House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
The UK Government work closely with the Scottish Government to provide a co-ordinated approach to the response to covid-19 for the benefit of people across Scotland and across the United Kingdom. For instance, the UK Government have provided the Scottish Government with £1.2 billion in Barnett funding in the 2021 Budget, procured more than 500 million vaccines for the whole of the UK and made sure that our testing programme reaches all parts of the UK. This is a partnership in which the people of Scotland benefit hugely from the reach and strength of the UK Government.
Andrew Bowie
It is becoming clear across the entire United Kingdom that our NHS is facing a huge challenge as we reopen society to deal with the thousands of procedures, treatments and operations that have been delayed due to lockdown. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that the national health service in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can work together as easily as possible, sharing resources and services to ensure that this truly national health service for our whole country will support delivery to support our constituents wherever in the United Kingdom they might live?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is quite right. The NHS is one of Britain’s proudest achievements. It operates across the whole of Great Britain and co-operation is ingrained in the DNA of the NHS. I am absolutely determined, as the UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to ensure that, wherever people live in this United Kingdom, they can access the very best of care. If a constituent of my hon. Friend’s in Aberdeenshire needs a treatment that is only available in England because it is so specialised, they should have absolutely every right to that treatment, in the same way that a constituent of mine in Suffolk or a constituent in north Wales should. We have one NHS across these islands, and it is one of the things of which this country is most proud.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
I am sure the Secretary of State is well aware that the Scottish NHS has been separate since 1948 and has been under direct Scottish Government control for the last 20 years, so there are actually four NHSs. Perhaps I can ask him about some of his decisions that have made it harder for the Scottish and other devolved Governments to fight covid. Last September, he refused to follow Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies advice for an urgent lockdown, and the six-week delay allowed the more infectious B117 Kent variant to emerge and spread across the UK, driving a second wave more deadly than the first. He has repeatedly claimed to follow the science, so can he explain why he did not follow scientific advice last September?
Matt Hancock
Just on this point, this attempt at division within the NHS is deeply regrettable. It is not what people want. It is not what people want in Scotland. It is not what people want anywhere across the country. The NHS is an institution we should all be very proud of. Of course it is managed locally—it is managed locally across parts of England and it is managed under the devolution settlement in Wales and Scotland, as are health services in Northern Ireland, and rightly so—but it ill behoves politicians to try to divide the NHS. It is a wonderful institution that should make us all proud to be British.
On the specific question that the hon. Lady asked, of course we are guided by the science and take all factors into consideration. These are difficult judgments based on uncertain data, and we make the best judgments that we can. That is still the process we are going through, in the same way that the Scottish National party Government in Scotland have recently opened up parts of the rules in terms of social distancing, despite the rise in cases.
We face a challenging decision ahead of 21 June, but that decision is made easier by—indeed, the decision to open up is only possible because of it—the UK vaccination effort. Today marks six months to the day since Margaret Keenan in Coventry was the first person in the world to receive a clinically validated vaccine—the same day as Scotland, the same day as Wales. Since then we have delivered—
Mr Speaker
Order. It is not a statement, but an answer that we require. I call Dr Philippa Whitford to ask her second question.
Dr Whitford
I think the Secretary of State would find that most people in Scotland were rather glad that their NHS did not come under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 fragmentation. Having ignored the Scottish Government’s call in February for all arrivals to undergo hotel quarantine, he then delayed adding India to the red list. This allowed the more infectious Delta variant, which one dose of the vaccine is less effective against, to enter and become dominant in the UK. Is he not concerned that, if he removes all social distancing completely in the near future, the variant will cause a covid surge among those who are not fully vaccinated?
Matt Hancock
Touché, Sir. In response to the hon. Lady’s question, I will say this. The opening up and the return of our freedoms is only possible because of the UK vaccination effort. In the six months to the day since we first vaccinated across these islands—yes, in Coventry, but also in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—we have delivered 68 million vaccines across the whole UK and saved thousands of lives, and the whole United Kingdom has been set fair on the road to recovery thanks to the UK Government’s vaccination effort. I am very grateful to everybody in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England who has played their part in delivering it. That shows the benefit of the United Kingdom Union saving lives and working together for everybody on these islands.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I am hugely ambitious about social care reform. I want a sustainable care system that meets people’s needs and aspirations and gives them the care and support they need to live life to the full. We are working on proposals for reform and will bring those forward later this year.
Karl Turner [V]
This Government are responsible for over 40,000 needless deaths from covid-19 in care homes. A plan to fix social care in this country is long overdue. This crisis is not new—people are routinely forced to sell the family home to pay for care. The workers are paid peanuts, while the 13 million unpaid carers are left to pick up the pieces. Does the Minister agree that we have had far too many vague promises and that unpaid carers cannot wait a minute longer?
Helen Whately
I agree with the hon. Member that there are many challenges for social care, and that is one reason why many Governments have talked about social care reform. As he will understand, over the last year, we have rightly focused on supporting social care through the pandemic, but we are working on our proposals for reform and will bring them forward later this year.
Christine Jardine [V]
Almost two years ago, the Government promised to fix social care once and for all, but we have seen in this pandemic that it is still seriously broken. