House of Commons

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 28 April 2021

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).

[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

What recent assessment he has made of the strength of the Union.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

We can assess the strength of the Union every day, as we see the number of people vaccinated across the country continue to rise, as we see the number of jobs we have protected and as we see our vital, ambitious plans to rebuild our economy. I am surprised the hon. Gentleman is asking about recent assessments, because the one thing we learned this week is that his boss, Nicola Sturgeon, has made no recent assessment of her plan to rip Scotland out of the United Kingdom and the damage that would cause.

[Stuart C. McDonald [V]]

If the Secretary of State is so confident in the Union, why is he stopping the Prime Minister coming to Scotland to campaign for it? Have the dubious donations for renovations made that impossible? The contracts for contacts? The disgraceful comments about bodies piling high? Or is it simply that the Prime Minister represents a fundamental problem for Scotland being in the Union, with year after year of Prime Ministers, parties and policies that Scotland would not vote for in a million years?

[Mr Jack]

In all the conversations I have had with the Prime Minister—and I have them on a weekly basis, in person, one to one, by telephone—his passion for the United Kingdom and the strength of the United Kingdom burns brightly.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]]

As of yesterday, 61.3% of Scots aged 16 or over have received at least one dose of covid vaccine, compared with just 24.3% of people aged 18 or over who have received a vaccine in the European Union. Does the Secretary of State agree that the outstanding efforts of our NHS staff, our British armed forces and our vaccination volunteers have been possible here in Scotland only because of the success of the UK vaccination programme, and that Nicola Sturgeon’s claims that, somehow, an independent Scotland within the EU would have done it differently are complete rubbish?

[Mr Jack]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Just once, on something as important as live-saving vaccines, it would be nice to see the First Minister congratulate the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom Government on our highly successful UK-wide vaccine procurement programme.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, I hope you will allow me to pay tribute to everyone who is commemorating on International Workers’ Memorial Day today, and also to wish the Secretary of State a very happy Ed Balls Day, which is also today.

On “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday, the First Minister admitted that there has been no analysis done on the impact of separation on incomes—that is wages, livelihoods and, of course, pensions. It follows a long list during this election campaign where the SNP has avoided answering questions on currency, EU accession, jobs, deficit, debt, public spending, the parallels with Brexit and, of course, the spectacle of senior SNP MSPs saying last week that a border with England would be “desirable” because it would create jobs—a rare honest admission about a border with our largest trading partner. For two days in a row, respected think-tanks have warned that leaving the UK and giving up our share of UK resources means supercharged austerity.

Surely one of the strongest positive cases for the Union is the reality of separation. If proponents of separation continue to refuse to answer critical questions that fundamentally impact on people’s livelihoods, incomes and futures, what can be done to inject some much-needed honesty, integrity and truth into this debate, for the benefit of all Scots?

[Mr Jack]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that independence would have a whole series of negative consequences for the people of Scotland, not just on their pensions and benefits but on currency, border issues and armed services. The list is endless. There has been no assessment of those things, as I said earlier.

This is the time when we should be coming together for covid recovery and to rebuild our economy, not even considering an irresponsible independence referendum. I would very much welcome it if the Labour party, and the other political parties, showed a willingness to come together to work on how we can strengthen our Union.

[Ian Murray]

Anas Sarwar has said throughout this campaign that we need to unite the country to deal with this global pandemic.

Talking of honesty, integrity and truth, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister for his “let the bodies pile high” comment, when so many have lost loved ones due to covid? There have been more than 800 deaths in my city of Edinburgh alone. While he is apologising, perhaps he can tell us, if the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, who funded the refurbishment of the Downing Street flat. Does he think the endemic sleaze in his Government, with continual questions about the personal conduct and integrity of the PM, strengthens or weakens the Union?

[Mr Jack]

What I would say on the bodies remark is that in every conversation I have had with the Prime Minister in the past year his desire, at all levels, has been to save lives and protect the NHS; we have had many conversations, in Cabinet Committees, in Cabinet and in private, and I have no recollection of him being anything other than totally focused on saving lives and protecting the NHS. He has been entirely focused on this pandemic all the way through. He has not been distracted, as others have, for example, the nationalists, with Nicola Sturgeon admitting that she took her eye off the ball. He has not taken his eye off the ball. He has been focused on the pandemic. He has tackled vaccines and the programme, and he now wants to lead our economic recovery. Those are the things we should hold him to account for; those are the things that strengthen the United Kingdom.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) [V]]

There has been much reckless chat from Scottish National party politicians about creating a hard border between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. My constituents in the Scottish Borders want to see the threat of a border—and the threat of another referendum—removed. Does the Minister agree that the voters of Scotland have an opportunity to remove that threat next week in the Scottish elections by depriving the SNP of a majority and that the best way of doing that is by voting Scottish Conservative?

[Mr Speaker]

Bit of a toughie.

[Mr Jack]

You will not be surprised to hear, Mr Speaker, that I do agree with my hon. Friend. I note with astonishment the comments of the South Scotland MSP Emma Harper that a border would be a good way of creating jobs, despite the fact that 60% of our trade is with the rest of the UK. All I would say is that if the SNP thinks that a border is such a good idea for jobs, I am surprised it does not want to go the whole hog and propose building a wall.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) [V]]

Particularly as we rebuild after covid, we have an opportunity and a need to make radically different economic choices. After a week of troublesome allegations about the Government and the Prime Minister, it should be no surprise that many in Scotland want to take a different, independent path to that of this Government. If that request is reflected in the upcoming Scottish Government elections and a majority of pro-independence MSPs are elected, will the Minister and his Government respect that as a mandate for a second independence referendum?

[Mr Jack]

First, let us not take the outcome of the election for granted at this stage. Let us recognise that the focus for Scotland must be on pandemic recovery. We have saved lives through the vaccine procurement, and it is now time to save livelihoods and to rebuild as one United Kingdom.

[Mhairi Black]

I did not hear an answer to my question there. The leader of the Scottish Conservatives was asked multiple times on recent media, “What would be the democratic path for Scotland to an independence referendum?” He could not answer the question, so can the Minister tell us what the path is?

[Mr Jack]

I say to the hon. Lady that in 2014 there was a referendum; it had been many years since the question had been asked, and that was with the consent of both Scotland’s Governments and all the main political parties. I am glad to say that in Scotland people shared my opinion in 2014 and consented to continue being members of the UK.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]]

There is only one sure-fire way for the Union to be strengthened in the next week and that is to get the Prime Minister to Scotland and on the campaign trail. The Secretary of State surely knows that there will be throngs of happy Scots rejoicing in the Prime Minister’s sleaze-free presence, helping the Electoral Commission with its inquiries and sharing anecdotes about bodies piled high on the streets—what could possibly go wrong for the Scottish Tories? Can the Secretary of State and I start working on the itinerary? Surely Scotland deserves to see its Prime Minister before he inevitably has to resign.

[Mr Jack]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Prime Minister’s diary is not my concern, and he certainly will not be resigning. I come back to the point I made earlier: in all my discussions with him, his passion for strengthening the UK burns very bright indeed.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

What recent assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of trialling a universal basic income in Scotland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)]

The UK Government’s approach to welfare is to recognise the value and importance of work, make work pay and support people into work, while giving extra help to the most vulnerable in society. On that basis, we consider that a universal basic income is fundamentally the wrong approach.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I know that he is committed to devolution and the respect agenda and would want to take very seriously the outcome of the election result in Scotland. Given that all the main parties in Scotland—representing 80% of Scottish voters—except the Conservatives have indicated support for trialling the concept of UBI, does the Minister accept that if indeed those parties are elected in the next Parliament, there will be a mandate and going ahead with trials would just be a matter of respecting devolution?

[Iain Stewart]

I make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, if he looks around the world at where UBI has been trialled—in Finland and Canada, for example—it has not been a success. Indeed, the Finance Minister in Finland has scrapped it and is instead looking at something along the lines of our universal credit system. Secondly, the Scottish Government already have substantial powers over welfare.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

Although I share the determination of the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for a universal basic income as the way ahead and his disappointment that it is not being trialled in Scotland, does the Minister share my disappointment that the SNP Government at Holyrood were not able to get their processes in shape in time to adopt the powers over welfare in the Scotland Act 2016 that might have given them more influence over the situation?

[Iain Stewart]

I certainly agree with the hon. Lady’s point that the Scottish Government still have much to do to unlock the full potential of the powers devolved to them in the Scotland Act 2016. We are committed to working closely with them to allow them to implement those powers. It strikes me that the separatists are always quick to demand more powers or more money to shift the blame away from their failures in office on delivering on the issues that matter to the people of Scotland.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential opportunities for Scotland arising from COP26.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential opportunities for Scotland arising from COP26.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)]

I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues, as well as industry stakeholders, on the opportunities that COP26 offers across Scotland. The COP26 devolved Administration ministerial group brings together the COP26 President, territorial Secretaries of State and devolved Administration Ministers to support the delivery of an inclusive and welcoming COP26 summit that is representative of the whole United Kingdom.

[John Howell [V]]

Last year, the SNP Government missed their own legal emissions targets, with source emissions in Scotland actually increasing by 1.5% in 2017-18. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we approach the crucial COP26 summit in Glasgow later this year, the Scottish people deserve a Government who are 100% focused on a green recovery, not on another divisive independence referendum?

[David Duguid]

I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker, that it is not for me to answer for the failings of the Scottish Government. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the UK Government are absolutely focused on achieving a green recovery, as set out by the Prime Minister in his 10-point plan last year. This Government are also focused on safeguarding the Union, and I agree with my hon. Friend that a divisive referendum on Scotland’s separation from the UK at this time would be an irresponsible distraction from the necessary work required towards that green recovery.

[Alexander Stafford]

I welcome the ambitious new target that the Government set last week to cut the UK’s carbon emissions by 78% by 2035. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the run-up to the crucial COP26 summit later this year, it is more important than ever for all parts of the UK to work together so that we can meet that target and build back better and greener from the pandemic?

[David Duguid]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Our proposed world-leading target marks a decisive step towards net zero by 2050 and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 78% by 2035, compared with 1990 levels. Through this year’s COP26 summit, we will urge countries and companies around the world to join us in delivering net zero globally. We continue to work together throughout all parts of the UK to achieve our net zero ambitions and a green recovery from the covid-19 pandemic.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The Minister should be embarrassed that renewables generators in Scotland face the highest locational grid charges in the whole of Europe. Ahead of COP26, we need to see a route to market for pumped-storage hydro and for wave and tidal, the go-ahead given for Acorn carbon capture and storage and a contract for difference for hydrogen. What capability does the Scottish Office, working with Cabinet colleagues, have to get those matters resolved?

[David Duguid]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I share his enthusiasm for all things related to energy renewables, but he will know as well as I do that, by law, transmission charging is a matter for Ofgem as the independent regulator. I imagine that he will also be aware that Ofgem is currently considering some aspects of transmission charging arrangements through its access and forward-looking charges review.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]]

The SNP Scottish Government have committed to doubling their climate change justice fund if re-elected next week. This £21 million fund is used to help combat the effects of climate change in the global south while we tackle carbon emissions at home. In the year of COP26, will the UK Government follow Scotland’s lead and commit to a comparable climate justice fund to help those affected by climate change?

[David Duguid]

Not only will we commit to a comparable financial commitment, but the recent spending review committed to spending £12 billion on green measures to support the 10-point plan and boost the UK’s global leadership on green infrastructure and technologies, not just ahead of COP26 this year, but beyond as well.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the recent reduction in official development assistance funding to UK Research and Innovation on Scottish universities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)]

The United Kingdom is and will remain a research superpower, with research and development spending at the highest level for four decades. The Government have committed to investing nearly £15 billion in R&D in 2021-22, much of which will be used to fund the work being led by our world-class universities.

[Andrew Gwynne [V]]

Both Aberdeen and St Andrews universities stand to lose £2.5 million each as a result of official development assistance cuts. Among the ongoing projects at risk at Aberdeen is a £1.8 million research initiative into the spread of infectious diseases between rodents and humans. Given that we have recently been reminded of the importance of long-term, well-funded research in responding to a global crisis, what steps are being taken to ensure that these cuts do not impair Scotland’s ability to respond to future crises?

[Iain Stewart]

The first point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that I am always willing to discuss individual programmes with specific universities and I have done that through the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) in the case of St Andrews. The second point is that all the universities that he has listed have benefited from significant investments either directly through UK Research and Innovation or through our city and regional growth deal programmes, looking at R&D initiatives such as clean energy and sustainable farming.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Minister, Chris Elmore.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

It is strange, because Universities Scotland says that the ODA funding cut is unprecedented and egregious, yet the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that it is okay because the universities get funding from other sources. Universities Scotland says that it amounts to a 70% cut in overseas funding for the development of projects across universities in Scotland. Can the Minister explain how these cuts are reconciled with the Conservative Government’s idea of their post-Brexit ambition to build a global Britain?

[Iain Stewart]

As I said in response to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), I am more than happy to discuss individual programmes with the universities concerned, but if we look at R&D investment from this Government in the round, it is significantly up, and Scottish universities are punching above their weight in securing a share of that.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support the defence sector in Scotland.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support the defence sector in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

The defence industry in Scotland is strong, thanks to sustained UK Government spending. My Department has a close, positive relationship with the industry and the UK armed forces in Scotland, including on the implementation of the recent integrated review: defence Command Paper and the defence and security industrial strategy.

[Mark Menzies [V]]

Shared expertise and infrastructure are key to supporting jobs across our United Kingdom, such as at Warton in my constituency and those north of the border at the BAE Systems site at Clyde. What estimates does my right hon. Friend make of the positive impact the UK Government’s defence manufacturing has on job opportunities for the people of Scotland?

[Mr Jack]

The Royal Navy shipbuilding programme will provide a pipeline of work and sustain valuable jobs and skills for shipyards around the United Kingdom, including those in Scotland, in Rosyth and the Clyde, which are currently constructing the new frigate fleets. The Ministry of Defence has spent £2.7 billion with Scottish industry in 2019 and 2020 alone, and that has supported 12,400 jobs.

[Antony Higginbotham]

The integrated review published last month made it clear that our strongest asset is the capabilities, expertise and skills we have across the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the same expertise and skills, shared across the country, that has enabled us to spend billions of pounds over the next decade on shipbuilding in Scotland?

[Mr Jack]

Yes; I wholeheartedly agree. We saw a fine example of Scotland’s contribution to the UK’s defences this week with the deployment of our new aircraft carrier strike group, which was built in yards around the United Kingdom, but was constructed in Scotland. Her Majesty’s Ship Queen Elizabeth will fly the flag for global Britain right around the world.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of economic support for Scottish businesses during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)]

Last month’s Budget provides continued UK-wide support and security to manage the ongoing impacts of covid-19. One in three jobs in Scotland has been supported by the UK Government’s employment support package; Scottish businesses have benefited from more than £3.4 billion of loans and support; and we have provided a much needed boost to the Scottish tourism and hospitality sector with our UK-wide extension of the VAT reduction.

[Sally-Ann Hart [V]]

Scotland’s Auditor General recently said that the Scottish Government had received an extra £9.7 billion from the UK Government during 2020-21 to tackle covid, yet it only made £7 billion-worth of spending announcements in response to the pandemic up to the end of 2020. The Auditor General said that that left £2.7 billion unallocated. Does my hon. Friend agree that this highlights the need for transparency and scrutiny of Scottish Government spending, as people in Scotland have a right to know how much money is being spent to help Scotland to deal with the pandemic?

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to this alarming finding. People in Scotland want to know that the money that this Government have provided is reaching them and their businesses, and it is of great concern that Audit Scotland has identified this shortfall. I absolutely agree that there must be maximum transparency on this matter.

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential opportunities for Scotland arising from new free trade agreements.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

I regularly discuss with my Cabinet colleagues opportunities for Scotland arising from the signing of trade deals. This Government have already struck deals with 67 countries around the world worth £218 billion a year, including with Canada, Japan and Singapore—with many more to come. This will create new markets for Scotland’s exporters, including our world-leading food and drink sector.

[Robin Millar]

A new free trade agreement with Australia is now in sight for the UK. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a tremendous opportunity for exporters of agricultural products, and food and drink producers, across Scotland and Wales?

[Mr Jack]

My hon. Friend is right about that and he is right to welcome the breakthroughs over the past few days with the Australian Government. Businesses in Scotland exported goods worth over £352 million to Australia in 2019, and reducing tariff barriers for our world-class food and drink industry could bolster Scotch whisky exports to Australia. As the Secretary of State for International Trade made clear at the weekend, this deal will be based on fair competition, maintaining our high standards and providing excellent, exciting opportunities for British products.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on Scotland’s constitutional future.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)]

The UK Government work with the Scottish Government on a daily basis on a range of constitutional matters, including delivering on our devolution commitments through the Scotland Act order programme. I would have thought that a more interesting question would have been to ask what discussions his new party has had with the First Minister on an unnecessary and divisive further referendum on separation.

[Neale Hanvey [V]]

When Scotland opens negotiations for independence following the election of a supermajority on 6 May, will those talks be led by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Union—should, of course, he still be in post by that time?

[Iain Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman is being rather presumptuous about the outcome of the elections next week, so let us wait and see what the people of Scotland decide. I would have thought they would be more interested in keeping the protections of the pandemic in place, helping businesses to recover and helping children to catch up on the education that they have missed over the past year.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 April.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

I know that the thoughts of Members across the House are with the people of India. We are supporting India with vital medical equipment and we will continue to work closely with the Indian authorities to determine what further help they may need.

I also welcome last week’s Court of Appeal decision to overturn the convictions of 39 former sub-postmasters in the Horizon dispute—an appalling injustice. Sir Wyn Williams is leading an ongoing independent inquiry that will report this summer.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I will have further such meetings later today.

[Andrea Jenkyns [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[Mr Speaker]

You are on mute, I think, Andrea.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

[Inaudible.]

[Mr Speaker]

Have you got the answer, Prime Minister? Tell us more about PMQs. I am sure the Prime Minister knows the answer. [Interruption.] We will try to come back to that question, and I will go to the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in his remarks about the humanitarian disaster we are witnessing in India. I know the UK has already committed some support, but given the scale and gravity of the disaster, I hope the Foreign Secretary will set out today what more the UK will do to help the Indian people in their hour of need.

I also join the Prime Minister in his remarks about the Post Office case—an ongoing injustice. Of course, today is International Workers Memorial Day. This year, after all the sacrifices our frontline workers have made during the pandemic, it is even more poignant than usual. I join in solidarity with all those mourning loved ones today.

It was reported this week, including in the Daily Mail and by the BBC and ITV, backed up by numerous sources, that at the end of October the Prime Minister said he would rather have “bodies pile high” than implement another lockdown. Can the Prime Minister tell the House categorically, yes or no: did he make those remarks or remarks to that effect?

[The Prime Minister]

No, Mr Speaker. The right hon. And learned Gentleman is a lawyer, I am given to understand, and I think that if he is going to repeat allegations like that, he should come to this House and substantiate those allegations and say where he heard them and who exactly is supposed to have said those things. What I certainly can tell him—he asks about the October decisions—is that they were very bitter, very difficult decisions, as they would be for any Prime Minister, because no one wants to put this country into a lockdown, with all the consequences that means for loss of education, the damage to people’s life chances, and the huge medical backlog that it entails. But it was thanks to that lockdown—the tough decision that we took—and thanks to the heroic efforts of the British people that we have got through to this stage in the pandemic where we find ourselves rolling out our vaccine, where we have done 50% of the population and 25% of the adult population have now had two doses. Lockdowns are miserable. Lockdowns are appalling things to have to do. But I have to say that I believe that we had absolutely no choice.

[Keir Starmer]

Well, somebody here is not telling the truth. The House will have heard the Prime Minister’s answer, and I remind him that the ministerial code says:

“Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation”.

I will leave it there for now. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!] There will be further on this, believe you me. Who initially —and “initially” is the key word here—paid for the redecoration of his Downing Street flat?

[The Prime Minister]

When it comes to misleading Parliament, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may recollect that it was only a few weeks ago that he said that he did not oppose this country leaving the European Medicines Agency—a fact that he was then forced to retract—and that leaving the European Medicines Agency was absolutely invaluable for our vaccine roll-out. Actually, it was just last week that he said that James Dyson was a personal friend of mine—a fact that James Dyson has corrected in the newspaper this morning. As for the latest stuff that he is bringing up, he should know that I paid for Downing Street refurbishment personally. Any further declaration that I have to make—if any—I will be advised upon by Lord Geidt.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about housing costs. The people of this country can make their own decision in just eight days’ time, because on average, Labour councils charge you £93 more in band D than Conservative councils, and Liberal Democrat councils charge you £120 more. That, I think, is the issue upon which the British people would like him to focus.

[Keir Starmer]

Normally when people do not want to incriminate themselves, they go, “No comment.” Let us explore this a bit further. Let me ask it a different way. This is the initial invoice, Prime Minister. Either the taxpayer paid the initial invoice, or it was the Conservative party, or it was a private donor, or it was the Prime Minister. I am making it easy for the Prime Minister—it is now multiple choice. There are only four options. It should be easier than finding the chatty rat. I ask him again: who paid the initial invoice—the initial invoice, Prime Minister—for the redecoration of the Prime Minister’s flat?

[The Prime Minister]

I have given the right hon. and learned Gentleman the answer, and the answer is that I have covered the costs. Of course, the Electoral Commission is investigating this, and I can tell him that have I conformed in full with the code of conduct and the ministerial code, and officials have been advising me throughout this whole thing. But I think people will find it absolutely bizarre that he is focusing on this issue, when what people want to know is what plans a Labour Government might have to improve the lives of people in this country.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about housing again. I would rather not spend taxpayers’ money like the last Labour Government, who spent £500,000 of taxpayers’ money on the Downing Street flat. [Interruption.] Yes they did, tarting it up. I would much rather help people get on the property ladder, and it is this Conservative Government who have built 244,000 homes in the last year, which is a record over 30 years. This is a Government who get on with delivering on the people’s priorities, while he continually raises issues that most people would find irrelevant to their concerns.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister talks of priorities. What is he spending his time doing? This is a Prime Minister who, during the pandemic, was nipping out of meetings to choose wallpaper at £840 a roll. Just last week, he spent his time phoning journalists to moan about his old friend Dominic Cummings. He is telling the civil service to find out who paid for the redecoration of his flat—the Cabinet Secretary has been asked to investigate who paid for the refurbishment of the flat. Why doesn’t the Prime Minister just tell him? That would be the end of the investigation.

It has been widely reported that Lord Brownlow, who just happens to have been given a peerage by the Conservative party, was asked to donate £58,000 to help pay for the cost of this refurbishment. Can the Prime Minister, if he is so keen to answer, confirm: did Lord Brownlow make that payment for that purpose?

[The Prime Minister]

I think I have answered this question several times now, and the answer is that I have covered the costs. I have met the requirements that I have been obliged to meet in full. When it comes to the taxpayer and the costs of No. 10 Downing Street, it was under the previous Labour Government that I think Tony Blair racked up a bill of £350,000. I think what the people of this country want to see is minimising taxpayer expense. They want to see a Government who are focused on their needs and delivering more homes for the people of this country and cutting council tax, which is what we are doing. It is on that basis that I think people are going to judge our parties on 6 May.

[Keir Starmer]

Answer the question! That is what the public scream at their televisions every PMQs: “Answer the question!” The Prime Minister has not answered the question. He knows he has not answered the question. He never answers the question.

The Prime Minister will be aware that he is required to declare any benefits that relate to his political activities, including loans or credit arrangements, within 28 days—[Interruption.] Twenty-eight days, Prime Minister, yes. He will also know that any donation must be recorded in the register of Ministers’ interests, and that under the law any donation of over £500 to a political party must be registered and declared, so the rules are very clear. The Electoral Commission now thinks that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. That is incredibly serious.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House: does he believe that any rules or laws have been broken in relation to the refurbishment of the Prime Minister’s flat?

[The Prime Minister]

No, I don’t. What I believe has been strained to breaking point is the credulity of the public. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has half an hour every week to put serious and sensible questions to me about the state of the pandemic, about the vaccine roll-out, about what we are doing to support our NHS, about what we are doing to fight crime, about what we are doing to bounce back from this pandemic, about the economic recovery, about jobs for the people of this country, and he goes on and on about wallpaper when, as I have told him umpteen times now, I paid for it.

[Keir Starmer]

Can I remind the Prime Minister of the Nolan principles, which are meant to govern the behaviour of those in public office? They are these: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Instead, what do we get from this Prime Minister and this Conservative Government? Dodgy contracts, jobs for their mates and cash for access. And who is at the heart of it? The Prime Minister. Major Sleaze, sitting there.

Meanwhile—the Prime Minister talks about priorities—crime is going up, NHS waiting lists are at record levels and millions of people are worried about their jobs, including at Liberty Steel. Do not the British people deserve a Prime Minister they can trust, not a Government who are mired in sleaze, cronyism and scandal?

[The Prime Minister]

Last week, the right hon. and learned Gentleman came to this Chamber and he attacked me for talking to James Dyson about ventilators, when we are now sending ventilators to help the people of India, and the following day—the following day—Labour Front Benchers said that any Prime Minister in my position would have done exactly the same thing. It was only a few months ago that they were actually attacking Kate Bingham, saying she was a crony when she helped to set up the vaccine taskforce that delivered millions of vaccines for the people of this country and is helping us to get out of the pandemic.

This is a Government who are getting on with delivering on the people’s priorities. We are rolling out many more nurses, with 10,000 more nurses in the NHS now than there were this time last year, and 8,771 more police officers on our streets now than they were when I was elected, with tougher sentences for serious sexual and violent criminals, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposed. And, by the way, I forgot to mention it but last night our friends in the European Union voted to approve our Brexit deal, which he opposed. That enables us not just to take back control of our borders, but to deliver free—[Interruption.] It does, which he fervently opposed, enabling us, among other things, to deal with such threats as the European super league. It enables us to deliver freeports in places like Teesside. Above all, taking back control of our country has allowed us to deliver the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe, as he well knows, which would not have been possible if we had stayed in the European Medicines Agency, which he voted for.

Week after week, the people of this country can see the difference between a Labour party that twists and turns with the wind and thinks of nothing except playing political games, whereas this party gets on with delivering on the people’s priorities, and I hope the people will vote Conservative on 6 May. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us see if we can calm it down a little.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

The UK is indeed a world leader in covid-19 vaccination. May I thank the Prime Minister for the swift action he has taken to deliver this for our country, and will he join me in thanking the many local volunteers, such as Kirsty Griffiths who has been volunteering at the Marlow vaccine centre, and Guy Hollis and Paul Bass who have been volunteering alongside Denham community health centre? And thank you for the vaccine roll-out in South Bucks.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend should thank everybody involved, and it has been a fantastic national effort, led by the NHS—led overwhelmingly by GPs, but also by many others, including local council officers and officials and the Army, and of course huge numbers of volunteers in her constituency and elsewhere, and I thank Kirsty Griffiths, Guy Hollis and Paul Bass very much for everything they have done.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]]

May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the humanitarian crisis in India and the injustice in the Horizon issue at the Post Office?

Over 127,000 people have died from covid in the United Kingdom. People have lost their mothers and fathers, their grandparents and even their children. NHS staff have given their all, fighting to keep people alive. That is why so many people find the Prime Minister’s remark that he would rather let the bodies pile high in their thousands than go into lockdown utterly, utterly sickening. The BBC and ITV have multiple sources confirming that this is what the Prime Minister said. People are willing to go under oath confirming that the Prime Minister said these exact words—under oath, Mr Speaker. Parliamentary rules stop me saying that the Prime Minister has repeatedly lied to the public over the last week, but may I ask the question: are you a liar, Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

Mr Speaker, I leave it to you to judge whether the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks were in order, but what I will say to him—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Unfortunately, they were in order, but were not savoury and not what we would expect.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker, but what I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that if he is going to relay that kind of quotation, it is up to him in a place like Parliament to produce the author—the person who claims to have heard it— because I cannot find them. He says that they are willing to go on oath; perhaps they are sitting somewhere in this building; I rather doubt it, because I did not say those words.

What I do believe is that a lockdown is a miserable, miserable thing, and I did everything I could to try to protect the British public throughout the pandemic—to protect them from lockdowns, but also to protect them from disease. The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the wretched toll that covid has brought, and I know the whole House grieves for every family that has lost a loved one. It has been a horrendous time, but it is thanks to that lockdown combined with the vaccine roll-out that we are making the progress we are, and I may say that we are making progress across the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Ian Blackford [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and of course it is the Prime Minister’s behaviour which is not in order. This is a Prime Minister who is up to his neck in a swamp of Tory sleaze. We have seen contracts for cronies, texts for tax breaks and cash for curtains. The Prime Minister has dodged these questions all week, and he has dodged them again today, but these questions simply are not going to go away. When exactly was money funnelled through Tory HQ into his personal bank account, when did he pay back this money, was it an interest-free loan, and who are the donor or donors who originally funded it? Is the Prime Minister aware that if he continues to fail to answer these questions, the Electoral Commission has the powers to prosecute him? Will the Prime Minister publish these details today, or is he going to wait until the police come knocking at his door?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, I look forward to what the Electoral Commission has to say, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, for the rest of it, he is talking complete nonsense. The only thing I will say is that it is thanks to our investment in policing that we are going to have 20,000 more officers on the streets of our country, which is fantastic, and we will be making sure that that gets through to Scotland as well. What we want to see is a Scottish nationalist Government stopping obsessing about breaking up our country, which is all they can think and talk about, and instead talking about tackling crime and using that investment to fight crime, which is what I think the people of Scotland want to see.

[Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)]

If the Prime Minister was to walk down Bristol Road South in Longbridge today, he would see a small army of JCB diggers levelling out the old MG Rover West Works site to provide one of the biggest levelling-up projects locally, with 5,000 extra jobs and an industrial site. But people also want to see the regeneration of Northfield High Street, with a proper plan and money on the table, so does the Prime Minister agree that we need people such as Andy Street—driven and energetic Mayors—delivering for the west midlands, working with me and local Conservative councillors to deliver on this plan? After all, teamwork makes the dream work.

[The Prime Minister]

I am lost in admiration for what Andy Street is doing. He is a fantastic Mayor of the West Midlands and he has a fantastic vision for transport, jobs, growth and recovery. I hope everybody votes for Andy Street on 6 May.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us go to Liz Saville Roberts.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]]

Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd. I think it is worth repeating the ministerial code’s seven guiding principles: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. The Prime Minister has spent the week ticking them off his “don’t do” list. At the same time, he tries to play down allegations that he said “let the bodies pile high”. Given that the sole judge on questions relating to the conduct of Ministers and the conduct of the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister himself, what happens when a Prime Minister goes rogue?

[The Prime Minister]

The people of this country have the chance to make up their own minds on 6 May. When they look at what is happening in Wales, they have a chance to make a choice between, I am afraid, a continually failing Welsh Labour Government or a Welsh Conservative Administration in Cardiff who I believe have a fantastic vision: 65,000 high-skilled, high-paid jobs; finally addressing the problems of the A55; 5,000 more teachers; getting 3,000 more nurses into the Welsh NHS; and solving the problems of the M4, which I have spoken about so movingly many times in this Chamber. I hope that people will avoid voting for Plaid Cymru and that they will vote for Welsh Conservatives on 6 May in Wales.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

  As probably the only former sub-postmaster in Parliament, I know that last Friday’s ruling was the beginning, not the end. Yes, it will cost a lot of money, and yes, it will take time and more compensation is needed, but does the Prime Minister agree that only a proper, judge-led public inquiry can really bring justice to the victims of this horrendous accounting scandal and hold to account those involved behind the scenes?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expertise in this matter and thank him for what he has just said, because he is totally right. What happened to those Post Office workers—the postmasters and sub-postmasters—was appalling. It was one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in our history, and we are indeed looking at the issues involved. The former High Court judge Sir Wyn Williams will be making recommendations about what further actions—what further apologies—we need to make.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]]

The PM just raised the matter of the Welsh general election. In March last year, this United Kingdom Conservative Government intercepted a deal between Wales and the Roche pharmaceutical company for 5,000 daily covid tests, instructing the company to “reserve all additional Covid tests”to England. Those tests would have been crucial to saving thousands of lives in Wales. As we go to the polls next week, will the Prime Minister tell us why Welsh lives meant so little to him?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong in what he says about tests, but he is right about one thing, which is that Wales has made an amazing contribution to our national fightback—our UK fightback—against covid. It was incredible again to go to the Wockhardt factory in Wrexham. It is Wockhardt, working together with Oxford Biomedica, that has enabled us to roll out the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine that has made such a difference. I want to say a massive thank you, again, to those Welsh scientists and all those people working in that factory, because they have helped to save countless lives across the UK.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

The integrated review confirms the vital role that the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire will play in our future nuclear capability. I want to pay tribute to the establishment, particularly the senior female employees who have won a slew of national awards for their work in defence science, engineering and nuclear security. Given the Government’s significant investment in all those sectors, will my right hon. Friend say how he plans to improve women’s participation in these fields, where historically they have been underrepresented, and may I invite him to the AWE to illustrate our success?

[The Prime Minister]

I would be honoured to take up my hon. Friend’s invitation as soon as I can. In terms of female representation in that sector, she will know that Alison Atkinson became the chief executive officer and managing director of AWE in May 2020, and there are huge numbers of opportunities for women to join our armed services, thanks above all to the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment last week to include aviation and shipping in our emissions target, but surely he knows that we will miss that target if we proceed with a third runway at Heathrow, and, furthermore, that that would undermine the progress that the Government hope to make towards net zero. Will he therefore take this opportunity to commit to amending the airports national policy statement in the light of those commitments?

[The Prime Minister]

The third runway at Heathrow, as the hon. Lady knows, is a private sector venture, and it is up to them to produce the capital to do it. I do not see any immediate sign of that particular project coming off. I think what we should look at instead, and what we are looking at, is the prospect of jet-zero aviation and flying without emissions, or with far lower carbon emissions. It is in that area that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Transport are working together with manufacturers so that this country leads in guilt-free flying.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Right now, in every part of the country, levels of business optimism are higher than they have been since the start of the pandemic, with many firms planning to hire more staff and create more apprenticeships for our young people. There is one factor, more than anything else, that underpins that optimism—the success of the UK vaccination programme. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has never been a more important moment for voters in Scotland and Wales to reject the negativity and divisiveness of the nationalists, and instead look forward to a brighter and stronger future as one United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition’s PPS, the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), is shaking her head, because surely she would agree with that. We want to work together across the whole of the UK, and I pay tribute, as I have just said, to the incredible work of the Wockhardt factory in Wales, but there is also the Valneva factory in Scotland, and the whole of the United Kingdom coming together, represented by our armed services and, above all, by our NHS helping to deliver that vaccine roll-out to protect the country and take it forward.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

It is absolutely shocking that we have heard that the Electoral Commission is investigating funding of the Prime Minister’s Downing Street flat, saying that there are “reasonable grounds to suspect…an offence”. Why does the Prime Minister think that all these stories about sleaze, corruption and dishonesty keep happening to him and his Conservative Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I tell you what, Mr Speaker, I think it is because people are absolutely determined to find anything they can hang on to talk about, except the vaccine roll-out, except our plans to unite and level up across the country, except our plans to fight crime and give people the opportunity to buy their own homes; because they do not want to discuss those issues, because they cannot win on those issues, because they have absolutely nothing to say, and that is what has become clear over the last year.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) [V]]

Before I ask my question, may I first ask the Prime Minister to join me in thanking all the staff at Doncaster Royal Infirmary and the emergency services for dealing swiftly with a major water leak yesterday? Fortunately, no one was hurt and all patients have been moved safely to other wards. However, to return to my original question, local elections are only days away, so will the Prime Minister offer his full support to the Doncaster Conservative mayoral candidate, James Hart? Like me, James is a local businessman and will shout out for our town and work closely with me on delivering the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. [Interruption.] Hang on. He is right to want to thank all the staff of Doncaster Royal Infirmary for what they did for the emergency services in dealing with the incident last night, and I am glad to take the opportunity to do that. I am also glad to take the opportunity to support him in his campaign for James Hart. I do hope that the people of Doncaster will go out to vote and support him on 6 May.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister promised in a series of texts to “fix” a tax issue for his mate Sir James Dyson. At the Dispatch Box last week, the Prime Minister promised to publish those texts, but of course he has not made good on that promise. When will he publish them?

[The Prime Minister]

I promised to publish the account of my dealings with James Dyson, which is exactly what I have done. I cannot believe that the Opposition do not learn their lesson. They attacked the Government last week for having any kind of discussions with a potential British ventilator maker, and the following day they did a U-turn and said that any Prime Minister would do it. They have now done a W-turn, and they are trying to bash me again. Which is it? Do they believe the Government should be supporting British manufacturing in delivering ventilators—yes or no? That is the question for Labour.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]]

My constituency is best known for the battle of Bosworth, but we also have many other attractions, such as Twycross zoo, Mallory Park racecourse, Burbage common and Thornton reservoir. These attractions all support superb cafes and pubs. With the bank holiday weekend coming up, does the Prime Minister have any plans, and does he want to pop up to Bosworth? More importantly, what are the Government doing to support these attractions and domestic tourism as we go into the summer?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. No matter how many pints I joined him in lifting in the pubs of Bosworth, it could not do as much for the economy of Bosworth as what we are already doing with the £56 million welcome back fund, which is probably even more welcome than my presence in Bosworth, I venture to suggest—that is hotly contested, perhaps. We have extended the cut in VAT for tourism and hospitality to 5% right the way through until the end of September.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]]

Is not the truth behind all of this—the sleaze, the scandals, the jobs for your mates, the cash for curtains —that the Prime Minister thinks that rules, laws and decency are for other people? He thinks they are for the sort of people who shop at John Lewis, Ikea or Argos and who do not have wealthy donors to fund their lifestyles, not for people like him and his Ministers.

[The Prime Minister]

I think that what people think is that the Labour party is losing all the arguments across British politics, that it has nothing to say, and that it has no plan for our future and no vision for our country. People see a Conservative Government who are getting on with uniting and levelling up, with the most ambitious agenda any Government have had for generations, and I think that is what they are listening to.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]]

Next week, residents here in Nottinghamshire will go out to vote for the first time since that incredibly successful 2019 election, where they elected a broad slate of Conservative MPs across every constituency in this county. Despite that success, many areas, such as Mansfield, in much of the new blue wall across the midlands and the north still have mainly Labour councillors at a local level. Does my right hon. Friend have a message for Nottinghamshire voters, who have the opportunity next week to elect a Conservative local team who can work with our MPs to deliver for Nottinghamshire?

[The Prime Minister]

I do, and I thank my hon. Friend for all the wonderful work that he does for his constituency. My message would be, yes, I hope that the people of Nottinghamshire will get out and vote Conservative. It is we who share their priorities on crime, on the NHS, on investment in infrastructure and on levelling up across our country, so I hope they will vote Conservative on 6 May.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

When were the Prime Minister and his chief of staff first made aware of the plan for a European super league?

[The Prime Minister]

I first was made aware of the plan for a European super league on, I think, the Sunday night, and we acted decisively using the arsenal of legislative freedoms that we now have thanks to leaving the European Union, which the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) opposed, of course. We acted decisively to make clear that the UK Government took a dim view of this matter. [Interruption.] And the same goes for my chief of staff.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

My constituency of Stroud recently won the title of best place to live. There is much to visit there, including an historic lamp standard that was erected to celebrate Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee. Next year, our own Queen will mark 70 years since her accession to the throne. Will the Prime Minister join me in supporting the gift being proposed by Parliament to mark Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for that wonderful proposal, and I certainly encourage all colleagues to support and contribute to her project.

[Mr Speaker]

We are going back to Andrea Jenkyns.

[Andrea Jenkyns [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Next week, we will elect our first Mayor of West Yorkshire.

Does the Prime Minister agree that for far too long Labour has taken our northern heartlands for granted? On Thursday 6 May, we have the opportunity to elect patriotic, hard-working northerners such as Matt Robinson, Ben Houchen, and Jill Mortimer in Hartlepool. They will be strong voices and champions for infrastructure, housing and jobs. We must seize the chance to build back better after the pandemic, and only the Conservatives will deliver on that. [Interruption.]

[The Prime Minister]

Well, Mr Speaker, they don’t like that sort of thing, do they? They don’t like focusing on the issues that actually matter to the British people and the people of West Yorkshire.

I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. I hope that on 6 May the people will get out and vote for a party that believes in supporting our NHS; that believes in fighting crime, not being soft on crime; and that will bring jobs and regeneration across the country. I hope that they will vote Conservative on 6 May.

[Mr Speaker]

I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business.

12:36

Sitting suspended.

Petition

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Government Support for India

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

00:00

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the support the Government are providing to the Indian Government.

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

The heartbreaking scenes in India in recent days have shocked us all. The pandemic has brought horrific human suffering, and we send our solidarity and condolences to the Indian people at this difficult time. As the Prime Minister has said, we stand side by side with India as a friend and partner in the fight against covid-19.

The Foreign Secretary spoke with his counterpart, Minister for External Affairs Jaishankar, on 26 April. He emphasised the UK’s commitment to provide urgent medical equipment to support our Indian friends at this difficult time. Ministers and officials are in close contact with their counterparts in the Indian Government to follow up on that commitment. The Government of India told us that oxygen has been a particular challenge, so we have moved quickly to provide a package of urgent medical equipment to address that need. The first shipment, of 200 ventilators and 95 oxygen concentrators, arrived in India in the early hours yesterday, and is already being distributed to Indian hospitals. A further 400 oxygen concentrators will follow today and tomorrow. This equipment will boost oxygen supplies in India’s hospitals, which remain under severe pressure, so there is no doubt that the support provided by the United Kingdom will save lives.

I am pleased that other countries are also responding to India’s needs. The pandemic has shown the importance of international action. No one is safe until everyone is safe, so we will keep working closely with the Indian Government to help them to meet the huge challenge they face, and we will continue to show our solidarity with the Indian people.

This response is just a part of the UK’s wider international effort to tackle the pandemic. The United Kingdom has committed up to £1.3 billion of official development assistance funding to address the health, economic and humanitarian impacts of covid-19. We have been at the forefront of efforts to get vaccines to developing countries—we are one of the largest donors to the COVAX advanced market commitment, created to do just that. Our commitment of £548 million will support the distribution of 1.3 billion doses of vaccines to up to 92 low and middle-income countries; this includes India.

Despite the urgency of the current situation in India, this remains an important year in the UK-India relationship. India is a key partner for the UK and the Prime Minister had planned to visit India this week. Regretfully, he had to postpone due to the covid-19 outbreak. He now has plans to speak to Prime Minister Modi via video link in the coming period to take forward key deliverables across trade, defence, climate change, health and migration. We also look forward to the Prime Minister meeting Prime Minister Modi as the UK hosts the G7 summit in June and to welcoming India’s guest participation in the G7 foreign and development ministerial meeting next week. Subject to the covid-19 situation in India, there may also be an opportunity for the Prime Minister to visit in person later in the year.

We stand with the Indian people in this time of need, taking our lead from what the Indian Government advise us is most useful. We face this pandemic together and the UK will continue to support global efforts to overcome the grave challenges that we all face today.

[Lisa Nandy]

The domestic tragedy engulfing India is now of such a scale that it constitutes a global emergency. India is now afflicted with at least 40% of all new cases in the world. More than 2 million have been confirmed in the last week alone and the peak of this crisis may yet be weeks away. This surely ought to be a priority for the Foreign Secretary, who I expected to have made a statement to this House as the scale of the crisis became clear over the last 10 days.

For more than 1 million Britons with loved ones in India, this is a moment of fear and anxiety. The ties between our countries are woven into the fabric of this nation—something that, through my own heritage, I am personally and acutely aware of. Many Britons of Indian origin will have gone to work today in our NHS and in our care homes, helping to carry us through this crisis, while desperately worried about loved ones in India. We can and must do more.

Can I hear from the Minister today a clear plan to ramp up the delivery of vital equipment? I welcome the 600 pieces of equipment that we have shipped so far, but he will know through his discussions, as I do, that India is still badly short of oxygen cylinders, concentrators, ventilators and therapeutic drugs, especially remdesivir. He must co-ordinate with our global partners. I spoke to the EU ambassador this morning to discuss how we can avoid duplication and get help quickly to where it is most needed. Has the UK been part of discussions at the UN and with the World Health Organisation? The Minister needs a plan for increasing the production and manufacturing capacity for vaccines and to overcome barriers to expanding supply. I was surprised not to hear a commitment to make good on the Health Secretary’s promise to throw open our unique expertise to the world. We are world leaders in genomic sequencing and epidemiology. Tracking mutations and variants would be a major contribution not just to India, but to the world.

It is now almost a year to the day when the UK, steeped in our own crisis, woefully unprepared for the pandemic, was forced to ask the world for help. It was India who stepped forward and approved the export of 3 million packets of paracetamol in an act of solidarity and friendship. There are millions of people in India, around the world and here in the UK for whom this is really a test of the bond between our two nations. I heard what the Minister said. I thank him for his warm words, but words are not enough. Now is the time to step forward with a real plan of action to tackle this domestic tragedy and this global emergency.

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. The Foreign Secretary may very well have answered this question today, but he is in Geneva speaking to the UN, so he is out of the country.

The hon. Lady makes some good points, particularly on the co-operation we saw from the Indian people and the Indian Government specifically around drugs last year. We are very thankful for the support we had in that regard. She references words, not deeds. I think what we have seen over the weekend is deeds, not words. We were the first country to deliver support to the Indian people. In fact, it is absolutely the case—this has been described by the BBC, no less—that the UK has been commended for the speed of its initial package. The BBC described it as

“the first international shipment aimed at stemming a devastating Covid-19 surge.”

I am not entirely sure how much quicker we could have been. We have been working on this late last week and over the weekend. I would like to thank staff across our networks and in the Department of Health and Social Care for all the work they have done in putting together this package. Instead of talking, we were shipping and delivering these vital pieces of equipment there, and there is more equipment and support to come. We are continuing to speak with the Indian Government on what they require, and we will respond to what their requirements are in very short order.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]]

Yesterday, I had the great privilege of speaking to my Indian opposite number, who expressed great gratitude for the UK’s contribution to support the Indian people, and I was very pleased that he said so. However, India is not the only country with which we have a living bridge and a common feeling. We need to make sure that we are prepared to support other countries in the Commonwealth, not just for their benefit, but for ours. Can the Minister assure me that we are ready, that we have the ODA budget available and that we are prepared to act should such a pool of infection arise in any other country, particularly one with which we share such a close link?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee, for that question. Of course, we are speaking with our international partners on a regular basis. This is a situation where no one is safe until everybody is safe. We are working collaboratively and a good example of that is vaccines. We are one of the biggest contributors to the vaccine programme, the COVAX programme, which has been set up particularly to support countries in this regard. We will continue to do whatever we need to do to support our international partners. What we had to do, because of the pressing emergency in India, which is one of our closest allies, was react quickly and get the equipment into the planes and on to the ground, and that is exactly what we have done.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]]

The scenes we have all seen emerging from India are truly tragic and our hearts go out to all those who are suffering. There is nothing more tragic than seeing people dying on pavements outside already overstretched and under-resourced hospitals that are full of covid patients, and dead loved ones being lined up for cremation. Sadly, we must recognise that the scenes in India will not be the last of the devastation of covid that we see, and the UK must step up its efforts, not just in India, but across the world.

It is welcome that the UK has been able to offer some support to India, but what assistance is being provided on vaccines to prevent further covid waves across the country? Furthermore, will the UK Government support a waiver to overcome intellectual property barriers, so that developing countries have much-needed access to vaccines and we do not see what is happening in India replicated elsewhere? Finally, given the need for a fully resourced global vaccine roll-out, will the Government finally listen to the experts and retreat from the proposed cut to the UK’s life-saving aid at this critical time?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. It is clear that we have been at the forefront of efforts to get vaccines to developing countries— I cannot think of many countries that have done more. I have mentioned the advance market commitment via COVAX. That was created to deliver exactly that. We will be supporting the distribution of 1.3 billion doses of vaccines to up to 92 low-income and middle-income countries—that includes India. Obviously, we will need to complete our own roll-out and we will be looking at what we do if there are any surplus doses available. We will keep that under constant review. But I am proud of our commitments: the £548 million, and leading last year’s international funding conference on vaccines to help protect those who need our assistance.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]]

As it is in the UK, the impact of covid in India is a human tragedy. I heard from a family friend in Delhi who says that people are terrified, frantically looking for beds and oxygen, with disgraceful profiteering ramping up prices and making support unaffordable for the poor. As we have heard, nearly half of all global covid cases are now in India, and nowhere in the world is safe until we are all safe, so it is absolutely right that the UK has provided ventilators and oxygen, but there are also issues with vaccination logistics and therapeutic supplies. Can I ask what the Minister knows about how Kashmiris in Indian-administered Kashmir are faring, given that there has been no opportunity for an independent visit to the region by parliamentarians or journalists since the revocation of articles 370 and 35A nearly two years ago?

[Nigel Adams]

I am not the Minister responsible for those particular countries, but we have regular dialogue. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad, the Minister responsible for that region, speaks regularly with representatives from Pakistan and India, and I am happy to ask him to give the hon. Lady an update.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]]

Many of us have constituents who are deeply worried about loved ones in India. Please will my hon. Friend reassure them that the Foreign Secretary will continue to engage with the Indian Government on the practical help that is needed and how we can provide it?

[Nigel Adams]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: in the past few days, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken directly with Foreign Minister Jaishankar on exactly that issue. We are responding to the Indian Government’s requests and listening to what they are telling us. We were the first country to respond and to get wheels on the ground and deliver equipment. A huge emergency is affecting India and we have responded. We will continue to speak to the Indian Government and see what further assistance we can deliver to them.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

Given the exceptional budgetary challenges that face the Treasury, the overwhelming majority of my constituents support the decision to temporarily reduce the foreign aid budget. Of course, we will still be spending more money on international aid than nearly every other nation on earth, allowing us to support nations in their hour of need. Nine airline containers full of life-saving equipment have already been shipped out to India. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will continue to engage with the Indian Government to provide any further assistance as required?

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the support that we have already delivered to our Indian friends. Our teams worked round the clock and over the weekend to ensure that that first shipment of 200 ventilators and 95 oxygen concentrators arrived in India yesterday morning. As I said, we were the first to deliver support to India. Given the rapidly changing situation on the ground, we are working closely with our counterparts to ensure that we are co-ordinated, and we are in close contact with the Indian Government in respect of anything else that they need.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]]

What is happening in India is an absolute tragedy, but it is also a stark warning that this virus thrives when we relax—after all, many in India thought that they had beaten the virus. Every time a surge happens, the virus mutates faster, and with every mutation our collective fight goes back a step. There is only one way to beat this virus, and that is to work together in lockstep, across the global community, to keep cases low, minimise the risk of new variants and vaccinate. Will the Minister now commit not only to increasing the money that the UK gives to COVAX—as much as that is, we need to do more—but to starting to share vaccine doses through COVAX now, today?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Lady is right to ask about vaccine doses, but right now we are moving through the UK prioritisation list—that is what the country would expect us to do, I think—for our domestic roll-out and we do not currently have surplus doses. We do, though, keep the situation under constant review. Of course, I recognise that with this pandemic no one is safe until we are all safe; that is why I am proud that, despite the challenging financial pressures that the pandemic has brought, the United Kingdom has donated more than half a billion pounds to COVAX. We led the international vaccine funding conference last year, and in every conversation that my colleagues and I, as a Foreign Minister, have, we are encouraging our counterparts around the globe to do the same and to contribute to COVAX.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]]

As someone who has family in India, it breaks my heart to see what is happening there. Some of the most worrying stories coming out of India have been reports of a lack of available oxygen for patients in need. Can my hon. Friend confirm that a key portion of the equipment that our Government are delivering is made up of the oxygen concentrators and ventilators that are so desperately needed?

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend speaks from the heart. As I have said, I want to thank the teams in the FCDO around the globe for working on this. We have been the first to respond. We are providing the life-saving medical equipment that he refers to, which includes 495 oxygen concentrators and 200 ventilators. That equipment is based on the most acute need, which has been communicated to us by the Indian Government. I understand why people are so passionate about this, and this simply will help to save the lives of the most vulnerable in India.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

Given that the population of India is 1.3 billion and the country is currently recording more than 320,000 new covid infections every day, does the Minister agree with a senior Indian health official who described the support that has been received so far as a “drop in the ocean”?

[Nigel Adams]

We have been first out of the blocks. We have provided from surplus stocks the ventilators and the oxygen concentrators. Of course, it is a huge country, which is why we continue to liaise with the Indian Government to see what further we can do. We are going to be doing more in terms of equipment, but we have responded quicker than anybody else. We have planes on the ground delivering equipment. There are more planes going out there today and tomorrow with more equipment, and we will continue to work with the Indian Government, listen to their requests and respond.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

Our special relationship with India is a bond of kinship and affinity rooted in the living bridge that is the Indian diaspora. As we now seek a transformative post-Brexit UK-India relationship, it is only right that the Government are taking the initial steps to assist India at this unprecedented time. It has been heartening to see 1 billion shoulders to the wheel, be it the Oxygen Express run by the railways or the Indian air force flying back empty oxygen tanks for Indian industry to refill, which has risen to the desperate need. France and Germany have managed to rapidly assist India significantly with the supply of cryogenic oxygen tanks, which can store and transport a much bigger quantity of liquid oxygen. Can my hon. Friend say what steps our Government have taken or are taking to assist similarly, befitting our vision for the UK-India relationship that we seek to build?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I am not particularly aware of the arrangement that France and Germany have and whether that is a commercial arrangement that the Indian Government have entered into, but it is certainly something we can look into. We have been working incredibly closely with our technical experts in the Department of Health and Social Care on how to respond to the most urgent needs, while ensuring that the equipment sent can be used and will make a difference. Donating oxygen cylinders, as some people have called for, has been rejected, as compatibility issues would prevent them from being refilled within India. We are taking the lead from the Indian Government on what their most urgent priorities are, so that we can ensure that whatever support we provide matches their requests.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]]

The Minister keeps repeating that no one is safe until everyone is safe, but the reality is that 80% of all covid vaccines have been delivered in just 10 wealthy countries, and COVAX is struggling to obtain vaccines. Unless there is greater international solidarity, other healthcare systems like India’s will collapse, and vaccine-resistant variants will inevitably threaten those who live here. Does the Minister not accept that the UK needs to play its part by lifting the ban on exporting vaccines, sharing covid technology with others and increasing, rather than slashing, overseas aid?

[Nigel Adams]

I cannot think of many countries that are doing more than the United Kingdom on vaccines for the international community. It was absolutely right that we moved through the United Kingdom’s vaccine priority list for our own roll-out, and, as I have said in answer to a previous question, there are currently no surplus doses. I am proud of the fact that we are one of the biggest donors to COVAX. COVAX will be supporting the distribution of 1.3 billion vaccines across 92 countries that need that support, which includes India.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May I express strong solidarity with my hon. Friend in his words of sympathy with our Indian friends? Would it be possible for Indian citizens, who are living here in the United Kingdom, to travel to India should they so wish, so that they can help their grieving relatives or provide other support? It would surely be unreasonable to prevent people leaving our country who wish to go and help in these circumstances.

[Nigel Adams]

Of course, I absolutely get the point that my hon. Friend has made. People will be incredibly worried. I have friends with Indian heritage and they are at their wit’s end about what is happening in India. As for travelling to India, he will be aware that we did add India to our red list. That was to ensure that we protect against variants and other developing variants. The situation in India has deteriorated. Currently, travel abroad is against the law and, until that situation changes, people in the UK need to be mindful of the travel advice.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]]

I have spoken to people at Newcastle’s Hindu temple who have emphasised just how distressing these desperate scenes from India are for those with friends and family living there and, indeed, for all of us. We have known of the concerns for some time now. That is why the Prime Minister cancelled his visit. Given our special links to India, what conversations has the Minister had with counterparts in the United States and the European Union to ensure that international assistance is co-ordinated and effective?

[Nigel Adams]

That is a very good question. We are regularly in contact with our counterparts, co-ordinating support. That is why COVAX was set up in the first place for vaccines. I understand that the EU is in the process of co-ordinating support for this emergency. I am not entirely sure when its shipments will arrive, but it is certainly on the case, as is the United States, but rest assured we do speak to our international partners when an emergency such as this flares up.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

I think that everyone in the country has been distressed by the images of the reports they have seen in India. I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement about the equipment that we have provided and the speed at which we have done so. Obviously, India is a vastly different size to the UK, but if it is wanted, will we also provide logistical advice from the NHS, the Army and our scientists on the things they have learned about how to best control the spread of this virus and get vaccinations to people as quickly as possible?

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We stand ready to provide support in whatever form it comes. That is why we are talking to the Indian Government, asking them what support they require. We need to do that not only to understand what they require, but to ensure that what they require and what we supply are in lockstep. Given this spread of the pandemic, we are working closely not only with our Indian counterparts, but with other countries to ensure that we can co-ordinate and support those with the most urgent need.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) [V]]

I commend the support that the Government are providing promptly to the Indian people during this devastating covid surge, and my thoughts and prayers are with all those affected. Realistically, in order to tackle this issue, do we not need to start providing licences particularly for those countries on the subcontinent, where in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh there are almost 2 billion people who could be dealt with by giving them the ability to produce vaccines themselves and therefore better look after themselves and help to reduce the effects of covid very quickly? Will the Minister look at supporting the people of Kashmir, who have been under lockdown because of the situation in India for the past 18 months, so that they receive their fair proportion of the aid and the vaccines that we are supporting them with?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We are providing support to the Indian Government, but it is for the Indian Government to decide and not for us to dictate where that support goes or how it is rolled out. Of course, as he will know, India is one of the largest manufacturers of vaccine, and those supplies are under pressure, as they are with all manufacturers. However, we will continue liaising with the Indian Government to find out what they require, and if we can match their demands we will supply it.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on their offer of help and the provision that has been made to the Indian Government. He will know that at a time of humanitarian crisis, the people of this country are incredibly generous. Members of the Indian diaspora, in particular, are conducting fundraising events via temples and other religious places across the country this weekend, including the world-famous Neasden temple, where people are doing a sponsored static bike ride of 7,600 km—the distance between London and New Delhi. What advice is being given to those religious organisations who are raising money to make sure the money gets to the right place at the right time to assist in alleviating the suffering going on in India?

[Nigel Adams]

There are many champions of constituents of Indian heritage in this House, none more so than my hon. Friend. I am being made aware of some incredible fundraising efforts across the country where there are large Indian diasporas, with people raising money through various means. That is really heartwarming to see. It is absolutely the case that that needs to be delivered in the most efficient way. I will find out through what mechanism the advice is being filtered down to those communities. He raises a brilliant point, as ever, and I will make sure that by the end of today he is able to have some information to take to his communities to ensure that they are doing the right thing. I am sure that everybody is doing the right thing; we just have to make sure that it is delivered in the correct way.

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

Only last week I stood here and questioned this Tory Government’s obscene betrayal of those in need by cutting the foreign aid budget. This week we have perhaps seen the direct consequences of such decisions. I am sure that, along with every Member, they agree with me that the scenes from India are nothing short of devastating and we cannot stand idly by while oxygen becomes a premium and not an easily obtainable necessity. Given the severity of the situation, will the Minister now go on record to say that the UK Government will undertake any and every possible measure of support for India and her people, including the potential distribution of vaccines when we are in a position to do so?

[Nigel Adams]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments, apart from his first sentence, which was a mild dig. We will continue to support India. We were the first country to do so when this crisis flared up. We were not talking about it; we were actually getting on with it and doing it, delivering ventilators and oxygen concentrators: there are more in the air now and they are going to land today and tomorrow. So we are continuing to do that work. In terms of vaccines, it would be great if he could point me to who is doing more, as I said, in terms of putting more money into COVAX that is going to help 1.3 billion people. The priority, obviously, is the domestic roll-out of the vaccines that we have, and once we have a clear idea of surplus, we will be in a position to support other countries.

[Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]]

So many of my fellow Wulfrunians have friends, family and other loved ones in India. I thank the Government for their swift response to this heartbreaking situation. What discussions is my hon. Friend having with our international partners, so that we can encourage them to send similar assistance and ensure that the global effort is as effective as possible?

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. All hon. and right hon. Members today are speaking up passionately for their constituents in their particular areas. Co-operation on an international level is absolutely at the heart of responding to this pandemic. It is a pandemic that obviously does not recognise borders, so we have been speaking directly with the Indian Government to understand what they need. As I said, we are in regular contact with a range of international partners to ensure that we support, co-ordinate and do everything we can to respond to the needs of India at this difficult time.

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]]

The images from India are horrifying—from people gasping for air and dying—[Inaudible]—with hospitals overrun, to seas of blazing makeshift pyres. This is a human catastrophe for India, and, with a virus that does not respect borders, none of us is safe until we are all safe. Vaccine supply is artificially limited by patents, leading to the global vaccine apartheid. At the Word Trade Organisation, India and South Africa have proposed a temporary waiver to vaccine patents, allowing production—[Inaudible]—expand. Public money funded these vaccines, so will the Government put public health before the profits of big pharma and support a waiver of the vaccine patents?

[Nigel Adams]

The audio was a bit in and out there, but I think I got the gist of the hon. Lady’s question. As I have said several times in my response, we are doing an immense amount. We are at the forefront of efforts to ensure that vaccines are getting to the most vulnerable countries—to developing countries—as well as being, I think, the second or third largest donor to the COVAX programme. I gently remind the hon. Lady that that support will assist 1.3 billion people in low and middle-income countries across the globe, including India, where we have seen such horrific scenes; our hearts are with them.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated more than ever before the absolute need for strong and reliable partners, especially in the interconnected world in which we all live? Will he confirm that the Prime Minister will, in fact, be visiting India as soon as the country recovers from this dreadful outbreak?

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. The irony is that the Prime Minister would have been in India had it not been for this latest outbreak. I know that he will be speaking to Prime Minister Modi shortly via video link. We want to ensure that we continue that co-operation on trade, defence, climate change and health, which is absolutely key. We want to finalise a 2030 road map for future India-UK relations that will provide a strategic basis for our relationship in the coming years. We look forward to the Prime Minister meeting Prime Minister Modi as soon as practically possible. Depending on how the pandemic goes in India, there may be an opportunity for the Prime Minister to visit in person later this year.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing this urgent question. I have family in India and, like others, I have found the news from the country quite distressing. Do the Government believe that people in low and middle-income countries should have fair and timely access to life-saving covid vaccines and drugs? If so, are the Government willing to reverse their position on opposing the proposal from India and South Africa of a patent waiver in relation to covid vaccines, medicines and medical equipment at the World Trade Organisation?

[Nigel Adams]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we agree that low and middle-income countries should have equitable access to vaccines. That is why we are putting over half a billion pounds of UK taxpayers’ money into the COVAX arrangement, and also 1.3 billion people in those countries will be assisted by the vaccines that will be provided.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Over the years, quite a few people—including, I must admit, myself —have questioned aspects of international aid and its efficiency, but I wonder if the Minister will acknowledge that public opinion is changing in the middle of a global pandemic, with international aid being seen not just as a moral duty—we are part of one humanity. If health systems around the world collapse, sooner or later it will come back to bite us. In that respect, can the Minister give a categorical assurance that the recent overseas aid budget cuts will not have affected in any way our ability to help the world’s poorest countries deal with this global pandemic?

[Nigel Adams]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. The total amount that FCDO will spend on global health is £1.3 billion and this will be focused on the UK’s position at the forefront of the international response to covid, not just through our commitments with COVAX and the vaccines I have been talking about, but also through the Gavi alliance and the World Health Organisation. Our investment and expertise will be brought to bear on issues where we can make the most difference and achieve maximum impact and value for money.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

As many hon. Members have said, the images from India are both difficult to watch and painful for many of our constituents with family there. In light of what is happening, how much of the 1.3 billion that is going into covid relief worldwide is going to India? Might that be reviewed in light of what is happening across the world, with a view to upgrading it?

[Nigel Adams]

I think the hon. Lady was referring to the 1.3 billion vaccine doses; perhaps she can nod if that is the case.

[Christine Jardine]

indicated assent.

[Nigel Adams]

Of course, we have made our commitment and our financial commitment to COVAX. It will decide where the vaccines to 92 low and middle-income countries will go; that decision will be taken not by the UK but strategically by COVAX through the advanced market commitment it is operating. However, we have committed the money; we are paying the money and we should be proud of the support that the United Kingdom is giving for international vaccines.

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) [V]]

Like the 1.5 million other members of the British Indian diaspora, I have been watching with my heart in my mouth, worried for friends and families in India, over the last few weeks. May I ask the Minister to join me in putting on record our thanks to all the officials, Government Ministers and private-sector businesses that have been involved in our work not only in COVAX—I think we were the largest donor up until December last year—but with AstraZeneca, which is doing crucial work in providing vaccines to the world’s poorest, and for our deliveries of oxygen as well?

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my hon. Friend for her thanks in this regard. An extraordinary amount of work has been done, and not just by Government; she was right to mention the private sector, which has stepped up in this pandemic. There has been an incredible international, joined-up effort under extreme circumstances, but I want to commend the work both of the FCDO and across Government in ensuring that the initial shipment got out to India with great speed. We were the first to deliver equipment and there will be more to come. I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend’s thanks are amplified to the relevant parties.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

At a time when India is registering the highest ever recorded cases globally of covid, we must help the Indian people in their hour of need. I have close family there and many of my Slough constituents are extremely anxious about their loved ones, terrified after seeing apocalyptic scenes of people dying on the streets for want of oxygen, a collapsing health system, and crematoriums and cemeteries being overwhelmed, with thousands of people dying every day. I am sure the Minister will join me in commending the incredible work of volunteers, including British-based charities, but, given our close historical ties, will he ensure that the UK is the No. 1 aid donor, especially of medical expertise and equipment, including ventilators and oxygen concentrators?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Member makes a good point. We are indeed committed to supporting the Government of India—as I have said on a number of occasions here, we were first out of the blocks—and I know international partners will be doing the same. There are close historical ties and family ties with India across the House, and we will ensure that we are at the forefront of that support. We are doing it, there is more to come, and there will be more information when we have concluded our conversations with the Indian Government on what will supply. The hon. Member can rest assured, and the House can rest assured, that the United Kingdom Government are doing their bit to support the Indian people.

[Mr Speaker]

I am suspending the House for two minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

13:25

Sitting suspended.

Environment (Regulation)

1st reading
Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

17:29

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent regulatory body to monitor and enforce the compliance of public bodies with climate and environmental requirements and targets; to make provision for associated sanctions; to require the regulatory body to assess the environmental effects of potential trade agreements; to make provision about environmental standards, including in relation to animal welfare; and for connected purposes.

I am introducing the Bill because the UK is without meaningful environmental regulation and without any kind of independent environmental regulator. Having left the EU and having promised four years ago to introduce legislation to provide the UK with its own independent regulator, the Government continue to fail to meet that promise. Unregulated and unpoliced, our standards of biodiversity, air quality and animal welfare need to be protected or the Government will allow them to be eroded.

Politicians on all sides have a habit of saying that British farming is the best in the world. That claim happens to be true, but I fear that the Conservative Government do not understand why it is true. We can protect British farming only if we understand it. I am compelled to introduce the Bill, because the Government do not seem to understand it and do not seem to get it.

British farming is the best in the world, mainly for two fundamental reasons: standards and culture: standards, because we have led the development of the world’s most ambitious and comprehensive system of agricultural and environmental regulation alongside our partners on the continent; and culture, because the unit of farming in Britain is the family farm, which has underpinned our reputation for unrivalled care and compassion for livestock, and for a ratio of humans to animals that allows the welfare of those animals to be a priority. Furthermore, the culture of Britain’s family farms is one in which they are not just proud to produce our food but proud to be the stewards of our countryside and environment, to be on the frontline of the fight against climate change and the fight to restore nature. If we lose our world-class regulation and have no effective regulator, and if we allow family farms to be undercut and go to the wall, we fatally undermine British farming and all that is good about it. It is not acceptable for the Government to promise regulation and a regulator, and continually to break that promise, while our farmers are put under increasing pressure and our environment is put at increased risk.

That is why, along with my Liberal Democrat and Alliance colleagues, I am pushing the Bill. There is an urgent need for safeguards to be put in place. We need a regulator that is well resourced, has comprehensive and strong powers, and is completely independent of Government so that it can set and enforce regulation without fear or favour, and have the strength to hold public authorities at all levels to account. We need much more than a body that just points out where the Government are failing. We need an office that can force the Government to comply; an office that can prosecute, and can levy fines and other sanctions to prevent abuse; a watchdog whose bite is as great as its bark. Without powerful, independent regulation or a regulator, we will begin to see more complexities in bureaucracy as food producers seek to comply with traditional, high-quality British standards but simultaneously have to operate with lower production costs as they battle to avoid being undercut by cheap imports.

A huge fear for consumers and farmers alike is that the Government will allow lower quality, cheaper imports into the UK as they seek deals with other countries to provide some compensation for the loss of nearby European markets: countries that do not take care of their animals like we do, which lack animal welfare protections and do not produce food in ways that reduce carbon emissions or take care of the natural environment. Those countries allow their producers to have lower input costs due to those lower standards. Is it right that the UK should have to see an increase in products on our supermarket shelves that have come from inhumane or environmentally irresponsible production methods? Is it right that farmers should be undercut and ruined by those cheaper and morally inferior products? The answer to those questions is absolutely no, yet the Government’s continued failure to step back and allow themselves to be regulated mean that we have no means to ensure that new trade deals do not open the door to food produced in ways that damage the environment, harm animals and put UK farmers out of business.

There is a real fear that the Government will do such deals—perhaps by accident, but quite probably by design. After all, the farming Minister wrote to Conservative MPs a few months ago telling them that if we required imports to meet the same animal welfare and environmental standards as British farmers it would make it very difficult to secure trade deals. In other words, “Please do not tie our hands, because we can only get these trade deals if you allow us to throw British farmers under the bus.” That is why my proposal for a new, powerful and independent regulator is vital to protect British standards and British farmers.

Without a regulator, we will allow the Conservative Government to continue their path of inaction on the natural environment. We see a lack of natural flood protection; loss of British biodiversity at an ever increasing rate; and the tragic, premature deaths of thousands of people every year due to air pollution. In the past five years, this Government have been told by multiple court systems that they need to do much more to tackle the toxic levels of air pollution in this country. Their 2017 national action plan on air pollution was deemed unlawful by the UK High Court, as it was simply not strong enough to enforce change among local authorities. This year, in a case started before we left the EU, the European Court of Justice found this Government to have “systematically and persistently” breached air pollution limits. Without an independent regulator with the teeth to hold our Government to account, they will be even less accountable for their failures to tackle these ecological and human crises. The lack of action from the Conservatives should not be left to the court systems to sort out. It should be dealt with directly by an independent body, just as the Government have promised.

Our lack of environmental protections extend beyond air quality and into the quality of nature in the UK. We are already living in the most nature-depleted country on the planet. Only 14% of our waterways are in good condition, and more than 40% of native species are in decline. This is an embarrassment for us all. We are in the run-up to COP26, and at the moment our likely message to other countries will have to be, “Do as we say but not as we do.” We cannot set a good example when the Government are threatening the livelihoods of farmers across the UK with a lack of regulation on animal welfare and other standards.

The Government are compounding that error by their stubborn and penny-pinching approach to the transition from the basic farm payment scheme to the new environmental land management scheme. The Government insist on forcing many family farms to accept a 50% cut in their income, with no immediate replacement. This plan will inevitably put hundreds of family farms out of business. This matters because without farmers we have no partners to deliver natural flood prevention schemes, to enhance biodiversity and carbon sequestration, and to maintain the stunning landscapes that underpin the tourism economy in places such as the lakes and the dales. This stubborn penny-pinching goes hand in hand with the Government’s failure to ensure a powerful independent regulator. Both those failures seem certain to contribute to undermining British farming and our natural environment, unless we act.

Today, I am giving Parliament the opportunity to act. This Bill aims to unite town and country in favour of a new deal for our environment that values British farmers and enshrines British values. How can we say that we are proud of our animal welfare standards, our environmental protections, and the quality of British farming if we then are happy to sell them out to the highest bidder with the lowest regulation? We need an environmental regulator, as the Government have promised. Given that the Government have failed to deliver that promise, I stand here to deliver it for them. For the good of our farmers and our environment, there is no more time to lose.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Tim Farron, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Wendy Chamberlain, Daisy Cooper, Ed Davey, Stephen Farry, Wera Hobhouse, Christine Jardine, Layla Moran, Sarah Olney, Jamie Stone and Munira Wilson present the Bill.

Tim Farron accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 297).

Fire Safety Bill

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

After Clause 2

Legislative proposals relating to prohibition on passing remediation costs on to leaseholders and tenants

13:39

[The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)]

I beg to move,

That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4L.

As I have said on a number of occasions at this Dispatch Box, I want to express my sincere thanks once again to all right hon. and hon. Members for engaging in this important debate. I would like to repeat the message given by my noble Friend the building safety Minister in paying tribute to the fire and rescue services across our country, because in recent days we have seen large fires in Greater Manchester and Shropshire, and they have been dealt with in an exemplary and professional manner. This is a reminder of why we want to get this Bill on to the statute book—to help fire and rescue services do their job to ensure that buildings are properly and thoroughly assessed.

All of us in this House and in the other place agree in the strongest terms that residents have the right to be and to feel safe in their homes. This Government remain steadfast in our commitment to delivering the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report’s recommendations. The Fire Safety Bill is an important first step in our legislative programme delivering these recommendations. I cannot stress enough, as I have reiterated on a number of occasions throughout the passage of this Bill, the vital importance of this legislation and the ramifications if it fails as a result of outstanding remediation amendments, and that is why I move that this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4L.

Without the Fire Safety Bill, legal ambiguity around the fire safety order will continue. Moreover, the updating of fire risk assessments to cover structure, external walls and flat entrance doors will be ignored by a number of negligent building owners, and fire and rescue services will lack the legal certainty to support enforcement decisions. That is a matter that I know will be in the minds of Members today, as it should also be in the minds of Members of the other place.

A number of Members across the House have said to me, “Well, why not simply redraft the Bill?” That might be easier to do with other legislation that already has careful cross-referencing to other Acts and already has detailed secondary legislation to revise regulations, but not so with this small but none the less important Bill. Redrafting it, even if the amendments were not defective, so that it carefully navigates the intricate web of contract law and does not fall foul of such Acts beloved of Members of this House, including many Opposition Members, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, will take considerable time, and we do not have that time.

Following our announcement in February, I am pleased to say that hundreds of thousands of leaseholders will be protected from the cost of replacing unsafe cladding on their homes as part of our five-point plan to end the cladding scandal once and for all, improve the saleability of properties and restore confidence in the housing market. The measures that we announced in February—including our work with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to reduce the need for EWS1 forms; our work with developers to put more of their own money on the table, additional to our tax and levy plans; and our work with lenders to buy into our package of measures to ensure sensible and proportionate value is re-ascribed to homes valued at zero—will allow hundreds of thousands of homes to be sold, bought or remortgaged once again. That will provide certainty to residents and lenders, boost the housing market and reinstate the value of properties. All the amendments we have received, debated and already disposed of would simply reignite uncertainty in the market and risk lenders once again turning to leaseholders saying, “Computer says no: we can’t value your property”.

I find it somewhat ironic that Members are flagging these issues in the context of trying to impede the progress of the Bill, as having an up-to-date fire and risk assessment that considers the external wall system of a building should enable an insurer to take an informed and proportionate approach to risk that considers not only the material and construction of the building but the way in which it is managed.

13:45

I agree that leaseholders need stronger avenues for redress. The draft Building Safety Bill, which has already gone through prelegislative scrutiny, will bring forward measures to do this, including making directors, as well as companies, liable for prosecution.

I agree that the industry must also play its part. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who is in his place, our high-rise levy and developer tax will make sure that the developers with the broadest shoulders pay their way. I reiterate what I said to him yesterday about forfeiture, which is a draconian measure that should be used only as a last resort. We believe this matter should be considered as part of our wider programme of leasehold reform, which we have already indicated we will bring forward.

I also welcome my right hon. Friend’s suggestion, in yesterday’s speech, about the case study from Portishead in his constituency. As I agreed yesterday, I think we can make good use of this opportunity to assess in-depth lessons learned from the systems on the ground. Again, I am grateful to him for his proposals.

The safety of leaseholders and residents will be compromised if we do not ensure that this Bill is placed on the statute book by the end of this Session. We will not help leaseholders, nor will we make homes any safer, by impeding its passage.

Lords amendment 4L lacks clarity, just like the others. Just like the others, it prohibits all kinds of remediation costs from being passed on to leaseholders, which means that were there to be even minor costs as a result of wear and tear, or even where leaseholders themselves are responsible for the damage, they would not be expected to pay. I do not believe, and I do not believe this House believes, that that is a proportionate response.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Christopher Pincher]

I will, of course, give way to the Father of the House, as I was unable to do so yesterday due to time constraints.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful to the Minister, and he knows I am trying to play the ball and not the person. The question is not the small amounts but the large amounts. It is estimated that the cost of remediation may go up to £15 billion. The Government are providing £5 billion, which leaves £10 billion that may fall on the shoulders of leaseholders. We are moving from a situation that might be ironic for some, to one that is irenic for more. The point of the amendment is that it needs to be met by Government, and it needs to be met in good time, or else many people will not be able to meet the demand to pay for the cost of remediation, and forfeiture will follow. That will happen in a shorter timescale than the one talked about by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox).

[Christopher Pincher]

I certainly accept my hon. Friend’s assurance that he is playing the issue, as he always does, and not the man. As he rightly says, we propose to spend £5.1 billion of public money on remediating the tallest buildings, as directed by the Hackitt report and its recommendations.

We have also said that as a result of our tax on the development industry, which the Chancellor will consult on imminently, we will raise a further £2 billion. We have also said that we will introduce a tall buildings levy. Developers themselves are placing more money on the table. Taylor Wimpey has now placed a further £125 million on the table for remediation, and Persimmon £75 million. The amounts are building up. We have also suggested a very advantageous financing scheme for those buildings below 18 metres that may require some remediation.

I think all Members would agree that the taxpayer should not be paying for every cost associated with the provisions of the Fire Safety Bill, but that is the risk, because the scope of the amendments that have been tabled is far too broad to provide a sensible solution. Lords amendment 4L is also unclear on who should take responsibility for remediation works until a statutory scheme is in place to pay the costs. That would result in all types of remediation being delayed—a really unsatisfactory outcome for leaseholders. Leaseholders also will not thank us for voting through an amendment that will generate lots of litigation that they may need to pay for.

The amendment would prevent the passing on of remediation costs, but it does not define what those costs are. That is a recipe for litigation and a recipe for delay. There is a lack of clarity on the definition of remedial work and what may be attributable to the provisions in this Bill, in other Acts or in none. How would Members suggest that we disaggregate the legislation under which works are carried out and the definition to differentiate between remediation, maintenance or improvement? It is a recipe for litigation and a recipe for delay.

In effect, it may not be possible to relieve leaseholders and tenants from all costs for remedial works attributable to the Bill without breaching subsidy control rules—a form of state aid. Further detailed consideration would be needed about that, too. Practically speaking, drafting legislation is, as many Members will know, a complex matter that cannot be dealt with in the timeframe proposed by the amendment, and to provide an arbitrary deadline is neither helpful nor practical.

There is a common theme uniting these points. The amendments will not work. They will not help leaseholders. They are not detailed enough for a complex and intricate problem of this nature. We have seen the key elements of this amendment time and again, and this House has voted them down time and again. Yet time and again, peers and the Opposition—unintentionally, I trust—seem set on reinjecting uncertainty into the market, which cannot help leaseholders. I respectfully ask the House to reject this amendment, so that we return a further clear and consistent message to the other place.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

The Minister has made a lengthy speech on this occasion, perhaps trying to ensure that others have less time to speak. I am glad that he took an intervention from the Father of the House on this occasion—he did not do so yesterday—but unfortunately he did not answer the main point, and therefore we must conclude that the Government are content for the £10 billion of additional cost to be shouldered by leaseholders.

We find ourselves in an extraordinary position. We voted on this only yesterday, and in that debate every single speaker—the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem contributors—pleaded with the Government to support leaseholders. No one spoke in the Government’s favour, and the Government’s majority was halved in the vote. At what point does the Minister question the sense of his approach? At what point does he turn around and think, “Well, all these people who have spoken are sensible and well meaning; perhaps they have a point”? At what point does he consider that he might actually agree with us?

I suspect that the Minister has had those thoughts, and I suspect that he even agrees with us. He knows that the Bank of England is worried about a crash caused directly by the crisis. He knows that hundreds of thousands of people are suffering. But he also knows that his Chancellor and his Prime Minister do not care enough to act. They have other priorities—to their property and development donors. Fourteen separate companies and individuals with links to construction companies using potentially lethal aluminium composite material cladding on buildings have donated nearly £4 million to the Conservatives since 2006. The Prime Minister must have his new curtains, so they turn away from the screams for help from the people hit with extraordinary bills of £40,000, £50,000, £60,000, and the Minister has to bunker down, hold his nose and hold the line. I almost feel sorry for him.

Let me touch briefly on the arguments put forward by the Minister yesterday and today for not accepting these amendments. The argument that they would further delay the implementation of the Grenfell recommendations does not wash and is frankly insulting to the Grenfell survivors. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) read out Grenfell United’s condemnation of the use and abuse of the tragedy to put the blame on leaseholders. It said that the Government’s excuse that amendments to protect leaseholders would delay Grenfell recommendations is “deeply upsetting”, “wrong”,

“and shows they’d rather protect the corporates responsible from paying for the mess they created.”

That argument against delaying the Bill was put to us time and again when we were trying to make amendments to implement the Grenfell inquiry recommendations. On Report, the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), said that accepting our amendment to implement the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 recommendations would “create uncertainty”. The Minister for Crime and Policing, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), later said:

“It is not helpful, I have to say, for the House to keep returning to this issue.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 950.]

He added that it causes “confusion”. However, after continually voting against our amendments, the Government eventually gave in and made the concession in the other place. It was possible then, even after months of their saying it was not, and it is possible now.

The Housing Minister has the audacity to imply that the supposed delays from new amendments would mean that people were less safe, as if people are not already unsafe living in buildings riddled with fire safety issues. Has he forgotten that hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country are already stuck in unsafe buildings? I say to him again today: 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 now? Labour’s amendment would buy the Government time. It would protect leaseholders while the Government came up with a longer-term plan.

As Lord Kennedy of Southwark said yesterday in the other place, it is unusual to be here again so soon, but this is an unprecedented crisis and the Government should be taking unprecedented measures to sort it out. The Government know that hundreds of thousands of people are being forced to pay to fix fire safety issues that were not their fault. The Government should pay and then go after the building companies and developers who are responsible. Most MPs agree: 95% of all MPs, and 92% of Tory MPs, said that the developers who built the flats should pay to make them safe.

The tragedy is that we know that, at some point, the Government are going to have to act to fix this problem. We know that they cannot leave leaseholders to foot a £10 billion bill. Yet yesterday, many Conservative Members voted against an amendment that would have protected leaseholders. What will they do today? Will they keep voting against their conscience, against their opinions, against the will of their constituents, or will they do the right thing and vote to protect leaseholders?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We have a very short time for this debate, so I am afraid that we have to have a limit of three minutes on Back-Bench speeches.

[Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)]

First, I have agreed with pretty much everything that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) has said in these debates over the last few weeks, but I disagree fundamentally with her bringing into it this political trope that the reason the Government will not act is that they are all in the pocket of the developers. That does not help this debate, it does not help us move it forward, and it does not help the leaseholders to keep putting in their minds that there is some sort of conspiracy. I agree with the hon. Lady on almost everything, but certainly not on that.

In yesterday’s debate, the Minister said—this was repeated just a few moments ago from the Dispatch Box—that

“all of us in this House agree that residents deserve to be safe, and to feel safe, in their homes.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 264.]

He is correct. We all agree on that. I think we all agree —at least, the Government, from the Prime Minister down have repeatedly said they agree—that leaseholders should not have to pay for historical fire defects.

14:00

The Minister reminded us that this Bill was introduced over a year ago. May I remind him that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) tabled the “McPartland-Smith amendment” nearly five months ago? The Minister has repeatedly suggested that our amendments are defective, and he has done so again today, but in five months the Government have done nothing to take our well-intentioned amendment and incorporate it in the Bill. We have less than 48 hours until the end of this parliamentary Session. If the Government and Minister agree that innocent leaseholders should not pay, and if they are now concerned that they have run out of time, should they not have attempted a compromise in the five months since we tabled our amendment?

Noble Lords from the other place have now done the Government’s work for them. They have found a mechanism to save the Fire Safety Bill—which we all want, incidentally—and, at the same time, to insert a requirement for the Government to protect leaseholders from the crippling charges for defects that are not of their making. I cannot repeat this enough—this is not of their making. We have repeatedly asked the Government to compromise, but they have not done so. This amendment allows them to do so now, even at the eleventh hour, and finally secure the future of the Bill and protect those who have been begging the Government for help.

I will support the Lords amendment today, and I hope that the Government and my colleagues on the Government Benches will do so. If they are serious about protecting innocent leaseholders and securing the Bill, they will agree to the Lords amendment or table their own in the other place before the end of the parliamentary Session. I think everyone knows that it is time to take the compromise.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]]

The Minister knows that this problem is not going to go away. Whether it is the Fire Safety Bill today or in the Building Safety Bill, we will keep returning to this. He knows that because what has been done so far is insufficient. He knows it because, as things stand, the length of time it is likely to take to sort this out will be too long for many leaseholders to be able to continue to bear the costs that they are paying at the moment and to contemplate the future costs that hang over them. And the Government know it because, as they said right at the beginning of this crisis—we intend to hold them to this promise—it is not right that leaseholders should be asked to bear the costs of something they were not responsible for.

I really do not understand the Minister’s argument. The uncertainty is not caused by our voting for the Lords amendments; it is the unresolved problem that is causing huge uncertainty. As for his point about drafting complexity, he should give a commitment to go away and draft something and bring it back in the Building Safety Bill, because either his view is that it is complex and no one has drafted anything suitable yet—so go away and draft it—or it is simply a way of trying to resist the idea that leaseholders should not have to pay.

In the meantime, I have a practical suggestion to make. All those involved, including MPs, spend a lot of time going back and forth about practical problems in respect of blocks, difficulties, delays, a lack of communication and so forth. I have had to use parliamentary questions to try to find out what has been happening in respect of applications to the building safety fund for particular blocks in my constituency. I have to say, the replies I have received have been distinctly unhelpful.

A very large range of people is involved: leaseholders of course, freeholders, the fire service, managing agents, building companies, developers, chartered surveyors, local authorities, mortgage lenders, insurance companies, and the Minister’s Department. I know that Ministers and officials meet individual groups and organisations regularly, but I think there would be great merit in bringing together representatives of all these groups to establish what we can call a contact group or an action group, so that the Minister and his officials can sit around a table on a regular basis to share information about what is happening and to progress-chase, iron out problems, test out ideas and find answers to the problems for which there is as yet no plan, but which my constituents in Leeds have to live with each and every day and which weigh so heavily upon them, their lives and their sense of whether there is a future that they can look forward to, because, as things stand, there is not one. I really hope that Ministers will take up the idea and finally acknowledge that only a comprehensive plan is going to bring this nightmare to an end.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

Again, we all want the same thing. We want the protection of leaseholders from bills that they cannot afford and should not have been given; we want the protection of taxpayers from a burden that they should not have to carry; and we want the application of the “polluter pays” principle, so that the developers, insurers and builders who are responsible for the problems in the first place are the ones who have to pay the costs of remediation. All of that has become perfectly clear during our various debates on the matter.

I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) said yesterday and today about establishing a study on the ground—similar, in some ways, to that which the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) just mentioned—that would make it possible to talk to real people about real bills, and about why the huge sum of taxpayers’ money that has been set aside is not getting through to them. What rate-limiting steps, and what problems with bureaucracy and the timescales that have been set, make it impossible for that money to get to the people who need it? I very much welcome that idea. I hope that the timescale will be short and the Minister will be able to share the lessons learned with all Members.

Today, the Minister has edged us towards the necessary compromise. If we are willing to make it clear in the Queen’s Speech that leasehold reform will deal with forfeiture, that will remove one of the biggest fears. As the Father of the House said, what about the potential for forfeiture to occur during the time before the passing of that legislation? That does need to be dealt with. If I may say so, my hon. Friend the Minister was clearer about that today than he was yesterday, and that is hugely to be welcomed. I have always thought that the idea that we could not say what would be in the Queen’s Speech sat a bit oddly with the fact that we can read what will be in the Budget three days before it actually happens.

I also welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the scope of the Building Safety Bill and the ability to set out in it the concept of apportionment, which will be a major element. I hope that if we can take these concepts forward in the other place, we might reach a solution to this problem. It seems to me that the building blocks of a solution are there.

As my hon. Friend and Members from all parts of the House have said, we all want certainty, so that lenders can lend, property values can stabilise and homeowners—the very people my party wants to encourage—can sleep soundly in their beds once again, as they have a right to do.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I, too, rise to support the Lords amendment. The amendment is simple; it protects leaseholders and prevents them from being charged crippling, life-changingly colossal bills to make safe properties that are unsafe only because of the actions of developers and a lack of Government regulation.

Here we are: the Government have played to the final whistle, and they are down by the corner flag keeping ball and feigning cramp in the hope that the final whistle will go and we will all move on. Let me be clear. I assure the Minister—and, more importantly, I encourage anxious and distressed leaseholders—that we will not give up. We will not troop off the field, not to play again, once the 90 minutes are up. We will come back next Session and fight the corner of leaseholders who currently face bills that they can never, ever hope to be able to afford, and that are not theirs to pay in the first place.

As has been mentioned, the Government’s stance on this issue sets out starkly whose side they are on. They are on the side of the wealthy developers, some of whom fund their party. They are on the side of negligent officials who allowed this to happen. They are not on the side of those who are working hard to afford a roof above their heads. This is a Britain, it would appear, where innocent householders have to pay to remove dangerous cladding while somebody else pays for the Prime Minister’s new curtains. We believe in a better Britain where there is justice, not crushing, undeserved debt. If we do not win today, then, for the sake of leaseholders across this country, we will be back.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

So, here we are again debating the Fire Safety Bill and the Lords amendments to it. The key issue here is not whether we enshrine in law the requirements on fire safety but who ends up paying for them. The reality is, as the Father of the House mentioned, that the £5.1 billion offered by the Government thus far will be insufficient to cover the remediation and fire safety costs identified not only in tall buildings but in lower buildings as well. The key issue, then, is that it is going to take some five years for the work to be carried out, and that leaseholders are receiving bills now of £50,000 or more in order for the work to be carried out. They can ill afford it.

The Government are committed to producing the Building Safety Bill, but we know that it will be announced in the Queen’s Speech and that it will probably take 18 months to two years before it is live and operational. Leaseholders do not have the luxury of that time. They are being charged the money right now. We still do not know the details of the forced loan scheme that the Government are offering for leaseholders in buildings below six storeys. We have been asking to scrutinise it, so we can see whether it is fit for purpose or whether it will even work.

I have had the honour and privilege of serving on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for the past 11 years. We are publishing a report on cladding and the other issues tomorrow. Obviously I am not allowed to pre-disclose the details, but it is fair to say that we are critical of the way in which the Government are approaching this necessary means. I urge the Minister for Housing, who is a good friend for whom I have every respect, to let us have some commitments from the Front Bench in his answer to this debate, and to tell us what he will do to ensure that leaseholders are prevented from having to bear these unnecessary and unacceptable costs. Let us also have some commitments on when we will see the proposed forced loan scheme. Let us have some commitments on when we can expect to see the Building Safety Bill brought into operation, and some overall commitment to ensure that people living in unmortgageable, unsaleable flats are given appropriate comfort, because, frankly, without that, we will have to support the Lords amendment to ensure that the Government come back with these proposals early in the new Session.

Let us make sure that we send the message to leaseholders out there: you should not have to pay a penny piece to rectify the problems that are not your fault in the first place. I shall be supporting the Lords amendment once again today.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]]

This Bill has been passing backwards and forwards between the Lords and Commons because the Government will not do the right thing and protect leaseholders from the ruinous costs of replacing cladding and remediating internal fire safety defects during construction. By refusing to do so, the Government are making liars out of all the successive Ministers—and, indeed, a Prime Minister—who have told this House that leaseholders should not pay for building defects for which they are not responsible.

Today I want to focus on the impact of the EWS1 regulations and the callous way in which another operator, FirstPort, is treating vulnerable residents in Blackberry Court in my constituency. FirstPort has written to the 27 leaseholders in Blackberry Court, which is a two-storey block of flats, to advise them that the fire safety work will cost more than £20,000. It has not provided a breakdown of costs or issued a section 20 notice, as it is legally obliged to do for any work costing more than £250 per leaseholder. What is most disturbing, however, is that FirstPort has been demanding access to the roof void through the only loft hatch, which is located in the bedroom of my constituent, who is an elderly lady of 94 years of age. FirstPort would brook no objection to this until I intervened to forestall this intrusion and asked it to create new access to the roof void from the common parts of the building. But the fact that it had not yet been able to access the void to survey it means that it must already have been aware that there was no compartmentation in the roof space. Indeed, I have discovered that Blackberry Court, which was built in 2007, never got a completion certificate, despite being covered by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. That prompts the question of why the company had not acted on this fire safety defect before. Some may suspect that the properties were unsaleable and devalued—unless the work was done—because of the EWS1 form. The Government did change the requirements on the form, but the Minister knows that the banks and the mortgage lenders have not changed their stance, nor have the insurers.

14:15

Charitably, EWS1 forms are the Government’s attempt to force a proper assessment of fire safety defects. Less charitably, they appear to be an attempt to outsource the crucial work of assessing dangerous buildings after Grenfell Tower to an unregulated private market. Currently, there is no requirement for a surveyor to hold the minimum qualification—professional registration or certification as to their competence—and nothing to ensure a uniform approach as to how inspectors carry out checks. This means that, in some cases, different EWS1 ratings are being given for the same block.

According to Government statistics, there are around 88,000 residential buildings taller than 11 metres in England, containing 1.2 million leasehold homes. The Government have said that there are currently just 212 chartered fire engineers across the UK registered with the Institution of Fire Engineers. This means that getting an EWS1 form is nigh on impossible, and, in the meantime, leaseholders are left in economic limbo, unable to sell or to move on with their lives. My constituent, at the age 94, simply wants to live out her life in peace and safety in the flat that she bought more than a decade ago. The Government’s refusal—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman considerable leeway, but he has far exceeded the time allocated, so we must now go to Sir Robert Neill.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

I shall be supporting Lords amendment 4L today with some regret, because I wish the Government had moved to resolve this issue since we last debated it yesterday; it is disappointing that they have not done so. I support the amendment on the basis that I want the Fire Safety Bill to proceed; I want it to be successful. The truth is that, while the fundamental elements of the Bill are worthy, it none the less has, at present, the effect of causing collateral damage to innocent leaseholders. That flies in the face of undertakings that the Government themselves have regularly given. Despite the huge sums of money that has been put in, as is already apparent, it is not enough.

In the meantime, we need to have a scheme that protects leaseholders, and it is the absence of a provision in the Bill to do that which is the problem. If Lords amendment 4L is not satisfactory to the Government, then there is still time for them to produce their own. I very much hoped that the Government would have acted on the proposals in the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) yesterday. That still offers a way forward, but absent that, at least the current amendment from the Lords gives the means of protection in the interim.

At the present time, leaseholders in blocks, such as Northpoint in my constituency, have properties that are unmortgageable. They cannot move. They cannot raise any more money on them. They have already expended tens of thousands of pounds in costs relating to waking watch and greatly increased insurance claims. That is not satisfactory.

We need a provision that bridges the gap in getting those responsible to pay. None of us who supports this amendment wants the taxpayer to be picking up a blank cheque. We want those who are responsible, who were at fault, ultimately to pick up the tab, but it will take some time to pin the financial responsibility on those people. In the interim, we must have a means of protecting the innocent leaseholders. That bridging arrangement is something that only the Government are able to do. I would have hoped that accepting that, together with commitments to move swiftly in legislation in this Queen’s Speech, was not an unreasonable thing to do.

Having served as a Minister myself, I do not buy the proposition that it is beyond the resources of Government to swiftly produce legislation that remedies the alleged defect that the Minister sees in the current amendment and sets the Bill in good order. There is still time to do that. I beseech the Minister to reflect on this and to come back with the Government’s own proposals in the other House before the end of this Session.

Robustness is a virtue, but when it turns into obduracy it ceases to be a virtue. I do not want the Government to get themselves into that situation. There is still time, and this amendment buys them time to resolve that satisfactorily. I urge the Minister profoundly to listen to this.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). I agree wholeheartedly with what he said, and indeed with the comments made from the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) and by many other Members across the House. I also support the Lords amendment, not least because of the suffering undergone by my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth and by many others across the UK.

The Minister talked about uncertainty, but as many Members have pointed out, uncertainty is being caused by the Government’s failure to engage with reasonable proposals made from all parts of the House to provide certainty for the very leaseholders who have been affected.

The Minister’s arguments simply do not wash. Our leaseholders have been dealing with this matter for years—the anxiety, the stress and the financial pressure, not least during the covid pandemic over the past year. That has been intolerable for some of them, and I have met constituents who were crying and in a terrible state because of the situation they have been left in. I simply cannot understand the Government’s continued resistance, not least given the cross-party pressure and support.

I thank the Welsh Government—Housing Minister Julie James, my colleague Vaughan Gething and so many others—for meeting with leaseholders in my constituency. They have put pressure on developers and made a commitment to £32 million in the recent budget, and have already committed £10 million. They have an active programme on leasehold reform and, crucially, are making it clear, which the Government here seem unwilling to do, that leaseholders should not have to foot the bill for fixing these fire safety and building safety defects.

We all want the developers to pay and we all want the resources to come through, but the reality is that we all have to stand up and say clearly, once and for all, that leaseholders should not be the ones paying for the remediation. This is not their fault. I will continue to work closely on the issue with my constituency colleague Vaughan Gething, our local councillors, and a range of residents and leaseholder organisations. We are not going away. Some of the stories of how people have been affected have been told passionately today on BBC Wales—the suffering, the anxiety, the pressures.

I am yet to receive adequate response from the UK Government, who have left the Welsh Government and Welsh leaseholders in the dark on the way forward. There is no need for that unless there is something to hide. As the Minister knows, Welsh Government officials have worked constructively with his Department on the passage of the Bill, and are working on a range of issues relating to the building safety Bill, yet it took the Housing Secretary more than a month to respond to the Welsh Housing Minister on the crucial, very reasonable questions she was asking in an offer of co-operation.

I have raised this matter with the Secretary of State for Wales, the Minister and others, yet the letter that came back from the Housing Secretary over a month later said he is

“not able to confirm the details and timing of budgetary allocations to Wales”,

although he says the Barnett formula will

“apply to that funding in the usual way”.

Why can he not give a clear and unequivocal answer about the money that will be available to Wales, and how the Government will work with Welsh officials on the proposed new tax and the new building levy so that we can finally provide some assurance to leaseholders in my constituency and, crucially, across the country?

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and all the Members who have spoken since the Minister sat down.

Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have said in the House and in the other place on many occasions that leaseholders would not have to pay for fire safety failures not of their making, so why do the Government still disagree with the Lords amendment? The Minister said yesterday and just now that the Government do not have time to draft appropriate amendments to the Bill in the way we seek, yet they have had seven months since Second Reading and five months since Third Reading—plenty of time to try to sort this out.

The safety scandal exposed by the Grenfell Tower fire affects up to 1.3 million flats. Current leaseholders cannot sell, and potential leaseholders cannot get new mortgages until they can prove the homes are safe. Insurance is impossible to come by. Worse, residents of those flats live with the fear of being trapped by a fire in their home. Leaseholders live with the fear of unaffordable costs for the remediation being imposed on them.

The human cost is incalculable. In my constituency alone, at the Paragon estate, built by Berkeley, about 70 homeowners, along with hundreds of assured tenants and students, were evacuated with a week’s notice and cannot return. A fire raged up the cladding of Sperry House in the middle of the Great West Quarter estate built by Barratt Homes. Leaseholders in at least 25 blocks in my constituency that were built by volume house developers face unknown costs, including for waking watch, for the replacement of flammable cladding and wooden balconies and, most expensive of all, to address the lack of fire breaks or proper compartmentalisation.

The building safety fund does not even cover the cost of cladding remediation throughout the country, let alone any of the other failures in these buildings, and it provides loans only for sub-18-metre blocks. Nor does it support housing associations with the cost of rectifying the safety failures that affect the social rented flats for which they have found themselves responsible through planning gain, so they are having to take the repair costs from the funds meant for the building of new social rented housing.

Unamended, the Bill will mean that leaseholders will be forced to pay. They should not have to pay—they did not design or build their flats and they do not own the building their flat is built in. This Parliament, with the support of this Government, could take the burden from leaseholders now, but instead we are told that we have to wait for a different Bill, the content of which is unspecified, as is its timetable. That is unacceptable.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]]

We have heard a lot recently about the Prime Minister’s honesty and integrity. It is important to our democracy that people can trust the word of their leaders, but this debate highlights that issue yet again. As I reminded the House yesterday, on 3 February the Prime Minister told us 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.]

It was a clear statement of policy—an unambiguous pledge to those who face ruin as a result of fire defects that are the responsibility of developers. Yet the Prime Minister has consistently whipped his Members to oppose amendments to the Bill that would honour his pledge.

I have listened carefully to the justifications from Ministers for opposing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and by the Bishop of St Albans, and we heard them again yesterday. The Minister described the amendments as “laudable in their intentions” but

“unworkable and an inappropriate means to resolve a problem as highly complex as this.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 264-265.]

His ministerial colleague in the other place, the Minister for Building Safety and Communities, said that it was

“the Government’s view that the Bill is not the right legislation in which to deal with remediation costs.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 2207.]

So, they are not the right amendments and it is not the right legislation.

Surely the Government should embrace the new Lords amendment, because it gives them the opportunity to draft their own proposals in separate legislation and to honour the Prime Minister’s promise to leaseholders. The Minister claimed today that it will take time; the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) rightly pointed out that they have had time. It has been five months since the hon. Gentleman tabled his amendment and three months since the Prime Minister’s promise: if the Minister genuinely felt that the objectives were laudable, he has had time to come up with his own proposals. Those in the Metis building, Wicker Riverside, Daisy Spring Works and other buildings throughout my constituency deserve nothing less, because they face bills of up to £50,000 each to fix the mistakes of others. Unlike the Prime Minister, they do not have access to private donors. They face bankruptcy and ruin, trapped in homes that are unsafe and unsaleable, facing unbearable pressure and unimaginable mental strain.

We have to recognise our responsibility. The leaseholders have been let down by not just the developers but a flawed system of building inspections. They are—as I know Ministers recognise—the victims of comprehensive regulatory failure. The Government have to step in, urgently fix the faults and then recover the funds from those responsible—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Again, I have allowed considerable leeway, but the hon. Gentleman has had his time. I do not understand: when people are speaking from home, can they not see the time limit? I think that might well be the case, so perhaps someone will send a message back. Here in the Chamber we can see the time limit and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I allowed him to exceed it.

I had put on a tight time limit because I had anticipated some vigorous debate and interventions; there has not been a single intervention, which leaves plenty of time for the Minister to respond to the debate.

[Christopher Pincher]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that opportunity. I am sorry that I have, unfortunately, interposed on the time that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) might otherwise have supposed to be his own; he was making a careful and passionate speech, as have the other nine right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken from the Back Benches today. I am grateful for their insight and considered contributions. I remind them and both Houses that the Government understand the aims that underpin the objectives that have been sent to us over the last several weeks by the House of Lords.

14:30

Let me address some of the points made in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) made a typically powerful and helpful speech. I agree with him that we want to help people get on to the housing ladder; that is a good Conservative principle. We also want to help them to stay on the housing ladder, which is why we brought forward a package of measures that we believe—and the lending sector tells us—will ensure that proper and sensible value can be reascribed to properties so that people can get on with their lives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked a number of questions, including when the Building Safety Bill will be brought forward. My noble Friend the Building Safety Minister is working on the feedback from the pre-legislative scrutiny process, and is considering the secondary legislation that must sit alongside the primary legislation. He will bring that Bill forward as quickly as may be in the next Session. My hon. Friend also asked about the speed with which we will bring forward our tax on developers. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will begin his consultation on that process imminently.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) has been an honourable and doughty campaigner in his cause over the last several months. He asked why the Government did not bring forward proposals earlier. The amendments that we received from the Lords, and indeed the amendment that for many months stood in his name, were defective. That is why we were not able to accept them and it is why we are not able to accept this particular amendment.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), made a number of points. I will not dignify the slur that she made on the integrity of the Conservative party and our commitment to this cause, other than to remind her that any party that is owned lock, stock and barrel by the trade unions and that has within it such luminaries as Tony Blair and Lord Mandelson—gentlemen not unknown to the lobbying industry—should be very careful about throwing mud, because mud tends to stick on those who throw it.

One of the points that the shadow Minister made, which was also raised in the speech yesterday of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), concerned why the Grenfell phase 1 recommendations might be delayed if the Fire Safety Bill does not reach the statute book in this Session. I remind my hon. Friend and the shadow Minister that the Fire Safety Bill puts beyond legal doubt that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to external walls and flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential dwellings. That certainty will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations, with reduced risk of legal challenge, to place duties on the responsible persons regarding external wall structure and flat entrance doors, as the inquiry recommended. Without this Bill on the statute book, there would be significant legal risks to the Secretary of State making such orders. It is vital that this Bill is placed on the statute book in order for us to use article 24 of the fire safety order to advance the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry.

I want to place on record, once again, that this Government are committed to protecting leaseholders and tenants from the costs of remediation as far as possible. This democratically elected House has voted unequivocally and decisively on four occasions. Shortly, we will be asked to vote for a fifth time. I urge the House to vote to reject these Lords amendments and I urge their lordships to listen to the will of this democratically elected House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be within the Standing Orders of this House for the Government, if they chose to, to propose a carry-over motion, so that the Bill would not be lost as this Session comes to an end and the Government could then improve the amendment, which keeps coming back, quite rightly, from the House of Lords?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As ever, his experience shows in the idea that has occurred to him. I do not know whether that idea has occurred to the Government. I do not know whether, if it has occurred to the Government, they have decided to pursue it or not. Actually, I do know that: if the idea has occurred to the Government, they have decided not to pursue it. Therefore, it is not a matter for me to decide what ought to happen, nor a matter for the Chair. It is up to the Government to decide how they take this matter past this rather difficult and unusual point, where the other place has sent a Bill back on several occasions. I expect that, like me, the hon. Gentleman eagerly anticipates the outcome of this Division and then we shall see what will happen next.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4L.

14:36

Division 281

Ayes: 322

---

Conservative: 321

Noes: 256

---

Labour: 196
Conservative: 32
Liberal Democrat: 11
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Independent: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 4L disagreed to.

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

As a point of clarification on the point of order raised just before the Division by the Father of the House—he will appreciate that I have now had the opportunity to consider his point more carefully—a Bill cannot, in fact, be carried over after it has been considered by the other place. I hope that that sets the mind of the Father of the House at rest about what the Government can and cannot properly do at this particular moment.

Motion made and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their Amendment 4L.

That Christopher Pincher, Tom Pursglove, Scott Mann and Chris Elmore be members of the Committee.

That Christopher Pincher be the Chair of the Committee.

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Alan Mak.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet not in the Reasons Room, but in Committee Room 12.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to a point raised at Scottish questions today, the Auditor General in Scotland has suggested that, of £9.7 billion allocated by UK taxpayers through the UK Treasury, only £7 billion had been spent on covid-related measures by the Scottish Government by the end of 2020. This is not discretionary spending that can be diverted to other causes, such as setting money aside for a referendum, but is specifically allocated to ensure that all parts of the UK are equally able to deal with the consequences of the pandemic. Given the nature and origin of this funding, can you give me any guidance as to which Committees of the House of Commons would be the most appropriate place to investigate where this money has gone?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. If he were seeking to further the exchanges that took place during Scottish questions, his point would not, strictly speaking, be a point of order for the Chair, but I appreciate that he is asking a serious question about a serious matter. I can point him in the direction of the Public Accounts Committee, which is concerned with the regularity of spending; the Scottish Affairs Committee, which deals with non-devolved Scottish matters; and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is concerned with the operation of the devolution settlement. In pursuing the question that he raised, he might wish to take the matter up with the Chairman of one or other—or, indeed, all—of those three Select Committees.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, I am grateful for your clarification of the situation on the Fire Safety Bill, which is what I suspected it might be. It is obvious that the House of Commons has the opportunity of a carry-over motion only when dealing with business that is in front of it, and the other place has procedures that are similar but not exactly the same. There seems to be no precedent for what happens to a Bill that has been in both Houses, and that may be something that could properly be considered by the Speakers or the Procedure Committees of each House. In this particular case, as a carry-over motion is not possible, were the House of Lords to go on sending back helpful amendments and this Bill were to fail, if it were re-presented with the problem of the future burdens for leaseholders solved, it could pass both Houses within a day.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The Father of the House raises a most interesting point. He is right in saying that if the Bill were now to fail, a similar Bill with similar purposes could be brought forward by the Government in the next Session of Parliament. As to whether it could pass quickly through both Houses, or either House, is, as ever, a matter for Members of this House and, indeed, of the other place. If Members choose to make very short contributions and allow a Bill to pass through quickly, and if the Government choose to put all stages of a Bill in one day before this House and, indeed, the other place, the House of Commons as a whole and the Government could make those decisions, and it is not for me to anticipate what might happen. I thank the Father of the House for his second interesting point of order.

I am obliged to suspend the House for three minutes to allow arrangements to be made for the next item of business.

14:55

Sitting suspended.

Capital Gains Tax

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

14:59

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Federal Republic of Germany) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 15 March, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Double Taxation Relief (Sweden) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 15 March.

[Jesse Norman]

Both orders insert important provisions recommended by the OECD’s and G20’s base erosion and profit shifting project—BEPS—into existing double taxation agreements. For those Members who may, surprisingly, be unfamiliar with the BEPS project, it was an international effort to equip countries with the right domestic and international regulations to tackle tax avoidance. The BEPS provisions ensure that double taxation agreements fulfil their main purpose of facilitating global trade and investment. In addition, the provisions simultaneously limit the opportunity for the agreements to be used for tax evasion or avoidance.

Usually improvements to our bilateral double taxation agreements recommended by the BEPS project are made under a treaty commonly referred to as the multilateral instrument, which makes it possible to modify double taxation agreements in line with BEPS project provisions without the need for bilateral renegotiation. However, the domestic legal systems of both Germany and Sweden mean that it is much simpler for these countries to modify their double taxation agreements through amending protocols rather than through a multilateral treaty. As a result, the UK Government have agreed with both Germany and Sweden to implement these modifications through the protocols attached to these orders. These changes included introducing minimum standards to prevent avoidance through the abuse of tax treaties and improving the resolution of disputes.

The protocols with both Germany and Sweden give effect to the minimum standard on preventing treaty abuse. This is achieved by inserting a general anti-treaty abuse rule known as the principal purpose test into the double taxation agreement. Both protocols also changed the preamble of each double taxation agreement, which sets out its overriding purpose in order to clarify that the parties do not intend for the agreement to be used to avoid tax. The orders also make changes to the articles in both double taxation agreements that govern how disputes are avoided and resolved. These amendments ensure that the articles are in line with the minimum standard on improving dispute resolution. However, the Germany protocol implements a rule to prevent the artificial fragmentation of activities that might result in an overseas business avoiding a taxable presence. Sweden is not in favour of this provision, which is why it is absent from that protocol.

These orders make good on the Government’s international commitments to tackle tax avoidance and evasion and to improve dispute resolution. They strengthen the integrity of the UK’s network of double taxation agreements, which plays such an important part in facilitating the cross-border trade and investment that benefits all our nations. I commend the orders to the House.

15:02

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition to the motion concerning these two statutory instruments.

The two orders bring into effect arrangements between the United Kingdom and Germany and Sweden, respectively, as set out in the bilateral protocol signed earlier this year. Both protocols amend existing arrangements between the two relevant Governments for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with regard to taxes on income and capital gains. We will not oppose the Government on this motion. The protocols that the motion seeks to bring in would give effect to certain provisions recommended by the base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, project to protect tax treaties against avoidance activities. As the Minister will know, we welcome any provisions to combat tax avoidance and evasion. However, I would appreciate his addressing in his response some important questions and concerns about how the changes are being introduced and their wider context.

First, the total parliamentary scrutiny of these changes comprises the current debate, which has three speakers and is unlikely to last more than half an hour. This differs greatly from the standard practice in other countries. In the United States, for instance, tax treaties must be considered by a fully staffed congressional committee. That raises an important question about transparency and accountability as we find parliamentary scrutiny lacking. Perhaps, however, we should not be surprised by this Government seeking to avoid scrutiny. Just last week, the Government voted down a Labour amendment to scrutinise the impact of their policies on tax avoidance and evasion. That sense of a lack of transparency is compounded by the fact that the explanatory notes on the orders simply paraphrase the treaty changes in largely technical language and, therefore, do little to elucidate the matter for a wider audience.

Inaccessible explanations are an obstacle to full, open accountability. The explanatory notes explain that the protocols will have

“no, or no significant, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.”

Will the Minister explain what that implies about the revenue implications of the protocols being enacted?

Finally, as these orders relate to international tax avoidance and evasion, will the Minister further clarify, for the avoidance of any doubt, whether the Chancellor backs plans for a global minimum corporate tax rate, as proposed by the US President. The Financial Secretary may recall that I asked him this question in Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill last week. He said that the Government

“welcome the renewed commitment that the US Administration have made in this area”.—[Official Report, 20 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 914.]

That was not quite a yes to a global minimum corporate tax rate, so again I put a very simple question to the Minister: does the Chancellor back the plans proposed by the US President?

15:05

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

This is the first time I have stood to speak in the House since January 2020. During the past year and a bit, like so many of our constituents, I have been battling with the black dog of depression. I know that so many people have, and I crave your indulgence for a small moment, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Please, if you know somebody who has not been themselves recently, reach out to them, ask them if they are okay, let them know it is okay not to be okay. Offer them help but, most importantly, let them know that you are there when they are ready to talk, or if they are ready to talk. It is hugely important that all our constituents understand they are not battling this alone. There are so many of us.

I have a few questions on these two orders, and I am delighted that somebody else, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), has criticisms of the explanatory notes. I have got on my high horse about this. Do not worry, I could talk for 30 minutes—we could be here for far longer than that—but I promise I will not.

The explanatory notes are generally not very good. They do not give us enough information, and the specific issue of significant impact is a concern. The rules on explanatory notes in the “Ministerial Code” state what “no significant impact” means, but I would consider these orders to have a significant impact. The definition in the “Ministerial Code” needs to be broadened and, in general, explanatory notes for all Bills need to be better at explaining. We also need more impact assessments to be provided with Bills, because we need to know the impact on the public sector and the private sector, and on charitable organisations. The definition needs to be much wider than if a measure meets a certain threshold of millions.

The SNP supports these orders, and we look forward to the UK working more closely with other EU partners, including, in the future, an independent Scotland. On the tax evasion issues that may occur as a result, the UK, even though it has the treaty general anti-avoidance rules, still does not have a comprehensive general anti-avoidance rule for taxation. The SNP has stood on that platform, talking about it on a huge number of occasions, and it is unfortunate that the Government have not yet been willing to come forward with comprehensive regulation, particularly when HMRC is saying there was a tax gap in 2018-19 of £35 billion, which is 5.6% of the total tax liability. We need to have that rule.

The shadow Minister spoke about minimum corporate tax levels and the Biden plan. It is important that the UK Government, instead of attempting to water down these proposals, stand with them, support the need for a minimum corporate tax level and, for once, stand to strengthen international tax law rather than to weaken it. The UK Government have not, in many recent years, taken the lead on this. If we are to be this wonderful, independent nation that the Conservatives suggest that we are, it is right that we should take the lead on tax measures and say absolutely that we support the minimum corporate tax level and that we are backing it to ensure a better, more level playing field internationally.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am sure the whole House will have heard what the hon. Lady said. She is courageous to give her advice here in the Chamber, and people would do well to listen to her advice. We are glad to see her back.

15:10

[Jesse Norman]

I very much thank the two hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. May I start, Madam Deputy Speaker, by associating myself very much with the remarks that you made to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman)? I think it is absolutely in order and right for her to bring this very important issue back to the House. To do so in such a personal way only gives it additional force. I doubt that there is a Member of this House whose own life has not been affected in one way or another by the concerns that she describes—the black dog of depression or whatever it may be—either personally or among their family or friends. The diversity of opinion in this House is something we all welcome, but so too should there be diversity in our recognition of other people and their feelings and suffering, so I very much thank her for that.

The hon. Lady raised a question that the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) also raised about explanatory notes. Both Members will have seen that, actually, both these measures have quite full explanatory memorandums associated with them. Of course, there is always a balance to be struck between the depth and detail into which an explanatory memorandum goes and the desire not to provide so much detail that it becomes illegible or incomprehensible to a normal reader. I think the point is constantly right to be borne in mind that we should be as clear and explicit as possible on these matters. The point is very well made. It is a point that we have pushed very hard, and certainly I and colleagues have pushed very hard with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the work that it does more widely on guidance. In this case, because these measures sit alongside a host of other instruments, including the multilateral instrument, which was debated in the House, it is certainly true that there is a degree of scrutiny and awareness—or there could be a degree of scrutiny and awareness—associated with them.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North also mentioned the question of a general anti-avoidance rule. I am sure she knows that it has been an important feature of our approach to double taxation agreements that we have included a principal purpose test in tax treaties, either through bilateral negotiation or through the multilateral instrument. That itself is a very important, wide anti-abuse measure, developed through the BEPS project, which protects a treaty against the abuse of its provisions. We are deploying it widely across double taxation agreements, and it has much of the force of the measure that she describes.

The hon. Member for Ealing North raised the wider question of scrutiny. If I may say so, the argument would have more force if any other Opposition Members had chosen to speak in this debate and to exercise that scrutiny. I think that in general, these matters, for the reasons I have described, are tolerably well understood. We have a multilateral instrument, the measures follow a common format, and opportunity is given to Members across the House, including from the Opposition parties, to offer scrutiny. They can choose to exercise that or not.

In relation to revenue, the hon. Gentleman will see that the explanatory notes say that there are no new tax burdens imposed by these measures. In a way, that is as it should be, because their purpose is to secure and safeguard trade and to prevent abuse; they are not, in and of themselves, tax revenue-raising measures.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the global minimum tax rate and whether I would expand on my remarks in Committee of the whole House. I am not going to do that, because I do not think it is appropriate for Ministers to comment on tax policy in flight, as it were. We have said we very much welcome the proactive stance that the Biden Administration are taking towards this issue. We have been a very strong advocate for these wider measures—the two pillars, pillar one and pillar two—in the OECD and the G20. I know the Chancellor feels strongly about the importance of our leadership of the G7 as a way of consolidating this progress in tax.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I am just winding up. If the hon. Lady does not mind, I will finish up. We will therefore continue to press forward on this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Capital Gains Tax

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

Resolved,

That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Sweden) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 15 March, be approved.—(Jesse Norman.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I will very briefly suspend the House, for two minutes, in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.

15:16

Sitting suspended.

Insolvency

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

15:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I beg to move,

That the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 375), dated 22 March 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 March, be approved.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, as we discuss this important extension on the Floor of the House. It is now more than a year since the emergence of covid-19, and the Government have consistently taken the swift action needed to save lives and mitigate damage to the economy. The Government’s successful roll-out of the vaccine programme and the implementation of the Government’s four-step road map out of lockdown are both reasons for cautious optimism that we will soon enjoy a return to normality. To date, in excess of 33 million people have had a vaccination, and the British public have risen to the challenge of suppressing the spread of the virus by sticking to the rules, getting tested when necessary and following the guidance on hands, face, space and letting fresh air in.

We are not out of the woods yet, however, and the emergence of new strains of the virus means that this is not the time to become complacent. Social distancing measures introduced to limit the spread of the virus and help to save lives continue to have an effect on business, and the Government recognise that. Although most businesses have been able to reopen, many continue to face uncertainty and financial difficulties. Therefore, an extension is needed to the duration of the temporary insolvency measures currently in place for the protection they provide.

These regulations extend until 30 June the suspension of serving statutory demands and the restriction of filing petitions to wind up companies; the small supplier exemption and termination clause provisions; and the suspension of wrongful trading liability. In addition, the modifications to the moratorium provisions and the temporary moratorium rules are extended until 30 September 2021.

I hope the House will agree that these regulations are necessary, but I assure Members that we will keep them under constant review. I commend these regulations to the House.

15:20

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Well, here we are again. The Minister and his officials, who have heard me make the same speech numerous times, are in for a little treat today, because I am going to detour slightly from my usual remarks, which have centred a bit around “I told you so” on extending these provisions. Today I also want to touch on some of the wider insolvency framework issues that I think are pertinent now.

I welcome the Government’s extending the safety net for businesses in distress because of the pandemic. As I said when we supported the emergency legislation last year, we welcome any measures that support businesses that close to keep us safe. We argued then that the protections in the 2020 Act should be extended over a longer period of time. I think this is now the third time—possibly the fourth time—that we have come together to extend them, on each occasion, unfortunately, causing real uncertainty and worry for businesses in the run-up to each previous expiry date.

As the economy reopens and restrictions ease, it is right that these measures are kept under review. Through the crisis, we have called on Ministers to ensure that economic support matches the public health measures in place. While we have seen welcome support for workers through the furlough, there have still been gaps in Government support that they have repeatedly failed to address. There is a cash crisis facing firms with high ongoing overheads but still no income coming in and those excluded from all Government support, and little or no help for those sectors still closed and likely to be closed or uncertain for some time, such as travel, large events and weddings, and the visitor economy.

As I have said before, we are very concerned about the levels of debt facing businesses, whether that is through the loans they have taken, the VAT they have deferred or the rent holiday they have had, but soon have to start repaying. These measures are welcome in staving off creditors, but they just kick the can down the road, and do little to change the fundamentals facing so many firms of large covid debt and low or no takings while the fight against covid continues. The bombshell that businesses face remains real, and that is why Labour has argued for a student loan-style scheme, in which covid debt can be repaid as businesses grow, so that we do not see waves of insolvencies. There is nothing in the provisions today to deal with those fundamentals.

Turning to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act provisions in general, it is clear that some of the issues we have warned about are coming home to roost, particularly when we look at the impact of Greensill Capital’s administration on the Gupta Family Group and Liberty Steel. The Government have consistently ducked the need for wider reform of our insolvency laws, particularly in providing greater protection and support for key industries and their workers. We argued for and sought to amend the legislation to this effect, and it is not too late for the Government to act.

It is clear from reports that the gulls are circling, and regardless of whatever judgment people make about GFG, the Liberty Steel plants are a critical asset to our economic and national security, and employ thousands of highly skilled workers directly and through the supply chain. The company must be given time to refinance, but if that is not successful, then the Government must keep every option open and have a plan for all eventualities to save the UK steelmaking capacity and its supply chain. However, our insolvency laws mean that there is no safe place to refinance or protect this company’s assets until it might be too late, all the while leaving the company searching for refinancing while trying to retain the confidence of suppliers and customers, who risk the most should it fail.

In the US, they have chapter 11 to shepherd important industries facing distress. There, the authorities are able to wrap their arms around strategically important companies to allow them time to resolve difficulties, refinance or restructure. The chapter 11 process, should we have that here, would have created a better context for the refinancing of Liberty Steel, without the spotlight and falling confidence. We argued for its inclusion in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. Ministers could have brought forward changes on that today, but unfortunately they seem content to let the company fail first. We know that this has a high cost for the suppliers as well.

Even without changes to the insolvency laws, if there is a political will, there could be a way. Ministers should not be bystanders. They should intervene early, before liquidation if necessary, and that would mean that workers would not lose their accrued services benefit as well as protecting the supply chain. When the Minister gets to his feet, I hope that he will reflect on the wider point about how we can protect nationally important businesses in future and assure us that his Government will do whatever it takes to save Liberty Steel from insolvency.

15:26

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

First, I commend the Government on the UK Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 and for putting in place, at such speed, both temporary and permanent measures at such a deeply troubling time for businesses. My hon. Friend the Minister will be pleased, as I am, and possibly a bit surprised, as I am, to see that statistics from the Insolvency Service show that the number of registered company insolvencies in March 2021 was 20% lower than in the same month in 2020 and 37% lower than in March 2019. I certainly know of many businesses in my constituency that have survived the pandemic thanks only to the extraordinary measures put in place by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury to help them get through.

In the call for evidence that is outstanding on the performance of CIGA, it will be interesting to see whether feedback from businesses suggests that they needed the temporary measures or the financial support, or both, and to what extent. Certainly, the evidence points to the fact that schemes such as bounce back loans, the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and furloughing have done a critical job in protecting lives and livelihoods. There may be the need in the future for further flexibility and, I point out to the Minister, interest on coronavirus business interruption loans and potentially more support for weddings and events organisations may well be needed in future to protect them.

I briefly wanted to mention the bigger picture. The Minister will be only too aware that insolvency legislation is not like the proverbial London bus—we do not have none coming along for years and then lots all at once—so I worry that while there have been some good, permanent changes to the insolvency rules brought in with CIGA, there are nevertheless some areas, particularly of corporate governance, where, during my time in BEIS, I was keen to see real reform. I hope that the audit reform work that is under way and the forthcoming employment rights Bill might offer vehicles for wider corporate governance changes. In particular, I would be keen to have an update from the Minister on what is still being done at BEIS to consider some specific issues, such as the roles and responsibilities of directors, the speed of insolvency evaluations post-fact and consideration of the responsibilities of board directors. We have seen some major corporate failures in recent years, including companies such as BHS, Carillion and Thomas Cook, and very legitimate questions have been asked about the performance of the directors of those businesses, whose failures have had such a disastrous impact on lives and livelihoods.

There is also the very real question of whether companies should do more through new statutory responsibilities to protect employees’ pensions, to ensure diversity of the workforce and, of course, importantly, to address their carbon footprint. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that these issues remain very live in his Department, and I would be keen to know, specifically, if he can point me to forthcoming opportunities to press these matters further.

In conclusion, I encourage all those who have an interest in the broader issue of corporate governance to take part in the current call for evidence on insolvency rules. It is a great opportunity for business owners and industry professionals to give their feedback on these two important areas. I hope that the imperative of putting in place excellent temporary measures to help businesses survive during the pandemic does not get in the way of consideration of the bigger picture of good corporate governance.

15:29

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). To pick up her comments, it is incredibly important that we look at the future of corporate governance and audit. We must make sure that the report is looked at carefully so that decisions are made to ensure not just that investors can scrutinise those organisations but that consumers can do so and work out whether or not they want to be involved in them on the basis of their annual report and audit. People would get a better idea of the risk they would be under if those processes were more open and transparent. I therefore agree wholeheartedly with the comments made by the right hon. Lady.

On the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, there is an extension for some of its provisions to the end of June this year, and an extension to September for other provisions. I am concerned that there have been so many extensions—30 June is very soon—that the Government will end up having to come back with another extension. Even if the pathway that has been laid out by the Prime Minister comes to fruition, and even if we end up with pretty much everything going back to normal in some ways by the end of June—I doubt that we will, by the way—it will not be a five-minute job for businesses to recover. They will not be back on their feet immediately; they will not suddenly make up the money that they have spent, or pay back the loans that they have had to take out during this period. They will not even be able to take back all their employees full time if social distancing continues, for example. I am concerned that there is not enough time, and if the Government intend to make a further extension, it would be useful for those organisations to be aware that that extension is likely. I would prefer such an extension to have been made already, but an extension to September for all the measures would have been slightly more helpful.

We have spoken about the impact on companies, but insolvency also has an impact on the supply chain. In particular, self-employed individuals have been missed out of the furlough scheme, and if some of those organisations go under, they are more likely than others to be hit as a result of their being part of that supply chain and their role in supporting those businesses. We are looking at the big picture, which is great, but I am concerned that there is not enough focus on the knock-on impact, particularly on those groups that have been missed out and have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic.

I am a representative for Aberdeen, and we have had a triple whammy of Brexit, covid and the reduction in oil prices in recent times. That affects not just the big companies making megabucks profits in the oil industry, but the smaller companies that are producing tech for renewables as well as tech for oil and gas extraction. We do not want to lose that intellectual property—that tech—in renewables, and we must ensure that support continues to be available, so that if big organisations fail, despite what the Government have put in, smaller companies can keep going if they have the potential to become profitable in future.

It would be useful if the Minister reassured me that the Government are not just looking at the big picture but paying attention to the smaller organisations that may not be covered by the measure, particularly in the light of the concerns that we have expressed on numerous occasions about self-employed individuals being missed out from the furlough schemes. We are concerned that they may be missed out when we look at the future of this as well.

15:34

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]]

As the Minister said, we are not out of the woods yet. There is a very long way to go, and it is right that we protect businesses that would be viable were it not for the pandemic and the resulting loss of revenue. These regulations play their part, but as the long-term impact of these challenges begin to make themselves known, it is clear that these measures are only part of the answer.

There are significant question marks over how the Government plan to support businesses in the long term. For example, in the absence of an impact assessment, it is unclear which businesses are benefiting from the exemption on the rules about wrongful trading. What contribution does the Minister believe the regulations have made in enabling businesses to recover? After the imminent end of the lockdown restrictions, businesses will continue to need support to recover, and it would be helpful to understand whether these regulations have worked up to now and what the likely impact of their removal will be.

Three million is the estimated number of individuals in business who have been wholly or partly excluded from financial support by this Government over the past year. That includes around 2 million owner-managers, also known as the ForgottenLtd, as well as the self-employed, freelancers, women who became pregnant and people who changed jobs at the wrong time. Let us remember that half of the excluded groups have not even been able to claim universal credit.

Similarly, we need to know the impact on businesses repaying the emergency coronavirus loans—CBILS, coronavirus large business interruption loans and bounce back loans. As we head closer to the end of the lockdown cliff edge, those businesses that took out loans and have been unable to trade will need to know what the implications are for them, their staff and, indeed, the economy as a whole. Let us not forget the 7.5 million employees of the ForgottenLtd, who will need to know what will happen to them, their jobs and the companies they work for when the loans have to be repaid.

Before the Minister says that the ForgottenLtd owner-managers took out loans and therefore had support, he should note that those loans were for their business costs, including for rates and for energy or electricity for equipment. Many owner-managers have been unable to pay themselves through furlough as they are paid dividends. Unless businesses have time to rebuild their profitability, they will simply be unable to restart because of the deferred business rates, corporate and personal taxes and covid loans.

There is a real problem of massive potential unemployment and business closure unless the end of the regulations is not just the start of financial problems induced by forced repayment—repayment that is simply not possible without sufficient income having first been re-established. According to the Government’s own Business Banking Resolution Service, nearly half of small businesses that have taken out emergency coronavirus loans do not intend to repay them, not because they do not want to but because they will not be able to do so. Are company owners right to be concerned that the end of the regulations will mean that business are forced to close because of an inability to pay mounting debts and the associated legal problems of trading insolvently?

The Government declined to support the excluded groups, but it was not because of a lack of money. Billions of pounds were available for friends of the Health and Social Care Secretary, for the International Trade Secretary’s adviser and for £7,000-a-day consultants to a centralised contact tracing system that still does not work, and having the Chancellor or the Prime Minister’s phone number meant paydays for moguls in the realm of millions of pounds. Will money now be available so that businesses can start the process of recovery, their staff can keep their jobs after furlough ends, and debt repayments can be delayed until they can be afforded? Will the Government adopt Labour’s suggestion of allowing businesses to wait to repay loans until they are making enough money to do so, in a way similar to that adopted for the repayment of student loans?

More than 1 million small businesses do not expect to recover from this pandemic, which is why we need to know where the regulations fit into the strategy for economic recovery. Millions of microbusinesses and owners of small and medium-sized business are trying to figure out how they are going to put food on the table and pay their workers. More needs to be done to give businesses stability and security than just extending the existing provisions again and again. That means looking at proper business support and enabling smaller firms, microbusinesses, sole traders and self-employed workers—all of them—direct access to Government contracts. That is how the US Small Business Administration operates. Why not do the same in the United Kingdom?

Does the Minister share my concern that, through David Cameron’s access to the Chancellor, Lex Greensill made so much progress in proposing invoice factoring in the public sector? The public sector is supposed to follow the prompt payment code. Why were Ministers and officials even considering invoice factoring? Will the Government use the recovery from the crisis as a reason to revisit the prompt payment code’s effectiveness, and particularly to ensure that smaller firms and microbusinesses are paid in 30 days? Direct procurement and payment in 30 days for small and microbusinesses are just two ways in which firms can be supported, alongside a delay in debt repayment. I hope the Minister will respond to those suggestions. I also hope he will empower the Small Business Commissioner with the proper resources to insist on prompt payment, including in the public sector.

The Minister could do worse than look at the United States, where they know the value of small businesses to the economy. The US Federal Reserve bank found that 30% of small businesses in the US—that is 9 million of them—did not expect to survive 2021 without assistance, which is why the US Small Business Administration has been tasked with supporting small businesses to build back better, alongside President Biden’s American Rescue Plan Act. In the UK, more than 1 million small businesses face similar concerns. Would it not be great if the UK had a small business administration to look after microbusinesses, the self-employed and SMEs? As the Minister should know, it is vital to distinguish between those fundamentally different types of business. The US Small Business Administration shows clear intent to support smaller businesses as part of a concerted and thought-out plan for the long term, not just a quick fix.

The excluded groups, the ForgottenLtd owner-managers, microbusinesses, sole traders and partnership businesses can all be viable again, but they need a plan that goes beyond the end of measures such as the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. The failure to plan will lead to disaster for millions of people and just add to the significant problems that we have already seen as we come out of the crisis and into recovery.

00:02

[Paul Scully]

I thank Members for their valuable contributions to this debate—and, indeed, to the other, general debate I seem to have been hearing about coronavirus support beyond the regulations. Members have highlighted the importance of the measures that the regulations extend and the necessity of extending them so that businesses can continue to benefit from them.

I welcome the return to working with the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). We are in a grander setting than usual, but the conversation remains. I understand her concern about the fact that we have come back to extend these regulations, but it is important to remember that they contain some important powers on things such as wrongful trading and the moratorium, and that we are holding a lot of things in stasis. It is right that we get the balance right between giving businesses the certainty that she rightly asks for and using Government interventions in these matters sparingly and continuing to scrutinise them in this place. I would rather that we come back and do our work regularly than overstep in respect of these powers and intervene too much in the economy. It is important to keep an eye on these things.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of those businesses that have been excluded, or that have been coming back with requests for more support, including the travel sector, the wedding sector and the visitor economy as well. They are all hugely important businesses and sectors that are vital for our recovery. We are working on all those areas. We have the global travel taskforce. My colleagues in the Department for Transport are working on international travel. I am working with colleagues on weddings. The Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), is working on events and domestic tourism. All of these areas will be hugely important not just for the economy as a whole, but to get our towns and cities back open again. As Minister for London, that is something that I feel and see on a day-to-day basis.

The hon. Lady talked about Greensill and Liberty. Clearly, there are concerns here that need to be addressed, but, obviously, speculation about Liberty Steel and other businesses can in itself cause uncertainty to investors, employees, and people seeking to work with those companies. We are monitoring the situation. We are engaging with Liberty Steel, and we are engaging with the unions. I know that the owners of Liberty Steel are seeking a market solution, but we will continue to monitor that situation. We are also engaging with the sector, with trade unions and with the devolved Administrations to make sure that we can develop a long-term, sustainable future for the UK steel industry, because it clearly has an incredibly important role in the UK.

I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), erstwhile Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, that we want to make sure that, within our Department, we are building on her excellent work in the areas of audit reform and corporate governance. She rightly pointed out some significant failures, including BHS and Carillion to name just two, and we want to make sure that we can work on that within our audit reform work. We have already published a consultation to enhance the UK’s audit control and regulation, and we will make sure that we have full debates in this place as we bring those proposals forward for scrutiny in Parliament and in terms of legislation.

Let me turn now to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). I would like to pass on my thanks to others who noted her comments on depression in a previous debate. It is so, so important to speak out. I really welcome her personalised appeal to people, making sure that they know that it is okay not to be okay. They were wise words, and words that we must all take on board. There has been a mental health aspect to the lockdown. Obviously, business uncertainty plays a part. There are lots of businesses, small and large, that I see and hear from on a day-to-day basis, which are incredibly stressed and incredibly worried. I valued her words.

The hon. Lady talked about companies struggling to get back on their feet. Clearly, that is the case. I do not want to get into a wider debate about coronavirus support, but we realise that, with many of these measures, there is the risk of cliff edges, and we will continue to work through those and to flex to make sure that we can support businesses. She talked about smaller organisations as well, especially around tech and IP. Yes, we must make sure that we are working on those, too.

Over the past year, businesses have faced an exceptionally challenging time, with many unable to trade, or their ability to trade at full capacity restricted owing to social distancing measures. These regulations will provide the much needed support for businesses as we continue with the Government’s four-step road map out of lockdown, allowing them to concentrate their best efforts on reopening or continuing to trade and building on the foundations for economic recovery in the UK. We want to get to that economic recovery.

Finally, let me answer the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). When he was looking to throw this open to a wider debate, I think he missed the strengthening of our prompt payment code, which was done in consultation with the signatories to the payment code, and indeed the fact that we have got more to sign up to that as well. When he was looking for a wider debate about coronavirus, he also missed the plan for growth, which does exactly what it says on the tin. It looks beyond these measures. It is a plan and, funnily enough, it is a plan for growth, which goes beyond 30 June. Careful consideration has been given to extending these temporary measures, and the Government will continue to monitor the situation closely.

I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 375), dated 22 March 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 March, be approved.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister claimed that

“last night our friends in the European Union voted to approve our Brexit deal, which he opposed.”

That is totally incorrect. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in an extraordinary sitting of this House of Commons on 30 December 2020, the Leader of the Opposition and the whole Labour party voted for the Brexit deal agreed by the Government and the EU. As limited as it was, we backed it and avoided a no-deal scenario. Do you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is vital that the Prime Minister returns to the House today to swiftly correct the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I hope she will appreciate that it is not really a point of order for me, but I am sure that the Treasury Bench will have heard what she has said and will report it back in the usual way, through the usual channels. The hon. Lady has obviously also placed it on the record by raising the point of order in the way that she has.

We will have a short two-minute suspension for cleaning before the next business.

15:51

Sitting suspended.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Question on the motion in the name of Keir Starmer relating to the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations (SI, 2021, No. 184) not later than 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; the business on that motion may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Scott Mann.)

Immigration

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

15:53

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) [V]]

I beg to move,

That the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 184), dated 23 February 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25 February 2021, be revoked.

On behalf of my party, let me say that it is entirely right that we have the opportunity to debate in the House of Commons the incredibly serious changes proposed in this motion. Quite frankly, it is remarkable that the Government sought to introduce these changes as a negative statutory instrument—through the back door without any opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny at all.

This statutory instrument will remove protections in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 that sought to prevent potential victims of trafficking from being held unnecessarily in immigration detention. The changes are due to come into effect on 25 May, following an extremely limited consultation with a select few groups, which had just two weeks to respond.

The consultation, which did not seek to engage with any trafficking survivor groups, was described as “poor practice” by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Given that the changes are being made alongside those outlined in the Government’s new plan for immigration, published last month, we are gravely concerned by the Government’s desire to erode the rights and protections for victims of some of the most heinous examples of exploitation.

To be clear, the proposals will amend the adults at risk in immigration detention statutory guidance by removing paragraph 18 on trafficking cases. That means that, from 25 May, decisions about the detention of potential victims of human trafficking will be made without reference to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 guidance, which made it clear that potential victims of trafficking are automatically considered unsuitable for detention unless there are public order reasons that militate against that. As a result, a decision will now be assessed within the much broader adults at risk framework, which considers a range of vulnerabilities, with the latest figure suggesting that about 39% of those detained in immigration detention are considered adults at risk.

A range of immigration factors is considered as part of the decision-making process and those factors go far wider than public order. They can include a history of offending, but additionally whether the person’s immigration history includes having entered the country irregularly, not having claimed asylum immediately, or having failed to comply with Home Office reporting requirements.

Often, having been a victim of trafficking leaves such individuals unable to satisfy those requirements. Being subject to coercive control commonly results in an individual entering the country outside approved routes or being unable to claim asylum immediately. Furthermore, to benefit from a stronger protection against detention once brought under the adults at risk guidance, potential victims of trafficking with a positive initial reasonable-grounds decision will now need to provide additional professional evidence demonstrating not only that they are an adult at risk, but that detention is likely to cause them harm. Therefore, the primary impact of the changes will be that potential victims of trafficking are detained, and detained for longer. That is the view not only of the Opposition and various specialist stakeholders, but of the Government.

In response to concerns raised, the Home Office admitted that some individuals might, as a result of the changes, be more likely to be detained or have their detention continued. Why, therefore, do the Government continue to press ahead when they are well aware of the damage and distress that will cause, particularly considering that they seek to deliver the changes through a statutory instrument considered under the negative procedure—deeming them unworthy of debate and scrutiny?

I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who secured a Westminster Hall debate on this very issue just yesterday. That demonstrates that there are serious concerns about the proposals across the House. I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to the debate, and it seems that the Government seek to justify the changes by saying that a similar protection will be provided through casework guidance and training, which we have not yet seen and can only trust will be published in due course.

We also expect that changes will be made to the caseworker guidance, such as the increase in requirements for medical evidence, which will further weaken the protections for victims of trafficking. For example, there are plans to introduce quality standards for external medical evidence in the adults at risk policy, including proposals to limit the weight of remote assessment, and a stipulation that healthcare professionals should have all the immigration documents and medical records relating to conditions, which a potential victim might not be comfortable disclosing or be able to disclose.

Yesterday, the Minister emphasised his pride at this country’s leading role in identifying and protecting victims of modern slavery, but he also stressed that a rebalancing is required—if I have understood correctly—between protections for victims and immigration controls. He identified what he said is, by design, an “extremely low threshold” for a reasonable-grounds modern slavery decision whereby there is a requirement only to suspect, rather than to prove, someone is a potential victim of trafficking, and explained that the Government are looking to make adjustments to that, as set out in the new plan for immigration.

I am sorry to say that all that is delivering a downgrading of those protections, which we could have been proud of. That is an erosion of existing safeguards and it will undoubtedly increase the risk of vulnerable individuals being retraumatised in detention.

We are concerned not only by the implications of this statutory instrument but by the way in which the Government have sought to circumvent good practice and due diligence in their processes. The consultation period lasted just two weeks during the summer of last year, without the presence of specialist stakeholders and organisations. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has aptly described the consultation as “poor practice”. Shockingly, the Government did not consult the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner or her office on these proposals. I very much hope that the Minister has read Dame Sara Thornton’s letter dated 19 April outlining a range of issues with the proposals.

As many will already be aware, survivors of modern slavery are at increased risk of long-term depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, suicide attempts and health complications. Last week, the Royal College of Psychiatrists published a statement saying that it believes that detention centres are likely to precipitate a significant deterioration in mental health in most cases, greatly increasing both the suffering of the individual and the risk of suicide and self-harm. In 2017 the Government promised a scheme called Places of Safety to allow survivors to access their rights soon after being identified in settings such as police raids or labour inspections. That would have given survivors an opportunity to access legal representation and advocacy while at their most vulnerable, as well as increasing the number of successful trafficking referrals to decision makers. Sadly, the Places of Safety scheme was never delivered, and as a result thousands of suspected slavery survivors were identified but never referred for support or decision making. I would very much like to know what has happened to that scheme, so will the Minister clarify that? An additional concern is the Government’s decision to cancel the pilot schemes exploring community alternatives to detention. I hope the Minister can also give some clarity to that crazy decision.

These changes represent a significant downgrading of the protections against detention currently given to potential victims of human trafficking. The Government say they want to introduce this statutory instrument so that the adults at risk policy can be used as the single mechanism for vulnerable individuals, in order to clamp down on the policy anomaly that currently exists. To perceive such legislative change purely in terms of fixing a policy anomaly fails to acknowledge the devastating impact it will have on vulnerable victims and represents this Government’s concerning approach to wider immigration policy.

The Government have previously stressed that a reduction in the number of people in detention is a key aspect of the series of reforms they are making across the detention system, yet this statutory instrument will achieve the exact opposite. Regrettably, it represents the Government’s failure to offer a solution that is compassionate, fair and deserving of vulnerable victims of human trafficking.

16:02

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

I thank the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for her speech. As she said, this matter was debated just yesterday in a Westminster Hall debate that was attended by one colleague.

Let me start by reiterating the Government’s commitment to tackling modern slavery. The UK has led the world in protecting victims of this heinous crime. We will continue to support those who have suffered intolerable abuse at the hands of criminals and traffickers, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that perpetrators face justice. In a further demonstration of our commitment to supporting victims of modern slavery, the new modern slavery victim care contract went live in January this year, with an estimated whole-life cost of £379 million over its five-year lifetime. It will deliver a better service that it is needs-based and will do even more to look after individual victims.

It is worth mentioning that last year there were about 10,000 claims by victims of modern slavery and we made about 10,000 positive reasonable grounds decisions. That is, I think, one of the highest numbers, if not the highest, in Europe, and it is many times higher than in comparably sized European countries. So there is no question but that the United Kingdom leads Europe in its work on protecting victims of modern slavery. We have also embarked on an ambitious national referral mechanism transformation programme to do even more work than we are doing already. We have, moreover, launched a review of the 2014 modern slavery strategy that will allow us to build further on the progress made.

Although our commitment to cracking down on these appalling crimes remains undiminished, being recognised as a potential victim of modern slavery does not and should not automatically result in being granted immigration status in the UK or immunity from immigration proceedings. There may be potential victims or victims of modern slavery who have no lawful basis to remain in the UK, some of whom will be dangerous foreign national offenders, and about whom we are faced with decisions about using detention lawfully as a means of securing their removal. That is especially true when other options, including voluntary return, have been exhausted. Where we are faced with these decisions it is important that they are made in a way that is consistent, fair and balanced.

The shadow Minister mentioned detention, and it is worth saying that the use of detention for immigration purposes has been reduced significantly. The number of people in immigration detention in December 2019, before the pandemic started, was about half the level reported in September 2017. Moreover, of those entering immigration detention in 2019, I believe, from memory, that 39% spent only a week and about 75% spent less than 28 days in immigration detention. It is used sparingly and only where necessary to deliver our immigration rules properly.

The rules we are discussing today rectify an anomaly in the existing policy to bring detention decisions for potential victims of modern slavery within the scope of the adults at risk policy. That is the policy we use to make detention decisions for vulnerable people, including those with serious physical or mental health disabilities. At present, the adults at risk policy requires detention decisions for potential victims of modern slavery to be made with reference to separate Modern Slavery Act 2015 statutory guidance. That guidance does not steer decision makers in how to balance a person’s vulnerability against other considerations when making detention decisions, but makes reference only to public order, as the shadow Minister said.

We believe that the adults at risk policy, which already caters to all kinds of other very serious vulnerabilities, is the appropriate framework for detention decisions for potential victims of modern slavery. It allows for a nuanced and balanced assessment of detention decisions to be made, which the current policy does not allow. It also supports our desire for a clear and consistent approach to safeguarding in immigration detention decision making and will enable decisions for potential victims to be made in line with those for other categories of vulnerable individuals. To be absolutely clear, the vulnerability and risks associated with potential victims of modern slavery will categorically continue to be fully accounted for and fully considered.

Let me be clear: these regulations will not weaken the protections afforded to potential victims of modern slavery. The adults at risk immigration detention policy is well-established—it has been in place for at least five years. It enables officials to identify vulnerable adults and make decisions about the appropriateness of their detention, balancing all relevant considerations. The adults at risk policy strengthens the presumption in immigration policy that a person will not be detained where they may be particularly vulnerable to harm in detention.

Moreover, we do recognise and will continue to recognise the specific protections afforded to those in receipt of a positive reasonable grounds decision, in accordance with the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings. All those protections will, of course, be respected, and I can also assure the House that caseworkers and other Home Office staff will receive the appropriate guidance and training so that they are able to properly take into account those special protections for potential victims of modern slavery. We fully accept that those specific considerations exist. We recognise that in some circumstances an individual’s history may have been influenced by their trafficking or their previous modern slavery experiences, and that will most certainly be reflected in guidance and in subsequent decision making. Let me also be clear that every decision is taken individually, on a case by case basis, and there is a presumption against detention where there is particular vulnerability to harm. Those two things should give the House a great deal of reassurance on these points.

In conclusion, as I have set out, modern slavery is a despicable crime. The UK is leading Europe in identifying and protecting victims and going after perpetrators. The changes we are contemplating today make use of a well-established, effective policy for protecting vulnerable people and enable a rounded and balanced decision to be taken in these difficult cases.

16:10

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]]

Scottish National party MPs are fully behind this motion to revoke, and I support the arguments that the shadow Minister has set out. As well as thanking the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who secured yesterday’s debate, I want to thank the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for his work on this, and I pay tribute to all survivor groups and others working in this field who alerted MPs to the significance and consequences of these regulations. These might be short regulations, but they are also deeply worrying regulations that could have severe impacts on trafficking survivors, and the so-called consultation on them was a pretty abysmal exercise altogether.

As we have heard, the goal of the statutory guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention is that it will, in conjunction with other reforms, lead to a reduction in the number of vulnerable people being detained, and a reduction in the duration of detention before removal. However, these regulations will have the opposite effect, because they remove crucial protections provided to those with positive reasonable grounds decisions. No longer will the detention of potential victims of trafficking be considered with reference to the separate Modern Slavery Act 2015 statutory guidance; instead, the process is to be merged into the overall adults at risk system. This means a serious dilution of the protections against detention currently afforded to potential trafficking victims. Potential victims are, and should continue to be, entitled to a proper recovery period during which they cannot be removed and therefore cannot generally be detained, thanks to the Modern Slavery Act guidance.

Unless these regulations are revoked today, other immigration considerations will potentially be prioritised. An irregular immigration history, which many victims of trafficking will have, may mean a victim being locked up, and the standard of evidence of potential harm in detention required of them will be ramped up. In short, more victims of trafficking will be detained and more will be detained for longer—something the Government do not even seem to dispute. That means more potential victims suffering real and serious harm to their mental health. That is utterly against the Government’s stated objective in the guidance, and it is against their obligation to assist victims in their physical, psychological and social recovery.

In response to these very serious arguments, the Government seem to provide two arguments of their own. The first seems to justify the regulations on what amounts to little more than tidying up or administrative convenience: why burden officials with two systems of statutory guidance when one will do? The Government point out that potential victims of trafficking are the only group of people for whom such a special provision exists, and they call that a policy anomaly requiring correction, but these additional protections are absolutely justified, given what we know and understand about trafficking and the potential consequences of detention for such people. This is not a policy anomaly but a perfectly reasonable, proportionate response to the specific dangers that face trafficking victims. If anything requires correction, it is the mainstream adults at risk policy into which the Government want to throw trafficking victims. We know that it is overly burdensome and fails too many adults at risk. Let us fix that system, not meddle with the additional protections offered to trafficking victims.

The other Government argument appears to assert that there has been some evidence of abuse of the system, through false claims of trafficking designed to avoid detention. The answer to that it is not to make genuine victims suffer, as these regulations will, but to tackle the abuse head-on. It is the Home Office itself that assesses who is a victim of trafficking, and the answer is to invest in doing that better and faster. Why is it taking 456 days for potential victims to get positive grounds decisions? That is where the Home Office should look to weed out any abuse, rather than throwing victims under a bus.

Even if the Minister does not accept our analysis of the system as it stands, at the very least he should accept that if we are going to put everyone into one system, we should have a wide-ranging consultation and debate on how that system is working, what needs to be changed and what a better system could look like. However, instead of proper debate and consultation, we have had “poor practice”, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said. After two years of Home Office policy development, a small group of stakeholders had two weeks during the August summer holidays to feed back. The whole process was hush-hush, with those involved not allowed to share the proposals beyond a select few. Those lucky enough to participate were largely ignored. This so-called targeted engagement failed to consult relevant groups, including, as I understand it, the Government’s own modern slavery strategy implementation group or the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. Wendy Williams’ Windrush review demanded that consultation on changes to policy should be

“meaningful, offering informed proposals and openly seeking advice and challenge.”

The consultation did nothing of the sort, and a bad piece of secondary legislation that will harm victims of trafficking is the result. That is why these regulations should be revoked.

16:14

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

I find it hard to believe that we are having this debate today, and that this delegated legislation has been introduced at all. Emotionally, many Members of the House will find it hard to take, especially those of us who have taken any interest in detention, and specifically modern slavery and trafficking, over the last two to three decades.

After all the years of campaigning to expose modern slavery and trafficking, and after Parliament’s achievement of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which we are all proud of, this is like stepping back in time. It is a hugely retrograde step. After the exposure of trafficking and the recoil from the policies of the hostile environment, I thought we would never see this sort of legislation again. It is shameful that it has been brought before us. Have we learned nothing about the suffering that trafficking imposes on people? I urge the Minister and hon. Members not to support the motion, and to go back and look at some of the reports and investigations that led us to put in place extra protections for trafficking victims.

In 2017, Rahila Gupta—a member of Southall Black Sisters and now a famous author in my local community—wrote the book “Enslaved: The New British Slavery”. It was reported extensively at the time, and it shook many of us to the core with its descriptions of trafficking and the impact on our fellow human beings. Many other reports then followed, and we learned something of the scale of trafficking and its consequences in this country.

Yesterday, in Westminster Hall, the Government seemed to claim that the reason for this legislation was that the system was being abused somehow. No evidence for that claim has been published by the Home Office, and we have seen no independent assessment of the claim or data that the Government may want to bring forward to argue this case. What we do know, however—this is on the basis of research backed by the Home Secretary and undertaken in 2020 by Justice and Care and the Centre for Social Justice—is that there are estimated to be more than 100,000 victims of modern slavery in the UK. In 2020, only 3,000 people were positively identified as survivors of slavery in the second stage of the decision-making process.

I contend that the Government’s main worry should be their failure to identify and make safe the vast majority of people who have been trafficked into this country. The Government should concentrate on that, rather than on unsubstantiated allegations of abuse in the system. With no data published to prove it, the Government have argued that over the last 12 months, there has been a surge in foreign national offenders claiming to be victims of trafficking to disrupt immigration proceedings. That represents a complete failure to understand everything that we have learned about how many of those who are convicted are convicted of crimes that they were forcibly trafficked to commit in this country. I cite the recent examples from many of our constituencies of the Vietnamese young people who have been trafficked into cannabis farms in the UK. Many of those who are trafficked and then convicted of crimes lack access to legal advice and support even to explain their circumstances and case.

The Government appear to be arguing that the threshold of reasonable grounds for determining whether someone has been trafficked is too low. Under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking, the threshold was deliberately set low to ensure that people are identified. I believe we have an international obligation to uphold that standard under the convention. People who are referred into the system are referred, as the Minister knows, by first responders, who are professionally trained and authorised by the Government. In detention, virtually all the referrals come from the Home Office itself. As the Minister said, the Government have offered us revised casework guidance. That has not even been published, yet we are expected to vote into law this statutory instrument—a leap in the dark.

If the consultation had been adequate, no Government could have reasonably brought forward this statutory instrument. As other Members have said, the consultation was extremely limited, in both who was consulted and the timescale. Consulting for only two weeks on something so significant is a dereliction of the Government’s duty, particularly on openness, transparency and the consideration of all reasonable factors. As others have said, the Home Office admitted to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that more people will be held in detention if the instrument is approved. It will mean more people going into detention, but it will also be more difficult for people to get out of detention.

We need to recall the people we are talking about. These people are trafficked, exploited and abused, physically, sexually and mentally. They are extremely vulnerable. They are isolated and confused, often even lacking the ability to speak English, and they are suspicious of authority. Often, they have been emotionally abused to the extent that they are traumatised, and many suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. These are the people that this statutory instrument will increasingly force into detention. And let us be clear: we know now that, in detention, there is little access to legal advice or to emotional or health support, so it is often very difficult for these people to communicate their circumstances and their case.

What does detention mean? Well, this is the reality of detention. I have two detention centres in my constituency: Harmondsworth and Colnbrook. I have been visiting Harmondsworth for more than 30 years. Years ago, it was a couple of Nissen huts, with no more than about a dozen people detained there. Now we have what are, effectively, two prison-style buildings housing anything between 800 and 1,000 detainees.

These detention centres are notorious. Detainees have died, with accusations of neglect, lack of care and abuse. Perhaps the Minister will remember the 83-year-old man who was taken from detention to Hillingdon Hospital and died still in handcuffs. On two occasions, riots have broken out, with Harmondsworth being burned down.

Detainees get lost in the system, too, with examples of some being detained for long periods, trapped in detention. The irony is that most will eventually be released and allowed to settle, becoming valuable members of our community. The moral of this story is that we detain too many people unnecessarily and in unacceptable conditions. I believe that, in years to come, people will look back on this system with incredulity but also disgust.

I believe that this legislation, in addition to increasing the number of victims of trafficking in detention, will deter victims from coming forward. It will be used by traffickers to discourage victims from escaping. If the SI is passed, traffickers will say to victims, with some accuracy, “If you try to escape, you’ll be locked up anyway in a detention centre or prison.”

I believe that, if this House allows the statutory instrument to go on to the statute book, it will be seen as a disgraceful act of inhumanity. To attack some of the most vulnerable people, living in fear in our community, is a new low for this Parliament. I thought that we had all moved on. I thought we had moved forward. I hope that sufficient Members of this House still have the humanitarian instincts to reject this appalling measure.

16:24

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister and all the contributors to the debate. This is an issue of great importance to me. I recognise that the Minister does his utmost in the capacity of what he is responsible for, and I believe in all honesty that he understands the issues that all of us are raising. The regulations, which will come into force on 25 May 2021, are an attempt to update the legislation with the latest information. It is clear that that is essential, as the number of people forcibly displaced around the world as a result of persecution, conflict, civil violence or human rights violations has rapidly increased in the last five years.

I declare a particular interest in this matter. As the Minister and other Members will know, I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. One of the things that burdens my heart is those who are persecuted due to their faith and religion or because they belong to an ethnic minority. In this House, we have been trying over the years to ensure we have a system that enables those people to be considered for asylum and relocation. I have done it before, but it is important in these debates to give credit and thanks for jobs that are done. The Syrian resettlement scheme was brought in by this Government, and all of us in the House supported it.

In my constituency of Strangford, we were able through the scheme to relocate four Syrian families, who have been there for almost five years. I met one of them just last week to discuss a housing issue. I had not seen them in person for that period, but it was wonderful to see that they were settled, they had work and they had their families. The lady had a second baby. She said to me, along with some of the people from the churches who have helped out, “This is now my home.” Our Government made it possible for people to have their home in my constituency and, indeed, in many constituencies across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is life changing. That is what we can do when we get it right. I wanted to put that on the record, because I got the opportunity last Friday to meet that lady again. Her family went through terrible things and faced upheaval just because they were Christians; that is a fact of life. We were able to help, and I thank my Government and my Minister for that on behalf of them and myself.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that there are currently 79.5 million forcibly displaced persons around the world. I have raised this issue on many occasions and cited that some of these are the most vulnerable people from the most difficult backgrounds; it burdens me when I hear about them. Many countries detain asylum seekers in detention centres while their applications are processed or following a decision to refuse them protection. At present, the total number of third country nationals held in immigration detention in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the year ending June 2020 is 698. I understand that the last year has been an incredibly difficult time, and that number is undoubtedly affected by the impact of covid-19 on the Home Office’s ability to release detainees. However, the United Kingdom has yet to reintroduce its resettlement programme. I am not sure whether the Minister is in a position to respond to this, but I am keen to know whether there is any intention to do again what the Government have already done well. We must ensure that that happens as soon as possible.

It is important to recognise that vulnerable persons detained in immigration centres have already experienced severe trauma. Many of them have seen things that we would never in a million years be able to envisage, understand or even contemplate. Many have PTSD and severe mental health issues associated with their pre-migration experiences. Prolonged detention—on top of all the trauma that they have had to go through—without sight of resettlement heightens those issues, and we need to do better for those people. What protections will the regulations provide to ensure that the detention of vulnerable persons is a limited process, instead of indefinite and non-reviewable mandatory detention? Is the updated guidance able to stand in the post-covid world that we find ourselves coming into, with the problems that we have?

16:29

[Chris Philp]

I thank all the Members who have contributed to this discussion. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his well-considered and thoughtful comments on the issues we are debating. I thank him for his remarks about the resettlement scheme, from which his constituents have benefited. That demonstrates the Government’s unshakeable commitment to protecting vulnerable people around the world.

The resettlement programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred has resettled 25,000 people over the past six years, which is more than any other European country. That is clear evidence of the Government’s compassionate commitment to those in genuine need. He referenced in particular persecuted Christians, of whom there are many around the world. In fact, following a speech that I heard him make in a debate in the Chamber a year or so ago, he will notice that the new plan for immigration expressly references persecuted Christians around the world and the need to offer them sanctuary here in the United Kingdom. Where Shannon led the way, the rest of the United Kingdom will, I hope, follow.

The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance that the resettlement programme will continue. Yes, it will. In fact, it is already continuing. We recommenced a few weeks ago, so I can give him the assurance for which he asked. On the question of indefinite detention, we do not detain people indefinitely for immigration purposes. About 75% of people in immigration detention are there for 28 days or less. It is used as a last resort. The Hardial Singh principles strictly set out the circumstances in which it can be used, and at any time anyone in detention can apply for immigration bail.

Most importantly of all, it is categorically not true and is not the case that we will be turning our backs on victims of modern slavery. On the contrary, we have done more than any Government in history to look after them. Indeed, we are doing more than any Government in Europe to protect and look after victims of modern slavery. The change that we are discussing today does not alter that fact. I can assure the House that decision makers will continue to take careful account of vulnerability, risk and the experience of modern slavery victims—or potential victims—when making these decisions. That will be fully taken into account, and balanced with other considerations. Victims will be respected, treated carefully and looked after, as they have been in this country for many years. We have a proud record on this topic, and that will continue for many decades to come.

16:32

[Holly Lynch [V]]

I am afraid that we are not at all satisfied with the Minister’s contribution. This is a shameful downgrading of essential, hard-won protections for those who have been subject to some of the worst forms of exploitation and abuse. The Minister says that we lead in Europe on modern slavery, but he uses that as a justification for downgrading protections, which means that we will trample all over that sense of leadership and welcome progress on this issue. We will no longer lead in this policy area, which is much more about humanity than it ever will be about practicalities.

The Minister suggested that only one other colleague attended the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, but he did not clarify the fact that it was a 30-minute debate. As such, there were no contributions from other parties or other Members. The early-day motion praying against the statutory instrument has secured 77 signatures, and is a more appropriate reflection of colleagues’ interest in this important matter.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made some incredibly powerful points, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. We do not have the confidence to support the Government on proposed guidance that is yet to be published. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his typically powerful contribution as well.

The protections currently in place represent far more than a policy anomaly. There is a strong case for them to be in place and we want to see those protections extended. We seek to divide the House to revoke these proposals.

Question put.

16:34

Division 282

Ayes: 270

---

Labour: 198
Scottish National Party: 44
Liberal Democrat: 11
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Independent: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 358

---

Conservative: 357

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

National Security and Investment Bill

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

Clause 61

Annual report

17:29

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I beg to move,

That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 11B and 11C.

The amendments made in the other place concern what is in effect a reporting requirement to the Intelligence and Security Committee in respect of the national security and investment regime. They incorporate the text of Lords amendments 11 and 15, which were considered in this House on 26 April. In addition, they would end the reporting requirements on the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy provided for by Lords amendments 11 and 15 should the memorandum of understanding that governs the remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee be amended to bring the Secretary of State’s activities under clause 26 into the scope of ISC scrutiny.

This House has already offered a view on the substance of amendments. It is disappointing that the other place has not heeded the clear and carefully considered message from this Chamber that the amendment to provide for a reporting requirement to the ISC is neither necessary nor appropriate. I welcome the Lords’ continuing attempts to find compromise, but I respectfully disagree with them. The Secretary of State has written to confirm plans for scrutiny with the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), and the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). The ISC remains able to scrutinise the work of the intelligence services where it falls within the memorandum of understanding and in accordance with the Justice and Security Act 2013.

As we rapidly approach the end of this Session, it is essential that this vital Bill on the UK’s national security does not fall as a result of our failure to agree that the BEIS Committee will continue to scrutinise the work of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I therefore urge the House to reject amendments 11B an 11C from the other place and reiterate its message about the will of this democratically elected House, to help ensure that the Bill becomes law without delay.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]]

I again thank colleagues in the other place who have worked tirelessly to improve the Bill.

Labour is the party of national security and has long called for a new regime to deal with the evolving national security threat arising from mergers and acquisitions, as the Bill seeks to do. The Bill was much improved in Committee, as the Minister acknowledged in Monday’s debate; however, as Members from all parties highlighted then, it still lacks an appropriate level of oversight for critical national security decisions. Labour believes that Intelligence and Security Committee scrutiny is essential to provide the robust and sensitive oversight and accountability that matters of national security require. The Bill gives significant new powers to BEIS, a Department traditionally lacking in national security experience.

On Monday, as the Minister indicated, the Government rejected Lords amendments 11 and 15, stating that

“it is appropriate and sufficient for oversight and scrutiny of decisions made by the Secretary of State for BEIS to be conducted by their departmental select committee”—

that is, the BEIS Committee. The Lords have responded with amendments 11B and 11C, which would allow the Government to add the Investment Security Unit into the Government and ISC memorandum of understanding, thereby removing the obligation to provide the ISC with a confidential annexe.

We maintain our position: that the BEIS Committee does not have the security clearance necessary to provide scrutiny. In Monday’s debate, the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said clearly that the Committee

“does not have the access to the intelligence information that it would need in order to adequately scrutinise the Investment Security Unit in the BEIS Department.”—[Official Report, 26 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 164.]

As the Minister indicated, the Secretary of State has said that classified information could be shared with the BEIS Committee on a case-by-case basis, but the retaining, recording, discussing or reporting of that information after the fact would constitute a security breach, somewhat limiting the Committee’s actions.

In this afternoon’s debate in the other place, the Government said that they will “carefully consider” ways in which classified information could be provided so that the Committee can do its job. Why do we need careful consideration when we have, through the Intelligence and Security Committee, an existing and functioning mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny on issues of national security? Earlier this afternoon, the Government were again defeated in the other place, this time by an even greater margin, showing that, despite the Minister’s efforts, support for Intelligence and Security Committee oversight is growing. I feel that it is becoming an issue of intransigence and stubbornness—or, as former Conservative Health Secretary Lord Lansley put it today, “arrogance”—by a Government refusing to prioritise national security in the National Security and Investment Bill, and determined to overturn common sense for reasons that are unclear to us all.

It is clear to us that there is a need for Intelligence and Security Committee oversight. Indeed the Chair of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said:

“The setting up of the new Investment Security Unit in BEIS”—

a function of this Bill—

“is…precisely the situation that the Government assured the House”—[Official Report, 26 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 157.]

would mean that there was ISC oversight, under the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the ISC. Today’s amendment provides for ISC scrutiny until an amended MOU resolves the confusion that appears to exist—on the Government’s part, at least.

If the Government are serious about protecting the UK’s national security through this Bill, they will not force through legislation with such a significant blind spot. Labour, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, many Government Back Benchers and cross-party consensus in the other place all agree that the ISC is best placed to provide national security oversight. Why are the Government determined to stand alone in risking our national security in this case?

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I will be very brief. Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) made the case very clearly that we broadly support the principles of the Bill, but still have concerns over the levels of scrutiny, as we have heard from other Members. We have attempted to be constructive at all stages, and have tried to support the Government to find a balance between the needs of business and national security, particularly in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises.

Many amendments have been accepted, which will help to achieve this; we welcome the Government’s steps in that regard. However, the scrutiny process remains vital and we are not yet satisfied that it has been taken fully into consideration. The comments made by the Chair of the ISC earlier this week certainly highlighted that. I urge the Government to heed those words and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South.

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions and considerations in this debate and others. I will make a couple of brief points in response.

The nub of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) was the question of whether the BEIS Committee will have access to top secret information. We will make sure that the Committee has the information it needs to fulfil its remit and scrutinise the work of the ISU under the NSI regime. Much of the information is unlikely to be highly classified, but where the Committee’s questioning touches on areas of high classification, it is likely that relevant information could be given in a way that does not require as high a level of classification, and that this could be provided to the Committee on a confidential basis. If, however, the Committee does require access to highly classified information, we will carefully consider how best to provide this while maintaining information security in close collaboration with the Committee’s Chair.

The Government’s main powers to scrutinise and intervene in mergers and acquisitions for national security reasons comes from the Enterprise Act 2002. The powers under the Act sit with the Secretaries of State for BEIS and for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, not with the Cabinet Office. The BEIS Committee’s oversight of the new NSI regime is entirely in keeping with this and does not represent a reduction in the ISC’s remit, so there is no barrier to the Committee handling top secret or other sensitive material, subject to the agreement of the Department and the Chair of the Committee on appropriate handling.

This House should continue its excellent work of speeding this Bill towards becoming law for the benefit of the UK’s world-leading investment environment, as well as of protecting the nation’s security. I therefore urge the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendments 11B and 11C.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 11B and 11C.

16:54

Division 283

Ayes: 358

---

Conservative: 357

Noes: 269

---

Labour: 196
Scottish National Party: 44
Liberal Democrat: 11
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Independent: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Conservative: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendments 11B and 11C disagreed to.

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 11B and 11C;

That Paul Scully, Michael Tomlinson, Jo Gideon, Lucy Powell and Stephen Flynn be members of the Committee;

That Paul Scully be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Mike Freer.)

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.

Business of the House (Today) (No. 2)

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions on the motion in the name of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg relating to Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments to the motions selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the business on that motion may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Scott Mann.)

Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Leader of the House to move the motion, I should inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected amendment (a) in the name of Sir Christopher Chope.

17:06

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)]

I beg to move,

That this House endorses the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, HC 1384, laid on Thursday 22 April; and approves the revised bullying and harassment policy and outline procedure, and sexual misconduct policy and outline procedure, set out in Annexes 1 to 4 of that report.

Before I begin, as I may not have the opportunity tomorrow, may I start by thanking Ray Mortimer for his service to the House? He is leaving after 18 years of serving us, and he has always in my time in the House—and I am a mere stripling of only 10 and a bit years’ service—been one of the friendliest, most approachable and helpful members of the first-class Doorkeepers team. He was welcoming to me from the day that I arrived, and he has always been smiling and positive. He knows better, dare I say, what the business of House is going to be, if one needs advice, sometimes than one’s own Whips know and sometimes even than the Leader of the House himself knows, and this is characteristic of the Doorkeepers. I know that my private office in particular has always appreciated Ray’s good humour, support and friendliness, too. I am sure that Members from across the House will want to thank Ray for his service. I also thank the shadow Leader of the House, who warned me that this was happening, and that is how I knew.

Turning to the motion in my name, the central aim of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme is to help improve the working culture of Parliament. The Government continue to be determined to play our part, giving the House an opportunity to have its say on the proposed reforms and their relative merits in achieving the change we are all striving for. This motion endorses the report agreed by the House of Commons Commission on amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme.

At the time that the ICGS was created, it was important that the scheme was established as rapidly as possible. Built in to the set-up process were two reviews—one after six months and a second after 18 months—both to provide an opportunity for the scheme to be assessed and improvements identified. Inevitably, when looked at over time, there were aspects that required improvement.

I am grateful to Alison Stanley for the dedication and professionalism she has showed in her work reviewing the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, and in particular for her most recent extensive review, published on 22 February. It has been useful to have an independent and expert assessment of the ICGS, providing Parliament with a carefully considered set of recommendations that will help us to hone the scheme further and make Parliament a better place to work.

As the Leader of the House of Commons and co-sponsor of the review, I have taken a keen interest in the report. I am confident that the proposed changes will improve the policies and procedures of the ICGS, while simplifying and streamlining the management of cases. We have already made progress with the implementation of the proposals for textual changes to the policies and procedures concerning complaints of bullying and harassment or sexual misconduct in response to Alison Stanley’s report. These changes, endorsed by the Commission on 22 March, include the retention of the factual accuracy check as the key means of review, the imposition of a time limit for bullying and harassment cases, and textual changes to ICGS policies and procedures.

The motion today will amend the ICGS in several important ways. The language of the ICGS will be amended to make it less pre-judgmental—for example, by removing phrases such as “a case to answer”. The terminology will be updated to reflect language actually used by the ICGS helpline and team. The wording of the bullying and harassment policy will also be amended, to align more closely with that in the Equality Act 2010. The procedure will be altered to enable the independent investigator to consider at the initial assessment stage whether the complaint has already been fully and fairly considered in another context. That is an important development that will mean that double jeopardy is avoided.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Democratic Unionist party supports what the Government have introduced, and I want to put that on the record. Whenever we get the conclusions of what the Leader of the House is saying, it will be important for them to be given—I am sure that this is going to be done—to the Northern Ireland Assembly first of all, and to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly so that they can endorse them in their own regional Administrations.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that extremely sensible point. I would not want to trespass on the exclusive cognisance in their own fields of the various other Parliaments, but if it were thought useful I could certainly ensure that copies of what we propose were sent on an information basis. I am looking at both the SNP and the DUP in the hope that they would not think that that was an impertinence and an attempt to interfere. If those proposals were of use, however, I think that that would be a sensible thing to do.

The ICGS will be streamlined with the removal of the right to seek a review of the draft formal assessment, which is a current means for a complainant to request review when an investigation concludes that the case is not upheld. The factual accuracy check will now be the single point at which both parties, complainant and responder, can correct inaccuracies in the report. The system that we have had until now, which combines a factual accuracy check and a review, has resulted in substantial delay in some cases. We have debated the need for investigations to come to a conclusion more speedily on a number of occasions, and this straightforward measure will help to achieve that.

Another important recommendation concerns the introduction of a time limit for non-recent cases. That will apply only to bullying and harassment cases. The new timeframe will be brought in a year from now, applying to new complaints arising from 28 April 2022. From that date onwards, people can report an incident of bullying or harassment up to one full year after it occurs. That compares with the three-month deadline for claims to an employment tribunal, so the House is once again setting a standard higher than that expected in external workforces. Given the particular nature of sexual harassment cases and the understandable reality that people often need longer to feel able to bring forward such a case, there will be no time limit for those cases.

In addition to the changes recommended by the review, further technical changes are proposed to the policies and procedures, including making it clear that although bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct are defined in the same way across the parliamentary community, the Commissioners for Standards in both Houses are responsible for overseeing investigations, so there are some procedural differences. Other recommendations include aligning the language of the two policies and procedures more closely; amending the procedure documents to be clear that they provide an outline only of the procedure; making it clear that complaints can be made of any former member of the parliamentary community; including in the bullying and harassment policy that victimisation is an aggravating factor, as included in the sexual misconduct policy; and finally, including information on data protection.

I would like to provide some reassurance about whether the changes set out in the motion would have retrospective effect. For the majority of changes to the text of the policies and procedures, the question of retrospection does not arise. Some of the changes are purely linguistic—for example, the change in terminology from “case manager” to “independent investigator”, to ensure that the documents reflect the terminology used by those involved in the process, or the change from “reporter” to “complainant” in sexual misconduct complaints. In those cases, it would not be meaningful to talk about retrospection.

Other changes have been made to reflect existing practice. For example, the factual accuracy check, which was introduced as a procedural step some time ago as a matter of fairness to both parties, is now expressly referred to in the documents. Other changes have been made to clarify the language and to amend defects in the drafting to ensure that the documents clearly reflect the policy intention at the time they were made. It will be for the decision maker to decide how to apply the policy in cases already under way, considering both the language at the time and the intention. I will repeat that for the benefit of the House, because it is a fundamental point: it will be for the decision maker to decide how to apply the policy in cases already under way, considering both the language of the policy at the time and the intention. For Members or former Members, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards makes the initial decision, which can then be appealed to the independent expert panel in accordance with the IEP’s own procedures. For former staff, the house service is the decision maker, and for Members’ staff, the decision maker will be the Member.

There are also some minor changes where it is fair and reasonable to apply the changes—

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The Leader of the House has addressed the issue that has been a concern to me and that led to me seeking support for an amendment—the issue of retrospection—but I am rather disappointed that he does not seem to be ruling out the fact that changes to paragraph 4.3 are retrospective. How can it be justified that we make retrospective changes to paragraph 4.3 which, subject to the decision maker, can be allowed to be lawful? Surely if we change the rules we should change them prospectively rather than retrospectively.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The issue is that it is not at this stage clear what decision the decision maker would make on the language that is currently used in the light of the policy that was adopted by the House. What we are passing today does not change the ability of the decision maker to make a decision on the language of the policy at the time. It is not an attempt to say that the decision maker must follow a new set of words or an old set of words. It is for them to look at what was there at the time both in policy and in terms of language and decide what the right decision is.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

But paragraph 16 of the Commission report states that the drafting of paragraph 4.3 has merely

“been updated so that it more clearly reflects the policy intention of the Commission and the House, when the resolution relating to non-recent cases was passed in July 2019”.

Without anticipating my own speech, all I can say is that there is no evidence at all that there was such a policy intention at that time, and I am very worried that those words in paragraph 16 could be used by a decision maker in order to justify what I would regard as retrospective change.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is not for me to say what decision the decision maker should come to, but the decision maker should base any decision on the language of the policy at the time. It would not be fair to make a decision on our clarification ex post facto. I hope that is helpful to the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I think this is quite important. The House is perfectly entitled to change its rules, but it is an absolutely fundamental part of natural justice that laws should not be changed retrospectively. Just for the sake of argument, we may, for instance, be dealing with a historical case that happened several years ago and the Member has left this House. It is absolutely vital that the Leader of the House makes it clear that that person would be judged according to the rules at the time, not according to the way we are changing the rules now. Do I make myself clear? If he makes that clear, that would be very helpful.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely clear, and that is broadly what I have been saying. What I am not committing to is to saying how the decision maker would interpret the rules as they were at the time, in view of the stated intention that the House had, because there was a degree of disagreement between the two. That is a matter for the decision maker to decide on the basis of the wording at the time, not on the basis of subsequent changes to the wording. What we are doing today should not influence the decision maker’s view of what existed at the time in one direction or the other. It should be based on what existed at the time.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Then who will decide whether a complaint is in or out of scope according to the rules as drafted two years ago, which are being changed today?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The interpretation of the rules will be for the people who are the decision makers. As I set out earlier in my comments, ultimately it is for the IEP on appeal. In relation to Members’ staff, it would be the Member themselves. For somebody working for the House, it would be the House authorities, and for a Member of Parliament, it would be for the commissioner to determine what the rules at the time meant but not to jump to a change in the rules. That, I hope, is clear. I wish I could give the interpretation of what the rules mean, which is what my right hon. and hon. Friends are asking for, but that is not my territory. I would then be trespassing on the independence of this process, which is its whole virtue. I am simply making it clear that any decision maker should base it on the language of the policy at the time.

[Sir Charles Walker]

On that basis, it is possible for a variety of decision makers looking at the rules as they were before they were changed to come up with different decisions. Is that not a problem? One decision maker may interpret the rules in a different way from another decision maker, and that in itself creates a problem.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes a point that is sorted out by the fact that there is an appeals system and a senior body that can, on appeal, determine this, which I imagine other decision makers would then want to follow. It is not the same as a court, but it is not entirely dissimilar. Lower courts can make a decision, but ultimately there is an appeal body that will make a decision that we would then expect the lower-down decision makers to follow. I do not think that the problem he outlines would last, because there is a proper appeals system to the independent expert panel, which, very much at the request of Members across the House, contains very serious legal expertise, so that we can ensure that in all these cases, natural justice is done and it is fair to both complainants and respondents.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will the independent panel be accessible by former Members, rather than just current Members? In paragraph 3 of the Commission’s report, there is a reference to the changes to which we are referring being

“recommended by staff for clarification and updating of the documents.”

Are those staff involved in any of this decision making? Can my right hon. Friend ensure that those recommendations from the staff are published, so that we can all see what they were and the basis on which they were put forward?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Alison Stanley carried out a very thorough review and spoke to a number of people across the parliamentary estate to get their views and to get a full understanding of how the overall system was working. She drew her conclusions from that and made recommendations to the Commission, the bulk of which will be implemented if the House decides to support tonight’s proposal. When discussions are held in confidence, it is unfair retrospectively to undermine that confidence, so I could not give the commitment that the views given to Alison Stanley should be made public, because the views were not solicited on that basis.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

It was a mistake to put two points in one intervention. My first point was about whether former Members of Parliament will have access to the independent panel for appeal.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The independent expert panel is available for appeals for people who get caught up in the ICGS system. If any conclusion is made, I believe people have the right to ask to appeal to the panel. Not all appeals are guaranteed, but there is a right to ask for one. As far as I am aware, that applies to anybody who comes up within the system.

Let me come to the other minor changes. The original documents were clear that confidentiality is central to the process, but they made reference to the possibility that either a complainant or a respondent might wish to discuss the matter with a small number of people to seek practical support. Those mentioned were managers and HR services or other relevant parties. The new version refers expressly to trade union representatives and party Whips, because concerns were very reasonably raised that the document should make it clear that a Member who discussed his or her case with a Whip would not be in breach of the requirement of confidentiality. That clarification is relevant in all cases, whether or not the complaints procedure has already begun.

Where there is a real change to the policies and procedures, I am happy to confirm that the changes are not being applied retrospectively. In particular, the new one-year time limit on complaints of bullying and harassment will not be applied to any complaints made before 28 April 2022, and that is clear from the text before the House. Alison Stanley also recommended the removal of the complainant’s right of review because of the degree of overlap with the factual accuracy check. Any complainant who has made a formal complaint before the House’s approval of the amended texts will continue to be able to request a review on the grounds set out in the existing documents, namely that the procedure was flawed or that substantial new evidence has become available.

The purpose of all the changes we are debating today is to ensure that the ICGS is an effective, efficient, clear and comprehensive system for complaints and support. These alterations will make a difference to the running of the scheme and will help us to make progress towards real and sustained culture change in Parliament—something I know Members across the House are keen to continue to champion and support. I commend the motion to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I know that Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers would want me to agree wholeheartedly with the words of the Leader of the House about Ray Mortimer, whose service to the House is deeply appreciated, as is the kindness and courtesy that he has always shown to us. We will miss his cheerful presence. We wish you well, Ray.

17:27

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I start by thanking the Leader of the House for outlining the position in relation to the motion. This is a good time to thank the people who started off the whole process of setting up the ICGS, who may have moved on before they had a chance to be thanked. It was a difficult task from the start, and they have done incredibly well. As the Leader of the House has said, Alison Stanley reviewed the process and then undertook an 18-month review, which was published on 22 February. I thank her for her diligence in her work.

The Commission discussed a report on the proposed changes, and that is now before the House. It includes amendments made in response to the 18-month Stanley review, and additional changes to policies and procedures. I want to deal with the response to the Stanley review. We have the introduction of a time limit from 28 April 2022, such that

“a complaint may not be brought more than one year after the incident…complained of.”

At present, there is no time limit on non-recent cases. Stanley suggested two years, acknowledging that tribunal cases have a time limit of three months. The Commission report states that the time limit will be one year from the date of the incident complained of.

The independent investigator will also be able to consider at the initial assessment stage

“whether the complaint has already been fully and fairly considered in another context.”

If it has, there will be grounds for rejecting the complaint. We know of incidents where staff have taken a complaint through the normal grievance procedures and also through the ICGS. As the Leader of the House outlined, we cannot have this double jeopardy. Again, the definitions are being aligned with the Equality Act 2010 to include all the protected characteristics. The 18-month review found that the combination of a factual accuracy check and the right of the complainant to seek a review of the investigators’ findings had delayed some cases substantially, but the factual accuracy check remains available for both parties to correct factual inaccuracies.

I turn to the policy and procedural changes. These will use the same words for both the complainant and respondent for all bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct cases. It is also stated that the existing procedure documents have been shortened and amended to make it clear that they provide an outline only of the procedure, and that further detailed information on the different stages of the process is available from both the ICGS team and the relevant decision-making body.

The Leader of the House has not clarified some of the questions that were asked. I find it concerning that the procedures should be in lots of different places and that they are not in a usable form. We have Standing Orders and “Erskine May”, so things are out there and transparent. We also have obiter dicta from his podcast about how Parliament works. Making it obscure and asking the team in the relevant decision-making body does not give clarity, certainty and transparency. People should not have to go to different places to find out what the procedures are. I am happy to work with him and anyone else to ensure that the procedures are published in full, so that everyone is aware of them. Again, victimising a complainant for bringing a complaint would be treated as an aggravating factor.

I turn to the vexatious question that has been before the House on the change to the drafting in relation to non-recent cases, which was agreed in July—that it should be possible to complain about the conduct of any former member of the parliamentary community, be they Clerks or anyone else, whether or not they hold a parliamentary pass when the complaint is made. As currently drafted, there is an “and” in paragraph 4.3, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) said. The person has to hold a parliamentary pass, and the change is to whether or not former members of the parliamentary community—whether it is a Clerk, a Member or anybody else—hold a parliamentary pass. I think that that offends the principles of natural justice, one of which, I remind hon. Members, is procedural fairness—the right to a fair hearing. That means that people know the rules by which they are being judged and that people act fairly, act in good faith, without bias, and give each party an opportunity to state their case.

Procedural fairness, in my view, is not changing the rules and making them apply retrospectively. The Leader of the House did not actually say whether the rules were retrospective or not, so I ask him to confirm whether any changes made today will apply to the current cases that are going forward. I know that he suggested that it was about the decision maker, but actually, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) pointed out, it is an individual decision maker. They are all separate and they are all different. That is why there should be a set of rules that everybody can see and everybody can apply. In no quasi-judicial situation do we ever have different decision makers making different decisions on a rule that is not clear. The amendment sought to clarify that, so I hope that the Leader of the House will too.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I did not hear the opening comments from the Leader of the House because I was chairing a Committee meeting in another building. Following as closely as I can what the shadow Leader of the House is saying, as I understand it—on this particular paragraph 4.3, about passes—I presume that she would not have any objection to a change in the rules saying, “Passes used to be required but no longer will be required”, as long as that applied only to future cases. It seems rather strange that it should be said, “We are not changing the rule—we are just clarifying what the House meant previously, and when it previously said that the person has to still hold a parliamentary pass, what it really meant was that he or she did not have to be holding a parliamentary pass at all.” That is surely not a clarification of the rule; it is a change of the rule and, therefore, it should be forward-looking and not retrospective, should it not?

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. I think he missed the earlier discussion about the lack of clarity around that, but it should not be the case that current cases are subject to a changes of rules. To me, that is a breach of natural justice. We cannot have different decision makers applying the rules as they interpret them. In my view, we cannot have changes in procedure to cases, because each case will be dealt with differently, but as it was set out—as the hon. Member for Christchurch read out paragraph 4.3—it is fairly clear that there are the two limbs and therefore that any changes should apply to future cases.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I obviously agree with the right hon. Lady’s assessment of the importance of getting proper clarity and ensuring that we are not going to have retrospection, but may I also draw her attention to the sentence in paragraph 3 of the Commission report? I think my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House misunderstood that. It says that the changes that we are discussing were

“recommended by staff for clarification and updating of the documents.”

I am not referring to the Alison Stanley recommendations; this is something completely different. These changes that are causing us concern were recommended by staff. Is it unreasonable to ask whether we can see the document in which those recommendations were made and see whether some of the staff who made those recommendations may themselves have been involved or know decision makers?

[Valerie Vaz]

I do not have an issue with clarity. In fact, I think it is really helpful to see the thinking behind why the changes are being made, so unless there is some confidentiality issue, I do not see any problem. We are here discussing this, and we are not getting any clarity on it—certainly not from the interventions, or from the responses. There is no clarity on this, and I wish there were. There could be. That actually helps to make a system much fairer and work better, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Let me move on to the next part of the Stanley report. She found in her review that those with a BAME—visible minority—background were less likely to have used the ICGS helplines compared with their white colleagues. She was concerned that several surveys

“carried out across Parliament have indicated that these groups are more likely to report that they have experienced bullying and harassment, sexual misconduct or discrimination.”

Despite that finding, there are no specific recommendations in the report that try to remedy it. Certain things have been remedied, but not others. In the light of the current climate, with Black Lives Matter, they should be considered.

Interestingly, in the introduction to its 2019 report “Stand in my shoes”, which has been published again on the intranet for Stephen Lawrence Day, ParliREACH stated that its findings confirmed its view that

“there is insufficient focus on and actions to challenge racial bias (both conscious or unconscious), and that many BAME”—

visible minority—

“staff expend effort each day to defend their right to work in Parliament and to progress through the organisation.”

It found that only 54% felt

“confident…to raise issues of concern”,

and 56% felt “comfortable being themselves”.

We know from other regulatory bodies that regulate professions, such as the General Medical Council and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, that BAME—visible minority—figures are over-represented among those complained about. The Alison Stanley review recommended that

“demographic analysis of the Helpline usage statistics”

should be

“carried out as soon as possible”.

I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that that is undertaken, because it is unclear whether that recommendation has been implemented, or whether there are any other measures taken to address this issue.

I want to draw hon. and right hon. Members’ attention—they may not be able to see this in some of the reports—to the costs of the ICGS. Its budget for 2021-22 is £1.8 million. We have investigators. I recall from the start of setting up the ICGS that we wanted it to be as fair as possible. Some 28% of those investigators are police officers: these are not criminal matters, although if they are criminal they should go to the criminal justice system, and that is what they are there for.

I think there are many barristers on the Attorney General’s panel, even the C panel, who are not very expensive—they are quite cheap—who could do the investigations cheaply and weigh the evidence in a proper way in a fair system. In the end, we all want a system that works. We want to stop bad behaviour. It is in all our interests to have a fair system that is transparent so that we abide by the rules of natural justice and we get justice for all. In that sense, I support the motion.

As there will not be another opportunity to do so unless the Leader of the House schedules more business, I want to say a few thank yous at the end of the day. The Parliamentary Digital Service is getting us all back to Parliament. We have a message from PDS to turn off and turn on our computers. It is showing us what to do as more people return to the estate. I specifically want to thank Ian Doubleday in Norman Shaw South, who has been really helpful in enabling Members to come back, and in keeping us and Members’ staff safe.

I pay tribute to one of our senior doorkeepers, Ray Mortimer, who has been here since 2003. He has led the Speaker’s procession for eight years, and the procession to the Lords during state opening twice. He has been through six Serjeants at Arms and three Speakers, and is on his fifth Prime Minister. His good friend, mentor and boss—in capital letters—Phil Howse said:

“Ray has been a superb asset not only to the doorkeeper team but to the House, dedicating the past 18 years to delivering fantastic service. His colleagues will miss his knowledge and guidance to the team. He is going from one house of drama”—

here—

“to another, the Marlowe theatre in Canterbury. We wish Ray and his wife Sam good luck and all the very best for the future, and thank him for his amazing public service and the loyal service to the House of Commons.”

I am sure the whole House agrees.

From me, on a personal level, and just as the Leader of the House said, Ray is always good fun. He is always ready with advice about what is going on in the Chamber. He is extremely supportive of Members, all our work and the smooth running of the Chamber. He is always smiling and in a good mood. We will remember him as our little Ray of sunshine. Thank you, Ray, from all of us.

17:42

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

May I too express my thanks and good wishes to Ray Mortimer?

My interest in the issue arises from when I was on the Standards Committee, particularly during the 2017-19 Parliament. During that time, I was involved in discussions leading up to the creation of the ICGS and its extension in 2019. I have read the conclusion of the House of Commons Commission following Alison Stanley’s review, and I accept that the Commission is right to take the necessary measures in response to that review, but my concerns tonight are about the Commission’s endorsement of

“other changes recommended by staff for clarification and updating”.

I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that those are changes recommended by staff not in response to a request from Alison Stanley, but off their own bat. I do not know how they have appeared, who they were sent to or why we cannot see them, but it would be useful for the purposes of transparency if we could.

Those are set out in paragraphs 12 to 18 of the report. As has been discussed, the most significant change is in paragraph 16, which changes the scope of the provisions on bullying and harassment. I do not have any problem with the revision, but what I do have a problem with is the possibility that that change is retrospective. The issue of retrospection was discussed quite usefully in the original report. There was a legal opinion from Tom Linden, QC, on what were then being discussed as pre-scheme cases, and the opinion is set out on page 93 in the delivery report, published in July 2018. In that legal opinion, Tom Linden makes it clear that there is a common law presumption against retrospective effect. I hope that we are not going to get into territory where litigation will arise if people feel that the common law presumption against retrospection is not being honoured by the decision makers.

In that opinion, Tom Linden quotes Lord Brightman giving a good definition about what is retrospective and what is not. Lord Brightman says that it is

“retrospective if it takes away or impairs a vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in regard to events already past.”

It seems to me, from what we have heard, that the changes to paragraph 4.3 would be regarded as retrospective if those principles were applied.

The words in paragraph 16 that these changes are

“so that it more clearly reflects the policy intention of the Commission”

are weasel words. I can say that there is no evidence whatsoever—I was on the Standards Committee—that the Standards Committee, the Commission or this House ever intended, when extending the scope to non-recent cases in July 2019, that it should be possible to complain of the conduct of any former member of the parliamentary community until that person died. In other words, it might be 10, 20 or 30 years hence.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Would it not be helpful if the Leader of the House, when he sums up this debate, made it absolutely clear that in the case of historic allegations, if the subject of that complaint is no longer a passholder, then that complaint should be judged firmly on the rules of the time?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I think the Leader of the House will say that he has more or less said that, but anything else that he can do to reconfirm that would be extremely helpful. Where is the evidence that there was a misrepresentation of the intention in the wording of paragraph 4.3? The text of the paragraph remained the same in July 2019 as it was in June 2018, and if the new text had been intended to change the rules, then I think the Standards Committee, this House and the Commission would have been totally in opposition to any suggestion that we could expose former Members of Parliament to the risk of being complained against and investigated for the rest of their lives after they had left the House. In a sense, what this Commission report seems to say is that that was the intention, but it was never properly expressed in words. My view is that if that had been the intention and it had been expressed in words, it would never have been passed by this House, which is why I am agitated about this and particularly keen to see the terms in which the staff were recommending these changes.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I realise that other people want to join in the debate, but this issue will not go away unless we clarify that these changes will not be retrospective in any respect.

17:49

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

May I associate myself and my party with the comments made by Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in paying tribute to Ray? [Interruption.] He has changed, just like that! It goes without saying that all of us in this place, who have the use and the benefit of the experience of all the Doorkeeping staff, find that they are just such a resource and provide such guidance, especially for Members when they first come here; they help us with basic things such as finding our way around and how the place works. They really are an amazing team, so I add my thanks and tribute to Ray and all the Doorkeeping team, and I certainly wish Ray all the best for his new endeavours.

I also largely echo the comments made by the shadow Leader of the House, as we very much support these amendments, the intention behind them and what we are looking to achieve. I add my thanks to Alison Stanley for the review that has been conducted. No one deserves to be victimised, bullied, disrespected or harassed in any workplace, let alone in a Parliament, and we certainly should not be tolerating any form of sexual harassment or assault of any kind. So the processes we have in place and the review certainly help in that regard.

We have certainly found that the fact that there is no cut-off date now for sexual misconduct cases is a real, positive step forward. I agree that we perhaps need to look again at the time limitations on other incidents, because that needs further review, but, as with all of these things, this process needs to be organic. It needs to be able to adapt as it moves forward. What we agree tonight cannot simply be what it is for ever more; it needs to adapt to circumstances as we move forward. At a time when trust in politicians is at an all-time low—there is no hiding from that—it is crucial that we do everything we can to enhance that trust with the public, who send us here to do a job. They send us here to represent them, to be upstanding citizens and to do our bit to move things forward. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that we should all be held to the highest possible standards on dignity, courtesy and respect. It should not detract from anything that we do that we put in place the measures before us tonight.

17:51

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

Although I am speaking virtually, I, too, wish to join in expressing my thanks and best wishes to Ray Mortimer.

I welcome the amendments being proposed today. I can see that both Houses take the culture of bullying and harassment extremely seriously in Parliament, and Mr Speaker has shown his commitment to all staff working on the estate. The creation of the independent complaints and grievance scheme is a significant undertaking, and we need a system that works. In the spirit of supporting the scheme to be the best it can be, I need to raise the issue of discrimination against black, Asian and minority ethnic people, to ensure that it is not overlooked—it has already been mentioned in this House, so I am fairly confident that it is not being overlooked in this debate.

ParliREACH, the workplace equality network, has focused on enhancing racial and cultural awareness in Parliament. It released a report in 2019 showing the scale of difficulties that people from diverse backgrounds face. The “Stand in my Shoes” report found that this staffing group in particular faced daily struggles to be treated with respect and with decency; from cleaning staff right through to MPs and peers, we can be made to feel unwelcome in the very place we work in. Staff reported having their presence questioned and equal opportunities denied. ParliREACH said that many of its members were reluctant to speak up when they felt discriminated against. They spoke about worrying that they would be seen as “calling the race card”, and they “feared recriminations” as a result. They felt that they had to be cautious to pick their battles carefully. That should not be the environment that staff have to be work in, on top of the work they have to do; it is very distressing. Parliament must therefore advocate justice equally for all protected characteristics.

I myself had a completely demoralising encounter when I was relatively new to this House. I was made to feel as though I did not belong here, and I feel that this was because of my gender as well as my ethnicity. Although this happened almost three years ago and I went through the formal complaints system, it is still yet to be resolved. Does this tell us that tackling racial discrimination is a priority for the ICGS? It absolutely must be. Cases must be addressed faster, and each one treated with the care and sensitivity it deserves.

ParliREACH pointed out the need to make the ICGS more accessible for its members, including the non-desk-based staff in Parliament, many of whom are from black, Asian and minority ethnicities, for whom it is not easy to make a complaint. If they do not work at a desk or own a computer at home, how can we say that the system is working equally for them? If their only option is to report something to their manager, who might themselves be the problem, it is not serving their needs. We must understand that many people coming from diverse backgrounds struggle to believe that processes such as the ICGS will deliver justice. We need to ensure that they are confident in the process, and that the ICGS is working as well for them as for others. The amendments we are discussing will make going through the ICGS a much smoother process, but I hope that the comments I have expressed will be taken into consideration so that the ICGS can be further improved to best serve all the people it pledges to help and support.

17:55

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to all those who have participated in the debate and, as always, to the shadow Leader of the House who, along with me, serves on the Commission. Of course, although these recommendations are brought forward by me as Leader of the House, they are brought forward on behalf of the Commission, so a number of questions that she raised are questions for the Commission rather than for me as Leader of the House. The Commission has its own spokesman, and as we both serve on it, that is probably the best way of getting the information that the right hon. Lady requires, because I do not wish to blur the lines between what is my responsibility as Leader of the House and what is the Commission’s responsibility.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) went back to his fundamental point, and I want to give him clarification on who may appeal to the IEP. There is one category of Member or former Member that is excluded, and that is a former Member who had the good fortune—if it is a good fortune—to go to another place. They would not be able to use the IEP. Anybody who brings a complaint against a Member is able to appeal to the IEP, and any Member or former Member except a peer is also able to take their case to the IEP.[Official Report, 12 May 2021, Vol. 695, c. 2MC.]

My hon. Friend reiterated his concern about the issue of retrospection. The best I can do is to go back to what I said in my speech, because this is fundamental. The people considering any of these cases must do so looking at the language of the policy at the time. I said that twice when I was speaking, I think I then reiterated it in an intervention, and I have now reiterated it a fourth time in winding up. I think that is very clear. Where I cannot be clear, because we have not had a decision, is on how the panel would interpret the rules at the time, because that is rightly a matter for the panel because it is independent. I hope that I am giving my hon. Friend most of the comfort that he wants, without trying to be a soothsayer and make a prediction of what may be determined in the future.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I know that my right hon. Friend will only be able to give me his opinion on this, in the light of what he has just said, but does he know of any specific historical case that is currently under way that would be ruled out of scope unless the rewording of paragraph 4.3 was applied retrospectively?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend raises a question of considerable importance and one that I have been very careful to avoid in all these discussions. It seems to me that it would be quite wrong to be making this decision, in relation either to what I have said about the rules at the time or to the new rules, with reference to any specific cases. That is fundamental to having a just and fair system. On the question he asks me, I know of gossip, but I have no confirmed knowledge of reports of who may or may not be facing an investigation. In all the deliberations I have done, whether on the Commission, in preparing my speech or in discussions I have had privately with the shadow Leader of the House, I have done it on the basis of general principles rather than trying to consider specific names. I think that is very important.

I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for his support and for the contribution of his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is a member of the Commission, is always fully engaged with our discussions and makes a serious contribution to our deliberations.

I am concerned about the issue raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) about a complaint that has taken three years. That is one of the reasons that we had the Alison Stanley review. It is one of the issues that has come up up most commonly from people who have been involved with or have an interest in the ICGS—a feeling that things are taking too long. It is absolutely the aim of the Commission and the ICGS itself to ensure that things happen in a timely manner.

I thoroughly agree that every Member of this House and everybody who works for or in the House should be treated with respect and decency, regardless of their ethnic background or any other background issues. That is fundamental to the House, to our democracy and, dare I say, to the constitution of this nation. I think we can go back—although I will not in this speech—to Magna Carta and the idea that we have equality under the law and that we all should have; that is a fundamental position of the British constitution.

I am, of course—I reiterate this—acting for the Commission, but in acting for the Commission. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House endorses the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, HC 1384, laid on Thursday 22 April; and approves the revised bullying and harassment policy and outline procedure, and sexual misconduct policy and outline procedure, set out in Annexes 1 to 4 of that report.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before we move on to the other motions, I too would like to send my thanks and congratulations to Ray Mortimer, who I can see is hovering at the back. Ray, I have been a Member for 29 years and you have therefore been a part of my life for the past 18 years, as you will have been for many people sitting around the Chamber. You have heard the accolades. You will be able to get Hansard tomorrow, take it home with you and, in your future life, I hope you will flip through the pages and read the warm wishes that you have received from so many people here. I hope it brings you and your family great joy. You have been very much front of house during the past 18 years; irrespective of what you are going to do with the Marlowe theatre, I hope you will take it in the right spirit—as I know you will—when I say, in the future, break a leg. Good luck.

This may also be the appropriate time to thank everybody who has made the past parliamentary Session work for us, under the most strenuous of conditions. I do not think that any of us thought, as we went into this covid situation, that we would be able to get democracy working in the way that we have. It was a bit clunky to begin with, but—my goodness me—we have learnt lessons and it has worked incredibly well. We thank the technicians and the broadcasting unit; we told Ray to break a leg, but they have been breaking their backs to ensure that the democracy here has worked.

We thank everybody: the Doorkeepers, the catering staff, the security, the cleaners and everybody who has made this democracy work. Thank you very much. We hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel, that the stress that they have faced will be eased somewhat with the relaxations in the coming weeks and months, and that we can get our democracy back working as normal. I know that is what everybody in this place wants. Thank you everybody.

I remind the House that, in accordance with the order of the House today and Standing Order No. 41A(3), any Divisions on the next two motions will not be deferred.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Environmental Protection

That the draft Air Quality (Legislative Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 22 March, be approved.—(James Morris.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Senior Courts of England and Wales

That the draft Civil Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 8 March, be approved.—(James Morris.)

Question agreed to.

Levelling Up Fund

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

18:04

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Rother Valley calling for a powerful bid to be placed by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to secure a grant from the levelling-up fund. My petition, both online and on paper, has received strong local support, with over 1,800 constituents signing it. The people of Rother Valley are calling for our high streets to be transformed. I believe it is high time the local authority delivers on this priority.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the constituency of Rother Valley,

Declares that a strong bid for the Levelling Up Fund must be placed on behalf of the Rother Valley constituency; further that high streets in Rother Valley should form a central aspect of the bid placed; and further that proposals put forward by Dinnington Town Council and Dinnington Community Land Trust should be prioritised.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Government to urge Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to ensure that high streets in the Rother Valley constituency can be rejuvenated via the Levelling Up Fund.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002662]

National Minimum Wage Enforcement

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are going to have Andrew Selous on the videolink. While you are speaking, Andrew, if you do not mind, we will be sanitising the Government Dispatch Box, and I know Mr Scully has been under strict orders not to go anywhere near it until it has been properly sanitised.

18:05

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this debate.

I am very proud to support a Government who have committed to the national living wage being equivalent to two thirds of the median income by 2024, in addition to reducing the age for accessing the national living wage to 23 this month and to 21 by April 2024. We want work to be worth while and an effective route out of poverty, so it is important that everyone is entitled to the legal minimum wage.

Unfortunately, the combined impact of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, along with the provisions of the Care Act 2014 and the enforcement role of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, have all been completely ineffective in enforcing the law for one of my constituents, a carer who is owed £62,961 of unpaid wages below the minimum wage. Four other carers were in the same position. Who knows how many others across the United Kingdom are in the same position. I will use this case to demonstrate how the law has not worked effectively. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on the individual case, but I would like him to set out the plans the Government have to remedy the flaws in the current legislation, so that an effective remedy can be provided to people such as my constituent where now there is none.

My constituent—I shall call her Mrs Wright; it is not her real name—provided care for seven years to a disabled woman, whom I shall call Mrs Edwards, which is also not her real name. The wages to pay Mrs Wright were provided by Luton Borough Council and paid by a local charity into the account of the person being cared for. Checks were then made by Luton Borough Council to make sure that the money provided was paid over to the carer. Section 33 of the Care Act 2014 enables care to be devolved to the person being cared for, who enters into a contract of employment with her carer.

After seven years of good and faithful work caring for Mrs Edwards, the local charity that had received funding from Luton Borough Council sent the carer a schedule showing that, throughout the entire seven-year period, she had been underpaid a total of nearly £63,000. The local charity also paid the premium for an insurance policy to cover employers’ liability and legal expenses and costs should the carer have cause to sue the person being cared for—her employer, Mrs Edwards.

Mrs Wright, the carer, was never provided with the contract of employment by her employer. Both Luton Borough Council and the local charity say that they are not liable for this massive underpayment of wages because the contract of employment is between the carer and the person being cared for, and has nothing to do with either of them. The legal expenses insurer did not even bother to reply, which is completely shameful. There is no point in suing the person being cared for—the employer—because she lives in a rented flat, has no other assets and all her income comes from state benefits. As Mrs Wright’s solicitor said to me,

“this is a wrong with no remedy.”

The aim of this debate—so that the Minister and I are not wasting our time—is to make sure that a remedy is provided to Mrs Wright and other carers in her position, so that the law requiring the payment of the minimum wage applies to them as well as to everyone else.

This matter was first brought to my attention in the summer of 2018. I did my research and found out that everything I had been told about the inability to secure the payment of wages legally due was true. I contacted Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to try to get enforcement action. HMRC said in the letter back to me that it was

“determined that everyone who is entitled to the national minimum wage should receive it.”

That turned out to be a hollow phrase, because no effective enforcement action can be taken against an employer who has no assets and, indeed, never had any in the first place. Luton Borough Council wrote back to me to say:

“any issue regarding alleged historical underpayment of minimum wage will be a matter for the person being cared for and the carer to resolve.”

I should point out that there is no “alleged” underpayment, because the agency employed by Luton Borough Council to check wages paid against wages legally required to be paid came up with a schedule showing the underpayment of nearly £63,000.

Having hit a brick wall with HMRC and Luton Borough Council, which was the local authority responsible for providing the person being cared for with funds to pay for the care provided, I went to see the previous Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility, who was very sympathetic and agreed that there was a problem. At that meeting, I was told that local authorities did indeed have a responsibility for direct payments, in that they must be satisfied that personal budget holders are capable of paying the minimum wage, and the local authority should have undertaken a six-month review, after which it should have reviewed the making of direct payment no later than every 12 months.

The Minister’s predecessor then helpfully wrote to the chief executive of Luton Borough Council, pointing out that it should have had an “effective monitoring process” of the direct payments to ensure that the individual fulfils their responsibilities as an employer and that, following the six-month review, the local authority should have reviewed the making of direct payment no later than every 12 months. In its reply, Luton Borough Council said that the carer had been paid a fixed weekly rate based on unmeasured work hours, when in fact the carer had very clear hours that she was expected to work.

The Minister’s predecessor also wrote to the Minister for Care at the Department of Health and Social Care to explain the problem. The previous Minister for Care wrote back to say that Luton Borough Council should have been satisfied that the person being cared for was capable of managing direct payments by herself or with the help of the charity asked to provide that help. As I said, a local charity used by Luton Borough Council has produced a schedule showing an underpayment of wages throughout the entire seven-year period amounting to nearly £63,000.

I have raised this matter before on the Floor of the House with the Leader of the House, who said:

“I am clear that careworkers provide essential support to some of the most vulnerable members of society, and it is essential that they are paid in accordance with the law, including the national minimum wage, for the work they do. This is a responsibility of local authorities, which should ensure that personal budgets are sufficient to deliver a person’s care needs, including making sure that they cover the cost of wages, and local authorities have a duty to monitor how personal budgets are spent. However, the Department of Health and Social Care will take this up with the local authority and ask it to investigate what sounds like a very serious and concerning case.”—[Official Report, 25 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 1450.]

I have also had a meeting with the Minister who is replying tonight.

In the 2019 Queen’s Speech, the Government announced that they would legislate to create a single enforcement body in an employment Bill. That Bill would give us the opportunity to remedy the very serious loophole that I have outlined. We should also remember the payment of premiums for an insurance policy to cover the employer’s liability and legal expenses and costs, which has been of no assistance whatsoever in this case.

The Minister will agree with me, I am sure, about the importance of people receiving the wages they are legally entitled to. We share a commitment to increasing the minimum wage to make it always worth while to go out to work and to lift more people out of poverty. I urge the Minister to make sure that the single enforcement body in the employment Bill will be up to the task of providing effective remedy in situations such as the one that I have described, and that it has retrospective power to help diligent, hard-working and highly compassionate carers such as my constituent, Mrs Wright.

18:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing today’s important debate and, indeed, his tenacity in supporting and representing his constituent. I am proud to serve as the Minister responsible for the national minimum wage, the national living wage and workers’ rights, among my other responsibilities. I very much value his generous words on the benefits of the national minimum wage to make sure that we can encourage people, as he rightly says, and ensure that work pays. We must protect people on the lowest pay grades, but make sure that they stay in work and have a fruitful career.

The Government are committed to building an economy that works for everyone. Through the national minimum wage and the national living wage, we continue to ensure that the lowest paid in society are rewarded fairly for their contribution to the economy. In April, we increased the national living wage by 2.2% to £8.91, which is the highest ever UK minimum wage. A full-time worker on the national living wage will see their annual earnings rise by over £345. That amounts to a total increase of more than £4,000 since the national living wage was announced in 2015.

We have lowered the age threshold for the national living wage to 23 and, as a result, 23-year-olds and 24-year-olds will get a 71p increase. We have increased the time for which employers must keep minimum wage records from three to six years. That means that workers will get more of the historical arrears that they are owed. The Government are committed to cracking down on employers who fail to pay the national minimum or national living wage.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for introducing the debate. I am always encouraged by what the Minister says, and it is encouraging to hear the things that have been done. However, there are loopholes that allow the hours of casual workers not to be recorded and an appropriate minimum wage is not enforced, so does he not agree that they must be closed? Do his Government intend to ensure that employers will begin doing the right thing instead of being able to avoid it, as they can at the moment?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important, twofold point. First, on anomalies, ignorance is no defence when it comes to paying the national minimum wage, and secondly, that is where enforcement comes in. I shall expand on that in a second. He is absolutely right to raise these issues, to make sure, as I have said, that companies are not balancing their books on the poorest paid in their workforce and in society.

We relaunched the minimum wage naming scheme on 31 December, naming and shaming 139 employers, including some of the UK’s biggest household names, for failing to pay the minimum wage. We have also more than doubled the budget for minimum wage enforcement and compliance since 2015. There are now over 400 officers in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs dedicated to ensuring compliance with the minimum wage.

I should like briefly to share the results of HMRC’s work in the 2020-21 financial year. As we have heard, it was a really challenging year for the whole country. Many of HMRC’s investigations are carried out face to face. Its officers can arrive unannounced at business premises to check minimum wage records or to interview employers and workers. Those face-to-face visits clearly had to be limited in line with covid restrictions, and with many businesses closing their doors. Nevertheless, the Government believe that the pandemic is no excuse for failing to pay staff correctly, especially in sectors such as social care and retail, which have provided invaluable services over the past year. I am pleased that HMRC continued its enforcement and compliance work, prioritising desk work where possible and expanding its educational work with employers and workers.

Despite the pandemic, in 2020-21 HMRC closed over 2,700 cases, securing more than £16.7 million in arrears for more than 155,000 workers. It issued 575 penalties worth over £14 million. HMRC also contacted more than 770,000 employers and workers to improve awareness of the minimum wage. As part of this, it sent over 400,000 texts to apprentices regarding the risks of underpayment from unpaid training time. It wrote to nearly 200,000 employers and workers. HRMC produced a variety of webinars and educational videos that accumulated nearly 20,000 views. One of those webinars is aimed specifically at the social care sector, covering travel time, waiting time and breaks. About 12,000 letters are being sent to Care Quality Commission-registered providers of home care service to highlight that webinar.

The Government acknowledge the particular challenges in enforcing the minimum wage in the care sector. We estimate that approximately 27,000 social care workers were underpaid the national living wage or national minimum wage in 2020. That represents just over 3% of all workers in the sector and is in line with previous years. All workers deserve the wage they are legally entitled to, but particularly key workers in the current context of the coronavirus pandemic. The Government therefore asked HRMC to focus on the sector in its targeted enforcement activity. We have also recently published comprehensive revised minimum wage guidance for all employers. That includes guidance on the recent Supreme Court judgment on sleep-in shifts, where we now have clarity after years of revolving court judgments.

But I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns about social care workers. We met late last year, as he outlined, to discuss the issue of care workers providing care to individuals with direct payment arrangements, also known as personal budget holders. I appreciate that the situation with personal budget holders is particularly tricky as they are vulnerable individuals, but in minimum wage terms they are often the employers of their carers. That means, under minimum wage legislation, that any enforcement action by HMRC for underpayment of their care workers can only be taken against these individuals. I would like to give some assurances on how enforcement works in practice in such cases. Where complaints are received, HMRC works with all parties to ensure that personal budget holders receive the necessary help and support while also continuing to protect the rights of workers. As my hon. Friend said, local authorities have a duty of care under the Care Act 2014 to give personal budget holders clear advice about their responsibilities as an employer. Local authorities must also be satisfied that a personal budget holder is capable of managing direct payments, and should put in place an effective monitoring process related to those direct payments. Crucially, this involves checking to ensure that the individual is fulfilling their responsibilities as an employer. I understand that there are examples of local authorities stepping up to financially assist personal budget holders where minimum wage cases are brought against them. I strongly encourage this, and it is in line with the local authority’s Care Act duties, but ultimately HMRC needs to protect the rights of any underpaid worker.

Where arrears have been repaid to the worker, HMRC has discretion on whether to issue a formal notice of underpayment. HMRC rightly makes limited use of its discretion in practice, but cases brought against personal budget holders are instances where I would expect it to consider using that discretion. I therefore urge workers who care for personal budget holders and who believe them to have been underpaid, such as my hon. Friend’s constituent, to complain to HMRC or contact ACAS for advice. I understand, having spoken to my hon. Friend, that this is clearly an issue—although I cannot comment on his individual case in detail—that is a good few years old. As I say, I admire his tenacity in working with the council as well, pushing the council to do more and also speaking to my predecessor as well as to me. I know that my hon. Friend is calling for HMRC to be able to enforce directly against local authorities in such cases, but HMRC can enforce only against the employer—that is laid out in primary legislation.

It is right that there is a clear line so that employers are always clear about their responsibilities and workers are always clear about their rights. Any change could call into question the other scenarios in which multiple parties are involved in employment, such as in respect of agency workers, umbrella companies or contractors. That could lead to protracted court cases to determine who is responsible for paying the minimum wage, which would only delay workers getting the pay to which they are legally entitled. We therefore have no plans to change the minimum wage legislation.

We are extremely proud of all our health and social care staff and recognise their extraordinary commitment, especially during the covid pandemic. The 1.5 million people who make up the paid social care workforce provide an invaluable service to the nation, especially during the pandemic. Putting social care on a sustainable footing where everybody is treated with dignity and respect is one of the biggest challenges our society faces. There are complex questions to address and we want to give them our full consideration in the light of current circumstances, which is why the Government are committed to the sustainable improvement of the adult social care system. The Department for Health and Social Care will bring forward plans for workforce reform later this year.

We are providing an extra £341 million for adult social care, to pay for infection, prevention and control measures and to support rapid testing to the end of June 2021. That will bring specific funding for adult social care during the pandemic to almost £1.8 billion. We are also providing councils with access to more than £1 billion of additional funding for social care in 2021-22, on top of the significant support provided over the past year to support the sector in dealing with covid-19.

My hon. Friend talked about the single enforcement body, which is indeed something we are consulting on and working through, not least as we move towards the introduction of an employment Bill. We are taking the time to reflect on the lessons that we have learned from the covid-19 situation—the baked-in behaviour changes to work practices in the wider sense of the employment Bill—and the single enforcement body will be a really important part of that. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contributions to the debate when we introduce forward legislation to bring that new body into existence.

My hon. Friend made some important points and I am really pleased to have had the opportunity to respond. The Government are committed to ensuring that all workers are paid at least the minimum wage, which is their legal entitlement. We also recognise that personal budget holders and individuals who arrange their own care are often among the most vulnerable in society. When complaints are received, HMRC will work with all parties to ensure that individuals receive the help and support that they need, while continuing to protect the rights of workers. I look forward to continuing to work with ministerial colleagues to ensure that all care workers are paid appropriately under the National Minimum Wage Act.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I associate myself with your words and wish you a very good Prorogation—or whatever the term is? Members, staff and your team have played an amazing role in allowing us to continue the scrutiny of the Government’s work and our work as a fully functioning democracy.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you, Minister; that is much appreciated and I will ensure that that message gets passed on to the Speaker and the others in the team.

Question put and agreed to.

00:04

House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

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)	Jim Shannon
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)	Stuart Andrew
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)	Jim Shannon
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
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)	Jim Shannon
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)	Ben Lake
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
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
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)	Jim Shannon
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)	Jim Shannon
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)	Antony Higginbotham
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)	Jim Shannon
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)	Ben Lake
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)	Mark Harper
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)	Chris Elmore
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)	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)	Jim Shannon
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)	Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)	Owen Thompson
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)	Chris Elmore
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)	Stuart Andrew
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)	Chris Elmore

Draft Food and Drink (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Food and Wine Composition, Information and Labelling) Regulations 2021

Wednesday 28th April 2021 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Caroline Nokes

Barker, Paula (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)

Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)

Davies, David T. C. (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales)

Duffield, Rosie (Canterbury) (Lab)

Duguid, David (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland)

Eagle, Maria (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)

Harris, Rebecca (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)

McDonagh, Siobhain (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)

Mann, Scott (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† Morden, Jessica (Newport East) (Lab)

† Morris, James (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† Prentis, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

† Rutley, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)

Throup, Maggie (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab)

Seb Newman, George Wilson, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 28 April 2021

[Caroline Nokes in the Chair]

Draft Food and Drink (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Food and Wine Composition, Information and Labelling) Regulations 2021

09:25

[The Chair]

I remind Members to observe social distancing—you are all sitting in the correct places, so that is fine. Please wear a mask when not speaking, unless you are medically exempt. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to [e-mail].

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Food and Drink (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Food and Wine Composition, Information and Labelling) Regulations 2021.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Nokes. This statutory instrument addresses inconsistencies in our food labelling that arise from our departure from the European Union. It deals with a number of EU exit-related issues, particularly on technical standards, that we were unable to address before the end of the transition period. It amends certain retained direct EU legislation and pieces of domestic food legislation in England, including the labelling of general food, non-beef meats, primary ingredients, and GI—geographical indication—products for wine and agrifoods. It also amends analysis methods and some practices for the production of wine, and rules on their labelling and marketing. Transitional provisions have been included in the SI to allow businesses time to adjust to the required changes.

The aim of the SI is to ensure that our food rules remain broadly the same as they were before, and that the rules and regulation continue to operate well. For example, where a label was required to include an EU address of the business responsible for the information, this will now be a UK or Crown dependency address. This is needed to ensure that consumers and trading standards officers can contact those responsible if necessary.

In addition, where a specific country of original is not provided for certain meats, terms such as “non-EU” will be replaced by UK-appropriate terms on the Great Britain market. UK caseins sold in business-to-business transactions will now have to be labelled with the address of the responsible business operator in the UK. For honey blends comprised of honey from several different countries, the term

“a blend of honeys from more than one country”,

or similar wording, can now be used, although of course a specific country can be named if that is what the producer prefers.

The wine rules reflect the GB context. For example, they will ensure that our rules relate only to products that could be produced here, so not retsina, which can be produced only in Greece. The SI provides for a period of adjustment on geographical indications on labels. That means that for a period of three years, or until wine products are sold, enforcement bodies will not take action if a product is labelled for sale as a wine or agrifood GI but is not in fact protected on our registers. This applies so long as that product name was protected in the UK before the end of the transition period. We are not expecting to use this provision much, as it will apply to only a very small number of GIs, which are included in trade deals that have not yet transitioned to being protected in the UK—so they would have to be GIs from non-EU countries.

The SI provides for adjustment periods to give businesses time to adapt to the new labelling rules. Businesses will have until 1 October 2022 to comply with food labelling changes on the English market, and wine products will also be able to be marketed, with either an EU or a UK importer detail, until that date.

There has been a great deal of business engagement on the changes that we seek to make today, including public consultation on how the retained legislation should be adjusted to fit the UK context. Views were sought in the “Food labelling: amending laws” consultation in 2018. Honey and caseins labelling options were considered in a separate public consultation in 2018. There has been regular consultation with the UK’s wine and spirits industry, and of course with the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland. Businesses repeatedly asked for a period of adjustment, and that is what this SI will give them, if approved.

I am pleased to say that the devolved Administrations have been informed throughout the making of this SI and they are content. I commend the SI to the Committee.

09:30

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I apologise for my near-lateness and the anxiety that it might have induced in colleagues—we do need the lifts in this place to work.

It seems no time since we were discussing our last SI, some 16 hours ago. I enjoyed the Minister’s introductory comments, which were elegantly presented, as always, on the technical issues that could not be resolved before the end of last year because they ran out of time. Of course, we are seeing the consequences now.

This SI is largely about labelling, or “minor ‘real world’ effects” as the explanatory memorandum imaginatively explains. We are not convinced that the effects are quite as minor as all that. Of course, there have been two attempts at this SI. The sifting Committee felt that the subject was sufficiently sensitive to be upgraded to the affirmative procedure so that it could be discussed, so we are grateful to it. The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as eagle-eyed as ever, noted that meat, excluding beef, will be labelled as “non-UK” rather than “non-EU”—that does not preclude a specific country, as the Minister said. When we think about it, that actually reduces the information available to consumers.

The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee stated:

“We note that, as consumers will no longer be able to tell whether meat (excluding beef) is from the EU or not after the adjustment period, this may have the potential of reducing key information that is available at present about the origin of a product and therefore about the associated food standards.”

That might be an unintended consequence of this change, but I think it is worth exploring. I would say—as ever, I will put it more crudely than their lordships—that many people might like to know that the origin is the high-standard EU, rather than, to pick a random example, chlorine-washed America. I know the Minister is particularly keen that we keep repeating that familiar example. Why should consumers not have that additional piece of information? It is not as if the EU has ceased to exist, much as some Members on the Government Benches might wish that to be the case. The EU is still an important partner and we will still be able to purchase its produce in our shops, so it would be good to know.

There is one part of the UK that will still be applying those very same EU rules. As the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out:

‘We also note that after the adjustment period, different requirements will apply in GB and Northern Ireland (NI) where EU requirements will continue to apply as a result of the NI Protocol. Defra told us that “further steps will be taken to continue unfettered access for NI food products to the GB market”.’

I therefore have two questions for the Minister. First, why not allow consumers to know that the produce is from the EU? Secondly, what are those further steps to continue unfettered access for Northern Ireland food products to the GB market?

Similarly, the changes to wine labelling also seem to wish away the European Union. As the Minister knows—I pointed this out a couple of weeks ago—the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, despite the happy consultations referred to in the explanatory memorandum, is not particularly happy. The explanatory memorandum, in paragraph 10.7, suggests that there has been “regular contact”, so perhaps she could tell us how often and when. Given that the various consultations mentioned in paragraph 10 took place back in 2018-19, perhaps it was a while ago. The key point of difference here might be that there was contact at official level but possibly not at ministerial level.

I would be very happy to convene a meeting with the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and the Minister, perhaps even with that bottle of wine I mentioned the other week, wrapped in red, white and blue tape. I am sure that she will have read the excellent briefing that the association has provided for us today, which argues that under these changes it will no longer be possible to use one label for both EU and UK markets. As the briefing explains at some length, that will increase costs and complexity, which I would have though is undeniable. Sadly, of course, that has been the experience over much of this post-Brexit period.

The Opposition strongly urge the Minister to work with the industry to see whether a solution can be found before the labelling grace period ends in September 2022, which I am sure we all agree would be to everyone’s mutual benefit. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that, as well as perhaps a commitment to join Labour in promising the early end of the VI-1 form, which I have not mentioned since the SI before last.

Finally, let me say a little about honey and provenance issues, because these make headlines quite frequently, with consumers rightly concerned about what they are actually buying—I looked at a jar of honey in my cupboard this morning, and it was not entirely clear to me. I am grateful to the Food Standards Agency for briefing me on these complex issues. I think that a similar point to that made by the Lords on meat may also apply to honey of EU designation, because the distinction between the EU and rest of the world is important.

I am told that it is really quite difficult to test for added sugars in honey, which is one of the difficulties with the cheaper honeys available. At the moment, the test is done best by German laboratories that use a database made up of references that are predominantly European and have been built up over time. It is an historical accident that it has built up that knowledge, and in the past we had access to that, but now we are having to do it differently. The Food Standards Agency is working with retailers and trading standards officers to get the supply chain assurances that we would like, and I am told that good progress is being made. For consumers, however, being able to distinguish between the EU and the rest of the world seems to me to be of some value. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. Again, why not allow consumers to know and allow them to make that informed choice?

In conclusion, we do not oppose these changes, but we suggest that the ‘real world’ effects may not be quite as minor as suggested.

09:36

[Victoria Prentis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that large number of questions, which I will try to answer. This was certainly not a case of running out of time at the end of last year. Different rules applied when we were subject to the transition period for leaving the EU, and it was deemed sensible to wait until after the end of the period to make these changes, and we have acted with all due alacrity since that date. It is true that we are dealing with a large number of SIs at the moment. Food labelling is important, and it is right that we get it right and ensure that the system works well.

On the general point, as I repeat several times a day, the Government are committed to maintaining high food standards, and this legislation certainly does not change that. Consumers need food information that is relevant for their domestic market. In order for our home consumers to remain informed, now that we are no longer part of the EU, it is required that they are informed that although information on the exact origin of the food may not be available, it is not from the UK. UK consumers would not be appropriately informed if the origin of the food in our market was indicated as being not from another geographical area.

Regarding the potential impact of hormone-treated or chlorine-washed meats in GB, the use of “non-EU” rather than “non-UK” would in no way better inform our customers of the food’s origin.

On EU food information legislation, annex 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol makes it clear that all pre-packaged food placed on the Northern Ireland market should meet EU rules, but any wine produced in Northern Ireland could bear that provenance. I am sorry if I did not make that clear to start with.

On wine specifically, we maintained a constant dialogue and engagement with the key wine production, trade and enforcement organisations in the time leading up to the end of the transition period. I understand that the Wine and Spirit Trade Association has written to me to request a meeting, and officials are currently setting that up. Officials have been in regular contact with the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and with WineGB.

The wine sector prepared well for Brexit, with the result that the trade has continued largely unaffected by the new arrangements. However, in the first few months of this year the wine sector, like some other food sectors, did encounter some ad hoc problems with entering certain EU states, as we have discussed before. We have worked with the companies involved and are doing what we can to ensure that does not happen with future shipments. As I said when we discussed the SI before last, we will meet the WSTA to discuss VI-1 forms, as the matter is under review at the moment.

In order to ensure the continued operability of our food labelling rules, and to reflect that the UK is no longer a member of the EU, it is important that we amend certain retained and domestic food legislation, and provide sensible transitional arrangements to allow businesses time to adjust. For those reasons, I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

09:40

Committee rose.

Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from Detriment in Health and Safety Cases) (Amendment) Order 2021

Wednesday 28th April 2021 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Philip Davies

Andrew, Stuart (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)

Champion, Sarah (Rotherham) (Lab)

Cruddas, Jon (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)

† Davies, David T. C. (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales)

Fellows, Marion (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)

Freer, Mike (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household)

Gideon, Jo (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)

† Higginbotham, Antony (Burnley) (Con)

† Hussain, Imran (Bradford East) (Lab)

Jones, Mr Marcus (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household)

McKinnell, Catherine (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)

Pursglove, Tom (Corby) (Con)

Ribeiro-Addy, Bell (Streatham) (Lab)

† Rimmer, Ms Marie (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)

† Sambrook, Gary (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)

† Scully, Paul (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)

† Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Bradley Albrow, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 28 April 2021

[Philip Davies in the Chair]

Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from Detriment in Health and Safety Cases) (Amendment) Order 2021

09:25

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to [e-mail].

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from Detriment in Health and Safety Cases) (Amendment) Order 2021.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will begin with some important background to the draft order, which was laid before the House on 17 March 2021. The UK is unique in having three employment statuses for employment rights—self-employed, limb (b) worker, and employee—when most other countries, including within the EU, have just the self-employed and employee categories.

Limb (b) workers have a more casual employment relationship than employees and are entitled to a basic set of rights, such as minimum wage and holiday pay. Limb (b) status allows for much needed flexibility in the labour market. Sections 44(1)(d) and 44(1)(e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which implements the EU health and safety directive into domestic law, give employees the right not to be subject to detriment by their employer for leaving or refusing to return to their workplace and the right not to be subject to detriment for taking steps to protect themselves or others in circumstances of danger which they reasonably believe to be serious and imminent.

In May 2020, the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain brought a judicial review against the Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Following comprehensive proceedings, the High Court found in November 2020 that the UK had not fully implemented the EU health and safety framework directive into section 44 of the 1996 Act and that some protections applied only to employees, while the Court held that they should also extend to limb (b) workers.

The claim succeeded only in part, and the Court accepted that the UK was not required to extend unfair dismissal to limb (b) workers and had properly implemented the general obligations of the health and safety framework directive. The Government accepted the judgment and therefore proposes this draft order, which will extend the protection from detriment in health and safety cases to all workers, not just employees, as has previously been the case.

The Court also held that the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 should also be extended to limb (b) workers, and I am assured by officials at the Health and Safety Executive that work is under way to consult on the regulations and to extend them to all workers through an additional statutory instrument due to be laid later in the year.

These important protections have proved even more essential for employees who have continued to work through the pandemic and for those returning to work as businesses emerge from the lockdown. They ensure that employees have the legal protection they need to act to ensure their own safety and the safety of others without fear of suffering detriment for doing the right thing. That includes protecting them against being denied promotion or training opportunities.

Having considered the Court judgment, we agree that limb (b) workers should also benefit from the protections. That does not represent a major change as limb (b) workers represent a small share of the workforce. However, it does not make it any less important, as such workers undoubtedly have a significant role to play in our economic recovery from the covid-19 pandemic. That is why the Government want to clarify the UK’s understanding of the health and safety framework directive by amending section 44 of the 1996 Act. We are committed to protecting workers’ rights and supporting workers through the challenges created by the pandemic, ensuring that the UK remains the best place in the world to work. Clarifying our interpretation of the directive in the light of the High Court judgment will mean that more people are protected by the provisions.

Turning to the scope of the SI, the changes made to section 44 of the 1996 Act will apply in England, Scotland and Wales, because employment law is devolved in Northern Ireland. We have, however, discussed this SI with the Northern Ireland Administration, who have laid legislation to the same effect, which will come into operation in parallel subject to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s procedure.

Given that the limb (b) workers represent a small share of the workforce, the direct cost to business of the change is expected to be very low. We also do not expect the amendment to have a significant and disproportionate cost or impact in any region across England, Scotland and Wales.

This is a necessary change in order to clarify the Government’s interpretation of the health and safety framework directive. It will ensure that all workers are covered by the protections and that we build back better from the pandemic by maintaining the highest standards when it comes to workers’ rights in the UK labour market.

09:30

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I start by paying tribute to the campaigning and work of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, as acknowledged by the Minister. It has been instrumental to the introduction of this amendment to the Employment Rights Act through its legal challenge on behalf of thousands of members in insecure work and the gig economy.

It was only through the IWGB’s work that these vital fundamental employment rights that most employees take for granted have been extended to limb (b) workers and those in the gig economy, because without the High Court ruling in the union’s favour, it is extremely doubtful that the Government would implemented this extension. Indeed, the Secretaries of State for BEIS and for Work and Pensions challenged the IWGB’s case in the High Court instead of extending the rights that should be afforded to workers under EU directives, as agreed under the withdrawal agreement, only to be defeated. As a result of the challenge and the delay that it created between concerns first being raised by the IWGB at the start of the pandemic and the High Court’s ruling in November 2020, many months have been lost in which the protections could have been extended, leaving working people without adequate rights or protections regarding health and safety matters during the height of the coronavirus pandemic.

The pandemic has been devastating for all, but particularly for those in insecure work and the gig economy, who do not share the same employment rights as those with employee status, to which the Minister alluded. For months they continued to work because they had no rights to fall back on and because they needed to work in order to make enough to get by, often putting in long hours in public-facing roles or jobs that brought them into contact with large numbers of people. According to the TUC, covid-19 mortality rates were twice as high for these workers than for those in secure employment.

Today is International Workers’ Memorial Day, on which we remember all those who have lost their lives in the workplace or in the course of their job, and it is worth noting that the Government have acted far too slowly to protect many thousands of workers in insecure work and in the gig economy.

This instrument clearly demonstrates once more just how much we need a new employment rights settlement that provides a clear universal definition of employment status, which the latest Labour manifesto called for, so that employment rights are afforded to all workers from day one and that the bogus self-employment that is used by many employers in the gig economy to exploit their workforces can be brought to an end. A universal definition would give certainty, security and stability to working people at a time when insecure, precarious employment runs rampant in our economy unchecked by this Government, who are happy to let the courts step in to deliver justice for working people rather than taking action themselves. Such a definition would strengthen people’s rights at work.

Despite being promised well over a year ago in 2019 Queen’s Speech, the long-awaited, much-delayed employment rights Bill is yet to materialise. It seems trapped in a permanent state of “in due course” according to official responses from this Minister and others. Such a Bill would offer us the chance to deliver a real, positive change and strengthen workers’ rights. It would allow us to correct the inconsistencies and injustices that the IWGB and others have highlighted. The Minister should be able to commit to its inclusion in next month’s Queen’s Speech, and I hope he acknowledges that today.

In conclusion, we support this instrument today, but we lament the Government’s decision to challenge the matter in the High Court and the length of time it has taken them to correct this injustice—a delay which will have cost the lives of many workers during the covid-19 pandemic. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Government introduce their promised instrument relating to the PPE directive—I hope that it is not also left in a state of “in due course”—and, hopefully, a robust employment rights Bill without delay.

09:35

[Paul Scully]

I appreciate the spirit in which this debate has taken place and the agreement on the reason for the court case. It is right that the courts were able to consider all the details of the case before coming to a clear conclusion. As I said, the claim succeeded only in part, with the High Court accepting that the UK was not required to extend unfair dismissal, for example, to limb (b) workers and had properly implemented the general obligations of the health and safety framework directive, and we chose not to appeal that judgment. It is important that the Court can do its work on interpretation to build up the case law. As I mentioned before, officials at the Health and Safety Executive assure me that work is much under way to extend protections under the personal protective equipment directive to limb (b) workers as well. To align with the Court ruling, there is no reason for further delay.

As for the employment Bill, I look forward to debating it with the hon. Gentleman and to working through the Bill when parliamentary time allows. We will see when that discussion happens. I do not have the Queen on speed dial, so we will have to see what happens on 11 May.

In conclusion, I underline once more that the draft order will help workers across the country during the coronavirus pandemic and beyond, providing all limb (b) workers and employees with the right not to be subjected to detriment in health and safety cases. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

09:37

Committee rose.

Draft Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021 Draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021

Wednesday 28th April 2021 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mr Philip Hollobone

Blake, Olivia (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)

† Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)

† Chalk, Alex (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)

Charalambous, Bambos (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)

Clarkson, Chris (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)

Evans, Chris (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)

† Harris, Rebecca (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

† McFadden, Mr Pat (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)

Mann, Scott (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

Morris, Grahame (Easington) (Lab)

Morris, James (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

Pursglove, Tom (Corby) (Con)

Rutley, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

Sultana, Zarah (Coventry South) (Lab)

Throup, Maggie (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

Timms, Stephen (East Ham) (Lab)

† Tomlinson, Michael (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury)

Chloe Freeman, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 28 April 2021

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

Draft Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021

14:30

[The Chair]

I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to [e-mail].

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021.

[Alex Chalk]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The draft statutory instruments before us are key components of the Government’s whiplash reforms. The measures will not only simplify the process of settling whiplash claims, but provide certainty to claimants as to how much their claim is worth. They will also benefit society more generally by enabling an average reduction in insurance premiums for ordinary motorists of an estimated £35 per year.

This House has already undertaken extensive and useful debates on the merits of the Government’s policy during the passage of the Civil Liability Act 2018. Our time today is somewhat limited, so I will focus on the detail of the draft regulations, rather than on the substance of past policy debates.

The measures in part 1 of the 2018 Act alter the process for making whiplash claims. That is done primarily by defining what constitutes a whiplash injury, introducing a fixed tariff of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity—referred to by lawyers as PSLA—providing for an uplift to be applied to the tariff in exceptional circumstances, thereby preserving the discretion of the court, and banning the practice of seeking or offering to settle a whiplash claim without first seeking appropriate medical evidence.

In addition to the 2018 Act, we are increasing the small claims track limit in respect of road traffic accident-related personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000. The Committee may be aware that the Government have previously committed to increasing the small claims limit for all other types of personal injury, including employers’ and public liability claims, to £2,000.

On Monday, however, my noble Friend Lord Wolfson QC confirmed in a written ministerial statement that the Government have listened to the views of Members of this House and others, and decided to limit this increase to £1,500 and to defer its implementation until April 2022. We believe that to be a sensible and pragmatic decision that will provide additional time for affected stakeholders to prepare.

The draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 set out in a tariff the amount of damages payable for PSLA for whiplash injury or injuries of up to two years, and any minor psychological injuries suffered at the same time. The regulations also allow the court to apply an uplift of up to 20% of the tariff amount in exceptional circumstances. With regard to the ban on pre-medical offers to settle, the regulations specify what constitutes appropriate medical evidence and the experts who may provide it. That may differ, depending on whether the injuries include a non-whiplash element.

The purpose of the draft Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021 is to give powers to the Financial Conduct Authority to enable it to monitor effectively and to enforce the ban on pre-medical offers to settle.

I will now provide a little additional detail on each of the sets of draft regulations, having summarised them. The tariff in the draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 presents a rising scale of fixed payments determined by injury duration, with the damages reduced less at the top end to recognise more serious injuries. Claims with a prognosis that exceeds two years will fall outside the tariff.

We have reviewed and updated the previously published figures to account for inflation, using the consumer prices index system. We have also added a three-year future-proofing element to ensure that the figures do not move out of alignment with future inflationary pressures before the required statutory review. That leads to an increase of about 11% over the figures previously provided to the House.

The limit by which the court may apply an uplift in exceptional circumstances will be capped at 20%. That is intended to balance the need for an effective and predictable tariff, and to allow for judicial discretion. It takes account of feedback received during consultation and earlier parliamentary debates, and it reflects other similar jurisdictions. For example, Italy also allows for an uplift of up to one fifth.

During the passage of the 2018 Act, we introduced amendments to ensure that the views of the Lord Chief Justice were sought on the tariff and the uplift before regulations were made. Accordingly, we have undertaken that consultation and we are grateful for his consideration of those matters. Following that consultation, we will undertake an analysis of the available data after a year, with a view to considering whether an early review is appropriate. That is a matter that arose from our discussions with him.

The draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 also specify exactly what constitutes appropriate medical evidence to be provided before an offer to settle a whiplash claim may be made or indeed sought. They provide that when claimants live or are examined in England and Wales, they must obtain a fixed-cost medical report from an accredited medical expert selected via the MedCo portal.

Alternatively, if claimants suffer more serious injuries on the same occasion as the whiplash injury, they may rely on a report covering all their injuries, if that report is obtained from an expert listed on the General Medical Council’s specialist register. The purpose of that is to ensure that only claims that can be properly substantiated by a medical report are settled, because otherwise that litigation risk could be bought off. That in turn increases the cost of insurance premiums, thereby damaging the wider motoring public.

I would like to speak briefly about the Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021. These regulations give the FCA the power to take effective action in monitoring and enforcing compliance with the ban on seeking or making pre-medical offers to settle—precisely the mischief we want to address. This ban applies to various types of regulated persons as specified by the Act, which also identifies the FCA as the appropriate regulator to take account in respect of persons authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, or FSMA, as practitioners often refer to it.

The FCA is the regulator for insurers and claims management companies who may be involved in settling whiplash claims. These regulations ensure that the FCA has the powers it needs to regulate section 6 of the Act. In plain English, that means that if individuals were tempted to settle insurance claims without seeking a medical report, the FCA could step in and use its powers as a regulator to prevent them from doing so, or indeed to provide an appropriate sanction, should it feel it necessary to impose one.

I will end by emphasising that the measures contained in these regulations are necessary and important. They provide much-needed certainty to whiplash claimants; they will create savings that will be passed on to consumers; and they enable the FCA to effectively regulate the ban on offering and seeking offers to settle such claims without appropriate medical evidence. The regulations serve the public interest and I commend them to the Committee.

[The Chair]

I now call the Opposition spokesman, who wins today’s prize for the most attractive face mask.

14:56

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone, and thank you for your chairmanship this afternoon. I would also like to thank the Minister for his remarks.

There is a long backstory to these regulations. The Minister mentioned the Civil Liability Act 2018, which in itself was a legislative response from the Government to the growth of claims for whiplash in road traffic accidents. The principle that I believe the Government ought to be aiming for is that there is a legitimate and easy-to-use avenue to claim for those who are genuinely injured, but at the same time it takes into consideration the costs to motorists as a whole.

Figures from the insurance industry suggest that in the decade prior to 2016, which is roughly when all this started—legislation is not always a quick process—there was a doubling of claims for whiplash, with an overall cost of around £2 billion a year. It is suggested that the rising whiplash claims drove up insurance costs for everybody else. That is what has spurred the Government on to introduce legislation.

There are several elements of reform set out in these two statutory instruments. Probably the most notable is a new tariff of payment depending on the length of the effect of the injury. The important thing about it is that these tariffs are set at considerably lower levels than some of the whiplash payments that people have been receiving in recent years. For example, if the injury does not last for three months, the payment is £260, which is a small amount of money. It then goes up on a scale to over £4,000 if the injury lasts up to two years. That is probably the main financial change here.

There is also the requirement for a medical report through a portal known as MedCo registration, and I have a couple of questions for the Minister about that. There is the increase in the financial limit of claims through the small claims process from £1,000 to £5,000. The important part of that is that it is designed to take lawyers out of the process for claims under £5,000. There is also the FCA ban on settlements without medical reports and, in exceptional circumstances, a power for the courts to uplift the payout on the figures I quoted a moment ago by 20%. I have a few questions for the Minister.

The first thing, which most people will look at, is that central justification for everything, which is that the volume of whiplash claims and payouts was resulting in an increase in insurance premiums for everyone. The Government claim that motorists will see a reduction in their premiums as a result of the overall reduced payouts for whiplash. The explanatory memorandum published alongside the draft regulations predicts a reduction in premiums of about £35. First, how will the Government ensure that the insurance industry will pass on any savings as a result of the changes? What is to stop the industry just pocketing the savings and increasing its profits?

Secondly, given that both sets of draft regulations are all about whiplash, how will mixed claims be treated, where not only whiplash might have been sustained, but other injuries too? That is very possible in a road traffic accident.

Thirdly, the draft regulations specify that the medical report must be provided through an online portal or by a doctor listed in the General Medical Council’s specialist register. Will the Minister clarify whether that means that a report from someone’s own GP would not be considered as a medical report under the regulations? That is most people’s point of contact if they have had an injury—they do go to see their GP. If that is the case, why is the GP’s report or letter not sufficient to corroborate the injured party’s claim?

Fourthly, how will data be handled by the new portal? How will the data be transferred securely between the insurance companies, solicitors’ firms and claimants?

Finally, what is the Government’s estimate of the impact of that question of taking lawyers out of claims under £5,000? Does that mean, given that most or all of the tariff is below £5,000, that claimants must in effect represent themselves? What are the implications for access to justice?

Motor insurance is rightly of significant political and public interest, because it is something that people are required to have by law; they have no choice about it if they want to drive a vehicle. The whole idea of the system is that claims should be honest and that there should be fair recompense for honest claims. That protects the interests of the claimants, but we also have to protect the interests of all drivers who have to pay their insurance premiums, many of whom—probably most—may never make a claim. The question is whether the draft regulations get that balance right, between those different interests of drivers as a whole and those making a claim, and whether they preserve access to justice properly for people genuinely injured.

The final thing I want to say to the Minister is about the review provision he mentioned. The 2018 Act states that there has to be a review within three years—I think that is in one of the early sections of the Act—but he also mentioned the period of a year. Review is important—to go back to my first question—because if the result of everything is simply to lower payouts to people, with the savings not being passed on to motorists and the insurance companies pocketing the difference, we will have to return to the issue in future. The founding reason for it would obviously be open to huge question in those circumstances. The real test will be whether the savings made are actually passed on to drivers as a whole in future.

[The Chair]

Lots of interesting questions for the Minister to respond to.

15:04

[Alex Chalk]

Yes, lots of interesting and fair questions. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East for expressing himself as he has and for setting some of that initial context, which he did very fairly. I just want to develop that point before turning to his questions. As he rightly pointed out, the context of this is a worrying concern about what can only fairly be described as an explosion in whiplash claims, associated with grave concerns about the authenticity of a significant number of them. Only a brief look at some of the data could make one’s hair stand on end.

[Mr McFadden]

I do not have much hair to stand on end.

[Alex Chalk]

The right hon. Gentleman is very diffident on this matter. The latest ABI fraud data report for 2019 found that fraudulent motor claims are the most common insurance fraud, with more than 58,000 in 2019, valued at £605 million, which was up 6% on the previous year. However, City of London Police’s insurance fraud enforcement department achieved 433 convictions in 2019, totalling 239 years in custodial sentences arising out of this matter.

The point that the right hon. Gentleman was making is that this, of course, passes costs on to others, but it is worth taking a moment to dwell on how much we are talking about. The suggestion is that this will lead to savings of around £1.2 billion a year. None the less, his central point is a very fair one, which is to say, “Hang on a second; how can we be sure that these insurance companies will not simply pocket it and then up their profit margins, and the poor old consumer will not be reimbursed?” That is a fair challenge, but there are two limbs to the response to that.

The first part of the response is one that, bluntly, I did not expect to be able to update the House on today, but the impact of the pandemic—so cruel in so many ways—has unexpectedly shone a light on the likely behavioural response in certain regards. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that during the pandemic people have driven their cars quite a lot less. As a result, there has been a lot of pressure from consumers asking their insurers for a refund on their premiums. It may be that there are people in this room who have done exactly that, so when you actually look at the data to see how the power of the market has had an impact upon premiums—nothing the Government can do, but simply the actions of consumers putting pressure on their insurers—it is quite instructive.

I will give an example of one provider, Confused. In the fourth quarter of 2019, the premium was £630. In the fourth quarter of 2020, it was £575. Similarly, another insurer, ABI, was at £483 in the fourth quarter of 2019, and £468 in 2020. In other words, the power of individuals going back to their insurers and saying, “You are going to have to reduce my premium on account of the fact that I haven’t been driving my car” has had a market impact. As such, I think we can take increasing confidence that there will be a consumer power to drive down these premiums, effectively telling the insurers, “The Government have taken these steps to ensure that there is less fraud taking place by way of whiplash, and we know that there are savings of around £1.2 billion, so pass them on to me or I will go elsewhere”.

[Mr McFadden]

The Government cannot just leave it to the consumer to have to take the initiative. The Minister is probably right that some consumers have approached the insurance companies because they have been driving a lot less this past year, but trying to phone any big company like that—I am not referring to any insurance company in particular—and get through the systems is not easy. I suggest that we need more from the Government. Surely there has to be some sort of pressure from the Government, some sort of deal here, so that if the Government are going to pass legislation like this, the very purpose of which is to save the £1.2 billion in payouts, then insurance companies have got to pass it on. Otherwise, what is the point of what we are doing here?

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Gentleman should have waited for me to make my second point, because he has asked and he shall receive. Let me just finish off the first point. It is not a case of always having to phone the insurer to say, “I paid X, so now you should give me a refund.” The point is simply this: if insurance companies do not offer competitive premiums, people are likely to go elsewhere. The experience of the pandemic is precisely that: unless those insurance companies act in a way that is competitive, they are likely to lose business.

The second point is this. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to be holding insurance companies’ feet to the fire. Having made a firm commitment to pass savings on to consumers, insurers should be held to account. That is precisely why the 2018 Act includes a statutory requirement on insurers to provide information to the Financial Conduct Authority on how they have passed on savings.

Insurers must provide that information to the FCA by April 2024, as stated in the draft regulations, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to study. The Government, with the assistance of the FCA, will assess whether the industry has passed on the benefits of the reforms to consumers. A report will be made to Parliament after April 2024. That will be his moment to say, “Do you remember, Minister Chalk, when we were having that conversation in April 2021, you told me that the savings would be passed on?” We have ensured that the mechanism is built into the regulations to hold those companies’ feet to the fire.

With regard to the portal, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether a person’s GP could be considered. It is important to note that under all sorts of legislation, whether on medical negligence or road traffic accidents, we have to have the right medical expert for the particular issue to come before the court—or, in this case, with a bit of luck, not to come before the court. It has to be the right medical expert. Without any discourtesy to GPs, they are not always the right expert. If the GP has ensured accreditation under the system, there is no bar to the GP being that expert, but it is not always automatically the case that a GP would be able to provide the medical report, because that might not be within their realm of expertise. There is nothing unusual about that and certainly nothing unusual in the draft regulations so far as that is concerned.

How will data be handled? Data will be handled in the normal way. There is overarching legislation that covers that.

On the impact of taking lawyers out of the system, we make no bones about the fact that for a small category of case, it is more proportionate and appropriate to do precisely that. Let me quote what the Lord Chief Justice said about this. Characteristically, he put it very clearly and pithily. He noted that the tariff was a

“narrowly defined statutory derogation from the principle of full compensation through an assessment of damages by the courts”.

He was saying that the Government are deliberately carving out an area to do with road traffic accidents to ensure that, where additional costs are created that pass on additional expense to consumers, that is dealt with in a surgical way. I say “surgical” because vulnerable road users such as children, pedestrians and cyclists are not covered. That is an important exclusion.

[Mr McFadden]

For two reasons, I am grateful to the Minister for stressing that. First, those groups he mentioned—pedestrians, cyclists and so on—are not covered, and that is important. Secondly, the broader importance—I would be grateful if he can reassure us—is that this is a carve-out just for whiplash in road traffic accidents, and it will not affect injuries at work or other kinds of injuries in which the normal system of claiming through a court and having a judgment on the proportionality of the accident will take place. Some people, responding to the draft regulations, have said, “This is unfair, because you are treating one class of injury unlike another.” There is that argument, and I repeat it, but a lot of our constituents want to be reassured that the draft regulations will not have a broader ripple into their circumstances if, for example, they were injured at work.

[Alex Chalk]

That is critical. The Government believe in access to justice. That means that if people make their way to work and their employer has created an unsafe environment, so they trip over something and need to make a personal injury claim, they should not be crowded out—not shut out from making a claim. The draft regulations preserve precisely that.

I will address the issue of mixed tariff cases and bring my remarks to a close. Section 3(8) of the 2018 Act provides that, where a claimant suffers injuries in addition to a whiplash injury—the point that the right hon. Gentleman was making—the court is not prevented from awarding damages to reflect the combined effect of the injuries sustained. Ultimately, it is for the courts to determine how mixed injuries are addressed. We are confident, given the excellence of our judiciary, that they are well placed to resolve such cases on a day-by-day basis.

In conclusion, the draft regulations are proportionate, calibrated and targeted measures that serve the public and consumers’ interests, drive down on fraud and act to drive down insurance premiums. They are manifestly good for the public and for road users. I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021.—(Alex Chalk.)

15:16

Committee rose.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 28 April 2021

[Dame Angela Eagle in the Chair]

GKN Automotive Plant: Birmingham

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Westminster Hall

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 25 February).

[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

00:00

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements in Westminster Hall. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates, which is slightly unusual. 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; that is something to be aware of when you are sitting in front of your screen. 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; you will see that there are hand wipes in front of you. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

10:26

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the proposed closure of GKN Automotive plant in Birmingham.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I declare an interest as, for 47 years, a member of, first, the Transport and General Workers Union and then Unite, and ultimately its deputy general secretary.

Manufacturing matters to the success of the UK. Manufacturing, the genius of science and the national health service have seen more than 30 million people vaccinated against covid. Manufacturing will be key to recovery. Manufacturing—green manufacturing—is key to combating climate change. Manufacturing getting it right is key to the recovery of Brexit Britain. And manufacturing is key to levelling up.

Automotive is the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing, and key companies in the automotive supply chain exemplify that excellence. GKN is one of them. GKN has a remarkable history. The company goes back over 262 years. It made the cannonballs for the battle of Waterloo and built Spitfires for the battle of Britain. The Chester Road plant has been operational for more than 50 years. Historically, it made parts for the original Mini Cooper. Throughout its history, GKN has been central to iconic moments in British history and British culture. Today, it is a major supplier of drive shafts and prop shafts to the automotive industry, supplying almost every car manufacturer in the UK.

In 2018, GKN was subject to a hostile takeover by Melrose Industries, a City firm with a reputation for buying companies, breaking them up and selling them on. For example, in July 2008, Melrose acquired the FKI group, of which manufacturing firm Brush is part. Melrose began selling off parts of the group in 2009 and sold off about 15 businesses between 2009 and 2014. It implemented severe job cuts at the Brush plant in Loughborough, taking the number of employees from 1,200 down to 600, with a further 270 redundancies in 2018, and, in the process, moving production overseas and hollowing out a once great company. Today, global field service engineers still employed by Brush are balloting against fire and rehire pay cuts of up to £15,000.

In 2018, that chequered past mobilised the GKN workers, their union, Unite, and a cross-party group of MPs—I stress that it was a cross-party group—in opposition to the takeover to demand assurances from Melrose that there would be no repeat of that experience if it acquired GKN. In return, Melrose promised that it was “ambitious for GKN’s future” and wished to make it

“an engineering and manufacturing powerhouse…We are British and work in the national interest.”

Following a hard-fought campaign, Melrose then won the shareholder vote by 52% to 48%, with the support of the hedge funds being critical as they sold GKN short. In the years since the takeover there have been some job losses at GKN Chester Road. However, the workers’ union, Unite, had been in discussions with the company about investment in the plant, and GKN Chester Road appeared in good stead, ending furlough in July last year. It was producing, and then out of the blue in February this year the closure of the Chester Road plant was announced by GKN with the loss of 519 jobs, and twice that number in the supply chain. It is now clear—the company has acknowledged this—that it had been planning the closure of the site for two years, with no consultation whatever with the workers. Its intention now is to export production and jobs from Birmingham to Poland and France. The European sites will be the beneficiaries of the loss of 519 well-paid, skilled jobs in an area with twice the national unemployment rate. I often say about Erdington, “It may be rich in talent, but it is one of the poorest constituencies in the country.”

The consequences of closure will be grave, not least the human cost. I visited the site again two weeks ago. One worker in his late 20s has three kids, including two young children. His partner stays at home to raise their children and he is the only breadwinner in the family. The kids go to school locally. Their whole family life is based in Erdington. What will his young family do if the plant shuts? No other well-paid jobs in the area can replace his current job. Another worker in his mid-20s is a single parent with two young kids. His father and grandfather worked at the GKN plant, with 60 to 70 years’ experience working for GKN in the family. What will he do if the plant shuts?

There are also wider consequences for the British automotive industry. What happens to GKN in the coming months will be a litmus paper test for the Government’s commitment to stand up for the industry. On supply chain consequences, GKN supplies nearly every major car manufacturer in Britain with drive shafts and prop shafts. It is the only firm in Britain with the capability to fulfil the orders that it does. What will be the cost to British automotive of losing a British supplier to Europe, particularly as we emerge from the European Union?

On building up supply chain resilience, there is now a welcome and major debate raging about supply chain resilience and certainty. The continuity of supply chains during periods of disruption are vital, as the past 12 months have shown. It is crucial for the resilience and competitiveness of British automotive over its international rivals that we have British-made parts supplying British car plants. At a time when the debate is raging about onshoring jobs and production back to the UK, here we have a company that is offshoring. What will be the consequences for British automotive if we lose the domestic production capacity of such vital components? Do we really want to move from a just-in-time supply chain of a matter of hours to a supply chain four and five days long, stretching all the way to Poland?

Closure is also a threat to the Government’s global Britain agenda. Part of the Government’s agenda is that, post-Brexit, the UK must look to international markets beyond Europe. The Government have sought trade deals with the likes of Japan and Australia. Aside from the merits or demerits of such deals, to benefit from such free trade agreements UK carmakers such as Jaguar Land Rover need enough local content in their cars to qualify to avoid paying tariffs. A driveline or e-axle equates to 15% of an electric vehicle, a significant part of their value. If we lose GKN’s British-made parts, car makers such as JLR could face significant tariffs on the cars they export to international markets. That poses grave risks to the international competitiveness of the industry. What signal does that send about Britain as a place to do business? We run the serious risk of iconic British cars potentially not being considered British-made, because of the lack of local content in them. Surely that cannot be the global Britain that the Government advocate.

There is a potential solution. We must now act to protect the workers, British manufacturing and the national interest. The consultation between GKN and the workforce is ongoing. I pay tribute to the union convener at the plant, Frank Duffy, and his shop stewards and members, for the admirable leadership that they have shown throughout what has been a difficult period for them. They have my unending support and solidarity.

During the consultation process Melrose’s case for closure has crumbled under the weight of scrutiny from the union. Despite Melrose’s claims, the Chester Road site is not unprofitable, but its accounts have been unduly impacted by transfer pricing within the business, so that other plants appear more profitable. The estimated savings from closure have also been shown to be hugely inflated. It is now clear that modest investment in the plant would allow it to be more productive than GKN’s other European plants. It already is more productive than a number of them. Alternatives to closure must therefore now be assessed in good faith by Melrose. Unite, Frank, and Steve Turner the assistant general secretary have all worked tirelessly to develop a cast iron business case for the future of the Chester Road site and they now rightly expect the company to respond in good faith.

Part of their plan would make the Chester Road plant fit for the future of the electrification process in automotive, so that it can play its part in the transition to electric vehicles, by also manufacturing what are called electric drive units. The chief executive of Melrose, Simon Peckham, made a commitment before the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in February to assess such alternatives to closure during the consultation with the workers. Melrose must now honour that commitment. In parallel, together with the workers’ union, Unite, I have had constructive discussions with the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible, Lord Grimstone. It is important that the Government now match words with action and show their resolve to protect GKN and its workers. All parties must play their part in finding alternatives to closure, and all options must be considered to save the 519 jobs, and for the continued prosperity of British automotive, which is so vital to the economy of the west midlands.

From what I have outlined today it is clear beyond doubt that the moral argument is on the side of the workers at GKN, but I am the first to recognise that ultimately what matters to save GKN Chester Road is the business argument. That is why it is so important that Melrose should fulfil its commitment to consider Unite’s alternative business case, and that the Government should also act to ensure that that happens, playing their part to the full at the next stages. The Government are not a powerless bystander in the situation. When the national interest is threatened in this way, by the harm that the loss of GKN would inflict on British automotive, it is incumbent on the Government to act swiftly and decisively. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the early discussions have been positive, and what the Government do at the next stages will be crucial.

I want to end on a positive note, from my years in the trade union movement. People develop an instinct about when battles can be won or lost, and I am steadfast in my belief that, with good faith on all sides, disaster for 519 workers in Erdington can be avoided. I pay tribute to their strength and courage. I can guarantee that they, the workers, will do their utmost to save the plant from closure. They are the living embodiment of all that is great about this country and British manufacturing. We can walk around the floor, as I have many times, and see generation after generation—for 10, 15, 20, 30 or 40 years and more—serving this nation well. They are truly the best of Britain and the best of British manufacturing. It now falls on Melrose and the Government to match their courage to save thousands of British jobs and to act now to secure the future of the great GKN Automotive plant on Chester Road, Birmingham.

09:40

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) speaking up for a manufacturing facility in his constituency. He and I have a great deal in common. We are joint chairs of the all-party parliamentary manufacturing group and we both want to see a strong future for manufacturing in the UK. I am, like him, an MP in the west midlands, where automotive manufacture and the components used in automotive are a key part of our local economy.

I am also a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and was a member of it in the last Parliament when Melrose gave evidence on 6 March 2018 ahead of its acquisition of GKN. As the hon. Member said, Melrose also gave evidence to the Committee on 23 February this year. I support his interest in supporting manufacturing in the UK, but as a former business owner I believe there must be occasions when we, Government and broader society should respect the ability of business owners and managers to take the action they consider necessary—often difficult and challenging decisions—in the best interests of their company, and accept that those decisions are being taken for the right reasons.

When GKN came before the Select Committee ahead of Melrose’s acquisition, it is fair to say that there was a pretty strong challenge by my colleagues on Melrose’s plans for the future of GKN. There were questions to the three founders of Melrose amid concern that Melrose was attempting to buy the company on the cheap and then sell off individual bits. In that session, Melrose set out its reason for the acquisition, which was principally to improve a business that in recent years had been only poorly run. As a member of the Committee, I was able to ask the witnesses what their plans were for the long term and what reassurance they could give that they would not simply sell it off. Simon Peckham, the chief executive, said:

“We say we have a three to five-year strapline, and we have always said that.”

He added:

“We are quite happy to hold businesses for longer. We are quite happy to go back to our shareholders if necessary and say, ‘This is the wrong time to do something now. We will keep this business.’”

So there is evidence that where the business is right, they will keep it. I therefore asked:

“Could we be confident that in five or 10 years’ time the structure…would be broadly as it is today?”

Simon Peckham was straight. He said:

“No. We have said, between years 4 and 5, we will sit down and work out what the right thing to do is. I cannot give you a commitment about 10 years’ time, but we have set out very clearly in our offer document exactly what we mean.”

I also asked Mr Peckham about how the acquisition of GKN was in line with the Government’s industrial strategy. Mr Peckham replied:

“At the end of the day, we want to invest in R&D. We want to develop these businesses. We want to grow them. We want to improve them. We want to take a GKN business that we think is currently underperforming.”

He said that Melrose had access to the ability to raise finance

“to build GKN, if it is the right thing to do”.

He added:

“I accept we are not saying we are going to hold these assets for ever. We are not sitting in front of you misleading you.”

It is therefore clear that Melrose intended to acquire the business, have a look at it and see what it thought needed to be done.

Mr Peckham appeared before the Committee on 23 February this year—three years into its ownership of the business—for a session that was essentially about Brexit, but the opportunity was there for the Chair to ask a question about Erdington. Simon Peckham replied:

“Erdington is one of the difficult decisions that we were presented with. As well as the good stuff we do, when we inherited GKN it was basically a troubled business. Your Committee spent quite a long time talking to them about that and the profit warning they did at the time. As a business, it needed improvement.”

Additionally, he said:

“Let me turn to Erdington, because it is a difficult position. It is one of the difficult things. We have complied with the spirit and the word of every undertaking we gave, but we also said we would make difficult decisions from time to time. Unfortunately, Erdington is one of those.”

Ahead of that session, Melrose sent its “Briefing note: Melrose meeting its commitments”. That set out legally binding undertakings for five years to ensure that Melrose remained headquartered and listed in the UK, that the board would have a majority of UK residents, and that GKN Aerospace and Driveline businesses would retain the same rights to the GKN trademarks. Significantly, rightly or wrongly, there were no undertakings in relation to jobs, employment or sites of any of the GKN businesses.

It is important to consider the business environment since that acquisition took place. In the past 18 months, businesses have had to face the pandemic and the uncertainty of Brexit. There was a huge fall in car sales: the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders reported 2020 sales were down 30% ,with showrooms shut for several months. The biggest decline was in diesel cars, but petrol reduced, too, due to a fast growing switch to electric. That sector is not currently served by products from the Erdington factory. That must have played a part in Melrose’s decision to wind down the factory over the coming 18 months.

I have listened carefully and know very well the case made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington. I am keen to see a strong future for UK manufacturing. I share his concern about the loss of the facility and the impact on his constituents. However, to be fair to Melrose, it made its position pretty clear on acquisition. That was accepted by GKN’s shareholders. The challenging business environment has brought forward a difficult decision. I believe the company must be able to take the action it deems to be in its best interests, while honouring the commitments it has made.

I hope that the phased approach that Melrose proposes over the 18-month period will minimise any impact on those affected individually, and the broader area in Birmingham. I have heard from the hon. Gentleman some of the alternatives proposed for the facility, and I hope that they might provide the basis for retention of some activity there, perhaps under the Melrose ownership or the ownership of others. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister what steps she may be able to take to assist in that regard.

09:47

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on securing this debate. I thank him for all he has done to secure the long-term sustainability of the GKN Birmingham plant and to support the 519 workers whose livelihoods are now under threat.

First, I should declare an interest. For 27 years I worked at the Vauxhall car plant at Ellesmere Port, before serving as the north-west regional secretary of Unite the union, of which I remain a member.

The automotive sector is truly the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing. It is deeply distressing to see its future thrown into jeopardy as a result of the pandemic, Brexit and a neglectful Government whose pledges to level up and build back better are worth less than the paper they are written on. We should be very clear: the closure of the plant is not an inevitability, as shop stewards of the plant have demonstrated in their two-part alternative plan. GKN Birmingham remains financially viable. With the right investment and direction, the plant can soon be returned to profitability by improving productivity and transitioning towards the production of parts that will be essential if the UK is to become a world leader in the electric vehicle revolution. The proposals are a testament to the expertise and imagination of workers on the shop floor, whose views are so often disregarded by management, but deserve serious consideration.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, the alternative of shuttering the plant doors for good would devastate his constituency, which, like mine, already suffers some of the highest levels of deprivation and joblessness in the country.

The consequences of the plant’s closure would also be felt much more widely. The offshoring of a vital part of the automotive supply chain, and a loss of precious jobs, skills and infrastructure, would be a body blow to an industry struggling to recover from the worst year in its history. As a member of the International Trade Committee, I am acutely aware of how the pandemic dramatically exposed the vulnerabilities of international supply chains. Now, more than ever, we need to invest in domestic industry, and build up skills and well-paid jobs at home. That must begin with the Government investing in the future of Britain’s automotive industry at GKN Birmingham and Vauxhall’s car plant at Ellesmere Port.

When it comes to protecting a critical part of the supply chain at GKN, no option should be off the table, including part or whole state intervention or nationalisation, or any legislative measures that safeguard the plants from asset-stripping venture capitalists. If the Business Secretary fails to act now and make the crucial investment needed to allow the transition of plants like GKN and Vauxhall towards the production of electric vehicles and parts, it will not only condemn hundreds of jobs to the scrapheap, but fatally undermine the Government’s commitments to phasing out diesel and petrol vehicles, and achieving net zero emissions.

The Government face a major test—are they serious about levelling up left behind communities such as Birmingham, Erdington and Birkenhead, or is their pledge to deliver a green industrial revolution just another empty Tory promise? In Birkenhead and Wirral, thousands of jobs hang in the balance.

09:51

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Thank you for accommodating me and allowing me to be here in person, Dame Angela. I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on securing this debate, which is not just important for Birmingham and the west midlands, but is of national significance because of the nature of the issues. I declare an interest as a long-standing member of Unite the union and chair of the Unite group in Parliament.

My hon. Friend has described what Melrose is doing to the GKN automotive factory in Birmingham. Frankly, it is an absolute disgrace. Out of deference to the procedures of the House, we do not curse and use foul language, but what is happening to the loyal workforce at this plant is an outrage. Over 500 jobs—my hon. Friend says 519—many thousands of jobs in the supply chain, and more than 50 years of proud history at the site are in the firing line. If this plant is allowed to close, and I am looking here at the Minister—we do not want just warm words but definite actions—it will be a nail in the coffin of UK manufacturing. We look to the Government for a response and a reaction.

GKN is a living, breathing symbol of a great British company. It has been building critical equipment, including for the defence of the realm, for over 260 years. My hon. Friend mentioned that it was involved in building Spitfires, and cannon balls that were used by the British artillery at Waterloo. Surely that is a history worth defending and a future worth saving.

I express solidarity with Steve Turner, assistant general secretary of Unite, who has been involved in plans to save jobs at the plant and Frank Duffy, Unite convener there, and his members, who have fought valiantly and continue to fight. Despite company promises to build a “British manufacturing powerhouse”, many Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend and others present, and the trade unions, warned what would happen when Melrose launched its hostile takeover bid three years ago. Sadly, despite the comments, made I am sure in good faith, of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), those predictions have proved correct. I do not accept the argument that the plant is not viable. Melrose’s directors have been heavily criticised for excessive bonuses and profits. I will not quote a figure, but it is eye-watering.

It strikes me that there are some parallels with what has happened with the European super league, where an elite wring out value from an organisation—in this case, GKN. As we have heard, Melrose is already closing one factory in Birmingham, and now it wants to throw the other, on Chester Road, on the scrapheap with the intention of stripping it of its assets, because that is what asset strippers do: they buy companies cheap, break them up and sell them off, and they throw away what is left. I had some experience of it in the north-east many years ago with Helical Bar, a property company that bought up the capital assets that were sold off cheap from Aycliffe and Peterlee Development Corporation, then sold them off, making a huge profit for Michael Slade, the chief executive, and walked away without adding any value to the community or to the local economy.

The more than 500 skilled engineering jobs under threat at Birmingham are good jobs and part of the backbone of British manufacturing, but apparently they are not valuable to Melrose, because the company just wants to throw them away. However, these jobs are valuable to the workforce themselves—of course they are. They are valuable to the families who the workers support. They are valuable to the communities in the west midlands where the people live. They are valuable to the trade union. They are also valuable to the economy, to us here in this room; well, I hope they are. The question I put to the Minister is: if they are valuable, what are Ministers going to do to save them? What are they going to do to save British manufacturing, especially the automotive sector, as we shift rapidly to electric vehicles? I look forward to the Minister’s comments later in the debate.

The key issue with the GKN plant in Birmingham is whether it is viable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington touched on. Unite the union has worked through the figures and looked at the numbers with independent experts that have been recognised by the company. They looked at whether it is viable, and at Melrose’s claim that, in fact, the plant has been losing money for several years. According to the information I have seen, this seems to be a case of what we would call creative accounting. It is called transfer pricing, where large companies that operate over several sites, often based in different countries, pretend the different sites are buying and selling from each other while building a product. In that way, they can say that some sites are theoretically profitable while others are loss-making, depending on what prices the company chooses to charge itself or elements of itself.

It seems to me that that is a fiction, and it is often used to reduce the tax paid in some countries because the profits made in another are higher. In reality, all the sites contribute to the value of the product made, and that is certainly the case with GKN in Birmingham. Melrose bosses think they can just get the work done cheaper in Poland and France, an appalling attitude for a company that promised the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee only a short time ago to build a British manufacturing powerhouse.

Unite has developed an alternative plan with the independent experts, and they make it clear that it is possible not only to make a profit on the site but to increase capacity by 50% and deliver annual savings of up to £8 million for GKN. Most importantly, this will save those valuable jobs and create more jobs for the future, but it seems that Melrose is only interested in short-term profit. We need the Government to make Melrose see that this is an offer it cannot refuse. That will mean support for the rapid shift to electric vehicles, which the factory is perfectly placed to take advantage of, as my hon. Friend said.

GKN Birmingham Chester Road produces Driveline components, including side shafts and prop shafts; small, specialist components. According to Unite, the e-axle, known as the eDrive, which is an existing GKN technology that was developed at its UK innovation centre, is a key product that can secure the Birmingham site’s long-term future, as well as the UK’s critical manufacturing capability. The demand for that product will only increase as we move towards full electrification, but Melrose must get serious about supporting its manufacturing base, and so must the Government.

When the company’s chief executive, Simon Peckham, gave evidence to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in February, he put the blame squarely on electric vehicles. He claimed that

“electrification is a threat to jobs as well as an opportunity to grow jobs.”

He also said:

“For GKN Automotive as a whole, electrification is an opportunity; unfortunately, for”

the Birmingham plant “it is not.” We do not accept that. The workers do not accept that, and nor does Unite.

The question is: do the Government accept that electrification will not be an opportunity for those highly skilled engineers, who make parts for top brands, including Jaguar Land Rover, Toyota, and Nissan in my part of the country? Are Ministers, who promised a British manufacturing powerhouse, prepared to let Melrose throw those jobs on the scrapheap? Are they giving up on those skilled workers at a time when they need support most of all? I hope the Minister will let us know when she responds to the debate, because we will not give up on them, and neither will their union. We will fight all the way, because we are fighting for the future of British manufacturing. It is a fight that we are determined to win, even if it takes strikes, protests and other ways to disrupt Melrose’s disgraceful plans. The battle for the Birmingham plant has only just begun.

It would be useful if the Minister let us know which side she is on. Is she on the side of the skilled, productive workers, or that of the short-term, greedy bosses? I imagine the whole country would like to know the answer, especially as we go into the local elections in May. I hope the Minister will tell us.

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Before calling Rachel Hopkins, I remind Members who are physically present to put their masks on when they sit down.

10:02

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on securing this extremely important debate. I am a Unite trade union member, and all of us in the Labour and trade union movement fully understand, particularly on International Workers’ Memorial Day, that an injury to one is an injury to all. That is why I am speaking in this debate as the Member of Parliament for Luton South, a constituency in my home town of Luton that has a long history of car and van manufacturing at the Vauxhall plant, which provides skilled jobs. I know how important those jobs are to our local economy and our communities’ livelihoods, so I send my solidarity to the workers at GKN in Erdington, whose jobs are at risk.

Manufacturing matters, and GKN is a vital strategic supplier to our automotive sector. It has the capacity to transition to new products for electric vehicles, as we have heard. That green capacity will be essential in the future for plants such as Vauxhall in Luton South. Since acquiring GKN, Melrose has sought to offshore manufacturing and transfer—

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Order. Rachel, could you hold your microphone a bit closer? That is much easier for us to hear. When it is dangling, you are going very quiet. If you hold it closer to your mouth, that would be fantastic, because we will hear you much better.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I am very sorry, Dame Angela. Apologies for that.

Since acquiring GKN, Melrose has sought to offshore manufacturing and transfer successfully won contracts for UK work away from Birmingham. We know that it wants to offshore production to Poland and France to maximise profit, showing a total disregard for its loyal workers and the surrounding community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, the GKN plant is based in an area where unemployment stands at 12.5%, which is significantly higher than the national average. The loss of 519 skilled jobs at the plant in the middle of a pandemic would devastate the community.

The closure of GKN would also have a hugely damaging impact on our domestic automotive supply chain. As we have seen with other forms of manufacturing during the pandemic, it is important to have a robust domestic supply chain. That is increasingly essential for the automotive sector, due to the new rules of origin requirements with regard to tariffs.

It is economically illiterate of the Government to allow the closure of GKN in Birmingham and the offshoring of production. The loss of GKN—a critically important tier 1 supply chain manufacturer—will have a knock-on impact across our automotive sector. What I and others here find astounding is Melrose’s lack of discussion with the workers’ trade union, Unite. Unite’s two-stage plan for the GKN plant, formed through work with shop stewards and independent experts, outlines how productivity can be improved with additional savings, followed by a plan to produce eDrive components for electric vehicles. Estimates suggest that would save more than Melrose’s proposal to close the plant in Erdington, as independent experts believe Melrose has underestimated the cost of relocation.

We need companies such as GKN with eDrive technology based in the UK to help facilitate the sector’s green transition. Demand is increasing for electric vehicle components, with global electric and plug-in hybrid cells expected to rise to 40 million vehicles annually by 2025. Expansion of the eDrive could secure the site’s long-term future and play a pivotal role in the UK industry’s critical manufacturing capability. The eDrive equates to 15% of electric vehicles, comparable to next generation batteries. By 2030, that is expected to increase and make a significant contribution for exporters to meet new rule-of-origin thresholds. The room for GKN’s expansion is there, ready and waiting, and may not only save jobs, but could create them in the long run.

If Melrose intends to push on with this decision, it poses a critical temperature test of the Government’s industrial strategy, because what is levelling up if it is not protecting, promoting and creating skilled, well-paid jobs that are rooted in communities across the UK? If the Government allow GKN Birmingham to close, it will undermine and further expose the UK automotive industry’s supply chain to risk.

The Government must intervene and work with all parties to prevent the closure of GKN in Birmingham, and preventing the closure must be part of a wide interventionist green strategy to transition the automotive sector, ahead of the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles. We need an electric vehicle revolution that backs manufacturers and creates new jobs. The Government must lead this step change by creating new gigafactories, protecting and enhancing the domestic supply chain and making electric vehicle ownership affordable. The UK has the skills and capacity to be a global leader in the electric vehicle market, but the Government must create the foundations for the sector to flourish.

10:07

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on securing this extremely important debate on the future of GKN, a vital employer in his constituency, in a vital industry for the UK economy. He is a really energetic champion for the communities he serves, as I know very well first hand, and he gave a passionate and important speech, which set out perfectly the issues before us today and, crucially, the alternative to closure. We have heard some excellent speeches today that also made those points very clearly. I declare that I, too, am a member of Unite the union, which I will be mentioning in my speech today.

I want to express my solidarity with the workers at the plant in Erdington and in the supply chain who are at risk of losing their jobs. Yesterday, I met Frank Duffy, the Unite convener. Like so many others working at the plant, he has decades of service. The announcement of closure earlier this year came as a devastating blow to him and hundreds of families across the region who have given their lives to GKN over the decades.

I put on the record my deep and profound concern about the decision by Melrose; I hope very much that it will think again. The decision flies in the face of assurances Melrose gave to the House via the BEIS Committee only three years ago. I heard what the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) had to say, but I disagree. This is what is wrong with corporate law and public policy in this country; it is about so much more than simply shareholder return—it is about UK plc. I will explain that a little more.

Let us be in no doubt, as tragic as the proposed closure would be for workers such as Frank, this issue is about so much more than this important and historic plant in Erdington. What is happening here is a canary in the coalmine for UK manufacturing, automotive and decent jobs that level up. How the Government respond is a huge test. Its significance cannot be overstated.

What kind of Government are they? Are they one that actively supports and, where necessary, intervenes in British industry; one that has a real and meaningful plan to transition to a green new deal in key sectors such as automotive; one in which global Britain leads the way in the development and production of new electric technologies, providing decent, high-paid jobs for the future; and one for which levelling up is about a lot more than rhetoric and piecemeal pots of cash handed out on mates’ rates? Or are they a Government—which I fear the Business Secretary wants them to be—who are unashamedly free market and laissez-faire, one in which people, place and opportunity are the fall guys for globalisation and free-market forces?

Ministers might talk the talk of sharing prosperity in every part of the country, of a global Britain, of championing manufacturing and of greening our economy, but what actions they take here will show whether they are actually prepared to walk the walk as well. Be in no doubt at all that we are in a high-stakes global race for green jobs, the technologies and the production capacity, a race in which Britain is being massively outgunned and outmanoeuvred by other countries prepared to invest and intervene on an unprecedented scale to ensure that their domestic industries and workers reap the gains of that new drive.

The status quo does not exist, as the GKN situation shows. Either we fight hard to retain the capacity, the jobs and the opportunities, or they go elsewhere. Let us not forget that GKN is a British company, now proposing to offshore its last UK automotive manufacturing base, against the commitments made by Melrose at the time. Do the Government think that Germany, France or even the US would allow the move of one of their key industrial businesses? Not a chance. This is a key test of Conservative industrial strategy—if indeed they have one.

The Government’s actions so far suggest that they do not believe in an active industrial strategy. They scrapped the Industrial Strategy Council. Through covid, they have had an aversion to sector support, and we have seen a rebranded plan for growth that does not appear to create any growth. There can be no growth for communities in Erdington and beyond if Ministers do not press the company to change course and to invest rather than close the plant.

There is an alternative here, as we have heard so well during this debate. Unite and the workforce, with industry experts, have developed a compelling alternative to closure, which involves an improved productivity plan and a major shift to new products for electric vehicles for their main customers, Jaguar Land Rover and Toyota—which, by the way, lead the way in electric and hybrid vehicles. GKN’s only remaining automotive plant specialises in technologies that are critical to the development and expansion of UK vehicle production—here, just in time, domestically produced, which would not get tied up in rules of origin and the new red tape that we are seeing.

Surely it is a no-brainer for a Government committed to British industry, to British car manufacturing and to Britain leading the way in electric vehicles to do whatever it takes to retain that capacity here in the UK. Or do they stand by and watch it move to Poland and France? This is the real test for this Government, and I really hope that it is one that they will not fail. Will the Minister tell us today, will her Government do what it takes and put pressure on the company thoroughly to explore the alternative business plan, or does she think that that is not her role?

This is also a test of what kind of economy the Government want post Brexit. We were promised the freedom to support and intervene in British industry, outside the EU and free of the constraints of state aid rules. What is the point of that freedom if it is not used? We were promised an economy that could be at the forefront of seizing new opportunities, not one in which key assets were being offshored back to the EU. We have the EU trade deal, but there are clearly issues with rules of origin and the fact that the Government’s much boasted tariff-free trade is anything but, particularly for manufacturers caught up in a web of more red tape and bureaucracy. There is no doubt that this is a factor here.

The planned closure of GKN is also a test for the kind of recovery and economy we want post-covid. If the pandemic has taught us anything about industry, it is that we need more than simply ingenuity and leading innovation; we also need domestic and resilient production capacity. We have seen that long supply chains are not resilient, and that the lack of domestic capacity is bad for our country. Automotive production is a delicate ecosystem—once one part of the system is gone, it weakens the entire thing.

That is why GKN is the canary here. If Ministers are going to follow through on creating a more resilient domestic manufacturing sector, they must protect the automotive supply chain. This plant is right next door to one of its main customers, JLR. The plant in Poland that will take over production if these plans go ahead is four and a half days away. We are seeing the impact of long supply chains already, where production at two of JLR’s plants has recently had to stop because of delays in importing microchips.

Furthermore, the economic hit we have taken during the pandemic—one of the worst in the G20—requires more intervention and stimulus to kick-start recovery and seize the opportunity of the green transition for a more productive, higher skilled, technology-driven economy. That simply will not happen by chance or by market forces. The costs and investment required are too high, and the infrastructure and skills needed would never be met by the private sector alone. All the while, our global competitors are pump-priming their recovery; just look at what is happening in the US under Biden.

The situation at GKN also tests whether the Government really do have a recovery plan, or if it is just more rhetoric. If the Government are serious about levelling up, then that has to be about safeguarding good, decent jobs in the midlands and across the country; investing in people and places; and ensuring we see a transition to green which is just and fair. Letting this plant close on the basis of short-term decisions by private equity flies in the face of levelling up.

This plant has a proud industrial heritage, with over 50 years’ history at the site. It is the only British automotive plant owned by GKN, but now it threatens its future. This is a UK company planning to close its only UK automotive plant and move the jobs overseas. Frankly, it is a disgrace. If the Government care about people and places and levelling up, then it starts with anchor industries and companies in places such as Erdington, where unemployment is twice the national average. The Government must stand up for workers in Erdington and across the country in the supply chain, not stand back and let vulture finance destroy jobs and decimate the proud history in this community.

This is also a test of the Government’s commitment to communities and places in levelling up. That is why we need deeds, not words. While the Government are high on ambition, they are low on action. Labour backs our automotive industry, and we have set out an ambitious three-point plan to safeguard the industry’s future through investment in gigafactories and measures to make owning an electric vehicle more affordable.

Make no mistake, the eyes of workers and voters across the midlands are on the future of GKN and our world-leading automotive sector. If the Government allow the plant to close on their watch, so many more jobs and businesses will be threatened going forward, from Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port to the production location of that iconic British car, the Mini, going electric. Many are watching to see whether or not the Government are really serious about their rhetoric. This is a big test for the Government, one that none of us want to see them fail. The consequences are too great.

10:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on securing this really important debate today. I have an awful lot of respect for him, as he knows. I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) about the passion with which everybody has spoken in the debate. It has been absolutely crucial.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington is a long-standing advocate for the UK automotive sector and champion of the world-class automotive businesses in his constituency, including GKN and Jaguar Land Rover. The proposed closure of the GKN Automotive plant in Birmingham is deeply disappointing. I myself have a background in manufacturing of over 20 years, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, and I feel a great connection to British industry—in fact, my great-uncle flew Spitfires, so I absolutely appreciate that aspect. I am really sympathetic to the difficulties associated with a situation such as this.

The Government are supporting manufacturing. “Build Back Better: our plan for growth” sets out the Government’s plans to drive growth and build on our competitive advantage through significant investment in infrastructure, skills and innovation. We will pursue growth levels in every part of the UK, enabling the transition to net zero and supporting our vision of a truly global Britain.

The proposed closure of the GKN plant was a great shock to the employees and will be hugely concerning for them and their families. The plant is part of the fabric of the local community, producing components, as we know, for vehicle makers including JLR, Nissan and Toyota. It is a really important part of the UK automotive sector, which provides 149,000 manufacturing jobs. There are examples of employees spending most of their lives at GKN, with some of them being there from the time they leave education until retirement. As we have heard, there are also people in their 20s with young families to support.

The Government are committed to doing what we can to save those high-skilled jobs. The Minister for Investment, Lord Grimstone, met with Liam Butterworth, chief executive of GKN Automotive, last month. That helped the Government to understand the rationale behind the proposed closure and explore options for securing a long-term, sustainable future for the Birmingham plant. At the meeting, welcome assurances were given that all viable alternatives to closure will be considered. Also, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary and the Minister for Investment met with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and representatives of Unite the union regarding this issue last month. The mandatory employee consultation provides a platform for alternative proposals to closure to be presented. Unite has developed its sustain-and-transition proposal, and we encourage it to table the proposal formally with GKN if it has not already done so.

The hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington and for Easington (Grahame Morris) referred to transfer pricing. We have been told by GKN that sales between its plants are carried out on commercial terms, and that is independently audited.

Ultimately, the future of the plant is a commercial decision for GKN management, but we stand ready to discuss viable alternative proposals with GKN management. That could involve investment in capital equipment or skills to stoke the plant’s competitiveness. In the event of closure, with production carefully wound down over the next 18 months, the priority will be to find new jobs for those people who lose their jobs. GKN has committed to supporting its employees through this difficult time. The Minister for Investment will follow that closely.

As we know, the Melrose takeover of GKN in 2018 faced considerable opposition, with cross-party calls for it to be blocked on national security grounds. The takeover was considered by the then Secretary of State fairly and impartially, in accordance with the legal powers provided through the Enterprise Act 2002. Under the 2002 Act, the Government have the power to intervene in mergers on public interest grounds. There are, however, strict and limited grounds for intervention. Ultimately, the review determined that there were no grounds for objecting to the deal. Melrose was required to make commitments to the Ministry of Defence to address matters relating to national security.

In March 2018, the then Business Secretary wrote to Simon Peckham, chief executive of Melrose Industries, setting out additional binding commitments that would be needed in the event that the takeover bid was successful. A copy of the letter and the response from Melrose are available in the House of Commons Library. As we have heard today, there are differing views on whether those commitments have been met. The legally binding post-offer undertakings made to the Takeover Panel are independently verified every six months by third party advisers. The advisers provide a report to the Takeover Panel confirming Melrose’s compliance.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) said, these are challenging times for the automotive sector. In 2020, 920,000 cars were produced in the UK, which was 29% down on 2019 levels. Businesses across the automotive sector, including GKN, have had to restructure to maintain competitiveness.

The Government have stood shoulder to shoulder with businesses and workers to support them through these challenging times and have provided an unprecedented level of support, including the furlough scheme. That helped protect the income of around 60% of the automotive sector’s full-time employees when production was temporarily suspended last year. In addition, £4.6 billion of liquidity has been provided to the sector through the coronavirus loan scheme. The Government are committed to supporting the sector through these challenging times, so that it can exploit future opportunity.

The global automotive sector is undergoing significant change, as production shifts to zero-emission vehicles and supply chains are restructured to produce new technology. Modern developments in production plants are being accelerated and creating a once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity for the United Kingdom. To be clear, this is not just about protecting the status quo and retaining the manufacturers that we have in the UK, including JLR, Nissan and Vauxhall, but about stimulating a high-tech market that cements our global position at the forefront of mobility.

The Government have announced £500 million of funding as part of a commitment of up to £1 billion over the next four years through the automotive transformation fund. That will help build, at pace and scale, an internationally competitive zero-emission vehicle supply chain in the United Kingdom, including in key regions where levelling up is crucial, such as the north-east, Wales and the west midlands, as highlighted so well by the hon. Member for Manchester Central.

The UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement provides a phased introduction of the rules of origin requirements for zero-emission vehicles. That was welcomed by the UK automotive sector as it allows manufacturers time to increase local content—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley). GKN will be an important part of that future supply chain. It is developing cutting-edge vehicle technologies at its innovation centre in Abingdon. Securing investment in gigafactories is a priority to meet demands from UK-based vehicle makers. The Government are in advanced negotiations with several potential investors.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the UK continues to be one of the best locations in the world to research and develop the next generation of vehicle technologies and to manufacture zero-emission vehicles. GKN is at the forefront of these technological developments through its innovation centre in Abingdon. Our aim is that the Birmingham plant also continues to be at the heart of GKN’s manufacturing operations.

As I explained, the Government are ready to discuss alternative proposals that could include investments in capital equipment or in the skills needed to secure future vehicle technology. That would help provide long-term, secure jobs for the dedicated and skilled employees.

10:28

[Jack Dromey]

I thank all those who have spoken in what has been a powerful debate. We have heard about experiences from Luton to Birkenhead in traditional areas of engineering and motor manufacturing. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) made a powerful contribution and pointed out that the four directors of Melrose have done rather well out of what has happened in the last three years.

Let me go straight to the heart of the matter. This is a great plant with a great history that must not now become history. That would be a betrayal of the workers concerned, but also a betrayal of the British national interest. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), said and the Minister acknowledged, there are serious implications if the remaining domestic producer of vital components for the industry closes and we become dependent on supply chains from France, Poland and beyond. There are serious issues in terms of the British national interest.

It is fascinating that today, in its interesting report, the Covid Recovery Commission talks about

“the Great British Supply Chain”.

A fundamental rethink is under way in terms of vital strategic capabilities, and certainly the Chester Road plant is an absolutely vital strategic capability for companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and Toyota.

Crucially for the next stages, as a former trade unionist I always used to say that ultimately it is about getting to an outcome, a result, for the workers and for the country. That involves three parties. First is Unite, whose work on a well thought through and creative alternative I applaud. Let us be clear: it stands ready to have whatever discussions are necessary. In my experience, they can be difficult discussions, but Unite stands ready to play its part.

Second is Melrose. As I think has become widely known, I am not its greatest fan in terms of how it has conducted itself, but it has committed to looking at alternatives to closure and we must hold it to that commitment. Third is the role of Government to defend the British national interest and unashamedly recognise that the loss of 519 directly employed jobs and all those in the supply chain will have devastating consequences for the industry in the midlands in one of the poorest parts of our country.

The Minister has said some interesting and helpful things about our preparedness to look at a range of options for capital equipment and skills. These things always go in two phases. The second phase—God forbid—I never want to get to, and that is what happens if closure takes place and we have to pick up the pieces. Believe you me: it would be absolutely heartbreaking, were that to ever happen. The first phase is the one that we must concentrate on, so that the plant does not close and so that creative, well thought through alternatives are found and negotiated with assurances given. That is eminently achievable.

The Minister is right that we both have strong backgrounds in the world of work, and I have been involved, sadly, in many, many workplace closures over the years, some of which we have won, such as Rosyth Dockyard. I know what it takes to get to a result; it is eminently achievable. Forgive me if I stress this for one final time: the role of Government will be absolutely key in holding Melrose to its commitments. If they do that, it is possible for a plant with a great history to have a great future. If we meet the workers or talk to car industry executives, we come to recognise just how important this is. It would be utterly heartbreaking, and a betrayal of the British national interest, were the plant to close. That must never happen.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the proposed closure of GKN Automotive plant in Birmingham.

10:30

Sitting suspended.

Redundancy Protection: Women and New Parents

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. I remind Members participating or intervening virtually that they are visible at all times to each other and 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.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered extending redundancy protection for women and new parents.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela, and to raise the important issue of extending redundancy protection for women and new parents.

Regrettably, as in so many areas where progress is needed, Scotland is being held back from taking action due to employment law being reserved to Westminster. Without power over employment law, Scotland is not able to legislate to protect women and new parents from discrimination and unfair redundancy. Scotland should not have to wait for Westminster to act to prevent widespread redundancy discrimination, and I look forward to the time when we do not have to do so.

However, despite the lack of progress to date, I acknowledge the work undertaken by many Members of this House on a cross-party basis and by organisations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, going back many years. In 2015, the commission published research that revealed that one in 20 new mothers are made redundant during pregnancy or maternity leave, or on their return to work. That shocking statistic reveals a disturbing level of disregard on the part of some employers for the needs of women, children and new families.

The following year, the Taylor review into modern working practices highlighted further research that confirmed that the majority of employers expressed a willingness to support pregnant women and new mothers. The report commented favourably on the finding that more than 80% of employers felt it was in their interest to support pregnant women and new mothers. However, women might be less enamoured with the finding that at least one in 10 employers, and possibly as many as one in five, are not willing to support pregnant women and new mothers.

The detailed findings show a disturbing level of acceptance among employers and managers that discrimination against women on the basis of their decision to bear children or their caring responsibilities is acceptable. All the following views were endorsed by at least a third of the employers and managers interviewed for the research:

“During recruitment, it is reasonable to ask women if they have young children”,

and about their plans to have young children;

“During recruitment, women should have to disclose whether they are pregnant”;

“Women should work for an organisation for at least a year before deciding to have children”;

“Women who become pregnant and new mothers in work are generally less interested in career progression than other employees”.

Many of those interviewed claimed to have seen at least one pregnant woman “take advantage” of their pregnancy, and regarded pregnancy as putting an “unnecessary cost burden” on the workplace—quite shocking. Given that those attitudes and views are widely held among employers and managers, is it any wonder that pregnant women and new mothers are so widely discriminated against in the workplace?

I am sure the Minister is familiar with the proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child”. It is 25 years since Hillary Clinton highlighted that, in our modern and highly urbanised society, the underlying premise of that proverb is perhaps truer now than it has ever been. Of course, children are vital to the future of our society and our economy, with declining birth rates, increasing life spans and ever-more dispersed families. Perhaps, whatever we might think in our ever-more digital world, we are collectively becoming more dependent on community networks and wider society than ever before.

How can those interrelationships and that long-term intergenerational benefit work, though, if the first thing that happens to an expectant woman or a new mother is that she loses her job and her family’s ability to raise a child is compromised? However, unfortunately, as the research shows, far too often that is indeed what happens, so I hope it is accepted by the UK Government that no one should have to fear losing their job because they become pregnant. Surely that must be a given.

Between employers and Governments, effective arrangements should be in place to support women and their families through the potentially life-changing process of pregnancy and child rearing. However, under current arrangements, women only have enhanced protection from redundancy until they return from maternity leave, and the evidence is that this protection is not working. All the protection means is that a woman on maternity leave can be made redundant, but must be offered an alternative job above anyone else being made redundant if another job exists, which can prove a very big caveat.

The current law does not stop employers using pregnancy as an excuse for a piece of cost-cutting, as demonstrated by the case of Jessica—which is not her real name. Jessica, whose case was disclosed by the campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed, had a well-paid job, became pregnant, and was made redundant on the day she was due to return from maternity leave. The day before she was due back, which was during lockdown, she received a text telling her to not go into the office, but to be available for a video call with a senior manager. During that call, she was told that she was being made redundant. She had been back at work for all of 30 minutes. She is convinced that the firm simply wanted to cut its staff budget, and by going on maternity leave, she had unknowingly self-selected for redundancy. What a way to treat a member of staff, and what a welcome to the world for her child, into a family now burdened by unaffordable debt and forced to move out of their home, and with a mother whose mental health and career are in tatters.

As an employee of the company, Jessica might have had some chance of arguing a case for discrimination, although the costs and hurdles associated with attempting this would, and do, put most people off trying. On the other hand, Mandy, whose case was highlighted by the Taylor review, had no chance of doing so, because legal protections in the UK are so heavily and deliberately weighted against workers who are not direct employees. Mandy had worked for a bank on a zero-hours contract for several months. However, when she informed her employer that she was pregnant, her hours were reduced to zero; in effect, she was summarily dismissed with no recourse. Mandy is one of those pregnant women and new mothers who have borne the brunt of the increasing casualisation of the UK workforce. She found out that employment status, whether as a direct employee, self-employed, or as a limb (b) worker, is important, because it dictates entitlement to some key maternity and parental rights. Those in the growing number of insecure forms of employment can find their rights greatly diminished, reducing or eliminating their entitlements to maternity and parental pay and leave, health and safety protection, time off for antenatal appointments, and rights to return to work.

The “Insecure Labour” report produced by Maternity Action in November 2020 spells out some of the implications of casualised or insecure work on women workers, and pregnant women and new mothers in particular. Heather Wakefield, chair of Maternity Action, said that the report

“paints a shocking picture, which requires swift and radical action by Government, employers and trade unions to halt the damaging impact of casualisation on the working lives and wellbeing of pregnant women and new mothers.”

Cases such as Jessica’s and Mandy’s are not isolated incidents, certainly not during the pandemic. Last summer, Pregnant Then Screwed conducted research involving almost 20,000 pregnant women and mothers. It found that 10% of pregnant women said that they had been made redundant, or expected to be in the next six months. More than half said that their pregnancy was a factor. Some 11% of women on maternity leave said they had been made redundant, or expected to be in the next six months, and more than 60% said that their maternity leave was a factor. Almost 13% of women who had recently returned from maternity leave said that they had been made redundant, or expected to be in the next six months. Two thirds said that their maternity leave was a factor.

Further research that Pregnant Then Screwed conducted in March and April of this year suggests that the situation is worse this year than it was last year. Surveying 16,000 pregnant women and mothers, it found that 30% believed they had experienced discrimination from their employer during the pandemic. Clearly, if the protection is not working as it should, that is something that should have been addressed long before now. The SNP has been pressing the UK Government to act to protect pregnant women and new mothers facing discrimination and unfair treatment in the workplace, yet five years on from the EHRC research, the UK Government have so far failed to take the necessary steps to prevent redundancy discrimination. Surely the UK Government would agree with the need to protect pregnant women and new mothers.

In 2016, the Women and Equalities Committee recommended the UK Government implement within the next two years additional redundancy protection throughout pregnancy and maternity leave and for six months afterwards. In 2017, in their response to the Committee, the Government indicated that the current position was “clearly unacceptable.” Yet, here we are—four years on and no further forward. Had the UK Government implemented reform within the timeframe proposed by the Committee, many women would have been spared unfair redundancy and discrimination prior to and in the aftermath of the pandemic.

In the absence of action by Government, last year the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on pregnancy and maternity redundancy protection, which is still awaiting Second Reading. The Bill seeks to

“prohibit redundancy during pregnancy and maternity leave and for six months after the end of pregnancy or leave, except in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes”.

The SNP wholeheartedly supports the Bill. It is extremely disappointing that the UK Government have yet to put their weight behind it.

Earlier this year, Jamie Hepburn MSP, the Minister for Business, Fair Work and Skills in the Scottish Government, wrote to the Minister responding today, outlining the Scottish Government’s support for a range of reforms to support women and families, including extending redundancy protections for women and new parents. The letter makes clear the Scottish Government’s support for the Bill. It has also been endorsed by Maternity Action, which said that the Government should strengthen redundancy protections by immediately adopting the Bill as its own and expedite it into law.

Commenting on the current law, Rosalind Bragg, director of Maternity Action, said:

“The current law on redundancy and maternity is complex, poorly understood and difficult to enforce.”

She highlighted that women often find the person covering their maternity leave is kept on, while their role is made redundant, and described that as

“a classic case of unfair and unlawful redundancy”.

Maternity Action recognises that it may be impossible for pregnant women and new mothers to devote their energy and finances to pursuing employment tribunal claims, which is why it is important that the timescale for pursuing such claims is extended from three to six months.

Shamefully, due to the UK Government’s inaction on redundancy protection, women across the UK are facing a new wave of pregnancy discrimination and unfair redundancies as the furlough scheme winds down and employees try to return to their jobs. After years of the Government failing to deliver on their commitment to act, urgent legislation is now needed.

In April 2019, the UK Government accepted the need to extend redundancy protection for six months once the new mother has returned to work, afford the same protection to those taking adoption leave and extend redundancy protection for those returning from shared parental leave. It is now time for the UK Government to act and I look forward to seeing those proposals reflected in the Queen’s Speech on 11 May.

If the Minister is able, I am also keen to hear his thoughts and the Government’s plans to protect women and new parents in their employment in the context of the pandemic and the future of work. As we move out of the immediate crisis of the pandemic, some things are very clear. For instance, unfortunately, jobs and job security will be an issue and concern for many people. We cannot simply throw women and new parents on a jobs bonfire post pandemic. Employment protections, equality provisions and flexibility are all areas where, although in-roads have been made, they are not nearly enough. We must accept the need to go further.

Rather than aiming to go back to the old normal, the Government must consider fair work, the future of work, and what jobs and work will and should look like. All of us lose out when we restrict the talent pool by putting unnecessary barriers to work in front of women and new parents. An unthinking return to the same old, same old would be a real lost opportunity to do things differently and to take a lead on the employment policies and practices and structures that will make work possible for women, new parents and those with caring and other responsibilities. Things like the right to request flexible working from the start of a job would make a vast difference to many employees, and would support employers, too, in adopting the working practices and environments that will allow the talents of all employees to properly shine through.

I look forward to the Minister’s response on these and the other points that I have made today.

11:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing today’s important debate on extending redundancy protections for women and new parents. I can assure her that simply going back to how things were, as she talks about, will not be the case, as I will outline. As we get through to the Employment Bill and further consultation and discussions with businesses and other groups, including Pregnant Then Screwed, I hope we will end up in a far better place to ensure that we can tackle some of those issues.

From the correspondence I receive as a constituency MP and as a Minister, I know what a crucial issue this is, and the pernicious effect that discrimination can have on both the immediate and the longer-term prospects of women in work. More generally, there is the drag that that can put on equality and productivity. Last month, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) brought a number of representative organisations to talk to me about the challenges that pregnant women and new mothers are facing as a result of covid, so I am aware of the many issues that some women face.

I will start by being crystal clear about two things. First, there can be absolutely no excuse for discrimination against pregnant women or women on maternity leave. There is no excuse for any form of discrimination; it is unlawful. It can have absolutely no place as we start to build back better after the pandemic. We cannot effectively level up if we continue to allow some groups to be treated poorly simply because of who or what they are.

Secondly, I will not hide from the fact that there is a real issue here. The research that we jointly funded with EHRC has been cited and makes for uncomfortable reading. It is worth reminding ourselves of some of the key findings. Around one in nine mothers reported that they were dismissed, made compulsorily redundant when others in their workplace were not, or treated so poorly that they felt that they had to leave their jobs.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for setting the scene so well. From his comments, I understand the Minister is sympathetic to this issue. Overall, three in four mothers, 77%, said they had a negative or possibly discriminatory experience during pregnancy, maternity leave and/or return from maternity leave. They have an issue that needs to be addressed. I understand that the Government will respond in a positive way but even though the Government are indicating welcome measures, such as extension of time protection on return from maternity leave, there are wider aspects that need to be addressed, such as shared parental leave, and the stigma that still attaches to a father taking that essential leave. When the Minister makes his good points, will he also address that?

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are plenty of wider issues to be considered, including the right to request flexible working that we have heard about. Making that a default option is something we have talked about significantly and want to ensure is at the heart of the Employment Bill, when parliamentary time allows that to come forward.

We still need to do plenty of work with shared parental leave. We have collected a lot of data through the consultation as part of the formal evaluation of the shared parental leave and pay scheme. That will give us a fuller picture of how well the current system of parental leave and pay overall is working for parents and employers. Some of the examples that we hear time and again in the Chamber and Westminster Hall indicate that it is not working, so there is plenty more that we can do.

To return to the findings I was talking about before the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, if they are scaled up to the general population, it could mean as many as 54,000 mothers a year are losing their jobs, in many cases simply because they have had a child. Furthermore, our research found that one in five mothers said they had experienced harassment or negative comments related to pregnancy or flexible working from their employer or colleagues. If scaled up, again, to the general population, that could mean as many as 100,000 mothers having similar negative experiences. That can never be right.

The case for Government action is as clear as day. That is why we consulted on measures to improve redundancy protection for pregnant women and new parents. Following that consultation, the Government’s formal response said that we will: ensure the redundancy protection period applies from the point the employee informs the employer that she is pregnant; extend the redundancy protection period for six months once a new mother has returned to work; extend redundancy protection into a period of return to work for those taking adoption leave, following the same approach as the extended protection provided for those returning from maternity leave; and extend redundancy protection into a period of return to work for those taking shared parental leave. We have been clear that we will introduce these measures as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The ten-minute rule Bill from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) was raised. I am aware of calls for us to do things differently. Indeed, I met my right hon. Friend and other colleagues to discuss her proposal, which follows aspects of the German approach, and my predecessors held similar meetings. It is not the objective that we disagree on but the means of achieving it, and even then we share a lot of common ground. The key difference is that the Government’s preferred approach retains and extends the current position of giving the pregnant woman or new parent preferential treatment so that, in effect, they are first in the queue for suitable remaining jobs in a redundancy situation. Others suggest removing the current framework and replacing it with a comprehensive redundancy band with some very limited exceptions so that, in effect, that a pregnant woman or new mother could only be made redundant when a business is closing down. The Government have not yet been convinced by that argument.

At its simplest, taking that approach could require employers to continue to employ people even when there is no work for them to do if the business continued to exist. That burden would fall particularly heavily on small businesses. That is why we continue to believe that extending the existing framework remains the right approach. We believe that we are more likely to promote the culture change we seek by placing a slightly more flexible requirement on employers for an extended period. The six-month extension of additional redundancy protection into a return-to-work period will provide a period of up to 27 months when pregnant women and new mothers will be first in the queue for suitable remaining jobs in a redundancy situation. I believe that will represent a considerable and significant step forward in redundancy protection for pregnant women and new mothers.

