known about Horizon at the time. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) that it is much more important that a statutory, judge-led inquiry is launched, so that all who failed sub-postmasters are held to account. That would be meaningful progress in the pursuit of justice, rather than a token gesture. Sir Wyn Williams will do his best and will bring forward many things that need to be looked at, but we need a statutory inquiry. Will the Minister agree to that?
Horizon has united Members across the Chamber. Will the Minister therefore agree to meet the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, which I chair, to discuss in detail and agree a way forward that will ensure justice for sub-postmasters?
Finally, sub-postmasters deserve to be fully compensated for having their lives devastated by Horizon and the injustices that followed, without detriment to the current post office network. The Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance needs to be compensated. It has not been properly compensated yet, as its legal costs swallowed up any compensation that it received at the time. Will the Minister agree to cover the legal costs of the 555 sub-postmasters involved in civil action against Post Office Ltd and all costs accrued by Post Office Ltd in payment of compensation?
Paul Scully
The Department is indeed the single shareholder in the Post Office. This has been going on for so long that we have gone through various models of ownership of the Post Office and various names of the Department, but throughout, we have worked with Post Office management, who have reported back about how Horizon was believed to have been working. We will continue to make sure that these questions come out of the independent inquiry, led by Sir Wyn Williams.
In terms of a statutory inquiry, I have covered some of these areas, but it is important to make sure that we are driven by the outcomes for the sub-postmasters, although we differ in some ways on the process to get there. I will happily discuss this further with the APPG.
On compensation, the group litigants have had that money in the final settlement. It is incredibly frustrating and difficult for them that they have been pushed from both sides, with the extremely high costs of their litigation and the drive from the Post Office, but we will continue to work with the Post Office to make sure that postmasters have adequate justice and see their compensation discussed in full.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
Unfortunately, in part due to the serial failure to act by successive Ministers, I and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and others, have been forced to campaign for sub-postmasters, including my constituents Mr and Mrs Rudkin, for the past 10 years. Given the huge miscarriage of justice now fully exposed, including the 10-year attempted cover-up by the Post Office, will the Minister concede that only a full public inquiry and independent compensation panel for victims will now suffice finally to lance this boil?
Paul Scully
As I said, an independent inquiry is looking into the actions of the Post Office and the responsibility of the Government within that, and everybody is participating fully. To ensure that we “lance the boil”, the Post Office has launched a historic shortfall scheme, which has started to make payments, and those whose convictions were rightly quashed last Friday will be considering compensation. We will ensure that the Post Office addresses that in quick order.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]
I was present in the Court of Appeal on Friday for their lordships’ judgement and the formal exoneration of those innocent former sub-postmasters. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money has been wasted on pursuing unnecessary and unjust prosecutions. When will the Government order Post Office Ltd to call off its lawyers, who have been instructed to search desperately for a defence to the indefensible?
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman has represented his constituent, Janet Skinner, as both a constituency MP and a former solicitor, so he has a lot of experience of this. We will work to ensure that the Post Office does not defend anything that is indefensible, and that we get answers. That is exactly what Sir Wyn is there to do, and he will produce his report by summer so that we get answers this year.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) [V]
The Minister is a decent, able man who I know will do his best to put right these terrible wrongs. Some 555 sub-postmasters showed tremendous courage and dignity in the group litigation against the Post Office, which concluded in 2019. Will the Minister ask his officials whether his Department authorised the Post Office to use millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to fight the sub-postmasters in that litigation, waging a war of attrition on them, purely to disguise the Horizon failings? Will he ask whether his predecessor, the Minister responsible for post offices in 2018-19, was aware of that, and if not, why not?
Paul Scully
The litigation was taken on entirely by Post Office Ltd, and my hon. Friend does not need me to ask those questions, as they are exactly the kinds of questions that Sir Wyn Williams will be asking throughout his independent inquiry, which will report back in summer this year.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
I appreciate the Minister’s comments about the inquiry and compensation, but will he assure me that the Government will commit to seeing former sub-postmasters as individuals, and to treating each case with importance for all those who have faced more than a decade of accusations and had their life burdened with legal difficulties due to the Post Office’s mismanagement? Many have lost their homes and been refused insurance. Will they each be treated individually and not simply as one overarching scandal?
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady makes a crucial point: each and every single one of these people, whether they were prosecuted or “just” suffered a shortfall, is a human being. I see the anger on social media and the tears in some of the interviews following the quashing of the convictions; we cannot fail to realise that these people have suffered so tragically and terribly over so long a period. The Government and I will absolutely treat everybody as individuals. This has come at human cost.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The group litigation of 2019 performed an enormous public service by bringing this miscarriage of justice to light, but although successful, those involved paid an enormous price for that public service, because most of their compensation was diverted away into legal fees, leaving just £15,000 per victim. That is grossly unfair. The Minister has referred a couple of times to the full and final settlement that has been reached for them, and it is true that that is the contractual position, but it is open to the Government to look behind the contractual position and actively compensate these people in full. Is that something that the Minister will consider?
Paul Scully
Before we look at wider compensation, I want first to understand and make sure that we can learn the lessons and find out exactly what happened and when. This happened over a 20-year period and we need to unwind those 20 years, but we want to do that as quickly as possible so that we can get a timely response and justice for those people, rather than waiting for the three, four or five years that a statutory inquiry might take.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister said that this was a landmark judgment; I just wonder what it is going to take for the Government actually to take action. People’s lives were ruined. People went to prison. People took their own lives. Surely the way forward now is, first, for the Government to put in place a compensation for all those who lost something. The hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) just made a good point: it was the Government and the Post Office that spent £100 million of taxpayers’ money basically to bankrupt people so that they had to settle.
What is actually needed is a judicial inquiry, because the toothless inquiry that the Minister has set up will not have any powers to force people to give evidence. Without that, we are not going to get to the truth, because the guilty people need to be exposed. I know that the Minister has said he is trying but, alas, I have dealt with numerous Ministers over the past 10 years and I think his name is going to be added to the board of useless Ministers we have seen dealing with this issue over the past few years. We need action now, Minister, not more words.
Paul Scully
The right hon. Gentleman talks about unpicking something that happened over 20 years and describes a landmark judgment, then expects it to be dealt with within three days. That belies the complexity and depth of the situation. The decisions on Post Office Ltd’s litigation strategy were taken by the Post Office. The Government were not party to the litigation; they monitored the situation and challenged the approach taken by the Post Office.
The right hon. Gentleman also talks about the fact that the non-statutory inquiry led by Sir Wyn Williams cannot compel people to give evidence, but at the moment everybody is participating in that inquiry. If that changes, obviously our view will change.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I welcome this decision and thank and congratulate the postmasters who led the campaign to right this wrong. What more can be done to prevent a similar miscarriage of justice from occurring in future? Will the Minister join me in thanking the postal workers in Redcar and Cleveland for their hard work throughout the pandemic?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend works tirelessly for his constituents in Redcar and Cleveland. It is right that he highlights the future prospects of the Post Office and its role and social value moving forward. That is why we need to get the answers now, so that we can not only give the former sub-postmasters justice but draw a line to prove and demonstrate that lessons have been learned and that this can never happen again.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
The wrongful conviction of the sub-postmasters is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in British legal history. Post Office bosses aggressively prosecuted workers in spite of full knowledge that the Horizon data system was unreliable and that many convictions were unsafe. People’s lives were ruined, with some tragically passing away before their names were cleared. To get the answers that workers deserve and hold to account those who were responsible for this injustice, will the Government heed the Communication Workers Union’s call for a proper public inquiry into what happened, put it on a statutory footing and give it the necessary powers to compel witnesses and require them to give evidence under oath?
Paul Scully
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave a moment ago.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Post Office wholly failed in its duties and obligations as a private prosecutor. It did so to such a degree that it constituted a gross abuse of that role. In consequence, the Justice Committee carried out an inquiry into the role of private prosecutors within our system. Many behave responsibly and properly but, to learn lessons, will the Minister take away our report from October, sit down with ministerial colleagues from the Law Officers Department and the Ministry of Justice and look at further recommendations—for example, a binding code of conduct for prosecutors, including disclosure obligations; a register of prosecutors; notification to all defendants who are subject to a private prosecution that they have the right to a review by the independent Crown Prosecution Service; and extending the role of the inspectorate of prosecutors to large-scale Crown prosecutors? Those helpful measures could prevent such a disgraceful injustice from ever happening again.
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this area. There are clearly wider lessons to be learned from this, as well as the direct lessons about who knew what in the Post Office. It is about justice and how private prosecutions work, although there has not been a private prosecution in this area for a few years now. We also heard stories about people pleading guilty to lesser charges to try to avoid prison. That is not justice as we see it. There are clearly wider lessons to be learned that I am sure the Government will look at.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Following on from that point, the reality is that the Post Office remains the only body in the UK to run its own prosecutions and it starts from an assumption of guilt when it comes to disputes. Here, for Horizon, it acted as judge, jury and executioner, operated at standards way below the CPS and blocked the forensic account in Second Sight’s Horizon review. When is the Post Office going to be stripped of these prosecution powers? When will a fair dispute resolution process be put in place?
Paul Scully
As I said earlier, there have been no private prosecutions in this area for a number of years, but clearly there are lessons that need to be learned. That will be addressed in the inquiry.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My hon. Friend is a very good Minister and the Government have, of course, inherited this problem, but, as a House, we have to recognise that this is a grotesque breach of the human rights and civil liberties of up to 555 litigants—our fellow citizens. It is right up there with the acts that we quite rightly complain about in some foreign countries. There may well be inadequate Post Office management, but a Government permanent secretary is the accounting officer and the Government urgently need to do the right thing. In respect of the inquiry that is already commissioned, will the Minister ensure that the evidence, advice and words of Lord Arbuthnot from the other place, who has consistently championed this issue and has been proven right, are loudly heard?
Paul Scully
I should have congratulated earlier Lord Arbuthnot on the work he has done in this area. I know Sir Wyn Williams will note my right hon. Friend’s words, to make sure that Lord Arbuthnot’s words, deeds and campaign are heard within the inquiry, because there are many pertinent points that need to be included in the considerations.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Earlier this year, I asked the Minister about the 555 sub-postmasters who took the Post Office to court and won the original litigation. Many of them, such as my constituent, Christopher Head, were left with nothing after court costs. How can the Minister possibly not agree with me and the current CEO of the Post Office that if proper justice is to be served for every single victim of this scandal, they must have their claim validated under the historical shortfall scheme, to prevent two tiers of justice? It seems to me that it is only this Minister and this Government who believe that that is okay.
Paul Scully
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work. Christopher Head, one of the youngest sub-postmasters involved in this situation, has been through years of distress, so I can understand that anger. We will continue to work with the Post Office and with all parties to make sure that we not only get justice, but provide that reassurance that we are listening and that we are addressing the cause of all people affected by this scandal.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Horizon scandal, as we know, has destroyed the lives of many people, including that of my constituent, Janet Skinner. The behaviour of the Post Office is best summed up by what the Right Reverend James Jones said in the Hillsborough inquiry about the
“patronising disposition of unaccountable power”,
the denials and the cover-up. To get to the truth, I hope the Minister will reconsider the need for a full statutory public inquiry with the powers to compel evidence and witnesses. This short, quick inquiry that the Minister has referred to without these powers will surely fail.
Paul Scully
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question and ask her to forgive me for ascribing Janet Skinner to be the constituent of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). None the less, I know that her voice has been heard via many Members in this House. On the non-statutory inquiry, at this stage, Sir Wyn Williams is getting full support from each of the parties that he is investigating. If that changes, our advice will change, too. At the moment, things are working well, and he is getting the co-operation that is required.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
The sub-postmasters suffered a grave miscarriage of justice, but the circumstances that gave rise to it—defective technology twinned with a recalcitrant and inflexible employer—could easily happen again, particularly as technology and artificial intelligence are being rolled out in workplaces across the country. Does my hon. Friend think that there is a place in the forthcoming employment Bill for new provisions to protect against this?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend raises some interesting points, and we certainly need to reflect on the wider implications of the situation. Clearly, the independent inquiry is addressing the direct implications on those sub-postmasters and as they affect Post Office Ltd moving forward, but there are also other implications that the Government need to consider.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
Convicted, jailed, persecuted, taken their own lives, made bankrupt, reputational damage and mental and physical anguish for years, yet still no one at all at the Post Office or Fujitsu has been held to account for this horrendous injustice. There are also those in Government who became acutely aware of this scandal, yet remained completely passive in their duties on the board of the Post Office. Is it the Post Office, Fujitsu, or some Government Members that the Minister is protecting by resisting a statutory public inquiry?
Paul Scully
No, indeed. We want to make sure that we can get these answers quickly for sub-postmasters who have already waited up to 20 years for a sense of justice. As I have said, statutory inquiries can take more than three years to get these answers. I want a report on my desk this summer to report back to postmasters, and Sir Wyn is getting the co-operation that he needs to get answers.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that postmasters provide the backbone of the Post Office and will he join me in thanking Jay Patel, the Patel family and Jaspal Singh who provide vital services to communities across Beaconsfield, Hedgerley and Burnham? Will he continue to fight for justice and compensation for those who have been exonerated and take on board the excellent suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) of looking at how we prevent these type of scandals from happening in the future?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I know that she is a champion for community services in her area. That is what the Post Office does—not only is it a business, but it adds social value, as Jay Patel and his family continue to do. That is why we need to get answers. That is why we need to get justice. It is to give existing and future postmasters the confidence that they can work in a great organisation that is offering that social value and supporting their communities.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
Hundreds of postmasters running their local community businesses have had their lives and livelihoods turned upside down, and their reputations and their finances trashed. Will the Minister assure me, further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), that full legal costs will be included in the compensation package to postmasters?
Paul Scully
We are working with the Post Office in order for it to come forward with thoughts and plans for the compensation scheme. We will make sure that we are leaning into that to ensure that everybody is adequately compensated moving forward.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) [V]
I have constituents who are among the hundreds of victims of this appalling scandal. One has been telling me this morning that she could not even be in London last week to hear the outcome of this judgment because she could not afford the cost of travel. What mechanism is going to be in place to compensate these victims swiftly and fairly?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is right to champion this. The Post Office, first, needs to engage with all the appellants to make sure that they are compensated fairly. It is that fair compensation that we as a Government will be pushing for to make sure that the Post Office acts quickly.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) [V]
For over a decade now, hundreds of postmasters have lived with the ruination of their reputations, the loss of their businesses and homes, criminal convictions, in some cases imprisonment, and untold mental misery. In contrast, those who lied about the failures of the Horizon system, covered up its defects and withheld information from the courts have been rewarded with public honours, promotion and lucrative Government contracts. The postmasters who refused to give into the institutional power of the Post Office, which used its financial might to silence them, deserve to be congratulated. But more than that, Minister, they deserve full and fair compensation and an inquiry that will properly hold to account those who the judge said were responsible for appalling
“failures of investigation and disclosure”,
which had made the prosecution of these honest people
“an affront to the conscience of the court.”
The real test will be: is that what the Minister will give them?
Paul Scully
This inquiry is getting the co-operation of all those people participating and involved. If that changes, clearly, our advice and view will change, because I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is so important that we make sure that nobody can hide from this, so that we do get those answers and that those postmasters get justice.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Margery Lorraine Williams and Noel Thomas, both from my Ynys Môn constituency, were among those who had their lives turned upside down by this appalling miscarriage of justice. Does the Minister agree that postmasters such as Ian Ashworth, who runs the post office in the Chocolate Box, next to my office in Holyhead, provide vital services to our communities across the UK? Does he further commit that the UK Government will act to ensure that this can never happen again?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is right. We have the likes of Ian Ashworth across the country offering social value. People will be interested and want to act as postmasters only if they are confident that they have the backing of the Post Office that something like this—as happened to Noel Thomas and Margery Lorraine Williams—can never happen again. We need to get those answers and, through this inquiry, we need to ensure that this can never happen again, as my hon. Friend said.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Once again, the likes of me are here questioning a Government Minister and demanding justice for those devastated by the Post Office Horizon scandal, but the Government have dithered and delayed for years over providing a full statutory inquiry, thereby prolonging the agony of the victims, who are still waiting for an inquiry wherein the judge can compel evidence. Rather than the toothless inquiry set up by the Government, why is the Minister not committing to providing the victims with the proper statutory inquiry that they rightly deserve?
Paul Scully
Because the evidence is coming forward. There is no point in compelling something that is already coming forward. Having said that, if that changes, our advice and our thoughts will change, but at the moment, everybody is participating in the inquiry. Sir Wyn Williams is happy and content that he is getting the information and co-operation that he requires to get answers.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
Will the Minister understand that there has to be compensation, and urgently, and this compensation has to cover not just the Horizon losses but the legal costs and the loss of business and income that people suffered from the damage to their reputation?
Many MPs, including myself, told past Ministers that this was an accounting scandal—it was not a sudden outbreak of mass criminal activity by good public servants. They deserve better, and this Government must now apologise by making sure they get proper compensation.
Paul Scully
Indeed, it is important that the Post Office engages with all the appellants who have had their convictions quashed. As we are getting those answers, we will work to ensure that we can get fair compensation.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
This gross miscarriage of justice has taken a terrible toll not only on the wrongly convicted sub-postmasters who have endured so much suffering and struggled for so long to see justice, but on the local communities that rely on post offices as precious community resources. In the wake of this scandal, can the Minister tell us what steps the Government are taking to ensure that every community has easy access to a post office?
Paul Scully
There are universal access provisions for the Post Office. Although, yes, we are giving them a network waiver because of the effect of covid at the moment, we will make sure that we are up to 11,500 post offices across the country, with access criteria to ensure that the most vulnerable are closest to a post office and have those services that add such social value to their communities.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Postmasters are coming under increasing pressure and workload as many banks turn their backs on the high streets, not least in the towns of Winslow, Princes Risborough and Buckingham in my constituency. Given that increased pressure and increased workload, will my hon. Friend recommit to holding the Post Office fully to account—not just to give justice to those affected by the Horizon debacle, but to fully support postmasters and win back trust?
Paul Scully
Winslow, Princes Risborough and Buckingham are just like many villages and towns across the country, where banks are starting to reduce their branch numbers. I have talked about social value; it is important that the Post Office fills that gap, and provides access to cash and services for the most vulnerable. That is why we need to get the answers to ensure that sub-postmasters coming forward have the confidence and really want to come and work for a forward-looking organisation, not one that has had such an egregious recent past.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my constituent, Mr John Bowman, who lost his home as well as his business, like the constituents of so many other Members across the House. One of the things that hurt him most, which he has talked about to me extensively, is the way in which the Post Office behaved; it simply looked to the criminal proceedings of those sub-postmasters, who, in the end, we now know had done nothing wrong. Will the Minister confirm that the current inquiry is expressly forbidden from looking at the Post Office’s prosecutorial function? Given this, will the Minister reconsider setting up a fully judicial inquiry into the scandal so that postmasters such as Mr Bowman get the justice they actually deserve?
Paul Scully
What I can confirm is that the inquiry will look into the Post Office’s approach and the “who did what” in its approach to the sub-postmasters, because clearly that heavy-handed approach early doors did lead to prosecutions. As I have said, there are wider considerations for the legal process, including private prosecutions, and we will need to learn from this.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I have used this quote already in the Chamber today; Warren Buffett often says:
“What we learn from history is that people don’t learn from history.”
When we finally discovered the 10-year cover-up of a fraud at Lloyds, we inexplicably let Lloyds run its own compensation scheme, which three years later was determined to be not fair or reasonable, and we had to do it all again. Will my hon. Friend at least put in place independent oversight of this compensation scheme to ensure that all those who have suffered get fair, reasonable and consistent compensation, whether they have been through litigation or not?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend has been consistent in his campaigning in this area, and what I can say is that we will be ensuring that the Post Office provides fair, consistent and speedy compensation within the structures, as will be outlined over the next few weeks and months.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for his statement. We will have a three-minute suspension to prepare for the next business.
Tool Theft (Prevention)
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require persons selling second hand tools online to show the serial numbers of those tools in searchable advertisement text; and for connected purposes.
Tool theft is at a crisis point in this country. More than half of builders in the United Kingdom have fallen foul of tool theft. A survey of tradespeople by Opinium last year found that roofers had been the worst-hit group, with 65% saying that tools had been stolen, followed by electricians at 58%, plumbers at 55% and carpenters at 54%. Tool theft is not just happening in one or two areas; it is blighting businesses up and down the country. Pick up a local paper, and there is a good chance of finding a story about tool theft.
The impact can be devastating, with builders having to beg and borrow whatever is available to get by. It is not only the inconvenience and the cost of having to buy new tools; tradespeople are missing out on work if they do not have the correct equipment to complete a job. When asked how many working days builders had lost to tool theft over the past 10 years, one in three builders said that one to two working days had been lost, 16% said two to five working days and 7% said that they had lost five working days or more. Despicable as this is, criminals have no misgivings about preventing others from going about their work and providing for their families. These tools mean the world to their owners, and the thieves have no idea of their true value. Indeed, workers often start out with cheaper tools and buy better ones over time as their businesses grow. They are a sign of the pride people take in their work.
Research from Direct Line for Business shows that more than £83 million-worth of tools have been stolen across England and Wales in the last three years. This equates to £83,500 of equipment going missing every day. Data from the Federation of Master Builders reveals that 38% of these incidents involved theft from vans. Indeed, a tradesperson’s van is broken into on average every 20 minutes. A further 34% of thefts are from building sites, 7% are from a shed or garage at home, and 3% are from inside the home. It goes without saying that tools are not cheap. The average value of a reported stolen item is £385, with the most common value of overall loss standing at £2,500 in a single theft. One in 10 builders say that they have had at least £10,000-worth of tools stolen, and 2% said that they have had at least £20,000-worth taken from them.
It also goes without saying that an incident of theft significantly sets a business’s finances back. Let me give the example of my constituent, Barry Phipps. Barry has been a builder for 38 years, and for the past 15 years, Barry and his wife have run their Princes Risborough-based building company, BEP Contracting Ltd. BEP has been responsible for thousands of building projects locally, but Barry, like far too many builders, has been the victim of three separate tool crimes, with burglaries from his home, his storage yard and his vehicle. Barry has lost in excess of £40,000-worth of tools—tools that are vital to his ability to earn a living and support his family, and his ability to provide local employment and to purchase goods and services in the area.
Because of the second-hand market for stolen goods, Barry has far too often seen tools that cost more than £500 new being offered for sale for as little as a tenner. These can include tool belts full of a builder’s collection, some built up over many years and passed from craftsman to apprentice, being sold underground for the price of a packet of cigarettes. Barry tells me that because of the prevalence of this type of criminality, van insurance companies are now charging premiums comparable to those for a new driver, forcing many young builders to have no financial protection from the theft of tools in their vehicle. Barry has yet to be reunited with any of his stolen tools over the years. Indeed, just 3% of tools are ever returned to owners. As there is often a sad assumption that reporting the theft will be a waste of time, I fear that van break-ins are too often under-reported. Tool theft is also taking its toll on builders’ mental health. The Federation of Master Builders tells me that tool theft has led to 15% of builders suffering from anxiety, one in 10 builders suffering from depression, and some reporting experiences of panic attacks and, very sadly, even suicidal thoughts.
During my time in this House, this has been a particularly impactful issue for the residents of the town of Buckingham in my constituency, where thieves have targeted parked vans in the area. My constituents want to see action taken to combat this criminality, and they are not alone, because 84% of tradespeople do not believe that enough is being done to prevent tool theft. Beyond the usual arguments about more bobbies on the beat, which I am delighted this Government are already providing, and things like CCTV, the challenge for all of us in this House is to ask ourselves what practical measures can be put in place to prevent this from happening in the first place.
From my past involvement in community safety and crime prevention, I do understand that there are many ways to stop or deter crime without placing further pressure on our police. Indeed, following a spate of tool thefts in the town of Buckingham last year, talk of how to tackle this problem was alive on a local community Facebook forum, and it was among the comments on that discussion that the idea behind this Bill was formed.
We know that those who steal tools do not do so to complete a DIY project at home—to put up some shelves or re-do the kitchen. Tools are stolen in order to be sold and monetised, and most stolen tools end up for sale online. As criminals become more sophisticated, and with meagre regulations and little scrutiny of third-party sellers, they find online platforms to be efficient channels to sell stolen items and monetise their crimes.
Online marketplaces often display thousands of tools for sale with no address and no serial numbers, providing anonymity—a shield allowing criminals to hide in plain sight. To tackle that, I am bringing forward this proposal that online marketplaces should require individuals selling second-hand tools to show, in a searchable format, the serial numbers—the unique identifiers—of all such items. The use of serial numbers would close down ways for people to turn their stolen goods into money, and it would facilitate the ability of victims, the police and insurance companies to track down stolen items.
A better and more comprehensive tracker is what is needed, coupled with a database from which information on these serial numbers can be sourced. That would help the police to respond quickly and would have the effect of introducing traceability. There could even be technological procedures in place where these online platforms are continuously searched against a database for reported stolen items.
Of course, I am not suggesting this is some sort of magic bullet that will solve tool theft overnight. Clearly, not all stolen tools are sold on the internet, but many are, and every opportunity to monetise these ill-gotten gains that is shut down will help to stop such crimes for good. I believe that the relatively simple measures in this Bill could encourage people to come forward and report this type of crime, and a tradesperson themselves could search such sites to find their stolen goods. I submit this Bill as a practical way of removing some of the incentive to commit the crimes in the first place.
I fear that there is a perception that commercial crime, such as stealing from tradespeople or businesses, is less injurious to the victim than, say, a home burglary, but that is not the case. The reality is that, with these crimes, thieves are depriving honest people of a means to work. Putting this measure in place will go a long way to combating tool theft and protecting the lives and livelihoods of millions of tradespeople. Let us take this step—a much-needed step—so it can play its part in the overall mission of stamping out tool theft once and for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Greg Smith, Paul Bristow, Nick Fletcher, Andrew Griffith, Jane Hunt, Dean Russell, Jim Shannon and Alexander Stafford present the Bill.
Greg Smith accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 294).
Fire Safety Bill
Tuesday 27th April 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 View all Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 196-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons reason - (27 Apr 2021)
15:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 320 / Noes: 256 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4J.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to consider amendments (g) to (l) in lieu of Lords amendment 4J.
Christopher Pincher
I want first of all to thank all hon. Members for joining in this crucial debate, because all of us in this House agree that residents deserve to be safe, and to feel safe, in their homes. I want to reiterate in the strongest terms the importance of the Bill as a step along the way to delivering that objective, and the risk that we would create if we were to continue to allow these remediation amendments, however well-intentioned, to delay legislation.
The Bill was introduced over a year ago. We are almost at the point of getting it on the statute book, and it is vital that we remind ourselves of the fundamental purpose of what we are seeking to achieve—to provide much-needed legal clarification of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and direct the update of the fire risk assessments to ensure that they apply to structure, external walls and flat entrance doors. I will give way briefly to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), but I want as many hon. Members to speak as possible.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Ministers have repeatedly said that leaseholders should not bear the costs of the fire cladding scandal. Why is he insisting today that they should?
Christopher Pincher
The right hon. Gentleman knows of the very significant amount of public money that we have set aside to remediate those buildings that are the most at risk of fire, where serious injury might take place, and the financial provisions that we have set aside also to help other leaseholders. If we do not resolve the Bill this week, fire assessments will not cover those critical elements of which I spoke, and they may continue to be ignored by less responsible building owners. Moreover, the fire and rescue services will be without the legal certainty that they need to take enforcement action. Ultimately, that will compromise the safety of many people living in multi-occupied residential buildings. Without the clarification provided by the Bill, it will mean delaying implementation, possibly by a year, of a number of measures that will deliver the Grenfell inquiry recommendations.
As I said, I want as many Members as possible to have the opportunity to speak, so I will say no more for the moment until I wind up the debate, save for reiterating two points. First, these remaining amendments, although laudable in their intentions, would be unworkable and an inappropriate means to resolve a problem as highly complex as this. Secondly, the Government share the concerns of leaseholders on remediation costs, and have responded, as the House knows, with unprecedented levels of financial support to the tune of over £5 billion, with further funds from the developer tax, which the Treasury will begin to consult upon imminently, as well as the tall buildings levy. Developers themselves have begun to announce more significant remediation funds.
It is in everyone’s interests to ensure that we do not put at risk the progress that has been made by failing to get the Bill on the statute book by the end of this Session.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the shadow Minister, may I reiterate that this is a very short debate with a long list of speakers, which is why I have put a three-minute limit on Back Benchers? Obviously, if colleagues can be shorter than that, we might actually get everybody in.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Sunday Times reported two days ago that the Bank of England is worried that
“Britain’s building safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis.”
The Bank is worried about the scandal’s impact on property values, as new data from the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership shows that fire-risk flats can sell for as little as one third of their purchase price. That is devastating and requires an immediate response from the Government.
The Government surely should not need reminding that a collapse in house prices triggered the global financial crisis in 2007, but it seems that they do, and it seems that they also need reminding of the misery that this crisis is causing hundreds of thousands of people. The safety scandal that has unravelled in the wake of inaction and indecision since the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 has left up to 1.3 million flats unmortgageable and affects thousands of recently built houses. As many as 3 million people face a wait of up to a decade to sell or get a new mortgage because they cannot prove that their homes are safe, and we have leaseholders who face repair bills of up to £75,000 for flaws such as flammable cladding and balconies, and missing fire breaks.
We stand here today while thousands watch this debate and suffer, worrying about their futures, getting into debt and facing bankruptcy. We have to ask ourselves what the Government actually care about. They do not appear to care that the Bank of England thinks that we are heading for a financial crisis. They do not appear to care that thousands and thousands are living with anxiety, fear and debt. They do not seem to care that the vague and undefined loan scheme that they have hailed as the answer—despite having promised many times that leaseholders will not have to pay—will damage people’s property prices and will not actually be in place, as we hear today, for at least two years, leaving thousands to pay mounting waking watch bills and stuck in properties that they cannot sell.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I completely agree with the points that my hon. Friend is raising. She will know the suffering of my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth. Does she agree that the UK Government need to get around the table with the Welsh Government and provide clarity on how those taxes will work, and how money will flow from the building levy and the tax? The UK Government have not yet done that. We have finally had an answer to the letter from the Welsh Housing Minister, and the Welsh Government have put aside money, but they are not clear how much money is coming from the UK Government.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend has raised that point many times, and he is standing up for his constituents in a way that I am afraid that this Government will not.
What do the Government care about? We are left with one possible answer. Do the Government care only about the donors who keep their Prime Minister in fancy furniture, so that he can spend £60,000 on curtains in No. 10, while nurses and key workers out there face £60,000 bills for cladding with no wealthy Tory donors to bail them out? Do the Government really care only about big property developers, such as European Land and Property, which developed a block of flats in Paddington that used the same aluminium composite material cladding as was on the Grenfell Tower, and which has donated £2.5 million to the Conservative party since the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017? Do the Government really care only about Britain’s biggest builders, who have built up vast profits during the pandemic, such as Persimmon—
Sarah Jones
The Minister is shouting names at me from a sedentary position, but he is not answering the question. I do not want to be right. I do not want that to be what the Government care about. I honestly always believe the best in people and applaud my colleagues from across the House who have stood up for their constituents time and again on this, but even they are asking why else the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are ignoring a financial and human crisis on such a growing and worrying scale.
Let us vote today to start putting this right and prove me wrong. It is not just Opposition Members who support amendments to protect leaseholders. A recent poll from YouGov commissioned by the National Housing Federation found that three quarters of MPs, including two thirds of Conservative MPs, say that the Government should pay the costs of all building safety work up front and then claim it back later from those who are responsible. I have not heard a single argument that bears any scrutiny as to why it is okay to let leaseholders foot a bill for tens of thousands of pounds, or to sit by as homeowners face bankruptcy or decades of lingering debt.
We welcome the latest amendment from the Bishop of St Albans, which would put into law a guarantee that building owners cannot pass on the costs of any remedial work to leaseholders in the time before the Government introduce their promised legislation. I am also very interested in the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), which propose that the Government should follow the polluter pays principle.
Yet again, the Government have decided to lay a motion to disagree with the Lords amendment. This is a betrayal of the promise that Ministers have made over 17 times that leaseholders will not be left to foot the bill. The Minister’s argument that it would delay further works does not work. If the Government have not managed to work out how to pursue the money from those responsible, why do they not do what is right and stop leaseholders footing the bill?
The Bishop of St Albans’s amendment would buy the Government some time. It would protect leaseholders while the Government come up with a longer-term plan. We ask the Minister again, if he does not think that the proposed amendments are right as they are, why not amend them? Why, when it is directly in their gift, will the Government not pay to fix these problems and then go after the building companies and developers that are responsible? Leaseholders deserve justice now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now move to a three-minute time limit. I call Royston Smith.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
The longer this debate drags on, the more damaging it becomes to the Government and the worse it becomes for innocent leaseholders. On Saturday evening, there was a fire in the tallest tower block in Southampton. That building has ACM cladding. As I understand it, it was alight. Hampshire fire and rescue responded quickly and dealt with the fire with its characteristic professionalism. Fortunately, the fire was not too serious, but it could have been. What would we be saying today if the worst had happened, I wonder?
I have said from the start that there are three dimensions to the fire safety scandal: the moral, the economic and the political. The moral obligation is obvious: this Government have a duty to hold those who are responsible to account and to defend the innocent leaseholders. There should be no disagreement on that issue.
Secondly, on the economic, the Government clearly think that my concerns about toxic debt, mass bankruptcy and repossession are wrong, but it is not just me who thinks it is a risk. The Bank of England is concerned, too—so concerned that it is assessing whether the fire safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis. With up to 1.3 million flats unmortgageable, perhaps the Government should be a little more concerned about the economic issue.
Finally, on the political, the Government believe in the home-owning democracy. It defines us. We have encouraged it. We have incentivised it. In fact, many people would not be in their own property without the support of Government. How do we look ourselves in the mirror when we have helped people to buy a home in a dangerous building that is worth less—sometimes much less—than they paid for it? The truth is that most MPs, including Conservative MPs, agree that the Government should resolve this issue. They believe, as I do, that it should not be the taxpayers who pay, despite what some in government have been saying. It should be those who are responsible—the manufacturers, the developers, the National House Building Council and development control. Some of those, of course, are local authorities. The Government can underwrite what is needed and then take it back from the industry. It may take years, but we will charge interest. It should be those who are responsible who pay.
We have been accused of wanting to kill the Fire Safety Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the Government wanted the Bill to succeed as much as I do, they would do what was necessary to get the Bill through this place and the other place, but they have thus far chosen not to. After today, the Bill will go back to the Lords, and it will, in all likelihood, come back again. The amendment may come back with a different name and moved by someone else. If that happens, the Bill may well fall. That will not be my fault or our fault. That will be the Government’s fault.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith). Here we are again debating a Lords amendment to protect leaseholders from having to pay to fix construction defects and unsafe cladding that never were and never should be their responsibility, and yet Ministers continue to resist, even though they have repeatedly said that leaseholders should not have to bear the cost. The trouble with this endless debate is that the clock is ticking and innocent leaseholders continue to face unreasonable costs as bills now start to arrive demanding sums of money that they simply do not possess. One constituent wrote to me last week enclosing a photograph of the bill he has just been sent, for £27,000. Another thinks that their bill will be £40,000. They obviously cannot remortgage their flats. So I ask the Minister: what are people in this situation meant to do? Sadly, we know that the Government do not have an answer to this, or indeed to the mental and emotional torment that these people are being put through. That is why this amendment is needed, and needed now.
Even taking account of the Government funding already announced, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership estimates that about two thirds of the total cost will still fall on leaseholders: the very people whom the Government say should not pay. The Association of Residential Managing Agents estimates that the average remediation bill will be about £50,000 a flat and that insurance costs have risen by 400%. The Government estimate that the average cost of a waking watch outside London is over £2,100 a year for each flat. Leaseholders in shared ownership properties are in a particular bind. The building safety fund is moving too slowly. There is a shortage of companies who can, or will, do the work. There is total uncertainty as to what is meant to happen when we know that there are other works that have to be done to make buildings safe but for which the Government are not prepared, so far, to offer funding. I find it very hard to believe that Ministers do not understand that the remedy they have come forward with so far is patently insufficient, or that, without a comprehensive plan, leaseholders will, month by month and year by year, inevitably face financial collapse because of the huge burden of costs being put on their shoulders.
In conclusion, can I assure the Minister that the growing number of MPs who support the Lords amendment are not going anywhere, and that is because our constituents have nowhere else to go?
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate.
It is unfortunate that this is the third time the House of Lords has felt it necessary to return this Bill to the House of Commons. That is because their lordships, like many MPs across the House, feel that the Bill cannot progress without some form of protection for leaseholders. It completely astonishes me that people in government cannot hear the screams of pain of leaseholders begging for help—people who are going bankrupt and people who are being hit with high insurance premiums. We were told only last week of an insurance premium for a building that was £11,963 last year but £242,400 this year. People are being hit with bills of £6,000 each with seven days to pay them and no recourse to help. With waking watches, there are interim bills that are going through the roof. Leaseholders cannot pay this; they cannot afford this. The reality is that these buildings will not be made safe by transferring the financial and legal liability on to leaseholders. Leaseholders do not have the funds to fix it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) said, we, leaseholders and leaseholders’ groups do not want the taxpayer to pay; we want the taxpayer to provide a safety net to help. We believe that those responsible should pay—nobody else.
Nobody wants this Bill to fail. We are nearly four years on from Grenfell. The Minister mentioned Grenfell in his opening remarks. I would like to read him a statement that has been issued by Grenfell United:
“The fire safety bill is back in the commons. Government is using the excuse that the amendment will delay Grenfell recommendations. The amendment is to protect leaseholders from charges. The FSB is separate & it is wrong to claim support of it damages recommendations. Using Grenfell Recommendations to justify government’s indifference is deeply upsetting for us and shows they’d rather protect the corporates responsible from paying for the mess they created. Our request is simple: implement Grenfell recommendations make homes safe & protect lease holders from financial ruin. Nearly 4 years since Grenfell and yet not a single piece of legislation has been passed. Homes have to be made safe this is a basic human right. We ask all MPs that committed to ensuring Grenfell 2 could not happen to do the right thing today by us and the thousands of leaseholders effected.”
Grenfell United and the people affected there have spoken. Leaseholders up and down the country are speaking. Our constituents are speaking and Members of Parliament are hearing them. The Bishop of St Albans has tabled an amendment to try to provide the Government with the opportunity of the time and space to come forward with a compromise. I urge the Government to compromise and bring forward an amendment in the House of Lords later today to help support leaseholders.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak so early in this important debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). I thank their lordships for the tenacity and perseverance they have shown over many months in standing up for all the blameless leaseholders affected by the cladding crisis, including the many thousands who live in one of the more than 70 affected buildings in my constituency.
In seeking last week to persuade their lordships to cease insisting on amendments designed to protect all leaseholders from remediation costs, the Minister for Building Safety argued once again that such provision is unnecessary and that to continue to seek to amend the Bill in such a way would risk its passage in this Session, could increase fire safety risks and might “ultimately cost lives”. Yet it is the very fact that this crisis is already ruining countless lives that led their lordships to insist once again that this place reconsider, and they were entirely right to do so.
Stephen Timms
I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I wonder whether he has visited claddingscandalmap.co.uk, which maps 450 buildings with 60,000 homes affected by this scandal. It also shows the Members of this House who are voting to force leaseholders to pay towards the costs.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I have seen the site in question, and it brings home—I know he shares my feelings, as his constituency is so close to mine—the fact that certain parts of the country with high numbers of new build properties, including constituencies such as ours, are particularly badly affected. I have tens of thousands of constituents affected.
As welcome as they were, the five-point plan and the additional grant funding that the Government announced on 10 February are still only a partial solution to the cladding crisis, and they consciously and deliberately leave a significant proportion of leaseholders exposed to costs they cannot possibly hope to bear. For significant numbers of leaseholders, that exposure is not some theoretical future risk, but a reality that they are already confronting.
To take just one example, I had a lengthy exchange yesterday with the right-to- manage directors of a small 24-unit building in east Greenwich, Blenheim Court, which requires urgent remediation and is under 18 metres in height. As things stand, not only are the leaseholders in question living with the punishing uncertainty of not knowing if or when their building might be issued with a forced loan of the kind the Government propose, but because they do not have the funds to commence remediation works, they are struggling with myriad secondary costs, including a soaring building insurance premium, which has led their service charges to increase from about £2,500 a year per flat to more than £130,000—I have seen the invoice, and the figure is correct—and there is a very real risk of mass defaults as a result.
Every week that this House fails to act, more leaseholders are placed in similar situations and put at risk of negative equity and bankruptcy. I have absolutely no doubt that the Government will ultimately be forced to bring forward a more comprehensive solution that protects all affected leaseholders from the costs of fixing both cladding and non-cladding building safety defects. Seeking to pass the costs on to even a proportion of them will almost certainly mean that the works simply do not get done. Unless this House is content to follow that path and see many more lives needlessly destroyed in the interim, it must act today and take decisive steps towards resolving this crisis.
I urge Ministers, even at this late stage, to honour their commitments previously given from the Dispatch Box and come forward with a sensible concession. If they do not, I urge MPs from across the House to protect blameless leaseholders and support the amendment in the name of the Lord Bishop of St Albans in the Division Lobby shortly.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I rise to speak to the amendments in my name. I am grateful for the support from all parties for them. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) for the work they have done on this issue.
We have to find a way forward. We cannot continue this sterile ping-pong between the two Houses of Parliament. We need an actual plan, and I believe that my amendments set out a workable way that the Government can take this issue forward.
There are three issues that need to be dealt with, the first of which is forfeiture. The idea that people’s properties can be repossessed because they have been unable to pay cladding costs, which are unjust in the first place, is abhorrent. We need to reform leasehold legislation to prevent that from happening.
Secondly, we need a proper plan for apportionment of costs, as I set out in the appropriate persons for fire safety order costs amendment. That means that taxpayers are not asked to write a blank cheque, and nor will those with responsibility have the ability to collapse a company so that they can avoid costs at a future date. We have got to ensure that the “polluter pays” principle is applied in this case.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) [V]
Four years have passed since the Grenfell tragedy, and once again the House is debating whether or not to protect leaseholders from the costs of remedying fire safety defects caused by a failure of regulation and negligence, as well as by deceptive practices in the building industry. Meanwhile, the Government continue to dither and delay, and order their MPs to vote against amendments designed to protect leaseholders. Make no mistake, the funds that the Government have made available thus far have taken too much time to come on stream. The money will not ultimately be enough to meet the scale of the crisis and, crucially, interim costs are not covered.
On top of all those costs, today we have heard about the cost of insurance. I have lost count of the times that I have pleaded with the Government to do something about insurance costs. In my constituency there have been insurance increases of 1,000% in affected buildings. Those are shocking figures, and this shocking situation is falling on deaf ears as far as the Government are concerned. Long before any cladding is removed from these buildings, the people living in them will have been ruined by the costs of insurance and interim measures such as waking watches to keep their buildings open. There is simply nothing left to remedy the internal fire safety defects as well. Leaseholders need the protection that the Lords amendment would offer.
We should never forget that at any point, a further tragedy could—God forbid—occur. That is a terror that leaseholders in Brindley House in my constituency have had to face, because on 31 January this year there was a fire in a flat in their building. I have seen the burned-out husk of that flat for myself. The fire service said that the residents were only two minutes away from the fire engulfing the whole of their building. Two more minutes and the windows in that flat would have shattered, and the cladding wrapped around that building would have caught fire. When I heard that, my blood ran cold. Can the Minister imagine what it must be like for the people who live in Brindley House? That is the risk, that is the fear, and that is the scale of the financial ruination that people in my constituency and all over the country are trying to cope with.
One of my constituents recently said to me that he now thinks it will be less stressful to declare himself bankrupt and become homeless than to try to find a way to carry on as a leaseholder. At the very least, the Government could and should support the Lords amendment, or indicate a clear way through the crisis, so that we send a clear signal to all leaseholders that we will stand with them.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I start from the principle that successive Secretaries of State and Ministers have said from the Dispatch Box that the leaseholders are the innocent parties in this scandal and that they should not have to pay a penny piece towards the costs of remediation. I applaud the Government for coming forward with £5.1 billion of public money to support the remediation of unsafe cladding, but our problem is that it is not enough. The estimate now is that £15 billion will be required and that the extra £10 billion will have to come from leaseholders as the last resort, because building owners will naturally pass that on to leaseholders wherever they possibly can. They are the ones in situ; they are the ones facing these huge bills.
The Government say that further proposals will come forward on the forced loan scheme. We were promised in the earlier statement in February that the loan scheme would be announced at the Budget. Now, I did make the assumption that that was the Budget in 2021, not the Budget in 2022 or 2023. The reality is that the evidence given to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and other bodies suggests that the forced loan scheme is nowhere near being available. We as Members of Parliament are not even able to scrutinise the proposal, so those who are living in blocks of flats of six floors or less do not even know how that scheme will work. My estimate is that many people will end up with a bill that will last for 100 years, therefore factoring in, almost inevitably, a dramatic reduction in the value of their properties. Equally, we know that the fire safety remediation required in addition to the remediation of unsafe cladding almost dwarfs the costs of remediating the cladding. All those costs will once again be passed on to the innocent leaseholders.
I understand that my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench has to defend this position and clearly wants to get the Fire Safety Bill on the statute book. Let us be clear. I do not think any MP wishes to prevent the progress of the Fire Safety Bill. What we do need, however, is surety and assuredness, because the draft Building Safety Bill will almost certainly take 18 months to two years to bring to fruition. The leaseholders do not have that time to wait. My right hon. Friend the Minister has made it clear on a number of occasions that he finds the amendments defective. Well, there is still time. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) that there is a solution. If the Government reject that solution, let them come forward with their own solution in the House of Lords. Let us agree that the leaseholders do not have to pay a penny and the Fire Safety Bill can go on the statute book, as we would all like to see.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]
The Minister should be very careful. The speeches in this debate today are an example of Parliament at its best and Government at their worst. The Minister has heard Members from across the House, and from his own party in particular, criticise what the Government are doing. He would be a very wise Minister to listen to Parliament. If he refuses to listen, I think he should think about his future.
In March this year, leaseholders in Wembley Central apartments in my constituency were told that in response to the publication by the Government of the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2018, a waking watch system would be implemented as soon as possible. The cost of the waking watch patrols would be recovered from leaseholders in the sum of £91,380 a month. The cost of the remedial works to the fire alarm system across Central Apartments, Ramsey House and Metro Apartments is estimated to be in the order of £250,000 to £300,000. The owners said that they were unable to say the total cost of all four recommendations and that they therefore could not advise the liability of each leaseholder.
I find it unacceptable that the Government are imposing billions of pounds of costs on leaseholders retrospectively to remedy misconduct by others, such as the developer, the builder or those producing the Government’s own advisory documents and in particular building regulations control. The fire survey for these particular buildings said:
“There is evidence that the junctions between compartment floors were inadequately fire stopped…as there were gaps at mineral wool fire barriers at steel framing. There were no visible fire barriers at vents or around windows/door frames and it could not be confirmed that the window/door frames themselves formed cavity barriers.”
That indicates that at the time of construction the building regulations then in force were not followed. That means that these people were sold a building that was not fit for habitation, yet the Government are not pursuing the people responsible; they are making sure that it is the innocent parties who will pay. Their lives are being ruined, as Members in all parts of this House have said. It is vital that the Government address this and accept the Lords amendment. In particular, they need to focus on addressing the very real issues in building control regulations that allowed this scandal to happen in the first place.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
The Government’s plan and funding to address this fire safety issue are a welcome start. I am not going to rehearse the points already made this afternoon, but I believe that the role of affordable home ownership schemes in this disaster has been overlooked.
Many people engulfed in this scandal are first-time buyers who took their first step on the property ladder through Conservative-backed schemes intended to boost home ownership. People use these schemes because they are not cash rich, but they are now facing unexpected bills for life-changing sums, and some are being asked to take up further Government loans to pay them. The drafting of this Bill means that despite owning only part of the value of their flat, leaseholders are potentially liable for 100% of the share of the costs. In effect, they are subsidising their landlords, who own the remaining percentage of the value of the flat but pay nothing to remedy the defects. Leaseholders have always had to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of buildings they do not own, owing to the way leasehold agreements work, but the building defects and costs involved to fix them are beyond what anyone could have contemplated.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to read out a case study of a future constituent —someone hoping to relocate to my constituency. This individual owns a one-bedroom flat in the Olympic village in London, in which she has a 35% interest, and is seeking to move to Penzance, in my constituency, to be with her fiancé. The flat was sold to her as a low-risk investment; she was encouraged by the shared ownership Government scheme, as part of their affordable housing directive. Her block was found to have missing fire cavity barriers, rendering it a B2 rating, warranting remediation, with the bills potentially being in excess of £50,000 for her flat alone. The housing association is trying to bring the developers to account, something that legally it is not required to do. Failing that, this will result in a lengthy legal battle, during which she may well be presented with the bill for remediation work in order to make the block fire safe and adhere to the Government’s new guidelines. Applying for a grant under the Jenrick announcement for remediation works is an extremely slow and complicated process. If the housing association does not succeed in getting the perpetrators to fix their mess, she will get the bill, and as a shared owner she will be liable for the full 100% of the bill, not 35%, which is the share she owns of the property. In any case, it is highly unlikely she will be able to sell property for years to come and buy into the Cornish economy by purchasing a house.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) has put forward very pragmatic proposals to unlock the deadlock and improve the fire safety of homes across our nation, and I would welcome the Minister’s response to these sensible proposals,
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
Over the weekend, it was reported that the Bank of England is assessing whether Britain’s building safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis—why? It was because 1.3 million flats are unmortgageable and as many as 3 million people face a wait of up to 10 years to sell or get a new mortgage because they cannot prove that their homes are safe.
This scandal has gone on for too long and it has already caused too much damage. This Government must accept the Lords amendment that would protect leaseholders from exorbitant costs, or they should drop this Bill altogether and bring back a better version in the Queen’s Speech. It is simply incredible that the Government have had 10 whole months to break the deadlock and propose a solution that they find acceptable, but they have refused to do so. Instead, they wage a campaign of scaremongering, telling us that if the Bill fails it will have the effect of increasing fire safety risks. Well, that is not the view of the leaseholders in my constituency; it is not the view of the leaseholder group; and it is not the view of the Cladding Action Group. They are speaking with one voice and they are clear that they would much rather see this defective Bill fall than pass in its current form.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I support holding the Lords amendment. I think it is the right thing to do at the moment, although not because it is perfect—it is far from perfect and not without its flaws. My problem is that I do not see the Government responding to the overwhelming concern about what is happening to leaseholders, many of whom, as has been said before, were first-time buyers.
We face, today, an issue of concern both personal and public. The public concern is that the devaluation of these homes is now so dramatic that it will cause an economic shock. I remember the old negative equity problem that erupted as a result of a collapse, and I do not want to see us back there again. I accept that, as has been said, the Government have already put £5.1 billion into the process, but it is worth at least another £10 billion in settlement, and that is going to fall on the shoulders of leaseholders.
Let me relate what is going on in my constituency. Like everybody else, I have a set of estates, including Queen Mary’s Gate and Blackberry Court, among other blocks in my constituency. Many of them are under 18 metres and have cladding—this is the point that has been raised—that was not compliant at the time of their building. The leaseholders did not know that—they bought their homes with a sense that they were buying something that was right and reasonable—and are now not eligible for the safety fund.
What has happened because of all this? We have tried to get hold of the developer, Telford Homes, but it has not engaged for more than a year now. Telford Homes does not answer anything or engage about what it might do; it has gone to ground. That is the problem that lies at the heart of all this right now: there is no way that the leaseholders can get redress because they cannot go to those who did this wrongly at the time and the Government have not brought forward any mechanism to allow leaseholders to get after these individuals, who will sit there and wait for the leaseholders to waste their money.
The Lords amendment is not perfect, but I am trying to articulate a cry for help from my constituents and others around the country. I agree with and support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). Let us find a way to make sure that those who were responsible stand up and pay the bill. They have made a lot of money in the past, legitimately, on building homes; those who did not put up the right cladding should automatically be in the frame. Meanwhile, the costs spiral and my constituents will pay them.
Today, for the first time, I shall vote to maintain and hold the Lords amendment. I say to the Government that if they do not want it, they had better get to the Lords and get us something decent that allows us to give support to our leaseholder constituents, because that would be doing the right thing.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
I speak in favour of the Bishop of St Albans’ amendment. As the UK Cladding Action Group has previously reported, there have already been leaseholder suicides and, worryingly, 23% of those surveyed by the group have considered suicide or self-harm.
The Government must realise that the building safety fund only covers unsafe cladding, yet 70% of the buildings surveyed have non-cladding fire safety defects. They must understand that providing cladding remediation funding for buildings over 18 metres, yet forcing leaseholders in buildings under 18 metres to pay, is entirely unfair. They must recognise that there is no support available at all for interim measure costs, including increased insurance premiums and waking watches, which often run into figures of more than £15,000 per week.
To add further devastation, as we have heard today, Inside Housing has reported that even the minority of leaseholders who could apply for loans face a wait of potentially years. In the meantime, many residents still live in unsafe buildings and are understood to have already received requests for up-front payment, with freeholders sometimes instructing solicitors to carry out debt recovery. This could result in a tide of bankruptcies and evictions. The situation is so bad that I understand that analysts at the Bank of England are now assessing whether Britain’s building safety scandal could cause a new financial crisis.
It is clear that the Government’s approach is untenable and it must change today. Even the National Housing Federation states that the only way to prevent leaseholders and social landlords from having to pay to remediate buildings they did not construct is for the Government to provide up-front funding to remediate all buildings. I hope all MPs today can recognise the moral duty they personally have to protect our constituents and will vote in favour of the Lords amendment.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
I had very much hoped that it would not be necessary for us to continue to have this debate in relation to this Bill. The core elements of the Bill are worth while and I support them. Unfortunately, however, it creates a set of potential liabilities upon wholly innocent leaseholders, without giving them an adequate means of redress. That is simply unfair. It is unfair on my constituents and it is unfair on people who have bought properties in good faith and who have relied on professional advice and the regulatory regime that was then in force. If there are people who were at fault, either in the construction of the buildings or in the way in which surveys were carried out, they should absolutely be held to account, but the people who should not end up with a liability are the leaseholders, who have acted in good faith throughout. It is the absence of protection for them that, regrettably, causes me to have to support the Lords amendment again today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) tabled what I thought were constructive amendments, which I was happy to sign. I hope—still; even at this late stage—that the Government will see that there is a basis for progress to be made. As things stand, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) noted, we have to continue to press the case on the Government. I hope that, if the House rejects the amendments—I hope it will vote for the Lords amendments and deal with the matter—it will give the Government yet a further chance to resolve this matter.
At the end of the day, we are not asking that the taxpayer pick up the burden. We are asking that the leaseholders should be relieved, certainly in the short term, of the pressures that fall upon them and that they are unable to deal with. The Government are in a position to fund the cash flow that leaseholders cannot fund and which is driving them to desperate situations. It is absolutely right that they should then seek to recoup those funds from those who are responsible and who have been at fault. There is nothing in the Lords amendment or the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset that would prevent that from happening. I urge the Government to think again and recognise that, although the core elements of the Bill are good, collaterally, it does real injustice to innocent leaseholders, such as many in my constituency and elsewhere. For heaven’s sake, can we not find a constructive way forward to achieve the objectives of the Bill and protect innocent leaseholders? Those things should not be mutually incompatible, but at the moment we have not yet found a solution.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
I actually think that the Prime Minister framed this debate well, because he told the House on 3 February that
“no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 945.]
Those were his words. No ifs, no buts—it was an unequivocal pledge. Clearly, the Government’s measures so far fall well short of fulfilling it. Today we have the opportunity to address that, because the Lords amendments make good on that failure.
I have spoken previously in the House about leaseholders in the Metis building, Wicker Riverside, Daisy Spring Works and elsewhere in my constituency who face a range of issues with ACM and other cladding, compartmentation, flammable materials wrongly used and other fire safety products. They are trapped in homes that are unsafe and unsaleable, facing bills that will break them—some up to £50,000 each.
Let us remember that we are talking about young people who stretched their budgets to the limit to buy their first home; couples unable to move on when they have their first child; others who cannot take new jobs because they cannot sell; and older people who have sunk their life savings into their flat and have nowhere to turn. They are being put under unbearable pressure and unimaginable mental strain. People have told me they fear collecting their post in the morning because of the bills it might contain. It is simply unacceptable. Today we can end that misery.
Those who say that the costs should not fall on the public purse are right. The developers responsible should pay up, as well as those responsible for failings in the building regulation system. The only way that developers and others responsible will be held to account is if the Government own the problem, urgently undertake remediation and then use the full resources of the state to chase down those responsible. Leaseholders simply cannot do it on their own.
We have that responsibility because successive Governments oversaw a flawed system of building inspections, which signed off so many of these unsafe buildings. These leaseholders are victims of comprehensive regulatory failure. There is a grave injustice here that must be remedied, and the Government must face up to it. Those responsible for the failings should be responsible for putting them right, without any costs falling on leaseholders, either now or in the future through loans schemes.
Many leaseholders have stretched their finances to the limit to buy their home. Some have already been bankrupted. Others are facing ruin. We have to put a stop to it today, so let us put aside other differences and do the right thing by accepting the Lords amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I apologise to those who did not get in, but I do need to bring the Minister in.
Christopher Pincher
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions today. The House will know that we have a duty to implement clear and effective legislation to support fire and building safety reform. We have an obligation in this place to make good law. While I entirely accept that the motivations of all those who have contributed today are not to damage the Fire Safety Bill, I have to tell them that the practical consequence of passing the Lords amendments would be to do that, because they are ineffective and defective. Let me explain why, before moving on to some of the other points that Members have made.
The amendments would prevent any type of remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders, even if the cost was very minor or if the leaseholder was responsible for damage, and that is not a proportionate response. There is no framework in the Lord Bishop of St Albans’ amendment to distinguish between different works. I think all Members would agree that the taxpayer should not be paying for minor costs, such as replacing a smoke alarm, and that if the leaseholder is responsible for breaking a smoke alarm, in all likelihood they should fix it. The amendment is also unclear on who should take responsibility for remediation works until a statutory funding scheme is in place to pay or direct the costs, and that would result in remediation being delayed, even in the case of minor defects, if routes of cost recovery are unclear.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Christopher Pincher
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not give way, because I have to conclude my remarks. Perhaps if I have a bit of time at the end, I will.
These orphan liabilities would leave leaseholders continuing to live in unsafe properties with no further clarity as to who will pay. It is important to ensure that taxpayers’ money is protected as much as possible and that remediation is not delayed unnecessarily in extended litigation such as we might find ourselves in. It is not the solution that leaseholders need or the one that the taxpayer deserves.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
Sir Peter Bottomley
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It will be observed that the Government’s majority without the Scots Nats was halved in the last vote.
I would not ask for guidance from the Chair in the Commons about procedure in the Lords, but were the Lords to send back another amendment different from the one we have been considering, but trying to take up the points raised in this Chamber, am I right in saying that the Government could table their own amendment tomorrow, which would absorb the points made in this House, so that leaseholders are not penalised in the way they would be if the Bill went through as it is at the moment?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Father of the House for that point of order. Obviously it will be a matter for the Lords and the business managers to say how it will proceed from here.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill
Tuesday 27th April 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 View all Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 27 April 2021 - (27 Apr 2021)
16:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 357 / Noes: 267 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I beg to move,
That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 1R but disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 1S, 1T and 1U.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendments 1S, 1T and 1U.
Government manuscript amendments (d) and (e).
Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 5B.
Leo Docherty
I rise to propose Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 1S to 1U. I should once again like to thank Lord Robertson for his constructive contributions to debates on this issue.
It has always been the case that the measures in the Bill will not leave our service personnel at greater risk of investigation by the International Criminal Court. By adopting the amendments, we are happy to offer further reassurance and put that beyond any doubt. I should like to reassure hon. Members that service personnel and veterans will continue to receive the benefits of the additional protections provided by part 1 of the Bill in respect of historical alleged criminal offences under the law of England and Wales. Including war crimes in schedule 1 of the Bill will have little practical impact on the protection that the Bill affords our armed forces personnel. The Government are therefore delivering on our commitment to protect our service personnel and veterans from the threat of legal proceedings in connection with historical overseas operations many years after the events in question.
We have listened, and we believe that these proposed Government amendments in lieu will satisfy the House of Lords in respect of relevant offences, and they demonstrate our continued commitment to strengthening the rule of law and to maintaining our leading role in upholding the rules-based international system.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Can the Minister name any country in the world that, 50 years after the event, would prosecute two of its own soldiers for killing a terrorist?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention. He is, of course, referring to legacy cases in Northern Ireland. I am confident, as I stated at the Dispatch Box last week, that legislation is forthcoming to ensure that our Northern Ireland veterans are protected from any prosecutions in the future. I urge that the Government amendments in lieu be accepted this afternoon.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment, but can he explain what he means by the expression “in the future”? There will be a lot of people listening and wondering, “When is it going to affect me?”
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. I am confident that, in the near future, legislation will be brought before the House from the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that we see no more prosecutions of Op Banner veterans, and I know that he will share that expectation.
I turn to Lords amendment 5B on the duty of care. The Government continue to believe that it would not be practicable or desirable to define a legally binding standard of care in relation to the matters referred to in the amendment. As I said previously, the Ministry of Defence takes very seriously its duty of care for service personnel and veterans. Over the years, we have established a comprehensive range of legal, pastoral, welfare and mental health support for service personnel and veterans, and we have come a long way from the early days of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our welfare provisions were clearly laid out in the Defence Secretary’s written ministerial statement of 13 April. We are aiming for a gold standard and are improving our provision all the time without the requirement for legislation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. I know that he is committed to this; I have no doubt whatsoever about that. In my constituency and across Northern Ireland, a number of young service personnel who have served well have taken their own life due to post-traumatic stress disorder. Can the Minister assure me that when it comes to legal, pastoral and mental health support, everything that is necessary is in the Bill?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. I can reassure him with confidence that we are aiming for a gold standard in welfare provision. It does not require legislation. It requires constant improvement and a deep interest across Government, and that is what the Ministry of Defence is committed to delivering alongside the Office for Veterans’ Affairs.
Additionally, we are deeply concerned about the potential unintended negative effects of Lords amendment 5B if it is included in the Bill. Notions of pastoral and moral duties are extremely difficult to adequately define, and there is a real risk that attempting to do so will lead to more, rather than less, litigation and greater uncertainty for our armed forces people. We are also concerned that, as investigations and allegations arise and often occur on operations, the amendment might have the unintended consequence of undermining our operational effectiveness.
The Government do agree with Lord Dannatt on the need to set out clearly the benefits of the Bill to the armed forces community. He has asked for a commitment that the Government will communicate the measures of the Bill down the chain of command. I am, of course, delighted to give that assurance now. We will ensure that all service personnel understand the positive effects of the Bill and the legal protection it affords them. We will explain how the measures in the Bill are beneficial to individual service personnel who have deployed or will deploy on overseas operations.
Part 1 of the Bill will reduce the number and length of criminal investigations, and our armed forces personnel should be reassured that the unique context of overseas operations will be taken into account when criminal allegations against them are being investigated. The longstop measures in part 2 of the Bill mean that we should never again see the industrial scale of civil claims that we saw in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. These measures are delivering on our manifesto commitment and our solemn pledge to protect our armed forces personnel and our veterans and to bring to an end the shameful cycle of vexatious legal claims brought against our finest asset—our defence people. Together, both parts of the Bill will give greater certainty to service personnel that they will not have the shadow of legal proceedings hanging over them for decades after they return from doing their duty on overseas operations.
We will be clear, of course, that the Bill will not stop service personnel being held to the highest standards that we would expect from all our armed forces, and that they will still be subject to domestic and international law when they deploy on overseas operations. Similar, we will make it clear that the limitation longstops will also apply to claims by them that are connected with overseas operations, and emphasise that they should bring any civil claims connected with overseas operations within six years of either the event or their date of knowledge. The vast majority have historically already done so, but it is important that this message is understood so that, in future, an even greater percentage of service personnel bring their claims in a timely manner.
In summary, the Bill delivers for our armed forces and protects our people, but I do not believe that setting a standard for the duty of care in the Bill is necessary or desirable, so I urge the House this afternoon to disagree with Lords amendment 5B.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Before turning to the amendments before us today, I want to place on record my thanks to all those who have worked so hard and so collaboratively on the Bill throughout its passage, although I have been dismayed at earlier stages when Ministers have tried to make the Bill a matter of party politics. I believed from the outset that Members on all sides in both Houses wanted the same thing from this legislation—that is, to protect British troops and British values.
The Lords have certainly approached the Bill in this constructive cross-party manner, and I want to thank in particular those on the Labour Lords Front Bench: Lords Tunnicliffe, Touhig and Falconer, and Lord Robertson for his tireless work on part 1 of the Bill, which the Minister has acknowledged. I also want to thank Lord Hope for his convincing arguments on the European convention on human rights, Lord Dannatt for his leadership of the duty of care amendment we are considering this afternoon, and Lords Stirrup and Boyce for their experience, their wisdom and their backing for all the Lords amendments that were sent to this House. I also want to thank the Minister’s colleague, Baroness Goldie, and indeed the new Minister himself for their similarly constructive approach.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I agree with my right hon. Friend’s comments about their lordships, but does he agree that if some of the amendments that were tabled in Committee had been adopted, the Lords would not have had to redo the work on the Bill? Is he as disappointed as I am that the Minister at the time would not take into consideration any amendments in Committee?
John Healey
My right hon. Friend is right. Last week when we debated the first set of Lords amendments, I described the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), as a “roadblock to reason” on this Bill. Unfortunately, that has meant that more work was done in the Lords, and that the deep flaws in the Bill have not all yet been fixed. So this is a Bill that in many ways fails to do what it set out to do; it fails to do what it says on the tin. Finally, before I move on to talk about the amendments—which I am sure you wish me to do, Mr Deputy Speaker—I want to make sure that I thank the Bill team in the Ministry of Defence and the Bill teams and Officers of both Houses for their advice, their professionalism and their hard work on the Bill.
We welcome the Government’s acceptance of Lords amendment 1R, which excludes from the Bill’s five-year presumption against prosecution all war crimes covered by articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome statute, which of course set up the International Criminal Court and applies the Geneva conventions, which were very much Britain’s brainchild under Attlee and then Churchill after the second world war.
The Government have rightly followed through today on the principle that Ministers conceded last week on torture, genocide and crimes against humanity, because not excluding the full range of crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court would damage Britain’s international standing, including that of our armed forces, and lay open our armed forces to the risk of being hauled before the ICC. The Government’s acceptance of that amendment and its consequentials, to give full effect to the Lords’ intent from last week, is welcome. We have worked hard for it, and I am sure that the move will be welcomed across the House.
Mr Kevan Jones
May I also say to my right hon. Friend that it will not in the future either, because it will not, as the Minister said, stop vexatious claims coming forward, because they will have to be investigated? There is a huge hole in this Bill, which the former Minister refused to accept in Committee, about trying to case manage investigations, so people will still be investigated. There is nothing in this Bill to say that they will not be investigated, so it does not do what it says on the tin and it would be dishonest to people to suggest otherwise.
John Healey
My right hon. Friend is right. I have described it as the big gap in this legislation. It is a big flaw in the Bill. We may not succeed this time around, but we will certainly return to it in the Armed Forces Bill, which I will come on to. The proposals before us in this amendment are simple, flexible, tried and tested in civilian law, and backed by all the leading military and legal experts in the other place.
I urge the Minister this afternoon to confirm what he hinted at last week, and what his colleague, Baroness Goldie, said she would not stand in the way of yesterday. The Secretary of State made an offer to me in conversation last week to formally ask Sir Richard Henriques to examine this proposal as part of his current review so that it can be considered alongside other recommendations from that review for incorporation into the Armed Forces Bill. The Minister’s predecessor said at the very outset of this Bill’s proceedings in this House, on Second Reading back in November:
“The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne raises time and again the issue of the investigations, but he knows that they are for the forthcoming armed forces Bill and will be addressed there.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 258.]
Of course, they are not, but we will ensure that they are. I say to the Minister that I hope we will be able to work together constructively on that, in a way that proved so difficult with his predecessor.
Mr Jones
But it was not for lack of trying. I moved three amendments in Committee, and not only were they fiercely resisted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), but there was no explanation of how and when in future legislation anything around investigations would be addressed, even though my right hon. Friend is right that the former Minister had given a commitment that investigations would be addressed in the Armed Forces Bill.
John Healey
Yes indeed. My right hon. Friend has worked as hard as anyone in this House on this Bill and I am really grateful to him for that. He has been part of what the Opposition, certainly, are now set to do, which is to forge a consensus on the changes needed to the Bill so that it better serves the interests of British troops, British justice and Britain’s standing in the world. I believe that we, as the official Opposition, and we as a House, have a duty to try to make this Bill fit for purpose as the new legal framework for this country when we have in future to commit our servicemen and women to conflict overseas. It falls short of that test at present. We will not let those matters rest.
This is a classic case of a Government who will win their legislation but have lost the arguments. When that is the case, the Government will find that those arguments come back again, not just from the Opposition but from all parties, not just from this House but from both Houses, and not just from Parliament but from all the range of outside organisations that together have been the chorus of criticism about so much in this Bill that is still left undone but will be done in future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that the knife falls at 4.32 pm and we have nine speakers, plus the Minister to respond. That gives hardly any time, so can I implore those contributing either remotely or physically please to use self-discipline? With nobody specifically in mind, I call David Davis.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) [V]
Thank you for the hint, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will confine myself to issues around Lords amendment 1R in order to limit what I have to say.
Last week’s concessions from the Government on the matters relating to amendment 1R were long overdue. With their tabling of the amendments removing genocide, torture and crimes against humanity, some of the most egregious errors in the Bill were corrected, which is why I voted in favour of the Government amendment last week. However, as I warned on Wednesday, that amendment left one serious matter unresolved—war crimes are still subject to a presumption against prosecution. Thankfully, further representations from Lord Robertson and others have led the Government now to rectify this oversight with the amendment we are considering today. I welcome that further concession. In government, as I said last week, it is always difficult to change your mind once you set out on a specific course of action, but the Government are to be commended for doing just that in the case of this Bill. In particular, I again commend the new Minister for his extremely rational approach to this and using the time that ping-pong has given him to good effect.
The original drafting of the Bill created a situation whereby the UK’s standing on the international stage would have been threatened. Our reputation as an upholder of the rule of law would have been tarnished and we would have run the risk of potentially having our troops hauled before the International Criminal Court. That would have been a truly shameful outcome. The ICC is usually in the business of prosecuting tyrants and torturers, not the soldiers of law-abiding democracies, let alone one with the United Kingdom’s reputation. The concessions last week would still have left our soldiers open to charges of war crimes. To be clear, these are not theoretical concerns of myself or other Members either here or in the other place. When I asked the chief prosecutor of the ICC for her consideration of the Government’s concessions on this point, she said in her response to me last Friday that
“any gap between the scope of coverage in the excludable offences under the proposed legislation and conduct which might otherwise constitute a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court would risk…rendering relevant cases concerning such conduct admissible before the ICC.”
In other words, the Bill in its state last week would have still left our soldiers open to prosecution.
Today’s amendment means that torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide will all now, quite rightly, be excluded from the presumption against prosecution contained in the Bill. That is to be welcomed. On that basis, I am entirely supportive of the Government and they will get my vote today. However, I will just make a comment en passant relating to what the right hon. Members for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for North Durham (Mr Jones) said. The Ministry of Defence now needs to take the advice of people like former Judge Advocate General Blackett, and others, and improve its own investigation system to stop soldiers from going through the same problems again in future. The problem has always rested, in part, within the walls of the Ministry of Defence, so improvements to the investigation process must be made. Our troops need to be reassured that if they ever face allegations of wrongdoing they will be investigated fairly, rapidly, and without the threat of constant reinvestigation. Only then will our service personnel be properly protected from vexatious and damaging litigation, and only then will this Bill and its associated policy have properly achieved its aim.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)[V]
May I first take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on their new position? It is always good to see Dochertys in very lofty positions, even ones that are lofty in the wrong direction.
The Bill was supposed to tackle vexatious claims, yet the evidence received, both written and in Committee, pointed to the problems arising from flawed investigations. Nothing in the Bill improves service justice or tackles repeated investigations. The Bill was an opportunity to overhaul the system, but that is an opportunity now lost. Unless the Government establish proper structures and processes for investigations, including independent investigators, personnel will remain vulnerable to repeated investigations and indeed investigations by the International Criminal Court.
Still, the Government have been forced into significant concessions in other areas of the Bill because of the work of Members in the other place. The Government agreed last week that genocide, crimes against humanity and torture would be excluded from legal safeguards in the Bill. The threat of a further possible defeat at the hands of peers has, I am glad to hear, forced the Government also to exclude war crimes from the presumption against prosecution. Although we on the SNP Benches recognise this change, it should not have taken until the last gasp of this Bill for the Government to make it.
In their refusal to listen to evidence presented in Committee and to the calls of Members of this House, the Government, at least from our perspective, have profoundly damaged the UK and Parliament’s reputation internationally. We also see that the final version of the Bill retains the six-year longstop on civil claims against the MOD, denying members of the armed forces justice in valid civil claims. Indeed, it will significantly disadvantage those who have served abroad. The House should be making it easier for personnel to make claims when the MOD has been negligent, but this legislation seems to be crafted especially to protect the MOD and not the personnel themselves.
Lords amendment 5B ensures care and support for personnel involved in investigations, and every Member of this place should be supporting it. The House knows from discussions with personnel that the structures currently in place are not working for those facing prosecution, and we have seen that in evidence to the Armed Forces Bill Committee, of which I am a member. Finally, if that support is already there and it is not working, we need to strengthen it through statutory requirements. I wonder whether the Minister and the Government are willing to do that.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The distinct purpose of the Bill is to provide legal protection to military personnel serving overseas on operations—that is what it is about. It is all about stopping vexatious prosecutions, often generated, for large sums, by unscrupulous lawyers. In short, lawfare, such as we saw a few years ago, should be a thing of the past, but is it totally gone? I wish to explain a little of the worries I have.
I am pleased that the Government have now decided to include war crimes alongside torture, crimes against humanity, genocide and sexual crimes, such as a rape, as being not subject to a statutory presumption against prosecution. That is good news, because, as others have said, it might stop our service personnel being dragged before the ICC in the future. So we must now prosecute war crimes like any other crime, but might I suggest a slight spanner in the works here?
I have seen such crimes in my time in Bosnia, in 1992-93—obviously, I should emphasise, they were not carried out by British soldiers. I have also given evidence in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, where such crimes were tried—this is now done by the ICC. I gave evidence in trials where the guilty were sent to prison for between 15 and 45 years. I wonder exactly what crimes are not subject to a statute of limitation. What crimes creep through? As far as I can see, most of the definitions allow us to decide exactly what happens. I am quite worried that the Minister might not be able to identify a crime carried out that we could prosecute without a statute of limitation.
Sexual crimes can be prosecuted anyway under Navy, Army and Air Force Acts. Service personnel can never be ordered to carry out such acts by superior officers. Effectively, the Bill accepts and confirms crimes under the Sexual Offences Acts 1956 and 2003. The Bill states that unless there is compelling evidence, service personnel cannot be charged with crimes committed more than five years ago, unless of course they have taken part in war crimes, torture, crimes against humanity or genocide, which are offences without a time limit. As I mentioned earlier, I am slightly worried about what is left. Of course I go along with what we have done, but I am slightly worried that many crimes can evade the provisions and that people could be done on these classifications.
On service personnel who have suffered some form of physical or mental injury, the limit is broadly six years after the event. In short, they must have started proceedings against, say, the Ministry of Defence within that period. However, the Bill allows for the possibility of someone bringing forward proceedings where, for example, they have PTSD but had not discovered it, even if they are affected 20 years later. In such as case, they will have six years from the point when they discover they are affected or when they are diagnosed to bring a claim against the MOD. I reckon that is fair enough. The MOD is certainly not trying to disadvantage its own.
I end by reminding everyone of a point the Minister made. The Government are still committed to bringing forward a Bill to protect veterans in Northern Ireland in the same way as those who have served overseas. If they do not, our servicemen and servicewomen will have two levels of protection: those like me who served in Northern Ireland will have a lesser degree of protection than those who have served overseas. To that end, I have always believed and supported the suggestion by the Defence Committee, on which I served several years ago, that the way forward in Northern Ireland is for there to be a qualified statute of limitations unless compelling new evidence has been produced. I therefore hope that very soon the Government will bring forward legislation to stop possible unequal treatment of our service personnel.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and respected Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart).
It is welcome that the Government have eventually accepted that war crimes should be excluded from the Bill. However, that it took this long for them to understand the grave implications of their proposals remains very worrying. What remains of concern is the stubborn refusal to introduce a duty of care to our service personnel. I am still at a total loss as to why the Government would reject and oppose care standards for service personnel and veterans involved in investigations or litigations arising from overseas operations.
I was not comforted by the Minister’s words last week—neither, indeed, was I just now—when he assured us that,
“The Ministry of Defence takes very seriously its duty of care for service personnel and veterans, for whom there already exists a comprehensive range of legal, pastoral, welfare and mental health support”,
bearing in mind the testimonies from those in my own constituency and those who gave evidence to the Bill Committee of how inaccessible and ineffective that support can be. I was even less assured after reading the media comments made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who said that help is available, yet it is hard to understand it and
“hard to understand where it is”,
and that promoting where it is and how to get to it was simply not part of this Government’s agenda.
The Minister also claimed that the Lords amendment carries a risk of
“unintended consequences, including a possible increase in litigation, which would be contrary to the Bill’s objectives.”
As the noble Lord Dannatt said in the other place, that is simply an empty argument because, under the amendment, the Ministry of Defence has the opportunity to draw up its own statement of a duty of care standard and act within that. I reiterate my comments from last week—that to claim that the duty of care proposals would be better placed in the Armed Forces Bill is not acceptable. We are debating and voting today on this Bill; it is not right for MPs to accept gaps in legislation on the promise that it may or may not be rectified in future legislation.
The Bill’s objective is to offer more protection and support to service personnel and veterans, so how can an amendment that offers just that protection and support be, as the Minister said last week,
“contrary to the Bill’s objectives”?—[Official Report, 21 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 1058.]
I would really appreciate it if, in summing up, the Minister could expand on and clarify why the Government’s stubborn objection to this duty of care has remained. There still remains nothing in the Bill that will solve the problem of repeated investigations. Without Lords amendment 5B, there is nothing in the Bill that will afford our forces personnel and veterans a duty of care when they are undergoing such awful investigations.
I remain of the view that this Bill is a hurried and inadequate piece of legislation that has never matched up to the rhetoric surrounding it. No one is in disagreement that greater legal protections for armed forces personnel and veterans serving overseas were needed, but the Government have drafted legislation that makes the problem worse, leaves our service personnel and veterans at a disadvantage and without crucial support, and fails on its promise to those who served in Northern Ireland.
Our service personnel and veterans deserve the very best for risking their all for us; I echo the pleas made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) that, in today’s vote, Government Members show that they believe this too by joining us in the Lobby.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I stated on Second Reading that this is a good Bill and my view remains exactly the same. As we know, the other place wanted torture, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity excluded from relevant offences. We disagreed initially, but amendments 1A to 1Q from the MOD, whereby breaches of the Geneva convention and genocide are excluded from the offences, are very welcome. This Government have sent the clear message that they stand against all breaches of human rights in conflict.
My stance throughout this whole process has been very clear. The supposition from some quarters that British troops are somehow predisposed to committing war crimes wantonly and that the UK has somehow given them a “get out of jail free” card is absurd. The MOD already has one of the most effective and robust service justice systems in the world. The presumption against prosecution also in no way affects the UK’s ability to conduct investigations and prosecutions into any crime, including war crimes; it is a high threshold, not a bar. However, as Baroness Goldie stated in the other place only yesterday, there was significant concern that through exclusion of serious crimes, such as sexual offences, this Bill would run the risk of undermining the work that the Government have put in to push the UK as a force for good around the world. I agree. To be worthy of its pre-eminence, I concede that this House should absolutely agree to Lords amendment 1R.
Lord Dannatt’s revision to Lords amendment 5, Lords amendment 5B, is also worthy of consideration, but I want to point out at this juncture that service personnel are entitled to legal support at public expense when they face criminal allegations and civil claims. The Armed Forces Bill brings the armed forces covenant into statute, and there is unrivalled medical support, including mental health support, available to all personnel and veterans. I agree, again, with the Government’s continuing stance that the amendment is not necessary, and I will vote with the Government on all occasions today.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
I shall try to be brief. Last week, I spoke about what I see as British values, which have been mentioned in the debate. I therefore welcome the concession on war crimes, because any erosion of how we and the rest of the world perceive our British values would be deeply damaging to this country’s reputation.
As others have said, I believe there is still work to be done on the duty of care, and I flag up its connection with mental health. When I talk to constituents who have served Queen and country bravely, there is a fear that they will be abandoned if they find themselves in the position of being accused. I hear what other Members have said about the legal help that they would be afforded, but there is still a fear out there.
It would be churlish of me not to say thank you to the new Minister. Last week I said I did not know him very well, but what I have seen during one week gives me much more confidence in him. His predecessor was referred to as a roadblock, but I think the thoughtful and conciliatory attitude shown by the new Minister, whose fingerprints I rather suspect are on the war crimes concession, is very useful indeed.
I want to talk about the process. The Bill we see today is a lot better than the one we looked at last November. The cross-party work in the other place is deeply significant. Many Tory peers have been instrumental in bringing forward amendments. In yet another place, known as the Scottish Parliament, I knew Baroness Goldie in another incarnation. I came to respect that good lady’s thoughtful and judicious approach to matters, so I am not surprised to see her playing the role she does in the other place. We belong to different parties, but I recognise quality where I see it.
We have a Bill that is better than it was. In my opinion and that of my party, the jury is out on the duty of care in mental health, but the way we have improved the Bill is instructive to all of us. There is possibly a message to Her Majesty’s Government here. The reputation of the UK Parliament depends on the quality of the legislation that is enacted. Where there is co-operation across the House and between both Houses to make the best legislation, that is ideal. I very much hope that the Government will look at the process by which we came to be where we are today, learn from it and apply that technique to other legislation as it comes before us. I reiterate my thanks to the new Minister.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I will call the Minister at 4.27 pm, and the debate will finish at 4.32 pm.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said that this was a good Bill—no, it is not. It is a bad Bill, and it is an unnecessary Bill. All of this could have been done within the Armed Forces Bill that is going through Parliament, but the Government chose, for their own reasons, to put forward this Bill. It does not get to the central point of the issue, which is around investigations. They are completely absent from this Bill and currently absent from the Armed Forces Bill. They were resisted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) in this Bill and in the Armed Forces Bill. It galls me that yesterday he was standing outside a court in Northern Ireland, trumpeting the fact that he was on the side of trying to stop people being investigated, when he had been in a position to do something about it. I think of him as being a bit like an actor in a play who has been sat in the audience watching, rather than taking part.
Without investigation, the Bill is flawed. I have written to the Minister: he needs to ensure that investigations are put in the Armed Forces Bill, because without that, despite the protections that have been claimed today, servicemen and women will be watching our proceedings, thinking that they have more protection than they have. They will still be investigated if allegations are made. There is an opportunity now, with the Armed Forces Bill, to remedy that.
Part 2 of this Bill should simply have been scrapped. I am sorry, but the idea that we should all have Limitation Act rights and yet members of our armed forces should not—that we should take those away from them—is just not good enough. A Bill that is supposed to give things to our armed forces has been taking things away from them. Part 2 will be challenged in court; only the lawyers will benefit from it.
I welcome the change on war crimes because, like many across the House, I was concerned about our international reputation. I fully support Lord Dannatt’s amendment; I believe we should support anything that helps servicemen and women who are going through such a process.
The Bill claimed to do a lot but does very little. It is disappointing. It could have been vastly improved, or just ignored altogether and incorporated into the Armed Forces Bill. There is an opportunity to put right what is not in this Bill when the Armed Forces Bill passes through the House. I know that the Minister is open to discussions about that, but I urge him to ensure that that happens, because without that, people will still be investigated; they will still go through the agony that this Bill was intended to stop. We all sympathised with that intention. It clearly will not be achieved in the Bill’s present form.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I also warmly welcome the further concession that the Minister has announced. The Bill will now exclude all the offences for which service personnel could be summoned before the International Criminal Court. That has now fixed the worst of the problems that many have been anxious about during debates on the Bill.
It would be helpful to understand why it has proved so hard for the Government to realise how awful what they were proposing was. No Minister wants to give armed forces carte blanche to commit torture, genocide and war crimes, and yet it has required the most extraordinary struggle to stop the Government doing exactly that. The noble Lord Robertson—I welcome the Minister’s tribute to him—introducing his amendment in the other place, said:
“Maybe after a lifetime in politics I was affected by some uncharacteristic naivety in thinking that the Government, faced by almost universal and expert opposition on this aspect of the Bill, would by now have changed their mind.” [Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 1190.]
Yet they ploughed on until yesterday. Perhaps it was indeed the change of Minister that averted disaster, and with others I congratulate him on his achievement in a short time, but if he can, in winding up, shed some further light on what on earth has been going on, the House would be grateful.
I strongly support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said on duty of care and investigations. I hope that we will come back to them soon if the duty of care amendment is lost this afternoon. I warmly welcome the progress on the Bill in the past few days and would be grateful for any light the Minister can shed on what has been going on.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Jim Shannon —Please resume your seat no later than 4.27 pm.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I echo the comments by others in relation to those who served in Northern Ireland and the protection that we need. The Minister has responded on that very positively, but we also need a timescale for that to happen.
In the short time that I have, I want to refer to the legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel who are involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations. I am aware of this because I am aware of a young fellow in my constituency who served overseas and fought with many demons in his own life. I am not blaming the MOD for it, but I ask the question: could we do more? Lords amendment 5B on the duty of care to service personnel could give them the level of care that is earned from putting the uniform on. Subsection (6) of the new clause inserted by the amendment states:
“In subsection (1) “duty of care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the wellbeing of service personnel.”
When it comes to mental health and the effects on people’s families and lives, our moral obligation should and must be to go the extra mile. That is why I support the premise of the amendment. It reminds us of our moral obligation, which is as important as our legal obligation, to those who serve in uniform.
A five-year programme of study has been carried out in tandem with Queen’s University. The results show—and I want to have this on the record, in Hansard—that more than a third of all military veterans in Northern Ireland are likely to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Those are the stats, according to this study. More than 1,300 veterans responded to the survey, with 36% reporting signs of PTSD and the same number reporting problems with alcohol.
We have many charities in Northern Ireland that help out. I think of Beyond the Battlefield, in particular, which reaches out to those whom other charities perhaps miss; that is not to take away from the importance of other charities. Some of those cases are incredibly complex, and there are lots of issues for not just the individuals but family members. We need to address the duty of care, both morally and legally.
This is not helped by the fact that those who served in Northern Ireland continue to see no movement. They seek protection, which is very important to have in place for those who served in Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister has given a commitment, but could he tell us where discussions are with the Secretary of State?
I usually say that I will not rehearse previous speeches, but this, I believe, bears repeating. Veterans who served in uniform and operated legally with honour, great courage and great fortitude deserve to be treated with equality. I say to the Government: please do the right thing and bring legislation on this issue forward in the Queen’s Speech in May. Let us show that our moral and legal obligation extends to those who have served on every occasion and from every region of this great nation of ours, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for all Members’ contributions. I thank the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for his constructive tone. I am happy to confirm that I will communicate to Justice Henriques the concerns that he has raised. Of course, it is an independent review, but we would be happy for Justice Henriques to consider those concerns within the scope of his review.
We heard contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I look forward to receiving the right hon. Gentleman’s letter, and I will give it due consideration and respond in due course. We also heard contributions from the hon. Members for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), as well as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart); I thank him for bringing his personal experience into the debate.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Returning to the question of Northern Ireland veterans, I would like to be clear. I mentioned earlier that Her Majesty’s Government intend to bring forward legislation in relation to Northern Ireland. The House will understand that I cannot comment on any ongoing legal matters, but I will give the reassurance that we are absolutely committed to delivering on our commitments to veterans of Op Banner as soon as possible.
In closing, I would like to put on record my sincere thanks to the Bill team, who have been first class throughout, and in particular to the Bill manager, Richard Hartell. It is to their great credit that we have brought the Bill to this point. If the House accepts the Government amendments in lieu and rejects Lords amendment 5B, the Bill will allow us to deliver on our manifesto commitment—our solemn pledge—to protect our armed forces personnel and our veterans and bring an end to the shameful cycle of vexatious legal claims brought against our finest asset: our people. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 1R but disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 1S, 1T and 1U.
Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords amendments 1S, 1T and 1U.
Government manuscript amendments (d) and (e) made.
After Clause 12
Duty of care to service personnel
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5B.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
Could those leaving do so carefully, without touching the Dispatch Boxes, as they have been sanitised during the Division? Will Ministers coming in do likewise?
Electricity
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I beg to move,
That the draft Warm Home Discount (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 3 March, be approved.
The House may be aware that in October 2020 the Government consulted on the proposed one-year extension of the warm home discount scheme. The changes proposed were broadly welcomed, and these regulations will implement them.
The Government are committed to alleviating fuel poverty. In the sustainable warmth strategy, published in February, the Government restated our commitment to our statutory target to upgrade as many fuel-poor homes as is reasonably practical to at least an energy efficiency rating of band C by the end of 2030. The best long-term solution is to improve the energy efficiency of a home, thereby bringing down the cost of heating it, but that takes time and some homes, especially those that are harder to treat, may be left behind.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for giving way so early. Are there any interim targets for upgrading homes to energy performance certificate band C? What is meant by practical, cost-effective and reasonable costs? Can those terms be defined, or are they left for others to judge?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
If the hon. Gentlemen waits, we may be able to provide him with some more information.
As well as reaching millions of people each year, energy bill rebates are simple to deliver and consumer friendly. The warm home discount is therefore a key policy in our policy mix to help alleviate fuel poverty. Since 2011, the warm home discount has helped more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households each year by reducing their energy bills at the time of year when that is most needed. Under the current scheme, around 1 million low-income pensioners in receipt of pension credit guarantee credit receive the £140 warm home discount as an automatic rebate on their energy bills, and more than 1.2 million low-income and vulnerable households receive the rebate following an application to their participating energy supplier.
Building on the success of the scheme, the energy White Paper committed to extending the scheme to at least 2025-26, expanding the overall spending envelope to £475 million a year from 2022 and consulting on reforms to improve the fuel poverty targeting weight. We intend to consult on the future scheme later this year.
Reforming the scheme has long lead times, however, and this winter I want to prioritise the safe and timely delivery of rebates to ensure that those in need continue to receive this vital support, particularly given the continuing impacts of covid-19. It is therefore important that minimal changes are made to the scheme for next winter. This will mean that the scheme will be worth £354 million and that eligible pensioners on pension credit guarantee credit, as well as eligible vulnerable households supported through the broader group, can continue to receive £140 off their energy bills.
We will also not be amending the current energy supplier participation thresholds, as any change now, with such limited time for implementation, could cause significant and potentially damaging administrative and financial challenges for smaller energy suppliers. We intend to review that for the future reform.
We are, however, making some improvements to the industry initiatives part of the scheme. That includes lifting the restriction on providing financial assistance under industry initiatives to those eligible for a rebate, which will create greater flexibility and help more people during the covid-19 pandemic. We will keep the current overall cap of £6 million for the energy debt write-off mechanism, but we will also introduce a new individual cap of £2,000, enabling support to reach a greater number of households in need.
We will additionally be making changes so that proposed industry initiatives and specified activities will ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that advice on the benefits of smart meters is provided to households benefiting from the industry initiative or specified activity. During the covid-19 pandemic, smart meters have been invaluable for energy consumers, allowing prepayment customers to top up remotely from home, while also enabling suppliers to offer timely support to vulnerable customers. We are also introducing greater consumer protections for boiler and central heating system installations and repairs carried out under the scheme.
Finally, we are proposing to make some further operational changes this year. That includes introducing a requirement for the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to inform the Secretary of State if an electricity supplier that becomes a supplier of last resort notifies the authority of its intention to meet all or part of a failed supplier’s non-core spending obligation. This additionally includes making changes to clarify the full extent of the small suppliers scheme obligations when it passes the relevant threshold and becomes newly subject to the non-core spending obligation.
To conclude, the regulations extend the warm home discount until March 2022, which will help more than 2.2 million households this coming winter. The regulations will provide vital support for low-income and vulnerable customers to keep warm this winter in advance of consulting on wider scheme reform from 2022. I commend the regulations to the House.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I welcome the statutory instrument this afternoon to extend the warm home discount for another year. Indeed, what is there not to like about extending the warm home discount for a further year at least? It has been a very successful scheme. It is now coming up to its 11th year, and, as the Minister has mentioned, it provides £140 guaranteed for those in fuel poverty and in vulnerable circumstances to help with their fuel bills.
I have a sense that the SI is a little Augustinian. It is a little, in the saying of St Augustine, “Oh Lord make me good, but not now.” [Interruption.] Sorry, “not yet”. I should look at my “Dictionary of Great Quotations” a little more assiduously.
The Minister has mentioned the suggestions in the energy White Paper about the future of the warm home discount and the proposals not only to continue it beyond next year but to at least 2026. However, that is not addressed in this particular piece of legislation today. I assume that is because, as the Minister said, consultations need to be undertaken in order to refashion the longer-term warm home discount into a slightly different form. Indeed, in the energy White Paper, there is mention of what might be in store for us as far as that refashioning is concerned. In particular, it includes an increase in the envelope so that there is a substantially larger amount of money in the pot for extending the scope of the warm home discount; an increase in the size of the rebate, with a suggestion that it goes to £150, rather than £140; and a consultation on a reform of the targeting of the warm home discount so that it faces rather more towards fuel poverty than is presently the case.
All those things appeared in the White Paper, albeit in a fairly sketchy form, but more than some of them could have been done earlier. They need not have been put off to next year. I assume that a further piece of secondary legislation will be introduced to extend the scheme beyond one year. By the way, it is important that we have some certainty about the longer-term arrangements for the warm home discount so that we are not constantly hopping from one year to the next; we must have a longer-term view of the future of the scheme.
Not only could some of the things signalled in the White Paper, but not detailed or actioned, have been brought forward and put in this year’s extension, but there are further problems with the warm home discount scheme—I think the Minister is well aware of them—that have not been addressed in this year’s suggested extension. It is certainly true that there are a number of welcome things in this SI that relate, for example, to the way that the supplier of last resort arrangements are dealt with. It provides more certainty that a failed supplier’s warm home discount obligations do not disappear with the failure of the supplier and are carried over to obligations going to the supplier that is taking over as the supplier as last resort.
That welcome enhancement of the scheme does not resolve one of the fundamental problems relating to obligated suppliers. The Minister mentioned that she does not wish to change the threshold for next year’s WHD arrangements, but I am sure she is aware that the obligation level leads to the continuing problem of what happens to someone’s entitlement to the warm home discount if they switch during the year from a supplier that is above the threshold to one that is below it. Although I accept that the threshold has been reduced, there is still an issue of the loss, potential or actual, of that entitlement to an obligation on switching. The customer, of course, does not know which supplier has 150,000 customers or fewer than 150,000 customers when they do that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings. I understand that the scheme the Minister is proposing is important for people who need to improve their homes. Does the shadow Minister believe that the funding is in place to ensure that the finance is there for all those who wish to have their homes brought up to a certain standard?
Dr Whitehead
Well, the finances are not there, in general terms. That is one thing mentioned again in the White Paper as an ambition, and the Minister has herself mentioned the ambition of essentially resolving fuel poverty by uprating the energy efficiency of homes up to 2035. Indeed, money has been committed both, I think, in the Conservative election manifesto and in the White Paper itself for that purpose. But actually we have not seen any of that yet, and I doubt we are going to see any of that for quite a long time to come.
The question of this continuing problem of entitlement to warm home discounts if a switch takes place is possibly exacerbated by the new provisions that have been put into the SI as we see it today. That is, of course, that it is not necessarily the case that a company that takes over as a supplier of last resort, when another company has failed, is always going to be a company with more than 150,000 customers. Under the new arrangements, the obligations could continue but then be dissolved by the fact that the new company taken on as a supplier of last resort is below that threshold level. I would suggest that that leads to a rather complicated outcome as far as entitlements are concerned.
I am particularly disappointed that no attempt was made to resolve this issue in this year’s extension, rather than batting it down the road to the extension for the future. I would hope the Minister can assure us this afternoon that she will certainly be very diligent in attempting to secure a solution to this particular problem when the new arrangements come in place up to 2026. I wonder whether the Minister could not just this year, simply by reducing the threshold to a de minimis level, have resolved the issue essentially for this year.
I am pleased to hear the Minister mention the continuation of the industry initiatives element of the warm home discount. She will know that that has led to a great deal of very solid and good assistance being given to people who are in receipt of the warm home discount for a range of issues relating to their pension and other tax credit entitlements, and perhaps their receipt of top-up vouchers and various other things. I take it from the Minister’s assurances that she has given us this afternoon that the industry initiatives will be fully retained in this year’s extension, and indeed that the industry initiatives arrangements will be rolled over into the warm home discount after 2026, as it goes forward.
The final thing I would ask the Minister to comment briefly on is the ambition in the White Paper proposals for the extension of the warm home discount to concentrate to a greater extent on fuel poverty as such in the delivery of the warm home discount. She will appreciate that a number of the people who receive warm home discounts will not qualify, as it were, particularly under the revised definition of fuel poverty that the Government have now indicated is to be the future benchmark for fuel poverty. Nevertheless, those people will be in great need of the warm home discount for the future. I would be grateful if the Minister could briefly inform us whether it is her intention to ensure that people who need the warm home discount but do not necessarily fit into the Government’s new definition of fuel poverty will actually be protected as the arrangements are put in place for ensuring a greater emphasis on fuel poverty for the future.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak on this important motion today. I do so not only as the Member for Delyn but as the chair of the all-party group on fuel poverty and energy efficiency. The motion that we are debating is one of the biggest steps that we can take towards tackling fuel poverty in our country and, as seems to be the case throughout the House, I wholeheartedly support it.
Fuel poverty is one of the most pressing issues of the 21st century, so I am proud to see that this Government are committed to doing all they can to make sure that every household is able to afford to properly heat their home. While it is positive that fuel poverty rates have fallen in recent years—around 12% of households in Wales are now classed as fuel-poor—there is still much more to be done. But with definitions and methodologies being different in all four constituent parts of the UK, it is impossible to compare which measures have been most successful in driving down those rates. One of the things that my APPG will look into is whether we can get a UK-wide agreement on a single definition of fuel poverty, so that we can get a real understanding of the depth of the issue and the disparities between different parts of the country.
Although I am pleased to see the UK Government’s ambitious plans to tackle fuel poverty, whether that is through financial support or improving the energy efficiency of homes, as a Welsh MP, I find myself once again a little disappointed by the lack of action from the Labour Government in Wales. The Welsh Government have proved once again to be all talk and no action, with Welsh Labour setting targets to eradicate fuel poverty in Wales by 2010, then again by 2012, and then again by 2018. Sadly, they have failed to meet this target time and again, not even coming close. It is the most vulnerable households in Delyn and across Wales who will ultimately pay the price for those failings. However, with covid causing further strain on household finances, I am glad to see the UK Government go beyond setting arbitrary targets and look instead to provide real support and solutions for those who need them most. Schemes such as the warm home discount, which are available to households in Wales and throughout Britain, are more important than ever and are a lifeline for many over the winter months.
Alan Brown
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that, if someone is fuel-poor, the reality is that they probably live in a household where they are poor anyway. They are living in poverty and one of the causes of poverty is the reduction in welfare and benefits, which is clearly reserved to Westminster. Does he acknowledge that that is a problem? Also, has his APPG looked at investment in energy efficiency in Scotland, where it is four times per capita that of Westminster?
Rob Roberts
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which kind of highlights one of the issues that I mentioned, which is the disparity in the definitions of what fuel poverty actually means in each of the four constituent parts. I mentioned that 12% of households in Wales are classed as fuel-poor. Although I did not note it down, I believe that the percentage in Scotland was 24%, so I am not entirely sure that trumpeting the successes of the Scottish Government would be a good thing in that case.
Quite simply, with over 2.2 million low-income and vulnerable households in Britain benefiting from the scheme each year, it is the correct and best decision to extend it for a further 12 months, but increasing the overall spending target of the scheme to £354 million will see even more households able to access the support that they need. Following proper consultation, I also welcome the changes that the Government are bringing in, which will broaden the reach of the scheme and give energy companies more flexibility, making it easier for households to participate in the scheme.
From increasing consumer protection during boiler and central heating installation and repairs to removing the restriction on energy suppliers that prevents them from providing emergency support on top of the scheme, all these small changes will make a huge difference to those who benefit from it. Although there is room to improve the scheme, I am enthused to hear that the Government have considered the importance of the industry initiatives element when looking at the future of the scheme. But it is vital that we pass these regulations now; otherwise, millions of households who are struggling due to the pandemic would be put in an even more challenging situation. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), the Opposition Front Bencher, on seeking more long-term clarity, rather than continued short-term measures.
I thank everyone who has put in to speak today on this important matter and welcome them all to attend our next APPG meeting towards the end of May. We will continue to work with the Government and discuss ways to improve domestic energy efficiency, to achieve affordable warmth for all homes and to eventually and finally eradicate fuel poverty. Heating a home should never be a luxury; it is always a necessity. Today’s motion and ones like it recognise the need among the most vulnerable households in our communities and ensure that they can live comfortably, secure in the knowledge that they are able to get assistance in properly heating their homes. I hope that the measures are supported on both sides of the House.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Obviously, I welcome any moves to alleviate fuel poverty. The Scottish Government have provided a legislative consent motion for the draft regulations, so clearly I will not vote against them. However, the reality is that, although we welcome the measures and, as the shadow Minister said, the warm homes discount scheme has been a success, in many ways, it is a typical Tory trick, because it uses energy companies themselves and other bill payers to provide assistance to the most vulnerable. The reality is that we need much more direct UK Government investment, particularly in energy efficiency.
Recent schemes that were supposed to help with energy efficiency include the failed green deal scheme. The UK Government still have not provided compensation for those who were mis-sold green deal installations. We have just seen the failure of the green homes grant scheme. It is ridiculous that the UK Government pulled the money because the scheme was deemed to be too slow at helping people. Long-term funding is required to allow businesses to invest and to prepare for a pipeline of work, rather than the boom-and-bust cycles that we have at the moment.
Fuel poverty is a scourge of society, with something like 3.5 million homes considered to be in fuel poverty in 2018. It is known that the problem has increased in the past year due to the pandemic and people losing employment; yet the figures in paragraph 7.5 of the explanatory memorandum show only an inflationary increase to the funding available through the scheme. I therefore ask the Minister how many additional households she thinks require further support to alleviate fuel poverty, and how many will miss out because of that standing-still approach to the funding pot.
The Minister touched on the fact that imposing a cap of £2,000 for debt assistance will allow more people to be helped, so how many more people will be helped and how many people were previously helped at debt levels over £2,000 who will still have debt, even if they get assistance through the scheme? What is her response to the Committee on Fuel Poverty, which says that only 15% of the UK Government spend on fuel poverty actually reaches the fuel-poor? Will she listen to recommendations from industry, the third sector and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee about investing directly in energy-efficiency measures and following the lead of the Scottish Government in terms of per capita investment, which, as I have said, is four times that of Westminster.
Will the Government consider that the Scottish Government are treating energy efficiency as a national infrastructure project, and when will we see proper joined-up policies looking at the long term? Will the Minister consider the call from the Environmental Audit Committee to reduce VAT on the refurbishment of energy efficiency installations in existing homes?
Paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum states that the Energy White Paper commits
“to all homes to reach EPC C standard by 2035”,
so as per my earlier intervention I am hoping that the Minister can clarify what “practical, cost-effective and affordable” means, and whether the Government will set that out. Paragraph 7.7 details that the funding envelope will rise to £475 million in 2022, from £354 million this year. Obviously, additional support for the fuel-poor is welcome, but on what basis has the additional £121 million been identified? How can a figure be derived when the same paragraph—7.7—states that there needs to be a consultation on scheme reform to better target fuel poverty? Surely good governance is about identifying a need and then identifying strategies and solutions to meet that need, rather than coming up with a figure and trying to work backwards to find a solution that meets the figure.
What will that £475 million look like for the average bill payer? Between the warm homes discount, contracts for difference, smart meters and other initiatives, what does it all mean for bill payers such as the previously fabled “just about managing”? Many people are struggling and the reality is that the more that gets lumped on energy bills, the more difficult it becomes for them to afford their heating.
Is the increased funding and consultation an admission that the current scheme is not hitting the right number of people, or the correct fuel-poor households? Paragraph 7.6 outlines that
“installations or repairs of boilers and central heating systems”
are required to be done through companies under the TrustMark scheme. I give a cautious welcome to that as well, but I would like to double check how reliable the scheme is, and what BEIS’s governance protocols are on it. I have already highlighted the green deal fiasco, where accreditation was far too easy for unscrupulous companies. I also have constituents who have been ripped off by installers of biomass boilers. Again, those installers were Government-approved contractors. I would just like to double check that the TrustMark scheme is fit for purpose and that the Minister makes sure that it has suitable overarching governance.
To return to fuel poverty and its effects, which is a reminder of why we need more action, roughly 3.5 million homes are fuel-poor. National Energy Action estimates that cold homes contribute to more than 30,000 winter deaths. Fuel poverty has been estimated to cost the NHS across the UK £2.5 billion, with ailments and conditions worsened by cold or damp houses. This is against the backdrop of the need to move away from fossil fuel heating.
I am on the BEIS Committee and we are undertaking a heat decarbonisation inquiry at the moment. We have heard that the overall install cost of a heat pump system is roughly £15,000. What are the Government’s plans to go from 20,000 installs per year to 600,000 per annum in 2028? How will that be paid for? It cannot just be put on the bills of the average bill payer yet again. Some direct Government investment is going to be required.
I implore the Minister to again look at some examples in Scotland. The provision of an independent advice body, Home Energy Scotland, has been welcomed by third sector organisations across the UK. They would like to see Westminster replicate such an independent body to provide free and impartial advice on modifications to the property, how to switch and to help people to make the correct decisions on how to manage their heating systems.
The Scottish Government also run an award-winning national fuel poverty scheme, Warmer Homes Scotland. Households assisted through that are expected to save an average of £325 in their bills. That is quite significant compared with the £140 warm homes discount rebate that the SI provides.
The SNP has pledged to replace the unreliable £25 cold winter payment with an annual £50 winter heating payment, which will cover 400,000 low-income households. Will the Minister look at that in the round, from a Westminster perspective? The SNP has also pledged that, if re-elected, it will introduce a £20 per week child payment, which is clearly going to help families, which then helps to alleviate fuel poverty.
I conclude with a cautious welcome, but really, more direct Government intervention is required if we are going to eliminate fuel poverty.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
Having spoken in the Chamber 21 years ago about the need to reduce fuel poverty, when I got my name on the statute book for introducing the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000—I hope that does not sound too puffed-up, Mr Deputy Speaker—I am delighted with the Government’s improvements to that legislation, which was the first piece of legislation obliging the Government to design and implement a strategy to limit fuel poverty in this country.
According to the most recent annual fuel poverty statistics published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, 13.4% of households were in fuel poverty in England in 2019, compared with 15% in 2018. Although progress has been made, which I welcome, our work needs to continue. We need to take every measure to raise public awareness about the various help options available, both from the Government and from energy providers.
I very much support an extension to the warm homes discount scheme, as it has been described as a winter lifeline by many of my constituents. At a time of financial uncertainty, many residents in Southend have relied on Government support to pay their bills during the coronavirus pandemic. If the warm homes discount scheme were not to be extended, many of the most vulnerable households would be forced to live in unsafe conditions, which would severely affect their mental and physical health, with the potential for long-lasting irreversible health effects. Fuel poverty is a real concern for many households in the United Kingdom as individuals live from day to day relying on every pay cheque to buy food, care for their children and pay their utility bills. This scheme should be extended for at least a year, but preferably at least until 2026 as set out by the Government in their energy White Paper.
I am sure that colleagues will have received emails similar to the ones I have received from worried constituents. In Southend, I have constituents who have been made redundant because of the pandemic and have been forced to claim universal credit but are still struggling to pay their bills because they have children and grandchildren who rely on them financially. These individuals need urgent support. The Government’s policy on social housing needs to be developed further. I hope the Government aim to require social landlords to bring their properties up to at least EPC band C, as social housing is Government-funded and so should lead the way in terms of energy efficiency.
I welcome the extension of the green homes grant, but further support should be given to individuals living in older houses that need remodelling as we transition to net zero by 2050. I hope that the Government will continue to work closely with energy suppliers to make utility bills more affordable for those struggling financially.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank hon. Members for their valuable and insightful contributions to this debate. I will do my best to answer their questions but, as ever, if I fail to do so, my team will make sure that we get back to everyone in due course.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) highlighted some of the issues. To reassure him, the reforms will indeed target those most likely to be in fuel poverty as well as protecting the most vulnerable current recipients. He is right that consultation is required, but we felt that the pandemic pressures last year made that inappropriate and incredibly difficult, which is why we are rolling it forward for this year and will bring these consultations into action as quickly as possible. We absolutely recognise the value of industry initiatives, which is why we have expanded their potential use. The reform consultations later this year will include industry initiatives. I hope that reassures him on that front.
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) raised the really important and genuine challenge that we should try to find a UK-wide definition of fuel poverty. I take on board those things. I have regular meetings with the devolved Administrations on a number of issues, and I will put that on the agenda, because—he is not wrong—trying to think holistically is a really important challenge for this Government. I do not guarantee that I will find an answer immediately, but I absolutely take up the challenge of extending those discussions.
In response to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), we do have, as he asked, interim milestones in the fuel poverty strategy of fuel-poor households reaching an energy efficiency rating of band E by 2020 and band D by 2025. Achieving that is indeed a great challenge. However, investment in the local authority schemes element of the green homes grant scheme has increased by £300 million. We have already allocated £500 million across English regions, reaching 50,000 homes, and that will continue to roll out. This is absolutely targeted at reaching the most vulnerable households. Local authorities are making really good use of the fund and getting on with making these really important efficiency adaptations for those of our constituents who are most in need of it.
Turning to the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess)—his early leadership on this should absolutely be celebrated. I have learned in my short time in this place that if you do not celebrate your achievements, no one else might do it, so I absolutely support his willingness to share. I did not know about that, so it is lovely to discover it. I very much hope that we will continue to reassure his constituents of our commitment, through both this SI and the forthcoming reforms, to really hone this and try to improve its reach even further. He will no doubt be waiting with bated breath for the heat and buildings strategy, which we will be publishing very soon—I would like to say imminently, but it is always hard to know just how clear one can be. Let us go with that. I hope that that will give him a clearer picture of the work we want to do to make sure we crack the efficiency challenge, which accounts for nearly 20% of our carbon emissions, so we have to find ways. It is complicated, with 50 million homes that are built in different ways. It is a huge challenge that we all have to undertake.
In the short term, we have heard from colleagues across the House about the importance of extending the warm home discount scheme that we are here to put through today for a further year. The financial situation that covid-19 has posed for households across the country in the past year has been challenging to say the least, but particularly so for low-income and vulnerable households.
Alan Brown
Will the Minister be able to clarify how the £475 million figure was derived? That is an increase of £121 million, which is an increase of almost a third. I am just curious about the workings that said £354 million this year is okay, but we need a massive increase the year after.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I will make sure we give him the detail of the figures in due course.
I am really pleased that there is agreement across the House that low-income and vulnerable households should continue to receive the valuable support provided by the warm home discount at a time when they most need it. Over the 10 years of the discount scheme so far, more than £3 billion in direct assistance has been provided to low-income and vulnerable households.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister very much for giving way. I detect that she may be coming towards the end of her comments. I wonder if she might pause to reflect briefly on the whole question of thresholds and obligations, and how they might work out over the next year, particularly with the new scheme as it comes forward after her proposed consultation period.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I fear the hon. Gentleman may have to wait for our consultation to consider that, but I absolutely hear his point and reassure him that we will be looking at that in the round. I think we will have capacity. It is so important that we get to grips now, at the start of this really big challenge on buildings efficiency, and think in the round to help those most vulnerable households, and ensure we are as effective as we can be with taxpayers’ money and as impactful as we can be for each and every one of those homes regardless of their situation. I hope he will be reassured, as the consultation gets going, that we will look at that across the board.
The regulations will enable the continuation of support for a further winter. One million of our poorest pensioners and a further 1.2 million households in or at risk of fuel poverty will continue to receive £140 off their bills. I encourage all Members to continue to use the messaging—I am happy to share the detail with them—to reach out to their constituents who might be eligible for pension credit but have not applied for it. We want to ensure that people apply for it. The numbers are lower than we think they should be, so I encourage all colleagues to ensure that all their constituents who are eligible receive it.
As we outlined in the energy White Paper, beyond this extension we are committed to extending the scheme from 2022 until at least 2025-26, and to expanding the spending envelope to £475 million to enable us to reach a further 750,000 households, while consulting on reform of the scheme to better target fuel poverty spending. We intend to consult on the scheme beyond 2022 later this year. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will now suspend for three minutes in order to clean the Dispatch Boxes. Please leave carefully.
Exiting the European Union (Animals)
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Trade and Official Controls (Transitional Arrangements for Prior Notifications) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 429), dated 30 March 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31 March, be approved.
It is a great pleasure to be here and to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. This instrument makes urgent and necessary amendments to EU exit legislation concerning border controls to extend the exemption period for the import requirements for plants, animals and their products coming into Great Britain from the EU. Now that we have left the EU, we are bringing in measures to apply the same risk-based biosecurity controls regime to the EU as that which we have for the rest of the world. In our exit regulations, we set out a transitional period for the introduction of controls on EU sanitary and phytosanitary imports. The reason for changing the timescale in the statutory instrument today is simply that we recognise the effects of the pandemic and the effects it continues to have on the business community. Phasing the introduction of controls in a sensible way prioritises flow at the border and is designed to minimise disruption to international trade. The original start date in the regulations was 1 April 2021. That date was announced last June. When the regulations were drafted in the autumn of 2020, we were simply not clear about how disruptive the pandemic would continue to be to all of us and to our business communities, both here and in the EU, over the winter.
On 11 March 2021, the XO Cabinet Committee agreed that we should extend the introduction of checks because of the pandemic. The change to the timetable will enable businesses to familiarise themselves with the new SPS requirements and to bring in new IT systems. It will allow them to do further work on the necessary infrastructure and processes at border control posts. We will in due course introduce a further instrument to reset the later phases of import controls and get the right dates there, too.
As a whole, these regulations will ensure that we can continue to deliver robust, effective controls and checks on all food, animal and plant imports. The devolved Administrations have given their consent for these regulations to apply to the whole of Great Britain, and we also remain fully committed to WTO rules and, of course, to our international trade obligations. This instrument ensures that legislation to maintain our UK biosecurity will continue to function in GB, taking into account the full and unforeseen impacts of dealing nationally and internationally with the pandemic. With this legislation, we will continue to deliver an effective import system that guarantees high standards of food and animal safety while ensuring frictionless trading and movements. I commend these regulations to the House.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Well, here we are again, perhaps unsurprisingly, with yet more statutory instruments needed to correct the entirely foreseeable problems created by the Prime Minister’s rushed job over Christmas, the consequences of which I fear will be with us for some time. Let me start by saying that we will not be opposing this SI. It has, after all, been in effect for nearly a month, and we acknowledge that it had to be done, because quite simply, the processes that needed to be in place, whether physical or information technology, were not there. The Government simply were not ready, so now they have come back asking for more time —well, not really asking, but telling—even though they promised in early discussions that they would be ready.
I am sure the Minister remembers, in introducing SI 2020/1631 on 20 January, saying:
“ From July this year, we will have controls in place for all imports of EU SPS goods.”—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 20 January 2021; c. 4.]
Today, the Government tell us that we will not have such controls, in most situations, until next year. They cannot say that they were not warned; I had previously warned them about this. The following week, in a debate on another of our sequence of SIs, 2020/1661, I said:
“My fear is that there will be a lot of bridging in the months and years ahead”.—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 25 January 2021; c. 5.]
And here we are, exactly as predicted. Going back to that first discussion on 20 January, I recall pressing the Minister quite directly on the potential for delay, and particularly on the likelihood of border control posts being ready. I am sure she remembers. She told us:
“The Animal and Plant Health Agency tells us that the building is progressing and it is confident that they can be ready by July.”—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 20 January 2021; c. 8.]
I entirely understand the problems of the coronavirus epidemic, but this was at a time when I think we could have been aware of the potential problems.
It is therefore reasonable for us to be slightly sceptical about the current promises from DEFRA in response to a query from the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to which I am sure we are all very grateful. The Committee was told by the Department that it expected the
“infrastructure to be ready as required to deliver each of the revised phases of increased SPS checks in October 2021, January 2022, and March 2022.”
Well, let us hope so, but I have to say that the saga of the row over the border control posts in Portsmouth bodes ill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) for his campaigning to get a fair deal for Portsmouth on this issue.
Sadly, it is not just the physical buildings that are late. The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also rightly queried the readiness of the IT systems. It was told by DEFRA that the import of products, animals, food and feed system—IPAFFS—is working for imports and that the Department
“continues the development of the new exports IT system (formal name to be confirmed in due course).”
As a former IT person, that did not fill me with confidence. I suspect that staff trying to deal with these things may have a few suggestions for names for the aforesaid system.
Even more alarmingly, the Department cites working with a small group of used agricultural farm machinery exporters to develop the system. That is an important sector, but I am not sure that it is entirely typical. The Minister may have seen the recent story in Farmers Weekly about an East Sussex machinery dealer who has stopped shipping abroad because of what he describes as the “lunacy” involved in obtaining the plant health certificates required since the UK left the European Union. Let us hope that the team working on the computer system and their colleagues can make things work more smoothly for him and others. Will both the physical border control posts and the necessary IT systems be ready this time, or will we be back here again having yet another discussion on further extensions?
Although at first the SI looks deceptively simple, making a few date changes, there is more to it than that. A much longer transition period has consequences, and as businesses change their practices to adapt, there may be real costs and risks. Can the Minister tell me what analysis has been made of the potential for smugglers and fraudsters to take advantage of the lack of checks for an even longer period? Frankly, it is an open door. It has even been suggested to me that goods coming into the EU bound for the UK are being waved through because it is no longer of consequence to the EU. If we are not checking either, who knows what is actually coming in? What safeguards are there?
While extending the time kicks the problem further down the road, what progress is the Minister making on encouraging the EU to be ready in time, to ensure that the imports we need will be able to flow smoothly? We are well aware of the problems that UK producers have encountered with exports into the EU—the extra costs for export health certificates, the pressure on availability of vets and the problems with groupage. It is highly likely that the same problems will occur the other way, with European suppliers perhaps having less pressure to get things in place, being able to turn to other European markets. How is the Minister using the extra time secured by this SI to ensure that the problems we may have been facing in a few weeks are not just put off for a few more months?
Given that we may still face problems with supply, can the Minister explain why the Food Resilience Industry Forum has been shut down? A member of the forum quoted recently in The Grocer says:
“Government has kicked the can down the road with various grace periods which will come to an end, and at that point there will be a greater need than ever for the industry to come together with Defra. It’s short-sighted of the government to be cutting these meetings short.”
They are spot on. That is the consequence of this statutory instrument. Can the Minister explain why this decision was taken and what the Government have got against working with the food sector to keep food supplies secure?
The SI changes some dates, but there are wider consequences. After difficulties at the border for British food exporters, with meat left rotting in lorries and the fishing industry thrown into chaos, the Government have now been forced to delay import checks on goods coming in from the EU to allow businesses and port authorities more time to prepare. The Government have left themselves with no alternative but to continue to allow check-free imports for many more months, but it did not have to be this way.
Instead of sticking their head in the sand, the Government could have worked with industry to get ready. They could have focused on practical action to support businesses—measures such as recruiting and training the 50,000-plus customs agents we knew were needed to help with checks. Instead of delivering a limited deal at the last possible minute, they could have rolled their sleeves up and gained more for our country around the negotiating table. Due to the Government’s last-minute scramble to extend the deadline on import checks, this legislation had to be made so hastily that it has been left incomplete. As I think the Minister confirmed, yet more SIs will inevitably be needed to implement fully the planned timetable for import checks.
Labour has a very different vision for a post-Brexit Britain. We want businesses to thrive and for the gaps in the deal that are piling up paperwork and red tape to be properly addressed. We want an end to these stopgaps and real engagement with our European neighbours, to ensure that our complex and interrelated food systems can operate effectively and efficiently and not be undermined by Government incompetence, which risks disadvantaging UK producers.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Representing Dover as I do, I am delighted that we left the European Union at the end of last year, and that we have a new relationship with Europe and the rest of the world. That new relationship has brought with it an opportunity for us to make progress on issues that matter to us on which we have been held back by the EU, including animal welfare and food standards, to which I know the Minister is personally very committed. I welcome the Government’s commitment to banning live animal exports for fattening and slaughter. It is a disgusting practice that has been driven from Dover. I look forward to the legislation later this year, so that it can never return.
Except for the Christmas shenanigans by the French, the post-Brexit traffic plans have operated well. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), and the Secretary of State for Transport for their hard work to keep Dover clear. However, four months after leaving the EU and six months after it was announced, the planned new border facility for Dover at the White Cliffs site is still waiting for the go-ahead. The site is designated to support the new DEFRA checking regime for animals, food and plant health, of which today’s regulations form an important part.
Last year, after extensive consideration of all available local sites, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary confirmed that the White Cliffs site was the only viable solution. The site has been six months in development since it was chosen and will bring millions of pounds of local investment, hundreds of jobs, a local employment strategy and so much more besides, but it will also take time to build.
The other local border control site is at Ashford, and it was not delivered on time. It is also close to road-bearing capacity—what it alone can support from the tens of thousands of trucks that pass through the border. Will the Minister take steps to support more urgent progress on the White Cliffs site following the purdah period for the current local elections? The White Cliffs site needs to be confirmed and started promptly so that it is ready to carry out the Department’s new inspection regime.
In addition to delays on the border sites, there have been significant delays in other post-Brexit implementation, including the arrangements for physical border control changes required as part of the Le Touquet juxtaposed controls in the port of Dover itself. Order at the border is vital for trade and prosperity, security and biosecurity. Strong borders make for good trading neighbours. It is therefore important that the timetables and action for strong and effective border controls do not slip further.
Lessons from France, which is already undertaking animal checks, show that they are more complicated in practice than was originally anticipated. I am aware that channel operators have been supporting the roll-out of these new requirements—for example, with language and other support. The UK responded fantastically in standing up multilingual facilities at short notice to assist with border preparations for transition day. These are the sorts of practical facilities that we need in place very shortly to support the changes for checking animals, foods and plants.
In addition to border controls, there are legal frameworks that need completion—for example, around border health control responsibilities. Dover District Council is the competent authority for the purposes of border health checks for both Eurotunnel and the port of Dover, yet it and nearby Ashford Borough Council are awaiting the legal framework to underpin the split of responsibilities between them for the new border control arrangements. Although the authorities work collaboratively and effectively together, it is an unsatisfactory position. Will the Minister’s Department look into this as a matter of urgency?
From time to time, there is disruption at the port. It can be caused by national security or terrorism-related issues, strikes, weather or, more recently, unilateral border closure or other activity by the French. In recent weeks, we have seen the standing down of the emergency traffic framework at Manston and the Operation Brock moveable barrier. However, there is no new framework for permanent additional lorry parks or alternative emergency provision for this next stage post transition.
We have seen at first hand the devastation to the fish and farming industries when problems occur at the border, with fish and seafood rotting in traffic queues and concerns for animal welfare, as well as for drivers.
The port of Dover is the busiest and most successful port of its type in the country. In an ordinary year, the port of Dover deals with £122 billion-worth of trade, about a fifth of the whole of the UK trade in goods, transiting 4.5 million vehicles and 11 million passengers. Daily, that is up to 10,000 freight vehicles and up to 90,000 passengers.
The importance of the short straits route is unquestionable, as is the need to get the border facilities for such a busy and vital route for our nation up and running swiftly. That is why I urge the Minister to ensure that the additional border facilities needed to manage the biosecurity trade and enhanced animal welfare provision at the White Cliffs site are confirmed and delivered at pace, together with effective road management schemes that keep Dover clear and keep animals, plants and food moving freely through the channel ports.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
Here we are again, coming up to five years since that referendum in which England decided to take us out of the EU, and still those behind that hare-brained scheme cannot settle on what needs to be done. There has been a veritable catalogue of failures along the way, passing by the truly awful performances in negotiations, the collapse of exporting industries in the early part of this year—teething problems, the Minister said—and the truly appalling way in which EU citizens have been treated by this Tory Government.
So here we are once again spending time on regulations to facilitate Brexit. How long have we spent having to discuss, adjust, finesse and rehash regulations for what was supposed to be the easiest trade deal in history? Today, we are kicking the import regulations down the road a little and I am sure that we will be back later to sort something else out and something else after that.
The SNP will not oppose these regulations today; they are necessary to keep the food on supermarket shelves here, because the Government failed to plan for Brexit. It is almost as if they did not understand what was coming, because the provisions for running a sensible import system are as lacking as this Government’s provisions for running a sensible export system. I have no doubt that Brexit will continue to harm businesses the length and breadth of the UK: small exporters are being crushed; farmers are feeling the pressure; and fisher folk are watching their communities being placed under huge strain. In the meantime, UK Ministers will be trumpeting the great achievement of signing trade deals with countries in various parts of the world—trade deals that will have no measurable impact on GDP or the economy here.
Scotland will soon be out of this Union and we will leave behind those who would cause self-damage for the sake of some forlorn idea of sovereign superiority, and I have to say that I am impatient to see that day.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, as it always is to speak in the Chamber whenever the occasion arises. I thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate so far. I spoke to the Minister beforehand, so I think that she has an idea of where I am coming from. Hopefully, she will be able to give me some idea about what we can do.
The explanatory notes say:
“The regulations are made in exercise of the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in order to address failures of retained EU law to operate effectively and other deficiencies (in particular under section 8(2)(d)) arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) is in her place. She is our spokesperson on Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs issues, so she will know only too well what I am about to say. The legislation has created chaos for the movement of animals from the UK to Northern Ireland and from Northern Ireland to the UK. The Minister can be under no illusion as to the questions that I will raise today. Why is this extension needed at all? Why have the discussions not enabled things to run smoothly, as promised? Most pertinently, why has Northern Ireland been—I use this word deliberately—abandoned yet again? To use a term that we use many times in this House, this SI will not cut the mustard with those in Northern Ireland who are unable to purchase dog food, to bring their dog to the UK mainland for a staycation and to be and feel part of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Over the past months, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann and I have been contacted by literally hundreds of constituents who travel—some weekly, some monthly—to dog shows and events both on the UK mainland and in Northern Ireland. They were okay doing it before 31 December 2020, but they were unable to do it in the same way on 1 January 2021. The cost for each journey has basically meant that show-dog owners have had their leisure and, for some, their jobs changed forever. The cost to attend a show or event across the water has sometimes added £200 to the cost of a journey. Many, although not all, the people involved are of a pensionable age and the cost was horrendous for them. It basically meant that they were not able to do it. It has changed their leisure activities forever.
I am not sure whether the Minister knows about this incredible case. Back in February time, four ponies were coming over from the mainland but were detained in custody at the port for five weeks, while my constituents in Ballygowan were unable to get their ponies for their children. It really was quite incredible.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My hon. Friend is making the valid point that it is the Northern Ireland protocol that is causing these difficulties. Does he agree that the Government need to realise that the protocol needs to go so that such ludicrous situations and the distress caused to the animals and owners can be avoided?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do; indeed, I wish to make that very point in the conclusion of my contribution. How ludicrous was it? There were four ponies for two ladies in Ballygowan in my constituency of Strangford, but they found that the presents for their children—the ponies—could not be delivered not only before the birthday but for five weeks afterwards. Just last weekend, those four ponies made the great escape and managed to get out of EU custody and make it all the way to Ballygowan. That underlines clearly the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol that my hon. Friend referred to.
The regulations do not do what they purport to do—they do not address the withdrawal issue—so I ask again that instead of this SI we trigger article 16 and secure trade for the entire UK. The time is more than past and words and action have to mean something. We should trigger the article and secure trade beyond July, December or, indeed, whatever date. We in Northern Ireland need to be treated the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. The Minister has always been very helpful when we have asked her to do anything; I hope she has the answer. There is no pressure on her whatsoever.
Victoria Prentis
I thank all those who have taken part in the debate.
Last June, we announced a timetable for the introduction of controls on imports from the EU into Great Britain. The introduction was phased to ensure that businesses would have time to prepare. Hindsight is a wonderful thing: I for one could certainly not have predicted, last June, the full effects of the pandemic. In fact, I am sure I am not in a position to do so today. It is important to recognise the scale and significance of simultaneous challenges: new controls and the pandemic’s extended economic and personal disruption. We have listened to the concerns of businesses, which have worked hard to be ready as soon as possible but still need more time to prepare. I will not apologise for making sensible and business-friendly decisions. We will continue to keep the House fully informed as we go, but we live in extremely unusual times and it is important that we adapt to them appropriately.
As I outlined in my opening speech, this instrument is a critical component in our ongoing legislative process to ensure a robust biosecurity imports regime now that the transition period has ended. It delivers the first stage of the Government’s assessment of our need for a pragmatic process to continue to phase in controls on imports in a manner and to a timescale that can reasonably be met by importers and others in the trading sector.
There are no biosecurity risks from this delay. Current EU biosecurity standards are essentially the same as our own, and where that is not the case—for example, with certain plants—we have already delivered more robust controls that remain in place. We will continue to enforce full customs procedures for controlled goods such as tobacco and alcohol, and we will still impose controls on traders we deem to be high risk. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) that we continue to intercept illegal movements using intelligence-led operations. If there is a difference, it is that we can be more targeted in our approach, because we are now able to focus specifically on risks to GB, rather than the EU as a whole.
We continue to provide support to help businesses get ready, both here and in the EU. On the fifth point raised by the hon. Gentleman, as we move out of lockdown, we are looking for more suitable forums to engage with industry, which we do on a regular, day in, day out basis. I spent a very useful hour at lunchtime chairing a discussion with the Food and Drink Federation, and there are many such contacts between DEFRA officials and business all the time.
We ran an extensive communications campaign, provided one-to-one support to some of the largest traders, hosted webinars for thousands of small businesses, and provided £84 million directly to expand the customs intermediary market. DEFRA has put in place a movement assistance scheme to support and assist traders moving plants and products, and making agri-food movements, from GB to NI since 1 January. The aim of that is to increase understanding and preparedness by providing a helpline that traders can use to seek guidance on moving goods, as well as providing financial support by reimbursing some certification costs associated with those movements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) made her points very powerfully. It was useful to have direct and real experience from the port of Dover reflected in our debate. I listened with interest to what she said about live exports, and I very much look forward to hearing news about that in the very short term. The Government are determined to legislate in that space.
There has been a review led by the Cabinet Office of the inland facility at White Cliffs, and I understand that the decision will go to the XO Cabinet Committee—the EU Exit Operations Committee—very shortly. I understand that my hon. Friend has had useful discussions with colleagues today and has been able to make her points powerfully to them. Until then, no decision will be taken, but I reassure her that she will be kept fully informed throughout the decision-making process.
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always speaks passionately on farming and animal-related matters, that the responsibility for appointing the appropriate vets is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, but we continue to work very closely with the devolved Administrations. As we work to get ready for January 2022, we will work directly with the ports where we have residual concerns about readiness. We will always ensure that any response that we come up with is one that can be brought into operation effectively. I would also like to reassure all those who mentioned this that we continue to work very closely with the EU to resolve outstanding matters, and that process will in the end, I hope, lead to fewer rather than more checks as we move forward with this new regime.
We have had a constructive and useful debate today, and I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
18:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 431 / Noes: 89 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Dog attacks
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
Many of my constituents have been in touch concerning dog-on-dog attacks, and more than 150,000 people have signed the petition launched by my constituent, Emma Gambrill. I therefore present this petition on behalf of my constituent Emma, and note that this petition goes alongside her online campaign.
The petition states:
The petition of Emma Gambrill,
Declares that current legislation in the form of the Dogs Act 1871 and Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 does not account for dog-on-dog attacks where the dogs behave dangerously and are clearly out of control of irresponsible owners; further that this means that owners of dangerous dogs do not face robust action when their dogs attack other dogs; further that this problem was recently horribly highlighted in the case of Enfield North constituent Emma Gambrill’s dog, where her beautiful border collie, Blue, was attacked and mauled to death by two Cane Corso dogs that escaped from their garden, and where the owners who were present in their garden and were witness to the event were unable to control their dogs; and further that attacks such as this leave owners and families distraught and traumatised.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to review the Dogs Act 1871 and Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, to set out whether this problem could be addressed by making dog-on-dog attacks a criminal offence, and to ensure that irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs face more robust action.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002661]
Alcohol Products: Labelling
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing me this Adjournment debate, and I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister, whose reply I look forward to. Earlier this month, the details of the upcoming Government consultation on alcohol labelling—part of the obesity strategy—were leaked to the press. It is a long-overdue consultation and a welcome positive step that should lead to consumers being able to make more informed choices about their own health and wellbeing, but thanks to yet another hostile Government leak, the consultation was roundly attacked and misrepresented by tabloids and industry representatives. It sparked the usual outraged backlash against the nannying state and red tape, when that is simply not the case. I thought I would attempt to put the record straight.
To avoid confusion or misrepresentation, I whole-heartedly support our hospitality industry, and I understand the uphill battle it faces and the devastation that lockdowns and restrictions have caused. There is excitement and anticipation across the country about getting out, socialising, having a drink, seeing live music and enjoying life. We have all missed spending time with family and friends, whether that is relaxing and unwinding or going out and partying.
When we consider the role of alcohol in our society, we see that there is a balance to be struck. As with many things in life, there is the good and there is the bad, because we cannot escape the very real harm alcohol inflicts. The evidence, which I will come to, speaks for itself. Tackling alcohol harm is not about punishing drinkers or landlords, or taking the fun out of socialising. However, we have a responsibility—the Government have a responsibility—to hold the alcohol industry to account, and to ensure its fair and proper regulation.
Alcohol harm is rising, and it has been for many years, however we want to count it. Alcohol is now linked to 80 deaths a day in the UK, many of them of the young, while alcohol-specific deaths are at their highest rates since records began, and the treatment and funding for alcohol addiction are in absolute crisis, yet there appears to be no sense of urgency from Government. Alcohol is responsible for more years of working life lost than the 10 most frequent cancers combined. Before covid, alcohol took up 37% of ambulance time and a quarter of A&E time. For the police, it is even higher, with more than half of police time spent on alcohol-related incidents. All of this comes at a high financial cost, too. Alcohol harm is estimated to cost the UK taxpayer upwards of £27 billion each year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing this issue to the House. It is a massive issue in his constituency, and very much one in mine as well. Does he not agree that alcohol-specific deaths are at an all-time high owing to a perfect storm? With coronavirus, isolation and lockdown, as well as the fact that very few people use standard pub measures at home, that there are supermarket deals on bottles of alcohol and people do not have to drive to work the next day, it is imperative that we take steps to remind people of the number of units per bottle, make it clear that the glass of wine they are accustomed to at home is not the same as their local pub one, and make people aware of the need to reduce their intake.
Dan Carden
I am grateful to the hon. Member, and he is absolutely right.
We know that those in the most deprived communities are disproportionately affected. Despite drinking less on average, they are up to 60% more likely to die from alcohol than more affluent groups. In Liverpool—just one city—there are more than 14,000 alcohol-related hospital admissions every year, and 535 new cases of alcohol-related cancer as well. Alcohol harm and addiction are destroying lives, livelihoods, communities and families.
To return to the matter of today’s debate—alcohol labelling—I would like to ask those listening to remember the last time they looked at a bottle of orange juice. They may remember a number in red detailing the sugar content, a number for how many calories are in the drink, and a whole table with further information on nutritional content. Now picture a bottle of alcohol—wine perhaps. Do they remember seeing any such information about the ingredients, calories or nutritional values? Was there any information about the impact of alcohol on health, or any guidelines for consumption? If I can make a guess, the answer is most likely to be no, or maybe “on some bottles”. That is because none of this information is legally required on alcohol labels. Alcohol products are a conspicuous outlier among consumables. They are exempt from other food and drink labelling requirements, and the only information that is legally required is the volume of the liquid, its strength in ABV—alcohol by volume—and whether any of the 14 most common allergens are present.
In July 2020, the Government unveiled the new obesity strategy. On the subject of labelling, the Health Secretary said
“it’s only fair that you are given the right information about the food you’re eating to help people to make good decisions.”
He is absolutely right, and what he says is as true for alcoholic drinks as it is for anything else. It is surely bizarre that if we buy a bottle of juice, we get a range of calorie, ingredient and nutritional information, yet if we buy a juice and vodka ready-to-drink product, we will usually not get any of the same information. Similarly, alcohol-free beer and wine must display calorie and nutritional information, yet alcoholic beer and wine does not have to.
Covid-19 has reminded us all of the need to take seriously the impact of diet and lifestyle on our physical and mental health. As we know that alcohol damages health and causes harm, it is inexplicable that alcohol products face less regulation than fruit juices and fizzy drinks, so the Government’s consultation is timely and important.
I want to press the Minister to go further with the consultation than calories, nutritional information and ingredients; it must consider health information as well. The majority of the public agree and want to know what is in their drinks. Opinion polling conducted for the Alcohol Health Alliance shows that 74% of people want ingredients on alcohol labels, 62% want nutritional information, including calorie content, and 70% want health warnings.
There is a strong case for displaying calorie information on alcohol labels. For those who drink, alcohol accounts for nearly 10% of their daily calorie intake. Around 3.4 million adults consume an additional day’s worth of calories each week, yet 80% of the public are unaware of the calorie content of the most common alcoholic drinks.
Alcohol harm is also poorly understood by drinkers. Only one in five people know the drinking guidelines, and only one in 10 can identify cancer as a health consequence of alcohol. We have warnings on cigarettes that tobacco can cause cancer, so why is similar information missing from alcohol?
I would like to quote one person with lived experience, who described the lack of health information to me like this:
“I knew little of how many recommended units per week, I knew nothing about the nutritional value, I could tell you how many calories were in a Mars Bar but not the glass of Merlot I was drinking. I knew nothing about the long-term health implications. If I buy a pack of cigarettes I am told they are highly addictive and I am told with every pack what health implication there could be. They are now behind a shutter in the shop – but alcohol? Nothing. I near lost my life to alcohol and the lack of information and regulation makes no sense to me”.
Alcohol labels are an effective tool to change that situation. A study in Canada showed that consumers exposed to health warnings on labels were three times more likely to be aware of the drinking guidelines and were also more likely to know about the link between alcohol and cancer.
A number of alcohol products voluntarily incorporate unit alcohol content per container, a pregnancy logo or message and active signposting to drinkaware.co.uk. I am grateful to the producers who contacted me ahead of this debate to share updated labels that now include calorie and nutritional information. One of the UK’s biggest pub chains has already taken that step and is providing calorie labelling for all alcoholic drinks on their menus. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming, in answer to my written question, that alcohol sold in licensed venues will also be part of the consultation.
If someone pops into their local supermarket and takes a wander round the booze aisle, it is abundantly clear that there are huge inconsistencies in alcohol packaging. That hit-and-miss approach is just not good enough. It is time to put it right and standardise the approach, as we have done with food labelling. Even on the products that did carry chief medical officer guidelines and nutritional information, there are varying degrees of clarity and visibility.
In their report “Drinking in the dark: How alcohol labelling fails consumers”, Alcohol Change UK and the Alcohol Health Alliance recommend that:
“The UK Government and devolved administrations must give a new or existing independent agency appropriate powers to…enforce what appears on alcohol labels, working in the interests of public health and consumer rights and free from influence and interference from corporate interests.”
I support that recommendation and hope that the Minister will consider it in the consultation, when it gets under way.
Sir Ian Gilmore, a leading figure in Liverpool’s fight against alcohol harm and chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance, said:
“Alcohol labelling in this country is…not fit for purpose if we wish to build a healthier society. The public must be granted the power to make informed decisions about their health by having access to prominent health warnings and information on ingredients, nutrition and alcohol content at the point of purchase. The industry’s reluctance to include this information on their products suggests profits are being put ahead of people’s health.”
Ahead of this debate, I received a letter and information from the Portman Group, the alcohol industry-funded social responsibility body and regulator for alcohol labelling, packaging and promotion in the UK, and I am grateful for that. The Portman Group supports the consultation and its intention to provide consumers with more information on calories, the chief medical officer’s lower-risk guidance and drink-driving. It said that
“we believe this can be done most effectively on a voluntary basis”.
It is encouraging to hear some industry support for the consultation and I look forward to further discussions with it, but with alcohol-specific deaths at their highest on record, it is surely time for a proper review of how the industry is regulated and held to account.
The regulation of alcohol marketing in the UK is fragmented and largely self-regulating. Under the current set-up, the Advertising Standards Authority, funded by the advertising industry, Ofcom and the Portman Group, funded by the alcohol industry, all play a role in regulating marketing, from TV advertising to sponsorship deals to packaging. That is surely ripe for review, to consider how a new model and a new alcohol industry regulator could be made more accountable to the public and be fully independent of the alcohol industry.
I hope that the Minister will use her consultation as an opportunity to mandate wider health information on labels, too. This should, as a minimum, include the CMO’s guidelines, pregnancy warnings, drink-drive warnings and cancer warnings, so that we can make informed personal health choices and collectively seek to reduce alcohol harm.
I accept that alcohol labelling is only one small part of seeking to reduce alcohol harm across society. Any progress on improving labelling should be part of a broader strategy: a national, Government alcohol strategy. The last alcohol strategy was formulated in 2012, and, since then, harms have continued to rise. Over the last decade, we have learnt a lot more about the wider health impacts of alcohol, such as the link between alcohol and cancer. The World Health Organisation is clear that policies on the affordability, availability and promotion of alcohol are the most effective—policies that have also proved effective in reducing smoking.
What can really be said of attempts to reduce the increasing and worsening harms caused by alcohol misuse? Why is it that evidence-based research and policies are being ignored in this way? The Government’s addiction strategy is under way—it was promised in 2020, but we are waiting for it—and we also await the second part of the Dame Carol Black review of drugs. These are very welcome, but now is surely the time for a full-scale review of reducing alcohol harm across society. A focused alcohol strategy would allow a much broader and fuller understanding of the extent of alcohol harm and the measures needed to reduce it.
As it stands today, the UK has the highest number of alcohol-specific deaths on record. Drug and alcohol addiction services have been pushed outside the NHS into cash-strapped local authorities, decimated by funding cuts and fragmented. There are fewer addiction psychiatrists in training than ever. Alcohol is now 74% cheaper than it was in 1987, and in England there are over 300,000 children currently living with at least one adult who drinks at a high-risk level.
This current trajectory cannot continue and the urgent need for a national alcohol strategy cannot be overstated. In their approach to obesity, the Government have shown a willingness to take bold action to protect the public’s health. The same boldness is now required to tackle alcohol harm. The consultation on the labelling of alcohol products is the first step towards improving transparency and accountability across the alcohol industry, and ensuring an evidence-based approach to reducing alcohol harms. I implore the Minister to get it under way, and I look forward to her response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for securing the debate and for the measured way in which he has approached this issue. He set out how we want to move forward, how alcohol has a broader cost—a cost to lives, to people’s health and to society—and how, fundamentally, this is about education; it is about helping people to make informed choices and make the right choice. For that, I thank him.
While the debate focuses on the labelling of alcohol products, I want to start by making a few points on alcohol consumption and misuse, which it is extremely important to address. While the majority of people drink and do so responsibly—I am sure the whole nation will be cheering at the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not want to take the fun out of us all enjoying a responsible drink and getting together with friends and family—we know that there are people who drink at harmful levels, with that alcohol misuse leading to significant harms in not only their lives but the lives of those around them. It has large impacts on society that have a cost to health, to productivity and to quality of life.
Excessive consumption is the biggest risk factor to which early mortality, ill health and disability are attributable among 15 to 49-year-olds in the UK—those are young people’s lives—and is considered to be the third largest lifestyle risk for preventable disease after smoking and obesity. Alcohol harms are not experienced equally across all groups. Those with a lower socioeconomic status show the greatest susceptibility to alcohol harms and have a much higher likelihood of death or suffering a disease relating to their alcohol use, be it cancer, liver disease or a plethora of other things.
In recent years, we have seen an overall decrease in the number of people drinking. However, a review undertaken by Public Health England shows that during the pandemic, we have seen an increase in those drinking at dependent and higher-risk levels. While numbers may have gone down at the more moderate end, we have seen an increase of more than 16% in alcohol-related deaths for the first three quarters of 2020 compared with 2019. During that period we were largely limited to off-sales, because places where we might normally enjoy a social drink were closed.
We know that most people who drink alcohol do so responsibly and enjoy doing it on social occasions, but the covid pandemic has shone a spotlight on the impact of general poor health on our ability to fight off the virus. That is why we need to be aware of the risks of excessive drinking and how much heavier the impact is on those who have risks and challenges in that part of their life. It has underlined the need to take action, which was the thread running through the hon. Gentleman’s speech. We are improving the public health response and addressing a number of challenges, including obesity, smoking and drug misuse, and we will continue to monitor the impact of alcohol during the pandemic and as we come out of it, considering further action in the forthcoming addiction strategy.
Drug and alcohol treatment providers have continued to support and treat people through the pandemic, but there have been challenges. There have been some brighter sparks. I have spoken to people who have delivered group sessions, and it has been easier at times to connect and communicate, but for others, the journey during the pandemic has been a lot more disconnected. At this point in the debate, I would like to encourage, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would, anybody who is worried about their consumption of alcohol to reach out and seek help at the earliest possible opportunity.
Alcohol labelling, which is what we are largely discussing this evening, is an important part of the overall work on reducing alcohol-related harms. The Government believe that people have the right to accurate information and clear advice about alcohol and the health risks that may be associated with it, to enable them to make informed choices about their drinking and what they consume. As people return to socialising and drinking this summer, it is increasingly important that they are educated not just about alcohol and its harms, but about how they can enjoy alcohol responsibly and have fun with other people in a manner that saves on some of the other costs of drinking too much.
The UK chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines were published back in 2016. The intention is to help people understand the risks that alcohol might pose to an individual’s health and to make decisions about consumption in the light of those risks. The guidelines are based on evidence of risk and benefit, including the most up-to-date international and UK-specific data. The guidelines give a clear recommendation to limit alcohol intake to 14 units a week, to limit daily intake to reduce immediate risk, and not to drink if pregnant or planning to become pregnant due to the effect on the unborn child.
Over the past years, we have worked with the alcohol industry to ensure that alcohol labels reflect the UK CMO low-risk drinking guidelines, and the industry has committed to comply with that requirement. We are monitoring, carefully and closely, the progress that is being achieved. The British Retail Consortium—I would like to congratulate it on this—led the way in this area, with most own brands, such as Marks & Spencer and Aldi, now displaying the CMO guidelines. That shows that it can be done and that some are doing it. We were also pleased that in 2019 the Portman Group, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and its members committed to include the guidelines on their products. We fully appreciate that the pandemic has delayed those plans and that the hospitality industry has been severely impacted, but I would like to think that we can now refocus. I am really looking forward to seeing rapid progress and top premium brands increasingly displaying the guidance on their labels. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Portman Group acts as the socially responsible element of the industry, and what can be more socially responsible than helping to educate people so they can make an informed decision?
Post covid, we know that more must be done to look after our health. However, making healthier decisions without all the information is actually quite a challenge. For people to make informed decisions about the drinks they are purchasing, they need to be able to understand what is in that product and what it means for their health. We know that excessive alcohol consumption can be a contributing factor to obesity. I think the hon. Gentleman totted up the daily figures I am going to give and rounded them up to a week’s worth of figures, which equated to an extra day’s calories. Adults, on average, consume 200 to 300 extra calories per day. Of those who drink, 7% to 8% of that calorie intake comes from alcohol, because it is highly calorific. However, the evidence shows that the public, as he articulated, are largely unaware of those invisible calories. Many adults cannot accurately estimate the calorie content of an alcoholic product.
In 2019, less than half of alcohol brands provided calorie information on labels, so as part of the Government’s latest obesity strategy we are committed to consult on the introduction of mandatory calorie labelling on pre-packaged alcohol and alcohol sold in the on-trade sector. We hope that the provision of calorie labelling on alcohol will encourage reformulation, because there are market opportunities for lower-calorie versions that will further help adults to reduce their calorie intake from alcohol. This consultation will be launched very shortly.
The Portman Group, as I said, is the social responsibility body and regulator for alcohol labelling, packaging and promotion. It operates its codes of practice to ensure that alcohol is marketed in a socially responsible way only to those of 18 and over, and in a way that does not appeal to those who are particularly vulnerable to its appeal. The codes are supported throughout the industry, with over 150 code signatories, including producers, importers, wholesalers, retailers and their trade associations. I am absolutely committed, as are colleagues across Government, to working with the industry to address concerns over irresponsible labelling, packaging and promotion allied to labelling, and the concerns that the industry has, because I am sure that it is much easier if everybody is doing a similar thing, and then people can easily and swiftly find the information that they need, as the hon. Gentleman laid out.
Dan Carden
As we know of the increasing harms from alcohol across society, which are slightly different from what will be covered in the addiction strategy, and there has been an increased focus on the drug strategy, does the Minister see the argument now for a proper review and strategy to deal with increasing alcohol harms across society?
Jo Churchill
Now is a great time to focus on making sure that we enable people to make the healthier choice as the default choice, and that we work to ensure that people have the right information for them. All I am willing to say at this stage is that nothing is off the table. There are a lot of strategies. Rather than making any blanket statement, the important job now is to refocus and to deliver on some of the commitments that we would like to see, and to make sure that the consultation is rolled out so that we can have that dialogue and make sure that we are doing the right thing for individuals but also across the industry.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for outlining very clearly a strategy to address the issues that the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Minister, I know that it is not technically your responsibility, but I think perhaps—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
No, please, the hon. Gentleman cannot disappoint me like this. He cannot say “you” to the Minister.
Jim Shannon
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. One massive issue has been the promotion of drink at cheap prices so that people can get drunk cheaper. Would the Minister be sympathetic to discussing this issue with the industry—the Portman Group has been referred to—to try to address it?
Jo Churchill
I think the hon. Gentleman refers to minimum unit pricing. As I say, we are refocusing on making sure that we are having a broad range of discussions. As he pointed out at the beginning of his intervention, this is not something that sits within my responsibility. However, I have heard, and I am sure others have heard, his plea for that work, which does go on in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Alcohol labelling is one part of wide-ranging cross-Government work to address alcohol-related health harms and their impact on life chances. The Government are committed to supporting the most vulnerable at risk from alcohol misuse. We have an existing agenda on tackling alcohol-related harms, including an ambitious programme to establish specialist alcohol care teams in the worst-affected 25% of hospitals, because I do recognise some of the challenges within the workforce that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned. We continue to support the children of alcohol-dependent parents—a situation that wreaks such havoc.
As part of the prevention Green Paper, we are committed to increasing the general drinking population’s direction of travel towards lower-strength alternatives when they have moderate drinking habits. We are working with the industry and other stakeholders to create more consumer choice and availability in the low-alcohol and no-alcohol sector. They are often very palatable alternatives, particularly for those who are driving or who may have a reason to want a clear head the following morning. The more choice that we can give people in that area, the better.
The Government have committed to publishing a new, UK-wide cross-Government addiction strategy that considers the full range of issues, including drugs, alcohol and problem gambling. While each of those comes with its own set of issues—as the hon. Gentleman said, the second part of Dame Carol Black’s review is due shortly—there is also much common ground and many benefits to tackling addiction in a complete, comprehensive and joined-up way. The scope of the addiction strategy is still being developed, so I consider this debate and his calls most timely as we consider what more can be done to protect people from those alcohol-related harms.
I emphasise the Government’s commitment to ensuring that alcohol labels provide the information that people need to make informed choices about the products that they are purchasing. I stress, probably for my husband and children mostly, that we are not saying, “You can’t enjoy a drink.” What we are saying very clearly is that we would like to encourage the nation’s drinking to be responsible, and to help people not to be one of those statistics that wreck lives.
We believe that people have the right to accurate information to help them to make decisions about the products that they purchase, and we are committed to ensuring that the labelling on alcohol provides that. Progress has been made in relation to the UK CMO’s low-risk drinking guidelines and other information on alcohol products, but we are not complacent. We will continue to actively monitor the position and keep it under review, and ensure that we level up so that people, no matter what drink they choose, can get accurate information from the product.
We await the consultation to ensure that we take everyone with us, because it is important that we do things in a measured but directed way in order to bring the benefits to the most people. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton for introducing this Adjournment debate and for everything that we have discussed. Let us hope that we can get there.
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 |
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 |
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) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
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) | Carla Lockhart |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (rt. hon.) (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | 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 |
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | 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) | Wendy Chamberlain |
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 |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (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) | Carla Lockhart |
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 |
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) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Carla Lockhart |
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 |
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 |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | 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) | Wendy Chamberlain |
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 |
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) | Anthony Mangnall |
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) | Wendy Chamberlain |
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) | Wendy Chamberlain |
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) | Carla Lockhart |
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) | Carla Lockhart |
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 |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
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 |
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (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) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Carla Lockhart |
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 |
Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I would like to remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in places that are marked. Our colleagues from Hansard would appreciate it if Members could send their speaking notes to Hansardnotes@parliament.uk
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 158)
It is a pleasure to speak for Her Majesty’s Opposition on the first of two Statutory Instruments that I will speak to today. I must put on record that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North would have liked to attend the Committee but cannot do so on account of current restrictions. He is passionate about peatland burning issues, and he wanted that to be on the record.
The regulations seek to prohibit a person burning any specified vegetation on areas of peat more than 40 cm deep in a site of special scientific interest—that is also a European site—unless an exception applies, or the burning is carried out under and in accordance with a licence issued by the Secretary of State.
A burning notice may be issued under regulation 6 if Natural England believes that specified vegetation is being burned in contravention of those regulations. Regulation 7 makes provision for a right to make representations to a person appointed by the Secretary of State if Natural England serves a burning notice on any person. That sounds very good on the face of it, but, as ever, it is about the detail with this Government, or should I say, the lack of detail.
I note that no impact assessment has been produced for the SI because Ministers have deemed that
“There is no, or no significant, impact”
on the private, voluntary or public sector foreseen. We shall see what happens in the time ahead.
I feel sure that the Minister will know that England contains around 355,000 hectares of upland deep peatland habitat, with a particular concentration of the habitat being found in the Pennines. Those high-value upland peat habitats are subject to rotational burning. That practice sees vegetation on the top of peat set alight at regular intervals to create better conditions for grouse rearing for the shooting industry.
Upland peat habitats are a significant carbon store and burning heather and grass within them releases carbon. Natural England has calculated—I pay tribute to all the staff of Natural England for their work in these difficult times, done without much direction and support from the Government—that around 260,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide are released every year from rotational burning on peat in England alone. Rotational burning also reduces the biodiversity value of upland peat habitats and affects water quality.
In January 2021, the Government announced the introduction of a partial ban on burning heather and grass on peatland, in recognition of the
“consensus that burning of vegetation on blanket bog is damaging to peatland formation and habitat condition”.
So the Government also say that it is an issue.
The Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021 were introduced as an SI to put that partial ban into law, but, as ever with the Government, we need to go further and do more. I know that this matter has been before the other place, and I know that many of the points raised then will be similar to the concerns that I am highlighting, but they are important, absolutely relevant, and need to restated. That is necessary mainly because the Government have made little progress, have not listened and do not seem to want to engage.
On the substance of the SI, my first concern relates to its limited scope. It only partially prohibits burning on designated sites. The regulations state that only sites that are in a SSSI, a special area of conservation or a special protection area can be considered as designated sites for the purposes of the regulations. The Wildlife and Countryside Link, in an example of its wonderful work, has estimated that 109,000 hectares of English upland peat meet those specifications out of a total of 355,000. In response to Link, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has suggested coverage is slightly higher at 142,000 hectares. Even so, significantly less than half of upland peat is covered by the regulations. In the same response, DEFRA also suggests that the amount of upland peat in England stands only at 230,000 hectares. However, that figure only covers upland peat that is on the biodiversity action plan, BAP, priority habitat list. Upland peat that is not on the BAP list is still precious and should not be burned. Natural England has confirmed that there are total of 355,000 hectares of upland peat in England. That is the figure that should be used.
In drawing the attention of the House to the SI, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee criticised DEFRA’s use of figures on upland peat and commented:
“The Department should have been clearer about the actual size of the areas covered by the ban and the peatlands currently subject to rotational burning as well as those areas where consent to burn has already been removed: the mix of percentages, hectares and other metrics and the use of different reference points, such as ‘protected blanket bog habitat’, ‘peatlands’ or ‘upland deep peat’ are a source of confusion and make it difficult to assess the extent and impact of the ban on unlicensed rotational burning.”
In fact, only a minority of upland peat in England will be covered by the regulations—60% of upland peat is excluded from the regulations as it is outside the specification for a designated site. That limited scope will hinder the effectiveness of the regulations. For the best climate and ecological result, all upland peat should be included in the ban. I could not be clearer than that. At the very least, a simple improvement would be to change the specification for designation to a site being in an SSSI, an SAC or SPI to widen the scope and increase the proportion of upland peatland protected by the ban. The SI does not go far enough and the world is watching what happens next.
I am deeply concerned by the language used in the SI. The Minister will recall that throughout the Committee stage of the Environment Bill, or the ‘Missing in Action’ Bill that we like to call it, my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) regularly called the Government out on their weak language, loose interpretations and essentially disappointing lack of ambition. As I said then, and repeat now, language is very important. I am afraid that the terms of the SI are undermined by loosely worded exemptions and it has virtually nothing to say about enforcement.
As well as direct exemptions from the rules, regulation 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to grant a licence to permit burning in a designated site covered by the ban on any of the following grounds:
“for the purposes of conservation, enhancement or management of the natural environment for the benefit of present and future generations;
for the safety of any person;
to reduce the risk of wildfire; or
because the specified vegetation is inaccessible to mechanical cutting equipment and any other method of management is impracticable. ”
Those wide-ranging powers given to the Secretary of State mean that even in 40% of upland peat habitats covered by the regulations, the protection offered can be revoked by a licence.
The SI contains very little detail on the licensing processes and does not specify a standard of evidence that a licence application must meet to be successful. The absence of such detail risks leaving extensive loopholes that will enable continued burning in protected areas. I therefore join with many campaigners in calling for the swift provision of tightly worded further detail on how the licensing will be administered. Such detail should include requirements to meet a tight definition of inaccessibility, to provide evidenced support from the local fire authority for wildfire prevention burning, and to provide evidence support from Natural England for conservation burning in any licence application made on such grounds.
The SI, and its very evident weaknesses, undermine the Government’s advocacy for nature-based solutions to climate change. Indeed, the rotational burning season this year coincides with the UK’s hosting of the global climate conference COP26, which will see the Government championing nature-based solutions to climate change. In the words of the Minister’s departmental colleague, Lord Goldsmith,
“the UK will use our Presidency of COP26 to persuade other countries to put nature at the heart of their climate response”.
Warm words, but as things appear to be moving, they are empty words.
I am grateful to Link for the polling that it commissioned to gauge the views of people on rotational burning and upland peat. The results speak for themselves. They reveal that 60% of the British public want to see the Government’s peat burning ban extended to cover all peatland at risk of being burned, and only 3% oppose that. Some 56% of those polled also want a ban on the burning of all at-risk peatland in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Two thirds of people also want promises to protect peatland included in the UK pledges for COP26, and 67% want the Government to ensure our natural carbon stores, like peatlands, are healthy and capture as much carbon as possible.
Those results show that the public recognise the importance of upland peat and that they wish to see its potential as a nature-based solution to climate change realised, and they very clearly support a comprehensive burning ban. Why will the Minister and Department not listen to the people and act once and for all?
We are in the middle of a climate emergency and our people are crying out for real leadership. Labour stands ready to provide that leadership, as we have demonstrated every step of the way during our consideration of the Environment Bill, the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill. That stands in stark contrast to the Government, who speak but do not do. The regulations reflect their lazy and unimaginative approach, and it is simply not good enough. At the conclusion of the debate, I intend to test the will of the Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
This is the first time that I have had the pleasure to serve under you, Dr Huq, and it is great to see you in the Chair. As ever, it is good to see the shadow Minister and I offer belated happy birthday wishes, which I omitted to say when we debated last week. I hope that it went well.
I thank all those who have inputted behind the scenes and given views on this complicated subject. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the regulations in more detail to clarify some of the points about why we have introduced them, how committed we are to them and how important they are to protect the nation’s peatlands. I hope that I will be able to address some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Newport West.
The SI, which was laid on 16 February 2021, seeks to ban the burning without a licence of specified vegetation on peat over 40 cm in depth on SSSIs that are also a special area of conservation. Those are critically important areas for peat, which is why they are the focus of the regulations. The purpose of those regulation is to prevent further damage to approximately 142,000 hectares of protected peat by clearly setting out the only circumstances in which the Secretary of State, as the licensing authority, may grant a licence for burning. That would only occur in very limited, clearly defined and evidenced circumstances. Those are the only conditions on which a licence for burning would be granted and without such a licence, burning will be prohibited.
The restoration of England’s peatlands is a priority for the Government and the regulations will help us to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and to protect valuable habitats and the biodiversity within. Blanket bog is a fragile peatland habitat of international importance. The UK has 30% of the world’s blanket bog, so we hold a large proportion of that very important habitat.
England’s peatlands overall store around 580 million tonnes of carbon, but they emit about 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per year. Therefore, restoring our peatlands is a crucial part of addressing climate change and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
Blanket bog is a habitat at risk from being further degraded were it not protected from damaging activity. Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Government have responsibility for protecting that priority habitat, maintaining it as an active bog and restoring it to favourable status. Basically, that means that it is wetter, and it will have more species living within it that enjoy that particular habitat.
The Government’s ambition is to have healthy peatlands that will provide us with a wealth of ecosystem services. That includes carbon storage and sequestration, a natural habitat for wildlife, high-quality drinking water and flood mitigation. Blanket bog makes up around 40% of England’s deep peat reserves and is one of our most extensive protected habitats, yet only 12% of it is in a near natural state. The remainder is degraded by practices that impact on the natural functioning state of that habitat. Rotational burning as a moorland management tool is carried out to manage unnaturally dominant heather species in winter months, typically on a 12 to 15 year rotation. Although this activity does not have a significant impact on carbon emissions per se, there is now an established scientific consensus that the burning of vegetation on blanket bog can be damaging to peatland formation and habitat condition, making it difficult—in some cases, impossible—to restore these habitats to their natural state and to restore their hydrology.
Landowners and managers have required consent from Natural England to burn on a protected blanket bog. Since 2017, only 47% of those consents have expired or been removed by Natural England; the majority remain in perpetuity, covering about 52,000 hectares of protected priority habitat. The Government have previously stated that if voluntary measures to cease burning on blanket bog did not work, they would look at the role of legislation. The voluntary approach has not worked, so this instrument aims to allow the Government to meet their obligations to bring about more sustainable practices.
The regulations ban the use of burning as a management practice on protected blanket bog sites apart from in the case of specific exemptions. I will just touch on those. First, the prohibition does not apply on land that could never be accessed by cutting equipment; cutting equipment is a tool that can be used instead of burning. Some areas—exposed rock and scree, for example, or where the land is on a really steep slope, in excess of 35 degrees —can continue to be managed without the need for a licence. Secondly, where land is otherwise inaccessible to cutting equipment, perhaps by virtue of its very remote nature and because other methods of appropriate management are impractical, a licence may be considered to allow burning to take place.
The Government have also included in the regulations explicit reference to the objective of preventing wild fires. Wild fires can be devastating for the environment and that risk has not previously been granted sufficient weight.
The evidence and process by which the Secretary of State will make decisions on licence applications will be set out in accompanying guidance. That guidance will be published by 1 May to allow sufficient time for good-quality applications for licences to be made in advance of the 2021 burning season, which commences on 1 October.
The shadow Minister asked about detail. The detail will be in the guidance, which, as she can tell, is coming out pretty much immediately. An awful lot of work has gone on stakeholder engagement to come up with the guidance so that it is really clear to everybody what these very small exemptions might be and how they might be used. But we want it to be clear to everybody that basically we mean business about the ban. The guidance will emphasise an aspiration that the management of the protected site should be complementary to high quality natural habitat restoration plans. It is hoped that through such plans—and these plans are really crucial—the need to manage the sites by burning will diminish and, ultimately, become unnecessary: the areas will be getting wetter, so burning will not be required. As I said, work to develop and produce the guidance is well under way. Much of the engagement has been with the upland management sector and environmental non-governmental organisations, so that we get this right.
The guidance will also set out with whom the Secretary of State will consult. It will be not just Natural England but other interested stakeholders—including, for example, the local fire and rescue service when a licence for wild fire mitigation purposes is being considered. The input of such services is hugely valued on the issue of controlling wild fires.
The Government are very aware that the management of upland habitats on which the regulations will have an impact is complex and unique, and that the guidance must be capable of being understood by both large land managers and small estate teams. They are also aware of the view, backed up by science, that there is a risk that burning heather to reduce wild fire could itself dry the land out and exacerbate the risk. The Government recognise that the new regulations may place additional burdens on some landowners and managers, but we also recognise that inaction and the continuation of burning of unprotected sites will be unacceptable as it is releasing carbon and therefore it is bad for the climate.
The SI attempts to strike the right balance between protecting our habitats from harm and ensuring that our landowners and managers have the right tools available to protect those habitats and restore them to their natural state. Obviously, we need to work with those landowners and farmers in our future new ELM—environmental land management—system, and our new schemes such as the nature for climate fund to restore those peatlands. It is really important that we have very good working relationships with them.
The regulations are essential as we look to extend protections to some of our most vulnerable habitats. The hon. Lady was quite adamant that all peats had to come under the ban, but the point is that the SI is dealing with the very specific deep peat, which is so precious and such an important habitat. It is absolutely right that we protect that, but I would like to share with the hon. Lady that we have a much wider plan for all peat. The SI will protect 140,123 hectares of deep peat, but obviously all peat is important, which is why we are releasing a package of further measures through our peat action plan, which will be issued shortly. That will deal with peat in other areas, not least lowland peat, which is extremely important. We have a lowland peat taskforce to work mainly with farmers in that lowland to work out how that peat can be restored as well, and how we can also still produce sustainable food from that area. We are also working very closely with the horticultural industry to bring about the ban, and we are moving absolutely at pace on that. Through our new plan, a new three-year project will be undertaken to map the extent of England’s peatlands, so that we have really clear data that can guide and inform us, because the science is so important in all that we do.
I trust that the Committee understands the need for the SI. All peat is really important, and not just that protected by the SI. I hope I have made it clear that we are looking at all peat, but the SI is one of the important tools to drive us in the right direction to protect those crucially vital, precious habitats.
The Chair
Because we are in negative SI territory, and the Opposition have prayed against the measure, I call the shadow Minister to respond to the debate.
Ruth Jones
It was remiss of me not to say earlier that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Huq.
I thank the Minister for her contribution. She made some interesting points and is quite right that we can all agree that all peat is very important, and we need to take care of it. She mentioned that she wants the SI to strike the right balance, but I fear that the balance is still skewed. In common with many campaigners in communities across England, I remain unimpressed by the inadequate attempt to tackle the issue.
A shorter and neater way to describe where we are is as follows: the Government promised the House, stakeholders and the country an overarching strategy but they have yet to deliver it. Yes, the Minister spoke about the guidance to come, and we will hold the Government to account on that, but my job and that of campaigners, experts and stakeholders is to hold the Government accountable on every step of the way.
Two major weaknesses prevent the regulations from achieving their stated policy aims and objectives. To remind the Committee and those listening, the objective is to protect upland peat habitats from the impact of burning. As I said in my opening remarks, the limited scope of the SI renders it fundamentally flawed, which is compounded by the dangerously loosely worded exemptions. Like many stakeholders and experts who will have listened with dismay to the Minister’s response, I am unable to support a weak and ineffective set of regulations. The Opposition will oppose the SI.
Question put,
Draft Air Quality (Legislative Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Air Quality (Legislative Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
As ever, it is a pleasure to see you here with us, Sir Christopher.
The regulations, which were laid before the House on 22 March, make amendments to a piece of retained direct European Union law on pollutant release transfer registers, otherwise known as PRTR. The legislation, which originated in the EU, would otherwise be left partially inoperable, now that the transition period has ended, because the powers to make changes to PRTR legislation previously sat with the European Commission.
Provision for the transfer of powers for PRTR was included in regulations made in 2019, namely the Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/473). However, the PRTR regulation was amended in EU law after the 2019 EU exit SI was made, which meant that the PRTR part of the EU exit SI no longer operated as intended. Therefore, further amendments to the PRTR regulation are needed to ensure that transfers of legislative powers are reinstated and have effect as intended, following EU exit.
The SI amends the PRTR regulation to confer two powers. The first power enables the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations to make regulations regarding reporting on releases of pollutants from diffuse sources. The appropriate authority can do that if it determines that no data on the release from diffuse sources exists, and it must use internationally approved methodologies where appropriate. The second power enables the Secretary of State to amend annex II of PRTR regulation. Annex II sets out a list of pollutants and threshold values, which, if exceeded, operators of industrial facilities are required to report any releases of to air, land or water. I would like to reassure members of the Committee that the power will enable the Secretary of State to amend annex II only for the purposes of adapting it to scientific or technical progress, or to reflect any future amendments of the UN PRTR protocol.
Both powers are limited in scope and can only be exercised for the specific purposes, so it is appropriate for them to be exercisable by secondary legislation. It is important to ensure that the UK Government and the devolved Administrations hold those powers so that they can act quickly on emerging scientific or technical evidence, such as a new pollutant or activity on which it is in the public interest to report pollution information. The register is very much all about transparency of the pollutants in our world.
The powers also ensure that the Government can reflect in UK legislation any changes made to the PRTR protocol, so that we can continue to meet UK obligations under the Kiev protocol. We continue to support the UN Economic Commission for Europe Kiev protocol and to publish industrial pollution release and waste transfer data on an annual basis. We anticipate that any future changes to the protocol will be to strengthen parties’ reporting to better fulfil the aims of that protocol, rather than being fundamental changes to its principles.
Those powers mean that future such changes to the regulation will be made with secondary legislation, which is the most proportionate approach for the types of technical amendments necessary. Such amending legislation will be subject to the negative procedure, which would allow appropriate scrutiny, given the technical nature of any changes.
The PRTR regulation will continue to function in a similar way to how it always has, but with UK authorities now having legislative functions under the regulation. I should make it clear that all the amendments introduced by the SI are ones of technical operability that will maintain the effectiveness and continuity of this important UK industrial emissions reporting obligation. The regulations maintain existing regulatory standards and do not create new policy.
I would like to clarify some administrative points regarding the SI for the benefit of members of the Committee. First, the SI is subject to the affirmative procedure as it involves the transfer of powers. I can confirm that, secondly, the SI was not subject to consultation, as it does not alter existing policy.
In line with published guidance, there has been no need to conduct an impact assessment for the SI, because no impact on the private or voluntary sector is foreseen, as it relates to the maintenance of existing regulatory standards. There are no direct or cost impacts arising from the regulations.
The SI forms part of important air quality and industrial emissions legislation. Members of the Committee will be aware of other important legislation that we have introduced to improve air quality, such as the new legislation restricting the sales of the most polluting fuels used in domestic burning—it comes into force shortly on 1 May. That will restrict the sale of traditional house coal, small volumes of wet wood and high sulphur manufactured solid fuels. In addition, through the Environment Bill we will ensure that local authorities have more effective powers and a clear framework for tackling air pollution in their areas. That includes ensuring that responsibility is shared across local government structures and with relevant public bodies.
Without further ado, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and thank you for leading our deliberations. It is also a pleasure to be with the Minister, yet again, and with other colleagues.
The SI makes amendments to retained direct EU legislation relating to air quality under section 8(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to ensure that it continues to operate effectively, as the Minister has outlined. The PRTR regulation has a nice ring to it.
It is important to note that the corrections that are being made through restatement are necessary to clarify the retained direct EU law covered by the SI. The instrument will ensure that the legislation operates properly, and please be assured that the Opposition will make sure of that.
As the Minister outlined, the SI will allow UK authorities to operate specific legislative functions in the UK to ensure that the regime of the retained direct EU law continues to function smoothly without the need for primary legislation every time a change is required. As the Minister said, the SI does not make changes to substantive policy content, but the Opposition will continue to identify ways to make substantive changes to the policy content of the Government’s environmental agenda in general.
Air quality is one of the most important policy areas in the Minister’s inbox, and one of the most important issues to all our constituents the nation over. The facts are there for all of us to see; they show just how damaging toxic air is to our communities and its disproportionate impact on the health and wellbeing of our people.
The covid-19 virus has highlighted those inequalities, and the virus has disproportionately had an impact on those living in areas with the worst air pollution. As I have said before, the Government are weak on tackling toxic air, and weak on the causes of that air. At each stage of the Environment Bill, or the “Missing in Action” Bill, as we like to call it, Ministers and their Whips have forced Tory Back Benchers to oppose Labour amendments, which were focused on tackling toxic air and showing the leadership demanded of the Government—action proposed by Labour, but voted down by the Tories.
Air pollution is bad for everyone, but for the 12 million people in the UK who live with a lung condition such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, it poses a real and immediate threat to their health. A spike in air pollution levels can lead to symptoms getting worse, flare-ups, or even the risk of hospitalisation. As of last week, we now know from the coroner that it can lead to death. There is robust evidence of a clear link between high levels of air pollution and increased numbers of patients with breathing problems presenting at hospitals and GP surgeries.
Air pollution can worsen existing health inequalities; people in the poorest areas are often the most exposed to air pollutions, which reinforces inequal health outcomes for deprived communities. It can also contribute to health inequalities later in life. Children living in highly polluted areas are four times more likely to have reduced lung function in adulthood.
If you do not mind people marking their own homework, Sir Christopher, you will be satisfied that the UK is currently meeting legal limits for particulate matter 2.5, but that is only because our legal limit is more lenient than that recommended by the international health community. The UK legal limit for particulate matter 2.5 is more than twice as high as the World Health Organisation recommendation.
The Chair
Order. I am listening with interest to what the hon. Lady is saying, and I would be grateful if she could explain how her comments link with this specific statutory instrument. I have indulged her with a bit party political fun, as often happens in these Committees, but I hope that she will now confine her remarks to what is contained within the SI.
Ruth Jones
Thank you, Sir Christopher; I am grateful for your advice. I was setting out the context behind why it is vital that we acknowledge the devastating way in which toxic air has played a part in people’s deaths, such as that of Ella Kissi-Debrah in 2013. The Opposition believe that it is Government inaction that has allowed catastrophic levels of air pollution to build up across the country, especially in the most deprived areas of our big cities.
The coroner ruled that Ella Kissi-Debrah died as a direct result of air pollution and said that it made a “material contribution” to Ella’s death. Like so many, Ella was exposed to illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide and levels of particulate matter in excess of WHO guidelines.
We can do something about this if we want to. I invite the Minister to work with me and Labour’s environment team to ensure that the Environment Bill is made fit for purpose and the WHO guidelines are written into law.
The SI is specific and focused, but it is linked to a wider set of issues and the bigger, more important fight for clean air. I urge the Minister to return to the Secretary of State and ask him to be bold, to go further and to start listening.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister for her contribution, but thank the Chair for his intervention, because she did digress somewhat from the subject of the SI. She will get the chance to talk about air quality in the imminent Westminster Hall debate, but if you will allow me, Sir Christopher, I will address a couple of her comments briefly.
We have a clean air strategy that has been referenced by the WHO as an example for the rest of world to follow. We also have a £3.8 billion nitrogen dioxide strategy plan to clean up our air, and we have our landmark Environment Bill. That legislation is returning to the House shortly and as the hon. Lady knows, in it we are setting long-term legally binding targets to tackle air pollution, plus an exposure target. We are absolutely mindful of the critical importance of dealing with air pollution because it is the biggest killer and we are introducing a raft of measures to tackle it.
The hon. Lady touched on the inquest into the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah, and we will reply to that in due course. Our thoughts are constantly with the family, whom we have met and listened to.
The SI makes no change to the existing policy on UK industrial reporting or to the nature of the PRTR legislation. As I have outlined, the changes introduced by the SI are technical amendments that are required to ensure that we are able to continue to operate the regulation and carry out UK industrial pollution reporting under the PRTR legislation. Indeed, I would say that this country has an exceptional reporting system for our pollutants, and we will continue to work with other countries on the PRTR through the UNECE and the OECD.
Should you, Sir Christopher, or any hon. Member want to look at the UK’s pollution release and transfer register, they can go on the website, tap in their postcode and find out what pollutants are dominant in their area. Should any colleague want to find that out, that facility is there in the PRTR. On that note, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Government Equalities
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kemi Badenoch
The actual figure is not 25% of black women, but 0.34%. It is a very confusing statistic because we often represent the numbers in terms of numbers per 800,000.
[Official Report, 20 April 2021, Vol. 692, c. 881.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy).
The correct response should have been:
Kemi Badenoch
The actual figure is not 25% of black women, but 0.34%. It is a very confusing statistic because we often represent the numbers in terms of numbers per 100,000.
Finance (No.2) Bill (Third sitting)
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: † Dame Angela Eagle, Sir Gary Streeter
† Bacon, Gareth (Orpington) (Con)
† Badenoch, Kemi (Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury)
† Buchan, Felicity (Kensington) (Con)
† Coutinho, Claire (East Surrey) (Con)
† Eshalomi, Florence (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
† Grant, Peter (Glenrothes) (SNP)
† Higginbotham, Antony (Burnley) (Con)
† Jones, Andrew (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
† Marson, Julie (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
† Murray, James (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
† Norman, Jesse (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)
† Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
† Owen, Sarah (Luton North) (Lab)
† Russell, Dean (Watford) (Con)
† Rutley, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Smith, Jeff (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Thewliss, Alison (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Chris Stanton, Jo Dodd, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Tuesday 27 April 2021
Morning
[Dame Angela Eagle in the Chair]
Finance (No.2) Bill
(Except Clauses 1 to 5; Clauses 6 to 14 and Schedule 1; Clauses 24 to 26; Clause 28; Clause 30 and Schedule 6; Clauses 31 to 33; Clause 36 and Schedule 7; Clause 40; Clause 41; Clause 86; Clauses 87 to 89 and Schedules 16 and 17; Clauses 90 and 91; Clauses 92 to 96 and Schedule 18; Clause 97 and Schedule 19; Clauses 109 to 111 and Schedules 21 and 22; Clause 115 and Schedule 27; Clauses 117 to 121 and Schedules 29 to 32; Clauses 128 to 130; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to: the impact of any provision on the financial resources of families or to the subject matter of Clauses 1 to 5, 24 to 26, 28, 31 to 33, 40 and 86; the subject matter of Clauses 6 to 14 and Schedule 1; the impact of any provision on regional economic development; tax avoidance or evasion; the subject matter of Clauses 87 to 89 and Schedules 16 and 17 and Clauses 90 and 91; the subject matter of Clauses 92 to 96 and Schedule 18, Clause 97 and Schedule 19 and Clauses 128 to 130)
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the places clearly marked. In line with the Commission’s decision, face coverings should be worn in Committee unless Members are speaking or they are medically exempt. I hope not to need to suspend the sitting to comply with social distancing requirements. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee, while allowed in Zoom, are not allowed in sittings in the House. Members may remove their jackets if they wish—I see some already have. The Hansard reporters would be grateful if Members emailed any electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 98
Restriction of use of rebated diesel and biofuels
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 20 be the Twentieth schedule to the Bill.
New clause 3—Review of impact of section 98—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made by section 98 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the provisions on progress towards the Government’s climate emissions targets.
(3) In this section “parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland; and “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This new clause would require a report on the effects of section 98 on progress towards the UK Government’s climate emissions targets.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
Clause 98 and schedule 20 reform the use of polluting diesel fuel by reducing the number of businesses that benefit from red diesel tax breaks from April 2022. Those changes will mean that most businesses across the UK will use diesel fuel taxed at the standard rate for diesel from April 2022, bringing them in line with ordinary motorists. That more fairly reflects the negative environmental impact of the emissions produced. It also ensures that the tax system incentivises users of polluting fuels such as diesel to improve the energy efficiency of their vehicles and machinery and to invest in cleaner alternatives, or just use less fuel.
Red diesel is a dye-marked diesel currently used mainly for off-road purposes, such as to power bulldozers and cranes in the construction industry. It accounts for around 15% of all diesel used in the UK and is responsible for the production of nearly 14 million tonnes of CO2 a year, as well as noxious gases such a nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. Red diesel is subject to a rebated rate of fuel duty of 11.14p per litre, which is 46.18p less than the tax due on standard diesel used by ordinary motorists. Businesses that use red diesel are therefore paying far less for the harmful emissions that they produce.
The Government have previously received feedback from developers of alternative fuels and technologies that they view the low cost of running a diesel engine as a barrier to entry for greener alternatives. Clause 98 and schedule 20 will amend the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979, to reform the entitlement to use red diesel in most sectors from April 2022. As announced at Budget 2020 and confirmed at Budget 2021, the Government will grant entitlements to use red diesel for the following purposes: for vehicles and machinery used in agriculture, forestry, horticulture and fish farming; to propel vehicles designed to run on rail tracks and for heating non-commercial premises, which includes the heating of homes and buildings such as places of worship, hospitals and town halls.
In addition, following consultation last year on these tax changes, for which the Government received more than 400 written responses, the Government decided at Budget 2021 to grant further entitlements to use red diesel after April 2022 for the following purposes: electricity generation in non-commercial premises; maintaining community amateur sports clubs and golf courses; as fuel for all commercial water vessels refuelling and operating in the UK, including fishing and water freight industries; for private pleasure craft in Great Britain; and powering machinery and caravans of travelling fairs and circuses. The Bill will also extend fuel duty to biodiesel, bioblends and fuel substitutes used in heating.
In response to concerns raised by red diesel users during the consultation about their ability to run down fuel stocks in back-up generators, the Bill provides for secondary legislation to give HMRC officers the power to disapply the liability to seize vehicles or machinery where they are satisfied that those who are no longer entitled to use red diesel are acting within the new law.
New clause 3, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Glasgow Central, for Glenrothes, for Gordon (Richard Thomson) and for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), would require the Government to publish a report on the effects of clause 98 on progress towards the UK Government’s climate emissions targets
“within six months of the passing of this Act.”
Clause 98 will make changes to remove the entitlement to use red diesel from most sectors from April 2022; such a report could not meaningfully assess the impact of the changes within six months.
As the Government set out in our summary of responses to the red diesel consultation:
“As these tax changes are introduced, the government will monitor fuel duty receipts of red and white diesel to evaluate the extent to which current users of red diesel that have lost their entitlement to use red diesel are switching to greener alternatives. The Treasury will also work closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to evaluate the extent to which these tax changes are accelerating the development of greener alternatives and how this interacts with the work of the government’s energy innovation programmes, like the Net Zero Innovation Portfolio.”
The Government continue to take our world-leading environmental commitment seriously and remain dedicated to meeting our climate change and wider environmental targets, including improving the UK’s air quality; that is why we are reforming the use of red diesel from April 2022. Reducing tax breaks on red diesel will mean that approximately 3.6 billion litres of diesel, equivalent to 9.5 million tonnes of CO2, will now be taxed at the standard diesel rate. I ask the Committee to agree that clause 98 and schedule 20 should stand part of the Bill and to reject new clause 3.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. I thank the Minister for her explanation of clause 98, which restricts the entitlement to use red diesel and related biodiesel for most sectors from April 2022.
We support the Government’s intention behind the measure, which was first announced in the 2020 Budget. There is a clear need to ensure that fuel duty rebates are as limited as possible in order to meet our net-zero commitment. I note that several sectors retain their entitlement to use red diesel, including agriculture, rail transport and permanently moored houseboats. More recently, the Government have announced further exemptions, including generating power from non-commercial premises for amateur sports clubs and for travelling fairs and circuses.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the impact on individual sectors. I know that the waste sector made a representation to the Treasury arguing that removing its red diesel entitlements
“could increase the cost of recycling, which may result in waste being diverted to landfill instead and the cost of recycled goods increasing relative to virgin materials.”
Would the Exchequer Secretary assure us that that issue was looked at carefully and that the impact on recycling was considered? Would she also say a little about compliance in the industries where the entitlement is being removed? She mentioned that the Treasury had been working closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that compliance was followed, but what monitoring and enforcement will the Government use to ensure that red diesel is used only for approved purposes?
May I turn briefly to recreational boat owners in Northern Ireland? The Government have confirmed that private pleasure craft in Northern Ireland will have to use white diesel from June this year in order to implement a ruling of the European Court of Justice. The Royal Yachting Association, British Marine and the Cruising Association have raised concerns about the practical effects of the decision, including the limited supply of white diesel for private pleasure craft users in Northern Ireland. Would the Minister reassure us that HMRC and the Treasury will work closely with those organisations to minimise disruption? Would she give us more information on the steps that have been taken so far to ensure that? Finally, will the Government take any further action to encourage the growth of cleaner fuel alternatives in sectors such as the construction industry?
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I could repeat much of what I have to say about new clause 3 when we debate new clause 5, but in the interests of brevity I will not make the same comments again at that point.
We welcome the fact that the tax system is used to encourage individuals and businesses to operate in a more environmentally responsible and sustainable way, but it is important that when we make changes we are prepared to look at them afterwards to see whether they are having the expected impact. That can be quite difficult with Government changes to tax policy, because the policy aim is not always immediately obvious. How much of this change is an income-raising exercise for the Treasury, and how much is designed to reduce the use not only of severely environmentally damaging hydrocarbon fuels, but of other fuels which, although they may be less damaging, are damaging none the less?
Biofuels are not a guilt-free pass. Even though they may appear to be renewable, their use has an impact on the environment, for example where the resources of less well-off countries are used to grow biofuels for us to use instead of food to eat for the people who live there. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that simply by converting our excessive use of fuel to use of renewable fuels, we are somehow doing all we need to.
The second reason why regular reviews are needed is that as well as unintended consequences, there will be mistakes. One third of the Government amendments in Committee of the whole House were introduced to correct drafting mistakes, either in the Bill itself or in related legislation. People make mistakes—hon. Members may even have noticed the drafting mistake in the wording of our new clause 3, which the Exchequer Secretary so kindly pointed out. However, given that her objection to new clause 3 is that the timing does not work, I would appreciate a commitment from her that the Government will comply with the spirit of the new clause in a more appropriate timescale when the impact of the changes can be measured.
The Scottish National party supports the Government’s stated aim of encouraging a more environmentally sustainable and responsible approach to use of the earth’s resources; we just think that they should acknowledge that they might not always get it right the first time. They should build in a process by which we can review the policy after a reasonable time and make the changes that may be needed, sooner rather than later.
Kemi Badenoch
I will take hon. Members’ questions in turn, starting with the question on private pleasure craft in Northern Ireland.
From later this year, private pleasure-craft users in Northern Ireland will no longer be able to use red diesel for propelling their craft, as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead mentioned. This will achieve consistency with the 2018 judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union and ensure that the UK meets its international obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. That is the primary reason for it, but it will also align with the way in which fuel used by private pleasure craft in the Republic of Ireland is treated, which should make it simpler for craft users to access the fuel that they need if they sail between Northern Ireland and Ireland. On the hon. Lady’s point about easy access to white diesel, I think that it will work in the same way as in the Republic of Ireland. The Government also intend to introduce a new relief scheme in Northern Ireland to ensure that the average private pleasure-craft user will not pay a higher rate of duty on non-propulsion use than they do now.
On new clause 3, we fully understand the point that the hon. Member for Glenrothes makes, but it takes time for us to be able to analyse what is happening with changes to tax. That is why we want to monitor fuel-duty receipts for red and white diesel, which will enable us to evaluate the extent to which the users of red diesel who have lost their entitlement are switching to greener alternatives. It is really important that we allow time for the policy to bed in before we carry out reviews, but the Treasury always keeps all tax policy under review. We want to ensure that we encourage the transition to net zero as well as maximising revenue for the Exchequer. We do not want to lose money, nor do we want emissions. I reassure him that we are all on common ground and will work together to achieve those stated goals.
On the sectors that continue to have the red diesel entitlement, I can tell the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead that we looked very hard at the sectors that could not easily switch to alternatives, and at those in which the impact on the consumer would be quite high, as opposed to those within the supply chain. That is how we came to specific sectors such as travelling circuses and amateur sports clubs, which we feel would benefit from continued red diesel entitlement.
On the question of biofuels, to respond to the hon. Member for Glenrothes, all users of biofuels will be taxed at the same rate as ordinary diesel, to reflect the fact that biodiesel releases just as much carbon dioxide when burned. The Government recognise that renewable biofuels deliver greenhouse gas savings, as they are sourced from feedstocks that extract CO2 from the atmosphere. To incentivise the use of these low-carbon fuels and reduce emissions from fuel supplied for use in transport, the Government introduced the renewable transport fuel obligation in 2008, whereby all road transport fossil-fuel suppliers in the UK are required to show that a percentage of the total road and non-road mobile machinery fuels they supply come from sustainable and renewable energy sources. Again, I remind him that the Government keep all of these rates under review.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 20 agreed to.
Clause 99
Rates of tobacco products duty
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kemi Badenoch
Clause 99 consolidates changes announced and implemented in November 2020 concerning tobacco duty rates. The increases made then ensured that the duty charged on all tobacco products rose in line with the tobacco duty escalator, with additional increases for hand-rolling tobacco and to the minimum excise on cigarettes.
Smoking rates in the UK are falling. However, smoking remains the biggest cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK, killing around 100,000 people a year and about half of all long-term users of tobacco. All these factors mean that we need to continue to encourage more people to kick the habit. We have already set out ambitious plans to reduce the number of smokers from 14% of the population to 12% by 2022, as set out by the Department of Health and Social Care in its tobacco control plan, and we have announced that we aim to curb smoking once and for all by 2030 in England. This includes a commitment to continue the policy of maintaining high duty rates for tobacco products to improve public health.
According to Action on Smoking and Health, smoking costs society almost £14 billion a year in England, including £2 billion in costs to the NHS for treating disease caused by smoking. In November 2020, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary announced increases to tobacco duty that, in the absence of an autumn Budget, were implemented by a Treasury order. The order was made under existing powers in the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 and helped to protect revenues. However, the life span of an order made under these powers is time-limited to one year, so this clause consolidates those increases. This will ensure that the duty charged on all tobacco products increases in line with the escalator, which is 2% above retail price index inflation. In addition, duty on hand-rolling tobacco increases by a further 4% to 6% above RPI inflation. The clause also increases the minimum excise tax—the minimum amount of duty to be paid on a pack of cigarettes—by an additional 2% to 4% above RPI inflation.
These new tobacco duty rates took effect on 16 November 2020. Recognising the potential interactions between tobacco duty rates and the illicit market, the Government recently consulted on tougher penalties for tobacco tax evasion. This includes proposals for £10,000 fixed penalties and escalating fines for repeat offenders. The responses indicate that there is broad support for tougher sanctions and, as announced on 23 March, we intend to legislate in the next Finance Bill. The Government have committed to strengthening trading standards and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so that these organisations can combat the illicit tobacco business even more effectively. This work includes creating a UK-wide HMRC intelligence-sharing hub.
The clause will continue our tried-and-tested policy of using high duty rates on tobacco products to make tobacco less affordable, to continue the reduction in smoking prevalence. and to reduce the burden that smoking places on our public services. I therefore move that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Abena Oppong-Asare
As the Minister said, this clause incorporates the legislation on changes in tobacco duty that the Government introduced in the Tobacco Products Duty (Alteration of Rates) Order 2020. I spoke during the debate on that order, so I will not repeat the points that I made then. However, I do have a few questions for the Minister.
First, why did the Government not raise the tobacco duty at Budget 2021? I note that the Minister has quoted data from Action on Smoking and Health. After the Budget, it said:
“ASH is disappointed that the Chancellor hasn’t increased taxes on cigarettes by per cent above inflation as we recommended. The Government says it is willing to take bold action to make smoking obsolete, which we welcome, but that has to include further tax rises. Making tobacco less affordable is crucial to discouraging children from starting to smoke and delivering the Smokefree generation the Government has said it wants to see by 2030.”
I hope the Minister can respond to the concerns from ASH and clearly set out what the Government’s approach to tobacco duty will be going forward.
9.45 am
More broadly, I want to press the Minister on the issue of smoking and public health. We have seen the importance of public health more than ever over the past year. Many people are concerned that the dismantling of Public Health England will have an adverse effect on the nation’s health, including action on preventing harm through smoking. We need reassurances that the new Office for Health Protection will be able to fulfil that important role effectively. Of course, that is partly from funding, but the Government have cut the public health grant by more than a fifth since 2015-16, despite a growing and urgent need for investment in public health and prevention.
ASH has called on the Government to increase the public health budget by £1.2 billion in order to reverse the cuts that have taken place since 2015 and then to provide additional investment in the most deprived areas with the greatest need. Can the Minister update us on the Government’s plan for the public health budget? Finally, can the Minister tell us whether the Government will provide further funding to local authorities to support local smoking cessation services?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. What I would say about the Office for Health Protection is that it is being set up to improve the work that Public Health England was doing. I am assured by health Ministers that it will continue to tackle issues such as tobacco smoking and its health implications.
The current smoking prevalence rate is 13.9%, which is the lowest level on record and a great public health success story. The UK is seen as a global leader on tobacco control, and over the last two decades we have implemented regulatory measures to stop youth smoking, prevent non-smokers from starting, and offer support to help smokers quit. Local authorities are responsible for delivering local “stop smoking” services and support to meet their population’s needs and to address inequalities. The Government set the national policy through the current tobacco control plan, and we will publish the next tobacco control plan this summer in order to outline our ambition for a smoke-free society by 2030.
Given the success that we have had in reducing smoking, we believe that the duty rates have been set at the right level. We review our duty rates at each fiscal event to ensure that they continue to meet our two objectives of protecting public health and raising revenue for vital public services. The tax information and impact note published alongside the Budget announcement sets out the Government’s assessment of the expected impact.
We are committed to improving public health by reducing smoking prevalence. We co-ordinate our efforts through DHSC’s “Tobacco Control Delivery Plan 2017 to 2022”, and we will continue our tried and tested policy of using high duty rates to make tobacco less affordable and continue the reduction in smoking prevalence, which should reduce the burden that smoking places on public services, as I mentioned earlier.
The hon. Lady asked why we are introducing clause 99, given that no increase in tobacco duties was announced in the spring Budget. Although the autumn Budget was cancelled, the Government proceeded with the uprating of tobacco duties in order to safeguard revenues, maintain our commitment to the duty escalator and protect health objectives. The Tobacco Products Duty (Alteration of Rates) Order 2020, implementing the duty increases, took effect on 16 November 2020. However, the hon. Lady should note that although an order may be used to alter tobacco duty rates, the changes expire after one year, which is why the increases need to be consolidated into the Finance Bill. It is not the first time that a Treasury order has been used to increase tobacco duties; the same method was used in 2008. I hope I have answered all her questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100
Rates for light passenger of light goods vehicles, motorcycles etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 101 and 102 stand part.
Kemi Badenoch
Clauses 100 to 102 make changes to vehicle excise duty and the heavy goods vehicle road user levy. Clauses 100 and 101 relate specifically to vehicle excise duty, which is paid on vehicle ownership. The Government have uprated VED, as it is known, for cars, vans and motorcycles in line with inflation every year since 2010, which means that rates have remained unchanged in real terms during that time.
Since April 2017, cars with a list price exceeding £40,000 pay an additional supplement as well as paying the standard rate of VED, which means those who can afford the most expensive cars pay more than the standard rate imposed on other drivers. The expensive car supplement is paid in addition to the standard rate for a period of five years from the start of the second vehicle licence, but for a period of no longer than six years from when the vehicle was first registered. As a vehicle can change hands or be declared off-road through a statutory off-road notification, or SORN, the vehicle licence end date and the expensive car supplement end date will not always align.
Clause 102 relates to the HGV road user levy. That is an annual charge paid by UK hauliers alongside their VED, as well as a daily, weekly or monthly charge for HGVs from outside the UK accessing the UK road network. The levy was introduced in 2014 to ensure that all HGVs, which are heavy and can damage the road surface, contribute to the public finances and to reducing the wear and tear of the road network. In the light of the impacts of covid-19, the Government decided to suspend the levy last August for 12 months to support the haulage sector by reducing their costs.
Clause 100 makes changes to uprate VED rates for cars, vans and motorcycles in line with the retail prices index from 1 April 2021, meaning VED liabilities will not increase in real terms for the 11th successive year. The standard rate of VED for cars registered after 1 April 2017 will increase by £5 only. The flat rate for vans will increase by £10 and motorcyclists will see an increase in rates of no more than £3.
Clause 101 makes changes to ensure that registered keepers of cars with a list price of over £40,000 are issued with the correct annual VED refund, if they sell their vehicle or make a statutory off-road notification in the last year of the vehicle being liable to pay the expensive car supplement. Clause 101 will amend VED legislation, so that the rebate amount is equal to the number of months remaining at the higher rate of duty under the expensive car supplement and the number of months remaining at the standard rate of VED. This change in law will apply from 1 April 2021. Individuals and businesses will not need to do anything differently from what they do now, and this measure will not affect the amount of VED they pay.
Clause 102 will make changes to suspend the HGV road user levy for a further period of 12 months from 1 August 2021, to support the haulage industry and help the covid-19 pandemic recovery efforts. That means that UK-registered keepers of HGVs will save between £76.50 and £1,200 per vehicle again, as they will not have to pay the HGV road user levy when they renew their vehicle licence. Non-UK-based hauliers will also not need to pay the levy during this period.
In conclusion, the changes outlined in clause 100 will ensure that the Government continue to support motorists with the cost of living, while ensuring they continue to make a fair contribution to the public finances. The changes outlined in clause 101 will ensure that VED refunds are issued as intended when the expensive car supplement was introduced in 2017. Finally, the haulage sector supports many other industries, so the changes outlined in clause 102 to ease their financial burden temporarily will support them and help the economy to recover from the impacts of covid-19.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I will briefly respond to each clause in the group. Clause 100 would increase the rate of vehicle excise duty for a variety of vehicles, as mentioned by the Minister. We support the Government’s general approach to incentivise the use of greener and more environmentally friendly vehicles. We do, however, believe that we need to see more action from the Government on increasing the availability and affordability of green and electric vehicles.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders described the 2021 Budget as falling
“short of the support needed to transform the industry and market to the net zero future to which both the Government and industry aspires.”
If UK car manufacturing is to survive the covid crisis and thrive as part of a net zero future, it needs the Government to develop a long-term strategy to support the sector. Labour urges the Government to do just that by implementing a strategy that accelerates the electrification process in a manner that provides a lifeline to the industry, stimulates investment and ensures the future of the automotive sector in the UK for the communities that rely on it. We have called on the Government to create new gigafactories by 2025, make electric vehicle ownership affordable by offering interest-free loans for those on low and middle incomes and accelerate the rollout of charging points, particularly in the areas that have lagged behind. That is the support the automotive industry needs.
Clause 101 is a simple change to allow for the rebate of the additional rate of vehicle excise duty where the vehicle was sold or declared off road, and we support that. As the Minister said, clause 102 extends the suspension of the HGV road user levy for a further year. We support the measures as the logistics and haulage sector continues to recover from the pandemic, as the Minister has just mentioned, and to ensure that vital supply chains continue to function.
I am concerned that the Minister has not mentioned the serious concerns that haulage firms have about the Brexit deal. Specialist haulage firms, such as concert trucks that service UK music tours, have been left in an extremely difficult position by the Government’s Brexit deal, as it allows for three stops in total across the entire European Union before they must return to the UK. That will have serious knock-on effects on other businesses that rely on the haulage firms to transport their equipment across the continent. Other haulage companies have felt the knock-on effect of the Brexit deal too, including having to prepare last minute for changes in customs requirements and a lack of trained staff at customs. While we welcome the extended suspension of the HGV levy, I urge the Government to do more to support the sector.
Kemi Badenoch
The Government are doing a lot to support the haulage sector. We have provided unprecedented support for businesses and individuals throughout the national restrictions, including the coronavirus job retention scheme and a number of access-to-finance schemes. We have decided to temporarily maintain support for the haulage industry as it plays a critical role in the functioning of our economy and supports many other industries, including our supermarkets and shops. Suspending the levy for a further 12 months is a significant measure to help not just pandemic recovery efforts, but also the industry as a whole. As the hon. Lady made reference to the point by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, that is something that the haulage sector specifically has received, but not every other industry has.
On the question of the impact of Brexit negotiations, I am afraid that is not a matter for the Treasury. I am sure officials will note her concerns and pass them on to the relevant Department. On the question of why the Government are not doing enough to incentivise the uptake of zero-emission vehicles, we use the tax system to encourage the uptake of cars with low carbon dioxide emissions to help us to meet our legally binding climate change target. Zero-emission cars and electric vans are liable to pay no VED. Furthermore, users of zero and ultra-low emission cars have beneficial company car tax rates in comparison with conventionally fuelled vehicles. From April 2021, the Government are applying a nil rate of tax to zero-emission vans within the van benefit charge. We believe that we are doing quite a lot to incentivise the uptake of zero-emission vehicles and electric cars.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the Minister for her comments. I want to go back to the point I raised about the haulage firms and the Brexit deal. I am concerned about how the Minister mentions that Brexit concerns are not a matter for the Treasury, because they are, particularly as clause 102 extends the suspension of the HGV road user levy for a further year. The Government need to look at the impact of that on haulage firms, in particular specialist haulage firms such as concert trucks that service UK music tours. They have been left in an extremely difficult position. The Government need to take that seriously, so I would like the Minister to take that forward and to ensure that such individuals get support.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 100 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 101 and 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 103
Rates of air passenger duty from 1 April 2022
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kemi Badenoch
The clause makes changes to ensure that the long-haul rates of air passenger duty for the tax year 2022-23 increase in line with the retail price index. The change will ensure that the aviation sector continues to play its part in contributing towards the funding of vital public services.
Aviation plays a crucial role in keeping Britain open for business, and the Government are keen to support its long-term success. The Government recognise the challenging circumstances facing the aviation industry as a result of covid-19. Firms experiencing difficulties can draw upon the unprecedented package of measures announced by the Chancellor, including schemes to raise capital and flexibility with tax bills.
As APD is a per passenger tax, airlines’ liabilities have considerably reduced following the 87% decline in passenger demand caused by the pandemic between April and September 2020, when compared with the previous year. Aviation fuel incurs no duty and tickets are VAT-free, so APD ensures that the aviation sector makes a fair contribution to the public finances. Uprating APD rates in line with inflation is routine and has occurred every year since 2012. The Government announce the rates one year in advance, in order to give airlines sufficient notice of any changes.
The changes to be made by the clause will increase the long-haul APD tax rates for 2022-23 by RPI. The clause increases the long-haul reduced rate for economy class nominally, by just £2; and the standard rate for all classes above economy by £5—a real-terms freeze. The rates for long-haul travel by private jets will increase by £13. The rounding of APD rates to the nearest £1 means that short-haul rates will remain frozen in nominal terms for the 10th year in a row. That benefits more than 75% of all airline passengers.
APD is a fair and efficient tax, with the amount paid corresponding to the distance and class of travel of the passenger, and it is only due when airlines are flying passengers. The changes made by the clause ensure that the aviation sector continues to play its part in contributing towards funding our vital public services.
Abena Oppong-Asare
As the Minister said, the clause will increase, from April 2022, the rates of long-haul air passenger duty in line with inflation while leaving the short-haul duty at its current rate.
As we all know, the aviation sector has struggled enormously during the pandemic, as international travel has in effect shut down. The industry is important to the UK economy and supports 250,000 jobs across the country. The sector’s recovery will be prolonged. Any restructuring must be supported with a transitional strategy for workers and our regional economies that capitalises on the opportunities to grow industry into green technology.
We believe that part of any aviation support must include a clear commitment to tackling climate change and leading the industry to use cleaner fuel and other cutting-edge low or zero emission technologies. Government support should be contingent on airlines retiring old and inefficient aircraft, so that they meet the new industry standards in accordance with the framework of the Paris agreement and the UK’s Climate Change Act 2008.
Several smaller airports, including Teesside and Newquay, were forced to shut their doors at the height of the pandemic. This is an uneven playing field between small and large airports, as staff wages and business rates make up a bigger proportion of costs for regional airports. Without further specific support, regional airports may no longer be viable. The sector has made clear its disappointment with the recent Budget, which failed to set out either the support or the vision for future aviation needs. Will the Minister update us on the aviation support package that the Government promised but which has yet to materialise?
Finally, we know that the Government are currently consulting on a new low band for domestic air passenger duty, and we will watch the outcome of that consultation closely. Will the Minister tell us how that will fit in with our environmental commitments?
Kemi Badenoch
The clause seeks to set APD rates for April 2022, so it will not take immediate effect. It will increase long-haul air passenger duty rates only in nominal terms, while short-haul rates will remain frozen at current rates, benefiting more than 75% of passengers.
With regard to the issues affecting the aviation industry, air passenger duty is marginal—a £2 increase on economy flights is not what will make or break the industry. We recognise the challenging circumstances faced by the industry as a result of covid-19, and all the firms experiencing difficulties can and have drawn upon the unprecedented package of measures announced by the Chancellor, as I mentioned earlier, including schemes to raise capital and flexibility with their tax bills. We have also provided bespoke support to the sector via the airport and ground operator support scheme. The majority of beneficiaries have been the smaller airports that the hon. Lady mentioned. At the end of the day, APD is a per-passenger tax. Airlines’ liabilities have reduced significantly since the start of covid, with receipts between April and September 2020 down 87% compared with the same period in 2019, so suspending APD would not be appropriate.
On the wider issues that the hon. Lady mentioned on the transition to net zero, we have introduced a wide range of scheme to support the decarbonisation of the aviation sector, including a £15 million competition to support the UK production of sustainable aviation fuel, and the inclusion of aviation in the UK’s emissions trading scheme, which we discussed in the last sitting. The Government will also consult on the overall strategy for the sector’s transition to net zero later this year.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 103 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 104
Amounts of gross gaming yield charged to gaming duty
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Review of impact of section 104—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made by section 104 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the provisions on the volume of gambling, including—
(a) the number of people who take part in gambling,
(b) the amount of money spent on gambling, and
(c) the gross gaming yield.
(3) In this section “parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland; and “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This new clause would require a report on the effects of section 104 on the volume of gambling.
Kemi Badenoch
Clause 104 increases the thresholds for the gross gaming yield bands for gaming duty in line with inflation. Gaming duty is a banded tax paid by casinos in the UK, with marginal tax rates varying between 15% and 50%. To ensure that operators are not brought into higher tax bands because of inflation, gaming duty bands are increased in line with RPI inflation. That means that casinos continue to pay the same level of tax in real terms. The clause uprates the bands of gaming duty in line with inflation. That is expected by the industry and assumed in the public finances. The rates of gaming duty themselves will remain unchanged. The change will take effect for the accounting period starting on or after 1 April 2021.
New clause 4 seeks to place a statutory requirement on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to review and publish a report on the impact of the increase in the gaming duty thresholds on the volume of gambling. The Gambling Commission publishes annually statistics on gambling participation, spend and gross gaming yield for each part of the sector, so an additional report would merely duplicate information that is already available. There is no change to the tax rate in the provision. Accordingly, the Government do not expect the change to have an impact on gambling participation, spend or gross gaming yield.
It is also important to say that new clause 4 is impractical, as the proposed publication deadline, together with the continued lockdown of casinos, would deliver an inconclusive report based on receipts data from a single shortened accounting period. I hope that the Committee is reassured by that and will therefore reject the new clause.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Clause 104 increases the bands for gaming duty in line with inflation, in effect freezing gaming duties for casinos. It is a relatively small measure, but clearly the taxation and regulation of gambling is extremely important. The Minister will know that hon. Members across the House have taken a keen interest in the issue. Will she therefore update us on the Treasury’s plans for gambling taxation more widely, including for online operators? In particular, what role does she see for taxation in this area as a way of tackling the adverse health effects that problem gambling can lead to?
Peter Grant
The disadvantage of not speaking on every clause just for the sake of it is that sometimes people forget that someone is there.
I hear what the Minister says about new clause 4, but there is still a need for more reporting to Parliament. I appreciate that it is yet another one of those cases where the main responsibility lies with a different Government Department but the impact on the Treasury is substantial, which is why it is part of this Bill.
The Minister said that the increase is in line with inflation. Although that is technically correct, the headline rate of inflation is 3.1% and all of what are effectively income tax bands for the gambling sector are going up by 3.1%. Any increase in gross gaming yield is not caused by a price increase, as would apply anywhere else. If the gaming yield increases by 10%, that is because people are spending 10% more on gambling. The price of a bet on the grand national does not increase. What is happening is that either people are choosing to bet more than they were before, or more people are getting into heavier gambling than they were before.
Debt inflation is relevant to the income of low-paid workers, yet earlier when discussing clause 5, I think, there was a decision for them to get virtually no increase in their income tax bands for the next five years—0.5%, which is then frozen for four years. I would be interested to learn from the Minister’s response why the gambling industry needs to get its tax bands uprated for inflation every year, but hard-pressed workers who are only just making enough to get by are effectively seeing their tax bands increase by about a 10th of a percent compounded year on year.
Last year, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee reported on gambling regulation. Again, while the regulation is a matter for a different Department, we cannot ignore it here. Before the pandemic started, gambling was taking over the lives of 395,000 people in the UK. Of them, 55,000 are children under the age of 16. Another 1.8 million people were at risk of becoming problem gamblers, and it is likely that quite a few of those 1.8 million are now problem gamblers. No matter how locked down someone is, one thing they can do is gamble online, often with money they do not have, for 24 hours a day.
We do not know how much problem gambling costs public services. The lowest estimate is over a quarter of a billion pounds, and the highest puts it at well over £1 billion. The financial year on which those two reports are based, 2018-19, showed that the total gross gambling yield, so the money they take in minus the winnings they pay out—effectively the gambling industry’s gross profit—is £11.3 billion. There are indications that in the following year it was up to £14 billion. Gaming duties bring in about £3 billion to the Treasury, which is why we are discussing it today. The Gambling Commission, which is supposed to regulate all of that, has a separate levy by way of the application of licence fees paid by the industry and set by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. That brings in the princely sum of £19 million—million with an “m”—to try and regulate an industry with gross profits of £11 billion, with a “b”. It is clear that it is not an equal contest.
As with so many of the clauses we are discussing, the impacts on thousands of our constituents and, in the case of problem gambling, the horrific and often tragic impacts on them, may not be in the scope of the Bill, but it would simply be unacceptable for us to ignore those impacts when we consider the relatively small part that the Treasury plays in the Government’s relationship with the gambling industry. It is not acceptable to look at clause 104 as just a revenue raising exercise for the Treasury, although sometimes it seems that that is all the interest the Treasury takes in it.
I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and other members of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm for their work in developing recommendations for the improved regulation of the industry. When the time comes for the Government, led by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, to implement those recommendations or something very similar, which they will have to do, the moral imperative is now on the Government to act. It will simply not be morally acceptable for the Treasury’s interest in that £3 billion to get in the way of addressing what is now one of the greatest social diseases affecting these nations.
Why is it that children cannot watch major sporting events without having gambling advertising forced at them all the time, for example? Why are they allowed to advertise gambling during peak-time TV when children are watching? The reason that is relevant to the Bill is that advertising is designed to encourage people to gamble more, and by gambling more they are helping to fill the Treasury’s coffers. I can understand the reluctance to let go of any part of that £3 billion, and I know that there are hard decisions to be made about how to replace it, but 395,000 lives being scarred and sometimes ended by problem gambling is an issue we cannot afford to ignore.
Kemi Badenoch
It is worth reminding hon. Members that this measure is a change to gambling taxation and is not related to the regulation of gambling activity, which is a matter for DCMS—I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that. I take his point about the health effects and the impact on families. The Government continue to monitor the effectiveness of existing gambling controls. DCMS has launched a review of the Gambling Act 2005 with a call for evidence. This closed at the end of March and the Government will respond in due course.
We will also look at how we can ensure that the impact on the sector itself is proportionate, given that much of the casino industry has been closed down for the last year. We believe that the sector is already making a fair contribution to public finances, so this is not necessarily the time for an increase.
Revalorising gaming duty bands in line with inflation, as the Government have done, is assumed in the public finances. Freezing the bands would have a very small impact on the public finances, while pushing smaller, generally regional casinos into high duty bands, hence why we have done this in this way
I remind the Committee that the top rate of gaming duty is currently 50%. The system ensures that casinos pay their fair share of overall gambling tax receipts. This measure does not represent a tax cut. Given DCMS’s call for evidence, I am sure this is an area that Parliament will return to again and again.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Dame Angela, I just have some questions for the Minister on gambling taxation more widely, particularly for online operators. Could she elaborate on that? What work is being done to tackle the adverse effects that problem gambling can lead to?
Kemi Badenoch
On the hon. Lady’s second question, that is a matter for DCMS. On her first question, I referred to that in relation to the tax rate. That is something that we in the Treasury will look to do along with DCMS as part of its review.
The Chair
Just to assist the Chair, if Members wish to come back in, could they wave, leap up with vigour or just indicate to catch my eye? Otherwise, I may get past the moment and they will have lost their chance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 104 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 105
Rates of climate change levy from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 106 to 108 stand part.
New clause 5—Review of impact of sections 105, 106 and 108—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made by sections 105, 106 and 108 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the provisions on progress towards the Government’s climate emissions targets.
(3) In this section—
“parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
and “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This new clause would require a report on the effects of sections 105, 106 and 108 on progress towards the UK Government’s climate emissions targets.
Kemi Badenoch
Clauses 105 and 106 make changes to ensure that the climate change levy’s main and reduced rates are updated for years 2022-23 and 2023-24, to reflect the rates announced at Budget 2020. Clause 107 increases both the standard and the lower rates of landfill tax in line with inflation from 1 April 2021, as announced at Budget 2020. Clause 108 repeals the provisions in the Finance Acts 2019 and 2020 relating to carbon emissions tax, which were not commenced following the Government’s decision to implement a UK emissions trading scheme from 1 January 2021 instead.
The climate change levy came into effect in April 2001. It is a UK-wide tax on the non-domestic use of energy from gas, electricity, liquefied petroleum gas and solid fuels. It promotes the efficient use of energy to help meet the UK’s international and domestic targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. At Budget 2016, it was announced that electricity and gas climate change levy rates would be equalised by 2025, because electricity is becoming a much cleaner source of energy than gas as we reduce our reliance on coal and use more renewable sources instead.
Landfill tax has been immensely successful in reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill. That tax provides a disincentive to landfill and has contributed to a 70% decrease in waste sent to landfill since 2000. Reducing waste sent to landfill provides both economic and environmental benefits.
Peter Grant
How much of the reduction in waste going to landfill is due to a reduction in waste being produced, and how much of it is waste ending up in farmers’ fields and play parks and just being fly-tipped illegally, at further increased cost to the environment, and indeed to the public purse, for clearing it up?
Kemi Badenoch
I believe that a significant amount of it is due to the landfill tax. We have been looking at the rate in comparison year on year, and our analysis shows that the landfill tax is having a significant impact. There will always be fly-tipping, irrespective of what the tax rate on landfill is.
Clauses 105 and 106 make changes to the climate change levy rates for 2022-23 and 2023-24, to continue the rebalancing of electricity and gas rates announced in Budget 2016. The 2022-23 and 2023-24 rates were announced in Budget 2020 in order to give businesses plenty of notice to prepare for the changes. At Budget 2020, it was also announced that rates for liquified petroleum gas would be frozen to 31 March 2024.
To limit the economic impact of the tax rate changes on energy-intensive businesses, participants in the climate change agreement scheme will see their climate change levy liability increase by RPI inflation only. That protects the competitiveness of more than 9,000 facilities from energy-intensive industries across some 50 sectors.
When disposed of at a landfill site, each tonne of standard-rated material is currently taxed at £94.15, and lower-rate material draws a tax of £3.00 per tonne. These changes will see rates per tonne increase to £96.70 and £3.10 respectively from 1 April 2021. By increasing rates in line with RPI, we maintain the crucial incentive for the industry to use alternative waste treatment methods and continue the move towards a more circular economy. The changes made by clause 108 will repeal the provisions in the Finance Acts 2019 and 2020 relating to carbon emissions tax, which were not commenced.
New clause 5, tabled by the hon. Members for Glasgow Central, for Glenrothes, for Gordon and for Midlothian, would require the Government to publish a report, within six months of the passing of the Act, on the effects of what would then be sections 105, 106 and 108 on progress towards the Government’s climate emissions targets. As clauses 105 and 106 make changes to ensure that the climate change levy’s main and reduced rates are updated for years 2022-23 and 2023-24, such a report would not be able meaningfully to assess the impact of these changes within six months of the passing of the Act. The Government currently assess and monitor environmental impacts across existing tax measures, and do that alongside other, complementary measures, such as regulation and spending, to understand the impact of policy making in the round. That alludes to the point made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes about landfill tax.
Clause 108 repeals the provisions in Finance Acts 2019 and 2020 relating to a carbon emissions tax, which was not commenced because the Government decided that a UK emissions trading scheme administered by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy would be the best replacement for the EU emissions trading system from 1 January 2021.
As it was not commenced, the carbon emissions tax’s role in meeting the Government’s climate emissions targets cannot be measured. However, Opposition Members should be reassured that the UK ETS, a market-based measure covering a third of UK emissions, will help to deliver a robust carbon price signal. The energy White Paper committed to exploring expanding the UK emissions trading scheme to other sectors and set out our aspirations to continue to lead the world on carbon pricing in the run-up to COP26. The Treasury will continue to work closely with BEIS on the introduction of the UK emissions trading scheme and will keep all environmental taxes under review to ensure that they continue to support the Government’s climate commitments.
In conclusion, the changes made by clauses 105 and 106 will update the climate change levy main and reduced rates for 2022-23 and 2023-24, as announced at Budget 2020 and to deliver on previous Budget announcements. Clause 107 will increase the two rates of landfill tax in line with inflation from 1 April 2021, as announced at Budget 2020. Clause 108 will ensure that the statute book is up to date by repealing the provisions in Finance Acts 2019 and 2020 relating to a carbon emissions tax that were not commenced. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee and ask that the Committee rejects new clause 5.
Abena Oppong-Asare
If I may, I will address the clauses in reverse order. Clause 108 repeals the carbon emissions tax. As the Minister said, the Government introduced this legislation when deciding what to replace the EU emissions trading system with. We welcome the fact that the Government have decided to implement a UK emissions trading system, rather than a carbon emissions tax. The Minister and I recently debated regulations relating to the UK ETS, and I will not repeat the points I made then. However, I stress that our belief is that the UK ETS must be linked with the EU ETS in order to achieve a robust system of carbon pricing to meet our net zero target.
Clause 107 increases the landfill tax in line with inflation. We welcome this small, uncontroversial measure. We talked at considerable length about waste and recycling during our discussion of the plastic packaging tax. I repeat only the point that the Government should invest the revenue from these taxes into recycling facilities and technology. Finally, clauses 105 and 106 make a number of changes to the climate change levy over the coming years, including raising the gas levy and adjusting the climate change agreement rates. Could the Minister set out whether the Government intend to keep the climate change agreement scheme beyond its current period, and if not, what they will replace it with?
As we come to the end of the group of environmental clauses, I will make a few points about tax and our net zero commitment. In February, the National Audit Office published a report into environmental tax measures. The NAO criticised the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for failing to properly consider and evaluate the impact of these taxes on the Government’s environmental targets.
Does the Minister agree that we need information on the environmental impact of all taxes and reliefs? Will she commit to working with HMRC and other bodies to publish this information regularly? Currently, UK taxes with a positive environmental impact account for only 7% of tax revenue, and those with an explicit environmental purpose, such as the climate change levy or landfill tax, account for only 0.5%. So far, and particularly in the last Budget, we have seen a lack of vision from the Chancellor on the environment. We await the Treasury net zero review, but will the Minister set out what steps the Government will take in the short, medium and long term to ensure that our tax system plays a role in meeting our net zero commitment?
Peter Grant
The reason why a regular report to Parliament is needed on these taxes is that despite the optimistic assessment that the Exchequer Secretary set out, there are far too many taxes, including the landfill tax. With far too many of the officially designated environmental taxes, and an awful lot of taxes that are not officially environmental but that have an impact on the environment, the Government do not have a very clear handle on what is going on.
In February, the National Audit Office report “Environmental tax measures” stated:
“The exchequer departments do not specify how they will measure the impact of environmental tax measures.”
Before the tax has even been introduced, nobody is clear about what environmental impact they want it to have. The report also states:
“HMRC’s approach to evaluation provides it with limited insight into the environmental impact of taxes.”
Whether those taxes’ main intention is to influence behaviour rather than raise money, or whether they are introduced as a revenue-raising measure that we hope will also have beneficial environmental impacts, the Government’s track record has been that they do not really know what they intend the environmental impact to be before they start, and they usually do not collect information to give a reliable assessment of what the environmental impact has been once the tax is in place. In fact, the revenue consequences of the very small number of taxes that are officially environmental taxes are dwarfed by those of tax reliefs against other forms of taxation for reasons of environmental sustainability.
I will not press new clause 5 to a vote just now, and we will not oppose clauses 105 to 108, but I want to give a message to the Government about their forward setting of objectives and their monitoring of the environmental impact of taxes of all kinds: they really have to do better, and they have to start doing better very quickly.
Kemi Badenoch
On environmental impact, it is important for the hon. Gentleman to realise that where there are multivariable reasons why things occur, measurement will never be 100% accurate. We give the impact that we can measure; others may dispute it, but the Government have taken a view.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the landfill tax in an intervention that I responded to in my speech, but it is a tax that is devolved in Scotland. He did not tell us what the Scottish Government are doing differently from the UK Government—while he was criticising the UK Government’s landfill tax policy, I think he probably forgot that it was a devolved matter.
Kemi Badenoch
No, I will not give way.
The overall impact on the environment has been positive, with the landfill tax contributing to a reduction. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead asked about recycling. The fact is that all these things are having an impact. We bring these taxes into play and they change behaviour; we cannot then say that it has nothing to do with the tax that the behaviour has changed. All these things are directly linked.
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead asked a specific question about climate change agreements. For my part within the Treasury, that is being dealt with by the net zero review, but those agreements are a BEIS lead. She also asked about linking the UK emissions trading scheme to the EU emissions trading scheme. We are open to linking the UK ETS internationally in principle and we are considering a range of options, but no decisions on preferred linking partners have been made. We are looking to innovate and create a scheme suited to the UK and to our climate commitments.
We started—as the hon. Lady will know, given our debates on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Auctioning Regulations 2021—by reducing the cap on emissions by 5%, compared with what it would have been within the EU. We will set up further plans ahead of COP26, but we are going further and faster than EU representatives on this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 105 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 106 to 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Rutley.)
10.36 am
Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.
Finance (No.2) Bill (Fourth sitting)
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 24 to schedule 23, page 247, line 35, leave out “2 years” and insert “3 months”.
This amendment reduces the time limit for assessment of a penalty for failure to make a return in the more common situations.
That schedule 23 be the Twenty-third schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 24 be the Twenty-fourth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 113 stand part.
Amendment 3 to schedule 25, page 264, line 9, leave out “15” and insert “30”.
This amendment would remove the proposed penalties at 15 and 30 days after the due date.
Amendment 4 to schedule 25, page 264, line 11, leave out “15” and insert “30”.
This amendment would remove the proposed penalties at 15 and 30 days after the due date.
Amendment 5 to schedule 25, page 264, line 12, leave out “15” and insert “30”.
This amendment would remove the proposed penalties at 15 and 30 days after the due date.
Amendment 6 to schedule 25, page 264, line 15, leave out paragraph 5.
This amendment would remove the proposed penalties at 15 and 30 days after the due date.
Amendment 7 to schedule 25, page 264, line 31, leave out paragraph 6.
This amendment would remove the proposed penalties at 15 and 30 days after the due date.
Amendment 8 to schedule 25, page 264, line 40, leave out paragraph 7.
This amendment would remove the proposed penalties at 15 and 30 days after the due date.
Amendment 9 to schedule 25, page 265, line 8, leave out “Second”.
This amendment would remove the proposed penalties at 15 and 30 days after the due date.
Amendment 10 to schedule 25, page 265, line 26, leave out “Second”.
This amendment would remove the proposed penalties at 15 and 30 days after the due date.
Amendment 25 to schedule 25, page 265, line 35, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
“(2) If HMRC gives the person notice that a penalty is payable under paragraph 5, the penalty is confined to Amount B.”
This amendment would ensure that taxpayers who enter into a time to pay arrangement with HMRC within 15 days of their tax being due are not subject to high penalties where they fail to meet the terms of that agreement.
Amendment 11 to schedule 25, page 265, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
This amendment would remove the proposed penalties at 15 and 30 days after the due date.
Amendment 12 to schedule 25, page 266, line 16, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (a).
This amendment would remove the proposed penalties at 15 and 30 days after the due date.
Amendment 13 to schedule 25, page 266, line 22, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (c).
This amendment would remove the proposed penalties at 15 and 30 days after the due date.
Amendment 14 to schedule 25, page 266, line 23, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (d).
This amendment would remove the proposed penalties at 15 and 30 days after the due date.
That schedule 25 be the Twenty-fifth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 114 stand part.
Amendment 26 to schedule 26, page 275, line 14, leave out paragraph 36.
That schedule 26 be the Twenty-sixth schedule to the Bill.
New clause 6—Penalties: review of effect on tax revenues—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects on tax revenues of sections 112 to 114 and schedules 23 to 26 and schedule 28 of this Act, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the expected change in corporation and income tax paid attributable to the provisions, and
(b) an estimate of any change, attributable to the provisions, in the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners and the amount paid.
(3) The reference to tax required to be paid in subsection 2(b) includes taxes payable by the owners and employees of Scottish limited partnerships.”
This new clause would require a report on the impact of these provisions of the Bill on narrowing the tax gap by comparing: (a) the expected change in corporation and income tax paid attributable to the provisions and (b) an estimate of any change, attributable to the provisions, in the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners and the amount paid. In particular, this includes taxes payable by the owners and employees of Scottish limited partnerships.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I thank you, Dame Angela, and all Committee members for sticking with us for our fourth sitting in Public Bill Committee.
These clauses introduce a new approach to how Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs penalises the small minority of taxpayers who fail to file or pay their tax on time. The reforms are designed to improve compliance and to enhance public trust in the tax system. They are built on fairness and proportionality. The change addresses long-standing taxpayer concern about existing penalties and draws on four successive public consultations. It is an important step in delivering the Government’s ambition to build a trusted, modern tax administration system.
The clauses apply this new approach to VAT and income tax self-assessment, also known as ITSA. Clause 112 and schedules 23 and 24 introduce a new points-based approach to penalties for regular tax return obligations. That replaces the existing penalties for VAT and income tax self-assessment. It also introduces a separate penalty for the deliberate withholding of information that prevents an assessment of tax due. Clause 113 and schedule 25 introduce a new two-penalty model for VAT businesses and ITSA taxpayers who fail to pay their tax on time. Clause 114 and schedule 26 introduce joint consequential amendments arising from clauses 112 and 113.
The changes will take effect by way of regulations: for VAT taxpayers, for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2022; for ITSA taxpayers with an income over £10,000 per year who are required to submit quarterly returns digitally, for accounting periods beginning on or after 6 April 2023; and for all other income tax self-assessment taxpayers, for accounting periods beginning on or after 6 April 2024. The changes made by the clauses will impact those who are required to submit a return for VAT and/or income tax self-assessment. They will also affect anyone working on behalf of taxpayers such as tax agents.
I recognise, and HMRC recognises, that taxpayers may need some time to familiarise themselves with the new approach. I can confirm that HMRC will adopt a light-touch approach in the first year. As long as taxpayers have made reasonable efforts to fulfil their obligations, the first late payment penalty of 2% will not be applied after 15 days. In effect, therefore, for the first year taxpayers will have 30 days to contact HMRC before any late payment penalties are charged. That is a proportionate and balanced approach, ensuring the new regime is fair to all.
If I may, I will respond briefly to amendments that have been tabled in this group. Amendment 24, which relates to schedule 23 to clause 112, would reduce the time limit for HMRC to assess a penalty for failure to make a return from two years to three months. That two-year time limit, however, is long standing, and the Government do not intend to change it through these reforms. The two-year time limit strikes a careful balance between giving taxpayers sufficient notice that a penalty has accrued and allowing adequate time for HMRC to make an assessment. That helps to ensure the integrity of the tax system and benefits us all. In the vast majority of cases, penalties will be levied quickly and automatically close to the date of any missed obligation. Of course, there will be times when HMRC needs longer to conduct its investigations, which is why the two-year time limit is required. I therefore urge Members to reject the amendment.
Amendments 3 to 14 relate to clause 113 and schedule 25, and would remove the first penalty entirely, leaving only the second penalty. Our approach has evolved in line with feedback from several consultations and it strikes a balance between encouraging early engagement with HMRC and penalising those who avoid doing so. The first late payment penalty is essential to incentivise compliance and protect the public finances. Although the vast majority of taxpayers comply with their tax obligations and try their best, a minority consistently fail to meet their tax obligations. If they faced no consequences, they would have an unfair advantage over the vast majority of taxpayers who follow the rules and pay on time. As I mentioned earlier, it is also the case that no penalty will be charged if a taxpayer approaches HMRC to request a “time to pay” arrangement within the first 15 days.
Amendment 25 also relates to clause 113 and schedule 25, and would remove any penalty for a taxpayer who agrees a “time to pay” arrangement with HMRC but then fails to fulfil the terms of that agreement. Of course, some taxpayers may encounter difficulty in paying their taxes on time and HMRC recognises that there are often valid reasons for that. “Time to pay” arrangements are designed to help taxpayers who are struggling to meet their obligations and HMRC strongly encourages those taxpayers to talk to HMRC as soon as possible, if they need to do so. HMRC will always look to agree a “time to pay” arrangement tailored to the taxpayer’s needs. If a taxpayer’s circumstances change, “time to pay” arrangements can themselves be renegotiated.
HMRC must strike a balance between supporting taxpayers who are struggling to meet their obligations and identifying those who are deliberately avoiding them. If a taxpayer has not upheld a “time to pay” arrangement and has not approached HMRC to amend that arrangement to reflect a change in their circumstances, it is appropriate that a penalty is applied. This is designed to encourage anyone who may be struggling to meet their obligations to engage actively with HMRC in order to agree further support. It is also designed to ensure that those taxpayers who regularly meet their obligations are not put at an unfair disadvantage.
I turn now to new clause 6, which relates to clauses 112 to 114, and to schedules 23 to 26 and 28. New clause 6 would require the Government to review the effects of the changes being made by these measures on reducing the tax gap and, within six months of the Act being passed, report to the House on these changes, including the expected change in corporation tax and income tax being paid that is attributable to the provisions. The new clause specifies that these should include taxes payable by owners and members of Scottish limited partnerships.
The Government publish information each year on the tax gap. Sanctions are only one of a series of tools used to tackle non-compliance and reduce the tax gap, so the effect of the changes made by these measures should not be viewed in isolation. The Government are committed to open policy making and we ensure that systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of policy is built into the policy-making process at every stage. With regard to new clause 6, the Government have set out, within the tax information and impact note published at Budget 2021, that this measure will be monitored through information gathered from HMRC systems, and that implementation will be monitored closely, collecting stakeholder feedback to inform future policy development.
Furthermore, the first financial penalties levied under these measures will not occur until after six months of the Act being passed, so it simply would not be possible to provide any worthwhile estimates of tax saved in that time period. Corporation tax is currently out of scope of these reforms. Therefore, we do not believe that a review of the type being proposed is necessary and we urge Members to reject the new clause.
Finally, I will briefly respond to amendment 26, proposed by the Opposition. It relates to clause 114 and schedule 26, which deal in consequential amendments, removing redundant references to the VAT default surcharge, which of course is being replaced by clauses 112 and 113 in the Bill. The amendment would confusingly and mistakenly retain references to the repealed default surcharge. Therefore, it serves no purpose and I urge Members to reject it.
As many in this Committee will be aware, the vast majority of taxpayers fulfil their obligations by submitting their returns and paying their taxes on time. Therefore, these changes should only affect a small number who do not do so. It is right that HMRC has in place appropriate penalties to discourage such behaviour. I therefore move that these clauses and schedules stand part of the Bill.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Dame Angela.
I am pleased to begin by discussing clause 112, which, as we heard, introduces two new schedules. The first, schedule 23, sets out a new points-based penalty system for the failure to make, or the late submission of, various returns. The second, schedule 24, makes minor changes to the penalty for deliberately withholding information from HMRC by failing to submit returns.
We welcome the stated aim of the Government: to encourage compliance without wanting to punish taxpayers who make occasional mistakes. It is right to give people in the regular course of events an opportunity to clear penalty points without incurring a penalty charge, while making sure a stronger deterrent is provided in cases where behaviour is shown to be deliberate. The explanatory notes for the clause point out that the regime has been developed through three separate consultations. However, as the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group—LITRG—makes clear, while HMRC has taken on board comments on the structure of a new penalty regime, it considers legislation in the Bill to be far more complex than originally envisaged.
LITRG points out that taxpayers come under Making Tax Digital for VAT for the first time in April 2022, and Making Tax Digital for income tax self-assessment for the first time in April 2023, so they face a complex and unfamiliar penalty regime at the same time as having to get to grips with their obligations under Making Tax Digital. For people with a single source of income, Making Tax Digital for income tax self-assessment appears to have six separate filing obligations over the course of a year, for which penalties could be incurred: four periodic updates, one end-of-period statement, and one final declaration.
I welcome the fact that the Minister set out his view of the suggestion by LITRG that the introduction of the new penalty regime should be delayed to allow those taxpayers time to familiarise themselves with the new obligations before they begin to accrue penalty points for non-compliance. I would also welcome the Minister’s thoughts on the suggestion by LITRG that the legislation should include an obligation on HMRC to keep taxpayers regularly informed of their penalty points total.
Clause 113 introduces schedule 25, which includes a new two-penalty model for businesses and individuals that fail to pay their tax liability on time. The first penalty is 2% of the amount of tax unpaid 15 days after the due date, plus 2% of the amount of tax unpaid 30 days after the due date. The second penalty is a penalty interest rate of 4% per annum that applies from the 31st day of the tax being unpaid. Again, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has expressed a number of concerns about the operation of this new regime, including concern about the interaction of time-to-pay arrangements with the new late-payment penalty regime. We would welcome the Minister’s views on that point.
Clause 114 introduces schedule 26, which, as we heard, is consequential to previous clauses and schedules that have been introduced. We tabled amendment 26, which suggests leaving out schedule 26, paragraph 36. We do not intend to press the amendment, but we welcome the Minister’s clarification on the point we sought to raise by tabling it. Our understanding was that schedule 26, paragraph 36 amended section 1303 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009. We were concerned that the amendment appeared to remove a prohibition on any surcharge in VAT, a penalty for missed payment, late payment or non-payment of VAT being written off as a loss in the company’s taxes. We therefore welcome the Minister’s clarification regarding the intention behind that amendment, particularly the message that it sends.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a pleasure once again to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Angela. As the Minister pointed out, the intention behind amendment 24 is to reduce HMRC’s time limit to assess whether a penalty is due if someone is late in submitting their statutory return. Although the Minister is right that the two years have been there for a long time, that does not mean that two years is right. It seems unfair, considering how quickly potential taxpayers are expected to respond to queries from HMRC, which has been known to take two years to make an assessment for which it already has all the necessary information. The stated policy intention of the new regime is to be proportionate, penalising only the small minority who persistently miss their submission obligations, rather than those who make occasional mistakes. However, the Bill as drafted provides for penalties to be levied against people who have made occasional mistakes and allows HMRC up to two years—and an even longer period in some cases not covered by our amendment—to assess a penalty.
Jesse Norman
I thank both colleagues for their contributions. I reassure the hon. Member for Glenrothes that the Government take seriously all such interventions and all our serious interactions with other political parties and hon. Members across the House.
The hon. Members for Ealing North and for Glenrothes both mentioned complexity. When introducing any new regime, let alone one in an area as complex as tax, there is inevitably an impression of complexity and a worry about the initial uptake. However, these concerns can be addressed and are being addressed in the legislation.
I remind the Committee that the reforms have been widely welcomed. The Chartered Institute of Taxation says that it
“welcomes the harmonisation of interest rules…and that HMRC will apply a light-touch…This will allow otherwise compliant taxpayers enough time to adjust to the new rules.”
The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, which both hon. Members mentioned, says:
“HMRC have consulted on many aspects of the penalty regime in recent years, particularly with a view to ensuring that it is fit for purpose for Making Tax Digital. This is welcome, as is the fact that a number of LITRG concerns have been taken on board.”
It is good to see that; I am glad that the group recognises it, because this has been a carefully considered piece of legislation. An organisation called Buzzacott, which describes itself as a UK top 20 accountancy firm, says:
“This is a big change…but the system ought to be fairer because it takes account of the number of filings a business has to make, and it’s also less likely to excessively penalise a trader…The light touch in the first year is welcome”.
That ought to give colleagues a degree of comfort on the issue of complexity, but of course it is important to raise it, and Ministers and HMRC are aware of it.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes raised the two-year period; I think that he was trying to score a political point about HMRC staffing. I remind him that the SNP was expressing concerns about alleged staffing issues at HMRC before the extraordinary events of the past 12 months, in which HMRC has proven its outstanding ability to deal with the covid schemes and has been through everything that one could imagine in the pandemic.
I do not think there is any serious suggestion that the tax agenda, which antedates any concerns that the SNP has expressed with respect to the two-year period, is seriously being put at risk. The fact is that some people have very complex tax affairs and sometimes, in a small minority of cases, HMRC requires some time to reflect on them before it makes a judgment. As a matter of justice, as well as of combating tax avoidance, the two-year period should allow it a proper process of reflection.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the idea of removing the first penalty, but as I pointed out the effect would be to remove a great deal of the early energy that incentivises people to comply with their tax obligations, and which is actually rather important. The SNP’s recommendation might have the effect of diminishing the number of people who comply with their tax obligations, because it would remove that initial first penalty, which is a little nudge.
Peter Grant
I take the Financial Secretary’s point that what we suggest might make things better or worse than what the Government suggest. Leaving aside the possible practical issue with the timescales of some of the reports that we suggested, does he admit that it would be a good idea to bring back a report at an appropriate juncture to see whether the new regime encourages compliance in comparison with the current regime? Will he agree to table an amendment similar to our new clause 6, but with a different timescale, in due course?
Jesse Norman
No. The hon. Gentleman has tabled a series of amendments and I have given clear reasons why the Committee should reject them. In one case, it would remove an incentive to comply early with the tax system—I will come to the light-touch issue in a second—and in the second case, it would make the system less able to deal with more complex cases with a potential issue about justice or, indeed, combating avoidance. So I do not accept the point that he makes.
I think the hon. Gentleman dragoons into the conversation a point about Scottish limited partnerships. Of course, those are handled not by the Treasury but by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and he will know that that Department set out in December 2018 the Government’s plans for reforms of limited partnerships. It is a complex area. They include tightening registration requirements, greater transparency in relation to UK connections, and powers for the registrar to strike limited partnerships from the register in certain circumstances. They have to reflect on limited partnerships that are dissolved, that are no longer conducting business or where a court orders that their activity is not in the public interest. The reforms require primary legislation, and that is what the Government will be doing when parliamentary time allows.
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right to raise the issue about communications. HMRC does communicate very regularly with taxpayers. It has made a commitment to informing taxpayers, at regular intervals, about points or penalties that they may have incurred. The legislation requires HMRC to notify the taxpayer when a point or penalty is levied; and of course, for the vast majority of taxpayers, that will be quickly and automatically, close to the date of any obligation. For those wishing to check their digital tax accounts, the points totals will be displayed there, but all taxpayers will also receive a written letter notifying them of their points total.
I should add, in conclusion, that although there is complexity, it is important to recognise that the two-stage payment approach is designed to give the proper and, indeed, fairer incentives to nudge people towards a final decision. HMRC has said that it will take a light-touch approach. It is also worth pointing out that the reforms will not take effect until 22 April for VAT businesses and until the 2023-24 tax year for income tax self-assessment taxpayers. There will therefore be plenty of time for those affected to adjust themselves to the new circumstances.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 112 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 25 agreed to.
Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 26 agreed to.
Clause 116
Late payment interest and repayment interest: VAT
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 19.
That Schedule 28 be the Twenty-eighth schedule to the Bill.
Jesse Norman
Clause 116 harmonises interest charges and repayment interest in order to bring VAT in line with other taxes, including income tax self-assessment. As with the reforms to penalties that we just discussed, these reforms to interest are designed to provide greater consistency, fairness and certainty in the system. These changes will take effect by way of regulations for VAT tax payers for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2022.
The Government’s amendment 19 to schedule 28 will ensure that repayment interest applies for VAT where HMRC has raised a reasonable inquiry or where HMRC is correcting errors or omissions relating to a particular VAT return. This will allow for repayment interest to be paid to taxpayers for the period covering HMRC’s investigations, as is already the case for income tax self-assessment and corporation tax.
HMRC’s policy is always to make payments to taxpayers as soon as possible when a repayment is due. As taxpayers expect, this can only be done once HMRC has undertaken checks to guard against fraud and to protect the public finances. The Government are committed to treating taxpayers fairly and consistently. We have consulted extensively on these measures and listened carefully to stakeholder feedback, including on this detail.
James Murray
As we have heard, clause 116 and schedule 28 make amendments to the Finance Act 2009 relating to late payment and repayment interest for VAT. We understand that these changes generally ensure that late payment and repayment interest work in the same way for VAT as they currently do for income tax self-assessment. We recognise that the clause and schedule make amendments to repayment interest on VAT to bring it in line with income tax self-assessment, ensuring that interest is charged and paid to customers consistently across taxes. We do not oppose the clause’s standing part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 116 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 28
Late payment interest and repayment interest: VAT
Amendment made: 19, in schedule 28, page 286, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 on page 287. —(Jesse Norman.)
This amendment removes the provision that would have prevented an amount of VAT credit from carrying repayment interest under Schedule 54 to the Finance Act 2009 for a period referable to the raising and answering of an inquiry by HMRC or the correction by HMRC of errors or omissions in a VAT return.
Schedule 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 122
Financial institution notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jesse Norman
Clause 122 makes changes to enable HMRC to issue a new financial institution notice that in certain circumstances will require banks and others to provide information about a specific taxpayer to HMRC that is required to check a tax position or collect a tax debt without the need for approval from the independent tax tribunal. In around 500 cases a year, HMRC uses its formal powers to obtain information with tribunal approval. That includes domestic cases where HMRC wants to check information, and also cases where the information is needed by other tax authorities.
Co-operation with other tax authorities is crucial if international tax evasion and avoidance is to be tackled. The UK relies on other countries helping it, and they rely on the UK. In international cases, obtaining information takes, on average, 12 months, despite the fact that HMRC works with the Ministry of Justice to speed up the process and has more than doubled the number of HMRC staff dealing with such requests. That means that the UK does not meet its commitments to the OECD standards that we ourselves helped to develop, which require such international requests to be completed within six months. All other G20 countries can meet that standard, and the UK is under an obligation to demonstrate compliance with the standard when it is peer reviewed, in order to maintain co-operation with other countries. Following consultation, therefore, the Government decided to make the changes while ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards for taxpayers.
Timely access to information is central to international efforts to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. The changes allow the UK to meet its obligations under the OECD standards and bring it in line with all other G20 countries, while ensuring the appropriate safeguards.
James Murray
The key change introduced by clause 122 are the new powers for HMRC to issue financial institutions with a statutory demand for information—a financial institution notice—about a known taxpayer. Such notices differ from existing HMRC powers as they may be issued without the prior approval of taxpayer or tribunal, the financial institution has no right of appeal against a notice, and a notice may be issued for the purposes of collecting a tax debt from the taxpayer.
The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has expressed its concern that that represents the removal of important taxpayer safeguards. I understand that HMRC has justified the introduction of financial institution notices on the basis that the existing statutory safeguards on third-party information notices mean that they cannot meet the international obligation to tackle offshore tax avoidance and evasion in obtaining information on behalf of overseas jurisdictions on a timely basis.
As the Minister knows, we welcome any efforts to tackle tax avoidance and evasion, but we would like to ask him why that approach is justified. HMRC is introducing powers that will be used in a domestic context, even though there is no domestic justification for them. HMRC’s apparent reason is that it is not possible to introduce a new process for domestic cases because of restrictions in UK law and international treaties.
However, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee recently heard evidence, including from HMRC, that the vast majority of the delay in obtaining information for international cases was down not to the UK’s Court Service, which HMRC acknowledged took four to six weeks to process an application, but rather to delays in obtaining information required from overseas jurisdictions, which HMRC told peers takes eight months on average. The Lords recommended that, rather than removing important taxpayer safeguards, HMRC should review the whole process for dealing with international information requests requiring tribunal approval and should work with the financial institutions, the tax tribunal and others to find other means to streamline the process.
We would welcome the Minister addressing those points directly in his response, as there are clearly concerns that new financial institution notices might not in fact speed up the process of obtaining information in international cases. We would also welcome him addressing the concern as set out by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales that new financial institution notices will be used routinely as a way of obtaining information, with the number of domestic information requests far exceeding the number of times the notices are used for international information exchanges. Is the Minister confident—and if so, why— that financial institution notices will be used only in accordance with the original policy intent, which is to speed up HMRC’s dealings with international exchange of information requests from overseas jurisdictions, rather than as an additional compliance tool for inquiring into the affairs of UK taxpayers?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions, and I am happy to respond to them. Let me take them in order.
The first question relates to the balance of powers and safeguards. It is important to have a balance here, because HMRC must have the tools to bear down on avoidance and evasion and to support and assist other tax authorities that may seek to do so through international means of collaboration. We as a country, and HMRC, benefit from such collaboration, as do those other tax authorities. I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is a balance and that we should meet international standards, let alone those we promulgated, especially when the failure to do so might cause us to lose either status or connectivity with other nations across the G20. All other G20 nations are compliant with this standard.
Jesse Norman
Clause 123 makes changes to allow information notices to be used to obtain documents and information for the purpose of collecting a tax debt. I remind the Committee that the UK helped to develop and remains committed to—this is a bipartisan matter—OECD international standards for exchange of information. It is crucial that this country can co-operate with other tax authorities to tackle international tax evasion and avoidance. We rely on other countries to help us, and they rely on us. However, the UK is currently unable to assist with exchange of information requests from other jurisdictions where formal powers need to be used to obtain debt collection information. That means that the UK does not fully meet its commitments to the OECD standards. The UK must demonstrate compliance with those standards when peer reviewed to maintain co-operation with other countries. Therefore, following consultation, the Government decided to make this change.
The changes made by clause 123 will allow information notices to be issued by HMRC to obtain information for the purpose of collecting tax debts. That will allow HMRC to assist with international exchange of information requests relating to debt, and will support HMRC’s domestic activity to collect tax debts. Assisting with international exchange of information requests is an important part of international efforts to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. By those means we can meet our commitments as a country to the OECD standards.
James Murray
Clause 123 amends schedule 36 of the Finance Act 2008 to give HMRC a new power to issue an information notice for the purposes of collecting a tax debt. We would like to raise with the Minister a point articulated by the Chartered Institute of Taxation in connection with the amended schedule 36. It is concerned that the new notice for collection of tax debts can be used for the purposes of collecting a tax debt, whenever arising. That means that the use of these notices is not restricted to cases involving tax years after the measure becomes law, which raises a concern that this is a very wide-ranging power. What reassurance can the Minister offer that HMRC will use the new power granted by this clause proportionately and with appropriate oversight?
Peter Grant
I do not have any issue with the changes proposed in clause 123 but, like the hon. Member for Ealing North, I think it is important to make clear that, in passing the legislation, Parliament has to give what may appear to be draconian powers to HMRC or other Government agencies to use when they have to. We then have to rely on Ministers to set policy, and sometimes on HMRC or Government Departments, in terms of their operational management decisions, not to use those draconian powers except when they absolutely must.
As we have begun to come out of the covid recession, a lot of individuals and businesses have found that their cash-flow position is as bad as it has ever been—and hopefully as bad as it ever will be. If HMRC manages itself only in terms of its own performance statistics on how quickly it can get the money in, there is a danger that it will do damage to the wider economy; in the longer term, it will do damage to the public finances. If a business is struggling to pay its tax, it is struggling to pay all its bills too. If we move in too quickly to get the tax out of that business, the chances are that it will go down and will no longer have any chance of paying its suppliers, so the suppliers go down as well. We will end up with a domino effect, with several businesses, and possibly three or four times as many jobs, being lost.
It is not a question of saying that there are circumstances where HMRC should say to somebody, “You don’t need to pay your debts,” but there will be times when it will be better for it to say, “We aren’t going to chase you for your debts now, but it’s up to you to get your circumstances sorted out, and then we will expect you to pay your dues.” I say that because I have known instances in constituency casework, as I suspect many Members have, where HMRC did not seem to take that approach. It appeared to have been chasing businesses to the point of liquidation, and individuals to the point of bankruptcy, for amounts of money that, in the grander scheme of things, were completely irrelevant to it, but highly relevant to those individuals and businesses.
I hope that we will get an assurance from the Financial Secretary today that the draconian powers in the Bill and in existing legislation will be used with an even softer touch over the next few years than they were supposed to be used with in the past. Otherwise, we will find that the difficulties that businesses are facing will get worse over the next few years, rather than better.
Jesse Norman
I thank both hon. Members for their questions. In a way, the clause is poorly named, because this is a change to allow information notices to be used to obtain documents; it is not, in and of itself, a measure that collects tax debt. The notice is an information power.
Tax authorities sometimes need to verify what they are told by taxpayers. A request that routinely arises is to look for details about transactions or movements of money in cases in which there is reason to believe that assets may have been concealed. A request may be an invitation to look for information to find out whether a bank account exists or has recently been closed. At its simplest, a request may be to find out the balance on an account.
It is important to say that the Government take very seriously all the input from our stakeholders, and the Chartered Institute of Taxation is an important stakeholder among many others. It has been striking how, over the past year or two, stakeholders have been very positive in flagging the degree of engagement that HMRC has had with them. There is a wide, close and professionally engaged relationship between the parties, and stakeholders’ concerns are carefully evaluated as part of the policy process.
It is also true that HMRC is bending over backwards to maintain its activities as a tax authority, while recognising—as the hon. Member for Glenrothes mentioned—the extremely difficult circumstances in which many companies have been placed by the pandemic and its effects. That is why there is a deferred payment scheme for VAT and Time To Pay arrangements that have been allowed to grow as they have done, and why in due course the Government are bringing in breathing space for people with debt.
A wide range of measures have been designed and put in place to protect people who may currently be vulnerable. In this case, the effect of expanding information notices is to implement a recommendation from the OECD’s global forum. Again, there was criticism from the forum that the UK was unable to use its information powers to enforce tax debts and unable to assist with information requests from other jurisdictions. Clause 123 will allow us to improve the already excellent levels of HMRC co-operation, which is only to the good in supporting international co-operation and exchange of information and the collection of tax debts that may be due.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 123 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 124
Miscellaneous amendments of Schedule 36 to FA 2008
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 33 be the Thirty-third schedule to the Bill.
Jesse Norman
Clause 124 and schedule 33 will make changes to ensure that necessary technical amendments are made to HMRC’s civil information powers. Further to the changes introduced in clauses 122 and 123, it is necessary to make consequential changes to the legislation that regulates those powers.
Clause 124 and schedule 33 will prevent the person who receives a financial or third-party information notice from copying the notice, or anything relating to it, to the taxpayer to whom it relates, where this has been approved by an independent tax tribunal. The provisions will also correct a drafting error in the original legislation concerning daily penalties, and address a stamp duty land tax issue by enabling HMRC to check that relief given on the basis of future actions by the purchaser continues to be due. The additional technical amendments are necessary to ensure that HMRC’s civil information powers work as intended.
James Murray
We recognise that clause 124 and schedule 33 make miscellaneous changes, including to correct a drafting error in schedule 36 of the Finance Act 2008, which governs the issuing of increased daily penalties for failure to comply with an information notice. The schedule also introduces a rule to prevent a third party telling the taxpayer about a third party information notice where the tribunal has decided that is appropriate. We do not oppose the clause and schedule standing part of the Bill.
Jesse Norman
Clause 125 introduces a new power that will enable the Government to subsequently make regulations to implement international reporting rules for digital platforms following consultation—in particular, the OECD model rules for reporting by platform operators with respect to sellers in the sharing and gig economy are in scope here. As announced at Budget, the Government will consult on the implementation of these OECD rules in the summer.
The OECD rules require digital platforms to report information about the income of sellers providing services on these platforms to their tax authority. The rules affect platforms that facilitate the provision of services such as taxi and private hire services, food delivery services, freelance services and short-term letting of accommodation through apps and websites. The platforms will also be required to provide a copy of the information to the sellers.
Sometimes these sellers do not fully understand their tax obligations, or they may work on multiple platforms and find it hard to keep track of their income. This will make it easier for UK gig workers who provide their services through digital platforms to complete their returns and get their tax right. To be clear, there will be no change in the amount of tax due. The information will simply help taxpayers to declare the correct amount of income first time. However, where sellers are not declaring all of their income from platforms, the information reported to HMRC will help to support the Government’s efforts to detect and tackle tax evasion.
HMRC will also be able to exchange information with other countries that sign up to the OECD rules. This exchange of information will allow HMRC to access data on UK sellers from platforms based outside the UK much more quickly and efficiently than is currently possible. The benefit is not, it is important to say, only for gig workers and tax authorities. The Government have heard directly from some of the major digital platforms that they welcome this international approach as it provides them with a set of standardised rules to follow. The UK is committed to its role as a global leader on tax transparency. In line with this ambition, the UK is one of the first major economies to announce that it will consult on the implementation of the OECD rules.
James Murray
The clause introduces a power to make regulations to implement the OECD model rules for reporting by platform operators. These rules will require certain UK digital platforms to report information about the income of sellers of services on their platform. The power also allows regulations to be made to implement other, similar international agreements or arrangements. The clause allows for greater oversight of gig economy digital platforms, which in turn allows for more effective action to enforce tax compliance. So it is a positive change, which we support.
The OECD issued a report in July 2020 setting out new rules to oblige shared and gig economy platforms to report the activity of their users. As we have heard, the UK was involved in discussing and agreeing the model rules at the OECD. The reported information can be shared by other participating tax authorities using a new tax information exchange framework, simplifying compliance for taxpayers and making data easier to interpret and exchange. It is designed to help sellers on these platforms comply with tax obligations and to help HMRC detect and tackle tax evasion when they do not.
These new measures will have a significant combined impact on an estimated 2 to 5 million businesses that provide their services via digital platforms, though we acknowledge that the impact to each seller may be small. Although we welcome these changes, I invite the Minister to use his remarks to set out what support the Government will provide for digital platforms and the businesses providing services on them, to ensure that they are well prepared for new tasks that they have not had to undertake before.
Jesse Norman
Let me say a couple of things about the impact mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It is important to say that the Government very much recognise that businesses will need time to get to grips with new reporting requirements and the rules, therefore, are not intended to come into force earlier than January 2023, with reporting due no earlier than January 2024. There will be a consultation on the implementation of the rules in 2021.
The goal is to set a framework and a regime that can stand effectively and flexibly over time, but with a degree of care about how it is consulted on and developed, with good notice for those who are affected to be able to change some of their practices if they need to.
The question arises: will there be a substantial amount of additional administrative burden? The answer is no. Having been in discussion with different parties involved, we think it will be easier for platforms to report information using agreed international standards. That is why the measure has been welcomed by some of the platforms.
Where there are costs, we will seek to minimise them where possible. For example, I expect there will be an optional exemption for start-ups and perhaps a phasing-in period for some of the obligations, to spread their initial impact. All those arrangements, therefore, should have the effect of creating a phased, calibrated and well structured introduction of the new measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 125 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 126
Unauthorised removal or disposal of seized goods
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jesse Norman
Clause 126 is a small but important clause that would amend schedule 3 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to allow HM Revenue and Customs and UK Border Force to levy a civil penalty for goods seized in situ that are removed without prior authorisation.
The background to this measure is that goods that have been seized are normally kept in Border Force-controlled Queen’s warehouses. Sometimes, however, seized goods are kept on the trader’s own premises and are known as goods seized in situ. Currently, schedule 3 of the 1979 Act allows for goods to be seized and kept on the trader’s premises, but does not refer to seizure in situ; therefore, if seized goods are removed without prior authorisation, no penalty can be issued.
Pressures on existing warehouse space mean that goods are increasingly being seized in situ at traders’ premises. Removal of those goods by traders without prior authorisation from HMRC does not, the Committee might be surprised to know, currently attract a penalty. That risks the unauthorised removal of seized goods. The measure is a legislative amendment to schedule 3 of the 1979 Act to include a civil penalty for where goods seized in situ are removed without authorisation.
Goods will remain in situ for a month to allow the owner to contest the seizure. After that period, the goods will be condemned and HMRC may dispose of them. The amendment to the schedule of the 1979 Act to include a civil penalty under the Finance Act 1994, for where goods seized in situ are removed without authorisation, will mirror the existing penalty for detained goods in paragraphs 4 and 5 of schedule 2A to the 1979 Act for detentions.
HMRC has a duty to take robust action to deal with those involved with goods that have not had duty paid on them, or are prohibited or restricted. The detention and seizure of goods is a valuable tool to deal with and to deter duty evasion. This measure will assist HMRC in tackling non-compliance and is proportionate to ensure compliance and protection of the revenue.
James Murray
Clause 126 enables HMRC and Border Force officers to use a civil penalty to combat the unauthorised removal of things that have been seized in situ. When HMRC seizes goods, they are normally kept, as we heard, in Border Force-controlled warehouses. When goods that have been seized are kept on the trader’s premises, the seizure is known as seizure in situ. Currently, the law does not refer to seizure in situ; therefore, if seized goods are removed without prior authorisation, no penalty can be issued. We recognise that the clause will amend that.
We want HMRC to take robust action to deal with those who import illicit items into the UK or seek to bring in things on which duty has not been paid. We want the detention and seizure of things to be a valuable tool in the fight against duty evasion. We therefore do not oppose the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 127
Temporary approvals etc pending review or appeal
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
Clause 127 makes changes to customs and excise review and appeals legislation, to safeguard the right to appeal. To do this, HMRC will be given the power to temporarily approve a business, on application and subject to meeting certain criteria, in order that the business may continue to conduct controlled activities until the conclusion of its appeal into an earlier decision.
As Committee members may be aware, businesses in a number of regimes operated by HMRC require approval before they may conduct certain controlled activities. These include the alcohol wholesaler registration scheme, which regulates the sale of alcoholic drinks, and the raw tobacco approval scheme, which requires the approval of anyone conducting activities involving raw tobacco.
Approval is dependent on a business continuing to satisfy certain fit and proper criteria, which are defined in law. Where evidence shows that the business is no longer fulfilling those criteria, HMRC may, as a last resort, revoke its approval. As with all HMRC decisions, the recipient may request an internal review by an independent officer and, ultimately, has the right to appeal to a tribunal and higher courts.
On receipt of HMRC’s decision to revoke, a business must cease the controlled activity, even where it contests the decision. HMRC currently has no power to pause or suspend its decision, or to allow the business to continue with the controlled activities while it pursues its right of appeal.
Previously, it was believed that where a business sought relief from the courts, such a suspension could be granted. However, comments made by the Supreme Court in 2019 in OWD Ltd v. HMRC highlighted that that may not be the case. If neither HMRC nor the courts have the power to suspend revocation, it could, in theory, cause a business to fail before its appeal has been concluded, fundamentally undermining the right of appeal. It is in order to protect this right that changes are being made. To be clear, the process of temporary approval would apply only in appeals involving civil cases. Those cases where revocation of an approval is linked to criminal prosecution would not be considered.
The changes made by the clause create a new power for HMRC to issue temporary approvals in respect of the control schemes covered by this clause, as they all contain similar fit and proper criteria. Temporary approval would be conditional on the business providing sufficient evidence to support its case that, without that temporary approval, its appeal right is ineffective.
The clause also creates a new appeal right in relation to HMRC’s decision on whether to grant temporary approval. That will ensure that a business has every opportunity to seek protection following a decision by HMRC. The business must demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable harm—rather than just inconvenience—by not being able to conduct the controlled activity in the period between revocation and the outcome of its appeal. That does not alter HMRC’s position that it has judged the business to no longer satisfy the requirements to hold approval; the object of the change is to safeguard appeal rights and not to allow unfit businesses to gain extended periods to trade before an appeal is heard.
The evidential requirements for gaining a temporary approval are intentionally high, to protect revenue and ensure compliance. Any temporary approval would be issued with strict conditions, allowing HMRC to monitor activity closely; any new evidence of unacceptable trading would result in removal of this temporary approval, to protect revenue. HMRC will specify through its public notices the evidence that must be submitted with a temporary approval application, along with details of timings and other relevant matters. The legislation will come into force at a future date to be determined by HMRC and will be brought in by regulations made by statutory instrument.
In conclusion, the clause gives HMRC the power to grant businesses a temporary approval to conduct controlled activities in appropriate circumstances. This power does not currently exist, and it is right that we remedy that situation to provide fairness to taxpayers appealing a decision to revoke their right to trade.
James Murray
Clause 127 introduces a new power to grant temporary approval to a business appealing a decision to remove or reject a trading approval so that its appeal right is safeguarded. Where HMRC has revoked or refused an approval to trade, a business has a right to appeal that decision. If the business cannot survive that appeal process on account of being unable to trade, its appeal right may be rendered ineffective in practice.
This measure introduces a new statutory power, based on the power that had been assumed to lie with the High Court, allowing HMRC to temporarily approve relevant businesses, and provides for a right of appeal to the first tier tribunal. As the clause seeks to help ensure that a business’s right to an effective appeal will be safeguarded, we do not oppose its standing part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 127 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 131
Interpretation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jesse Norman
Clauses 131 and 132 simply set out the Bill’s legal interpretation and short title in the usual manner for such legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 131 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Review of capital allowances and business reliefs
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made by sections 15 to 20 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must compare estimated GDP in each of the next five years under the follow scenarios—
(a) these provisons are enacted,
(b) these provisions are not enacted, and
(c) the UK fiscal stimulus package, as a percentage of GDP, mirrors that of the united States.
(3) In this section— “parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland; and “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”.—(Peter Grant.)
This new clause would require a report on the impact of the capital allowance provisions on GDP, comparing them with the impact of copying the level of fiscal intervention in the US.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Peter Grant
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I am pleased to finally move the new clause after four or five days of heavy debate in Committee and two days of debate on Second reading, which is an indication of the way things happen here. The wording of the new clause is quite deliberately designed to tightly fit within the scope of the Bill, although it will be no surprise to Members that I will highlight a number of wider issues.
The UK Parliament’s and UK Government’s existing way of putting forward and approving tax and public spending plans does not really allow them to be gone into in a great deal of detail, so we ask for some way to compare what would have happened if none of the changes enacted by clauses 15 to 20 had been made, how the economy looks when they have happened and how the economy would have looked if the Government had done something a bit more ambitious and radical.
The phrase “be bold like Biden” has become very popular since the American presidential election. We do not need a comparison with the exact measures taken there, but we are seeing an economy that is in some ways quite similar to the United Kingdom’s beginning to take tax break and tax incentive decisions very different from those the current UK Government have taken. It would be good if there was some way in which we could look at what impact those UK Government decisions have had.
There have been some indications from usually quite reliable commentators that—[Interruption.]
Peter Grant
Thank you, Dame Angela. Members will be pleased to hear that I will not repeat everything I said before the Division. It has been quite authoritatively suggested that if the stimulus package put forward by the UK Government had been as bold and radical as that put forward by President Biden, the impact in Scotland alone would have been 134,000 additional jobs, and the impact on UK debt would have been unnoticeable—the figures were that the debt-to-GDP ratio at the end of quarter 2 next year would have been 118% rather than 119%, which is easily within the margin of forecasting errors. That is just one example of where a different approach—had there been a way of arriving at one in time—may have made a significant difference, and I do not imagine that that would have applied only in Scotland. If we took equivalent figures England, we would be looking at maybe 1 million or 1.5 million more jobs by this time next year.
With all of these proposals, we are saying that there is a better way for this Parliament and Government to arrive at the final decisions on their tax and spending plans. If we look at what happens in some of the devolved Parliaments, their Budgets are significantly smaller. Arguably, they are not nearly as complex, because those Parliaments have few or no direct powers on most taxes or welfare payments. The Scottish Parliament’s Budget is on the go for most of the year, and almost every Budget eventually gets passed. Bits have been put in at the request of most, and sometimes all, of the Opposition groups in the Scottish Parliament. Even during the short period when there was an overall majority SNP Government, almost every Budget that was passed had bits put in, after the draft Budget had been published, at the request of Opposition parties. Incidentally, some of the most effective ones were submitted by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party and accepted by an SNP Government, because both parties were prepared to look at what was in the best interests of Scotland, rather than caring about the party political advantage to be gained.
The difficulty in the way that we do Budgets here is that, by the time anything in the Budget is public, battle lines are already drawn. It is confrontational, rather than co-operative. It is about putting forward suggested changes that one almost hopes the other side will not accept, so as to have a go at them at election time. That is great fun and electioneering, and the tabloid press loves it because it raises the temperature quickly. I sometimes wonder whether, by doing things that way, we might be missing a chance to finish with a better set of proposals, whether on the tax-raising or public-spending side. We could end up with a set of proposals that would come much closer to what we all thought we wanted to achieve when we first arrived here. That is clearly not something that I can put forward as a proposal for this Bill. The difficulty with the way we do things here is that there is never a chance to do that.
It is not possible to set tax policies and then wonder where to make the cuts or invest the money. It is not possible to set spending decisions and then wonder how to raise the money. It has to be an iterative process and has to be gone round three or four times a year. It is much better if that is done by discussion and then, if necessary, to have the set-piece debates, the disagreements and Divisions at the end of the process.
I will simply leave those thoughts with the Committee. I hope the Minister will feed them back to his colleagues in the Treasury. Colleagues in the SNP who have been part of the Treasury team much longer than I have been pushing such ideas for a number of years. There have been some changes to practice as a result. I am even more convinced, having had my first shot at a Finance Bill as part of the SNP Treasury team, that there are better ways to do things. Believe it or not, I actually want to make things better for this place, during the relatively short time that I hope to be here. Finally, if it helps the Committee, I will not say anything on new clause 7, because any arguments on that have already been had.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes. I must say that the Scottish National party does not have an international reputation for the bipartisan way in which it treats partisan party politics. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is offering the cross-party approach he advocated in his remarks.
The hon. Gentleman says that there is a better way. He should know that the Government are very much committed to improving the tax process wherever we can. We operate within a set of existing arrangements and political procedures that have proven their worth over many decades, but we are constantly seeking to improve. The classic example was our tax policies and consultation day, which we had in March this year. That was an attempt to create more transparency and to give more prominence to measures that might otherwise have been lost in the Budget process, in order to allow the widest possible public scrutiny and debate.
To pick up the point the hon. Gentleman made about international comparisons, I can understand why it appears interesting to him, but a few seconds of reflection would yield the thought that it really is not for the Government to be publishing analyses of other countries’ tax policies or fiscal arrangements. It really is not for us to be choosing one country, even if we were committed on that route, rather than another, because where would that end? Of course, there are many other institutions around the world that will provide precisely that kind of global comparison service. I am afraid that I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view about the efficacy of that approach.
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is not pressing new clause 7, on the correct grounds that we have discussed much of it already, but, in general, the Government do publish an awful lot of detailed information on the Exchequer, macroeconomic business and equalities impacts of not only these clauses but all clauses that are debated in Finance Bills. Those assessments are comprehensive and wide-ranging, and therefore we do not think that a detailed review would be useful. With that, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.
Peter Grant
I think it was obvious that I did not expect the Government to accept the new clause with joyful acclamation. I deliberately tried to pitch my remarks in a co-operative vein, and it is disappointing that the Minister could not resist a bit of completely unnecessary playground politics. If he wants to look at the respective international standings of the two Governments and the international standing of the two Heads of Government as things stand right now, and if he wants to look at the current standing, credibility and trustworthiness of the two Heads of Government among the ordinary people of England, never mind the ordinary people of Scotland, that is a debate I would be delighted to have with him on another day, but I would have to caution him that it is not a debate that his party wants to get into just now. For the people of Scotland, the outcome of that debate will be seen on Thursday next week. I look forward to that, but I suspect that the Minister’s party is not looking forward to it as enthusiastically as I am. I am sorry that I have had to adopt that tone at the very end of our deliberations.
Peter Grant
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Jesse Norman
On a point of order, Dame Angela. I would like to thank you and Sir Gary, Hansard, the Whips, parliamentary private secretaries and officials. I am sure that I speak for those on both sides of the Committee when I thank those who have supported us through the Committee stage. I would particularly like to call out the names of Edwin Ferguson and Sarah Hunt and of our Bill team at the Treasury, Bill manager, Mikael Shirazi, Helena Forrest, Barney Gibb and Sam Shirley. I thank colleagues across this Committee for their commitment to scrutinising and debating the legislation. I am keenly aware, as they will be, that we do so under the picture of William Gladstone and his Cabinet at the time—a very forbidding chancellorial figure. With that in mind, I thank everyone for their contributions, and thank you, Dame Angela, for presiding so ably.
James Murray
Further to that point of order, Dame Angela. I would like to put on record my thanks to you for being a very patient Chair on my first time in a Public Bill Committee, following Sir Gary Streeter last week. I also thank the Clerks for helping us to draft amendments, and the wider House authorities for making it possible to hold a Public Bill Committee in these strange circumstances. I would also like to thank all members of the Committee. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead, I particularly thank our Whip—my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington—and my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and for Luton North for giving up their time to sit on this Committee.
Peter Grant
Further to that point of order, Dame Angela. Although, there are obviously parts of the Bill that I do not agree with, I endorse the Minister’s comments on the work that has been done by his colleagues on the Treasury team and by Hansard and other parliamentary staff, without whom democracy in this place simply would not happen—we should never forget that.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central, who was unfortunately not able to be with us today, for her work as the senior SNP Treasury spokesperson. I also thank—this is a name that most Members will not recognise—Scott Taylor from the Scottish National party research team. When people ask me what Westminster researchers do, I say, “Their job is to make it look as if their MPs know what they are talking about.” We may all have different opinions on how effectively they do that, but Scott and his colleagues have certainly done a huge amount of work over the last months.
Finally, I thank the large number of external stakeholders who have engaged fully with us as a third party, and no doubt with other parties as well, in a constructive way. They understood when they put forward things that we simply did not feel we could support, but at the same time they gave us a lot of background information so that our understanding of the likely impact of the Bill was much greater than it would otherwise have been, whether we were able to take their requests on board or not. As I said, although I disagree with parts of the Bill, we should recognise that, overall, it is a better piece of legislation thanks to the contribution that those external bodies have made.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Finance (No.2) Bill (Third sitting)
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the places clearly marked. In line with the Commission’s decision, face coverings should be worn in Committee unless Members are speaking or they are medically exempt. I hope not to need to suspend the sitting to comply with social distancing requirements. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee, while allowed in Zoom, are not allowed in sittings in the House. Members may remove their jackets if they wish—I see some already have. The Hansard reporters would be grateful if Members emailed any electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 98
Restriction of use of rebated diesel and biofuels
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 20 be the Twentieth schedule to the Bill.
New clause 3—Review of impact of section 98—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made by section 98 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the provisions on progress towards the Government’s climate emissions targets.
(3) In this section “parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland; and “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This new clause would require a report on the effects of section 98 on progress towards the UK Government’s climate emissions targets.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
Clause 98 and schedule 20 reform the use of polluting diesel fuel by reducing the number of businesses that benefit from red diesel tax breaks from April 2022. Those changes will mean that most businesses across the UK will use diesel fuel taxed at the standard rate for diesel from April 2022, bringing them in line with ordinary motorists. That more fairly reflects the negative environmental impact of the emissions produced. It also ensures that the tax system incentivises users of polluting fuels such as diesel to improve the energy efficiency of their vehicles and machinery and to invest in cleaner alternatives, or just use less fuel.
Red diesel is a dye-marked diesel currently used mainly for off-road purposes, such as to power bulldozers and cranes in the construction industry. It accounts for around 15% of all diesel used in the UK and is responsible for the production of nearly 14 million tonnes of CO2 a year, as well as noxious gases such as nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. Red diesel is subject to a rebated rate of fuel duty of 11.14p per litre, which is 46.81p less than the tax due on standard diesel used by ordinary motorists. Businesses that use red diesel are therefore paying far less for the harmful emissions that they produce.
The Government have previously received feedback from developers of alternative fuels and technologies that they view the low cost of running a diesel engine as a barrier to entry for greener alternatives. Clause 98 and schedule 20 will amend the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979, to reform the entitlement to use red diesel in most sectors from April 2022. As announced at Budget 2020 and confirmed at Budget 2021, the Government will grant entitlements to use red diesel for the following purposes: for vehicles and machinery used in agriculture, forestry, horticulture and fish farming; to propel vehicles designed to run on rail tracks and for heating non-commercial premises, which includes the heating of homes and buildings such as places of worship, hospitals and town halls.
In addition, following consultation last year on these tax changes, for which the Government received more than 400 written responses, the Government decided at Budget 2021 to grant further entitlements to use red diesel after April 2022 for the following purposes: electricity generation in non-commercial premises; maintaining community amateur sports clubs and golf courses; as fuel for all commercial water vessels refuelling and operating in the UK, including fishing and water freight industries; for private pleasure craft in Great Britain; and powering machinery and caravans of travelling fairs and circuses. The Bill will also extend fuel duty to biodiesel, bioblends and fuel substitutes used in heating.
In response to concerns raised by red diesel users during the consultation about their ability to run down fuel stocks in back-up generators, the Bill provides for secondary legislation to give HMRC officers the power to disapply the liability to seize vehicles or machinery where they are satisfied that those who are no longer entitled to use red diesel are acting within the new law.
New clause 3, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Glasgow Central, for Glenrothes, for Gordon (Richard Thomson) and for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), would require the Government to publish a report on the effects of clause 98 on progress towards the UK Government’s climate emissions targets
“within six months of the passing of this Act.”
Clause 98 will make changes to remove the entitlement to use red diesel from most sectors from April 2022; such a report could not meaningfully assess the impact of the changes within six months.
As the Government set out in our summary of responses to the red diesel consultation:
“As these tax changes are introduced, the government will monitor fuel duty receipts of red and white diesel to evaluate the extent to which current users of red diesel that have lost their entitlement to use red diesel are switching to greener alternatives. The Treasury will also work closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to evaluate the extent to which these tax changes are accelerating the development of greener alternatives and how this interacts with the work of the government’s energy innovation programmes, like the Net Zero Innovation Portfolio.”
The Government continue to take our world-leading environmental commitment seriously and remain dedicated to meeting our climate change and wider environmental targets, including improving the UK’s air quality; that is why we are reforming the use of red diesel from April 2022. Reducing tax breaks on red diesel will mean that approximately 3.6 billion litres of diesel, equivalent to 9.5 million tonnes of CO2, will now be taxed at the standard diesel rate. I ask the Committee to agree that clause 98 and schedule 20 should stand part of the Bill and to reject new clause 3.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. I thank the Minister for her explanation of clause 98, which restricts the entitlement to use red diesel and related biodiesel for most sectors from April 2022.
We support the Government’s intention behind the measure, which was first announced in the 2020 Budget. There is a clear need to ensure that fuel duty rebates are as limited as possible in order to meet our net-zero commitment. I note that several sectors retain their entitlement to use red diesel, including agriculture, rail transport and permanently moored houseboats. More recently, the Government have announced further exemptions, including generating power from non-commercial premises for amateur sports clubs and for travelling fairs and circuses.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the impact on individual sectors. I know that the waste sector made a representation to the Treasury arguing that removing its red diesel entitlements
“could increase the cost of recycling, which may result in waste being diverted to landfill instead and the cost of recycled goods increasing relative to virgin materials.”
Would the Exchequer Secretary assure us that that issue was looked at carefully and that the impact on recycling was considered? Would she also say a little about compliance in the industries where the entitlement is being removed? She mentioned that the Treasury had been working closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that compliance was followed, but what monitoring and enforcement will the Government use to ensure that red diesel is used only for approved purposes?
May I turn briefly to recreational boat owners in Northern Ireland? The Government have confirmed that private pleasure craft in Northern Ireland will have to use white diesel from June this year in order to implement a ruling of the European Court of Justice. The Royal Yachting Association, British Marine and the Cruising Association have raised concerns about the practical effects of the decision, including the limited supply of white diesel for private pleasure craft users in Northern Ireland. Would the Minister reassure us that HMRC and the Treasury will work closely with those organisations to minimise disruption? Would she give us more information on the steps that have been taken so far to ensure that? Finally, will the Government take any further action to encourage the growth of cleaner fuel alternatives in sectors such as the construction industry?
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I could repeat much of what I have to say about new clause 3 when we debate new clause 5, but in the interests of brevity I will not make the same comments again at that point.
We welcome the fact that the tax system is used to encourage individuals and businesses to operate in a more environmentally responsible and sustainable way, but it is important that when we make changes we are prepared to look at them afterwards to see whether they are having the expected impact. That can be quite difficult with Government changes to tax policy, because the policy aim is not always immediately obvious. How much of this change is an income-raising exercise for the Treasury, and how much is designed to reduce the use not only of severely environmentally damaging hydrocarbon fuels, but of other fuels which, although they may be less damaging, are damaging none the less?
Biofuels are not a guilt-free pass. Even though they may appear to be renewable, their use has an impact on the environment, for example where the resources of less well-off countries are used to grow biofuels for us to use instead of food to eat for the people who live there. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that simply by converting our excessive use of fuel to use of renewable fuels, we are somehow doing all we need to.
The second reason why regular reviews are needed is that as well as unintended consequences, there will be mistakes. One third of the Government amendments in Committee of the whole House were introduced to correct drafting mistakes, either in the Bill itself or in related legislation. People make mistakes—hon. Members may even have noticed the drafting mistake in the wording of our new clause 3, which the Exchequer Secretary so kindly pointed out. However, given that her objection to new clause 3 is that the timing does not work, I would appreciate a commitment from her that the Government will comply with the spirit of the new clause in a more appropriate timescale when the impact of the changes can be measured.
The Scottish National party supports the Government’s stated aim of encouraging a more environmentally sustainable and responsible approach to use of the earth’s resources; we just think that they should acknowledge that they might not always get it right the first time. They should build in a process by which we can review the policy after a reasonable time and make the changes that may be needed, sooner rather than later.
Kemi Badenoch
I will take hon. Members’ questions in turn, starting with the question on private pleasure craft in Northern Ireland.
From later this year, private pleasure-craft users in Northern Ireland will no longer be able to use red diesel for propelling their craft, as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead mentioned. This will achieve consistency with the 2018 judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union and ensure that the UK meets its international obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. That is the primary reason for it, but it will also align with the way in which fuel used by private pleasure craft in the Republic of Ireland is treated, which should make it simpler for craft users to access the fuel that they need if they sail between Northern Ireland and Ireland. On the hon. Lady’s point about easy access to white diesel, I think that it will work in the same way as in the Republic of Ireland. The Government also intend to introduce a new relief scheme in Northern Ireland to ensure that the average private pleasure-craft user will not pay a higher rate of duty on non-propulsion use than they do now.
On new clause 3, we fully understand the point that the hon. Member for Glenrothes makes, but it takes time for us to be able to analyse what is happening with changes to tax. That is why we want to monitor fuel-duty receipts for red and white diesel, which will enable us to evaluate the extent to which the users of red diesel who have lost their entitlement are switching to greener alternatives. It is really important that we allow time for the policy to bed in before we carry out reviews, but the Treasury always keeps all tax policy under review. We want to ensure that we encourage the transition to net zero as well as maximising revenue for the Exchequer. We do not want to lose money, nor do we want emissions. I reassure him that we are all on common ground and will work together to achieve those stated goals.
On the sectors that continue to have the red diesel entitlement, I can tell the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead that we looked very hard at the sectors that could not easily switch to alternatives, and at those in which the impact on the consumer would be quite high, as opposed to those within the supply chain. That is how we came to specific sectors such as travelling circuses and amateur sports clubs, which we feel would benefit from continued red diesel entitlement.
On the question of biofuels, to respond to the hon. Member for Glenrothes, all users of biofuels will be taxed at the same rate as ordinary diesel, to reflect the fact that biodiesel releases just as much carbon dioxide when burned. The Government recognise that renewable biofuels deliver greenhouse gas savings, as they are sourced from feedstocks that extract CO2 from the atmosphere. To incentivise the use of these low-carbon fuels and reduce emissions from fuel supplied for use in transport, the Government introduced the renewable transport fuel obligation in 2008, whereby all road transport fossil-fuel suppliers in the UK are required to show that a percentage of the total road and non-road mobile machinery fuels they supply come from sustainable and renewable energy sources. Again, I remind him that the Government keep all of these rates under review.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 20 agreed to.
Clause 99
Rates of tobacco products duty
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kemi Badenoch
Clause 99 consolidates changes announced and implemented in November 2020 concerning tobacco duty rates. The increases made then ensured that the duty charged on all tobacco products rose in line with the tobacco duty escalator, with additional increases for hand-rolling tobacco and to the minimum excise on cigarettes.
Smoking rates in the UK are falling. However, smoking remains the biggest cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK, killing around 100,000 people a year and about half of all long-term users of tobacco. All these factors mean that we need to continue to encourage more people to kick the habit. We have already set out ambitious plans to reduce the number of smokers from 14% of the population to 12% by 2022, as set out by the Department of Health and Social Care in its tobacco control plan, and we have announced that we aim to curb smoking once and for all by 2030 in England. This includes a commitment to continue the policy of maintaining high duty rates for tobacco products to improve public health.
According to Action on Smoking and Health, smoking costs society almost £14 billion a year in England, including £2 billion in costs to the NHS for treating disease caused by smoking. In November 2020, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary announced increases to tobacco duty that, in the absence of an autumn Budget, were implemented by a Treasury order. The order was made under existing powers in the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 and helped to protect revenues. However, the life span of an order made under these powers is time-limited to one year, so this clause consolidates those increases. This will ensure that the duty charged on all tobacco products increases in line with the escalator, which is 2% above retail price index inflation. In addition, duty on hand-rolling tobacco increases by a further 4% to 6% above RPI inflation. The clause also increases the minimum excise tax—the minimum amount of duty to be paid on a pack of cigarettes—by an additional 2% to 4% above RPI inflation.
These new tobacco duty rates took effect on 16 November 2020. Recognising the potential interactions between tobacco duty rates and the illicit market, the Government recently consulted on tougher penalties for tobacco tax evasion. This includes proposals for £10,000 fixed penalties and escalating fines for repeat offenders. The responses indicate that there is broad support for tougher sanctions and, as announced on 23 March, we intend to legislate in the next Finance Bill. The Government have committed to strengthening trading standards and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so that these organisations can combat the illicit tobacco business even more effectively. This work includes creating a UK-wide HMRC intelligence-sharing hub.
The clause will continue our tried-and-tested policy of using high duty rates on tobacco products to make tobacco less affordable, to continue the reduction in smoking prevalence. and to reduce the burden that smoking places on our public services. I therefore move that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Abena Oppong-Asare
As the Minister said, this clause incorporates the legislation on changes in tobacco duty that the Government introduced in the Tobacco Products Duty (Alteration of Rates) Order 2020. I spoke during the debate on that order, so I will not repeat the points that I made then. However, I do have a few questions for the Minister.
First, why did the Government not raise the tobacco duty at Budget 2021? I note that the Minister has quoted data from Action on Smoking and Health. After the Budget, it said:
“ASH is disappointed that the Chancellor hasn’t increased taxes on cigarettes by per cent above inflation as we recommended. The Government says it is willing to take bold action to make smoking obsolete, which we welcome, but that has to include further tax rises. Making tobacco less affordable is crucial to discouraging children from starting to smoke and delivering the Smokefree generation the Government has said it wants to see by 2030.”
I hope the Minister can respond to the concerns from ASH and clearly set out what the Government’s approach to tobacco duty will be going forward.
9.45 am
More broadly, I want to press the Minister on the issue of smoking and public health. We have seen the importance of public health more than ever over the past year. Many people are concerned that the dismantling of Public Health England will have an adverse effect on the nation’s health, including action on preventing harm through smoking. We need reassurances that the new Office for Health Protection will be able to fulfil that important role effectively. Of course, that is partly from funding, but the Government have cut the public health grant by more than a fifth since 2015-16, despite a growing and urgent need for investment in public health and prevention.
ASH has called on the Government to increase the public health budget by £1.2 billion in order to reverse the cuts that have taken place since 2015 and then to provide additional investment in the most deprived areas with the greatest need. Can the Minister update us on the Government’s plan for the public health budget? Finally, can the Minister tell us whether the Government will provide further funding to local authorities to support local smoking cessation services?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. What I would say about the Office for Health Protection is that it is being set up to improve the work that Public Health England was doing. I am assured by health Ministers that it will continue to tackle issues such as tobacco smoking and its health implications.
The current smoking prevalence rate is 13.9%, which is the lowest level on record and a great public health success story. The UK is seen as a global leader on tobacco control, and over the last two decades we have implemented regulatory measures to stop youth smoking, prevent non-smokers from starting, and offer support to help smokers quit. Local authorities are responsible for delivering local “stop smoking” services and support to meet their population’s needs and to address inequalities. The Government set the national policy through the current tobacco control plan, and we will publish the next tobacco control plan this summer in order to outline our ambition for a smoke-free society by 2030.
Given the success that we have had in reducing smoking, we believe that the duty rates have been set at the right level. We review our duty rates at each fiscal event to ensure that they continue to meet our two objectives of protecting public health and raising revenue for vital public services. The tax information and impact note published alongside the Budget announcement sets out the Government’s assessment of the expected impact.
We are committed to improving public health by reducing smoking prevalence. We co-ordinate our efforts through DHSC’s “Tobacco Control Delivery Plan 2017 to 2022”, and we will continue our tried and tested policy of using high duty rates to make tobacco less affordable and continue the reduction in smoking prevalence, which should reduce the burden that smoking places on public services, as I mentioned earlier.
The hon. Lady asked why we are introducing clause 99, given that no increase in tobacco duties was announced in the spring Budget. Although the autumn Budget was cancelled, the Government proceeded with the uprating of tobacco duties in order to safeguard revenues, maintain our commitment to the duty escalator and protect health objectives. The Tobacco Products Duty (Alteration of Rates) Order 2020, implementing the duty increases, took effect on 16 November 2020. However, the hon. Lady should note that although an order may be used to alter tobacco duty rates, the changes expire after one year, which is why the increases need to be consolidated into the Finance Bill. It is not the first time that a Treasury order has been used to increase tobacco duties; the same method was used in 2008. I hope I have answered all her questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100
Rates for light passenger of light goods vehicles, motorcycles etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 101 and 102 stand part.
Kemi Badenoch
Clauses 100 to 102 make changes to vehicle excise duty and the heavy goods vehicle road user levy. Clauses 100 and 101 relate specifically to vehicle excise duty, which is paid on vehicle ownership. The Government have uprated VED, as it is known, for cars, vans and motorcycles in line with inflation every year since 2010, which means that rates have remained unchanged in real terms during that time.
Since April 2017, cars with a list price exceeding £40,000 pay an additional supplement as well as paying the standard rate of VED, which means those who can afford the most expensive cars pay more than the standard rate imposed on other drivers. The expensive car supplement is paid in addition to the standard rate for a period of five years from the start of the second vehicle licence, but for a period of no longer than six years from when the vehicle was first registered. As a vehicle can change hands or be declared off-road through a statutory off-road notification, or SORN, the vehicle licence end date and the expensive car supplement end date will not always align.
Clause 102 relates to the HGV road user levy. That is an annual charge paid by UK hauliers alongside their VED, as well as a daily, weekly or monthly charge for HGVs from outside the UK accessing the UK road network. The levy was introduced in 2014 to ensure that all HGVs, which are heavy and can damage the road surface, contribute to the public finances and to reducing the wear and tear of the road network. In the light of the impacts of covid-19, the Government decided to suspend the levy last August for 12 months to support the haulage sector by reducing their costs.
Clause 100 makes changes to uprate VED rates for cars, vans and motorcycles in line with the retail prices index from 1 April 2021, meaning VED liabilities will not increase in real terms for the 11th successive year. The standard rate of VED for cars registered after 1 April 2017 will increase by £5 only. The flat rate for vans will increase by £10 and motorcyclists will see an increase in rates of no more than £3.
Clause 101 makes changes to ensure that registered keepers of cars with a list price of over £40,000 are issued with the correct annual VED refund, if they sell their vehicle or make a statutory off-road notification in the last year of the vehicle being liable to pay the expensive car supplement. Clause 101 will amend VED legislation, so that the rebate amount is equal to the number of months remaining at the higher rate of duty under the expensive car supplement and the number of months remaining at the standard rate of VED. This change in law will apply from 1 April 2021. Individuals and businesses will not need to do anything differently from what they do now, and this measure will not affect the amount of VED they pay.
Clause 102 will make changes to suspend the HGV road user levy for a further period of 12 months from 1 August 2021, to support the haulage industry and help the covid-19 pandemic recovery efforts. That means that UK-registered keepers of HGVs will save between £76.50 and £1,200 per vehicle again, as they will not have to pay the HGV road user levy when they renew their vehicle licence. Non-UK-based hauliers will also not need to pay the levy during this period.
In conclusion, the changes outlined in clause 100 will ensure that the Government continue to support motorists with the cost of living, while ensuring they continue to make a fair contribution to the public finances. The changes outlined in clause 101 will ensure that VED refunds are issued as intended when the expensive car supplement was introduced in 2017. Finally, the haulage sector supports many other industries, so the changes outlined in clause 102 to ease their financial burden temporarily will support them and help the economy to recover from the impacts of covid-19.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I will briefly respond to each clause in the group. Clause 100 would increase the rate of vehicle excise duty for a variety of vehicles, as mentioned by the Minister. We support the Government’s general approach to incentivise the use of greener and more environmentally friendly vehicles. We do, however, believe that we need to see more action from the Government on increasing the availability and affordability of green and electric vehicles.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders described the 2021 Budget as falling
“short of the support needed to transform the industry and market to the net zero future to which both the Government and industry aspires.”
If UK car manufacturing is to survive the covid crisis and thrive as part of a net zero future, it needs the Government to develop a long-term strategy to support the sector. Labour urges the Government to do just that by implementing a strategy that accelerates the electrification process in a manner that provides a lifeline to the industry, stimulates investment and ensures the future of the automotive sector in the UK for the communities that rely on it. We have called on the Government to create new gigafactories by 2025, make electric vehicle ownership affordable by offering interest-free loans for those on low and middle incomes and accelerate the rollout of charging points, particularly in the areas that have lagged behind. That is the support the automotive industry needs.
Clause 101 is a simple change to allow for the rebate of the additional rate of vehicle excise duty where the vehicle was sold or declared off road, and we support that. As the Minister said, clause 102 extends the suspension of the HGV road user levy for a further year. We support the measures as the logistics and haulage sector continues to recover from the pandemic, as the Minister has just mentioned, and to ensure that vital supply chains continue to function.
I am concerned that the Minister has not mentioned the serious concerns that haulage firms have about the Brexit deal. Specialist haulage firms, such as concert trucks that service UK music tours, have been left in an extremely difficult position by the Government’s Brexit deal, as it allows for three stops in total across the entire European Union before they must return to the UK. That will have serious knock-on effects on other businesses that rely on the haulage firms to transport their equipment across the continent. Other haulage companies have felt the knock-on effect of the Brexit deal too, including having to prepare last minute for changes in customs requirements and a lack of trained staff at customs. While we welcome the extended suspension of the HGV levy, I urge the Government to do more to support the sector.
Kemi Badenoch
The Government are doing a lot to support the haulage sector. We have provided unprecedented support for businesses and individuals throughout the national restrictions, including the coronavirus job retention scheme and a number of access-to-finance schemes. We have decided to temporarily maintain support for the haulage industry as it plays a critical role in the functioning of our economy and supports many other industries, including our supermarkets and shops. Suspending the levy for a further 12 months is a significant measure to help not just pandemic recovery efforts, but also the industry as a whole. As the hon. Lady made reference to the point by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, that is something that the haulage sector specifically has received, but not every other industry has.
On the question of the impact of Brexit negotiations, I am afraid that is not a matter for the Treasury. I am sure officials will note her concerns and pass them on to the relevant Department. On the question of why the Government are not doing enough to incentivise the uptake of zero-emission vehicles, we use the tax system to encourage the uptake of cars with low carbon dioxide emissions to help us to meet our legally binding climate change target. Zero-emission cars and electric vans are liable to pay no VED. Furthermore, users of zero and ultra-low emission cars have beneficial company car tax rates in comparison with conventionally fuelled vehicles. From April 2021, the Government are applying a nil rate of tax to zero-emission vans within the van benefit charge. We believe that we are doing quite a lot to incentivise the uptake of zero-emission vehicles and electric cars.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the Minister for her comments. I want to go back to the point I raised about the haulage firms and the Brexit deal. I am concerned about how the Minister mentions that Brexit concerns are not a matter for the Treasury, because they are, particularly as clause 102 extends the suspension of the HGV road user levy for a further year. The Government need to look at the impact of that on haulage firms, in particular specialist haulage firms such as concert trucks that service UK music tours. They have been left in an extremely difficult position. The Government need to take that seriously, so I would like the Minister to take that forward and to ensure that such individuals get support.
Kemi Badenoch
The clause makes changes to ensure that the long-haul rates of air passenger duty for the tax year 2022-23 increase in line with the retail price index. The change will ensure that the aviation sector continues to play its part in contributing towards the funding of vital public services.
Aviation plays a crucial role in keeping Britain open for business, and the Government are keen to support its long-term success. The Government recognise the challenging circumstances facing the aviation industry as a result of covid-19. Firms experiencing difficulties can draw upon the unprecedented package of measures announced by the Chancellor, including schemes to raise capital and flexibility with tax bills.
As APD is a per passenger tax, airlines’ liabilities have considerably reduced following the decline in passenger demand caused by the pandemic between April and September 2020, by 87% when compared with the previous year. Aviation fuel incurs no duty and tickets are VAT-free, so APD ensures that the aviation sector makes a fair contribution to the public finances. Uprating APD rates in line with inflation is routine and has occurred every year since 2012. The Government announce the rates one year in advance, in order to give airlines sufficient notice of any changes.
The changes to be made by the clause will increase the long-haul APD tax rates for 2022-23 by RPI. The clause increases the long-haul reduced rate for economy class nominally, by just £2; and the standard rate for all classes above economy by £5—a real-terms freeze. The rates for long-haul travel by private jets will increase by £13. The rounding of APD rates to the nearest £1 means that short-haul rates will remain frozen in nominal terms for the 10th year in a row. That benefits more than 75% of all airline passengers.
APD is a fair and efficient tax, with the amount paid corresponding to the distance and class of travel of the passenger, and it is only due when airlines are flying passengers. The changes made by the clause ensure that the aviation sector continues to play its part in contributing towards funding our vital public services.
Abena Oppong-Asare
As the Minister said, the clause will increase, from April 2022, the rates of long-haul air passenger duty in line with inflation while leaving the short-haul duty at its current rate.
As we all know, the aviation sector has struggled enormously during the pandemic, as international travel has in effect shut down. The industry is important to the UK economy and supports 250,000 jobs across the country. The sector’s recovery will be prolonged. Any restructuring must be supported with a transitional strategy for workers and our regional economies that capitalises on the opportunities to grow industry into green technology.
We believe that part of any aviation support must include a clear commitment to tackling climate change and leading the industry to use cleaner fuel and other cutting-edge low or zero emission technologies. Government support should be contingent on airlines retiring old and inefficient aircraft, so that they meet the new industry standards in accordance with the framework of the Paris agreement and the UK’s Climate Change Act 2008.
Several smaller airports, including Teesside and Newquay, were forced to shut their doors at the height of the pandemic. This is an uneven playing field between small and large airports, as staff wages and business rates make up a bigger proportion of costs for regional airports. Without further specific support, regional airports may no longer be viable. The sector has made clear its disappointment with the recent Budget, which failed to set out either the support or the vision for future aviation needs. Will the Minister update us on the aviation support package that the Government promised but which has yet to materialise?
Finally, we know that the Government are currently consulting on a new low band for domestic air passenger duty, and we will watch the outcome of that consultation closely. Will the Minister tell us how that will fit in with our environmental commitments?
Kemi Badenoch
The clause seeks to set APD rates for April 2022, so it will not take immediate effect. It will increase long-haul air passenger duty rates only in nominal terms, while short-haul rates will remain frozen at current rates, benefiting more than 75% of passengers.
With regard to the issues affecting the aviation industry, air passenger duty is marginal—a £2 increase on economy flights is not what will make or break the industry. We recognise the challenging circumstances faced by the industry as a result of covid-19, and all the firms experiencing difficulties can and have drawn upon the unprecedented package of measures announced by the Chancellor, as I mentioned earlier, including schemes to raise capital and flexibility with their tax bills. We have also provided bespoke support to the sector via the airport and ground operator support scheme. The majority of beneficiaries have been the smaller airports that the hon. Lady mentioned. At the end of the day, APD is a per-passenger tax. Airlines’ liabilities have reduced significantly since the start of covid, with receipts between April and September 2020 down 87% compared with the same period in 2019, so suspending APD would not be appropriate.
On the wider issues that the hon. Lady mentioned on the transition to net zero, we have introduced a wide range of scheme to support the decarbonisation of the aviation sector, including a £15 million competition to support the UK production of sustainable aviation fuel, and the inclusion of aviation in the UK’s emissions trading scheme, which we discussed in the last sitting. The Government will also consult on the overall strategy for the sector’s transition to net zero later this year.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 103 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 104
Amounts of gross gaming yield charged to gaming duty
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Review of impact of section 104—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made by section 104 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the provisions on the volume of gambling, including—
(a) the number of people who take part in gambling,
(b) the amount of money spent on gambling, and
(c) the gross gaming yield.
(3) In this section “parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland; and “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This new clause would require a report on the effects of section 104 on the volume of gambling.
Kemi Badenoch
Clause 104 increases the thresholds for the gross gaming yield bands for gaming duty in line with inflation. Gaming duty is a banded tax paid by casinos in the UK, with marginal tax rates varying between 15% and 50%. To ensure that operators are not brought into higher tax bands because of inflation, gaming duty bands are increased in line with RPI inflation. That means that casinos continue to pay the same level of tax in real terms. The clause uprates the bands of gaming duty in line with inflation. That is expected by the industry and assumed in the public finances. The rates of gaming duty themselves will remain unchanged. The change will take effect for the accounting period starting on or after 1 April 2021.
New clause 4 seeks to place a statutory requirement on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to review and publish a report on the impact of the increase in the gaming duty thresholds on the volume of gambling. The Gambling Commission publishes annually statistics on gambling participation, spend and gross gaming yield for each part of the sector, so an additional report would merely duplicate information that is already available. There is no change to the tax rate in the provision. Accordingly, the Government do not expect the change to have an impact on gambling participation, spend or gross gaming yield.
It is also important to say that new clause 4 is impractical, as the proposed publication deadline, together with the continued lockdown of casinos, would deliver an inconclusive report based on receipts data from a single shortened accounting period. I hope that the Committee is reassured by that and will therefore reject the new clause.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Clause 104 increases the bands for gaming duty in line with inflation, in effect freezing gaming duties for casinos. It is a relatively small measure, but clearly the taxation and regulation of gambling is extremely important. The Minister will know that hon. Members across the House have taken a keen interest in the issue. Will she therefore update us on the Treasury’s plans for gambling taxation more widely, including for online operators? In particular, what role does she see for taxation in this area as a way of tackling the adverse health effects that problem gambling can lead to?
Peter Grant
The disadvantage of not speaking on every clause just for the sake of it is that sometimes people forget that someone is there.
I hear what the Minister says about new clause 4, but there is still a need for more reporting to Parliament. I appreciate that it is yet another one of those cases where the main responsibility lies with a different Government Department but the impact on the Treasury is substantial, which is why it is part of this Bill.
The Minister said that the increase is in line with inflation. Although that is technically correct, the headline rate of inflation is 3.1% and all of what are effectively income tax bands for the gambling sector are going up by 3.1%. Any increase in gross gaming yield is not caused by a price increase, as would apply anywhere else. If the gaming yield increases by 10%, that is because people are spending 10% more on gambling. The price of a bet on the grand national does not increase. What is happening is that either people are choosing to bet more than they were before, or more people are getting into heavier gambling than they were before.
Debt inflation is relevant to the income of low-paid workers, yet earlier when discussing clause 5, I think, there was a decision for them to get virtually no increase in their income tax bands for the next five years—0.5%, which is then frozen for four years. I would be interested to learn from the Minister’s response why the gambling industry needs to get its tax bands uprated for inflation every year, but hard-pressed workers who are only just making enough to get by are effectively seeing their tax bands increase by about a 10th of a percent compounded year on year.
Last year, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee reported on gambling regulation. Again, while the regulation is a matter for a different Department, we cannot ignore it here. Before the pandemic started, gambling was taking over the lives of 395,000 people in the UK. Of them, 55,000 are children under the age of 16. Another 1.8 million people were at risk of becoming problem gamblers, and it is likely that quite a few of those 1.8 million are now problem gamblers. No matter how locked down someone is, one thing they can do is gamble online, often with money they do not have, for 24 hours a day.
We do not know how much problem gambling costs public services. The lowest estimate is over a quarter of a billion pounds, and the highest puts it at well over £1 billion. The financial year on which those two reports are based, 2018-19, showed that the total gross gambling yield, so the money they take in minus the winnings they pay out—effectively the gambling industry’s gross profit—is £11.3 billion. There are indications that in the following year it was up to £14 billion. Gaming duties bring in about £3 billion to the Treasury, which is why we are discussing it today. The Gambling Commission, which is supposed to regulate all of that, has a separate levy by way of the application of licence fees paid by the industry and set by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. That brings in the princely sum of £19 million—million with an “m”—to try and regulate an industry with gross profits of £11 billion, with a “b”. It is clear that it is not an equal contest.
As with so many of the clauses we are discussing, the impacts on thousands of our constituents and, in the case of problem gambling, the horrific and often tragic impacts on them, may not be in the scope of the Bill, but it would simply be unacceptable for us to ignore those impacts when we consider the relatively small part that the Treasury plays in the Government’s relationship with the gambling industry. It is not acceptable to look at clause 104 as just a revenue raising exercise for the Treasury, although sometimes it seems that that is all the interest the Treasury takes in it.
Kemi Badenoch
It is worth reminding hon. Members that this measure is a change to gambling taxation and is not related to the regulation of gambling activity, which is a matter for DCMS—I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that. I take his point about the health effects and the impact on families. The Government continue to monitor the effectiveness of existing gambling controls. DCMS has launched a review of the Gambling Act 2005 with a call for evidence. This closed at the end of March and the Government will respond in due course.
We will also look at how we can ensure that the impact on the sector itself is proportionate, given that much of the casino industry has been closed down for the last year. We believe that the sector is already making a fair contribution to public finances, so this is not necessarily the time for an increase.
Revalorising gaming duty bands in line with inflation, as the Government have done, is assumed in the public finances. Freezing the bands would have a very small impact on the public finances, while pushing smaller, generally regional casinos into high duty bands, hence why we have done this in this way
I remind the Committee that the top rate of gaming duty is currently 50%. The system ensures that casinos pay their fair share of overall gambling tax receipts. This measure does not represent a tax cut. Given DCMS’s call for evidence, I am sure this is an area that Parliament will return to again and again.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Dame Angela, I just have some questions for the Minister on gambling taxation more widely, particularly for online operators. Could she elaborate on that? What work is being done to tackle the adverse effects that problem gambling can lead to?
Kemi Badenoch
On the hon. Lady’s second question, that is a matter for DCMS. On her first question, I referred to that in relation to the tax rate. That is something that we in the Treasury will look to do along with DCMS as part of its review.
The Chair
Just to assist the Chair, if Members wish to come back in, could they wave, leap up with vigour or just indicate to catch my eye? Otherwise, I may get past the moment and they will have lost their chance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 104 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 105
Rates of climate change levy from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 106 to 108 stand part.
New clause 5—Review of impact of sections 105, 106 and 108—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made by sections 105, 106 and 108 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the provisions on progress towards the Government’s climate emissions targets.
(3) In this section—
“parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
and “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This new clause would require a report on the effects of sections 105, 106 and 108 on progress towards the UK Government’s climate emissions targets.
Kemi Badenoch
Clauses 105 and 106 make changes to ensure that the climate change levy’s main and reduced rates are updated for years 2022-23 and 2023-24, to reflect the rates announced at Budget 2020. Clause 107 increases both the standard and the lower rates of landfill tax in line with inflation from 1 April 2021, as announced at Budget 2020. Clause 108 repeals the provisions in the Finance Acts 2019 and 2020 relating to carbon emissions tax, which were not commenced following the Government’s decision to implement a UK emissions trading scheme from 1 January 2021 instead.
The climate change levy came into effect in April 2001. It is a UK-wide tax on the non-domestic use of energy from gas, electricity, liquefied petroleum gas and solid fuels. It promotes the efficient use of energy to help meet the UK’s international and domestic targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. At Budget 2016, it was announced that electricity and gas climate change levy rates would be equalised by 2025, because electricity is becoming a much cleaner source of energy than gas as we reduce our reliance on coal and use more renewable sources instead.
Landfill tax has been immensely successful in reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill. That tax provides a disincentive to landfill and has contributed to a 70% decrease in waste sent to landfill since 2000. Reducing waste sent to landfill provides both economic and environmental benefits.
Peter Grant
How much of the reduction in waste going to landfill is due to a reduction in waste being produced, and how much of it is waste ending up in farmers’ fields and play parks and just being fly-tipped illegally, at further increased cost to the environment, and indeed to the public purse, for clearing it up?
Kemi Badenoch
I believe that a significant amount of it is due to the landfill tax. We have been looking at the rate in comparison year on year, and our analysis shows that the landfill tax is having a significant impact. There will always be fly-tipping, irrespective of what the tax rate on landfill is.
Clauses 105 and 106 make changes to the climate change levy rates for 2022-23 and 2023-24, to continue the rebalancing of electricity and gas rates announced in Budget 2016. The 2022-23 and 2023-24 rates were announced in Budget 2020 in order to give businesses plenty of notice to prepare for the changes. At Budget 2020, it was also announced that rates for liquified petroleum gas would be frozen to 31 March 2024.
To limit the economic impact of the tax rate changes on energy-intensive businesses, participants in the climate change agreement scheme will see their climate change levy liability increase by RPI inflation only. That protects the competitiveness of more than 9,000 facilities from energy-intensive industries across some 50 sectors.
When disposed of at a landfill site, each tonne of standard-rated material is currently taxed at £94.15, and lower-rate material draws a tax of £3.00 per tonne. These changes will see rates per tonne increase to £96.70 and £3.10 respectively from 1 April 2021. By increasing rates in line with RPI, we maintain the crucial incentive for the industry to use alternative waste treatment methods and continue the move towards a more circular economy. The changes made by clause 108 will repeal the provisions in the Finance Acts 2019 and 2020 relating to carbon emissions tax, which were not commenced.
New clause 5, tabled by the hon. Members for Glasgow Central, for Glenrothes, for Gordon and for Midlothian, would require the Government to publish a report, within six months of the passing of the Act, on the effects of what would then be sections 105, 106 and 108 on progress towards the Government’s climate emissions targets. As clauses 105 and 106 make changes to ensure that the climate change levy’s main and reduced rates are updated for years 2022-23 and 2023-24, such a report would not be able meaningfully to assess the impact of these changes within six months of the passing of the Act. The Government currently assess and monitor environmental impacts across existing tax measures, and do that alongside other, complementary measures, such as regulation and spending, to understand the impact of policy making in the round. That alludes to the point made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes about landfill tax.
Clause 108 repeals the provisions in Finance Acts 2019 and 2020 relating to a carbon emissions tax, which was not commenced because the Government decided that a UK emissions trading scheme administered by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy would be the best replacement for the EU emissions trading system from 1 January 2021.
As it was not commenced, the carbon emissions tax’s role in meeting the Government’s climate emissions targets cannot be measured. However, Opposition Members should be reassured that the UK ETS, a market-based measure covering a third of UK emissions, will help to deliver a robust carbon price signal. The energy White Paper committed to exploring expanding the UK emissions trading scheme to other sectors and set out our aspirations to continue to lead the world on carbon pricing in the run-up to COP26. The Treasury will continue to work closely with BEIS on the introduction of the UK emissions trading scheme and will keep all environmental taxes under review to ensure that they continue to support the Government’s climate commitments.
In conclusion, the changes made by clauses 105 and 106 will update the climate change levy main and reduced rates for 2022-23 and 2023-24, as announced at Budget 2020 and to deliver on previous Budget announcements. Clause 107 will increase the two rates of landfill tax in line with inflation from 1 April 2021, as announced at Budget 2020. Clause 108 will ensure that the statute book is up to date by repealing the provisions in Finance Acts 2019 and 2020 relating to a carbon emissions tax that were not commenced. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee and ask that the Committee rejects new clause 5.
Abena Oppong-Asare
If I may, I will address the clauses in reverse order. Clause 108 repeals the carbon emissions tax. As the Minister said, the Government introduced this legislation when deciding what to replace the EU emissions trading system with. We welcome the fact that the Government have decided to implement a UK emissions trading system, rather than a carbon emissions tax. The Minister and I recently debated regulations relating to the UK ETS, and I will not repeat the points I made then. However, I stress that our belief is that the UK ETS must be linked with the EU ETS in order to achieve a robust system of carbon pricing to meet our net zero target.
Clause 107 increases the landfill tax in line with inflation. We welcome this small, uncontroversial measure. We talked at considerable length about waste and recycling during our discussion of the plastic packaging tax. I repeat only the point that the Government should invest the revenue from these taxes into recycling facilities and technology. Finally, clauses 105 and 106 make a number of changes to the climate change levy over the coming years, including raising the gas levy and adjusting the climate change agreement rates. Could the Minister set out whether the Government intend to keep the climate change agreement scheme beyond its current period, and if not, what they will replace it with?
As we come to the end of the group of environmental clauses, I will make a few points about tax and our net zero commitment. In February, the National Audit Office published a report into environmental tax measures. The NAO criticised the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for failing to properly consider and evaluate the impact of these taxes on the Government’s environmental targets.
Does the Minister agree that we need information on the environmental impact of all taxes and reliefs? Will she commit to working with HMRC and other bodies to publish this information regularly? Currently, UK taxes with a positive environmental impact account for only 7% of tax revenue, and those with an explicit environmental purpose, such as the climate change levy or landfill tax, account for only 0.5%. So far, and particularly in the last Budget, we have seen a lack of vision from the Chancellor on the environment. We await the Treasury net zero review, but will the Minister set out what steps the Government will take in the short, medium and long term to ensure that our tax system plays a role in meeting our net zero commitment?
Peter Grant
The reason why a regular report to Parliament is needed on these taxes is that despite the optimistic assessment that the Exchequer Secretary set out, there are far too many taxes, including the landfill tax. With far too many of the officially designated environmental taxes, and an awful lot of taxes that are not officially environmental but that have an impact on the environment, the Government do not have a very clear handle on what is going on.
In February, the National Audit Office report “Environmental tax measures” stated:
“The exchequer departments do not specify how they will measure the impact of environmental tax measures.”
Before the tax has even been introduced, nobody is clear about what environmental impact they want it to have. The report also states:
“HMRC’s approach to evaluation provides it with limited insight into the environmental impact of taxes.”
Whether those taxes’ main intention is to influence behaviour rather than raise money, or whether they are introduced as a revenue-raising measure that we hope will also have beneficial environmental impacts, the Government’s track record has been that they do not really know what they intend the environmental impact to be before they start, and they usually do not collect information to give a reliable assessment of what the environmental impact has been once the tax is in place. In fact, the revenue consequences of the very small number of taxes that are officially environmental taxes are dwarfed by those of tax reliefs against other forms of taxation for reasons of environmental sustainability.
I will not press new clause 5 to a vote just now, and we will not oppose clauses 105 to 108, but I want to give a message to the Government about their forward setting of objectives and their monitoring of the environmental impact of taxes of all kinds: they really have to do better, and they have to start doing better very quickly.
Kemi Badenoch
On environmental impact, it is important for the hon. Gentleman to realise that where there are multivariable reasons why things occur, measurement will never be 100% accurate. We give the impact that we can measure; others may dispute it, but the Government have taken a view.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the landfill tax in an intervention that I responded to in my speech, but it is a tax that is devolved in Scotland. He did not tell us what the Scottish Government are doing differently from the UK Government—while he was criticising the UK Government’s landfill tax policy, I think he probably forgot that it was a devolved matter.
Kemi Badenoch
No, I will not give way.
The overall impact on the environment has been positive, with the landfill tax contributing to a reduction. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead asked about recycling. The fact is that all these things are having an impact. We bring these taxes into play and they change behaviour; we cannot then say that it has nothing to do with the tax that the behaviour has changed. All these things are directly linked.
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead asked a specific question about climate change agreements. For my part within the Treasury, that is being dealt with by the net zero review, but those agreements are a BEIS lead. She also asked about linking the UK emissions trading scheme to the EU emissions trading scheme. We are open to linking the UK ETS internationally in principle and we are considering a range of options, but no decisions on preferred linking partners have been made. We are looking to innovate and create a scheme suited to the UK and to our climate commitments.
We started—as the hon. Lady will know, given our debates on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Auctioning Regulations 2021—by reducing the cap on emissions by 5%, compared with what it would have been within the EU. We will set up further plans ahead of COP26, but we are going further and faster than EU representatives on this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 105 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 106 to 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Rutley.)
10.36 am
Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 11 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
Support for Asylum Seekers
(2 years, 11 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
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating, physically and virtually, that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must 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.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effectiveness of asylum accommodation and the dispersal scheme in providing support for asylum seekers.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the support that I have received, for research capacity in my office in relation to my work on asylum seekers, refugees and migrants, from RAMP, the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project, which I thank also for supporting the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and me in seeking this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Davies.
Let me start with some more thanks to all colleagues, across almost every party, who have backed the debate, and to all those organisations that not only have briefed for this debate, but work on this issue day in, day out, supporting some of the most vulnerable people across our country. I thank all my constituents who have messaged me to bemoan the awful system imposed by the Home Office, and all those out there who retain faith in the UK’s historic contribution to shaping international law on asylum and our equally historic contribution in not just settling asylum seekers in our country, but benefiting from the contribution that they have made to enrich our country’s economy and culture over very many decades.
Some people seek to cloak themselves in our flag, but wish to sidestep or even ignore our traditions and our historic sense of duty in always being there to support people in need—and people are in need in growing numbers across the globe, which is why an effective and efficient policy is so important. The world remains a dangerous place—from armed conflict, from growing resource and climate conflict and from growing aggression and human rights abuses in China, Russia and other countries, putting even more people at risk. Despite those growing risks, I am unsure whether there is another area where Tory rhetoric on global Britain clashes more harshly with the reality of this Government’s policies, given the planned cuts to our armed forces and the massive reduction to our international aid budget, despite manifesto commitments.
Many of the people in need will reach our shores, and when they arrive, we have responsibilities—legal duties. It is essential that we live up to our responsibilities—responsibilities to asylum seekers and responsibilities to the British public, who want to see an effective system that not only weeds out the tiny, minute, fraction of bogus claims fast but, equally quickly, resettles the overwhelming majority of genuine asylum seekers at the best price for the UK taxpayer. Sadly, that is in no way what we have currently. Instead, we have a fragmented system, badly mismanaged by the Home Office and, at the very start of the process, getting even the basics wrong. The British Red Cross has reported that 81% of asylum seekers do not even receive information in their own language. They are not told what is happening and will happen to them; and two thirds did not get health screening, even during the pandemic.
Then the Home Office shunts people into short-term asylum accommodation while their eligibility for support is assessed. Usually, people should then be moved to dispersal accommodation across the UK, where they will live until a decision is reached on their full application —often after a lengthy delay. During that period, people are prevented from working. They have no choice over where or how they are housed, and they are provided with just £39.63 a week to support themselves. That is a far cry from the £150,000 a year that the Prime Minister gets, and he is apparently still reliant on someone else to cover redecorating bills.
This is a crumbling, pernicious system, which has directly contributed to covid infections, crime and chaos, but it is overseen—ironically—by the Department with overall responsibility for tackling crime and disorder in the UK: a Department that has been warned so many times about this inhumane, inefficient and expensive system, which the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee have laid bare. The National Audit Office reported last July that the system that the Government have adopted caused costs to escalate by 28% to £568 for each accommodated asylum seeker, and saw a 96% increase in short-term, more expensive accommodation. In November last year, the Public Accounts Committee warned of a system in crisis and recommended:
“The Home Office should, within three months, set out a clear plan for how it will quickly and safely reduce the use of hotels and ensure that asylum seekers’ accommodation meets their individual needs.”
I look forward to hearing from the Minister today, six months later, how that is being delivered.
Understandably, the Minister will say that covid is responsible for some of the rising costs and inefficiencies of his Department’s policies. I hope he will outline when those costs will fall and the strategy adopted in response to repeat NAO and PAC concerns. I also hope he will acknowledge how Home Office policies go back to before covid. There were more than 1,000 people in hotels in October 2019, before covid was identified in China, let alone before it began to be responded to by a Government headed by a Prime Minister whose own delayed decisions contributed to covid deaths in the UK. I will not repeat his sickening comments about piling up the bodies, as they are so raw for the 127,000 families who have lost loved ones.
I think the level of interest in this debate is due in part to the dramatic rise in hotel and other inappropriate accommodation use. At the end of February, almost 8,700 people were living in hotels across the UK, according to the Refugee Council. It is important to remember that the increased number of people living in contingency accommodation is due not to a rise in applications, but to a Home Office backlog. Also, these are hotels where people might stay for a short stop en route, not for a holiday or extended break, as they are often on the edge of towns, far from amenities and certainly far from the healthcare services needed by people who have been through trauma elsewhere, and who in some cases have acute mental health needs.
In London, more than 6,000 asylum seekers are in hotels, and roughly 1,200 are children, some unaccompanied. Again, this is not a holiday; it is isolating, lonely, and also exposed. “Line of Duty” has made more people familiar with the term OCGs. As a direct result of Home Office policy, organised crime groups have targeted asylum seekers in Home Office-funded premises to engage them in illegal work and other crime, including drug trafficking. Vulnerable people are made worse off by the Home Office, with criminals benefiting from Home Office policy. The fact that the Department oversees law and order policy in the UK is a joke when it cannot even ensure that the premises it funds are off limits to OCGs.
The people in hotels were originally scheduled to be moved out by March 2021. In February, the Home Office announced its intention to move people out of hotels again, through Operation Oak, but the process has yet to be completed, and the Home Office has said that it simply intends to complete it by the summer. I hope the Minister will today confirm the new date, full plans and staging post for delivery. The fear is that this is still “Operation Acorn”.
Of course, some costs in the system are avoidable if the decisions are made quicker. The Home Office website still claims, ludicrously, that someone seeking asylum will “usually” have a decision within six months. That is simply untrue and has been for some time. More than 64,000 people are awaiting decisions, according to the Refugee Council, and the British Red Cross says that 72% have waited more than six months. Perhaps the Minister will update us on the average time today. I will be amazed if colleagues can stay in their seats both here in the room and at home, given the previous claims and the average delays that we see for our constituents.
I will give two examples from Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I have raised the cases of an Eritrean woman and a Mongolian man seeking asylum since 2017. Not only do they not have a decision four years later, but the Home Office cannot even give a timeframe for when their cases will be concluded. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today when and how the Home Office will cut the horrific backlog that his Government have created.
The vast majority of asylum seekers have their claims upheld—more than 90% for many countries—so the delay is a needless burden that affects the asylum seeker and also imposes massive cost penalties on the taxpayer: first, in expensive, avoidable temporary accommodation; secondly, because the Home Office prevents people from working; and thirdly, because of the avoidable and lengthy delays to decisions and eventual settlement and work.
At the end of September 2020, there were 3,621 Sudanese, Syrian and Eritrean nationals who had been waiting longer than six months for a decision on their application. The grant rate across those three countries at initial decision was 94% in the year ending March 2020. It could be faster, but it requires a focus from the Home Office that simply has not been there, and that I suspect we will not see from the Minister today.
The system was bad enough before covid, but covid has brutally exposed the inadequacies of the asylum process, with routine delays, inflated costs, needless waits, and prevention from work, even for the one in seven asylum claimants who have a professional background in health and social care. People that this country could have desperately done with working in our services to support people through the crisis were prevented from doing so by Government policy.
But no one could have been prepared for the horrors of the Napier barracks—a cross-party issue on which, I think, 45 questions have been asked since January from all parts of the House. The interest was because Napier exposed the worst excesses of this system, which fails people fleeing torture, genocide, war and persecution, but also fails the taxpayer, our historic contribution and the British tradition of not passing by on the other side of the street. The Napier barracks issue is likely to result in further costs to the taxpayer, with legal cases resulting from this inhumane system imposed on people fleeing to the UK for help, but forced to live in accommodation that public health bodies had said was unfit for use and likely to increase the risks of infection.
The Government claimed a few years ago that the Home Office was reviewing the hostile environment, but it was proved to be only too alive and kicking during the pandemic, perhaps inevitably under a Home Secretary who proved to be the most hostile of bosses. Will the Minister update us today on where that review is, or if it even still exists? Napier shows that, at the same time as wider Government was telling the public to stay home, isolate where possible and protect the NHS, this bit of the Government, the bit that solely determines where asylum seekers live, chose to accommodate people in dormitories of 28: communal, unhygienic spaces that contravened Government guidance and public health recommendations—a shameful episode.
The shadow Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), wrote to the Government in December calling for a review of covid safety in all establishments being used for accommodation. In a response at the end of the year, the Home Office claimed it was committed to upholding statutory duties, including providing safe covid-compliant accommodation to those who need it, but failed to undertake that review. Does the Minister have an answer or explanation for that failure today, or better still an apology to the people put in those horrific circumstances?
Sadly, instead of learning from this hideous mistake, which rightly caused public outrage, Ministers planned to extend the use of communal rooms, with proposals for cabin-style accommodation on former MOD land in Barton Stacey. The indications are that Ministers have learned nothing, but I hope we will hear today that Napier will be no longer used and other proposals will be dropped.
I asked for this debate not just to highlight the issue of short-term, costly and dangerous asylum accommodation, but to look at the wider problem that the Government have created surrounding long-term housing through the dispersal scheme, introduced under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which was designed to try to ensure an even spread of support across the country. However, under that scheme, local authorities reach voluntary agreements with the Home Office to accept asylum seekers, and the Home Office has not negotiated well.
Many local authorities have no agreement with the Home Office at all. In Scotland, only Glasgow City Council accommodates asylum seekers. At the end of last year, 223 local authorities throughout the UK were taking no asylum seekers. The system is simply not working. I hope the Minister will explain how the Home Office is delivering the Home Affairs Committee recommendation that it should pursue the commitment he made to a more equitable and sustainable system by expanding the areas participating in dispersal.
Resources are, of course, part of the issue. Councils stress that after a decade of cuts to their budgets, there is no incentive to participate. The costs to local authorities supporting asylum seekers come from social care, homelessness services and other additional support needs. There appears to be no strategy or plan from the Home Office to address this issue to work with local authorities or better support asylum seekers moving out of contingency accommodation and into communities.
The ICIBI report in March stated that there was little focus on helping residents to prepare for next steps and next to zero focus on driving up the quality of the accommodation provided. Despite promises that improvements to accommodation be made, there is increased use of inappropriate emergency sites without wraparound support.
The 10-year contracts the Home Office is using are valued at £4 billion, but information about how these services are performing remains closely guarded. Perhaps Government secrecy is unsurprising when it comes to admitting failings or trying to improve services.
I hope the Minister will tell us his plans to address these issues today and when that plan might start. There is currently no sustainable plan. The only prospect is more of the terrible same, or worse, as numbers continue to rise and costs continue to escalate for emergency temporary accommodation for asylum seekers and costs to the taxpayers.
There are, of course, options on the table. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government might be better placed to provide some supported accommodation. Local authorities are often overlooked by this authoritarian, centralised Government. The need for a place-based, more equitable approach to dispersal has been consistently raised by the Local Government Association, which resulted in the Home Office and Local Government Chief Executive Group, co-chaired by the LGA, with representation of each region and devolved Administration, established in 2019 to develop a 10-year plan for a more equitable distribution of support. I hope the Minister will give us an update on that equitable distribution today.
Others suggest a local authority public health-driven approach. Incidents in hotels and barracks in recent months have highlighted the importance of advance notice, engagement and the sharing of data, so that local services are aware of who is in their locality and what their health needs are.
Sadly, as things stand, the Local Government Association states that the dispersal structure has been abandoned during covid. It is unclear how it will return or what is in place for when the pandemic ends. Partnership is needed on this issue. Will the Minister tell us how relations will be rebuilt? How will the Government address local authority concerns and deliver a more affordable system to the taxpayer, in partnership with the communities that will provide the ultimate long-term address for asylum seekers? At a minimum, I hope the Minister will today explain plans, if any exist, for how the Home Office will move away from its over-reliance on emergency accommodation and improve information sharing with councils and health bodies.
I end by quoting one of the amazing organisations that I thanked at the outset, the British Red Cross, whose report “Far from a home: why asylum accommodation needs reform” is out today. It is based on the real experiences of people living in asylum accommodation, including barracks and finds that
“too many asylum-seeking women, men and children in the UK are living in unsafe, unsanitary and isolated accommodation. This falls far short of expected standards, for months and even years at a time. These issues have been compounded by mounting backlogs in asylum application decisions in recent years, the failure to secure enough community dispersal accommodation and more recently, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.”
Worryingly, the report also suggests that:
“Far from addressing these issues, the UK Government’s New Plan for Immigration…includes plans to house people seeking asylum in reception centres.”
It goes on:
“As we have witnessed in the use of military barracks, institutional-style accommodation can have significant negative impacts on people’s mental and physical health, as well as isolating people seeking asylum from wider communities, ultimately reducing social integration and cohesion…We believe this would be a mistake.”
I wholeheartedly agree with the report’s findings. I hope the Minister will give an initial response to the report in his comments, reassure us that the Home Office will no longer run a dangerous policy that puts people at risk of ill health and exposed to organised crime, and explain how he will seek to restore our proud tradition of being there at times of need.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I am going to have to impose a time limit, beginning at four minutes and rapidly dropping to three minutes for people further down the list.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Davies. I commence, like the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a principal of the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
It is vital to put today’s debate into its context. The hostile environment and a move away from treating asylum seekers as simply part of the wider welfare system began in the early 2000s, as the Blair Government recognised the political toxicity of the public perception that people newly arrived in the UK would be able to potentially jump social housing waiting lists. True or not, that was a serious political concern that they faced at the time.
In the mid-2000s, Andy Burnham, then the Immigration Minister and now the Mayor of Greater Manchester, signed off on the implementation of dispersal, creating a new route for asylum seekers, whereby they were placed in parts of the country where local authorities, recognising that there was a surplus of housing locally, offered to accommodate them and to provide them with support in those local communities. Subsequently, the Home Office looked to economise on the cost of delivering those services, by delivering through a set of national contracts with private companies.
Hard as it is to believe for those of us in London constituencies and city constituencies with lengthy housing waiting lists, there are parts of the country, such as Stoke-on-Trent, that were proactive in seeking to be dispersal areas because they recognised the benefits to their communities of bringing in new people who could revitalise the schools and other public services on which their communities depended.
The other significant factor remains the distribution of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, which is not a matter for the Home Office but sits with the Department for Education, under the Children Act 1989. It means that local authorities that have ports of entry—airports or sea ports where people arrive into the UK—bear significant responsibilities. The Home Office’s national transfer scheme has been a step towards addressing that distribution.
The other big part of that picture is that refugees, once they are granted that status in the UK and have the right to asylum, often do not stay in the communities where they are placed through dispersal. That is why we see very large numbers of refugees living in London and the south-east of England, for example. They have not been placed there by the Home Office, but have moved there under their own volition.
It is very clear from my engagement with contractors who have administered the scheme that the new set of Home Office contracts has represented a significant improvement on what was there before. The funding that is available, the flexibility and the volunteering of new local authorities that are keen to be dispersal areas have all helped to ease some of the pressure.
However, we recognise that there are remaining issues with the system. In particular, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark alluded to, there is a very clear desire, first, to ensure that asylum seekers are not competing with local people to access social housing where that is in short supply; by definition, that means that people are being placed in parts of the country that do not already have a significant housing waiting list. Secondly, we need to ensure, given that around two thirds to three quarters of people who apply for asylum in the UK are granted it, that asylum is the start of a path to integration.
So, my ask today of the Minister is fairly simple—it is a shopping list of things that we need to do better and that we can consider as part of this wider consultation. First, we need to think about how dispersal is part of a path to integration, given those figures about people being granted asylum. Secondly, we must ensure, regarding things such as move-on period and the recognition that most people who come for asylum in the UK will remain, that we are realistic about how we support them to integrate. Thirdly and finally, and this is the most important point, there must be real consideration of how Departments work together. The challenge for local authorities and communities often arises because the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Education are not aligned with the Home Office. So, I ask the Minister: can we please ensure that the approach to this issue is joined up across Government so much better than it is today?
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I now have to drop the time limit to three minutes.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I commend the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) for securing this debate at this important time. There can be no doubt that, since the beginning of the pandemic, no group of people has been more adversely affected than those seeking asylum or refuge. People arrive here in a society where the biggest concerns seem to be the safety and welfare of citizens, but only of those born here, or beaches that are only overwhelmed by those looking to top up their tans, or that the right calibre of boats are the ones to be seen from the white cliffs of Dover. This is the disunited kingdom in which we live.
The Home Office has placed vulnerable asylum seekers in squalid accommodation at short notice, often for months at a time, with no money, no certainty and no prospects. A so-called temporary solution has become normalised practice. In a very real sense, the asylum support system contorts what should be a source of pride for any country—to help those in their time of greatest need. Instead, it is a de facto and grim pilot scheme for the UK Government’s shameful and unapologetic attitude towards those who have already been traumatised by arduous and terrifying journeys. Too often, people are met with a system that is mired in suspicion, control and surveillance, with real pressure points around homelessness, especially for those who are refused asylum and who are then routinely rendered destitute here in the UK.
Welcome measures were instituted at the start of lockdown, but most have now been withdrawn by a Home Office that is sadly determined to get back to its business-as-usual routines. It announced on 15 September, apparently without consulting or gaining the consent of local authorities or their public health directors, that it would restart evictions of refused asylum seekers. Most of the evictions started in covid-19 hotspots, such as Halifax and Manchester. As Glasgow City Council recently commented, that is an “unconscionable” action and cannot continue.
Our overarching sense is that this pandemic has been particularly adverse for refugees’ communities, in terms of extensive social isolation, escalating mental health problems and further severe poverty. In Scotland and indeed across the UK, the pandemic has reconfirmed the inadequacies of the Home Office’s so-called support system.
Almost 200 people tested positive for coronavirus after an outbreak at a Kent barracks earlier this year. A High Court hearing heard that asylum seekers were left powerless to protect themselves, but the Home Office offered no apology at all. Perhaps that was right—no apology can be made for institutionalised aggression towards those who want nothing more than to be free of violence and persecution, but who instead are hindered and hidden behind the iron curtain of this right-wing Tory Government. I stand here today for my country, desperate to offer support to our newest Scots.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) [V]
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) for calling this pertinent debate.
The issue is extremely current, given the situation we have seen in the English channel and the increasing pressures on dispersal areas. I am pleased that the Home Secretary and the Home Office are taking robust action to address those issues, with a new plan for immigration, which I entirely support, by taking action to remove those who have no right to be here and better deterring illegal migration, while supporting those who are in genuine need.
As a dispersal area, Stoke-on-Trent has contributed far more than most areas to the dispersal scheme since its inception, but we can take only so much. It is about fairness. It is now time for other towns and cities to learn from our example and do their bit. Far too frequently, hon. Members advocate doing more, but when it comes to taking action on places becoming dispersal areas, they do nothing. Numerous local authority areas have not resettled a single refugee. Sadly, because of the pressures on Stoke-on-Trent we have now reached the point where additional demands on already stretched local services, whether those are schools, health services or social services, are entirely unsustainable. We have resettled more than anywhere else in the west midlands and now, as part of Operation Oak, we are expected to take more.
I thank the Minister for hearing the concerns of Stoke-on-Trent MPs and the leader of the city council recently. Right now, on average, one person in every 250 in Stoke-on-Trent’s population is an asylum seeker. In one area of my constituency, the figure is closer to one in 80 and, in some parts of the city, it is as high as one in 30. In addition to those asylum seekers, there are thousands of confirmed refugees whom the city has embraced previously. Our city’s cluster limit ratio of 79% is greatly in excess of even Birmingham’s 29%, and our city council has recently had to challenge proposals repeatedly made over the course of the past year to increase numbers further. Sorry, but we can do no more.
Dispersal area local authorities of all complexions across the region have been united in their concerns about ever more pressure being placed on those few dispersal areas, when so many authorities have done nothing. There has been a tendency to place people in areas with lower value housing, just because it is cheaper. Yet the consequences of doing so and the impacts on local services are stark. The council has found itself challenging totally inappropriate accommodation, including unsustainable hotel accommodation. There are also much more serious concerns about radicalisation. Some accommodation is in extremely inappropriate locations, where vulnerable individuals may be targeted by extreme and criminal groups. I repeat that we are proud to have done much more than almost any other area to welcome refugees and asylum seekers, but it is time for other areas to stop grandstanding and actually do something.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
The Home Office is knowingly presiding over an asylum accommodation and dispersal system that sees some of the most vulnerable people in the UK forced into squalid and overcrowded accommodation in dilapidated barracks or rodent-infested hotels. Covid-19 rips through dormitories and medical attention is slow to arrive or missing entirely. There is no access to support services or advice. Large groups of people have lived in small, unventilated rooms through lockdown. Food packages provided to children, which were supposed to be nutritious, fell far below any such standard and included pasta floating in milk and even raw chicken. There are reports of malnourishment, in one case resulting in hospitalisation and in another preventing a mother from breastfeeding her child.
The people in question have fled war and violence and are in desperate need of peace, security and stability. Post-traumatic stress disorder is common among those housed in the accommodation. Yet they are subject to banging on the door and an instruction that they will be moved, sometimes the next morning and sometimes within the next 20 minutes, to a new, unknown location.
West London Welcome, an inspirational charity in my constituency, has been supporting asylum seekers housed in contingency accommodation hotels in west London since last summer with food, clothes, advice, access to legal aid, and GP and school registrations. It currently supports 300 people and has had 1,300 visits from asylum seekers to its free clothing shop in the last four months. I shall describe some of the people it has helped.
M, an asylum-seeking teenager, was dispersed in mid-February from Fulham to Liverpool and then Stoke-on-Trent. In temporary accommodation in Liverpool, M had no money and no food so West London Welcome sent him hardship money and organised food to be sent to him from the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and Scouse Kitchen. R and her husband and children were left waiting until the very last minute at a hotel in Fulham and then moved to Croydon. It turned out that their 14-year-old son had covid-19—they were not tested before being moved—and he ended up in the intensive care unit. From there they have been moved to Hounslow, which has meant three schools in two months.
F, her husband and children were at the same hotel and she contracted covid-19 while pregnant. Immediately after giving birth, she was sent to the ICU where she remained for three months. Her family were moved to east London, despite promises to find them housing near the hospital where she remained in intensive care. When she came out of the hospital in March and joined her family, they still had not been given the £8 per week support money. The children have not been to school for two months. S, her husband and children were given notice at 8 pm to move at 7.30 am the next day, but were not told where they were going.
Those stories are the bitter reality of the system over which the Government presides. The care of asylum seekers has been contracted out to a hierarchy of poor providers and profit-taking middlemen, but the buck stops with the Government. They should be ashamed and embarrassed, but those are not words we associate with this Home Secretary; rather, there is a feeling that this is all as she intends.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and thank you to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for having secured this important debate.
I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Minister that I have a great deal of sympathy with him in understanding the complexities of finding suitable accommodation and working to make sure that those seeking asylum in this country are properly integrated. Indeed, in my 18 months in the role, some of the most inspiring visits were ones that I had in Bradford, Southampton and south-east London, talking to the volunteers who are helping in the process of finding routes for asylum seekers to integrate into communities—finding the specialist support services they need; finding the medical attention they require on their arrival to the UK; and helping with their children and integration into schools, which is a crucial part of their journey in the UK.
I would like to extend my thanks to the Southampton and Winchester Visitors Group and point out that these volunteers and support services are almost invariably found in significant centres of population. It is no surprise that we find organisations working in cities such as Southampton, which has a proud track record of helping refugees and asylum seekers. Indeed, the Swaythling ward in my constituency has one of the highest numbers of asylum seekers in supported accommodation in the city. Therefore, it will also come as no surprise that I regard as deeply suspect any proposals to site asylum seekers away from services they need.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark has mentioned the site at Barton Stacey, which is not only remote from services such as running water, but adjacent to a dual carriageway with a poor safety record. It is also next to a Ministry of Defence firing range and a shooting school, so those who have come to this country seeking refuge from war must listen to the sound of gunshots resonating over the skies.
I know it is really challenging to find suitable accommodation, but this can best be achieved by working with local authorities. I would respectfully point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Local Government Association can be his friend. It is really important to find integrated solutions that involve funding following those who are seeking asylum. We know that a significant proportion of their claims will be granted, but I would like to see more work across Government, perhaps with the MHCLG and the Department for Education, because so many of these asylum seekers are children—children who need school places and who need help to learn English so that they can go on to play a fulfilling role in our society.
Moving forward, it is important for us to remember that these are people, who need our help and who have come here fleeing persecution and war. There are those on all sides of the House who wish to find a way to make sure that the tone of this debate is constructive and helpful; not just pointing out the problems, but seeking to find solutions so that we can do better.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Thank you, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) for securing this debate.
The Government are now presiding over the worst asylum accommodation shortage in history, and the result is that almost a fifth of all supported people seeking asylum are currently living in hostels and other large, full-board facilities. We can thank the Home Office and their extreme mismanagement of contract providers for that. In Leeds, like many other parts of country, asylum seekers have been living in hotels round the city. Contrary to what the Daily Mail would have you believe, the conditions make them completely unfit for short-term emergency accommodation, let alone the months many have endured.
Around 40 people recently took part in protest in one such hotel, drawing attention to the poor living conditions, lack of nutritional food and mistreatment by hotel staff. One man was on hunger strike for nine days. With the help of my office, I have pursued complaints about the standard of the accommodation and care provided in Leeds, and we discovered a worrying picture. Residents are subject to strict rationing for the most basic supplies such as soap and toilet paper, both of which are often unavailable. Many people to whom I have spoken have also been denied access to hygiene facilities. Some asylum seekers only have one set of clothes, and are unable to wash them. One resident reported that he had not been given clean bedsheets for a month. Complaints have been made about insufficient and unhealthy food. Residents did have fresh juice and milk for months, but after complaining about other elements of their living conditions that was removed by the hotel manager: a punitive measure that sent a clear message to asylum seekers telling them not to complain.
Worryingly, there have been severe difficulties in accessing dental and medical care, and legal help. Many residents have no phone credit or do not speak much English and so cannot call for help themselves, and yet staff fail to assist them. In one case, a resident was in severe pain because of a broken foot yet his prescription was not collected for a week. It appears that the regional contract handling of the coronavirus crisis added to the misery of those living there. On more than five occasions, residents were forced to isolate with no explanation.
In many areas, racist far-right activists—no doubt emboldened by the hateful rhetoric spewed by the media and, I am saddened to say, certain Members of the House—visited the hotel to intimidate those living there. Unfortunately, it is not just far-right thugs from outside who have racially abused asylum seekers in hotels. One hotel manager told a man, “If you don’t like it, go back to your own country.” Another resident claimed that the same man said, “I am a citizen of this country and I have a right to do whatever I can. You don’t have the right to complain.” A further two people said that they heard the manager say that if they are not happy they can be deported. That is the tip of the iceberg. The stories I hear in my surgeries are a tiny fraction of what is happening in Leeds and across the country.
In 2018, I spoke physically in Westminster Hall about the poor condition of housing for asylum seekers in Leeds. That continues to persist without any improvement. My colleagues describe similar shocking conditions in constituencies around the country. G4S lost its contract and another private sector company made promises, but the same problems persist. It is time that these contracts were run by public, not-for-profit providers that are not driven by profit—
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Whatever the Government are told, the fact remains that the UK is a global leader in overseas aid and refugee resettlement. Between 2016 and 2019, we resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any other EU member. In 2015, the Government committed to resettling 20,000 of the most vulnerable who had fled the conflict in Syria. The UK has now resettled over 25,000 refugees in total in the past six years. Over half of them have been children. Any asylum seeker who would otherwise be destitute is provided with free accommodation with utility bills and council tax paid, as well as a weekly allowance with extra money for mothers and little children.
As a nation at the vanguard of human rights around the world, it is right that the UK offers legal and safe routes to help the most vulnerable people in the world. But, Mr Chairman, we have got ourselves into an awful pickle, and it is now out of control. My contention today is twofold: first, the current policy does nothing to disincentivise those who seek to take advantage of our generosity, and our over-populated island is already at capacity. Secondly, we need more robust policies, so I welcome current initiatives from the Home Office such as the points-based immigration system. But we also have to send a clear message to disincentivise economic migration on the pretext of asylum.
As part of the New Plan for Immigration and to help speed up the processing of claims, the Government plan to introduce new asylum reception centres. I welcome that, but would urge that it does not include the dis- aggregated model proposed for provincial towns such as Bracknell, and on which Bracknell Forest Council is currently being consulted. The reasons are persuasive. That small unitary council does not have the space or resources to deal with over 200 families. It is about fire safety, it is about community cohesion, community tension, overcrowding, building regulations, environmental health. The list goes on.
Bracknell is not a very multicultural area. The impact on housing pressure at local level could cause further tensions if there is resentment about refugees receiving housing assistance at a time of acute affordable housing shortage. The scale of the proposed procurement would have a significant negative impact on the resources of a small unitary authority with no council-owned stock. Contextually, Bracknell Forest Council’s housing team has managed in the last twelve months to procure 21 private rented sector households: compare that to 200.
In sum, we need a faster, more robust asylum system. I regret, however, that the model pursued by the Government and by companies such as Clearsprings in Bracknell is just not the answer. We will take our share, but we also need a sense of perspective.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) for securing this much-needed debate, and I pay tribute to the incredible work of Asylum Link Merseyside in my constituency. My constituents regularly contact me expressing dismay and often anger at the way this country operates its asylum system to the detriment of the most vulnerable and the communities in which they hope to integrate. As a humanitarian, I too, like my constituents, believe that we can and should do more to provide much-needed dignity in the way we treat asylum seekers.
Most recently, I have been contacted by constituents horrified at the treatment of fellow human beings in military barracks. Asylum accommodation has always been inadequate to the needs of people awaiting a decision on their claim, but throughout 2020 the conditions and standards of this accommodation have worsened drastically. Forced room-sharing with strangers, accommodation that lacks basic hygiene measures and inadequate provision of food, non-prescription medicines and other essentials are now the norm. Indeed, drastic failings had been uncovered in a report submitted to the Home Office by prison inspectors, as well as in correspondence sent by the outgoing independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, David Bolt. This underlines the need for an urgent change of course on the use of this type of accommodation.
With the idea of refugees being kept on a rock in the south Atlantic being floated by the make-it-up-as-you-go-along Home Secretary, no wonder the Government seemingly intend to continue such a barbaric and inhumane practice as currently exists in Kent. I am often reminded of the infamous quote from the late, great Tony Benn:
“The way a government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it.”
In short, and in reference to the debate’s motion, the effectiveness of asylum accommodation and the dispersal scheme is woefully inadequate. There exists only one adequate system: one that puts the human front and centre of the system and affords dignity and respect. As a whole, we must achieve a fair and equitable system that sees Whitehall pulling its weight alongside local authorities, with no local authorities in the Tory shires ducking their responsibilities under the dispersal scheme. Ultimately, big changes are needed.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) and the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing the debate, in which I speak as a representative of the UK’s first city of sanctuary.
Many of us know from our constituents that asylum seeker accommodation is too often substandard, with large providers contracted by the Home Office at rates that drive them towards substandard provision. But since 2019 we have seen problems with the new Home Office contracts, which have been mentioned. As the Red Cross explains in its report published today, from the start of the new contracts there was a sharp rise in the use of emergency forms of asylum support accommodation across the UK, including hostels, bed and breakfasts and hotels. By December 2020, around one in every five people accommodated by the Home Office was living in such temporary accommodation—an almost fourfold increase in just one year.
But let us be clear that the solution is not the apparent move from the Home Office towards the use of detention centres on arrival. We have already seen, as has been mentioned, shocking reports of those who have experienced the provision in ex-military barracks, which are unsuitable for helping to heal the traumas those people have experienced and are in extremely poor conditions and away from the services those people need.
The Government’s new plan for immigration includes proposals for new “reception centres” that would “provide basic accommodation”, but as the Red Cross points out, it is likely, given the huge delays in the system, that those seeking asylum could live in such centres for several months, potentially in remote locations, reducing contact between communities, increasing social isolation and harming their health and wellbeing. We know that that is the experience of immigration removal centres, which were set up to fulfil a short-term function but have ended up detaining people sometimes for months, even for years—indefinite detention, described by those detained as worse than prison and rejected by the House in its support for our 2015 cross-party inquiry into immigration detention.
The Government were right to set up pilots to develop community-based alternatives, and I commend the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for her work on them. It now appears, however, that the Government are abandoning those pilots. The consultation paper on the new plan for immigration states that one of its aims is to change the system
“so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum.”
If that really is the case, the Minister needs to be clear in his response about how the Government plan to improve housing for asylum seekers and to be clear that increased use of detention will play no part whatsoever.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I have two detention centres in my constituency, Harmondsworth and Colnbrook. I will come back in another debate to explain the brutality of the regime in those detention centres, which is abhorrent.
One of the opportunities given to us by Westminster Hall debates is to explain to Ministers what is happening on the ground, as against some of the advice they might be getting from officials. Since last June, two hotels in my constituency have been used to house 600 asylum seekers, as a response to the covid pandemic.
I welcome those people into my constituency. I have met them and they are largely seeking refuge from Syria, Iran and other oppressive regimes or war-torn or impoverished areas of the world. Many arrived here with little more than the clothes they stand up in. To respond, I set up a working group, with representatives from the Home Office, the contractor Clearsprings, the local NHS, council and community groups. I commend the Bell Farm Christian Centre, and Diane Faichney and Stuart Mathers in particular.
Despite all the hard work of those involved, major problems have arisen due to the basic administration of the scheme. For instance, outsourcing food provision to a hotel resulted in people going hungry, and the Bell Farm Christian Centre’s foodbank being overwhelmed, as refugees simply sought food to feed their families. The small financial support allowance is often not paid and backlogs build up. At one point a curfew was imposed, causing real anxiety because detainees felt they were almost in a prison. We also struggled to get agreement with the local council on school places.
Since then, there have been sudden removals of families from those hotels. Although we had been assured that there would be adequate notice, people have sometimes been given just two hours to move, and not told where they are going or where they will eventually be put. Local teachers have contacted me extremely distressed about the impact on already vulnerable children, who had just begun to settle in their schools. We were assured that everything would be done to provide settled accommodation, but we now discover people have simply been dispatched around the country into more hotels and often into appalling standards of accommodation.
We all accept that the overriding concern during the pandemic was to keep people safe, but immediate action is needed to provide support and assistance to these often extremely traumatised people, many of whom have already been diagnosed with PTSD. That means decent, settled accommodation and advice and support, ensuring that those families are fully engaged in determining their own futures. This has been a shameful, disgraceful performance by this Government.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) on securing this hugely important debate. The asylum system overhaul recently announced by the Home Secretary lacks basic humanity and represents the latest step in this Government’s pernicious demonisation of asylum seekers. It has rightly been criticised by human rights organisations, including the UN Refugee Agency and the British Red Cross.
The UK Government have persistently been warned by experts, migrant charities and parliamentary Committees that if they do not open safe and legal routes for people to practise their legal right to claim asylum, deaths at sea are unavoidable. Yet they have proceeded to close the few legal avenues that exist, such as the right to family reunion.
Contrary to popular mistruths, asylum seekers do not arrive in the UK to leech off the state. Asylum support allowance is a mere £37.75 per week. Contrary to the myths propagated by the Home Secretary in Parliament, it is also far from the case that the UK is overwhelmed with asylum seekers, with Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece and France registering far more asylum applications. Indeed, in 2020, the UK received just under a third of the number of asylum applications received by Germany and about two fifths the number in France. In the sixth richest country in the world, there is no reason we cannot provide a humane pathway towards stability and dignity for everyone. Instead, asylum seekers are forced to reside in appalling conditions.
In a report published today, the British Red Cross found that too many asylum-seeking women, men and children in the UK are living in unfit, unsanitary and isolated accommodation, which falls far short of expected standards, for months and even years at a time. The report is harrowing: people living in the same clothes for weeks, survivors of trafficking forced into widely inappropriate housing and scared to leave their rooms, and requests for medical support ignored. Indeed, in a recent 13-month period, the British Red Cross supported more than 400 individuals struggling with suicidal thoughts.
Far from addressing those issues, the Government’s new plan for immigration includes plans to house people seeking asylum in reception centres. Yet, this institutional-style accommodation, including the appalling conditions currently being endured by asylum seekers at Napier military barracks, can have significant negative impact on people’s mental and physical health, as well as isolating people seeking asylum from wider communities. The Government must also end the hugely damaging practice of outsourcing accommodation to private companies, which have overseen this disastrous, prison-like infrastructure. In 2019, Serco was awarded a new Government contract despite being fined nearly £7 million for sustained failings over a seven-year period.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) on securing this important debate.
The poet Warsan Shire wrote:
“you have to understand,
that no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land”.
When the Government and much of the media cover channel crossings or the supposed migrant crisis, there is rarely an attempt to understand that. The stories of the people themselves are ignored. It is not said, for example, that many people seeking asylum in the UK had homes destroyed by British bombs and British wars. It is not said that when fleeing poverty and persecution in their homelands, people are desperate to be reunited with loved ones already here in Britain. No, in the eyes of the Government and much of the right-wing press, they are not people; they are a problem. That is how the asylum system treats them.
As hon. Members have said, those people have been crammed into camps in Penally and Napier and forced to share dormitories with dozens, predictably causing mass outbreaks of coronavirus. When I challenged the Home Secretary about that at the end of January, she promised me that the camps were of a very strong standard. We now know that that is not true. Instead, they were against public health guidance and recommendations from the local health boards.
It is not just the camps. During the pandemic, an unprecedented number of people seeking asylum have been left in unsuitable and often unsafe accommodation. In Coventry, I have seen at first hand the appalling conditions and disgraceful treatment people are subjected to. Mothers with young babies moved into rooms with insect infestations and mould covering the walls. Parents separated from each other with no reason and no warning. All the while, the outsourcing companies that run the services, such as Serco, make huge profits from Government contracts.
The people seeking asylum are denied the right to work, and local authorities, even if they are eager to help, are starved of necessary funding. In Coventry, we are lucky to have organisations such as Coventry Asylum and Refugee Action Group and Carriers of Hope, which provide meals and essential items for people seeking asylum. I want to pay particular tribute to Loraine Mponela and Sue Sampson for the incredible work they do in Coventry.
No one’s basic needs should depend on charity. People seeking asylum are not a problem to be managed or a useful scapegoat to distract and divide. They are people deserving of dignity and respect. Napier barracks must close immediately, there must be funding for local authorities and the dispersal scheme, with the housing stock invested in and upgraded, and those seeking sanctuary should be offered the opportunity to rebuild their lives with an end to the ban on the right to work.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) on securing this important debate. We in this country are proud of our long record of providing a safe haven to people in fear of their lives, yet the approach this Government take to asylum accommodation is a stain on their conscience. It has been condemned by the Refugee Council, the Red Cross, Freedom from Torture, and many other organisations. It has been criticised by the National Audit Office, and the appalling conditions at Penally and Napier barracks have been documented in a damning report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons.
I have an initial accommodation site in my constituency, and each year I make representations on behalf of many of the residents there. The situation they face is appalling. The accommodation is poor quality and overcrowded. Room sharing between strangers is the norm, and bathrooms are also shared. Food is meagre, monotonous, and lacking in nutrition.
The needs of many children, babies, pregnant women and disabled people there are not met. I recently made representations on behalf of a resident who is reliant on a motorised wheelchair, which needed a new battery, so he had to leave it on charge all day in order to have just one hour of outside activity. It was broken so that it was exacerbating the pain in his back, yet he had found it impossible to access basic support.
The residents cannot afford to travel, so while they wait for the next decision from the Home Office, life is unbearably monotonous. By definition, many of these residents have fled the worst circumstances any of us could possibly imagine. They are traumatised and in need of support, yet the Home Office leaves them in poor accommodation, alone with their thoughts. It is simply inhumane; it lacks basic dignity.
The Home Office’s approach sits in stark contrast to the response of our communities. I pay tribute to the faith communities and community organisations in my constituency that, aware of asylum seekers living in accommodation, constantly rally to provide support—winter coats, shoes for children, pushchairs for babies, and Christmas gifts. I mention in particular the incredible work of our local NHS, which have a dedicated outreach service, and Happy Baby Community, who pick up mums and babies from the initial accommodation once a week and spend the day with them, providing nutritious food, company, health visitor services, and friendship—support that I have no doubt is life-saving to many new mothers living in such appalling circumstances.
However, this support should not be left to our communities and the voluntary sector. The Government must get a grip on these contracts. We are rightly proud of our record of welcoming people seeking sanctuary in our country. This Government have a duty to secure the continuation of that tradition, providing the policy framework, support, and partnership work to guarantee that people seeking asylum in this country are treated with the dignity and compassion they deserve.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), and indeed the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for having secured this important debate. In addition, I would like to thank a number of local groups within Reading and Woodley, particularly Reading Refugee Support Group, Reading Red Kitchen, and various local churches and faith groups, which have all contributed to supporting refugees and asylum seekers in our area.
It is fundamental that we treat asylum seekers and refugees with dignity, according to international law, and with respect. I wanted to focus my remarks on some issues that have happened in Reading, which I have already raised with Ministers, and I am grateful for their support in this matter. I would also like to say that the town I represent has a proud history of supporting people in difficulty, going back to at least the time of supporting Belgian refugees in world war one, and in many other conflicts since then.
The issues I will raise today are those at the George Hotel, which the Home Secretary kindly helped me with and offered some support on last year. This is a hotel in the centre of Reading where a number of refugees and asylum seekers were placed at short notice at the beginning of the pandemic. Obviously, at that time, resources were under great pressure. However, issues continued over some months, and I want to highlight some of those problems to illustrate the scale of the issues we face as a country, and also to flag this up to the Government and ask for a fundamental rethink.
We have had reports—which I have investigated with my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), the shadow Immigration Minister—of problems with food being inappropriate or insufficient; a lack of connection with local medical services, such as asylum seekers not being registered with GPs; and a lack of financial support, which meant that those in the George Hotel were, at times, unable to make small local journeys or other journeys to meet people who they needed to see. For example, a disabled man at one point had to walk all the way to the Royal Berkshire Hospital, which is about three quarters of a mile away from the George Hotel.
Many of the issues seem to relate to the contractor, Clearsprings, and the Home Secretary was very gracious in helping to address some of them last year. From my experience, this contractor seems to have a relatively poor track record in our area. I cannot comment on the further, wider issues, but that does raise questions about the nature of the provision and whether there ought to be a much more fundamental rethink, as a number of colleagues have pointed out.
I realise that there is a lack of time this morning, and I am grateful for the Minister’s support in this matter. I hope there will be a much broader and wider rethink of the policy on how asylum seekers and refugees are supported in the UK. We need to maintain high standards of support and keep up our excellent tradition of supporting and welcoming people.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) very much, because this is such a pressing and desperate issue. We know from the new immigration plan that this Government are determined to institutionalise asylum seekers. The pandemic provided a convenient time to move people into hostels, hotels and Army barracks, for goodness’ sake, and as we have heard too many are still there. Four hundred in Glasgow remain in hotels. It is clear that there is an ideological shift away from housing people in communities. The use of this type of accommodation long term is extremely dangerous and has led to a marked deterioration in people’s mental health, as confirmed in the report from the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. The Home Office is getting it wrong on so many counts, but when has the UK, regardless of who was in power, ever got it right?
I shudder when I hear the names of previous accommodation providers in Glasgow such as the Angel Group and Ypeople, and now we have the Mears Group, which I will come to. I want to say something about the workers in some of the groups that I am rightly attacking. I accept that many decent, caring people work for these organisations and go above and beyond the call of duty, really taking care of the people they are working with. This is not about individuals, although I will share some horror stories; it is about the system and those companies making money from that system.
The reason why we get it wrong is that our attitude is all wrong, or at least this Government’s is. What we should be doing is putting metaphorical arms around people and saying, “You got here. You’re safe and protected. You’re respected. You’re now home.” But this Government will not say that, because they do not agree with it. Their priority is sending a message not to come here—“You are not wanted.” Those seeking asylum are among the most vulnerable human beings on the planet, and I want to share the story of some women in Glasgow who are particularly vulnerable right now.
There are few times in a woman’s life when she is more vulnerable than when she is giving birth. Earlier this year, 20 women in Glasgow who were either pregnant or new mums were moved wholesale into a mother-and-baby unit in Glasgow. It was wholly unsuitable, for so many reasons, but I will limit myself to three. One was that the rooms are tiny, and the babies and toddlers, who are expected to be there for two years, have no space at all in which to explore, to learn to walk and to play. That is cruel and is having a detrimental impact on them. Secondly, the cot in some rooms is next to the tiny cooking area. The mums do not feel it is safe to leave the baby in the cot, but they cannot take them into bed, because the beds are narrow single beds, so where do the babies sleep? Thirdly, 20 mums and 20-plus babies share laundry facilities that consist of three washing machines, making it absolutely impossible to practise social distancing.
The women were given absolutely no say over this. They were housed in flats in communities where they had support and excellent networks when, suddenly, they were hoisted out of their accommodation and told that they had to move to the unit. One woman was told that if she did not go, she would be deported. Another was told that she could take two carrier bags of stuff and that that was more than enough for her and her newborn baby, but also that she had no right to have all that stuff, because she was supposed to be destitute. The disrespect with which these women have been treated is an absolute disgrace.
Last night, I met some of the women for the second time, and I discovered that one of them has tested positive for covid-19. Some of the women living in the unit were not informed by Mears. I hope that the Minister is shocked—I am sure he will be—to hear that. Volunteer groups working closely with the mothers were not told either—even when they asked. The young woman speaks no English, and she is currently still using the communal facilities, so she is not self-isolating. The Mears Group denies that, but it always does.
The Mears Group promised me some time ago, on more than one occasion, that no more mothers would be moved in and that those in there would be moved out if they so wished—and they do wish. So far, two have moved out, and two have moved in. I therefore ask these questions of the Minister, given that this Government are paying the people doing this to them. Will he urgently look into the issue of the mother-and-baby unit? Will he support the Scottish Refugee Council, the Red Cross and Amma Birth Companions—organisations that are working with these women to have them relocated—and will he get those relocation requests expedited before more damage is done? In looking into this issue, will he also trust my word and that of the other Glasgow MPs that, in our opinion, Mears Group will tell him what he wants to hear, but we will tell him the truth?
I have another story, which I hope will give hope to anyone listening. In 2005, Roza was a 15-year-old asylum seeker when she and her friends— later to become known as the Glasgow Girls—took direct action to stop dawn raids, terrified as they were of the implications for their own families. It worked: for many years, there have been no dawn raids in Scotland—that is, until last Friday, when the Home Office shamefully terrified a 68-year-old man with an existing heart condition, who is currently fasting, by sending 10 officers to his door in the early hours of the morning to remove his family from their beds and take them to detention. The poor man collapsed and, as he was taken away in an ambulance, an immigration officer told him, “We’ll be back.”
I have since heard that, unbeknown to most people, dawn raids may have been happening in Glasgow since January, but to families who had nobody to reach out to. Let me make this very clear: I and every one of my colleagues in the SNP, and the good people of Glasgow and Scotland, will fight the Government on this in a way that makes it very much not worth their while doing it. Do not go down this route again. We will not stand by.
I said it was a hopeful story, and it is, because in 10 days’ time, that 15-year-old asylum-seeking schoolgirl, Roza—now 16 years older—may become a Member of the Scottish Parliament if enough people vote for her party on the Glasgow list. Notwithstanding the fact that Roza Salih would be a brilliant asset, what is Scotland saying to asylum seekers if it elects one of their own to the country’s Parliament? What is Scotland saying to refugees who can now vote thanks to recent legislation? The country is saying, “You are welcome here, you are one of us now and everything is possible.”
But in Scotland we can only really tinker, and where that is possible we have done it. On the big issues affecting asylum seekers all we can do is send out messages of support, because we have no control over the system and have to go along with whatever this Tory Government want. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) said, we are a country desperate to support asylum seekers properly. That is why we in the SNP want independence, because we are not allowed to stop inhumanity being meted out in our country. I say to everyone in Scotland, “If you want asylum seekers to be treated with love, humanity and respect, you can do that with independence.”
I have this to say to those living in the rest of the UK and to colleagues here today: I and my colleagues will fight tooth and nail for a better system for everyone in these islands while we are still part of the UK. Afterwards, I cannot imagine Scotland’s first Foreign Secretary not putting diplomatic pressure on the rest of the UK to show the same love, compassion and respect that will permeate Scotland’s new immigration system.
I want to thank and pay tribute to some of the organisations that have been in touch with me about this debate and that have supported some of the people I have mentioned: Amma, the Scottish Refugee Council, the Maryhill Integration Network, the Red Cross, Refugee Action, the No Evictions Network, the English Refugee Council and the migrant-led Migrants Organising for Rights & Empowerment.
I want to pre-empt something I think the Minister will say in his response about accommodating asylum seekers in Scotland. He will say that it is a problem that only Glasgow has agreed to take asylum seekers and that meetings have taken place with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and they have, although not with Scottish Government Ministers. As others have said, COSLA’s long-standing position is that it will support further dispersals to other local authorities when there is an appropriate partnership approach with local government and, crucially, when adequate funding is provided by the UK Government to support the key role that councils play. COSLA also makes the very fair point that all 32 Scottish local authorities got involved in the Syrian refugee resettlement scheme, when proper support was provided. That is also consistent with the Home Affairs Committee recommendations.
I end by saying that, alongside providing safe and legal routes for people to reach these islands, cutting the time people have to wait for decisions on their claims and providing safe, suitable accommodation for people seeking asylum in the UK, we should be giving compassionate support. Those metaphorical arms should be welcoming people who, as I have said, are among the most vulnerable on this planet. If this Government are not prepared to do that, they are not fit for government.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Let me start, as others have, by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) and the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing the debate, for their outstanding opening contributions and for their leadership on asylum and migration issues. I also want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time for the debate. It is often said that debates are timely, but with just a week to go before the end of the incredibly short consultation on the Government’s new plans for an immigration policy statement, ahead of the sovereign borders Bill, it could not be more timely.
There are pre-existing weaknesses in the asylum accommodation and dispersal scheme, combined with the pressures of the pandemic, which we accept have been significant. Added to the direction of travel under this Government, outlined in the policy statement, that creates a pretty toxic outlook.
On contingency accommodation, we recognise the increased need for accommodation, with the early, welcome pause on negative cessations taking the numbers in the asylum system from around 48,000 to around 60,000. Inevitably, that would have brought logistical challenges, and we were sympathetic to that, but over 12 months on, there are no justifications for the shocking conditions that persist in asylum accommodation and the questionable motivations behind Home Office decision making. Contingency accommodation has become far more widely used as the norm than it ever should have been.
The Minister may have read the Refugee Council’s report published last week on the use of hotel accommodation. It outlines just how difficult life has been for people who have been confined to the same room for days and weeks on end and for those who arrived without basics, such as shoes and coats, and who simply were not provided with any. People had insufficient access to drinking water, and there were widespread failures to register them with GPs so that they could access healthcare. In some instances, as we have heard children were not enrolled in schools for months.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who shared with us the contributions of their local charities and communities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for Reading East for introducing me to a number of his local organisations that support those accommodated in hotels.
The Government have said that the use of hotels will end as part of the new plan for immigration. That is incredibly welcome, but what is the plan? Where will those people be accommodated instead? The Home Office provided a quote to The Guardian on Friday, saying:
“As part of our New Plan for Immigration, the use of hotels to accommodate new arrivals will end and we plan to introduce new asylum reception centres.”
I understand that Operation Oak sought to move people out of hotel accommodation and into more appropriate dispersed accommodation, as should be the process. However, that Home Office spokesperson seems to suggest that those currently housed in hotels will instead be housed in reception centres.
At the end of February, an estimated 8,700 asylum seekers were accommodated in more than 90 hotels across the UK. Some were there for months. What exactly will these new reception centres be for? My hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) have stressed how unhappy we are about the proposals. I hope the Minister will explain just how many centres he envisages will be required, how long people will be required to stay in them and what the terms of their stay will be. That quote suggests that the centres will be a form of initial accommodation, but everything else we are hearing sounds much more comparable to detention than initial accommodation. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made it clear why that would be a disaster. My fear is that this is a policy choice from this Government—a point already made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and others.
Although I have outlined just some of the problems with hotels, it is clear that there has been a deliberate attempt to conflate initial accommodation with immigration detention, with the use of disused barracks to accommodate asylum seekers. I made a number of these points in last week’s debate. As with the use of hotels, the Government initially claimed that the use of barracks at Penally and Napier was due to the unprecedented pressures of the pandemic. Yet, the equality impact assessment we have seen, which was conducted by the Home Office in September, revealed that use of that particular type of accommodation was born not out of necessity but out of political choice. It suggested that providing nothing but the absolute bare minimum to those seeking asylum is in the interests of community relations. It reads more like a hard-line right-wing manifesto than any equality impact assessment from a Government Department ever should.
The Government’s reluctance to provide anything deemed beyond what is necessary has led to people with conditions such as leukaemia, diabetes or tuberculosis being housed 28 to a dorm and sharing limited toilet facilities, with communal areas cleaned only once a week, during a pandemic.
On 8 March 2021 the then independent chief inspector of borders and immigration published initial findings from site visits in mid-February to Penally camp and Napier barracks with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons. They confirmed that, given the
“cramped communal conditions and unworkable cohorting at Napier”
a large-scale outbreak of covid was virtually inevitable, which is exactly what happened. There were 197 positive cases of covid at Napier barracks between 1 January and late February. We secured the Kent and Medway clinical commissioning group’s infection prevention report undertaken at Napier through a freedom of information request, and that also confirmed that the site does not facilitate effective social distancing. The CCG report also made it clear that the Home Office had a disregard for the wellbeing of not only those accommodated at Napier, but the staff working on the site. At the time of the inspection there had been nine positive cases among staff members. The report also found that all staff took breaks at the same time and that, unbelievably, staff were being asked to sleep three to a room at the site.
The ICIBI report raised serious safeguarding concerns about those who were most vulnerable at Napier, stating:
“There was inadequate support for people who had self-harmed. People at high risk of self-harm were located in a decrepit ‘isolation block’ which we considered unfit for habitation.”
In evidence provided to the Home Affairs Committee last month the Government claimed that they had been
“following guidance in every single way”.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) spoke of the simply untrue assurances that she was given about the quality of the accommodation. The CCG and ICIBI reports could not be clearer that at no time were such assurances true. On leadership and management, the latter report concluded:
“The Home Office did not exercise adequate oversight at either site and Home Office staff were rarely present. There were fundamental failures of leadership and planning by the Home Office.”
That was not someone else’s failure. It was the Home Secretary’s failure, and those barracks must close immediately.
The wider failures of the system and the nature of dispersal are now putting local authorities under enormous pressure, and there is a sense that the Government are just not listening, which is pushing the system to breaking point. I have seen a letter that was sent to the Home Secretary at the end of March from the leaders of the asylum dispersal areas for the west midlands. They are keen to stress that they recognise their responsibility as a region to contribute to the UK’s asylum and immigration challenges, and they have supported the dispersal scheme since 1999, but they feel they have no choice other than to suspend their participation.
They clearly state that, despite their attempts to engage Government in finding solutions to the challenges they face,
“the absence of any strategic plan has meant we lack confidence on the next steps around engagement to resolve the range of complex and serious challenges we face. What we do know is that the current position is untenable and that we simply cannot continue to support in the same manner going forward.”
When Government’s biggest partners are walking away from dispersal, they have to come back to the table and work constructively to find solutions. Has the meeting sought in the letter happened—with leaders from not just the west midlands but all dispersal areas—to work through the challenges? The former Minister, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), made a characteristically powerful contribution, inviting the Minister to work with the Local Government Association to find the solutions we all want.
The letter also makes the point that the use of hotels has been a reality of initial accommodation since the new contracts were agreed in 2019, so any sense that they are used because of the pandemic alone is nonsense. It says that their use
“feels more like an unsatisfactory business as usual arrangement rather than short term contingency.”
That point was made clear in the Red Cross’s report, published today and mentioned already by a number of hon. Members.
The Minister knows that in rule changes made in December the Government gave themselves the ability to deem claims inadmissible if someone arrives in the UK outside of a resettlement scheme, regardless of whether asylum should be granted, and without any agreements having been struck with European partners on returning anyone to anywhere else. Over the weekend, May Bulman at The Independent newspaper broke the story that Belgium, France and Germany have all ruled such an agreement out:
“Belgium’s asylum and migration secretary…said the country had no intention of negotiating unilateral readmission agreements with the UK and that he had already explained his position to the immigration minister”.
The German embassy in London told The Independent that
“no negotiations between Germany and the UK on return arrangements had taken place”,
indicating that bilateral returns deals are simply not on the cards. France echoed those remarks, with a spokesperson saying:
“We will naturally continue our operational co-operation to prevent departures and fight against smuggling networks. With regards to readmissions, asylum is a European subject, which calls for a European response.”
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the flow of the hon. Lady, but to give the Minister a fair amount of time, can I ask her to bring her remarks to a conclusion?
Holly Lynch
Thank you, Mr Davies. I will take that on board.
Let me say in closing that this approach is utterly unworkable. We will only see more people who are likely to be deserving of asylum not even having their claims considered, while they remain trapped in a wholly inadequate and inhumane system for longer, costing the Government significantly more money to deliver nothing but failure. I very much hope that the Minister will reflect on those points.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing the debate. I also thank right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part for their contributions. I will try to respond to the points raised, but as you touched on, Mr Davies, I do not have the opportunity to do that in any great depth with seven to eight minutes left. I will also allow a short period for the hon. Member who secured the debate to offer his closing remarks.
The UK has a proud history of welcoming and supporting those in need of our protection. Throughout the pandemic, we have taken action to ensure that those seeking asylum in the UK have the support they need. Asylum support is provided to destitute asylum seekers until their claims are finally determined and to failed asylum seekers if they are destitute and unable to leave the UK immediately due to circumstances beyond their control, including the current pandemic. That includes access to free accommodation, asylum support allowance and access to our advice, issue reporting and eligibility provider Migrant Help.
The Home Office’s accommodation providers are required to provide safe, habitable, fit-for-purpose and correctly equipped accommodation that complies with the decent homes standard in addition to standards outlined in relevant national or local housing legislation. We worked with our providers to improve property standards over the lifetime of the previous asylum accommodation contracts and have made a number of improvements in the asylum accommodation and support contracts now in place. Where a provider is found to be falling short of those standards, we work with them to ensure that issues are addressed. If they are not, we can and do impose service credits. Housing providers are required to inspect each property every month, and the Home Office also inspects properties on a targeted basis each year. I hope that Members will, however, appreciate the impact of the pandemic on some of those inspections.
There was much focus in the debate on contingency accommodation. The Home Office, along with many local authorities across our whole United Kingdom, has had to use hotels as contingency accommodation during the covid-19 pandemic. Accommodation providers engage with police, local authorities and local contacts prior to and during hotel use in all locations. We regularly provide local authorities and partners with information about hotel use in their areas, including occupancy figures. The hotel accommodation provided is of a reasonable quality, and those housed in it receive three meals a day, with staggered meal times to cater for social distancing requirements, and support to meet all the current public health guidance and our standards.
Where issues have been raised, such as with food, we have inspected menus ourselves. Our providers have also conducted surveys, and we have acted on recommendations arising from them. We have also undertaken several measures in the short term to mitigate the use of hotel contingency. Working groups have been established with three providers to monitor the availability of accommodation within their portfolios. The groups meet Home Office officials weekly with the objective to mitigate moving to hotel use wherever possible by increasing the amount of dispersal accommodation in all regions and nations of our United Kingdom. As a result, we have reduced our reliance on contingency accommodation of all sorts by 25% since December. To be clear, hotels are only ever a contingency option; they are not a long-term solution.
At our contingency accommodation at the Napier site, all the basic needs of asylum seekers are met, including their welfare needs. The site is catered, with three meals a day, and options are provided that cater for special dietary, cultural or religious requirements. Additional meals are provided as required. There is power, heating and water, and access to phones and support items such as toiletries is provided, along with access to laundry facilities. All asylum seekers housed there have access to a 24/7 advice, issue reporting and eligibility service, provided, again, by Migrant Help, where they can raise any concerns regarding accommodation or support services.
On the effectiveness of the dispersal system, I acknowledge the concerns of hon. Members and local authorities who have asked for a more equitable spread of dispersal. The pandemic has presented us with significant challenges when it comes to the provision of asylum accommodation, including sourcing sufficient accommodation to meet demand. Our priority is to ensure that we meet our legal duty to house destitute asylum seekers and ensure their safety and wellbeing, as well as the safety and wellbeing of the communities in which they live. While the numbers of those supported have increased, the majority of asylum seekers do not receive Home Office support, and the majority of those who are not supported live in the south-east of England.
The Home Office is working with a range of local authorities to increase the number of areas that accommodate and support people seeking asylum and protection. Each local authority is encouraged to contribute. I am grateful to the councils that cover the constituencies of the two hon. Members who secured the debate for playing their part, along with the city of Stoke-on-Trent and the city of Glasgow. We have managed to increase the number of voluntary dispersal agreements from 92 to 163, and we continue to try to increase them across our United Kingdom. In the last three years, areas that have agreed to participate include Aylesbury Vale, Gosport, Oxford and Wiltshire, which might all be described as being in the “Tory shires”, to use one hon. Member’s definition.
In addition to those currently participating, we have agreements in place with over 40 more where the provider is finding it difficult to procure suitable properties. I urge all local authorities to assist us and play their part in this work, as simply passing motions and making declarations does not give us options to house or resettle people. I highlight in particular the situation in Scotland, where only one local authority—Glasgow—is taking part. It was interesting to hear that Members from Scotland are desperate to do more. Here is an option: their constituencies can become dispersal areas. Let us not have a Meatloaf-style, “We will do anything to support refugees, but we won’t do that.”
At the root of the issues with accommodation is the fact that our asylum system is broken, with delays, repeat applications and opportunities to game the system. It is expensive and it has lost public trust. It is therefore vital that major reforms are made, and that is exactly what the Government will do through the recently announced new plan for immigration. We will look to increase the fairness and efficacy of our system so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum, while deterring illegal entry into the United Kingdom based mostly on economic migration reasons, not protection. It is particularly vital that we put an end to dangerous and unnecessary sea crossings. I am sure all hon. Members would agree that we must put an end to such criminal activities.
I will wind up to allow the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark some time. The UK has a proud history of welcoming and supporting those in need of protection. We are committed to doing everything necessary to protect the rights of asylum seekers and to provide them with the safe and secure accommodation they deserve. As we take forward our new plan for immigration, our focus will remain on supporting the most vulnerable, ensuring their fair and humane treatment and working with all of our partners on matters related to asylum-seeker support to ensure that those who do need protection receive it here in this country.
Neil Coyle
I thank everyone for contributing to the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. What we are seeing is a poverty of ambition from this Government, with aid cuts and Army cuts that reduce our ability to intervene abroad to prevent the creation of asylum seekers in the first place. There is no ambition to end the backlog and delays in decision making for those who are already here, no ambition to end hotel use, leaving taxpayers footing the bill for inappropriate accommodation, and no ambition to work better with councils. Southwark and the Salvation Army offered to take more unaccompanied children, but the Home Office failed to take them up on that.
We see a reliance on a new plan that says we cannot do better than barrack accommodation, when Napier should be seen as a hideous aberration and a break with British tradition, for all the reasons exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch). That new plan relies on a bilateral arrangement with the European Union that Germany and France have already said no thanks to. The Minister should be resolutely focused on delivering the humane, efficient system that the public want and that people fleeing war desperately need, and should be fixing the existing problems in the system before creating new ones through a new plan that is a mess before it has even begun.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effectiveness of asylum accommodation and the dispersal scheme in providing support for asylum seekers.
Mental Health: Access to Nature
(2 years, 11 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
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. I remind the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) that she is visible at all times to us in the Boothroyd Room. If she has any technical problems, she 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.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered enabling access to nature to support mental health.
As always, it is a pleasure to see you, albeit virtually, and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I felt it was important to have this debate today, as both nature and mental wellbeing are not only issues that I care passionately about, as do many of my constituents, but ones that perhaps hold more significance to people’s everyday lives after the immense challenges of the past year.
By complete coincidence, a new all-party parliamentary group on health and the natural environment is being launched this afternoon, with green social prescribing high on the agenda. That is another perfect reason for this debate. I encourage hon. Members to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) for further information.
When I heard that the theme of this year’s Mental Health Awareness Week is “connect with nature”, I wanted to secure the debate so that I could highlight the power of nature in improving people’s wellbeing. I am grateful for the briefings that many organisations have sent. I can assure them all that even if I do not mention them, I have read each and every one. I commend Isabel Hardman’s book “The Natural Health Service,” which is brilliant and provides real life examples of how nature can improve and heal poor mental wellbeing.
I am pleased that both the Government and society as a whole have made great strides in the last few years in improving awareness of mental health and wellbeing. However, there is always more that we can and should be doing. Coming out of the pandemic, as we are now, provides an opportunity for a greater focus on both, with nature at its centre. Without doubt, the lockdowns over the past year have had an adverse impact on people’s mental health. However, access to nature, whether that be a local woodland, a waterway or a park, have been critical in providing a brief moment of normality for so many of us.
Around nine in 10 people surveyed by Natural England in May 2020 agreed that
“natural spaces are good for mental health and wellbeing.”
While it would be fair to make the assumption that we have spent more time outdoors over the last year, it is essential to remember that many people do not have the luxury of access to a private garden and rely on public spaces. Over 11 million people in England live in areas deprived of local green space and one in eight people across Great Britain have no access to a garden, private or shared. With more of us expected to live in towns and cities over the coming years, I believe that now is a crucial moment to ensure that nature is put at the forefront of our local communities, creating a new oasis for nature and protecting existing green spaces for people to relax and enjoy.
I consider myself lucky in that I have a garden and an allotment, and I live close to a river, which the Canal and River Trust delightfully refers to as “blue health.” Over the past year I have found great comfort in being able to access nature as I have navigated my way through personal health challenges. I was sure my consultant thought I had gone mad when I spent 10 minutes enthusing about forest bathing, only to hear in our next call how she had spent the weekend in the woods.
With the ramping up of social prescribing, we are seeing more prescribing of nature for patients. I have seen some incredible examples of eco-therapy locally and I know that the Wildlife Trust has called for nature to be included in the covid-19 mental health and wellbeing recovery action plan, which would help harness the power of the natural environment to drive health improvement and reduce pressure on the NHS.
From a local perspective, I look forward to working with Kent Wildlife Trust and the newly formed Kent and Medway alliance for green social prescribing, which links the NHS with environmental and mental health organisations, and will act as a catalyst for further projects between health and environmental partners in Kent. Although I recognise that that does not necessarily fall under the Minister’s brief, I know she is engaged with the Department of Health and Social Care on further exploration of the benefits of nature for those with a variety of ailments.
On the Minister’s brief specifically, I support the efforts that the Government have made in promoting access to nature, and I have welcomed measures in both the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Act 2020. I especially welcome the biodiversity net gain requirement for new homes in the Environment Bill. I have seen for myself the impact of inappropriate new housing developments in my own constituency, where developers have not considered local biodiversity at all. Sadly, we continue to see hawkish proposals that would further decimate our already declining wildlife.
We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reverse the attack on nature. I would welcome further commitments from the Department, as the wider planning reforms are discussed, to ensure that green spaces are preserved and enhanced for existing and new residents alike. I therefore ask that the Minister ensures that her officials work with those in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that a new zonal planning system is aligned with the Government’s ambitious commitments to restore nature.
One way to achieve that, which has been supported by a number of charities and organisations, would be to give legal protection to areas set aside for nature’s recovery in what is called the wild belt—an idea that the Prime Minister referenced in his Conservative party conference speech last year. The wild belt should be run throughout local areas, giving the public access to wild spaces rich in biodiversity to improve health and wellbeing and provide green corridors to enable wildlife to move between biodiversity hotspots.
We need to do more to promote the growth of wild flowers along busy roads, often called roadside nature reserves. Unfortunately, in my constituency we saw the local council accidentally cut back on RNR, but I have since been pleased to see that several councils across the country that paused cutting back wildflowers during the pandemic have continued to do so, allowing wildlife to thrive. We have gone from people complaining about weeds and overgrown grasses to their calling for more wild flowers, because looking at a much better and more colourful roadside reserves makes people feel better.
As with any large pieces of legislation, there are always opportunities for further improvements. I would encourage the Government to take the opportunity while the Environment Bill is paused to put into law the PM’s important commitment in the UN leaders’ pledge for nature to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. That would provide the legal willpower to accelerate efforts to protect British wildlife and endangered species such as the hedgehog, and expand the offering of green spaces rich in biodiversity for public wellbeing.
A commitment in law to reverse biodiversity loss would hopefully go some way to address the postcode lottery for access to nature. Clearly, large-scale investment is required if we are to protect endangered wildlife and ensure that everyone, regardless of where they live or work, can access nature.
The National Trust is calling on the Government to use their levelling-up agenda to establish a new £5.5 billion green infrastructure fund to improve access to green spaces in our towns and cities. I recognise the very serious financial pressures that the country faces as a result of lockdowns, but the charity has estimated that such investment could unlock £200 billion in health benefits alone. Although such proposals would create a lasting legacy for future generations, there are of course small improvements to nature that could easily be achieved, such as the planting of trees or wild flowers along residential roads.
It is often the smallest changes in nature that can make a large impact on a person’s mood, such as how at this time of year many of us admire the beautiful simplicity of blossom. I have been pleased to support the National Trust’s blossom watch campaign for 2021 to encourage people to take a moment in nature, and the National Trust has had more than 5.5 million views of its blossom watch content so far this year. On Saturday morning, despite everything else that was going on, #BlossomWatch was trending at No. 1 on Twitter, a testament to the current public interest and engagement with nature.
I hope that the Government work with Members from across the House to achieve change for our local communities and leave a lasting legacy of improved nature and wildlife. Those of us who already believe in the power of nature and its healing content are completely sold on this, but we need to make sure that others can get out there and access nature in order to ensure that they too can have improved health and wellbeing. We must always be conscious that not everyone has that. I am afraid that, with housing developments and the planning system as they are at the moment, more and more of that is being lost.
Given the events of the past year, I am confident that there is willpower among Back Benchers to make real change in this area. As the recovery begins, people speak of their desire to return to normality, but when it comes to nature, I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to create a better normality and a green recovery from covid that improves both the natural environment and mental wellbeing of the country, for when one thrives, so can the other.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on securing the debate and on her powerful speech. It is always good to discuss the mental health benefits of access to nature. I share her excitement at the starting of the APPG this afternoon, and I look forward to further developments and indeed further pressure on the Government from that APPG.
We all know that access to nature can be hugely beneficial not only for physical health but for mental health, with studies showing that people who visit nature regularly feel their lives to be more worthwhile. The pandemic has highlighted the importance of nature, as the Department for Health and Social Care recognised in its recent covid-19 mental health and wellbeing recovery action plan. I am pleased to say that, along with many other Government Departments, my Department was invited to take part in some of the preparations for that plan. This sort of cross-government working, as my hon. Friend alluded to, is essential as we look at this important area going forward.
My hon. Friend rightly said that access to green space is not equal. About 40% of people from ethnic minority backgrounds live in the areas most deprived of green space, compared with 14% of white people, while we know that in general those from poorer communities have less access to green space. Those who are more likely to experience poor mental health and wellbeing are often the least likely to engage with nature. To tackle this, we are developing a national framework of green infrastructure standards, which should be ready next year and which will map green space and improve green infrastructure, such as footpaths. The Environment Bill will also establish a new England-wide system called local nature recovery strategies, which at a very local level will agree local nature priorities, map existing habitats and map proposals for new or improved habitats, which should enhance nature. The aim is to promote landscapes for everyone and to support access to nature for those who think they need it most. MHCLG’s levelling up fund supports local infrastructure in this way, very much including green spaces. MHCLG and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials are working closely together, as my hon. Friend hopes, to ensure that this is really joined up and working well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I say what a joy it is to see the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) looking so well? We all look forward to seeing her back in the Chamber again; I just cannot wait. I will try to hug her if I am allowed; we will see how that goes. I am aware that I am very fortunate to live on a farm, and am able to go for walks, which really improves my mental health. Other people do not have that opportunity, and the Minister is outlining a very good programme for how to address that.
This morning on TV there was a show educating primary school age children on planting, encouraging engagement with nature. There are many groups, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance, that would be willing, I believe, to partner with the Government to ensure that those people who do not have ready access to nature can engage like that, and can use the green corridors that are there.
Victoria Prentis
It is always a pleasure to speak with the hon. Gentleman, and he is right to highlight the work that various groups are doing to encourage all of us to engage with nature in a more educated way. Indeed, my own community was excited to find a great crested newt in my neighbour’s pond this morning, and we immediately got on to the RSPB who are full of information about great crested newts, and that is just one example of the work that can be done on a very local level to make sure that we all enjoy nature in an educated and appreciative way.
To go back to the Government schemes, we have an £80 million green recovery challenge fund, which has been set up to kickstart nature-based projects across England in order to help with the recovery from the pandemic. One example of what we have done through this fund is to create 12 tiny forests across urban areas in England. This fund is also being used to work specifically on projects in NHS facilities.
I would like to join the hon. Gentleman in saying how absolutely fantastically well my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford is looking today—I know that she spent far too much of the last year in NHS facilities, and she will appreciate how important it is for patients, who may not be very mobile or feeling very well, to be able to go and sit somewhere or just enjoy nature around them during their treatment. I, sadly, had to spend many hours in A&E on Saturday with a family member—all was well, I hasten to add—and when I came out I was privileged to walk along the canal. That blue space was critical in helping me calm down and really put the day’s events in context. It was very useful.
Another example of our work to support equitable access to nature is the cross-Department project led by DEFRA which aims to tackle mental health specifically through green social prescribing. I heard about a brilliant initiative from a GP’s surgery in Newcastle where they prescribe working in the GPs’ allotment to help patients feel better. These services link people directly to nature-based activities such as community allotments, green gyms and conservation volunteering, which specifically target communities which have been badly hit by the pandemic.
We are also committed to ensuring that the public have good access to footpaths. For example, we are developing the England coastal path, which will be the longest way-marked and maintained coastal walking route in the world. We are also planning a new northern coast-to-coast national trail. We intend to table legislation this year that will enable unrecorded historic rights of way to be registered more easily, which should protect them for future users. As the hon. Lady said, our future farming policies are very much targeted towards rewarding farmers who bring about environmental benefits, and access to farmland for the general public is very much a part of this.
An example of the type of action that we envisage paying for in the future would be well signposted footpaths in places that are easily accessible from towns as well as more rural communities. I am very keen on creating circular walks and bike rides wherever possible, and I know that my hon. Friend will be particularly keen on the bike access, as well as the allotment progress.
Specifically on the points that my hon. Friend makes about the Environment Bill, the Bill will, if passed, require the Government to set and meet ambitious targets on biodiversity, together with those on air, water and waste. The Government feel that what she is seeking to achieve is inbuilt in the very nature of the Environment Bill, and will in future be protected for the public by the new Office for Environmental Protection. Nevertheless, I am sure that we will continue to have many discussions during the passage of that Bill about the right way to achieve these really important goals. I encourage Members from across the House to continue to engage with DEFRA to help us identify new opportunities for increasing access to, and meaningful engagement with, the natural world.
Thank you, Mr Davies, and I thank my hon. Friend once again for this excellent debate.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Can I also say from the Chair what a delight it is to see the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) looking so well? If the promise or threat—I am not sure which it was—of a hug from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) at the appropriate time does not give us something to look forward to, I do not know what will.
Question put and agreed to.
Fire and Rehire
(2 years, 11 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
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
I remind Members that there have been some changes to normal practices in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate.
I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall 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.
We are expecting votes this afternoon, so if there is any Member who needs to leave to vote, could they please indicate now? Thank you very much.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered fire and rehire practices.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. This debate has been oversubscribed, which I think says something about the strength of feeling and the level of anger at this appalling practice. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for taking part today. One cannot help but notice the lack, or rather the complete absence, of Conservative MPs from today’s call list. I do hope this is not a reflection on how seriously the Government take this issue, but I suspect that is the case. Perhaps the Minister can prove me wrong.
I would like to pay tribute to the workers of our country—the women and men who have battled so hard throughout the past 14 months to keep the country going in the face of covid-19. Many workers have lost friends, colleagues and family members to this terrible virus, and now at least one in 10 of them face a further pandemic of opportunistic employers using covid-19 as a cover to dramatically reduce workers’ pay and terms and conditions. Fire and rehire is a process that involves sacking workers and hiring them back on lower wages and worse terms and conditions—a practice that, according to research published earlier this year by the TUC, has had a disproportionate impact on black, Asian and ethnic minority workers, young workers and working-class people.
However, fire and rehire is not new. In 2009, the Confederation of British Industry boasted of using the financial crash to establish a so-called flexiforce, in effect using economic uncertainty as a cover to replace permanent workers with flexible workers. The economic uncertainty stemming from the pandemic has provided another opportunity for big business to shift power even further away from workers so that they can boost long-term profits for shareholders. These are some of the same companies that have made use of public money through the Government’s job retention scheme.
Fire and rehire must not be allowed to continue. Workers should not be forced to choose between losing pay or losing their jobs. Parliament must act urgently to outlaw this form of industrial blackmail. That is why I, along with my union Unite, am calling for fire and rehire to be included in next month’s Queen’s Speech, either in the Employment Bill or as stand-alone emergency legislation. It is a national emergency and disgrace that one in 10 workers are currently threatened with a practice that, in the words of the Prime Minister, is “unacceptable” and in the words of the Minister here today is “bully boy tactics.” I am not entirely convinced that the Prime Minister knows what fire and rehire is or what it is doing to thousands of workers across the UK.
Fire and rehire is not a new phenomenon but it has gained prominence because of the conduct of many major employers, such as British Airways, Heathrow airport and British Gas, some in circumstances that they claim to be justified by the covid pandemic. The practice has highlighted how weak the current unfair dismissal laws are in this country and how they need to be strengthened.
I take this opportunity to highlight the example of my constituent Matthew from Hebburn, who is one of many of my constituents who have been affected by fire and rehire. Matthew had worked for British Gas for 16 years. He was an exemplary worker, once proud to drive his blue van, who would have been happy to see out the rest of his working life with the company. He is now newly self-employed, having been one of the 300 to 400 staff who lost their jobs for refusing to sign up to new contracts, terms and conditions imposed by British Gas for nothing more than corporate greed.
Despite making more profit than in the previous year, British Gas has used the pandemic as a cover to impose a “take it or leave it” 15% pay cut and other changes that have affected the time their workforce spend with their families, by making the working week three hours longer. That is a whole month of additional labour added to the year.
Last year British Gas issued Matthew with a fire and rehire ultimatum, giving him and his colleagues a deadline of 23 December. They were told that if they did not agree with the terms offered, worse terms would be forced upon them. This deadline was pushed back until 25 March. Matthew refused to be bullied by British Gas and was therefore given his notice on Monday 29 March. I send solidarity to Matthew and all other workers.
What has happened to loyal workers like Matthew at British Gas is an absolute scandal. It shows utter contempt for the loyalty many have shown for much of their working lives. British Gas, Centrica and their chief executive officer Chris O’Shea should be ashamed of this reckless corporate bullying. It is sad to see what has happened to British Gas, once a nationally respected institution but now a poster boy for the virus of poor employment practice that is spreading like another contagious deadly disease across the UK.
In London, staff at Goodlord were given a choice to take a pay cut or become unemployed. Goodlord asked staff to take a contract with a lower rate of pay, which is below the London living wage.
In Manchester, Go North West drivers have been on an all-out strike for over 50 days against cruel fire and rehire abuses by bosses. The company wants to fire and rehire its drivers and force them to work longer for no additional pay, while also cutting sick pay for drivers with more than five years’ service.
In Loughborough, global field service engineers employed by Brush Electrical Machines, owned by Melrose, are being balloted for strike action in response to fire and rehire pay cuts of up to £15,000. The proposed contracts include reductions to overtime rates, allowances and holidays. The engineers have been threatened with redundancy if they do not sign the new contracts, which will leave them on pay rates well below industry standards.
In Oxfordshire, Jacobs Douwe Egberts will stop workers from taking summer holidays to thwart an overtime ban, starting on 1 May, in an ongoing fire and rehire dispute. My own union Unite is representing its members in all these disputes, but the problem goes much deeper and will only grow if the job retention scheme comes to an end.
Last year, the Government asked the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to produce a report on the full extent of fire and rehire, which was received by Ministers on 17 February. Despite numerous pledges to release the report and respond to it, the Government are still dragging their feet, leading us to wonder what ACAS has written that the Government do not want us to read.
On 23 March, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), during Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions if she could confirm when we would get a chance to see the ACAS report. The Minister told me that the Government find the practice of fire and hire “unacceptable”, but could not give me a date or time when the ACAS report would be released. Here we are, one month later, and the Government are still dragging their feet on this. I hope the Minister will tell us today when the Government intend to make the ACAS report available, because they certainly appear to want to bury it.
We have heard a lot from this Government about levelling up and how Brexit will give us the opportunity to have higher standards across the board. Now is the Government’s chance to prove that they are serious about that. They must understand that well-paid, secure work is good for the economy, and greater security for workers would mean a stronger and quicker recovery. Our friends across Europe understand this. The practice of fire and rehire is already banned in Ireland, Spain and France, and is seen as unacceptable in other competitor economies, where Governments step in to defend their workers. Last week, the Government moved quickly to stop the European super league in its tracks. It showed that they can make things happen when they want to—and feel that they will get a popularity bounce off the back of it.
The Government have made all the right noises about fire and rehire, but so far have done absolutely nothing about it. I hope the Minister will tell us when the Government will back up their words with action and act to outlaw this immoral practice. If this Government are serious about levelling up and raising standards, they must commit to ending fire and rehire once and for all. I hope to see that in next month’s Queen’s Speech, either in the Employment Bill or in stand-alone emergency legislation.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
This debate is very over-subscribed, so I suggest that the first speaker takes four minutes and the rest take three minutes. If that is the case, everybody should be able to get in.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. It is important to recognise the situation facing the ordinary workers in this country who are facing these draconian fire and rehire measures. I congratulate my hon. Friend—my great friend—the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on bringing this debate to Westminster Hall today. It is the working people who have kept our country on its feet. They are the true heroes in every sense of the word. It is the keyworkers, mainly low-paid workers, not the hedge fund managers, Government cronies or indeed the highly paid, who are being subjected to what the Minister quite rightly framed as “bullyboy tactics”.
Security of employment is so important to hard-working individuals and their families. Is it not right that ordinary people are treated with absolute dignity and fairness, not as inconvenient necessities by fat cat millionaires who frankly would sell their own grandmothers for a pound?
The scourge of fire and rehire practices, which have always haunted workforces, has expanded rapidly since the beginning of the pandemic. The Prime Minister himself stated that it was capitalism and greed that got us through this covid pandemic. My message to the Prime Minister is that it was the workforce of this country that got us to where we are today, and the reward for many of them is fire and rehire. These are human beings. They are real people, with mortgages, rent payments, credit cards and credit, with kids and families, with expectations and with ambitions, who have been treated appallingly by employers who care little and a Government that talk the talk but fail to walk the walk. As my hon. Friend said in her opening speech, whether it be Goodlord, where salaries are being slashed by up to £6,000, whether it be Go North West where salaries are being slashed by up to £2,500, Jacobs Douwe Egberts with £7,000 a year lopped off salaries, or Melrose Brush with potentially £15,000 a year slashed off people’s salaries. These are real people. What about the Heathrow worker with 40 years’ service, expected to take a 39.1% pay reduction? The list goes on and on.
This is legalised robbery; it is legalised theft, with astonishing consequences for those doing the right thing. It is ruthless corporate bullying. It is intimidation. It is harassment of people with families, people with bills to pay. We all agree that this is a time of great uncertainty. Fire and rehire must be outlawed. If it is good enough for Ireland, France and Spain, by goodness it is good enough here in the UK. Where is the much-awaited ACAS report, Minister? Come clean. What are you hiding? Publish it if you can. This is simply unacceptable in modern-day Britain. Coming out of a year-long pandemic, Minister, ensure that the draconian practice of fire and rehire is outlawed in the Queen’s Speech. Fix this now and fix it for good—and for those workers out there, join a union.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Murray. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing her first Westminster Hall debate on such an important subject and her excellent speech. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery).
I first raised fire and rehire with the Prime Minister on 16 December 2020 at Prime Minister’s Question Time, after highly skilled engineers at Centrica British Gas were told they had to sign new contracts before Christmas or else they would be fired and rehired in the new year on worse terms. The Prime Minister’s response was deeply concerning:
“it is also vital that we have a flexible economy that is able to generate jobs, particularly when we are going to go through a very difficult and bumpy time.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2020; Vol. 686, c. 272.]
During this “very difficult and bumpy time”, as the Prime Minister put it, is exactly when people need stability and certainty in their lives. Yet according to Unite the Union, one in 10 workers is already threatened with fire and rehire, and many more are likely to face this manipulative process as furlough comes to an end.
Earlier this month, I was saddened to see approximately 350 British Gas engineers lose their jobs because they refused to sign a contract with worse terms and pay. Equally sad is the thousands upon thousands of other GMB members at British Gas signing new but worse contracts under duress. Yet when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) raised it with the Prime Minister just last week, he was not even aware of the issue. Four months on from my question, hundreds have been sacked and the Prime Minister still does not have an answer.
It is not just British Gas engineers either; fire and rehire is also used by British Airways in Heathrow, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will go into further detail on those disputes. Go North West drivers have been on strike for more than 50 days, while Jacobs Douwe Egberts coffee producers is starting an indefinite overtime ban on International Workers Day, 1 May, and engineers at Brush Electrical Machines are balloting for action against pay cuts of up to £15,000.
Fire and rehire is an exploitative and illegitimate negotiation tactic that causes real hurt and anger. Household names have betrayed decades of trust from the nation. These tactics damage not only their workforces but their customer base, who will feel the same way at the disgraceful way those businesses treat their employees. The Government have an opportunity with the upcoming Queen’s Speech to work with Labour and the relevant trade unions such as Unite and the GMB to introduce vital legislation that will ban fire and rehire practices and give workers the stability and assurances that they need at this—again in the Prime Minister’s own words—“very difficult and bumpy time”.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. George the gas man was a good friend of my dad when I was a kid. I learned through him, and saw subsequently, that gas workers were and are skilled, trusted, doing an essential job, keeping our communities safe. Theirs was historically a good, secure job, not least because of the history of strong trade unionism.
In 1889 Will Thorne founded the National Union of Gas Workers and General Labourers—now the GMB—that fought against the shameful treatment meted out to workers in Victorian times. Generations fought to consign such treatment to history, including my union, Unite, asserting the dignity of labour.
The history of the gas industry is also one of trade unions acting as agents of change, managing sometimes difficult processes of change, seeking negotiated outcomes. Gas workers also fought for their country. The Hollyfields Sports and Conference Centre in my constituency has a barrier on which are written the names of 250 workers who died fighting for their country in the first and second world wars.
In 21st century Britain we see a throwback to Victorian times, to the kind of treatment meted out to workers that we thought was history. Paul Vowles of the GMB from Birmingham has said of the 350 members who have lost their jobs that,
“They were salt of the earth, doing a good job, now ending up out of work.”
British Gas could have negotiated an outcome. It might have been difficult, but they could have done it. They chose instead to use fire and rehire, like too many employers in the current climate. The TUC estimates that one in 10 workers have suffered from such treatment or the threat of it. Even worse, some of the employers benefiting from Government support through the covid crisis are the same employers taking advantage of fire and rehire, which is utterly contemptible.
It is clear that the GMB and Unite stand ready to negotiate a solution but the company is not interested. We have to bring home the human consequences. Chris O’Shea, the chief executive, says,
“You’ve got a duty to make your colleagues’ lives as easy as possible.”
Tell that to the single mum who complains of chest pains and says,
“It makes me feel sick that I am nothing more than something on the bottom of Chris O’Shea’s expensive shoes.”
Tell that to the gas worker who every single day during lockdown worked for the Trussell Trust, delivering to the elderly and vulnerable.
In conclusion, what we thought we had consigned to history now haunts the world of work. I say this to the Minister: warm words have been issued in relation to fire and rehire, but the time has come for the Government to act, including in the Queen’s Speech.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mrs Murray. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this debate. Fire and rehire is the latest in a long line of tools used by the Tories and bullying bosses to drive down pay and conditions of workers. It is a form of legalised robbery. The same work—sometimes more—is expected to be done but for less pay. The aim is simple: to transfer wealth from wages to profits. How do they hope to get away with that? By exploiting workers’ insecurity at a time of crisis. When we should be building a fairer society out of the covid crisis, unscrupulous bosses are being given a green light to intimidate workers into accepting worse pay and conditions.
This is not just about the one in 10 workers threatened so far. Fire and rehire is the new Tory blueprint for the whole economy. It will grow dramatically as furlough ends, unless the law is changed. The aim is to drag down everyone’s terms and conditions, a real race to the bottom. Workers lose out, bosses gain: it is Thatcherism on steroids. Of course, the Prime Minister claims he is against this, but words are cheap; action is what matters. There is not a single Back-Bench Tory MP here for the debate.
The truth is that the Government could ban this disgraceful practice overnight. If the Prime Minister introduced the legislation today, Labour would back it. With the stroke of a pen, the threat would be gone. Other countries have already banned fire and rehire. If only the Tories were as quick in responding to that issue as they are in responding to WhatsApp messages from their corporate sponsors. As a trade union lawyer, before I became a Member of Parliament, I saw the immense suffering of those subjected to fire and rehire, but now it is being carried out on an industrial scale, so the fightback must be on an industrial scale too. I have joined British Gas workers on the GMB picket in Leeds, fighting back against that company’s appalling behaviour; and I commend and congratulate Unite the Union on defending so many workers who have been affected by fire and rehire and on getting that agenda on to the national agenda.
I will end with a message to every worker who has been forced to take action against the disgraceful practice. They have my absolute, unwavering support in standing up to bully boy tactics and the shameful inaction of the Conservative Government.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I declare an interest as a member of Unite and the GMB, and because a family member was subjected to fire and rehire. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this hugely important debate, and for her powerful speech.
I want to give my support and solidarity to my constituents and many people across the country who have been subjected to the immoral practice of fire and rehire. We should be in no doubt that it destroys livelihoods, families and communities, and my disdain for companies using that weapon to cause such misery in 2021 during a pandemic knows no bounds. I hope that the public will show solidarity and support for the workers who are affected, by using their consumer choice and power wisely, and that they will show their disdain for any company that chooses that path.
Bad employers, including a number that have made huge profits in the past year, such as British Gas owner Centrica, which posted profits in 2020 of £447 million, have exploited the pandemic to cut the pay and conditions of workers, through fire and rehire. The roll-call of shame is a long one. A few of the worst are British Gas, British Airways, and Go North West, but there are many others—the TUC estimates that one in seven workers in the UK will be under threat from the practice. I have personal experience of the cost, because my brother and many of his colleagues lost their jobs because of their refusal to sign inferior new contracts with British Gas under the terms of fire and rehire. Years of loyalty and skills were cast on to the scrapheap because certain companies wanted to make workers pay for the pandemic, and protect shareholder profits. It is beyond contempt.
The Minister condemned those bully-boy tactics last month; so when will he take action? The Government have sat on the ACAS report on fire and rehire for more than two months now. What does the report say? When will they release it? How will they address the concerns raised by those independent experts? The tactics of fire and rehire are a stain on this country’s reputation, and they harm our communities’ chances of rebuilding back from the pandemic. They are economically illiterate and they destroy relationships between workers and employers, often beyond repair. I urge the Minister to outlaw fire and rehire—to commit to doing that in the Queen’s Speech—and to start to take action against employers that use those practices. Too many livelihoods have already been destroyed, and he must ensure that not one more person endures the pain that many have already been subjected to.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing the debate at a time when the shameful practice of fire and rehire is increasingly weaponised by companies to exploit workers. Fire and rehire should never be acceptable in any circumstances, and I would like to hear the Minister commit to outlawing that anti-worker practice today. It is nothing short of disgraceful that so many companies have been allowed to engage in it in the middle of a global pandemic.
Fire and rehire is not the final option left to the companies in question. They are not struggling to make ends meet. Many continue to pay their chief executive officers six or seven-figure salaries and to fork out massive dividends to their shareholders, while claiming that they cannot afford to pay their staff a decent day’s wages for a decent day’s work. In the case of British Airways, whose former chief executive officer I had the misfortune to encounter on several occasions during my time on the Transport Committee, it attempted to force fire and rehire down the throats of its staff despite making tens of millions of taxpayers’ money for furloughing its workers, and despite the parent company IAG having made billions in profits the previous financial year. Thanks in large part to the efforts of my union Unite, British Airways was forced to ditch some of its plans to fire and rehire 30,000 of their staff.
British Airways was not, sadly, the only UK major employer whose reputation has now been trashed as a result of the decision to pursue that policy. Last year, British Gas told its shareholders that it would slash 5,000 jobs and committed to forcing the remaining 2,000 to undergo a fire and rehire process before it had engaged with the GMB union. In January, Centrica chief executive Chris O’Shea told the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that the company had been forced to issue the fire and rehire threat before talks began, by law. In a leaked email that I have here from 22 February, of which I have been made aware, Mr O’Shea informed British Gas’s human resources team it would no longer use fire and rehire as a strategy. He writes in the email that
“I recognise that the use of fire and rehire has led to a lack of trust, and I understand the impact this has had on morale, which is why we pledge never to revisit the use of fire and rehire again.”
If he would never consider fire and rehire again, why did he previously say that it was the only option when appearing before a Select Committee? I am deeply concerned that Mr O’Shea may have misled Parliament in the way that he defended himself, given the subsequent email in which he explicitly states that he would consider another option.
The reality is that Mr O’Shea’s actions mean that people will no longer think of British Gas as a proud British company, and maybe it is time for him to consider his own position. It would certainly be one way of saving the country £775,000. Local authorities have also been caught up in the unsavoury practice, including the Conservative-run Thurrock Council, with changes to terms and conditions that see workers losing over £3,000 a year. Thankfully, an election is coming up next week, so perhaps that will also be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this important debate to ensure that we can all deliberate upon the abhorrent practice of fire and rehire that has, sadly, acutely affected many of my Slough constituents. Our proximity to Heathrow airport and our employment reliance on the aviation sector has meant that the sector’s crash has impacted the jobs of thousands of my constituents. Those devastating job losses have been exacerbated by companies taking advantage, forcing employees into inferior pay and conditions or risk losing their jobs.
Even prior to the covid-19 pandemic, UK employment law was inadequate. The past year has simply strengthened the case for stronger employee rights and protections. Back in 2019, the Government promised an employment Bill to protect and enhance workers’ rights. Even the Minister answering the debate today said in November 2020 that
“using threats about firing and rehiring as a negotiating tactic is unacceptable.”—[Official Report, 10 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 717.]
Yet nothing has changed since then. These immoral tactics have predominantly affected the hard-working individuals in the aviation industry in Slough, but unfortunately they are not alone in being subject to them.
One of the most blatant uses of fire and rehire seen by my constituents has been with British Gas and its parent company Centrica. Before negotiations began, Centrica’s chief executive officer Chris O’Shea had put that threat on the table. In evidence to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, he noted that he was forced into that position, but a letter from ACAS later revealed that the company has recognised the impact that fire and rehire has had on the workforce, and has confirmed that, as part of this agreement, they will never use fire and rehire in any shape or form in the future.
British Gas are, devastatingly, not alone in carrying out these unacceptable actions. Dnata, an airline catering company, offered its workers contracts for just 20 hours a week, with reduced terms and pay, in a fire and rehire scenario, forcing many of the employees to accept and plunging them into poverty. A company in the process of taking over airline catering from British Airways, Do & Co, refused to put its workers on the extended coronavirus job retention scheme, leaving hundreds unemployed. These are just a few examples in my constituency. For many, it is already too late. Even after British Airways eventually ended its fire and rehire practices after incredible work from trade unions and employees, many had still fallen victim to them.
While the past year has been undeniably difficult for businesses, fire and rehire tactics are never acceptable, and I commend the excellent work of unions including Unite, Unison and GMB, which have saved and protected thousands of jobs. The Government must do more. Without direct action from the Government, others will continue to follow, thinking it is acceptable to run their businesses in such a dire way.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, and I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for her hard work in securing this debate. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This month, hundreds of British Gas engineers, including many living in my constituency of Birkenhead, were sacked by the parent company Centrica. Despite many years of loyal service, they were thrown on the scrapheap because they refused to accept a devastating cut to their pay and working conditions. They were not alone: from Heathrow airport to the Go North West buses in Manchester, one in 10 British workers has been threatened with fire and rehire practices over the past year. With 70% of those companies continuing to turn a profit, this is not about economic necessity, but about large corporations cynically exploiting a public health crisis to further line the pockets of shareholders.
We have heard plenty of warm words from Ministers at the Dispatch Box about this issue. The Prime Minister has called fire and rehire “unacceptable”, and the Leader of the House has called it “bad practice”, but they still refuse to act. Workers in the UK enjoy no more protections at work today than they did when the pandemic began, because this Government care more about cosying up to their friends in the private sector than they do about standing up for British workers and the very communities they have promised to level up. That is why they have sat on a report from ACAS for two long months; it is why, when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) asked the Prime Minister to extend his support to British Gas engineers, he acted as if it was the first he had heard about it. I doubt anyone believes that.
Voters in the so-called red wall seats should ask themselves why there is not one single Conservative Back Bencher present today. The answer is simple: they fundamentally do not care. What the British people need now is decisive action to stamp out this abhorrent practice once and for all, so I call on the Minister to ensure that measures outlawing fire and rehire are included in the Queen’s Speech next month.
It is time that the Government put their money where their mouth is, but we must go further still. We have to roll back decades of anti-trade union legislation that has fostered a culture in which employers feel free to attack the rights and conditions of their workers with total impunity, as so many have during the pandemic. If the Government are really serious about building back better in the wake of this terrible pandemic, they need to not only put an end to the plague of fire and rehire tactics, but stop seeing trade unions as the enemy within and realise the vital role they have to play in building an economy that truly works for everyone.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for having secured today’s debate. Research from the Trades Union Congress shows that since the first lockdown, one in 10 workers has been threatened with fire and rehire, and that lower paid workers and black and minority ethnic workers have been more than twice as likely to face this practice. As Members have said, although this has been a challenging year for business, over 70% of the companies involved in this practice have been profitable, and over half have been receiving public money during the pandemic. It has never been so clear that this is a battle between big bosses and the low-paid worker, and the Minister has correctly characterised these as “bully-boy tactics”, but unfortunately, action has not followed those words.
We are now four months post Brexit, and not a single piece of legislation enhancing rights or standards has reached the Floor of the House, although we hear daily through various drips, leaks and texts that the voices of those who are doing quite nicely are being heard loud and clear by the Government. The false promises that we had of a prosperous Brexit are increasingly being exposed as cover for a race to the bottom on regulations, including protections for workers, and time and again the Government have dodged converting rhetoric and reassurances into standards and legislative protections. Earlier this year, they were embarrassed into axing a review of ending the 48-hour maximum working week and a review of attempting to remove overtime pay. The pandemic has exposed how precariously and how close to the edge many people have been living, and shown that many people—indeed, most people—want a fairer future.
The term “gig economy” now refers to almost 5 million workers. We have heard how £6 per hour is not unusual pay for fast-food delivery drivers, and that couriers often have such punitive schedules that they cannot take toilet breaks. Flexibility is absolutely a welcome concept in the economy, but these business models put all the risk on to workers and allow the owners of the ideas behind them to accrue all the capital. Instead of the Government designing protections that reflect the reality of modern working life, workers have to go to court to achieve basic protections.
We are also experiencing a wage squeeze. In November, the Office for National Statistics said that there were hundreds of thousands of jobs in which employees over the age of 16 were being paid below the legal minimum, and the number is only increasing. Also, those in the lowest-paying jobs are over five times more likely to be furloughed, which indicates that those jobs are insecure. All this activity underlines how acutely we need legal protections and a decent social security net.
These workers’ demands are very moderate. They do not want Government contracts, or ready access to the Chancellor; they are only looking for a living wage, decent holiday entitlement and the right not to have to work too many hours in a week.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing the debate and I declare an interest as a member of Unite.
Pay and terms and conditions of work are fundamental to the lives that people can afford to lead and the pensions they will be entitled to. Constituents have written to me describing fire and rehire as abusive, appalling and immoral, and they are right. It is an attack on the rights of working people, who generate the wealth that shareholders enjoy and who provide the services we need. Dismissing workers in order to re-employ them on worse terms and conditions is quite simply wrong, and it is shameful that any employer would engage in those cynical tactics. The Government must ban fire and rehire.
As a member of Unite, I was proud to support yesterday’s day of action and I pay tribute to the work of the trade union movement. It is a matter of deep concern that the practice of fire and rehire seems to have become more common since the start of the pandemic. Deploying such a tactic at such a time is particularly shameful, and there have been high-profile disputes involving companies such as British Airways, British Gas, Go North West, Jacobs Douwe Egberts, and Brush Electrical Machines.
Earlier this year, the TUC estimated that since March 2020 nearly one worker in 10 has been told to reapply for their job on worse terms and conditions. The research showed that young people have been particularly badly affected, with nearly a fifth of 18 to 24-year-olds who were surveyed saying that their employer has tried to rehire them on inferior terms during the pandemic. According to the TUC, 15% of the black and minority ethnic workers it surveyed have faced fire and rehire, compared with 8% of the white workers it surveyed.
Earlier this year, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy engaged ACAS to gather evidence of how fire and rehire is being used. The Government received evidence from ACAS on 17 February, yet still they have not published it or responded to it. That is simply not good enough, so will the Minister commit himself today to publishing the evidence and his Department’s response to it without further delay?
In January, a Labour motion tabled in the House of Commons called on the Government to set out for Parliament a timetable to introduce legislation to end fire and rehire tactics. The motion was carried by 263 votes to zero, with MPs on the Government Benches abstaining. That was profoundly disappointing and showed how little the Conservatives care about workers’ rights, terms and conditions.
Make no mistake—the Government’s lack of action is causing misery and financial difficulties for working people. The Secretary of State has described fire and rehire as unacceptable, and the Minister who is here today has condemned it many times in his own words, yet Government legislation to end those shameful tactics has not been forthcoming. Will the Minister do what the Prime Minister failed to do last week and guarantee that there will be a commitment to end fire and rehire in the forthcoming Queen’s Speech?
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this incredibly important debate. Fire and rehire practices have become endemic during covid-19, including at Goodlord, Go North West, Jacobs Douwe Egberts, and British Gas, and I fear that they will only become more common as the furlough scheme comes to an end.
I have received much correspondence from constituents here in Cynon Valley detailing the distress and pain caused by these bullying tactics. I commend the trade unions, including my own union Unite, for the tireless work they are doing to expose these exploitative fire and rehire tactics, and I stand in solidarity with all workers who take industrial action to oppose them.
Fire and rehire has little to do with the pandemic. Covid-19 is being used as a smokescreen for unscrupulous businesses to do what they have long done—erode workers’ rights, slash pay, and keep wages and benefits low to increase value for shareholders. The Government’s complacency on the matter has been taken as a green light.
I am sympathetic to the unprecedented position in which UK businesses find themselves, but businesses using fire and rehire tactics are not doing so because of their economic situation. Using the impact of the covid-19 pandemic to attempt to drive down pay and benefits is not going to wash. It is unacceptable that a company such as Centrica plc—parent company of British Gas—which continues to report hundreds of millions in profit each year can even consider forcing unfavourable contracts on its staff. Sadly, that reflects what I believe is an entrenched attitude in boardrooms across the country: employees are not a vital resource to be invested in and supported, but rather an operational cost for those businesses that must be kept to the bare minimum. That is underpinned by a capitalist model that unfailingly puts shareholders ahead of the workers who create that wealth.
Fire and rehire places an immediate financial burden on workers, exposes them to more precarious relationships with employers and, in some cases, might even jeopardise retirement plans. For firms to choose such a path knowing the likely outcomes in the midst of a global pandemic is morally indefensible. That scandalous treatment of workers must be stopped. The Government must act now to introduce legislation to outlaw that practice, as other countries have already done. By failing to do so, the Government are once again choosing to support billionaire bosses over the ordinary working people of this country. Diolch yn fawr.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
Firing employees and rehiring them on reduced terms and conditions is a shocking way to treat workers, and I am very proud of my SNP colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), for his tireless work on the issue. It is important to recognise his efforts in this area, even though there has sadly been a collective oversight of his Bill in the debate so far.
Frankly, many of us are fed up with the members of the UK Government condemning this practice while doing nothing to address it. Finger-wagging and head shaking are not going to stop this appalling practice, but legislation will, yet the Government refuse to adopt my hon. Friend’s Bill. While the Government do nothing, we see Centrica workers fired without redundancy for refusing to submit to this appalling treatment. British Airways staff, too, have been subject to this repressive and regressive practice, with Tesco also guilty and others sure to follow.
It is a matter of deep regret and anger in Scotland that the Labour party, working alongside the Tories, conspired in the Smith commission against Scotland having power over employment law, which would have allowed us to protect workers in Scotland. Clearly, the Union is more important to the Labour party than the rights of workers, many of whom fund the Labour party. That is flawed logic indeed, a logic that workers in Scotland are increasingly rejecting. The sudden change of heart from the current leader of the Scottish Labour party to support the devolution of employment law to Scotland—this Damascene conversion as we approach election day—is unconvincing and extremely cynical, since it was Labour that blocked such devolution in the first place.
Let us stop all the hand-wringing and bring my hon. Friend’s Bill to the House again, and let us support it. As for Scotland, we will make our own decisions on employment law soon enough, when we secure and go on to win an independence referendum. Then workers in England will be able to look to Scotland to see what protecting and supporting workers in a fair and just society really looks like.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
I refer Members of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of Unite. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), who is a good friend, for securing the debate.
The pandemic has changed the world of work for almost all workers. We have seen some employers go above and beyond in supporting their employees, but, sadly, we have also seen some employers using it to attack wages and terms and conditions for their own workforce. I am proud to be a Labour MP, so it should not come as a surprise that I am a socialist and trade unionist. Trade unions offer workers a voice in the workplace, and data tells us that unionised workplaces are not only safer, but benefit from better terms and conditions. I am grateful to all trade unions for standing up for their members against employers who are taking advantage of the pandemic to increase profit margin at the cost of their own workers.
One such employer is British Gas. The parent company, Centrica, has been in a long-standing dispute with the GMB union. I have had a GMB picket at the British Gas office in my own constituency, in Brinnington ward. A few days ago, the media reported that almost 500 engineers had lost their jobs after refusing to be forced into new contracts—a truly shameful day for a household brand such as British Gas. Rightly, the public will not forget how British Gas Centrica treated its workforce.
Unfortunately, there is another dispute in Greater Manchester at Go North West buses. Unite members at this bus operator had been on the picket line for more than 60 days. They have been blackmailed into a taking a significant pay cut. Drivers at Go North West earn on average £24,000 per year, but changes mean they will have to work much longer hours for the same pay. In real terms, that means a £2,500 pay cut. I have visited the picket line on three occasions to show my solidarity with Go North West employees.
Fire and rehire has been used as an aggressive negotiation tactic by household brands. That is completely unacceptable, and we need urgent action, not warm words from the Government. Several Members have already asked when we can we expect the ACAS report to be made public. As constituency MPs, we need to see the report to hold the Government to account.
Urgent Government action is needed to end fire and rehire bullyboy tactics. It is all well and good to clap on the doorstep for our amazing key workers, but what they need is clear Government legislation against fire and rehire tactics, rather than vague platitudes from Ministers. Will the Minister call out bad employers such as British Gas, Goodlord, Brush Electrical Machines and Go North West? We need real action from the Government, not warm words.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
Thank you for carrying on during the Division bell.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I, too, offer congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing her first debate on what is an important and timely issue—fire and rehire. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), as always, and I declare that I am a member and chair of the Unite parliamentary group. I was heartened to see the collective action and solidarity shown yesterday during Unite the Union’s day of action against fire and rehire.
Over the last year, Unite has opposed fire and rehire tactics used by British Airways, Heathrow airport, and SBS technologies. Let us not forget: without our trade unions, workers at those companies would have suffered dramatic pay cuts and had their terms and conditions worsened. However, the best safeguard against such unacceptable behaviour is to outlaw the practice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said, many employers have behaved responsibly, but there are appalling examples of bad employers using this bullyboy tactic, as it has been described by the Minister. It is within the power of the Minister and the Prime Minister to outlaw this practice.
I was disappointed when the Prime Minister backtracked at Prime Minister’s Questions last week and refused to commit to outlawing this disgraceful practice when questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson). In fact, he did not even acknowledge the nature of the problem.
During the covid pandemic, one worker in 10 has been threatened with fire and rehire. Many of those firms are receiving Government-funded support. The likelihood is that this is the tip of the iceberg. With furlough ending, many more workers will face the threat of fire and rehire, unless it is outlawed. As other Members have said, the Government asked ACAS to report on the extent of fire and rehire, and we now know, following responses to questions from me and from other Members, Ministers have had the report since 17 February. We need to know what is in that report. Will the Minister commit himself to releasing it this week before Parliament prorogues? The public, who fund ACAS, are entitled to know, and the many workers who, in effect, have been blackmailed, are entitled to know ACAS’s view of the practice.
Lots of people are watching and want to know whose side the Minister and the Prime Minister are on. I hope the Minister will stand with hon. Members here today, promise more than condemnation of fire and rehire, and take action to outlaw the practice once and for all. That has happened in Ireland, Spain and France.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I want briefly to outline some of the implications of fire and rehire in its latest use for individuals, families and communities. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), who has been an asset to her constituency and the House since she was elected.
The latest wave of fire and rehire, which is not a new phenomenon, started in my constituency at Heathrow through the activities of British Airways and Heathrow Airport Ltd. Both companies saw the pandemic as an opportunity to implement their long-held strategy of cutting wages and undermining working conditions and terms of employment. The wages and the terms of employment were fought for over generations by trade unions to ensure that people got a decent wage and were treated properly at work. That is all people wanted.
The reaction to the attempt to cut wages on such a scale and to tear up employment agreements was, first, absolute anger. The frustration among the workers at Heathrow was palpable. The staff were so loyal. They were proud to work for British Airways, the national carrier, and many had worked there for decades. Whole families depend on the airport, working for either BA or Heathrow Ltd. They faced wage cuts, even though house prices and rents in my area are so high, and were under real stress, and they were looking at whether they could maintain their livelihood and keep a decent roof over their head.
That stress has brought about almost a mental health crisis in our community. There is real resentment because those companies have made vast profits and taken furlough money from the Government, and they were simply using a short-term crisis to impose long-term pay cuts. Owing to the resolution of my community, individual workers, Unite the Union and others, we fought back and have settled as best we can to protect people, but the protection can come in the longer term only if the Government act and introduce legislation to ban the practice of fire and rehire once and for all.
Lord Hendy reminded us a couple of days ago that fire and rehire is not a new practice. The general strike was provoked by it when the miners were sacked and brought back to work only if they accepted wage cuts. I warn the Government: if they do not act and change the legislation, there will be more industrial action and more disputes, so they need to act with urgency.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
I thank everyone for keeping to the time limit, because everybody has got in. I call the SNP spokesperson, Gavin Newlands.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray, and I thank the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this incredibly important debate. The fact that it is oversubscribed, similar to my own Westminster Hall debate in November when virtual participation was not possible, shows how important most Members—certainly Opposition Members—consider the issue.
The Tory Government should be embarrassed that the debate is even necessary. Workers in other EU countries who happen across these proceedings through some disastrous fault on their TV will think that Victoria is still on the throne and that the hard-fought-for workers’ rights that were secured in the 20th century were but a dream. Workers in those countries have employment rights based on modernity, not Dickens novels.
Over the past year, I have proposed legislation that would ban fire and rehire through a simple amendment to the Employment Rights Act 1996. I have raised the issue with Ministers in this place umpteen times. I have been told by the Prime Minister that using threats of fire and rehire is unacceptable as a negotiating tactic. The Minister said that it is not acceptable to use it as a bargaining or negotiating tactic. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:
“I do not think it is acceptable to have a ‘fire and rehire’ culture.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 171.]
The Leader of the House told the Commons two weeks ago:
“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.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 504.]
On that, I agree with the Leader of the House. Despite giving the company every chance, I have now cancelled my own British Gas contract. That is a small act with regard to a company with revenues just shy of £15 billion last year, but it is the power that each of us has as a consumer.
To be clear, the primary blame, in all these situations, lies with the companies for making these threats, but the role of Government should be to ensure that any employer meets basic standards on worker rights and respect for its workforce, and operates on a level playing field that rests on fundamental rights for its staff. Enshrining that level playing field in law will ensure that the spivs and chancers who seem to have a grip on so many blue-chip companies can no longer undercut and undermine responsible employers, who invest in their staff and work in partnership with them rather than antagonising them.
All the sympathetic statements and expressions from the Dispatch Box do not change a thing for the workers, who are still being bullied by companies and forced into wage cuts and changes to terms and conditions. I agree with every word from Ministers that I have quoted. The difference is that they are Ministers and have the power to act.
As I have said previously, and as almost everyone who has spoken today has said, the Government have a Queen’s Speech in a fortnight’s time, and that must—must—contain a pledge on fire and rehire. They have at their disposal a Government machine that could have a Bill drafted rapidly—I would be happy to send them a copy of mine to copy and paste from if that would speed things along. They have a majority of 80 in this House to get the Bill through its stages and on to the statute book with a minimum of fuss.
The time for words is over. The pictures of the British Gas vans in the gas van graveyards across the country should be evidence of that. Millions of workers across the country are judging the Government on their deeds, and so far the outcome has been lacking, to say the least. In summing up the debate, can the Minister please give that assurance? Potentially millions of workers across the UK are depending on it.
The Government cannot say that this issue has not been pointed out to them many, many times over recent months. The last year has seen British Airways, British Gas, Menzies Aviation, Go North West, Heathrow airport and even Tesco, to name just a few, treat their staff like chattels and threaten them with the sack if they did not sign on the dotted line. I and many colleagues across the House have raised these disgraceful incidents with the Government dozens of times over the last year. Just yesterday we saw protests outside IHG—InterContinental Hotels Group—hotels, following the sacking of 250 staff, some of whom were then asked to come back to their previous jobs, but for less money and with poorer working conditions.
The Government know that this is an issue, because they are sitting on a report compiled by ACAS on it. The fact that we had to force them into commissioning that report is damning, but they have been sitting on the report for more than two months now. More than seven weeks ago, I wrote to the Secretary of State, urging him to share the report. It should be laid before the House at the earliest opportunity. The Government have to justify their lack of action and to apologise to the hundreds of thousands of workers who have faced these threats since they were highlighted to the Government and, in particular, to those who have taken redundancy when they have been faced with these threats or, even worse, have been sacked without any redundancy pay when they have refused to be bullied. Will the Minister, in his summing up, do just that and say sorry on behalf of the Government for their inaction?
I was proud to see the SNP manifesto launched two weeks ago, with a promise to ban fire and rehire in Scotland if the powers over employment law are transferred to the Scottish Parliament. We have been waiting too long for the UK Government to act and bring in legislation to ban it. If they do not want to protect the rights of workers, they should give the powers to the Scottish Parliament, which will act to end the days of bully-boy tactics and put those powers to good use.
I am proud of the SNP policy, of course, but I think my cross-party record on this issue is clear. The fact that Members from every party in this House sponsored my Bills is testament to that. Change of this nature happens only with cross-party support—not only with support from a united opposition, but with some support from the Government Benches. I know that the Minister has been lobbied hard on this issue by many of his colleagues. That is what makes me hopeful—perhaps naively so—about commitments on this issue in the employment Bill.
However, although there is support from and campaigning by a great many Labour Members, including Labour colleagues of mine on the Transport Committee—the hon. Members for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), and the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), who was a member of that Committee—and many others, including the hon. Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), I have been somewhat disappointed by the lack of speed from the Labour leadership to give this issue the parliamentary attention it deserves.
In saying that, I am only reflecting the views of a great many union members whom I have spoken with or who have contacted me. Working as one, we might have been able to force through quicker change that would have helped the British Gas engineers. Moving forward, let us ensure that we have a laser-like focus on the issue, as too many have suffered these threats over the last year.
No one is saying that companies and occupations should be frozen in time, with no room for change when circumstances change. Of course this pandemic has had a huge impact on the bottom line for every business in these isles and around the world, just as the crash of 2008, the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s and the energy crisis of the 1970s had an impact on trading conditions, and I daresay there will come a point in the future when another economic shock will hit us. The way to address those challenges is not by treating “Oliver Twist” as an employee relations handbook, but by working in partnership with workers and their representatives to find a sustainable way forward that benefits all.
That philosophy is embedded in European industry and commerce, and it is embedded in law. I think it is no coincidence that every single one of those countries outperformed the UK on economic output and on the standard of living their citizens enjoy. Nine out of 10 of the poorest areas of the European Union, as was, are in the UK. The race to the bottom on employment rights has dislocated our economic system to such an extent that the poorest out of 500 million people live within a couple of hours of this place.
Many of the companies that have employed or threatened to employ fire and rehire operate across international borders. International Airlines Group, the owner of British Airways, could not copy the tactics they used in the UK with staff at Iberia and Aer Lingus because those countries enshrined in law the rights of employees not to be treated in such a way. Centrica, British Gas’s parent company, is prevented from throwing the same tricks with Bord Gáis Energy employees because the law in Ireland stops it from doing so. It only chose the UK for these actions because it can. Centrica is still selling gas in Ireland and taking payment for that gas presumably because it makes money from it. The difference is that the workers enjoy protection from fire and rehire.
That undermines any argument that legislation against fire and rehire would put companies at a disadvantage. They seem to be doing fine in countries that have already banned it and that have rejected the insidious race to the bottom on employee rights that has characterised Tory Governments for decades. Fire and rehire is part of that race to the bottom.
This Government have the power to end that race right now and legislate to give responsible businesses the level playing field they deserve and our constituents the protections they need to have a more stable and sustainable livelihood. That benefits them, their families and the communities they live in. The warm words from the Government Benches over the last year do not provide that stability. Will there be a commitment in the Queen’s Speech to introduce a Bill banning fire and rehire once and for all? That would give more security and dignity to millions of workers who could face these tactics next.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is, of course, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I declare my interest as a member of Unite, GMB and Unison.
I join other hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this important debate on fire and rehire tactics and for the timely manner in which she has done so, with the outrageous firing of hundreds of British Gas employees earlier this month, just because they refused to be bullied by management into signing contracts that put them on worse pay, and worse terms and conditions. My hon. Friend spoke passionately about that case and the abusive bullying behaviour of British Gas’s management. She made a sound contribution that delivered a strong defence of workers’ rights and the protections that should be afforded to them, but which sadly this Government have denied them. My only regret is that we are having to have this debate following this mass firing at British Gas because the Government would not step in when they should have properly done so.
I thank my hon. Friends for their passionate contributions. Let us be honest: the point has been made that it is only Members on the Opposition side who have contributed because the Government could not even convince their own Back Benchers to turn up to defend the fire and rehire tactics that have become endemic on their watch. There is not only the cases of their own constituents who have faced fire and rehire tactics, but the use of these tactics by major companies that have continued to make a profit throughout the pandemic.
We must remember that fire and rehire tactics are not a new phenomenon, a point that has been made in this debate. They had been around long before the coronavirus pandemic. However, the increasingly precarious nature of our economy and the Government’s refusal to do anything about it, along with the uncertainty created by the pandemic, have given unscrupulous employers the cover they need. Let us be clear: the employers making use of these frankly deplorable tactics are unscrupulous—there are simply no two ways about it.
Under the threat of permanent dismissal at a time when the jobs market could not be more challenging, these unscrupulous employers are bullying their staff into signing away their original contract. They are bullying them into signing a replacement contract where pay is lower, rights are weaker and conditions less favourable, and they are shoving those inferior contracts down the throats of their workers, who know full well that they cannot refuse without being fired for good, as we saw at British Gas.
Despite that despicable behaviour, and the fact that such shameful tactics amount to nothing more than legalised blackmail of staff by employers, fire and rehire inexplicably remains perfectly legal under the Government, and big businesses such as Tesco and the coffee giant Douwe Egberts, which have seen rising profits during the lockdown, are continuing shamelessly to use them.
As a result, those who cannot stand up to their employers and have to begrudgingly accept the new contracts face incredible hardship, going from a job that often comfortably supported them and their families to now being forced to rely on food banks, handouts and social security to make ends meet. Indeed, we all saw the heart-breaking stories during the industrial action taken by GMB members at British Gas where engineers made it clear that they were not striking for themselves but for the young children they needed to support. Fire and rehire tactics do not just leave workers worse off; they leave their families worse off too.
However, fire and rehire tactics are not just bad for working people, who are told to work harder but at the same time paid less; they are bad for our economy too. By being able to change contracts on a whim, fire and rehire tactics are allowing bad employers to thrive and get ahead, cutting wages even at a time when many of them are making bumper profits because of the lockdown. As a result, good employers that look after their staff, pay them good wages and offer favourable conditions are being squeezed out, unable to compete with the bad employers. That is hardly the positive example of levelling up or building back better, as the Prime Minister has pledged time and again. That is why the Labour party, the trade unions and working people up and down the country have been calling on the Government to step in and act, to deliver the legislation that will bring a final, definitive end to the use of fire and rehire tactics for good, just as has been done in Ireland and Spain, as we have heard.
Instead of outlawing fire and rehire, all the Government have been able to offer are warm words and consultation—a point that has been made by a number of hon. Members. Warm words, however, do not pay bills, keep roofs over people’s head or put food on the table. As we saw at British Gas, warm words do not keep people in employment. The consultation that the Government have commissioned with ACAS still has not been published weeks after reporting back to base, with findings reportedly still being considered. I say to the Minister that this is not difficult. The findings and recommendations of the ACAS consultation are obvious for all: fire and rehire is bad for everyone. The Government should ban it, so why are they dragging their feet and what are they waiting for?
Last week, the Prime Minister spoke of dropping a “legislative bomb” to stop the European football super league, so they can act when they want to. However, he cannot even muster as much as a legislative firecracker to stop fire and rehire. Only last Wednesday, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister could not even remember the GMB dispute with British Gas and the mass firing of workers who refused to be bullied. No one should ever try to tell us that this Prime Minister is in touch with working people.
Instead of the Government looking out for employment rights, it has again fallen to trade unions to protect working people and to oppose bully-boy tactics. Unite secured a resolution of the dispute with British Airways and continues to oppose Go North West’s buses plans, and the GMB had a valiant fight to protect jobs and livelihoods at British Gas, but their job is made harder by the fact that the Government will not step in to help them by giving the vital legal backing that they need.
The use of fire-and-rehire tactics by unscrupulous employers is a stain on our economy. The contributions made by hon. Members during this important debate make one thing clear: we cannot just temporarily stop the use of fire-and-rehire tactics during this pandemic; we need to end them for good. To that end, the Government must introduce proper legislation, backed by real enforcement, before it is too late—before we see another big bully-boy employer such as British Gas lay off staff and impose new contracts, dismissing the rest who refuse to be bullied.
The Minister must confirm, as I hope he will and as we have called for, that the Government will bring forward such a measure as a matter of priority in the long-awaited and much-delayed employment Bill in next month’s Queen’s Speech. If he does not give a proper response today and resorts to a wishy-washy one—frankly, a trademark of this Government—the consequences for every worker who has been blackmailed and bullied, every family forced to turn to food banks, and every child forced into poverty, will land firmly at his Government’s doors.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
Minister, will you leave a couple of minutes at the end for the person in charge of the debate to conclude?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing the debate, her first here in Westminster Hall, on fire and rehire. We have heard a lot of powerful and passionate speeches, but before I start on mine, I note that many of my colleagues have been glancing at the annunciator screens around us. Important issues have been debated in the main Chamber. I have seen colleagues on the Government Benches speaking about fire safety and veterans—a lot of issues. Many colleagues have spoken about this subject and will continue to do so.
We heard from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), about the Government giving warm words, about consultation and about people being worse off. On the warm words, however, we agree on many things to do with the “bully-boy tactics” we have heard about today. That also demonstrates the difference when talking about businesses, because with changes to workers’ rights and anything to do with employment, whether for workers or businesses, it is important that we get it right. We have to consult and ensure that legislation is made with careful consideration and debate, and that it is made with people—companies and workers—and not done to them.
Clearly, the flexibility of our jobs market means that the hon. Member for Bradford East was right to say that people and their families are worse off if they get reduced terms. They would also be worse off, however, if their jobs were lost as a result of a different type of restructuring. Again, that is why we need to get the balance right.
We had some international comparisons. Many European countries clearly have more rigid labour markets. Often, in places such as Germany and France, more onerous requirements must be met when considering individual or collective redundancy. In some countries, permission must be sought even to go down that line. So our flexible hiring practice is important to ensuring that our economy is rounded but flexible.
Having said that, however, importantly, we are all constituency MPs and we have heard many examples today. From correspondence I have received—like many Members present—we know that, for those affected, the threat of redundancy or dismissal is always distressing. We expect employers to treat their staff with respect and compassion. That is even more important now, when people feel particularly vulnerable or anxious about the future. I speak to businesses every day and know that the vast majority of employers want to do the right thing by their employees. For most employers, the choice to let someone go is not something to be taken lightly. It usually comes at a time of great financial uncertainty for the business.
I pay tribute to all the businesses and workers that have kept the economy moving throughout an extraordinarily difficult time. In the face of those challenges, businesses have shown a remarkable ability to adapt and innovate. Through the pandemic, our priority as a Government has always been to protect jobs. Through the job retention scheme we have supported 11.4 million unique jobs to date. As we build back better from coronavirus, we will continue to support workers and work with employers to protect and create jobs. In the past year we have helped millions of people to continue to provide for their families as part of our plan for jobs, to protect, support and create employment. As we build back better we will work with employers to protect existing jobs and create new ones.
The Government are always on the side of working people, including those on the lowest wages. Earlier this month, about 2 million of the UK’s lowest-paid workers benefited from an increase in the national living wage and the national minimum wage, including a 2.2% increase in the national living wage, to £8.91—the equivalent of more than £345 a year for someone working full time.
Gavin Newlands
I hear yet more warm words, and I hear about the Government’s support for workers, the furlough scheme, and what have you. Let us concede the furlough scheme. However, what does the Minister say to workers who have taken redundancy when faced with fire and rehire threats, or who have been forced out of a business, or to the British Gas engineers sacked without any redundancy payment?
Paul Scully
I will come to fire and rehire. In individual company disputes, in the first instance it should always be ensured that the company and employers can have conversations and dialogues with the unions, should there be a union supporting the workers.
The debate has explored a lot of issues related to fire and rehire, where employers dismiss or threaten to dismiss employees, only to hire them again on less favourable terms and conditions. However, the UK already has a robust legal framework to ensure that employees are treated fairly. Employers are clearly free to offer the terms and conditions of employment that best suit their business needs, but they must always act fairly and not discriminate unlawfully, such as on grounds of race, sex or disability. Redundancy law requires that any redundancy process be fair and reasonable, with appropriate equalities considerations. Those rules include giving a notice period and consulting staff before a final decision is reached. We have clear laws on unfair dismissal, covering such things as the application of unfair selection criteria or failure to consider the possibility of transfer to other work.
However, it is not just a matter of what the law requires; it is in businesses’ own interests to have committed, motivated staff who are properly engaged in decisions about their future. As I have said, in the vast majority of cases businesses want to do the right thing by their employees, and I am determined to help them with that, to make sure that we find the best approach for employers and employees. However, we should tread carefully when considering Government intervention in commercial contractual matters between employers and employees. We must and do protect workers from unfair practices, especially when they put unnecessary stress on people who fear for their livelihoods, but we must also allow businesses to take the sometimes difficult decisions that are necessary to preserve their commercial viability.
Some Members have called this afternoon for the Government to legislate for a ban on fire and rehire. The Government have always been clear that we do not accept the inappropriate use by some employers of fire and rehire as a negotiation tactic. I have met Members and trade unions to discuss the issue, and in those discussions it has been made plain to me what anxiety and distress such tactics cause, particularly when individuals feel that they have no real option to say no and negotiate better terms. We have heard examples of that today. However, it is right and proper to consider the evidence, to avoid any course of action that would run the risk of doing more harm than good.
For example, it would be counterproductive if measures that prevented businesses from rehiring staff on different terms and conditions meant that a business could no longer survive, so that its staff found themselves out of work entirely. That would be the worst possible outcome for both businesses and the people they employ, so we need robust evidence to make robust policy decisions. That is why my Department asked ACAS to conduct an evidence-gathering exercise to learn more about the use of fire and rehire. Some Members of the House have continued to call upon my Department to publish this evidence, including during this debate. Let me clarify: we asked ACAS for its help in developing the evidence base on this complex and sensitive issue. We are carefully considering the different issues and viewpoints raised, which is vital for good policy making, and we will set out our steps in due course.
As mentioned today, unfortunately, due to the impacts of covid, some employers may be considering making redundancies. We urge employers to consider all options and alternatives before making redundancies, but we recognise that it is not going to be possible to save every business and every job. Collective redundancy legislation requires employers proposing to make 20 or more employees redundant from one establishment in a 90-day period to consult employees or their representatives, and that must include a consultation on ways to avoid redundancies, reduce their number, or mitigate their impact. Within the same timescales, the employer must notify the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy of the proposed collective redundancies. Failure to notify is an offence. Employees and/or their representatives may make a claim to an employment tribunal if they consider the employers not compliant with the consultation for collective redundancies. If the tribunal agrees, it may make a protective award of up to 90 days’ remuneration per employee. If a protective award is made against a company in liquidation, the Insolvency Service can pay the protective award, within certain limits.
In spite of the unprecedented support made available by the Government, many people have had to make really difficult decisions about their livelihoods since last March. This includes employers who have spent years investing in and growing their businesses, and workers who have shown loyalty and dedication to a particular profession or service. This debate has highlighted the challenges that everyone is having to face, and the enormous impact that losing a job or the threat of losing a job has on individuals and their families.
Gavin Newlands
I have heard all of that, and I have heard the Minister’s justification for not publishing the ACAS report thus far, but can he guarantee that at some point after the Queen’s Speech—in the next Session—the Government will publish the report in full, and what the Government intend to do about it?
Paul Scully
What I will say at the moment is that we are fully considering that, and we will continue discussion and debate on it, because it is important that that evidence base forms part of those policy-making criteria. Employers need to make sure that they can take the decisions they need to maintain their commercial viability during all of this, and as I have said, most businesses are doing the right thing. I have been an employer myself for the best part of 25 years before being elected, and I know what it is like to be responsible for someone else’s livelihood. It is deeply unfortunate, however, that the actions of some unscrupulous employers are tarring others with the same brush. Even at a time when businesses face acute challenges, fire and rehire should only ever be used as an option of last resort. As I have made clear repeatedly, it is completely unacceptable to use threats of fire and rehire simply as a negotiation tactic.
Once again, I thank all hon. Members, and especially the hon. Member for Jarrow, for their personal contributions to this debate.
Kate Osborne
I thank everybody for their contributions today to what was a really good debate, with some very powerful speeches. Anger at the injustice of fire and rehire has shone through every contribution, without a single word of support for this awful practice. I wanted to touch on a few of the points that have been made, but unfortunately, time does not now allow that.
I thank the Minister for his response, but I say to him that the Government need to act now to end fire and rehire. This shameful practice is taking advantage of a pandemic to strip workers of their hard-fought terms and conditions. He says that we need to tread carefully, but the problem is that people are being trampled over, and I do not accept that we need more debate on this issue, because there is no question of right or wrong here. He says that the Government are always on the side of working people, but I am afraid that is just more empty words, because that is not what I see. Where is the evidence that that is the case?
The Government can no longer ignore the damage done by fire and rehire. If, as they say, they feel it is unacceptable and bully-boy tactics, then they need to show this through actions, not words. Two e-petitions have obtained over 14,000 signatures so far, one of which has over 10,000 and, as such, requires a written response from the Government, which I understand is something else that is still waiting to be received. Our trade unions and their members have done a fantastic job in protecting workers, and they continue to do so. However, I say to the Minister and his Government that we need them to do the right thing and the decent thing, and bring forward legislation next month.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Immigration Detention: Victims of Trafficking
(2 years, 11 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
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
I remind Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. As there are only two Members here, I will just remind them that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of immigration detention on potential victims of trafficking.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, and to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister, who has been extremely helpful to me with my questions about immigration over many months. It is a pleasure to see him here. The core of the issues I wish to raise relates substantively to the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2021, which make amendments to the guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention. In brief, the changes remove the special rules governing the use of detention for potential victims of trafficking and modern-day slavery where there is already a strong presumption against the use of detention. I note the prayer against this negative statutory instrument in the form of early-day motion 1696, tabled on 24 March 2021, which has attracted 77 signatures. I also note that, subsequent to Mr Speaker granting this debate, a further debate has been scheduled for tomorrow in the main Chamber, so the Minister will certainly be busy. Again, I am grateful to him for being here today.
One of the reasons I called for the debate is that Yarl’s Wood, which has been a detention centre for women, is in my constituency, and over the years I have worked closely with a number of groups related to the detention of women in particular, including Yarl’s Wood Befrienders and Women for Refugee Women. I would like to thank Medical Justice in particular for its help in putting together some points. I will fire a series of questions at the Minister, which I am sure he will not have time to respond to immediately—it is in the nature of these 30-minute debates—but, if he will commit to writing to me with responses on those he does not have a chance to address, I would be grateful.
Let me start by quoting from the explanatory memorandum accompanying the statutory instrument, which says:
“This statutory instrument brings into effect amendments to the guidance on Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention…The purpose of the statutory instrument…is to bring people who are potential victims of modern slavery and/or trafficking fully within the…AAR Statutory Guidance. This is intended so that detention considerations for potential victims of modern slavery and trafficking will be made using criteria consistent with those that apply to other categories of vulnerable people.”
The reason provided by the Home Office for the change is that it will bring those with a positive reasonable grounds decision through the national referral mechanism fully within the scope of the adults at risk in immigration detention statutory guidance. The Home Office describe it as a measure to amend a “policy anomaly” and the changes will come into effect on 25 May. That leads me to my first and fundamental question to the Minister: why does he want to make this change, which will make it more likely that victims of trafficking will be held in immigration detention?
The Minister will be aware that a Home Office report confirmed that, in 2019, of 1,949 individuals referred into the national referral mechanism after being detained, 89% received a positive reasonable grounds decision and 98% were subsequently released from detention. However, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner noted in her letter to the Minister:
“Having looked at the data on the AAR policy, between November 2017 and October 2018, the rates of rejection for detention by Detention Gatekeepers due to the person being an AAR fluctuated between 3.8% and 36.2%.”
She notes that that is a wide range, but it is substantially lower than the 89% to 98% rates under existing rulings. It seems to me that that is a significant difference, not just a policy anomaly. Can the Minister confirm that he expects more potential victims of trafficking to be detained for immigration purposes as a result of the policy change? What are his thoughts around that?
I understand that the Minister held a consultation on the statutory instrument before laying it. Can he confirm whether that is correct, state which organisations he has consulted with, and give a summary of their views and opinions? Why did the Home Office not include the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner in its consultation prior to making these changes? The Minister will be as aware as I am that it is important to get all expert advice prior to laying legislation before the House.
Let us spend a moment on concerns raised about the changes. Medical Justice makes two crucial points; first, that the
“new regulations…downgrade protections afforded to potential victims of trafficking held in immigration detention”,
and secondly that they
“run entirely counter to the government’s stated aim to protect victims of trafficking.”
Does the Minister accept that the statutory instrument will, in practice, downgrade protection for victims of trafficking? He may be aware that this week the Royal College of Psychiatrists released its report “Detention of people with mental disorders in immigration removal centres”, which includes the following paragraph—it is quite a long quotation, but worth listening to:
“It is the view of the Royal College of Psychiatrists that people with mental disorders should only be subjected to immigration detention in very exceptional circumstances…There is substantial and consistent research evidence that detainees with pre-existing vulnerabilities (e.g. mental health issues or survivors of torture and other forms of cruel or inhumane treatment, including sexual violence and gender-based violence) are at particular risk of harm as a result of their detention. Detention centres are likely to precipitate a significant deterioration of mental health in most cases, greatly increasing suffering and the risk of suicide.”
Does the Minister agree, or does he not, with the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ conclusions? Does he, or does he not, agree that the changes that the statutory instrument makes may go directly against its advice?
Guideline 6, paragraph 1, of the UN’s recommended principles and guidelines on human rights and human trafficking states that trafficked persons
“should not be held in immigration detention centres”
or other forms of custody. There is no a priori reason for the UK Government to agree with everything that the United Nations says on the matter, but does the Minister agree that this change risks being seen as a significant step back from the UK’s international reputation of playing a leading role against modern-day slavery?
The direct effect of changing this policy anomaly on victims of trafficking and modern-day slavery seems to me quite profound. The practical impact seems to be that after a person has already satisfied the Home Office that they were subject to trafficking or slavery, the Home Office now expects them essentially to re-live that experience so that they can demonstrate the harm they will suffer from further future incarceration or detention—this time by the Government. Why would the Government want to do that?
Let us take a moment to see whether the adults at risk policy is working sufficiently well to warrant its application to this particularly vulnerable group. There are substantial grounds to suggest that it is not proving suitable for the policy anomaly change; let me share some concerns with the Minister.
Women for Refugee Women has commented that a key reason for the continued detention of survivors of trafficking under the adults at risk policy is the lack of a proactive vulnerability screening mechanism before the decision to detain is made. Under AAR, a new detention gatekeeper was introduced
“which assesses vulnerability and provides challenge to decisions about who enters immigration detention”.
However, the gatekeeper looks only at information that the Home Office already holds on record to assess whether a person is vulnerable. There is no proactive screening process to identify vulnerabilities that the Home Office may not be aware of before the decision to detain is made.
Let me note some findings from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons on Yarl’s Wood, the detention centre in my constituency. Its reports have also highlighted how, while it was operating as the main detention centre for women, Yarl’s Wood consistently struggled to maintain an appropriate proportion of female staff, both those in direct contact with women and managers. Further, HMIP reports also identified a lack of understanding and knowledge among Yarl’s Wood staff about women’s specific experience of violence and abuse, including sexual exploitation and trafficking. I do not wish to cast any aspersions on the very capable staff at Yarl’s Wood in my constituency. My point is that, with this change, we are placing more reliance on individual case-based judgments and therefore on what might appear to be a rather more fragile decision process.
Let me note some more comments from the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton:
“Whilst I acknowledge the rationale for bringing all categories of vulnerability under the AAR policy, there are multiple factors that are specific to victims of modern slavery that are significant.”
Also,
“under Article 13 of ECAT potential victims of modern slavery with a positive reasonable grounds decision are entitled to a reflection and recovery period where they cannot be removed from the UK. I am aware that in order to detain there must be ‘a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timescale’. It is therefore important to highlight that in 2019, it took the Home Office Single Competent Authority an average of 452 days”
to make a conclusive decision. Does the Minister acknowledge the tension in timescales between a realistic prospect of removal and an average of 452 days to make a decision?
I draw attention to the Independent Chief Inspector of Border and Immigration’s report “Annual Inspection of ‘Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention’ (2018-19)”. The first inspection report, which was published in April 2020, noted that
“there is a lot more that the Home Office can and should do to make each component”
of the AAR policy “more efficient and more effective.” Further, the inspector said:
“I have set a deadline (31 March 2020) for the implementation of the recommendations that are specific to Adults at Risk”.
Can the Minister confirm whether the specific recommendations identified for implementation by 31 March last year have been accepted and implemented?
I understand the 2019-20 report is now in draft with publication due in September. Can the Minister advise whether the ICIBI has concluded whether their concerns have now been allayed? Or do those concerns remain, or have they risen? Even relying solely on the concerns raised in 2018-19 report, did they not give the Minister pause in making the changes? Can he, in his response, share what guided his thinking?
Finally, I want to touch on some comments in The Independent about the rationale so the Minister can clarify. The newspaper said:
“Ministers are planning to make it more difficult for trafficking survivors to be released from detention as part of plans to prevent serious criminals from taking advantage of modern slavery safeguards by using them to prevent their removal from the country.”
Essentially, this is a misuse of a provision. Is that the case? If so, what consideration did the Home Office give to improving the existing process rather than closing it down? What consideration has the Home Office given to managing a definition of a foreign national offender that will likely include actions that victims of slavery or trafficking were forced to undertake? Many survivors of modern slavery are forced to commit criminal acts, such as pickpocketing, drug cultivation or even fraud, as part of their exploitation. In 2020, potential victims were most commonly referred to in the national referral mechanism for cases related to purely criminal exploitation, which accounted for 34% of all referrals. I would be grateful if the Minister could just clarify this point, because it would be a shame if the references to foreign national offenders were getting caught up with the issue, whereby many people who are subject to trafficking are forced into crime as part of their victimisation.
May I just repeat how grateful I am for this opportunity to raise these points with the Minister today? There are issues with the adults at risk policy. I know that it was only introduced in 2016, but I think that both the Minister and I wish to see improvements to our immigration policies, to ensure that loopholes are not exploited by those who do not deserve the right to exploit those loopholes. Equally, however, I know that the Minister, the Home Office, the Home Secretary and I are committed to a system that is compassionate and that has eyes on that individual who might otherwise be lost in a very bureaucratic system. I am therefore very grateful for the opportunity to put these points to the Minister today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray; I think for the first time, but I am confident not for the last.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for raising the matter in this afternoon’s debate. As he said, we will have the pleasure of discussing it twice in two days. He is an assiduous campaigner on these issues and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss them with him today, and, I am sure, on future occasions as well.
As a starting point, it is important to understand that the United Kingdom’s commitment to looking after victims or even potential victims of modern slavery is resolute. We enacted the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which has some very substantial protections for victims of modern slavery. We launched a modern slavery strategy back in 2014 and we are assiduous as a country in upholding our obligations under the ECAT treaty—the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings—to which my hon. Friend referred. Indeed, many more modern slavery claims are made and accepted in the UK than in comparable European countries; I think that we had around 10,000 last year, which was many times higher than in countries such as France and Germany. I think our record on identifying and protecting victims of modern slavery is second to none across Europe, which we can all be extremely proud of.
However, we should also be clear that someone being recognised as a victim of modern slavery does not and should not automatically result in their being given immigration status in the UK, or in their being exempted from immigration proceedings. There are protections granted by the modern slavery provisions. My hon. Friend mentioned the reflection and recovery period, which is 45 days. Of course, if there is a recovery need that can only be met by the person remaining, that is obviously respected as well. However, it does not follow that every single potential victim of modern slavery should be exempted from immigration proceedings or indeed from detention.
Therefore, it is very important that we have a proper way of weighing up the various considerations that come before decision makers: on the one hand, there are questions of vulnerability, or potential vulnerability; and on the other hand, there is the need to operate a proper immigration system. That is an important balance to strike. Both those things are important; we are not minimising the importance of either one of them.
It is worth observing that the reasonable grounds threshold for a modern slavery decision is, by design, extremely low. At the moment, it is set out as “suspects but cannot prove”, which is an extremely low threshold. We are looking to make adjustments to that, as set out in the policy statement a few weeks ago, consistent, of course, with our ECAT treaty obligations. However, once the reasonable grounds decision is made, that does not mean that the person involved is a victim of modern slavery. It means that there are reasons to suspect, but without proof, that they might be a victim of modern slavery, which is extremely important to bear in mind.
There has been some evidence recently—I am talking about the last 12 months in particular—that for some cohorts in particular, including some foreign national offenders, it appears that modern slavery claims are increasingly being used as a means of disrupting immigration proceedings. We need to be mindful of that, and mindful that we should do everything to protect genuine victims of modern slavery, many of whom will have suffered appalling trauma and mistreatment. It is in the spirit of achieving that balance that the changes we are discussing today and will discuss again tomorrow are being made.
The change that my hon. Friend outlined so eloquently, enshrined in the statutory instrument laid on 25 February this year and coming into force, if passed, in a few weeks’ time, to make the release decision in relation to people with a positive reasonable grounds decision if they might be a victim of modern slavery is inside the ambit of the existing adults at risk policy. That is not to say that their potential vulnerability will be ignored, but the issue will be considered in the round and a balancing exercise will be performed, as it is with other forms of vulnerability in the existing scope of the adults at risk policy to make sure that everything is being properly accounted for in the round.
Having done that exercise, release decisions might, and in many cases will, still be made. An adults at risk policy, as my hon. Friend said, was introduced in 2016. It has had time to bed in and is being continuously improved upon, but it has a well-defined grading scale—level 1, level 2, level 3—and the more serious the evidence of vulnerability or potential harm, some of which my hon. Friend laid out in his speech, the higher the balancing factors have to be in order not to release.
Viewing the matter in the round and considering everything is an appropriate thing to do. It is a balancing exercise that we are trying to achieve. The caseworker guidance that will be published in due course will address the specific situation of potential victims of modern slavery. My hon. Friend laid out some of the unique circumstances associated with them, and the caseworker guidance will take into account the particular vulnerabilities that my hon. Friend drew attention to in his speech.
I hope that gives some reassurance about the approach that will be taken. The detention decision making process will of course include an assessment of the individual’s recovery needs. That will ensure that detention is maintained where the balancing criteria are met, and also where those needs can be provided from within detention. If those needs cannot be met from within detention, that would obviously argue very strongly and persuasively, probably decisively, in favour of a release decision being made.
It is also worth saying by way of context—I know my hon. Friend has a wider interest in detention; we have discussed it on many occasions—that detention is used sparingly. At any one time, 95% of people who might be eligible for detention are in fact in the community. The numbers being detained are relatively small by historical standards. If I take the figure from 31 December 2019, before coronavirus, because coronavirus has caused the number to go down even further, there were 1,637 people in immigration detention, which is a pretty small number when we measure that against the number of people who probably do not have the right to be in the country.
The 1,637 number approximately halved in the two-year period preceding. From 30 September 2017 to 31 December 2019, the number of people in immigration detention roughly halved. The vast majority of people—we have debated this previously—are in detention for relatively short periods of time. Some 74% are detained for 28 days or less, so detention is not being used on a widespread, indiscriminate basis, but it is an essential component of running a proper immigration system. Where someone does not have the right to be here, or where they have committed a serious criminal offence and they are a foreign national, it is right that we take steps to remove them. Without having immigration detention available, it is extremely difficult to do that, so it is an important thing to be able to do.
As I have set out, we accept that modern slavery is a truly despicable crime. We take our responsibility to identify victims very seriously. We also take our responsibilities in using immigration detention very seriously as well. Our focus as we take forward these changes will be to make sure that the right balance is struck and that potential victims with genuine vulnerabilities are protected. We are determined not only to protect those vulnerable individuals, but to bring the perpetrators of modern slavery to justice. It is in that spirit that we have introduced the changes that will be debated in the main Chamber tomorrow.
Richard Fuller
I have a very small point. Will the Minister respond to specific questions that I asked and commit to reply in writing?
Chris Philp
Yes, I am happy to give that commitment.
Question put and agreed to.
Air Pollution: London
(2 years, 11 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
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must 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. Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery initially and move to the horseshoe when seats there become available. Members can speak from the horseshoe only where there are microphones.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered air pollution in London.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I am very grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on the incredibly important topic of air pollution in London.
No one can fail to be moved by the big, beautiful, beaming smile of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, whose life was so tragically taken at the age of just nine as a result of London’s poor air quality. I pay tribute to Ella’s mother Rosamund, who, in the face of such a personal tragedy, has campaigned relentlessly for the true cause of her daughter’s death to be recognised. The landmark verdict from the inquest recording the cause of death as air pollution has reverberated around the country and marks a silent public health crisis unfolding in the capital city and beyond. As a London resident and MP, but also as the mother of two young children, living close to Heathrow airport and half a mile from a busy dual carriageway on which several local schools and a college are located, I have a moral and personal duty to act. We must ensure that future generations do not die prematurely because of the air that they breathe.
The coroner in Ella’s inquest stated last week that
“there is no safe level for Particulate Matter”
and called for a change in the law. And this is what I am doing today: I am asking the Minister to commit to introducing Ella’s law, which would introduce legally binding limits on air pollution in the UK, in line with World Health Organisation guidelines. This call is supported by the Royal College of Physicians, the British Lung Foundation, Asthma UK, Friends of the Earth and many, many more.
The Conservative Government stated in 2019, when they published their clean air strategy, that
“exposure to the pollution still present in our atmosphere is one”
of
“the UK’s biggest public health challenges, shortening lifespans and damaging quality of life for many people.”
Yet robust action and commitment to tackle this silent killer has not followed.
This debate is focused on London, where a staggering 99% of the population live in areas where particulate matter exceeds WHO limits. Up to around 4,100 early deaths each year in London can be linked with air pollution. Central London is one of the most polluted places in the UK and is currently the main area failing to comply with the legally binding limits set by the EU, which the UK is committed to. Worryingly, research by the Environmental Defence Fund found air pollution to be on average 19% higher at inner-London primary schools than at those in outer London, exacerbating existing health inequalities—and we have seen the devastating impact of those inequalities during the pandemic.
Anyone can be affected by air pollution, increasing the risk of developing a lung or cardiovascular condition and even stunting lung growth in children, but air pollution can leave those with lung conditions, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, struggling to breathe and at risk of having potentially life-threatening attacks and flare-ups. Various studies suggest that it can increase the severity of covid-19 as well. About 500,000 people are estimated to live with COPD in London and about 120,000 live with asthma.
I am grateful to the House of Commons digital engagement team for seeking feedback from the public in recent days about the impact of air pollution on their lives. I thank the more than 700 respondents to the survey. I have some of the quotes that came back from London residents. Brendan said: “Air pollution has hospitalised two of my nephews and I am now very concerned about its impact on my very young daughter. Pollution along my street can feel choking when diesel vehicles are left idle there, and my own curtains are left blackened from the air that comes in through the gaps in my windows.”
Jenny said: “My son was born and grew up in Holloway, where his nursery was on a busy main road. He suffers from mild to moderate asthma, which sometimes causes him to have to stop physical activities and laughing too much, due to getting short of breath and a tight chest, which is sad to see in an 11-year-old.”
Karen said: “I live next to Heathrow airport, the most polluted area in the country. Most days, even sunny ones, I find it hard to breathe as I have asthma.”
That is why we need radical action, starting from the top, with national Government setting much more stringent air-quality targets and resourcing regional and local authorities to implement measures on the ground that will clean up our air.
At a London level, it would be churlish not to credit the Mayor of London for taking action on air quality during his time in office and improving levels of air pollution. The ultra low emission zone has cut nitrogen dioxide levels by 40%. However, it is fair to say that much more needs to be done, starting with scrapping plans for the Silvertown tunnel, which will only increase the number of vehicles on the road, driving up emissions. The approaches to the Blackwall tunnel have among the worst levels of air pollution in London. Shockingly, plans are not yet even in place to monitor particulate pollution around the proposed tunnel. The Liberal Democrat candidate for Mayor of London, Luisa Porritt, has stated that the Silvertown tunnel is the Mayor’s “dirty little secret”. If he is serious about improving London’s air quality, that proposal must be scrapped.
Just 4% of London’s buses are electric, with only 400 all-electric buses in service in a fleet of 9,000. We fall well behind other cities internationally. With Transport for London and the Department for Transport negotiating a long-term settlement, I urge the Government to push for commitments to increase take-up of electric buses in London.
At a local level, many councils have been seeking to build on the increase in walking and cycling and the reduction in car use during the pandemic, through improved active travel infrastructure, such as additional cycle lanes and school street schemes. Since the Liberal Democrats were elected to run Richmond Council in 2018, there has been a particular focus on cracking down on cars idling, especially near schools. The legislation on idling, however, is toothless and merely creates an offence not to comply with instructions from a traffic officer to stop idling—the idling itself is not an offence. Will the Minister look at how the law can be strengthened in this area?
I am also proud that Richmond Council has the highest number of electric vehicle charging points of any outer London borough. I am disappointed that Transport for London has stalled its programme to roll out more EV charging points.
For south-west and west London and neighbouring counties, a major source of air pollution is Heathrow. The airport has a significant impact on my constituency. While the Department for Transport has considered aviation pollution only within a two-kilometre radius of the airport, plenty of research suggests that ultra-fine particles sometimes travel far greater distances from airports, with a reach of 10 miles from airports elsewhere around the world. Furthermore, the surface transport to the airport is a major contributor to air pollution in the area.
Despite the heavily publicised announcement last week that aviation emissions will be counted towards the UK’s sixth carbon budget, the Conservative Government have made no moves to cancel their plan for a third runway at Heathrow airport or update their aviation national policy statement, which remains in favour of Heathrow expansion. If the Prime Minister is serious about air pollution and climate change, it is time for him to make good on his promise to scrap a third runway.
Although this debate has focused on London, I would like to briefly add some national context about the size of the problem. Air pollution contributes to diabetes, dementia and heart disease, and can even cause problems for children in the womb. Public Health England has estimated that the cost of air pollution to the NHS will be approximately £1.5 billion by 2025, and £5.1 billion by 2035. Research by Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation has found that over 8,500 schools and colleges are in places with levels of PM2.5 that are above World Health Organisation guidelines, yet an answer I received to a written question revealed that there were only three air quality monitoring sites in Birmingham, two in Manchester, and some 19 in London. Given that these are our biggest and most polluted cities, I would welcome feedback from the Minister on whether she thinks this level of monitoring is adequate.
The House of Commons digital engagement team also heard from residents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, who have also been very active on my Twitter feed in recent days, highlighting the impact of pollutants from Walleys Quarry, which have caused some to be violently sick and triggered asthma attacks two to three times a day for some children. Others in the north-east highlighted the impact of wood-burning stoves, and residents in the south-east raised the impact of Southampton airport. It is clear that we need national-level action on what is a national problem, and is felt acutely in London. Even this year, in a case that started before Brexit, the European Court of Justice found the Conservative Government to have systematically and persistently breached air pollution limits. As we are no longer bound by the EU’s air quality rules, we are likely to see even less accountability for their refusal to tackle this problem.
The Environment Bill provides the ideal opportunity for the Government to act and to introduce Ella’s law, yet the Conservatives have been so unambitious in merely stating that the Government will set themselves a PM2.5 target by 2022. They have said absolutely nothing about the level of ambition that this target will achieve, or whether it will be stronger than our previous target or provide adequate public health protection. The Bill has been delayed yet again, and even before this current delay, some 354 Conservative MPs voted against an amendment to introduce limits in line with WHO guidelines. As well as the potential health gains, there are economic gains to be had. The Confederation of British Industry has estimated that a £1.6 billion annual economic benefit to the UK could be realised by meeting WHO guidelines.
Targets and limits are not enough. They need to be accompanied by action and money to support cycling, walking, and public transport use, as well as greener vehicles. That is why, as part of an ambitious green economic recovery plan, the Liberal Democrats have proposed an £20 billion community clean air fund to boost new walking and cycling routes, new light rail and tram projects, expansion of bus routes, conversion of bus fleets to hydrogen, council-led clean air zones for congested towns and cities, and extra electric vehicle charging points. After a year, the coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated that public health should always be a priority for the Government, yet the Prime Minister continues to look past the fact that poor air quality is contributing to up to 40,000 premature deaths in the UK every year. We owe it to Ella and her family to take action now.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
I have worked out that if Back-Bench speeches are between five and six minutes, everybody should get in.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for having secured this incredibly important debate.
Prior to covid-19, polluted air was contributing to over 40,000 premature deaths in the UK every year. That is a truly shocking statistic, and the British Lung Foundation has previously stated that air pollution is the main environmental threat to public health in the UK. Despite this, under Sadiq Khan’s mayoralty, London has made progress on this issue. Between 2016 and 2019, there has been a 94% reduction in the number of Londoners living in areas exceeding the legal limit for nitrogen dioxide, and a 97% reduction in the number of state primary and secondary schools in areas exceeding the legal limit. This, in part, has been achieved by the rolling out of the ultra low emission zone, along with funding to clean up London’s taxi fleet and almost £53 million of grants to take older, more polluting vehicles off the roads, in hand with schemes to make walking and cycling safer and easier.
In addition, the school streets initiative, implemented to varying degrees across London since 2018, has also been a great success. Under the scheme, local authorities can put a temporary restriction on roads outside schools to turn them into a pedestrian and cycle zone during school drop-off and pick-up times. In one year alone, Lewisham Council created 26 school streets, with studies showing that they can reduce air pollution by up to 23%. Meanwhile, Bromley has managed to adopt only six streets as of September 2020. With no traffic camera enforcement, the scheme can easily be breached without punishment for offenders. There is inconsistency across the capital, often depending on the make-up and inclination of the local authority.
We must remember that children are particularly vulnerable to breathing polluted air and that those who grow up in polluted areas are four times more likely to have reduced lung function in adulthood. With this in mind, the school streets scheme should be rolled out across all of the capital, and boroughs should receive the necessary dedicated funding from central Government to ensure that it can be properly implemented and enforced.
While a lot of progress has been made in London since 2016, 99% of Londoners still live in areas exceeding the World Health Organisation recommended guidelines for fine particulate matter, otherwise known as PM2.5. These are pollutants that are 30 times smaller than the average human hair and can settle in our airways and get into the bloodstream. There is no safe level for this particulate matter and breathing it is one of the largest risk factors for an early death, with around 4 million people a year across the globe dying early from breathing it. In London, the figure is nearly 4,000 early deaths a year.
As the hon. Lady noted, one of these deaths was the heart-breaking case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. She lived near the south circular road in Lewisham, just outside my constituency, and was exposed to excessive levels of PM2.5 and nitrogen dioxide. In 2013, Ella died aged just nine, which is tragic. Tireless campaigning by her family led to the landmark ruling last December by Southwark Coroners Court that air pollution made a “material contribution” to Ella’s death. This was the first time that toxic air had been given as a cause of death in the UK. The coroner said in his ruling that Ella had been exposed to pollution principally from traffic emissions in excess of the World Health Organisation guidelines.
In his prevention of future deaths report, published last Wednesday, the coroner said:
“The evidence at the inquest was that there is no safe level for particulate matter and that the WHO guidelines should be seen as minimum requirements. Legally binding targets based on WHO guidelines would reduce the number of deaths from air pollution in the UK.”
We have already mentioned that in 2019 air pollution contributed to over 4,000 premature deaths. If we are to tackle this awful statistic, the Government must follow the recommendations set out by the coroner and set legally enforceable targets to bring PM2.5 below the harmful levels set by the WHO. We cannot wait any longer.
In October last year, I called on the Government put this in the Environment Bill. That was refused. At Committee stage, the Opposition also voted to amend the Bill to include this, but again the Government refused. Without proper targets enacted now, how can we expect to meaningfully reduce this threat? What will it take for the Government to finally listen and include these measures?
Air pollution is a silent crisis that has gone on for far too long, but it is currently being left to local authorities already on tight budgets to sort it out. Local government cannot tackle this on its own. This is a national problem that requires the Government to lead on it and provide the necessary support. I hope that today’s debate will highlight the seriousness and urgency of the issue and push the Government to make the concerted effort that is needed truly to tackle this public health emergency.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Mrs Murray, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing it, and thank her for doing so.
I want to speak about point source pollution and the need for comprehensive planning law that crosses boroughs to protect lives. Redeveloping sites, building new affordable homes and giving people places to live are good. We need more housing, but it is not always simple to make those sites habitable. We need new laws to protect the people who are already there, which may mean delaying or not redeveloping some sites, but it is for the good of everyone.
In air quality, there is a concept of total load. In London, that is already high The background or baseline level of air pollution that we suffer daily makes us more susceptible to local increases. In areas such as my constituency, polluting activities have been grandfathered in, and many of my constituents have not seen the air quality improvements that so many others have enjoyed. That is just one face of the systematic racism that black, Asian and minority ethnic people encounter; their health is so often sacrificed for the benefit, economic or otherwise, of others. Environmental justice means not letting that happen and not tolerating pockets of more polluted air because it is hoped that people in those diverse areas might complain less. Getting away with it is not justice. It is racism.
Many sites that companies such as Berkeley Group are so keen to redevelop are deeply contaminated with poisonous chemicals, so that even when they are redeveloped carefully, and even when there is proper monitoring, the total load is driven higher. While on the site itself limits might not be exceeded, people living around it will be exposed to dangerous levels of pollution and their lives will be put at risk. That happens today in my constituency and many others. PM10, mentioned earlier, and PM2.5— particulate measures for which there are really no safe limits—build up from traffic, the Southall gasworks redevelopment by Berkeley Group, the tarmac factory in the next constituency, smaller building sites and other businesses. While each of those factors may itself be within a safe limit, they combine to create a totally unsafe state.
Planning, therefore, has to cross borough boundaries and consider the other industries and activities in an area before permitting building and redevelopment. A modelling system that took all the different pollutants into account would still be unfit for purpose if it did not liaise across boundaries. That approach would mean delaying some redevelopments when one was already going on in the same area. More importantly, it would mean that some would never go ahead because the total load in the area was already too high. Environmental justice cannot be secured by the millions in need of it until the planning process puts the real lived experience of people at the heart of the system.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, and to attend this incredibly important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on calling it.
The problem of poor quality air is a source of major concern to the constituents of Richmond Park. The air pollution in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames exceeds the legal limits for nitrogen dioxide and PM10 levels. We know that the overwhelming contributor to poor air quality in Richmond is motor vehicles, and that we see the worst examples of exceedances along our major roads. In the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, more than 4,000 people live in areas where levels of nitrogen dioxide exceed legal levels.
In Richmond Park, we are all immensely fortunate to live in close proximity to the park and enjoy all the benefits of the extensive green space that it offers. However, the downside is the huge constraints it imposes on traffic movements, especially on the western and northern sides, where traffic is confined to a limited number of roads between the park and the river, and further constrained by the railway line and a large number of level crossings. The almost relentless congestion that ensues creates poor quality air for everybody. I am committed to supporting any measure that can address it.
I am really pleased that both local authorities, led by Liberal Democrats, are taking positive action on combating poor air quality. The main priority is to encourage people to reduce the number of car journeys they make by making alternatives safe and accessible. To that end, both councils have made significant investments in walking and cycling routes to make active travel a more attractive option for residents across Richmond Park. We already have fantastic routes across the park and by the river, and work is ongoing to make road cycling safer, such as through introducing 20 mph speed limits.
We need to see continued investment by the Mayor of London into bus routes and for bus travel to be affordable and accessible. That is why I opposed the Department for Transport’s attempts to force children and young people to pay for travel on public transport, which would have resulted in more young people being driven around by their parents. I encourage Transport for London to increase and extend bus routes, especially in the Barnes area, which has been so badly affected by the closure of Hammersmith bridge. The closure of the bridge is the main contributor to congestion in East Sheen and Barnes, greatly contributing to poor air quality in those neighbourhoods, and I take the opportunity again to call on the Government to come up with a funding solution for the repairs.
The Liberal Democrats’ excellent mayoral candidate Luisa Porritt has made clean air in London a cornerstone of her campaign, calling for new road pricing schemes and for rewilding our roofs and public spaces. I am pleased to say that we are already enacting similar schemes in Richmond and Kingston, introducing greater biodiversity into our verges and green spaces. There is no doubt that close proximity to Heathrow also plays its part in poor air quality in west London. The Government must make a clear statement that further expansion of Heathrow cannot be permitted to go ahead both because of the impact of increased poor air quality on the communities that surround the airport and because expansion cannot be compatible with the Government’s net zero targets.
It was highlighted to me when I spoke to officers at the local councils about the challenges of combating air pollution locally that what local authorities really need is the power to create clean air zones that would put greater restrictions on activities such as using wood-burning stoves or driving polluting vehicles. What is needed is a new clean air Act. Think about how transformational the Clean Air Act 1956 was and the difference it made to London’s air. Within a few years, the type of pea-souper smog that killed as many as 4,000 people in its worst incarnation, in 1952, was virtually eliminated. There is no doubt that modern pollutants and those smogs of 70 years ago represent an equivalent risk to human health, as the case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah so tragically illustrates. We need to take the same approach today, prioritise clean air and take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that we can all breathe freely.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this hugely important debate. It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). We share many of the same concerns, having a similar type of air quality in our areas.
Air pollution is also one of the biggest health challenges for my constituents in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields. It is the issue raised most frequently with me on the doorstep. Just last week, a resident showed me her stairs: she has painted them white, but she showed me how black they get, constantly, because of the air pollution coming through her door. If we could see that air pollution, I think we would take this far more seriously. It is the silent killer.
One of the first things I did after being elected was to establish the Putney Environment Commission, bringing together local residents and stakeholders to develop solutions to poor air quality, which is one of the main issues raised by all the Members. Putney High Street is frequently ranked among the worst-polluted streets in the UK. I am saddened to know that I walked my children to the local primary school in Wandsworth every day for 15 years without realising the damage that I was doing to their lungs. King’s College London research shows that children’s lungs are stunted by up to the size of an apple by the age of 10, which cannot be repaired; it is permanent damage. In London, 9,400 premature deaths a year are attributed to poor air quality. This is a health crisis. Road vehicles account for half of this pollution, but cooking and heating with domestic gas accounts for 14%. It is a social justice issue too, with many of the poorest residents living on the highly toxic, most-affected roads but not having cars themselves.
What are some of the solutions? First, we need more measurement of pollution. What gets counted counts. We need more monitors to measure pollution levels in far more places. The whole Borough of Wandsworth has only seven continuous monitoring stations. We need far more. Secondly, we need to stop the plans for Heathrow’s third runway. We cannot look the health crisis in the face and continue the plans for that third runway, which will result in millions of tonnes of carbon dumped across London.
Thirdly, do not give up on the green homes grant. I hope we will hear from the Minister about the replacement for that grant, which was scrapped only a few weeks ago. There needs to be an easy incentive for homeowners to insulate and switch to green energy, developed in conjunction with mortgage providers, because there needs to be financing for this; with the building industry, so that builders can deliver it; and with education providers, so that they can train people to perform green jobs. We need that not only for social housing; I would like to hear from the Minister how the green homes grant will be replicated for private homeowners and commercial buildings.
Fourthly, we need to decrease vehicles on our roads and increase cycling, with more safe storage—we need more cycle hangars. Wandsworth Council installed only 21 new bike hangars last year, out of a total of 60 across the whole borough. It is just not enough. We also need safe cycle routes. During his first term in office, the Mayor has overseen record-breaking growth in London’s cycle network, which has been fantastic to see and to join in on myself and with my children. He has delivered 260 km of high-quality, safer cycle routes. We need to do more, but we are seeing the results, with the number of people cycling increasing dramatically in the past year.
Fifthly, we need more school streets. They really work in encouraging parents to stop driving, or to drive to a different area, increasing safety on our roads for our children. I congratulate Albemarle, Our Lady of Victories and Granard primary schools in my constituency on their successful school streets, where everyone takes part.
Sixthly, green buses are another excellent example of delivering on policy to cut pollution. The low-emission bus zone, which goes along Putney High Street, for instance, introduced by the London Mayor and the London Assembly in 2017 has reduced the nitrogen oxide pollution on the High Street by 87%—a dramatic reduction. We need more of those green buses.
Seventhly, the extended journeys caused by the closure of Hammersmith bridge have increased pollution dramatically across Putney. I hope to hear from the Minister about when the Government will agree funding for its repair.
The Mayor has committed to 80% of all journeys by 2041 being walked, cycled or made via public transport, while also putting in place a zero-emission bus fleet by 2037. He has also committed to making London a zero- carbon city by 2030—faster than any comparable city. Thanks to this bold work, toxic air in central London has reduced by 44%, and 94% fewer Londoners are living in areas that exceed the legal limit for nitrogen dioxide.
With full support, these levels can come down, so we need to see more work from the Government. The Environment Bill, for example, should include a legally binding commitment to meet World Health Organisation guideline levels for fine particulate matter pollution by 2030 at the very latest. I have spoken to the Minister about that, having been on the Bill Committee with her, so she knows that I am calling for it. It is not too late, but the Bill has been massively delayed. When will it be passed? When it is, let us see that air pollution target in it, and let us see the difference that it can make.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope that she can assure colleagues that London will get the resources that it needs to continue to tackle the deadly scourge of air pollution and build on the progress that has been made in the past four years.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Air pollution recalls images of 1950s smog, or even of far eastern cities where people were into wearing masks long before we were, but this silent killer is still very much with us, accounting for some 9,500 deaths per annum in the capital alone. Thanks to the tireless campaign of the family of the late Ella Kissi-Debrah, air pollution has been attributed for the first time ever on a death certificate.
How do we reverse the UK’s long-standing, illegally high air pollution? First, we should stop Heathrow expansion. It is incompatible with the UK’s net zero targets. Why add to what is already Europe’s biggest CO2 emitter, which is doing enormous damage to my constituency and to that of my near neighbour the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) through air and noise pollution? We know that in the new normal we will do things differently, and Zoom works for business meetings, so why not save those air flights for sparingly used leisure travel? The expansion of Charles de Gaulle airport in France has been stopped; we should do the same.
Secondly, we should stop new road building. It induces demand. Thirdly, we should stop lying to the public—remember the VW emissions scandal, and what the people who bought diesel cars were told, among other examples. Fourthly, the cycle to work scheme needs an overhaul to include larger firms and to be a genuine incentive, not just a faff. Children should be included, too.
Fifthly, we need more proper, dedicated, segregated, permanent cycle lanes, not the pop-up things that come and go and do not join up to anything else. Sixthly, we should re-examine low-traffic neighbourhoods, recognising that all streets matter. My borough has loads of them—they appear seemingly every day. This weekend there was a march against them; the police say that there were 2,500 people there, and others have estimates either side of that. That just shows the danger of having no pre-implementation consultation on very dramatic changes to people’s lives. In our borough, every street is residential. Cutting off direct access to every side street and to the ladder-type roads that join them means that all the cumulative traffic goes on to main roads. People there already suffered with unacceptably high air pollution; now they are living in permanent traffic jams.
Covid has highlighted health inequality, and we can see air quality as a social justice issue as well. Opening windows in extreme heat should not be harmful to our health, as we have seen in the last year—especially when the public health advice is to ventilate. There needs to be consistency in the consultation. My borough is still unclear about how it will be evaluated whether it works. It is also unclear whether people who live in a zone can go the most direct way to their own property by car: in the Hounslow bit of Chiswick they can, but they are also popular in Ealing, where the opposite applies.
Seventhly, we need free public transport. My late parents were a two-car household; it was freedom passes that did away with that. Eighthly, we need more high-speed rail; I have to say that I have issues with the HS2 company itself, but let us not get into that—it is a debate for another day. Ninthly, we need more taxation on big businesses that are heavy road users and use air freight. I am thinking of companies such as Amazon, which pay less tax than you and I do as it is, Mrs Murray. Tenthly, as Bob Dylan did, let’s go electric and encourage people to do the same with home heating, cooking, cars and all those things.
Good things are happening; I do not want to be too negative. We have seen e-scooter trials—I think they are being rolled out all over the capital—in the hon. Member for Twickenham’s borough and in mine. I feel like calling the hon. Lady a friend even though we are in different parties, along with everyone else who has spoken in the debate—they are all friends—and it is funny how there is no one from the Conservative side in the debate, apart from the Minister, who is obliged to be here. Other good things are happening. Where London leads, everyone else follows. I know they are doing city-centre charging in Bath, Birmingham, Newcastle and Oxford, in loads of places. Again, London has set the template there.
We have seen over this past year that people are prepared to make behavioural change in the face of a crisis, but we need to be proportionate and realistic with such changes. Another big figure from the last year is George Floyd. Let us not forget that his last words were, “I can’t breathe,” which also alludes to air quality issues. Let us not let his killing and Ella’s death have been in vain. It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. In London, the greatest city on earth, clean air should be a right not a privilege.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is pleasure to serve under you today, Mrs Murray. It is also very good to see the Minister for the third time today as we discuss issues of real importance to our planet and the environment. I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this important and timely debate. Indeed, I thank all those who contributed and provided such thought-provoking contributions to today’s excellent debate.
Air quality is one of the most important policy areas in the Minister’s inbox and one of the most important issues facing all our constituents the nation over. The facts are there for us all to see and they show just how damaging toxic air is to our communities and its disproportionate impact on the health and wellbeing of our people. Covid-19 has highlighted these inequalities and has again disproportionately impacted those living in areas with the worst air pollution. I have said it before and I will say it again: the Government are weak on tackling toxic air and weak on the causes of toxic air.
Air pollution is bad for everyone, but for the 12 million people in the UK who live with a lung condition such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, it poses a real and immediate threat to health. A spike in air pollution levels can lead to symptoms getting worse, flare-ups and even the risk of hospitalisation. We now know from the coroner last week that it leads to death, too. There is robust evidence of a clear link between the high levels of air pollution and increased numbers of patients with breathing problems presenting at hospitals and GP surgeries.
As I said, air pollution can worsen existing health inequalities and people living in the poorest areas are often the most exposed, reinforcing unequal health outcomes for deprived communities. It can also contribute to health inequalities later in life. Children living in highly polluted areas are four times more likely to have reduced lung function in adulthood and my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson) have highlighted this eloquently today.
If you do not mind people marking their own homework, you will be satisfied with the UK currently meeting the legal limit for PM2.5. However, this is only because our legal limit is more lenient than a limit recommended by the international health community. The UK legal limit for PM2.5 is more than twice as high as the World Health Organisation recommendation. Scientists have not been able to identify a level of PM2.5 that is harmless to breathe, so we need the strongest possible action, much of which was reflected in our amendments to the Environment Bill—amendments that were voted down.
It will be no surprise to you, Mrs Murray, or to the Minister that Labour takes air quality matters seriously. We can see that in the leadership shown by the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, who has worked so hard to deliver real results since he was elected in 2016. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for giving him that credit. Indeed, air pollution in London has plunged since he became mayor in 2016, with a 94% reduction in the number of people living in areas with illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide. The number of schools in such areas has fallen by 97% from 455 in 2016 to 14 in 2019. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) and for Putney for highlighting that fact.
Last month, the Labour party held a clean air summit—the first of its kind to be hosted by a major party—and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and I set out our demands for a clean air Act. Labour’s clean air Act would establish a legal right to breathe clean air by ensuring the law on air quality was at least as strict as the WHO guidelines, with tough new duties on Ministers to enforce them and grant new powers to local authorities to take urgent action on air quality—powers that councils across London need, and need now.
It is not just me expressing concern at the Government’s inaction as that concern is felt by members of the Minister’s party. I welcome the recent report produced by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). The Committee said that the Government need to increase their urgency and ambition on objectives for air quality, and the Chairman said:
“The problem will only get worse if the Government ignores the extent and urgency of this health crisis. Its disappointing response ignores the most important recommendations set out in our report, but we hope that the Environment Bill will still be amended to set more stringent targets for tackling pollutants.”
I could not agree more, and I encourage the Minister to join the Chair of the Select Committee in getting behind Labour’s demand to write the WHO guidelines into law.
All colleagues will know of the devastating way in which toxic air played a part in the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah in 2013. Once again, we send our thoughts and prayers to her family, particularly her mum, Rosamund, and all those close to her. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for her animated speech highlighting the plight of Ella.
In December 2020, the coroner ruled that Ella had died as a direct result of air pollution. Indeed, he said that he believed air pollution made a material contribution to Ella’s death. We can do something about this if we want to, so may I invite the Minister to work with me and Labour colleagues and with Members across the House to make the Environment Bill fit for purpose by writing the WHO guidelines into law? I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Twickenham and others across the House to deliver Labour’s clean air Act, and the Minister is more than welcome to join us. The future of our planet and the lives of Londoners depend on it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I thank all hon. Members for taking part in the debate and thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing it. Like her, I have a great interest in the issue, as do all of us who have spoken today. We know that air pollution is the single greatest environmental risk to human health. Although air pollution has reduced since 2010—there is no doubt about that—there is a lot more to do. That is why we have a clear ambition and policy agenda to improve air quality, backed up with significant investment.
The hon. Lady made many points about how to tackle air pollution and the issue of air quality, but it seemed quite clear that she is perhaps not aware of how much is going on and how much the Government are putting in place, backed by funding. We are taking this matter extremely seriously, which I hope to make clear in the debate. Of course, we never accept that there is not more to do. On that issue, many of the measures being introduced in the hon. Lady’s constituency come from funds that the Government have set up and allocated, particularly to local authorities. We should recognise that.
I want to refer early in my speech to the case of Ella Kissi-Debrah. We have all referred to it and we are all aware that the prevention of future deaths report was published last week. We will be considering it extremely carefully, looking at the recommendations and responding in due course. As ever, my thoughts and all our thoughts are with the family. We referred to that this morning in our debate.
I have met with Ella’s mum and really value her views and comments, and ideas that we can work on together. To be honest, the inquest was a horribly stark reminder of the impact that air quality can have on our families. It brought the issue right to our back door. I have a son who had chronic asthma as a child, and eczema—they are all related—so it is something I am aware of. I will cover the target setting a bit later, but I want to stress that we will put health centre stage and there will be a strong focus on people’s exposure to pollution, in particular the more vulnerable. That matter was referenced especially by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma).
I was interested in the responses to the digital engagement survey as well, and I have met many of the health charities to which the hon. Member for Twickenham referred—the British Lung Foundation, the British Heart Foundation and Asthma UK. We are working with all of them to ensure we get things right.
I will now turn to London, because the debate is about London. I am aware of the air quality issue not only in our capital city, but in other cities and towns across the country. We can all agree that London is a large and vibrant city that faces its own unique challenges in tackling air pollution. However, our programme of action will improve air quality here in London, as it will elsewhere.
It is important to highlight that the Mayor of London is responsible for air quality in the capital. He has received funding from central Government to implement measures to improve air quality as part of the 2015 £5 billion transport funding settlement. In addition, London has received further funding for specific projects totalling almost £102 million, including more than £10 million in 2019 to clean up London’s buses, and £530 million has been available for plug-in grants up to 2023, as well as favourable benefit-in-kind tax rates for zero emissions.
The hon. Member for Twickenham raised the issue of clean buses. I think she will agree that an awful lot is being done about clean buses and that there is much funding. She also mentioned the issue of engine idling, which we discussed a lot when I was a Back Bencher, but local authorities have powers to tackle engine idling and should use them. The hon. Lady and other Members might be interested to hear that we announced two electric bus terminals back in January, which were Coventry and Oxford, so we will all be looking at how they work and whether we can learn lessons from them.
The expanded ultra low emission zone in London is being introduced by the Mayor of London in line with his responsibility to tackle air pollution. His responsibility —just as with the Government—means that he has to put the necessary measures in place to bring London into compliance with the legal limits for air quality as soon as possible. That is why, obviously, he is introducing that whole raft of measures. For a number of schemes, we will provide support for the cost of upgrading to nitrogen oxides or NOx-compliant vehicles.
The hon. Member for Twickenham touched on monitoring. I think she asked why there had not been more of an increase in better monitoring. Indeed, there is a great deal of monitoring. We are working with our expert air quality group on how to evolve monitoring, to keep looking at it so that we meet the needs that will align with our new targets, which we are setting in the Environment Bill. In oral evidence, Professor Alastair Lewis, a great expert on this, stated that it is really important that we give due consideration to ensure that the network is fit for purpose, alongside setting the new targets—the monitoring must make sure that we are held to account on our new targets.
I want to touch on the clean air strategy, the Environment Bill and some of the wider air quality issues at the national level, which are also relevant to London. We published our clean air strategy, which the World Health Organisation welcomed as an example for the rest of the world to follow. People keep knocking it, but the World Health Organisation has itself held the strategy up and said, “This is a great document.” The strategy aims to cut air pollution and to save lives. It focuses on emissions beyond road transport, setting out the comprehensive action required by all parts of Government and society to reduce air pollution and the impacts on public health.
We have made progress in reducing pollution from several sources, such as, and more particularly, reducing industrial pollution. We have a clear pipeline of action to continue reducing emissions to improve air quality for all, including by controlling emissions from domestic burning, establishing new air quality targets and tackling emissions of ammonia, which come from agriculture.
I want to touch on domestic burning, because it is a major source of pollution, which includes the fine particulate matter that is identified as the most harmful pollutant to human health. New legislation restricting the sale of the most polluting fuels used in domestic burning comes into force on 1 May 2021—very soon. It will restrict the sale of traditional house coal and small volumes of wet wood and high-sulphur manufactured solid fuels. This was a key commitment in the clean air strategy and it will also make a difference in places such as London, where so many people now have log-burners.
Our landmark Environment Bill delivers other key aspects of the strategy. Of course it is progressing through Parliament and it will be back soon; we expect it to receive Royal Assent in the autumn. Let us just look at the targets first. The Bill introduces a duty on Government to set a legally binding target for fine particulate matter, demonstrating our commitment to take action on this pollutant, and it also includes a duty to set at least one additional long-term target for air quality, which shows further commitment.
The long-term target will work alongside the concentration target to reduce the public’s exposure to PM2.5 across all parts of the country, including London—that is how many people in a given area are subject to a particular amount of PM. I think it will be a really important target for tackling more specific areas. The dual target is supported by experts and we will ensure that action is taken, using it to help the public health issues. Those issues have all been mentioned by hon. Members who contributed today, for which I thank them. The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), the hon. Member for Twickenham, of course, and the shadow Minister all touched on this issue of the targets.
Rebecca Pow
I only have a few minutes left, so I really want to press on, because I also want to mention other things alongside the targets in the Bill. There is some significant change for local authorities. The Bill will ensure that they have more effective powers and a clear framework for tackling air pollution in their areas. That includes updating the current smoke control area framework, to make it easier for local authorities to enforce by making smoke emissions in their areas subject to a civil regime rather than a criminal regime. They will be able to police much more carefully what is going on with fuel burning.
We are also introducing the concept of air quality partners, who will be required to work with local authorities to develop collaborative action plans to reduce pollution levels where they are above required standards. We have already held a call for evidence on this, regarding which public bodies should be designated as relevant public authorities, which would then become air quality partners. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall touched on this issue regarding new developments; I think that this is exactly what he is calling for and it will be very helpful—[Interruption.] I think Madam Chairman is asking me to wind up my speech.
We have so many other funds that are committed through our NO2 plan—£3.8 billion, with £880 million to support local authorities, which is very important, and we are updating the local authority framework for that. Also, we have myriad funds for transforming cities, for green buses, and for cycling and walking, which so many people touched on. We aim to double cycling and walking by 2030, so we have massive ambition in that regard.
I cannot comment further on Heathrow, which was mentioned by many Members, but we will have to abide by all of our air quality obligations in whatever we do.
I will close now and sum things up by thanking everyone for raising these issues. I think we all agree that health is absolutely crucial and that we have to tackle this air pollution issue, but I hope that I have set out clearly that we have the measures in place to do that.
Munira Wilson
I thank all the hon. Members who participated so thoughtfully in this debate. I think that there was unanimity in the Chamber about the need for urgent action, and the Minister has been given a very strong message for her Department for Transport colleagues from several Members here about Heathrow expansion, about the step change that we need on public transport—I appreciate she said that measures are being taken, but we need to go much further—and indeed about Hammersmith bridge, the message on which came from both my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). I thank the hon. Member for Putney for raising the important issue of domestic fuel and heating, and for expressing the disappointment about the scrapping of the green homes grant.
However, there is also unanimity—certainly on the Liberal Democrat and Labour Benches—for a clean air Act or Ella’s law. That needs to be implemented and it also needs an independent environmental regulator with teeth to implement it.
On the point about not legislating for WHO guidelines on air pollution, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said, when he was the Environment Secretary:
“We have got to ensure our Environment Bill includes a legally binding commitment on particulate matter so that no part of the country exceeds the levels recommended by the WHO”.
I ask again: if the Government are so committed to tackling air pollution, as the Minister has made out this afternoon, why will they not commit themselves to legally binding targets that can be implemented?
Written Statements
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
GOV.UK Verify: Digital Identity Assurance
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
I would like to update the House on the GOV.UK Verify programme and the development of a new cross-Government single sign-on and digital identity assurance pilot. This update follows the written statement in April 2020 made by my colleague the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove).
Building on our experiences of Verify, and as we announced in last year’s spending review, the Government Digital Service is collaborating with other Departments to develop the first phase of a new system that will make it easier for people to access Government services online. This will enable people to find and access Government services more quickly, allow citizens to prove their identity only once—without needing to re-enter information multiple times—and protect people’s privacy throughout.
People rightly expect from the Government a personalised, seamless and intuitive online service of the kind they get from their favourite online retailers. This pilot is an important step in that direction. Work is well underway and we have started the co-design with services and Departments across Government.
While this new system is being developed, many users and connected Government services continue to rely on GOV.UK Verify, as has been the case during the pandemic. The Government have therefore decided to extend the current Verify service, enabling new users to sign up until April 2022 and existing users to sign in until April 2023. During this time the Government will continue to update the House on the progress of our pilot.
[HCWS94]
Schools Condition Funding
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Today, I am confirming £1.8 billion of capital funding allocations for financial year 2021-22 to maintain and improve the condition of the school estate in England, as announced at the spending review.
This funding is provided to ensure schools have well maintained facilities to provide students with safe environments that support high-quality education. This funding represents an increase of over 20% on last year’s annual allocations and supports the Government’s priority of ensuring that every child has the opportunity of a place at a good school, whatever their background.
For the financial year 2021-22, this funding includes:
£1.1 billion in school condition allocations for local authorities, large multi-academy trusts, academy sponsors, and dioceses, and other large voluntary aided school groups, to invest in maintaining and improving the condition of their schools.
£0.5 billion available through the condition improvement fund programme for essential maintenance projects at small and stand-alone academy trusts, voluntary aided schools and sixth-form colleges.
£0.2 billion of devolved formula capital allocated directly for schools to spend on capital projects to meet their own priorities.
Figures have been rounded to one decimal place. Full details of the allocations including the funding methodology for financial year 2021-22 have been published on the Department for Education section on the gov.uk website.
[HCWS944]
Whiplash Reform Programme
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
On 26 April 2021, my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, QC) made the following written statement.
The Government remain firmly committed to the implementation on 31 May 2021 of the necessary and proportionate measures to control the number and cost of claims for whiplash, as set out in part 1 of the Civil Liability Act 2018. It also intends to implement on 31 May the associated increase, from £1,000 to £5,000 to the small claims track limit for road traffic accident (RTA) related personal injury claims.
The Government had previously considered an increase, from £1,000 to £2,000, to the small claims track limit for all other types of personal injury claims, including employers and public liability claims. However, having considered the views of a number of stakeholders, including from a wide range of representatives from across the insurance industry and the personal injury and trade union sectors, the Government have decided to both limit the proposed increase in the small claims limit for all other personal injury claims to £1,500 instead of £2,000 and to defer the implementation of this measure until April 2022.
Delivering this reform remains a key Government priority but we believe that a more modest increase in the small claims track limit for non-RTA related claims is justified. Pausing its implementation for 12 months will enable greater focus to be placed on the commencement of the whiplash reforms and the launch of the new official injury claim service for claimants on 31 May 2021. This decision will also provide affected stakeholders additional time to prepare for the increase in April next year.
[HCWS943]
General Aviation in the UK
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
General Aviation (GA) is often referred to as the “grassroots" of aviation and is the bedrock to our successful and world-leading aviation sector.
It is worth nearly £4 billion to the UK economy, supporting nearly 40,000 jobs. The hundreds of aerodromes up and down the country form an important part of the nation’s transport infrastructure.
General aviation provides the entry point for careers in aviation and is fundamental to inspiring the next generation of aviation professionals. It supports vital services from law enforcement to life-saving airborne medical and search and rescue teams, and provides future pilots, engineers and other highly skilled professionals a first glimpse of a potential career in aviation.
Therefore, it is only right that the Government’s vision is for the UK to be the best place in the world for general aviation as a flourishing, wealth generating and job-producing sector of the economy. Our ambitions remain high and we have set out our priorities and how we can achieve these in the Government’s GA roadmap which I am pleased to announce. The roadmap sets out our vision and strategic priorities for the sector, alongside our ambitious programme of work that will help us to deliver this. We will work alongside the CAA and our GA stakeholders to achieve these ambitions.
The GA roadmap is available online at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/980399/general-aviation-roadmap-spring-2021.pdf
I also wish to set out the Government’s view that it is clear from the success of our aviation sector that there is a national need to protect and enhance our strategic network of GA airfields—to ensure they continue to prosper and drive the economic growth this country needs and to support levelling up right across the country.
Airfields offer potential for highly skilled, dynamic and innovative businesses to grow and flourish—for manufacturing and maintenance of aircraft, aviation services, and for research and innovation.
At the heart of these efforts, we will work with airfields to strengthen their economic and strategic value both locally, regionally and nationally by supporting their development, and promoting mixed-use where there are benefits from offering their unique infrastructure to the wider community including for business, education, cultural and recreational activities. There are already several airfields within the UK which share their infrastructure with a wide range of industries, as well as providing vital services to other Government services. These airfields and many more are not just important to their local economies, but also critical to the success of the aviation sector.
General aviation will also play a crucial part in our Government’s focus on innovation and decarbonisation. Trialling, testing and rolling out the next generation of zero emission technologies within general aviation will support their development and pave the way for their wider adoption in larger commercial-scale operations—supporting decarbonisation of the wider sector and economy. This will help us reach our net zero target by 2050.
More widely, many aerodromes have been affiliated with operations during world wars one and two and have since hosted heritage assets through the form of museums or have become designated historical sites. It is important these sites, which are so important to our heritage, are able to thrive and grow to be enjoyed and appreciated by generations to come.
Our aviation heritage is rich, deep and rightly a source of great national pride. Looking forward, the Government’s vision is for the UK to be the best place in the world for general aviation as a flourishing, wealth generating and job-producing sector of the economy.
[HCWS941]