I have heard the arguments that there ought to be a role for state enforcement in redundancies involving a pregnant woman or new mother. We need to tread carefully when looking at state roles within those sort of areas. All redundancies should be fair, and it would not be rational to treat one group within the workplace any differently from another by giving them a different arbiter in the redundancy process. I appreciate the pressure and strain that the employment tribunal system is under and will be under owing to the covid pandemic, but none the less it has considerable strengths. For instance, it allows for careful consideration of employment disputes, which are often complex or may not be clear-cut, by those with appropriate expertise. Case law from employment tribunals allows our laws to evolve and develop to reflect changing working practices.

However, I am only too aware that improving redundancy protection only goes so far. The majority of employers report that it is in their interest to support pregnant women and those on maternity leave, with the main reasons being to increase staff retention and to create better morale among employees, but we know that many employers feel that women should declare up front during recruitment whether they are pregnant. EHRC and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills research back in 2016 put a figure of 70% on this. Further, the same research found that a quarter of employers felt that it was reasonable during recruitment to ask women about their plans to have children, so clearly there is some way to go.

Tackling the challenge of pregnancy and maternity discrimination will require action on many fronts. That is why we committed to set up an employer and family representative group, which I want to make recommendations on what improvements can be made to the information available to employers and families on pregnancy and maternity discrimination. Rather than focusing on the end of the process, redundancy, I want the group to look at earlier stages of the employment lifecycle, because we need to shift the whole focus of the debate on pregnancy and maternity discrimination so that employers get it right in the first place, rather than focusing only on what happens when things go wrong. I want the group to develop an action plan on the steps organisations can take to make it easier for pregnant women and new mothers to stay in work and for them to progress throughout their careers.

We are having final discussions with business and family representative groups. Indeed, only the week before last, Maternity Action wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on behalf of a number of trade unions and family groups to set out views on areas that might usefully be covered. This discussion is therefore very much a live one, and I hope to be able to announce the group’s membership and first meeting date soon.

I congratulate once again the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire on securing this important debate and for keeping this issue in the public eye. I started off by talking about how most employers realise the value of investing in their workforce and supporting them throughout their career. There are clearly actions that we need to take and issues we must address, as she and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined eloquently. I look forward to working with the taskforce, seeing what it has to offer, listening to further debates both in this place and in responding to it and tackling many of these issues, as parliamentary time allows.

Question put and agreed to.

11:25

Sitting suspended.

British Meat and Dairy Products

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ms Nusrat Ghani in the Chair]

11:19

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that there have been some changes in practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of the debate, and 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.

Members attending physically who are in the later stages of the call list should use the seats in the public gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats become available, but please sit where there are microphones functioning.

14:31

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered British meat and dairy products.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I am grateful to have secured this important debate at a time when there appears to be a growing disjoint between media coverage of farming and the reality of those of us who live among it. I hope as a baseline we can all agree that in order to survive we need to eat. In this country, we are fortunate that generally we can choose what we eat and where we buy it, albeit with factors such as price, availability and, especially, concern for the environment influencing our decisions.

Historically, there was far less choice in the food we consumed and our reliance on home-grown produce was significantly greater than it is today. If the pandemic has taught us one thing it is that it is good to be able to produce at home what we need, and we all need to eat. As a former fitness instructor, I know well how a healthy and nutritious diet is vital to ensuring that the body has the nutrients it needs not just to survive but to thrive. Those needs change at different points in our lives and according to our activity levels. If we are going to tackle climate change in a meaningful way, healthy bodies with healthy minds are best equipped to do that.

I am fortunate to represent North Devon, home to 475 NFU members, including 95 dairy farmers and 323 livestock farmers. I do not need to go far to find delicious, nutritious British food that comes from environmentally responsible sources. British meat and dairy are produced to some of the highest environmental and welfare standards in the world. Buying local can reduce the environmental footprint of our supply chains and incentivise sustainable farming. To take one example, according to the Government’s Climate Change Committee, greenhouse gas emissions from UK beef are about half the global average.

Since covid started, many of us have begun shopping more locally, and our local farmers have adapted and innovated to help their communities through the pandemic. In Croyde, in my constituency, the Heywood family have adapted their North Hole organic milk farm to sell through a vending machine to their local community. The milk is delicious and the vending-machine experience is a great way to link locals to their farm. Watching the fully robotic milking parlour is also an incredible experience. Those organic cows have a great life and their milk is highly nutritious. Dairy products contain high-quality protein, calcium, B vitamins, iodine and potassium. Dairy foods, such as milk, cheese and yogurt, are vital to bone health. Importantly, the greenhouse gas footprint of UK milk production is just 40% of the global average. There are 278 million dairy cows worldwide. If they were all as efficient as UK dairy cows, we would need only 76 million of them to produce the same amount of milk.

This week is Great British Beef Week, which this year is focused on recognising and highlighting British beef farmers and the work they do to support sustainable practices on their farms. Red meat is one of the richest sources of essential nutrients, such as iron, zinc and B vitamins, and a great protein source. It is also much lower in fat than it was 20 years ago. My local NFU chair, Daniel Balment, is the third generation on his beef and sheep farm near Brayford. Daniel maximises the grass that the farm grows well to convert to protein, as 65% of farmland in the UK is best suited to growing grass, rather than other crops. The UK climate is ideal for growing grass. Other crops could not be grown for food on many farms. That has to be factored in to maximising the output of our land.

Farmers have always been custodians of the countryside, and the Agriculture Act 2020 is potentially the biggest victory for nature and farming in a generation. Under the framework of public money for public goods, farmers will be paid according to the benefits they provide to the public—mostly environmental improvements—rather than on how much land they farm. Our British farmers are already committed to reducing their emissions and reaching net zero ahead of the Government’s 2050 deadline. This policy will go a long way towards supporting them.

Livestock provides us with healthy, fertile soil, beautiful landscapes—as my North Devon constituency is testament to—efficient water use, carbon sequestration, and unique, biodiverse wildlife habitats. The suggestion that reducing meat and dairy consumption is a solution to climate change is an oversimplification. As I said earlier, we all have to eat, and in general we choose what we eat. Much of the food on our supermarket shelves has travelled thousands of miles to get there and is not produced to as high a standard as it would be here in Great Britain. Many non-dairy or meat-free alternatives are shipped across the world to reach us, are less nutritious with less protein, are higher in saturated fat and are nowhere near as good for the environment as British meat and dairy. For example, products such as almond milk require 20 times more blue water—water from the normal water supply—than British dairy milk, which is much more reliant on green water from natural rainfall.

When choosing what to put in our shopping baskets—[Interruption.]

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in the House.

14:37

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

14:45

On resuming—

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

The sitting will continue until 4.08 pm.

[Selaine Saxby]

As I was saying, many non-dairy or meat-free alternatives are shipped across the world to reach us, and are nowhere near as good for the environment as British meat and dairy. Products such as almond milk require 20 times more blue water—from normal water supply—than British dairy milk, which is more reliant on green water, from natural rainfall. When choosing what to put in our shopping basket, we should look for the Red Tractor—the symbol of British farming. Buying locally and seasonally not only might give people a much better diet but will do significantly more to reduce emissions compared with the alternatives. We can all do our bit to work towards net zero, by buying local British produce to support our great British farmers.

14:46

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]]

I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this debate as we mark Great British Beef Week. As a representative of a rural constituency, I am incredibly proud of the world-class produce our farmers supply to kitchen tables, restaurants, the food service industry and elsewhere. Using one of the most sustainable production methods in the world and of the highest standards, our farmers work night and day to ensure their produce is truly something to celebrate.

It is those standards on animal welfare, environmental protection and traceability that this Government must properly protect. As we look at future trade deals, those standards must not be sacrificed on the altar of free trade. That would be deeply unfair on our agrifood industry, and it would be against the will of the people who take confidence in the UK mark being on what we eat. The UK mark—the Union flag marking the safety and quality of produce—must become more prevalent, not least in the catering industry. We need to improve transparency in this regard to ensure the food in this sector is not swamped by cheap, sub-standard imports.

We must support the industry as new markets open up. That support must be in the form of a marketing drive, support for promotional activity and, most importantly, substantial investment in our production chain. Our processing sector needs the support of this Government to achieve more value-added product. Primary producers and processors need support for research and development to drive efficiency. We in Northern Ireland need this Government to support our devolved Administration to make this investment, to match the aggressive drive for market dominance from the Irish Republic.

It is vital for our industry right across the United Kingdom that this Government consign the protocol to the dustbin. The unacceptable impact on east-west trade must be corrected, to return to the free flow of goods and the integrity of our internal market that we enjoyed before the protocol was put in place. The additional costs of doing business and the unacceptable administrative burden now facing local companies and farms has to cease. The ability to trade in livestock across the Irish Sea without impediment must be rectified. It is beyond belief that any UK Government would accept such a situation within its own borders.

I again thank the hon. Member for North Devon for securing this debate and for allowing us to both celebrate and promote the needs of our farmers and our agrifood sector.

14:50

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, Ms Ghani. I thank my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for securing the debate, because British meat and dairy products are a great asset to the whole country and to everybody who eats them. I can say that I have consumed a large quantity of both meat and dairy; hon. Members can see that a good live weight gain was achieved in the process. Joking apart, we sometimes forget the great part that meat and dairy farming plays in looking after the landscape and the grass. When we look at holding carbon in the soil, we sometimes forget how much carbon is held by permanent pasture.

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). She raised the interesting point that there is a problem at the moment with exporting from Scotland into Northern Ireland. Scotland should not have to export to Northern Ireland, as it is part of the United Kingdom. We heard evidence at the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from Northern Irish farmers having problems getting sheep from Scotland, because they have been on winter keep since the end of last year and they are not yet able to go over to Northern Ireland. When they get to Northern Ireland, they have to have their tags removed and have another tag put in. I suggest that that is also an animal welfare issue that needs to be dealt with. I have great respect for the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who is here today, and for the Secretary of State, but we need to do more to rectify the trade situation between Scotland and the rest of the UK, including Wales, and Northern Ireland, so I look forward to that being sorted out.

We live in a world where, if we are not careful and if we do not value the great meat and dairy production in this country, we will land up importing a great deal more food. When we import food we have to analyse how it was produced, including looking at the water that was used across the world to produce it. Many countries probably cannot afford to have water taken away from them for the production of exports to this country.

One only has to look at the Brazils of this world to see that they are driving their beef cattle towards the Amazon, they are ploughing up the savannah and they are damaging the environment. We need to help the Brazilians to stop that process. Perhaps the President of Brazil, dare I say it, might have something to do with what is going on. We need to take this very seriously. We must not look for the cheapest product in the world when we import, because doing that does much to damage the environment. We produce our meat and dairy from grass, but we must be careful when we import proteins to help with that because some of that protein, especially the soya bean, is grown on deforested land or savannah. All of these things are important.

The number of Members here today shows that we think our production of both meat and dairy is important. We not only have great permanent pasture but good grass leys. The New Zealanders have done a lot of work on the digestibility of grass leys and different types of grass, which affects the amount of methane gas that animals produce while they are producing meat and milk. If a cow milks more efficiently and gives more litres of milk, the total amount of methane gas given off collectively is far less, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon said. With the production of beef, the more efficiently we can produce it, and the better the breeding, the quicker and faster that beef is produced, and again, the methane gas is far less.

We have to take production of agriculture very much in the round. I think it is very simplistic to say, “Stop eating meat, stop eating dairy—that will solve the problems of the world.” No, it won’t, actually, because the grassland in this country relies entirely on meat and milk production—that is the balance. I made the joke when I started that I am a product of eating much meat and much dairy, so for me to actually say this is almost unbelievable, but there could be an argument that sometimes we do not actually need to eat quite as much meat or quite as much dairy, and I would probably be the first to admit that. On the other hand, a balanced diet is so necessary. If we look at the research, an expectant mother, for example, is not always able to gain the right protein and nutrients without their vegetable or vegan diet being very expensive and diverse. Let us be sensible as we move forward. Meat and dairy play such an important role.

My final point is that this is linked to the countryside that we see and love. Grassland, heathland, moorland, and Exmoor—my constituency adjoins that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon through the Blackdown hills, a very small part of Exmoor—these are all areas of grassland and permanent pasture, and they are very beautiful and full of trees. All of those things are so essential. Do not forget that although it is beautiful that people can go and walk in and enjoy our landscape—we want to see more of that—it is not entirely a playground; it is also a production zone for producing good-quality food. If we combine the two, which I think we can do easily, food, farming and the countryside can all come together. I very much support my hon. Friend’s debate.

14:57

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important and timely debate.

I do not think it is, strictly speaking, a declarable interest, but the House may be aware that I come from farming family. My family still farm on the south-east corner of Islay. My wife is a partner in a veterinary practice in Orkney, serving a diverse range of farming interests: beef and lamb production, and, sadly, a decreasing number of dairy farmers. I declare that interest with some pride; it contributes directly and indirectly to the Carmichael family mortgage payment every month.

Food production has always been at the heart of the local economies in Orkney and Shetland. The designation of Orkney beef and Shetland lamb as protected geographic indicators is an indication of that and, indeed, of the quality of the produce for which we have been responsible over the years. In recent decades, we have seen a growth in producers who have been able to add value in a blossoming food and drink sector, which, in turn, has fed into a growing visitor economy, so it remains as important to the northern isles today as it always has been.

In Orkney, we have a long history of producing finished cattle for Orkney beef. In Shetland, traditionally we produced cattle for the store market, but in recent years, by a bit of creativity and a lot of effort, local farmers in Shetland have also been able to produce finished cattle, which have been slaughtered for local consumption in our good, well operated local abattoir. It is an exemplar of how agriculture can feed into a rural or island economy such as ours. Crucial to that operation, however, is the existence and operation of a thriving network of local shops. My concern today is that many of those local shops are currently under threat.

We have had supermarkets in Shetland for decades, like everybody else—we have a big Tesco and a fairly big Co-op in Lerwick and a smaller but still sizeable Co-op in Brae—but recently the Co-op Group lodged applications for planning permission for two further Co-ops, which would be bigger operations, in communities in Scalloway and Sandwick, which are currently served by a variety of small, thriving local independent shops. Those shops are quite clear that if the applications are granted, the future for them looks to be pretty bleak. That network of rural shops, however, is absolutely critical to food production in the Northern Isles, and the farmers I spoke about, who now produce finished cattle for slaughter and sale in the local retail sector, will struggle if that network of local shops is not there.

One of the local shops that will be most directly affected told me last week that it reckons that it takes goods from no fewer than 80 different local suppliers, which are all small and medium-sized enterprises that will never sell in the same quantity to a big outlet such as the Co-op Group. We know, and the Co-op will tell us, that it takes from local producers to put local lines into its shops. That is true. However, the beef and lamb farmers and those food producers who add some value to our local products will tell us that the Co-op, like all supermarkets, will take their products, but only on its terms. Therefore, even if a product does end up on the shelf, the supermarket will determine the price, the quantity, the regularity of supply, the delivery and often even the labelling. The hard commercial reality is that these local suppliers cannot survive on the margins that the supermarkets give them, so the existence of that network of local shops is critical to the future viability of agriculture in Orkney and Shetland.

The Co-op does have a long tradition of being at the heart of highland and island communities, and I am sure I am not the only one who spent many happy—or not so happy—childhood evenings licking stamps to be put in the Co-op book for the dividend, but the Co-op Group today is a very different beast. It operates effectively in the same predatory manner as we would expect of any other supermarket, bearing down on suppliers in communities such as mine. It is a trail that many communities the length and breadth of the country have seen over the years, but for a company such as the Co-op Group that has always prided itself—and, dare I say it, marketed itself quite effectively—on being the supermarket that was somehow different, to have this change in its culture is unfortunate to say the very least. I hope that it understands the damage it risks doing to the delicate and complex economic ecosystem that communities such as ours rely on. Once an economic ecosystem such as that is lost, it can never be easily recreated.

I do not wish to hold the House, but I want to mention one other matter of supreme importance to the production of food in the Northern Isles: the ability to export it to other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It comes to the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). The Scottish Government are currently undertaking a consultation on the transportation of animals within Scotland. For us, with a 12-hour journey from Shetland to Aberdeen, that could have very serious implications. Even the shorter journey from Orkney to Aberdeen would be severely affected. If, in the last year, we had operated under the wind speed and temperature restrictions that are currently under consultation by the Scottish Government, there would only have been two sailings allowed from Orkney to Aberdeen. It is the law of good intentions and unintended consequences in operation. The people who designed the system, which is currently regarded as being blue-chip, with industry-leading standards, were the farmers at the turn of the century, and they are the people who should be involved in the recreation of that system now.

15:05

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) [V]]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this timely debate during Great British Beef Week. I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as one of the few practising farmers in the House.

The Cotswolds has one of the most sensitive landscapes in the country and I have always proudly championed British agriculture. As a farmer who grew up on my mother’s dairy farm, I know from first-hand experience how the UK produces some of the highest quality food produce of anywhere in the world, with exceptional animal welfare and environmental standards.

As Britain secures new trade deals, we have the opportunity to promote that high-quality meat and dairy produce across the world, produced by our innovative, environmentally friendly farmers. After 40 years of the European Union’s common agricultural policy, we can now pursue new trading relationships. It is an amazing opportunity to shape the future of our farming, promote our interests and meet the needs and ambitions of British consumers in the 21st century.

In 2020, meat and dairy products combined accounted for 2.2% of UK goods exports and 3.1% of all UK goods imports. The current trade deficit is found in all categories, apart from mutton and lamb, which has a trade surplus of £0.1 billion. We now import roughly 50% of all that we eat, down from 65% when I was a student. The UK is about 85% self-sufficient in dairy production and beef, but 98% self-sufficient when it comes to lamb. We need to work to a point where it is not just lamb that is in surplus, but where we are near self-sufficient in many more sectors.

What is the difference between our lamb and beef sectors? It could partly be better marketing of beef, which is usually a more expensive option in the supermarket. The deficit is something we want to change with our new trading arrangements. Beef exports from the UK last year came to £382 million, with growing markets in Hong Kong, Singapore, Peru and Canada. There is also growing demand in China for British pork, and in France for high-quality lamb produced in the Cotswolds.

British agriculture needs to increase and diversify its exports as much as it can in new international markets, after heavily relying on Europe. There is no reason why British food manufacturers cannot be innovative enough to create a wider range of products using British produce. That is especially the case for dairy-based products that are heavily imported, such as yoghurt and prepared desserts. That is unnecessary when we have such a strong dairy sector.

I urge farmers to take advantage of growing global markets. The Department for International Trade is launching a new mentoring programme, providing expert advice on trading internationally. Farmers in the UK are leading the world in finding innovative farming methods to farm in climate-change friendly ways, with the NFU pledging an ambitious net zero target by 2040.

The UK beef industry is one of the most sustainable in the world, with an extensive grass-based grazing system—not a cause of deforestation as in other countries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said. The Committee on Climate Change found that the UK beef industry emits around half the greenhouse gases compared with the global average.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon said, there are 278 million dairy cows worldwide. If they were all managed as efficiently as UK dairy cows are, we could shrink that number to 76 million and still produce the same amount of milk throughout the world. Around 70% of the British herd is on grass, and 65% of UK farmland produces some of the most productive grass in the world. That protects the character and identity of the countryside and generates an important income for rural communities. In the Cotswolds, which I have the privilege to represent, the distinctive, attractive landscape would not be the same without the raising of livestock, including the production of high-quality lamb, much of which could be exported.

Here in the UK, there is nothing better for the environmentally-conscious consumer who wants a balanced diet than to buy British. Not only does buying fresh local produce reduce greenhouse emissions from transporting produce; in addition the produce will be sourced from farms with sustainability at the heart of their practices. It is good to see some retailers increasingly championing UK products. I know, because I did a lot of the shopping during the lockdown, that Waitrose and Aldi have led the way on supporting British farmers throughout the pandemic. I hope that other supermarket chains will be encouraged to follow their example.

In conclusion, farmers can now set their ambitions well beyond the UK into exciting new markets. As they expand, they will have our full support in doing so.

15:11

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on setting the scene so well and giving us all an opportunity to participate. I am tempted to use a pun and say that I am pleased to have the opportunity to sow into the debate. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and as a landowner.

My constituency is a strong farming community, and all my neighbours are involved in the milk, sheep and other sectors of the farming industry. One of the major employers is a Lakeland Dairies factory. I am acutely aware of the challenges facing the sector. The fact that Northern Ireland faces additional challenges because of the insidious Northern Ireland protocol makes life on our side of the sea that wee bit more difficult. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned that, and I am sure that other Members will. I must again highlight the need for the triggering of article 16 and an end to the hard border in the Irish sea. That would definitely do away with all the problems that we face at present.

I am part of the movement that believes we can and must do better with the stewardship of our environment. However, there are few who know more about cause and effect in the environment than the farmers who live it every day. I want to speak for the farmer, the person who looks after and manages the land—who lives on and loves the land, and whose very blood is in the land he farms every day. We are increasingly coming across a movement that seeks to blame the farming industry for environmental issues throughout the world. What it claims is simply not the case. When the total 460 million tonnes of UK greenhouse gas emissions are broken down, cattle and sheep account for 5.7%. The whole of UK agriculture was responsible for 10% of the UK’s total emissions. When grassland sequestration is taken into account the figure for cattle and sheep drops to 3.7%. Let us look at the reality of the stats. The farmer is clearly not to blame. It is time to work with the farming sector. I know that the Minister does that every day of her life and we represent those areas in dealing with the farmers in our constituencies, because we are there to support them.

The hon. Member for North Devon referred to figures on the efficiency of the dairy sector. They tell us all about how well the British farmer does his job. Our farmers know their responsibility, and they live it daily. I want to speak for the farmers in my constituency, and those elsewhere, and commend them for their industrious endeavours.

I read an interesting snippet in the National Farmers Union briefing. It was a statement by Dr Trevor Dines, a botanical specialist at Plantlife, on the publication of Plantlife research:

“Early succession habitats like hay meadows and permanent pastures, grazed by the right amount of livestock at the right time, can support an astonishing 770 species of wild flower and are crucibles of biodiversity.”

Wow—that is something for people to take the time to listen to, and I hope they will. It continued:



“Nearly 1,400 species of pollinators and other insects rely on species-rich grassland for their survival and they, in turn, support a myriad of bird and animal life. Re-creation of these open habitats must be seen as a priority as urgent as planting trees.”

That is what farmers say and what they and landlords do every day of their lives—365 days a year.

I chair the all-party parliamentary group for eggs, pigs and poultry, and the British Egg Industry Council set up a petition on change.org, to which there have been some 20,000 signatures. Supermarkets should use British eggs for foods made in Britain and stop importing eggs. Research shows that, although consumers put their trust in British supermarkets to sell safe products and be transparent about their sourcing, supermarkets continue to use a significant number of imported eggs in pre-prepared foods. I think it is time that we all bought British Lion eggs. I am old enough to remember that advert on TV—“Go to work on an egg”. Well, every day of my life, I go to work on two eggs. Seven days a week, I have two eggs for my breakfast. Incidentally, I have noticed in the Members’ Tea Room that many others in this House do too.

A survey of 3,000 British shoppers on their attitudes towards the use of eggs and egg ingredients by major retailers showed overwhelming support for the increased use of British eggs. That is why I am backing British farming, which has never been so important. The British egg industry is worth over £1.07 billion per year, and employs 23,000 people both directly and indirectly.

I will conclude on this Ms Ghani; you have been very kind to me. We need to keep this vibrant industry vibrant, and we in this House have a role to play, not in enforcing unattainable goals, but in supporting and rewarding best practice, which is standard practice in farms in every corner of my constituency, and indeed in every constituency throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

To get all the speakers in, I will have to enforce a time limit of under four minutes.

15:16

[David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate. Like her, I am fortunate to represent a large rural west country constituency, although mine is in God’s own county of Somerset. This debate gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to Somerset’s farming community and farmers in less fortunate areas.

This past year has presented farmers with unprecedented challenges. We all remember early in the pandemic seeing empty supermarket shelves, and many people feared that we were going to run out of food. Farmers rose to that challenge and enough food was produced to overcome the fears and meet the demand, and our shelves were fully restocked.

As I travel through the glorious Somerset countryside, it is impossible not to marvel at the contribution that farmers make to managing our landscape. The contribution that livestock and dairy farmers make to our environment is not fully appreciated. Meat and dairy production goes hand in hand with the sustainability of the landscape. British farmers lead the world in agricultural standards, animal welfare and sustainable farming practices.

This week is Great British Beef Week, and as the focus this year is on sustainability, we should remember that the greenhouse gas footprint of UK milk production is just 40% of the global average. British beef and dairy are fully on track to being carbon neutral by 2040.

The environmental contribution of livestock and dairy farming must not be overlooked, and neither must its enormous contribution to our rural economies, our way of life and brand Britain abroad, but the sector faces enormous challenges. Farmers are determined to grasp the opportunities of Brexit, but many say they face growing problems with exporting to the EU, in particular at the French border, where they are seeing outright inflexibility; they are not seeing the same at the approach to UK borders. I ask the Minister to explore and implement ways to ease exports to the EU, which is obviously our largest agricultural export market.

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—hard to say, and probably harder to put together—gives us a wealth of opportunity across the Asian, American and Australasian continents, with lucrative markets for our produce. That is great news for dairy producers, and producers of cheeses, in particular. I have some of the best in the world in my constituency, not least Wyke Farms, Barber’s, Montgomery cheddar and Godminster. The trade agreement gives them the opportunity to reach Canada and Australia. Producers can also send pork and poultry to Vietnam, beef to Japan and mutton to Malaysia. However, while Somerset’s farmers want trade partnerships, they do not want them at the expense of food standards, and I know there are concerns about any opening of the UK to cheaper, lower-quality imports.

The Government can do a little more to support farming in achieving net zero by 2040. Many farmers are now installing green energy plants to provide green electricity, but one farm in my patch tells me that the rating value of its green energy plant has doubled in a year, so I ask the Government to look at the rating system for green energy plants. We have to incentivise them and keep a level playing field, because certainty is a rare commodity in meat and dairy production, and over the past few years, of course, it has been harder than ever for the sector to have any kind of clarity. I hope the Government see that and continue to act in a way that smooths the path and gives our farmers clear sight of the future. The future is bright, but these are dark times, and we have to light the way with clarity.

15:20

[Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for having secured this afternoon’s debate. As the MP for Truro and Falmouth in Cornwall, it is unsurprising that farming plays a huge role for people in my constituency, and this is a great opportunity to stand up for our many hard-working farmers, farm workers and local supply chains.

It is not surprising that the English MPs in the room this afternoon are mostly south-west and west country MPs. The National Farmers’ Union states that the south-west’s livestock farms account for almost a third of all the dairy and beef farms in England, and over a fifth of all the sheep and lamb. British red meat and dairy has a great story to tell, and farmers can be very proud of having some of the highest welfare and environmental sustainability standards in the world. What is better to eat than Cornish cattle that has been grazing in the sea air on beautiful pastureland, making wonderful beef, clotted cream, and beautiful Cornish ice cream in Callestick, for example, near Perranporth in my constituency?

The UK has the fifth lowest use of on-farm antibiotics across the 31 European countries, beaten only by the Nordic countries, and that is due to their climate of cold and dry weather, which stops the bacteria from breeding and therefore reduces the demand for antibiotics. The amount of antibiotics used on UK farms reduced by 53% between 2014 and 2018. We really are leading the world in how we look after our animals, and in our welfare standards. A number of steps are being taken on farms that are done in the best interests of the animals, and are in line with expert advice and veterinary guidance. I also congratulate the UK meat and dairy industry on its work on tackling emissions—we have heard from various Members this afternoon how we have been doing that. British beef and lamb are among the most efficient and sustainable in the world, due to our extensive grass-based systems.

Livestock plays a key role in maintenance, as we have been hearing, and in the enhancement of wildlife habitats. Biodiversity would suffer hugely if the UK population became vegetarian and gave up meat. There are several examples of where livestock is critical to the life cycle of wildlife: for instance, the large blue butterfly, which breeds in warm and well-drained grassland. Livestock plays a key role in producing the suitable habitat through grazing, and if we gave up meat, suddenly that would not happen at all.

I am always encouraged when shoppers look to buy local, sustainably produced meat and dairy products, and most retailers are now increasingly sourcing British products to meet this demand. The UK is around 85% self-sufficient in dairy production, as we have heard, and 75% self-sufficient in beef production. Significantly, more than 11,000 dairy farmers and more than 23,600 beef and sheep producers in the UK are members of the Red Tractor scheme, and when shoppers buy British red meat and dairy products carrying the Red Tractor logo, they can be confident that those products are produced to world-leading environmental and animal welfare standards for the whole length of the food chain, from farm to packet. The supermarkets are starting to move in the right direction. We have a huge number of farm shops in Cornwall, of which I would like to mention a few in my constituency: Cusgarne near Truro, Curgurrell near Portscatho, and Trudgian in Probus. Not only do they buy local meat, so people can literally see the animals grazing in the fields before they buy meat for their family to consume; they also support smaller producers.

The Minister will not be surprised that I am making a call to ensure that the same encouragement and clout from Government goes into buying British fish—she knew I was going to say that. This has been a very difficult time for Cornish farmers and fishermen, who rely on their local outlets as well as on the supermarkets. Another hon. Member spoke about supermarket price points; it is really important that farmers and fishermen make a good living out of this. I am not—

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Order. You have gone over your time limit; forgive me, but we have to move on.

15:25

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Ghani. I congratulate my colleague and fellow south-west Great British Beef Week love-in leader, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby). I speak not as a rural MP standing up for his constituent farmers, but as an urban representative for the city of Gloucester and its 100,000 consumers, and as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy for much of south-east Asia and its regional organisation, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The two things come together very well.

I relate strongly to my hon. Friend’s calls to buy local. There can be no argument at all, at least among the six Gloucestershire MPs, that the finest beef is from Gloucester cattle—just as Single Gloucester cheese, made only from Gloucester cows, is one of our great cheeses. At this time of year, as all colleagues will know, a great round Single Gloucester cheese is normally to be found rolling down the steepest stopes of Coopers Edge in the great, globally renowned cheese-rolling competition pursued by 100-odd enthusiasts or lunatics. So yes, let us buy local and buy quality.

Let me focus on the export of British beef to south-east Asia in general and Indonesia in particular. Demand in Indonesia—a nation of 270 million people, predominantly Muslims—is growing by 7% a year, and 70% of the roughly £650 million-a-year market is imports, mostly from Australia and India, so there is an opportunity for us, but there are four questions. First, is there potential Indonesian demand for British beef? Secondly, is there potential export capacity here? Thirdly, is our halal certification process compatible with Indonesia’s legislation and approval process? Fourthly, is halal beef a sector that we want to pursue with other potential markets in Malaysia and the middle east? If that is all possible, we have an opportunity. We may need to pursue a free trade agreement to make our prices competitive with friendly Australian and Kiwi farmers.

As so often, these questions cross departmental boundaries, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for International Trade have worked closely on many issues. Today, in Great British Beef Week, I look forward to hearing the view of our excellent Minister on whether the enthusiasm and capacity of our farmers for halal beef exports are strong, and whether we can resolve the certification question.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Mr Graham —that was mouth-watering.

15:27

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this excellent debate. I declare an interest: I married a farmer’s daughter, and most of my family on her side are farmers across Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly and—I say it quietly—even Devon. It is great to see so many colleagues from the south-west—we just about include my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) in that. That representation reflects how important farming is to our communities and our economy across the south-west.

We should be proud of our livestock and dairy farmers, who not only produce some of the finest-quality produce to be found anywhere in the world, but maintain the highest animal welfare and environmental standards. It is no mean feat to operate at such high standards while producing food of such amazing quality for us to buy and consume. Cornwall is particularly renowned for its dairy—Rodda’s clotted cream, which is located in the Secretary of State’s constituency, and our amazing cheese —as well as for its beef, lamb and pork. Much of it goes to support our hospitality and tourism sector, and the quality of food available in Cornwall is one of the things driving our tourism sector. People want to come to Cornwall not only for our amazing beaches and countryside, but because of the amazing food we produce. Clearly, farmers have faced huge challenges in recent times, but they have faced those challenges head on, which just goes to show the resilience within our farming sector. It has managed to do that over the past year during the pandemic and has adapted to a rapidly changing market.

Regrettably, as has been reflected in the debate, farming is sometimes presented as part of the problem in protecting our environment, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. British farming is among the most sustainable forms of farming anywhere in the world. Some of the facts and figures quoted by colleagues reflect that. Farmers are the custodians of our environment. They rely on our natural environment for everything that they do, so of course they want to protect it and care for it in the best possible way. Many of our farms are generational. Farms are passed down from one generation to another, so of course the farmers care for them because they want to be able to pass them on to their children and grandchildren.

Very often there is an unfair message that eating meat is a major contributor to emissions and carbon footprint, which is simply not true. Much of our farmland is suitable only for grazing livestock. We could not grow other food on it, and if we did not produce meat from that farmland, we would end up importing more food, which would increase the carbon footprint as well. There is much greater awareness today—it has increased over the past 12 months—of where our food comes from, which can only be a good thing. One thing I would like us to do with the new freedoms that we have since leaving the EU is to have better labelling of where our good British food comes from, and let us encourage everyone to buy as local as they possibly can.

15:31

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on organising this debate. In the four minutes that I have I want to talk about agriculture on the Isle of Wight and then discuss with the Minister, through you, Ms Ghani, how we can use the Agriculture Act 2020 for the benefit of all of us, but very much for the Island.

I have noticed that a lot of us are talking about carbon and being responsible about animal rearing, but can we not use some of the incredible science in our country to breed cattle that produce less methane and—dare I say it?—pass wind less? Then we might have less of a carbon problem. I just put that out there. Perhaps the Minister will think about that. I am happy to suggest the Island for a pilot scheme. It would be great. We have lots of fresh air on the Island, anyway, and would have even more so with that idea.

The Island has a fantastic reputation for producing some of the best food in Britain, although, clearly, there is a lot of stiff competition. Briddlesford farm makes some of the best feta outside Greece. Calbourne Classics makes some of the best yoghurt in the country. I am yet to taste better fillet steak than that produced by Andrew Hodgson in the beautiful Bowcombe valley, and Queen Bower Dairy regularly produces fantastic soft cheeses and blue-veined cheeses. Isle of Wight tomatoes are very well known, to say nothing of all the lobster, crab and asparagus that we produce.

However, as the Minister knows, because she has been kind enough to discuss this with me, we have some issues. Living on an island, I perhaps share some concerns with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). Orkney has an abattoir. we do not. Our abattoir closed down a couple of decades ago. To take cattle for slaughter is an extra £70 per head of cattle. I am therefore very interested in the mobile abattoir scheme that the Minister discussed. I know it is being used in Gloucestershire at the moment. We would be extremely interested in having that on the Island because it would be extremely useful and valuable and would help to create a circular economy so that not only could we have a more sustainable agriculture on the Island by reducing the costs of slaughter and potentially make it more competitive, but it would make it more competitive when sending to the mainland as well because of that Isle of Wight brand.

In a similar vein, we would be keen to explore the use of grants for other shared things for items on the Island such as tanker and extra milk storage facilities, new grain storage, central fertiliser storage, animal feed milling facilities, and box erectors. All those things can make Isle of Wight agriculture not only more profitable—that is almost the wrong word—but can add more value to what we do. We would potentially keep more profit on the Island. As various Members have said, when people go to a supermarket they buy stuff that may be produced here or elsewhere in the European Union. I share the calls for better food labelling, because I will always try to buy local if I can.

The more that we can produce a local economy, so that Gloucestershire becomes even more proud of its produce, likewise the Isle of Wight, Kent and Sussex, that is the way that we can help local agriculture, and almost compete among ourselves. We keep forgetting, as has been pointed out, we have some of the most extraordinary food production in the world. Sometimes we do ourselves down and think that something that comes from Italy or France is better, when often it is not. I hope it will continue to be the case that we can push and get more value for UK produce. I will leave it there, but I look forward to discussing these matters with the Minister in due course.

15:35

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing today’s debate. As the Member for Angus, one of Scotland’s most productive areas, it is a pleasure to sum up for the SNP and to add the Scottish dimension to issues raised by Members from around these islands. In Great British Beef Week, let us all collectively acknowledge that there is no finer beef than Aberdeen Angus. I look forward to the Minister confirming that in her summing up.

I am fully signed up to supporting and promoting British produce, but I will not be dissuaded from highlighting the current challenges that our producers face. The challenges in the meat and dairy sector have their roots in last spring, when we should have seen the emergence of new demand. Instead, we saw the eruption of a global pandemic, which decimated the hospitality and food service sector overnight.

Efforts were made to ensure that domestic demand, which rose sharply, would take up surplus commercial supply but, in reality, commercial food packaging and products made it incompatible with retail distribution processes and consumer tastes. Where we saw a glut of T-bone and fillet steaks, consumers were at the same time rushing out to buy mince. It was not just carcass balance issues that affected our producers. It was cheese, milk and yogurt, in large commercial containers with limited outlet into retail.

It was against that crisis that many of us called for an extension to the transition period last year, also recognising that the transition period was really no such thing. The UK Government advertised to businesses to get ready for exiting the single market and customs union, but were pretty sketchy on exactly how they could get ready to do that. Without a meaningful transition period, a soft start, room for manoeuvre or margin for error, UK meat and dairy exporters were thrown off a bureaucratic and procedural cliff on 1 January.

The dairy industry was especially hard hit, with exports to the EU down 96%, with beef, lamb, mutton and chicken exports collectively losing £50 million in EU sales. Many hon. Members have talked about the opportunities to export to wider markets. That is great, but it should not come at the cost to existing markets. The Food and Drink Federation report has shown that Scottish exports have been hit hardest, down 16%, with Wales 3.9% and Northern Ireland 7%. The British Meat Processors Association Brexit-impact report insists that blaming that on teething problems is no longer credible, if it ever was.

Collateral damage threatens our producers and their suppliers. I recently met with the Agricultural Industries Confederation to discuss the challenges in the agri-supply sector. Exiting the EU was top of their list. New tariffs for importing molasses for livestock feed, caused by an error in the UK global tariff, mean that there is now a higher tariff here than in the EU, which is expected to add £1 million to £1.2 million in extra costs to UK producers, all undermining our competitiveness. DEFRA is aware of this but, to date, there is no resolution. Nor is there a DEFRA resolution to issues affecting processed animal protein and the export health certificates that are now required to export those products from GB to Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister might want to discuss that in her summing up. Staying with Northern Ireland, as the president of the Ulster Farmers Union, Victor Chestnutt, pointed out to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee last week, Stirling bull sales in Scotland are vital for pedigree breeding and exchanging genetics. In 2019, 120 bulls from 37 Northern Ireland exhibitors showed at Stirling; by 2021 just four bulls were exhibited at Stirling from three Northern Ireland exhibitors. That is because when Northern Ireland farmers take a bull to GB and it does not sell, they need to pay for six months of residency before they can take it back to Northern Ireland. That madness is a disaster for sales and for breeding, and it is also a problem for Carlisle sales.

I want to touch on a comment from James Withers, of Scotland Food and Drink, who said

“It’s become clear that the EU third country import system was never designed for a country on its doorstep, integrated into its supply chains, sending large volumes of highly perishable product and smaller, consolidated volumes. In the end, the industry and consumer here want to maintain standards so let’s agree to align with our EU partners. Otherwise, the rug will be pulled from a significant chunk of the £1.2 billion of annual Scottish food exports for little, if any, benefit.”

The UK Government have in its power to support our meat and dairy sector through the Brexit carnage. I fully commend the innovation and energy with which our meat and dairy producers feed our communities and contribute to our economy, but let us not uphold any notion that everything is going invariably well. It is not. Those producers and the wider supply chains rely on EU exports, but exporting meat and dairy to the EU and Northern Ireland is harder now than ever. Let us all at least acknowledge that.

15:41

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this timely debate. These are vital industries that are crucial to our food security, to tackling climate and nature emergencies. They proved remarkably resilient through the pandemic. I pay tribute to all those involved: farmers, processors, retailers and shop workers. But I think one or two contributions have been a touch rose-tinted, because it is really tough out there.

Last week, I joined the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) in launching Labour’s rural review, on a family farm in Cambridgeshire. Thanks to the excellent organisation by the National Farmers Union, we heard from a real mix of farms. It is very hard out there. With the changes to farm support, it is obvious that some—perhaps many—will not survive. We have repeatedly warned that that is exactly what the Government’s Agricultural Act 2020, allied with the refusal to rule out undercutting through lower trade standard imports, was designed to do. We will fight that all the way. We are delighted to support Great British Beef Week.

I must point out just how interconnected but we still are with the European Union. EU countries have accounted for 70% of meat exports, 77% of dairy exports, as well as 83% of meat imports and 99% of dairy imports. Sadly, the rushed botched deal at the end of the year has left us facing really serious problems, not least in achieving carcase balance. The latest statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that exports of food and live animals were down about 31% on January and February 2020. In absolute value terms, exports of meat and meat preparations to the EU were particularly affected—down 52%. That is a systemic issue.

The British Meat Processors Association has warned that the industry is now facing a potential permanent loss of up to half of its exports. For dairy, exports remained at drastically low levels in February, according to recent figures published by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. The figures, drawn from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data, show trade with Europe down more than 90% for certain products compared with a year earlier. Cheese exports were down 75%, whey 83%, milk powder 86%, and butter exports were down 89%. Be in no doubt that it is tough for many. We know it is particularly hard for small independent producers. If it is hard to sell to the EU, meat and dairy farmers face a challenge to their incomes.

The Minister and I have been discussing changes to farm support for a long time. A new analysis by the Labour party shows that rural England stands to lose more than £255 million this year alone. That translates to as many as 9,500 agricultural jobs, and that will only get worse year on year. Of course, the schemes are still being designed, tested and piloted, as we have discussed on numerous occasions, but farmers are rightly concerned by the gap between the existing basic payment scheme being phased out and the environmental land management scheme. According to an analysis of DEFRA data by the Country Land and Business Association, 75% of farming enterprises are currently unprofitable without direct payments. According to a recent survey of landowners and farmers by the CLA, 76% fear that the new payments will not be sufficient.

It is hard to sell into the EU, support is being withdrawn and, frankly, British meat is still open to being undercut in trade deals. As we have repeatedly said, the Government should have put the protection of food and farming standards into law, but they have not. Without re-rehearsing the arguments made today, deals are currently being negotiated. UK campaign groups have raised repeated concerns over meat production in Australia and New Zealand, and the Government’s consultation on a prospective UK-Australia deal highlighted concerns about Australia’s farming practices, such as hormone injections in beef, excessive use of antibiotics in food production, high rates of food poisoning and lower standards of animal welfare, including continued use of sow stalls. Just last week, however, the Secretary of State for International Trade was lauding their high standards in the main Chamber. Frankly, it should be obvious that British farming will be sold out. The Trade and Agriculture Commission, which the Government conceded under pressure, has reported that there has been no response from the Government. Can the Minister tell us when we will get it, and will they adopt the recommended standards framework?

There is much more to be said, but let me move on to one of the potential solutions: public procurement. Supporting British farming means buying more British produce, which means looking at the public sector and the £2.4 billion a year spent on catering, and thinking about how more can be spent with British farmers. Government Buying Standards for Food and Catering Services, or GBSF, provide helpful guidelines, but these are not being applied in too many parts of our public services. That is hardly surprising, given the cost pressures that they face, but that is why leadership is required.

In such circumstances, who better to turn to than the EFRA Committee? As usual, its Chair, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), made his thoughtful and well-considered contribution earlier, but the Committee’s recent report urged the Government to update their buying standards for food into the new decade, address outdated standards on nutrition and animal welfare, and close loopholes in the current rules. The report also expresses disappointment that the Government do not use the GBSF as a mechanism to promote buying British within the public sector, as is the norm within public bodies in countries such as France.

Let me say a word about two specific sectors. There is insufficient time to do justice to lamb and poultry, but there are a range of issues affecting dairy. We all hope that the new dairy code of conduct will be successful and ensure the fairness that many people feel has been lacking. We will be watching closely, but I fear that it may have to be revisited yet again. There are also workforce challenges. A recent survey by the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers has revealed that almost one third of dairy farmers would consider leaving the industry due to a lack of labour, with 63% of dairy farmers struggling to recruit in the past five years. On their behalf, can I ask the Minister whether DEFRA is considering supporting the inclusion of dairy technicians in the next review of the Migratory Advisory Committee’s shortage of occupation list?

I turn now to the pig sector, which has had a really hard time. It is not all the fault of the Minister on this occasion—there is African swine fever in China, a surfeit of cheap pork in Europe and skyrocketing feed costs—but it is disappointing to hear that the percentage of British pork on the shelves has fallen in two of our major supermarkets, which is not helpful. Alarming figures suggest that specialist pig farms are expecting to see an 80% decline in average income between 2019-20 to 2020-21. The National Pig Association has described it as a perfect storm.

Some of the problems were indeed down to the post-Brexit export problems caused by the Government, but at its peak, a backlog of 100,000 pigs awaiting slaughter were housed in temporary accommodation on UK farms, which pushed up carcase weights and led to swingeing price discounts imposed by processers. I understand that the pig sector has approached the Government to call for sector-specific support, as was delivered to dairy farmers at the start of the pandemic, and I would be grateful to hear what consideration the Minister is giving to that request.

Let me finally mention our biggest challenge of all: climate and nature. We very much welcome the National Farmers Union’s commitment to reach net zero by 2040, and we want to see more support for farmers to reduce their emissions. That is why it is so important that we get ELM right and make it accessible in good time. British agriculture has to be on the front foot and continue to demonstrate positive progress. We will work with farmers to do anything that we can, and we recognise the efforts that are being made. Be it the dairy road map or Arla’s climate checks initiative, we can see people working hard throughout the farming and processing sector to get the advances that we all need.

There are indeed many paths to a sustainable future. A report from the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission in January made a powerful case for an agroecological approach that many will find attractive. Finally, we await part 2 of Henry Dimbleby’s report with keen interest. The country should not have gone without a food strategy for a decade. It will be fascinating to see how palatable the Government find his recommendations. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect it?

We believe that the meat and dairy industries, with the right support and help, will play a key role in achieving the necessary climate and nature targets in the future. I look forward to working with everyone in the industry to achieve that. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to take part in this important debate.

15:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani, and to take part in this debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby). British meat and dairy products have a really good reputation for quality, built on high animal welfare standards, strong environmental protections, traceability and sustainability. This Government will always support our farmers and producers, not only during Great British Beef Week.

It is great to be in a room full of such enthusiasts for their own local products. I will not, however, judge between Angus cattle and South Devon cattle, both of which we have kept at home. Other products are available and are kept by the farmers in the constituencies of those in this room. It is good to hear the enthusiasm in the room for buying local, buying sustainable and buying British. It is encouraging that, despite the challenges of the pandemic, and aside from the recent difficulties in the pig sector, generally our meat and dairy markets remain relatively strong, with good prices for milk, poultry, beef and especially lamb, which has been at 10-year highs since the beginning of this year.

I will not have time to respond to every issue raised, but I briefly mention the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who raised the problem of re-tagging animals moving from GB to NI. This is not required, as I am sure he knows, for animals going for slaughter only, but rather for breeding animals. We are aware of the burdens on those moving livestock and are working closely with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs where we can to try to minimise those issues taking place at the moment.

We heard about a desire to buy British from many Members, and about the commitment that some of our supermarkets have shown to selling British-sourced meat and dairy products. I was grateful to be able to speak to many representatives from our supermarkets on a call last week, specifically, in fact, about pork. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) made a thoughtful speech about the interrelationships in the rural supply chain. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) was keen to support farm shops and, as ever, the fishing industry in her constituency in doing more direct selling to customers.

We are really ambitious, as a Government. We had a manifesto commitment that we want people at home and abroad lining up to buy British. We are working closely with the AHDB, and Members may have noticed that we had a number of successful campaigns during the pandemic, including Milk Your Moments, which is slightly more modern but just as good as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—“Go to work on an egg”.

On trade, the successful conclusion of negotiations with the EU with a deal, ratified only yesterday, based on zero tariffs and zero quotas means that we can now develop new relationships with our trading partners in the EU and globally. We are keen to grow our markets through the Department for International Trade’s new Open Doors campaign and increased market support and help in this area. We have a great agreement with Japan, which opens the Japanese market to UK exports of lamb and beef for the first time in two decades.

It was good to hear the level of ambition from the Cotswolds, represented so ably by a farmer, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown); from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who spoke specifically about the Indonesian market—I will follow up with him directly on some of the points he raised; and from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), who particularly mentioned the cheese that he is keen to export.

The Government are clear, to reassure the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and other Members, that we are not compromising on the UK’s high environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety standards. The strong British reputation for our food is the basis on which we intend to sell our produce, both at home and abroad.

On other points—my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) mentioned the possibility of looking at a mobile abattoir scheme. I have spoken to him about that before, and am keen to do so again. We are piloting such a scheme, and look forward to learning from that and if it is appropriate to roll out more widely. A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), spoke about labelling—an important issue for all the food we sell. We spent time this morning on a complicated Statutory Instrument on changes to labelling. We will talk more about that this year as we go into consultation on labelling, and I encourage him to get involved.

On the environment, the PM has declared that tackling climate change and preserving biodiversity is the UK’s number one foreign policy priority. He saw this first hand when he visited a livestock farm in Derbyshire last week. Achieving net zero for 2050 is an absolute priority for this Government. We were the first major economy to bring this target into law, and this is just the beginning. We acknowledge the ambition of the farming industry in this space, and have great examples of UK dairy companies and others leading the way on this. There is a great deal that the livestock sector can, and will do, to help move towards these ambitious targets.

As many Members have said, we have one of the most efficient and sustainable systems of livestock in the world. Reducing production of our own, increasingly carbon efficient products, and importing less carbon efficient products from overseas, is clearly not the solution. Nor is it sensible to import feeds grown in ways that are damaging to the global environment just to fit our targets—[Interruption.] I will not give way, I have a great deal to get through—I apologise. New feeds will be of a real benefit, and good work is being done to understand ruminant digestion and target both nutrition use and reduce methane emissions.

We must be honest about possible trade-offs with animal welfare when we have this debate. We need to do further work on the use of nitrogen fertilizers and nitrogen fixing mixes in grass. It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton talking passionately about herbal leys, which I would echo if I had longer. Carbon sequestered by hedgerows and on farm woodland can help meet our targets, though some of that will not be recognised for many years. It must be recognised that well-managed livestock provides huge benefits, such as supporting biodiversity, protecting the character of some of our most beautiful landscapes, and creating employment for rural communities. It provides important nutrition as well, and we must remember that food is at the heart of what we do. We recognise the delicate balance between these outcomes and the potential environmental trade-offs, and will ensure that decision making is evidence led, but takes into account the full sweep of trade-offs.

I need to let the hon. Lady finish the debate, but I will say briefly that, despite the views of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), targeted support for our farmers is definitely the way to go. Paying people for public goods is a much better way of optimising the environmental solutions than merely sticking with CAP. Henry Dimbleby will report in July. We look forward to a major conversation across the country about buying British, buying local and buying sustainable, and all other aspects of food production, until the Government’s response in December to his report. This has been a great debate, and I thank hon. Members for taking part.

15:59

[Selaine Saxby]

I thank the Minister for her response, and hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions. It is good to see widespread support for British meat and dairy farmers, as well as the Government’s environmental goals. The debate has recognised the importance of our global, as well as local markets for our fantastic British produce. I am sure today’s debate has whetted our appetites, and we cannot wait to dash out and buy something British for our evening meal.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered British meat and dairy products.

16:00

Sitting suspended.

Online Scams: Consumer Protection

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Westminster Hall

16:05

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members need to clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall throughout the debate.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered protecting consumers from online scams.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani.

Last year, my constituents Mr and Mrs Biggs came to see me at one of my constituency surgeries. They were asking for my help because scammers had stolen £30,000 of their savings. How had that happened? Well, a friend of theirs had spotted an advert on Google for a bond that, when compared with other products on the market, seemed to offer a reasonable rate of return over a three-year period. They called the telephone line provided to discuss the product further. The bond was being offered by a reputable firm, Goldman Sachs, and it was advertised on Google, which presumably had done its due diligence before accepting the advert, so my constituents invested. Only it was not Goldman Sachs that they had invested with, and the bond did not exist. Instead, Mr and Mrs Biggs, like many people up and down the country, had become victims of a very convincing clone scam. They had transferred £30,000 into the bank account of the perpetrators of that scam.

Clone scams exploit people’s trust in reputable brands by carefully mimicking their websites and online presence and even researching and impersonating their sales managers. When they also carry the stamp of an advert, be that on Google, Facebook or any other online platform, many consumers believe that the platform carrying the advert has checked out the company that posted it and that therefore it is an official advert from the company in question. But the truth is that that is rarely the case, because online platforms currently have no legal obligations to protect users against fake or fraudulent content, and that is the primary issue that I would like to address in the debate today.

In the last 18 months, we have been living through a public health emergency, but the pandemic has also had a really profound effect on the way adversaries operate online. We have seen everything: nation state espionage on vaccine programmes, the spread of misinformation and a huge increase in online scams. We have seen fake personal protective equipment, and phishing sites posing as councils giving out covid grants, or sending fake messages about parcel deliveries to try to download software on to victims’ phones or to direct them to give their bank details to scammers. It shows how sophisticated the world of online scams has become, how fast criminals can adapt to new situations and how easy it is for people to be taken in.

Action Fraud figures show that, in the year to June 2020, 85% of all fraud was cyber-enabled. Reports of clone scams increased by nearly 30% between March and April—just in the space of a month—last year. Victims lost more than £78 million to clone scams in 2020. It is hard to put those sorts of figures in the context of individuals, but the average loss for victims is about £45,000. That could be the deposit for someone’s home, the money that they were saving to start their own business or expand it, or savings for retirement or to pass on to their children. But it is gone, and often with no compensation.

Fortunately, in the end, my constituents, Mr and Mrs Biggs, were compensated. That was not without a fight and the resulting stress and anxiety. Many other victims are not compensated. In 2018, The Telegraph, which has done some really excellent work on this issue, reported that, in the previous year, only 25% of the funds lost to authorised push payment or APP scams, in which the victim transfers money to the bank account of the criminal, were successfully returned to victims.

These figures are shocking, before we even take into account the immense psychological and emotional toll on victims and their families. Scammers take advantage of people’s fears, hopes and anxieties, and they motivate them to transfer large sums of money on this basis. Anyone who has helped a victim of these crimes knows how heart-wrenching the ordeal is for them. The feeling of anxiety and powerlessness experienced when pleading with banks and law enforcement to help recover life savings is a tremendous unseen harm caused by online scams.

Recent analysis by consumer champion Which? found that there are 300 to 350 fraud reports every week in which victims show signs of severe emotional distress. One such account from Which? details the case of an 80-year-old gentleman who could not sleep for weeks after losing his retirement savings to scammers. The person behind the scam pretended to be a real investment company, assuming the name of a real investment manager at that company, and ultimately stole £50,000 from the victim, even after he checked their credentials online.

This scam, like the others I have mentioned, began as an advert at the top of Google’s search results. TV, print and radio advertising are all governed by a comprehensive set of rules, yet very little exists to govern online advertising. The majority of people now go online to research and buy everything, from pensions to pet food, holidays to houses, shoes to savings products, but it is for each individual platform to decide what, if any, verification checks it wants to make on businesses taking out adverts on its service.

I do not mean to imply that platforms are doing nothing. Following ongoing discussions with the Financial Conduct Authority, Google, for example, has updated its financial services policy to make financial services advertisers subject to its business operations verification process. I followed the link that Google provided in its letter to the FCA to understand more about what the verification process entails. The policy states:

“Advertisers may be selected to complete business operations verification if, for example, the advertising behavior has been identified as unclear or their ad content is deemed as potentially misleading.

Advertisers whose accounts were suspended due to a violation of our Google Ads policies may also be requested to undergo business operations verification as part of the account suspension appeals and remediation process.

Advertisers who are required to complete business operations verification will be notified and given 21 days to submit the verification form. In certain circumstances, we may pause advertisers’ accounts immediately when business operations verification is initiated. This means that advertisers’ ads will not be able to serve until they are able to complete the program successfully.

Advertiser accounts may be paused if the advertiser’s business model is unclear and we suspect that their advertising or business practices may cause physical or monetary harm to users. Non-exhaustive examples include: misrepresenting yourself in your ad content; offering financial products or services under false pretences; or offering unauthorized customer support services on behalf of third parties.

Once the verification form is completed and reviewed by Google, advertiser’s accounts that do not meet the requirements of this verification program outlined below will be suspended with a 7 day notice period. Note that if any further clarification or information submitted to Google during this 7 day notice period is insufficient to verify the account, Google may suspend the account immediately.”

So, Google “may” carry out checks, or they may not. They “may” pause the adverts at the start of the verification process, or they may not. Advertisers “may” get 21 days leeway before proper checks are completed. Advertisers found not to meet the requirements of the verification process will have seven days to provide further information to verify the account. If they cannot provide that, Google “may” decide to suspend the account immediately, but presumably they also may not. I know politicians are often accused of using non-committal language and trying to evade a straight answer, but this is a masterclass. It might be time that we in this place send the strong signal that that approach is not enough to protect our constituents, who are definitely being scammed out of their life savings.

If a verification process is to be effective, it needs to take place before any adverts are served. Leaving them up for 21 days while checks are completed provides a free-for-all for scammers. An experiment undertaken last year by Which? shows why. It created a fake water brand, Remedii, and an accompanying online service offering pseudo health and hydration advice, called Natural Hydration. It advertised both using Facebook and Google. Which? reported that

“With barely any checking, Google promoted ads for our website and fake mineral water to users who searched for popular terms, such as ‘bottled water’. Our ads gained nearly 100,000 impressions over a month.”

That shows how fast fake ads can reach a wide audience. A lot of damage can be done in 21 days.

Just this week, in a user survey published by Which?, a third of victims who reported a fraudulent ad on Google said that the advert was not taken down by the search engine, while a quarter of victims who reported an advert on Facebook that resulted in them being scammed said the advert was not removed by the social media site. Those companies earn billions of pounds from advertising. Yesterday, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, reported record results, with a 163% increase in profits. Alphabet’s executives have attributed that rise to an increase in people using Google’s online services and interacting with their online adverts. I do not think it unreasonable to require those companies to spend some of their money on helping to protect people from the harm caused by fraudulent adverts, especially given that adverts are targeted at users based on their recent web activity and behaviour. Fraudulent ads, based on a user’s interests or concerns, are effectively pushed towards them by online platforms, which act as enablers for the scammers.

I will briefly tackle the issue of compensation for victims, which is, at the moment, a minefield. In my constituency, I have seen cases involving victims who have found it incredibly difficult to make their claim heard by their bank, prolonging the painful battle to recoup their losses. Those people are forced into a position in which the odds of a successful outcome are low, and they often emerge at the other end with a growing distrust for our regulatory system.

The Financial Ombudsman Service website puts it very clearly:

“When it comes to payments that customers have authorised themselves, the starting point at law is that their bank won’t be liable for the customer’s loss, even when it’s the result of a scam.”

We might say, “Fair enough. It is not the bank that’s at fault. They are merely acting on the instructions of their customer.” What about the companies who expose users to those fraudulent ads, however? Those companies actually target the adverts at users based on their interests, and make billions from doing so. Are we honestly saying they should have no liability, and that there should be no redress for users who are targeted with ads placed by criminals? How can that be fair?

We urgently need to tackle the issue of online financial harms. I asked the Home Secretary about this matter when she gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. She said:

“We are actually doing some work right now through the economic crime board that I chair with the Chancellor—I chaired it just last week. If you speak to many financial regulators and to the financial services sector, they are equally concerned about this. One of the key outcomes that we are now discussing and picking up across Government is: how are we going to make the online harms Bill much stronger, and how are we going to tackle many of these online advertising platforms that come up through search engines, social media and other forms of electronic communications?

We still have a way to go, but what I can say—and I am very grateful to colleagues in the Treasury on this as well—is that the level of focus and attention to this issue definitely means that it will be given a huge push, a significant push, because, quite frankly, economic crime is now becoming one of the most predominant challenges when it comes to law enforcement but also criminality.”

I could not agree with her more.

I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on how the Government propose to tackle the issue. Will financial harms become part of the online harms Bill as the FCA, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and Which? are asking for it to be? If not, will she set out what they plan to do instead? In either case, can she go any further towards providing a timetable for action?

We have a really urgent problem affecting thousands of people every year. We must sort it quickly. I am confident that we can, because I know from knocking around the cyber-security industry for most of the past decade that the UK has always been a global leader in cyber-security and tackling cyber-crime. I have seen our strategy grow, mature and evolve as the threat has. Fraudulent online adverts are a real threat to all our constituents. It is not on the horizon; it is here already, and it has been for several years. The alarm bells are sounding, and the problem is growing, so let us grip it now and offer our constituents the protection they all deserve.

16:21

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) on securing the debate and on the powerful case she made. The Pensions Scams Industry Group estimates that 40,000 people, like Mr and Mrs Biggs, were scammed out of pension savings in the five years after the introduction of the pension freedoms and lost £10 billion between them. As she explained, losing pension savings after a lifetime of work is a devastating experience, and she is right that most of the problem is online. In September, Aviva told the Work and Pensions Committee that in the previous six months—since the start of lockdown—it had identified 27 fake websites purporting to be Aviva trying to defraud pension-age customers of their investments.

As the hon. Member said, the Government have the chance to tackle this enormous problem in the forthcoming online safety Bill, but it appears, extraordinarily, that financial harms are to be carved out of it. I hope that the Minister can encourage us that that might be reconsidered. We have heard a separate announcement of a consultation on online advertising, but that covers only part of the problem. A call for evidence on online advertising closed a year ago, but as yet nothing at all seems to have come out of that, and asking us to wait for yet further consultation before anything is done would be hopeless. The FSCS, the FCA and, I understand, the Governor of the Bank of England are urging that scams should be included in the online safety Bill, so I hope the Minister can encourage us on that.

16:22

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani, and a real pleasure to respond to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) on securing a debate on this important subject. I am delighted that the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) was able to contribute as well. First, may I say that our sympathies are with Mr and Mrs Biggs? My hon. Friend articulated all too well the losses that they have suffered. They have had to endure a terrible experience that, sadly, is experienced by many people, and we heard from the right hon. Gentleman the scale of some of these frauds.

The Government absolutely recognise not only the scale and the impact that fraud can have and is having on victims, but the impact of bringing perpetrators to justice. According to the latest figures, fraud accounted for over a third of all estimated crime in the year ending September 2020 and, as my hon. Friend articulated all too well, behind the statistics there is the trail of misery that these losses can encompass. Victims suffer both financial loss and emotional harm. There can be consequences for their livelihoods, their homes and their families’ futures. We also know that the money that has been stolen from them can often go on to fund other serious and organised crimes.

As this year has demonstrated, more and more people are online at home, and we are acutely aware of the importance of staying safe in the virtual world. We are focusing the Government’s efforts on tackling fraud and online scams in three key areas: prevention; catching the criminals responsible; and supporting the victims of these despicable crimes.

Prevention involves not just victims, the industry and tech companies, but all of us. That is how we will be able to tackle these crimes. We must ensure the private and public sectors prioritise preventing these types of frauds. That is critical to preventing the harms that we have heard about and the economic damage to our businesses, and disrupting the organised criminals who perpetrate these crimes. To do that, the Government are taking steps to ensure that fewer people fall foul of these scams.

The National Cyber Security Centre has been at the forefront of that effort. Last year, it launched a new suspicious email reporting service, which makes it easier for the public to highlight suspicious emails and websites. The service has already led to more than 5.5 million reports, and more than 41,000 scams and 81,000 websites have been taken down.

Importantly, we also need to help the public spot these scams. We are working with banks and many other organisations to help people spot when a scam appears, a dodgy text message appears on their phone or an email appears in their inbox so that they can protect themselves. That is in addition to the wider work with the public and private sectors.

Last year, we launched a new gov.uk page to help keep the public safe online. I recommend it to colleagues, who can perhaps disseminate it through their constituencies. We know that, sadly, in the midst of the pandemic, with the enormous human cost that it has had for so many people, fraudsters are seeking to take advantage of even that. We have been working with partners from across law enforcement and health to track and mitigate the threat of fraud around the pandemic. That has included a series of public messaging campaigns to inform the public of fraudsters who are seeking to exploit the vaccine roll-out and tell them how we can all remain vigilant against such attempts.

We are working with industry to try to cut off these scams before they bear fruit on the internet. We have been leading work to develop bilateral fraud charters with our banking, telecommunications and accountancy partners. They will bring greater clarity, transparency and accountability to the actions that each sector will take to target harden their systems and protect their customers from fraud. An example of that is the specialist Dedicated Card and Payment Crime Unit, which is a police unit that targets and disrupts credit card fraud and demonstrates the collaboration between UK Finance, the City of London police, the Metropolitan police and the Home Office. It is also working to help online companies take advantage of its services, in particular on the pernicious ways fraudsters are opening up their fraud—for example, through the recruitment of young people to become money mules. There is another great piece of work with the telecoms companies, whereby if somebody receives a suspicious text, they can forward it to 7726, which will enable the telecoms companies to look at it and see whether it should be removed.

The response to online scams and all fraud demands a collaborative, innovative response to keep pace with the changing threat and new technologies. We continue to work closely with industry to drive progress.

My hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman understandably raised the landmark online safety Bill, and they asked whether fraud will be included in its scope. The new law will impose a duty of care on tech companies. Although some companies have taken positive steps already, the Government are clear that more needs to be done. In relation to the specificity of the online safety Bill, there are ongoing discussions.

Of course, what has been said in this debate will be listened to, and the concerns that have been raised will be reflected upon. However, in the more immediate term, my hon. Friend has chosen a timely moment in which to have this debate, because only tomorrow, my noble Friend Baroness Williams of Trafford, along with other ministerial colleagues, will meet with tech companies to discuss a voluntary set of principles for preventing fraud and protecting the public on their platforms. The Government are having productive—we hope—but also insistent conversations with the tech industry as to what it should be doing in order to protect members of the public. I listened to my hon. Friend’s deconstruction—I think that is a fair word—of Google’s policy with great interest, and I will commend it to my noble Friend the Baroness before she goes into tomorrow’s meeting.

We are committed to tackling the problem of online fraud, and are considering every possible approach, including legislative and non-legislative means. As has already been mentioned, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is leading work on the online advertising programme, which will consider, among other things, the role of online advertising in perpetrating fraud. DCMS is also carrying out broader and longer-term efforts on digital identity and data protection, and as my hon. Friend has mentioned, in February this year, the Home Secretary chaired a meeting of the Economic Crime Strategic Board, which brought together people from across the public sector and industry. At that meeting, an ambitious new framework for a fraud action plan was agreed to drive forward and improve our collective response to these crimes. The full plan will be published later this year and will consider, among other things, how we can include all sectors to protect the public from fraud.

Law enforcement colleagues clearly play a crucial role in this subject, as do intelligence colleagues. We are considering all routes, including legislation, to give them the tools they need to go after fraudsters and protect those who are vulnerable to these harmful crimes. We have asked the Law Commission to review the existing corporate criminal liability laws for economic crime, including fraud, money laundering and false accounting, and we are hoping to hear from them next year. We will, of course, consider any findings that will benefit counter-fraud efforts, and we continue to work with regulators and industry to consider what more can be done.

However, as my hon. Friend has set out, this is about not just the financial impact on victims, but the emotional and other experiences that people have. We understand that reimbursement can be a key part of helping people deal with those experiences, and are working with the financial sector to ensure that as many victims as possible are either able to claim their money back, or are reimbursed. We are working particularly closely with the Treasury to explore what can be done to promote greater consistency across the sector. We are also working with national and local policing leads to support victims of these terrible crimes. The National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit, based within Action Fraud, is also supporting victims, helping them to recover and protect themselves against becoming victims again.

As this debate draws to a close, let me again thank my hon. Friend for having raised these important points in a timely manner. I very much appreciate the points that she and the right hon. Gentleman have made, both about tackling fraudsters and about supporting victims of these crimes. They have my assurance that the Government take these threats very seriously, and it is through working together and taking a collaborative approach—helping the public to understand where there may be a scam, but also working with tech companies to ensure that these adverts and other things that have been described are cut off at source—that we will help to stop these frauds from happening in the first place.

Question put and agreed to.

16:34

Sitting suspended.

District Heat Networks

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Westminster Hall

16:50

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the hybrid arrangements. Members who are participating physically and virtually must be present at the beginning of the debate and stay for the entire debate. I remind Members who are participating virtually that they will be visible at all times, not just to each other, but to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. I ask Members who are attending physically to wear masks until they are speaking. I call Elliot Colburn to move the motion.

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered district heat networks.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in Westminster Hall, Ms Ghani. I am grateful to the Speaker’s Office for granting me this debate, as some of my Carshalton and Wallington residents, particularly those living in the New Mill Quarter development in Hackbridge, have been adversely affected by district heat networks. In my efforts to support them, I have encountered many issues.

For the benefit of the House, I should briefly explain what a district heat network is. They are designed to take energy from a local energy source and distribute it to consumers through a series of highly insulated pipes. A common source of the energy is incinerators or so-called energy-from-waste facilities, as their proponents like to call them. That is the model used in my constituency.

When the Lib Dems gleefully secured the incinerator in Beddington that they fought so hard to deliver, one of their most common arguments was that the waste heat from the incinerator would be used to heat local homes. The idea was that highly insulated pipes would be laid, water would be heated at an energy transfer station, using heat from the incinerator, and sent along the pipes to residents’ homes, providing a reliable and supposedly clean heating source at a reasonable price, all run by an arm’s length company called Sutton Decentralised Energy Network—SDEN—which is wholly owned by the council. The reality is a system that has been dogged with failure, residents being ripped off and the complete absence of any action or even empathy from the council. I will expand on that point later.

My central point is that this relatively new form of energy production is almost entirely unregulated. When residents have problems, they have very little in the way of consumer protections or rights. I hope I can persuade the Government to fix that. The Government have already launched a consultation into the networks, which I contributed to, and have made space for discussions about the networks in the design of the Green Heat Network Fund. The consultation describes the heat networks as “central heating for cities”. When someone’s central heating breaks down in a traditional home, one family is affected. When a heat network breaks down, the entire network is affected, impacting hundreds or even thousands of people. As the consultation states, a heat network

“avoids the need for individual heating solutions in every building.”

Therefore, it encounters problems that will impact every building jointly. That is why there needs to be greater consumer protection.

I want to draw focus on several key themes today. The first is reliability. There have been extended delays in the SDEN system going live, meaning residents were until last month being provided with heat by the back-up boilers, which have proven less than reliable. By my count, judging from the contact I have had with residents from New Mill Quarter, in the past year, there have been nearly 20 hot water or heating outages, including over the cold winter months, leaving people without hot water or heating and putting vulnerable people at risk. On two occasions since December, the hot water and heating blackouts have required a call-out from the London Fire Brigade due to problems in the back-up boiler room.

The situation is not confined to Hackbridge. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy heat networks consumer survey of 2017 found that a greater proportion of heat network customers experience loss of heating compared with customers not served by these networks. A report by the Competition and Markets Authority showed reliability concerns as a consistent theme of customer complaints on heat networks, particularly citing unplanned interruptions.

I am guessing that most of us live in a home heated by a boiler. For those who do, breakdowns are a rare occurrence. For New Mill Quarter residents, they are very common. Even if those of us who live in a home heated by a boiler are dogged with problems, we can vote with our feet, and switch provider or change our system and replace the boiler. That option is not available to those living in a district heat network. Residents in Hackbridge were sold a system that they were told would be 100%, 24/7 reliable. There are marketing documents to prove that. [Interruption.]

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Order. I believe all hon. Members present have a proxy vote, so there is no need for us to suspend for a Division in the House. Please continue.

[Elliot Colburn]

Thank you, Ms Ghani.

In a public meeting that the council tried—and failed—to keep me out of, despite my calling for it in the first place, residents were told that they should have somehow known that 100% did not mean 100% and that, inevitably, there would be problems. During that same meeting, residents expressed how they could never get through to someone when an outage occurred, were never updated and had no recourse to compensation because there were no obligations on SDEN to do anything, due to lack of regulation. The meeting ended with residents very unhappy, having received no answers and a pitiful compensation offer that did not make up for the stress and concern caused by the constant outages. Nor was there any hope that things would get better; indeed, outages continued well after the meeting took place.

The second issue I want to address is customer satisfaction. Residents in New Mill Quarter experience higher than average heating bills. I conducted a survey of those residents to acquire evidence of their experience. Some 71% of residents told me that their bills were a lot higher than before they moved into New Mill Quarter; that figure rose to nearly 100% when including those who said their bills were somewhat higher.

The pricing structure of SDEN is split into two categories: a variable rate, which is the usual cost of daily rate and usage; and a standing charge, which covers maintenance and repairs. However, the New Mill Quarter Residents Association calculated that the pricing model that SDEN uses as a basis for its costs is nearly £3 million higher for the estate than the next available alternative over the contract term. I can hear the Liberal Democrats shrieking at me—incidentally, they were so keen to keep information about the pricing model quiet and out of the public eye that it took freedom of information requests and a ruling from the Information Commissioner to get that information out of them. They would say that the costs are high because they include things such as insurance and system maintenance, and that is something that we mere mortals who have a boiler must pay for separately. But the numbers just do not stack up. There is evidence to suggest that residents are being completely ripped off. Some residents are looking into private litigation, and I do not think it beyond the realms of possibility that the matter is investigated by a series of Government Departments. Things are that serious.

The overall customer satisfaction with district heat networks is also in question. I detailed the service issues on the estate, which I will not repeat. It is worth noting that, on average, district heat network customers have lower satisfaction rates than customers of more traditional forms of heating. Despite being used as a flagship example of a nation embracing heat networks, Sweden has the lowest heating satisfaction of all five European countries surveyed in a recent 2021 study. The country has a history of consumer distrust of district heating operators, due to fear of being taken advantage of in a natural monopoly.

Potentially one the harshest elements of the district heat network for residents in New Mill Quarter is the totally restrictive and monopolistic nature of the project. There are no boilers in the properties, so there is no ability to switch energy providers. SDEN is the only option. The fundamental market freedoms that have helped make our country thrive are being denied there, and elsewhere in other district heating networks. There is no incentive for SDEN to help reduce the high energy bills, because there is no threat of their customers switching providers.

New Mill Quarter residents are trapped in high energy bill contracts. When I asked residents as part of my survey if they would like to change providers, 91% said yes and the remaining 9% were unsure. Not a single person wanted to stick. When asked if they were aware of SDEN and the obligation to use it when they moved in to their new property, 35% of residents said that they were not, and 13% were unsure. It is clear that many residents were not aware that they would be trapped in the scheme before they moved in, and an overwhelming majority would support freedom in the market to choose.

I am a Conservative because I believe in the principles of the free market. Competition and choice have been shown consistently to drive down prices while driving up reliability. Monopolies have no incentive to do either, because there is no chance of their losing their customer base. Of course there are other natural monopolies in the UK, such as water, for example; but those negative impacts are mitigated through tough regulation including an industry regulator, and consumer protections.

The final point that I want to make about the networks, at least in Hackbridge, is that the project was doomed from the start, owing partly to a faulty business model. The freedom of information requests and Information Commissioner’s Office complaints have revealed that SDEN was built on the back of a complete fantasy in terms of its financial and business modelling. That is probably why the council worked so hard to keep it secret. SDEN is not making any money. In fact, it is in a dire financial situation, and residents are the ones being asked to pay the price. It is really an issue of the customer base.

SDEN is still, even now after all the problems, being touted as a massive success of the delusional, out-of-touch and uncaring Lib Dem-run council. We were told that the incinerator would mean a district heat network that would power potentially thousands of homes, even with the potential to retrofit existing properties to connect to it, giving residents a so-called greener energy alternative. In truth, that was never going to happen. The logistical nightmare of getting the pipes laid and the infrastructure in place even to heat the New Mill Quarter new build development, which is an estate of just over 800 homes, was cripplingly expensive. So it was only ever really going to be an option for new builds, and it only really happened in New Mill Quarter because as the crow flies from the estate to the incinerator there are no obstructions in the way, so laying the pipes was relatively easy.

However, it is not as if developers want to be connected in the first place. The council essentially had to strong-arm Barratt Homes into accepting SDEN and is now trying to force other developers in the borough to accept it too. On more than one occasion it has been caught with egg on its face because it failed to persuade others, including the local hospital, to become customers. That has caused real financial difficulty. Owing to the delays in getting connected and failure of the back-up boilers, in addition to failing to find new customers, the council has to foot the bill for the high gas consumption costs. That, in my opinion, offers a much better explanation for why residents’ bills are so high. It is not that hard to follow the money. The council has to pay a high cost for the gas and residents have high energy bills: put two and two together. Even now that the landfill gas engines at the incinerator site have been switched on, I have it on good authority that they are not enough to heat the homes in New Mill Quarter, so a lot of the work is still being done by back-up boilers. It is going to take yet another two years before the incinerator turbines come on line.

Looking to the future, even if the system was reliable, the incinerator was connected and working well, and prices were reasonable, it would not change the fact that the business model is still fatally flawed. There is something glaringly obvious coming down the line that I fear has been overlooked. That is the fact that the Government’s own resources and waste strategy calls for the phasing out of incinerators—or so-called energy from waste facilities—as a form of waste management, as we look further up the waste hierarchy. The less waste we produce and the more existing waste can be recycled or reused, the less necessary disposal through incineration becomes.

What happens then? The day will come when not enough waste will be produced to burn, and consequently power the heat networks. What, then, happens to the residents who get heat from them? The back-up boilers are not the answer, as has been demonstrated, because they cannot cope with the stress of maintaining an entire heat network. There can only possibly be two options. One is to import waste to keep the incinerator and the supply going, which means more vehicle movements and more pollution, and scrapping the fantasy that it is some kind of green alternative. The other is an expensive, time-consuming and in many cases potentially impossible retrofit of an alternative energy supply. The networks are not future-proofed at all and it may be 20 or 30 years away but the day will come when the failure to future-proof could lead to an even greater problem for residents down the line.

I have covered a lot of ground today, but I hope that I have demonstrated the seriousness of the problems facing New Mill Quarter residents, who feel ignored and abandoned by their ward councillors, the council at large and SDEN. SDEN’s problems are not unique, although I imagine some of the dodgy dealings might be. However, tougher regulation is clearly needed, as examples of what I have described can be found across the country. At the very least, consumers need to be given greater protections and there should be a regulator on a statutory footing, which must compel the pricing model to be on par with the market average. There should be a 24/7 helpline to report faults, a compensation package for every outage, the ability to escalate complaints to a higher organisation, and so on.

I also urge the Government to look at whether these monopolies are a good idea at all. The inability to choose a provider is not just unfair; we are also heading to a point where the source of energy might not even be available in a couple of decades. It is not fair of our generation to burden a future generation with tackling that problem. I urge the Government to let SDEN be a lesson in what not to do. Let us not resign residents in Hackbridge or anywhere else to this poor state of affairs.

17:05

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. In preparing for this afternoon’s debate, I looked back over my records and discovered that the first time I raised concerns about inadequate consumer protection for customers of district heat networks was in early 2016, a matter of months after I was first elected to this House.

In some ways, the situation has moved on significantly since that date. I recall at the time making the case for greater protection for heat network customers, only to be told by Ministers that statutory regulation would not be appropriate, and that it risked strangling an emerging industry with red tape. There is now at least a consensus that further regulation is required in this area.

I remember pressing the Competition and Markets Authority to open an area of investigation into the industry, only to be told it had no plans to do so. The CMA eventually carried out a market study that determined that many customers of privately operated communal heating schemes are not well served on price and service, and it recommended a statutory regime governing the regulation of heat networks.

Yet, taken in the round, there has been a tangible lack of progress when it comes to doing what is necessary to ensure that heat network customers are adequately protected. That should be a concern to each of us, but it should particularly concern the Government, not only because of their avowed aim to keep customer bills as low as possible, but because low levels of consumer confidence in heat networks, born of consistently poor service and expensive bills, will make it that much harder for the UK to decarbonise heat and reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions.

In the time I have today, I do not intend to delve into the enormous challenge presented by the urgent need to decarbonise heat, and what more the Government must do to meet that challenge, not least because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) will do so with his customary rigour and incisiveness when he responds from the Front Bench. I do want to make the point that we will struggle as a country to take the public with us when making the case for the benefits of large-scale heat network deployment if we continue to put off addressing the systemic problems in the sector.

It is true that for many customers, heat networks offer an efficient supply of heat and hot water, at prices that are close to or lower than other sources of supply, such as gas and electricity. I am sure the Minister will cite evidence indicating that the majority of customers are satisfied with their systems. However, it is beyond dispute that a significant minority of customers of privately owned heat network schemes, including thousands of my constituents, given the number of new build developments in my constituency, are still not getting a fair deal.

Whether it is unreasonably high tariffs; significant variation in unit prices and average bills, not only between schemes but between customers on the same scheme; significant month-by-month variation on standing charges, which are often incredibly high; a lack of transparency in billing; or frequent outages that are the result of sub-standard or poorly installed equipment, far too many heat network customers are being badly let down.

As a voluntary consumer protection scheme, the Heat Trust does a good job. It is a welcome development that a growing number of sites are registering with it, but the protection it affords to customers on such sites are inherently limited. Similarly, the process of attempting to secure redress by means of a complaint to the energy ombudsman is time-consuming, constrained by the fact that the service deems issues such as heat price increases to be commercial decisions that it cannot adjudicate on. Of course, that is not available to customers on sites that, for whatever reason, have not registered with the Heat Trust.



The simple fact is that neither the trust nor the ombudsman is a substitute for providing heat network customers with the same degree of protection that is afforded to gas and electricity customers by means of formal regulation of the sector.

I say to the Minister: no more delay. The heat markets framework consultation closed on 1 June last year, and we have heard nothing since. Every month that passes without legislative action means yet more expensive bills and continued poor service for heat network customers at the sharp end of industry practice, who cannot afford to wait another year or two for the Government to provide them with the protection that they deserve.

I fully appreciate the demands on the Minister’s time, but I urge her to give the matter greater priority and, subsequently to this debate, to forcefully make the case for bringing forward the necessary legislation to introduce a regulatory framework for the sector as early as possible in the next parliamentary Session. In the interim, will she look again at what more the Department might do to cajole reluctant suppliers and operators to register all their communal heating schemes with the Heat Trust?

17:10

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you as Chair, Ms Ghani.

This is not the first time that I have spoken in a Westminster Hall debate on district heat networks. Such technologies are important for bringing green energy into ordinary people’s homes and making Britain carbon-neutral as soon as possible. However, as we have heard, work needs to be done to ensure that district heat networks provide not only energy efficiency, but cost efficiency. District heating providers must be brought under the control not just of formal regulators, but of consumers.

The Catford Green area of my constituency is home to leaseholders, private renters and social tenants. All those residents are locked into a heating scheme that is more expensive and less functional than the standard heating system—they are paying more money for less energy. I am sure that all colleagues agree that that does not make sense, but they have no choice.

One constituent told me that he found out about the contract with E.ON only on the day he moved into the flat that he had just bought. Unable to shop around, he feels trapped in a contract that suits his building’s owners’ finances, rather than his own. Another constituent in the same estate told me that the nature of the contract meant that she could not opt out of bills when her flat was empty. She went travelling for a few months but still had to pay a minimum of £30 to £40 a month for energy that she did not consume. Catford Green residents have also reported frequent power outages with a lack of acknowledgment or compensation from E.ON. Again, that is not fair and not right.

District heat networks clearly need regulation. With an uncompetitive market, consumers are being overcharged for a low-quality service. The current Government position of relying on voluntary membership of the Heat Trust network cannot continue. Regulation must be enforced by the Government with exactly the same expectations that are placed on other parts of the energy industry, and the same consequences for breaching standards. There must be a cap on the standing charges that companies rack up, and greater transparency in pricing tariffs. Customer service must improve and customers such as my constituents in Catford Green must be listened to and respected.

Like me, the residents I spoke to are committed to reducing their environmental impact. They support the objectives of district heating, but their valid points about high costs and low standards must be addressed to ensure the effective progress of this innovative technology. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they will look at this; they must regulate the service. My residents deserve it, and so do the public.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Mr Alan Brown.

17:13

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Ghani. You will be pleased to know that the word “resignation” does not appear once in my prepared notes.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing the debate; I should have realised that potentially it would relate to a constituency issue, rather than being a plug for district heating. He made his case well about the issues that his constituents are suffering, and there is no doubt that the Minister has to provide a robust response. We also heard from the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) about the need for a regulator and for consumer protections—that was certainly a theme common to all three speeches.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington highlighted the fact that energy from waste is causing a traffic movement issue. There is a proposed site next to my constituency where residents are concerned about movement and emissions. The point about there being no future-proofing is interesting, and it certainly seems that the local council has a lot of questions to answer. I must say that I was really shocked and surprised that it was not a Conservative council that the hon. Gentleman was laying into; he let slip at the end that it was a Lib Dem council.

Looking at the big picture for heating overall, we face conflicting problems when it comes to heating our homes. For too many people, fuel poverty is an issue, yet 85% of our homes rely on methane gas heating—a system that is cheaper than electricity and, for the most part, clearly very convenient, given that a boiler can be activated at leisure. That is illustrated by the fact that until it was recently overtaken by China, the UK was the biggest market for gas boilers in the world, but we know that cannot continue. We need to decarbonise, and we need plans, strategies and funding to get there.

The UK Government are good at soundbites and targets, but targets are meaningless without policies—for example, the target of 600,000 heat pump installations by the year 2028, from circa 20,000 a year right now. That means almost doubling the number every year from next year onwards. Without coherent policies and funding strategies to put that in place, it does not seem realistic, especially when we factor in that the installation cost for a full system is circa £15,000. Without grants or some sort of long-term route to market strategy, strong action is required for the Government to get heat pump installations in place.

The 10-point plan also has targets for carbon capture and storage from hydrogen production. We are still awaiting strategies for them, but district heating is not even mentioned in the document. In fact, district heating has not featured significantly enough in debates to date, which means today’s debate is very welcome. Looking forward, the reality is that if we are to decarbonise, we will have a rise in some form of district heating in some cases.

As far back as 2017, the then director of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy stated that

“whatever you do you end up with 17-24 per cent district heating”,

so why does district heating lag behind in discussions and planning? It is quite clear that we need more of that. We need the heat and buildings decarbonisation strategy, as well as the Government’s net zero strategy. The Scottish Government published theirs in February 2021. If re-elected, the SNP pledged to decarbonise the heating of 1 million homes by 2030—over a third of the housing stock in Scotland—and all new homes and buildings from 2024 will use renewable or zero-emission heating. That is backed by a £1.6 billion investment plan.

Scotland is trying to reduce emissions and heating costs, and to fight fuel poverty. Compared with Westminster, we spend four times more per capita on energy efficiency, which is vital in reducing emissions. By contrast, the UK Government’s future homes standard involves eliminating the connection of new homes to the gas grid by 2025. That means that by 2024, something like 200,000 new homes will be connected to the gas grid and will then need retrofit measures in order to decarbonise at a later date.

That is not to say the UK Government have not made attempts to introduce a greater range of district heating. Some £320 million was allocated through the existing heat networks investment project, but that comes to an end in 2022, and two pilots—in Sheffield and Manchester—were pulled. What has been the extent of spend on district network creation to date? What lessons, if any, have been learned, including what we have heard today? What would the success of the green heat network fund look like, and how much of the green heat network’s £270 million is new money?

As we have heard clearly, the big issue for district heating is the fact that there is no regulator. This means that consumers in district heat networks have less security than traditional gas and electric consumers, and there is no ombudsman to receive complaints. That discourages consumers from connecting to the heat network. As we have heard, the ones who are connected have real issues trying to resolve matters.

Looking to Scotland again, the Scottish Government passed the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act in February 2021, which provides a regulatory framework to cover heat networks. What is the UK Government’s position on introducing a regulator or a regulatory framework for district heating? I hope the Minister can answer that. As the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, the industry and the Heat Trust are trying to fill the gap with a voluntary standard, but at the end of the day it is voluntary. That belies the issue, so we need statutory protections.

We need to see greater investment in energy efficiency. What of the Tory manifesto’s £9.2 billion commitment? We need to see a coherent heat and building strategy that will deliver a suite of options. They will still need to include district heating, which the Committee on Climate Change reckons will account for 18% of heat in our homes going forward. That means ensuring a route to market for the capital cost and/or a Government funding plan.

It is interesting that the Association of Decentralised Heating estimates that energy bills for those in district heating is £100 cheaper compared with gas, so this could be a good tool for fighting fuel poverty. Again, clearly we need protections. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, we cannot have a closed shop where consumers start paying higher charges than they otherwise would need to.

As we look forward, there is plenty to be done. I look forward to the Minister’s response. With COP26 on the horizon, this should be our ideal platform to demonstrate a coherent, complementary heat decarbonisation strategy.

17:20

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing the debate. Although such positions are not declarable on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I ought to say that I am a vice-president of the Association for Decentralised Energy, formerly the Combined Heat and Power Association. The position I hold reflects my long-standing interest in district heating and local energy schemes, which I have maintained throughout my time in Parliament, which is now a very long time. I will mention briefly in my comments my interest in these schemes and arrangements.

I was not sure what the thrust of the debate was going to be, but I anticipated that it would probably be about the concerns that some Members have expressed over time about circumstances relating to the operation of some, but by no means all, district heating schemes. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), I have expressed concerns about that, and I have put forward remedies for those concerns over a number of years in this House.

I think district heating will be an important part of our approach to the decarbonisation of heating. It certainly has a substantial part to play, under particular circumstances and in particular areas, in delivering low carbon heat reliably and satisfactorily to populations. At its heart, it is a system about networks, not about what goes into the networks. A variety of different forms of fuel can go into the network and deliver heat very efficiently. It is not just about taking heat from incinerators. It has much wider applications through heat engines or through low-carbon sources of energy that can be a part of a network. The network can adapt and change over time.

The efficient use of heat that this represents has been rolled out much more in other parts of Europe than has been the case in the UK. I visited Denmark a little while ago, which has more than 50% of its total heat provided by district heating schemes, and in Copenhagen it is about 90%. They are well-regulated schemes with a very low level of complaints and a very high level of delivery and efficiency, and they generate affordable heat in the process.

My city of Southampton now has five district heating schemes within the city boundary, including the nation’s only geothermally heated district heating scheme, which I often draw attention to. That demonstrates that the fuel types for heat schemes can be very different. Where the schemes are well run, there are few complaints and they continue to deliver affordable and, in this instance, low-carbon energy to the city.

That is one side of the coin. The other side is what happens with the schemes that already exist, and indeed have existed for a long time and have different forms of ownership and input. I am pleased that the Government have recently woken up to the potential of district heating. Through the green heat network fund and various other things, they will be providing money and support, mainly for local authority-based schemes, to bring forward district heating in the future, but I am well aware that the good schemes that may be brought about in the future are by no means the whole picture of district heating across the country. There are currently about 2,000 schemes in the country, which produce something like 2% of domestic, public sector and commercial heat demand, and supply just over 200,000 buildings and almost 2,000 commercial and public buildings across the UK.

As we have heard, a proportion of those 2,000 schemes are not well run at all, frankly, and for various reasons they have produced a bad deal for customers. Indeed, in some instances, because of the age of the system, there has not been any investment in the system and they are producing very inefficiently. In some instances, because of a frequent change in private ownership, they have simply been starved of the sort of investment they need to run at a good level, and there has not been the level of customer care that there should have been in the systems over the period. The points that hon. Members made about their local schemes are well founded. It is up to us to recognise that that is the case and to do something about it; otherwise, the next generation of district heating schemes, which will be essential, will not be well founded, as far as their operation is concerned, for the future.

The Government have sort of recognised over the years that that is a problem, but I am afraid they have not done very well by customers in those circumstances. Until relatively recently, they considered that regulation should not be statutory, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, but that it should be entirely voluntary and done on the basis of an industry scheme. The 2013 paper “The future of heating: meeting the challenge” stated:



“The Government does not want to stop the growth of the sector through introducing unnecessary regulation. DECC is therefore initially seeking an industry-led scheme”.

Up to relatively recently, that was the position of the Government over a long period.

A heroic effort to do just that was introduced by the Combined Heat and Power Association, now the ADE, through the Heat Trust, which, in its own right, is a good scheme. Of course, as hon. Members have mentioned, it is entirely voluntary. If schemes do not want to join it, they do not have to—a lot have not. The redress is strictly limited to those people who are already likely to be the good guys in the first place, and not those that are, perhaps, the most egregious underperformers as far as the overall system is concerned.

Fair play to the Government, who have recognised that that system is not the right way to go about regulation for the future. In spring last year, we had the “Heat networks: building a market framework” consultation, which set out a scheme for universal regulation —not a perfect scheme, but a scheme nevertheless. We had that consultation, introduced last February and concluded last summer—and have heard nothing whatsoever since. There has been no Government response or discussion of how the very sketchy scheme set out in the original consultation could be improved and assured as a universal scheme, both retrospectively and prospectively, for district heating.

In the end, we only have one line on the subject in the energy White Paper:

“We intend to legislate in this Parliament for the regulation of heat networks to protect

consumers and reduce carbon emissions.”

That is a fine ambition, but hon. Members will notice that the proposal is to legislate in this Parliament on something that we do not know the content of because there has been no comeback from the consultation on what a scheme might be. Should we legislate in this Parliament, say at the very end, there will inevitably be a time lag in bringing a scheme to fruition, and we could be well into the end of this decade before we get the sort of regulation that we clearly need. I guess the Minister is going to make some considerable play of the fact that the Government intend to legislate, but, frankly, that really is not good enough. As I say, we do not know what this regulation will consist of, how universal it will be, what redress will be in it, how legally enforceable it will be and how it will shape new networks, or retrospectively encompass all existing networks.

Finally, a vague suggestion that we might legislate sometime in this Parliament, with a possibly extended implementation date, does not answer the issues that hon. Members have raised in any coherent and satisfying way. First, we need to get the response to the consultation out as soon as possible, so people are much clearer about what it is we might be considering, and if they think it is insufficient, they can talk about how better to deal with the issues mentioned in that regulation in a satisfactory and comprehensive way.

Secondly, we need a commitment from the Minister this afternoon that she will not just rest on the idea that there might be legislation some time in this Parliament, but that she will go away this afternoon and get writing that legislation—not personally, necessarily, but with the support of some of her colleagues and civil servants in BEIS— and get that through Parliament as quickly as possible. That means next year. I know the Minister is close to being a miracle worker in her position, but if she can achieve that over the next period she will certainly have my full support.

17:35

[The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing this really important debate. I also thank the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for raising issues of concern in their own constituencies. As ever, I thank my friend the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who turns out to be an expert and an advocate on the subject of domestic heat networks—who knew? He was able to take us from Denmark to Southampton in demonstrating why they can and should be an important part of the mix. I thank to all colleagues for their contributions to the debate.

I was very sorry to hear of the troubles experienced by the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington in the New Mill Quarter of his constituency. They have had really awful challenges with their district heat network. I sympathise with the difficulties that has clearly caused them all and it is profoundly disappointing to hear that their Lib Dem-run council has failed them all so very badly. I absolutely agree with the need for protections for heat network consumers. The experience of my hon. Friend’s constituents highlights the importance of the Government’s commitment to regulate the heat networks market within this Parliament.

Heat networks play and will continue to play an important part in assisting us to meet our net zero challenge. They will unlock larger-scale renewable and recovered heat sources, both energy from waste heat and heat from rivers and mines. It was interesting to hear about the geothermal heat source being used in Southampton. When deployed effectively, they can bring greater heat efficiency than individual gas boilers, lower costs for consumers and support local regeneration. However, we recognise that we need to regulate the market to ensure that those outcomes are real, for which protections for heat network consumers are needed.

As colleagues have highlighted, in 2017 the Government commissioned a survey to quantify consumer experiences with heat networks in England and Wales. The results showed that consumers connected to a heat network have generally received good service and were as satisfied as non-heat network customers, which makes the terrible experiences of those in New Mill Quarter all the more upsetting. The results of the survey also showed that, on average, a heat network consumer was likely to pay £100 less per year for heating and hot water compared with consumers on other utilities. Again, this makes it all the more shocking that my hon. Friend’s constituents have got such a raw deal from their Lib Dem council’s activities.

The Government also noted, however, a report by the Competition and Markets Authority in 2018, which showed that a significant minority of heat network consumers experienced high prices, frequent outages and a lack of transparency. Therefore, we committed to the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendation of regulating the market and, last year, consulted on establishing a heat networks market framework.

The framework will include introducing consumer protection rules to combat cases of detriment, such as the outages being experienced by the residents of New Mill Quarter. We want heat network consumers to have comparable levels of service and protection to those using electricity and gas on individual contracts for their homes. As part of the market framework, we will introduce quality of service standards requiring notification periods for planned outages and compensation for all outages.

Consumers will have access to an independent redress scheme and a consumer advocacy body, which will provide a consumer helpline and priority services for consumers in vulnerable circumstances. The regulator will have powers to enforce price transparency, introduce guidance on fair pricing, set requirements on cost allocation and conduct investigations into heat networks where prices are disproportionately high. Finally, consumers will be provided with a minimum level of easily accessible information and guidance on heat networks at the pre-contractual stages of property transactions and during residency. There will be requirements on the provision of heat supply agreements and billing information.

We are preparing to introduce legislation to regulate the market, but, as colleagues have mentioned, there are some measures already in place to improve standards for heat network consumers. The Heat Trust provides an independent market-led voluntary standards scheme and consumers on heat networks registered to the Heat Trust benefit from terms of service similar to those in the gas and electricity markets. They can also access the energy ombudsman if they have a complaint against their heat supplier. In 2019, BEIS wrote an open letter to all heat network operators encouraging them to register their schemes with the Heat Trust and we continue to encourage schemes to sign up to raise standards now and to prepare for regulation.

[Alan Brown]

The work on the regulation framework the Minister is talking about seems well advanced, so can she give us a timescale for when legislation will come forward?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

If only I could do it tomorrow, but I think Prorogation would stop me. We have also supported the Heat Networks Industry Council in its work to establish the consumer protection agreement and the heat network emergency responders group in response to the covid-19 pandemic. We encourage heat suppliers to sign up to that agreement and we have written to signatories urging them to do more to tackle outages and improve compensation standards for those outages. Although these schemes have benefited many consumers, we recognise that regulation is needed to drive up consumer standards across the heat networks market. I therefore reiterate our commitment to that regulation today, but I am afraid that I cannot give a precise date.

The Government have introduced several schemes to support heat network deployment. Our heat networks investment project has made £320 million of capital funding available for investment in heat network projects through grants and loans in England and Wales. That will be succeeded by the green heat network fund in 2022, which will support and incentivise the use of low-carbon heat sources in heat networks. Both investment projects will ensure adequate consumer protection measures are in place by requiring projects to demonstrate Heat Trust or equivalent standards, which will ensure that taxpayers’ money supports only heat networks that deliver fair pricing and which are well designed, efficient systems.

Furthermore, we have been carrying out work on improving performance across a number of existing heat networks. That provides an evidence base for the development of the heat networks efficiency scheme, which will part-fund operational performance improvements and carbon emission reductions in existing systems. Further details will be announced later this year.

It is essential that heat network consumers are provided with clean and reliable heat at an affordable price. As such, we are developing the heat networks market framework that will place consumers at its heart, deliver sustained investment in the sector and maximise heat networks’ potential economic and environmental benefits. We committed in the energy White Paper to legislate for the market framework by the end of the Parliament.

We are working closely with the industry and consumer groups to ensure that regulation delivers positive outcomes for consumers, and we will shortly publish the Government’s response to last year’s consultation. I look forward to working with all colleagues on the proposals that we will bring forward. In the meantime, I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and his constituents well as they seek redress from their council, whose failure to meet the standards that residents could have reasonably expected is motivation indeed for the Government to get protections in place.

17:43

[Elliot Colburn [V]]

I thank the Minister for her response. It is really reassuring to hear that the Government have heard my concerns and those of colleagues across the House and will take action in the form of regulation. I look forward to working with her constructively to bring that about and get it on the statute book, because it is really needed. If heat networks are to form a big part of our heating for the future, they must be regulated and have consumer protections. At the moment, residents in New Mill Quarter can only dream of living under a heat network that lives up to the standards expected in a normal home, let alone those of an innovative scheme for the future. I am grateful to the Minister and look forward to working with her.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered district heat networks.

17:44

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Written Statements

Wednesday 28 April 2021

HMRC: Contingencies Fund Advance

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will incur new expenditure in connection with the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic in 2021-22.

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £7,792,000,000 for this new expenditure will be sought in a main estimate for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £7,792,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

Further requests to the Contingencies Fund may be made as necessary to fund covid-19 activity delivered by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

[HCWS945]

Contingent Liability: National Gallery

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Written Statements

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)]

I am tabling this statement for the benefit of all members of this House to bring to their attention the departmental minute issued today that provides the House with notice of a small, short-term contingent liability created by my Department. This is in relation to an exceptional exhibition arranged by the National Gallery in partnership with the Polish Cultural Institute, and pertains to specialist indemnity insurance coverage protecting five artefacts from harm or damage, required throughout the period of transport and display. The National Gallery, an arm’s length body of Government sponsored by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, will be incurring the liability.

The National Gallery will on 17 May 2021 open its eagerly awaited exhibition “Conversations with God”, with Jan Matejko (1838-1893)’s epic painting of astronomer Copernicus—a Polish national treasure—at its heart. Successive delays caused by covid-19 have frustrated the schedule and logistics of this exhibition, the first devoted to Poland’s national painter, whose works are very seldomly loaned.

The complexities of transporting fine art across Europe mid-pandemic, related pandemic stipulations, and works of particular national importance, are such that Polish lenders have requested an indemnity directly from National Gallery in the event that any of the artworks suffered damage, in addition to the fine art coverage provided by the Government indemnity scheme. Despite the UK’s Government indemnity scheme enjoying widespread recognition as the “gold standard” amongst such schemes, the Department has agreed to this additional layer of coverage—a particular lender requirement under Polish law—in view of the exhibition’s exceptional content and timing. The indemnity would be in place for four months (May to September 2021), up to the consignment of artworks’ total value of £5.6 million and therefore represents a contingent liability. The likelihood of the contingent liability crystallising is remote. Furthermore, a claim would be far more likely to fall at the lower end of the monetary scale provided for.

In the event that loss or damage to an object occurred, the lenders would have the right to request compensation directly from the gallery, should it believe the Government indemnity scheme or a commercial insurance product to be inadequate or unduly inaccessible. The Department is confident, however, that the risk is very low, given the comprehensive nature of Government indemnity scheme coverage and its excellent track record in meeting the rare claims brought by lenders. The Department is further reassured by the rarity of “total loss” cases, with only one such pay-out under the Government indemnity scheme in the past decade, and by the National Gallery’s exceptional standards of care, which has submitted no claims under the Government indemnity scheme for at least the last 20 years.

A copy of the departmental minute will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-04-28/HCWS946.

[HCWS946]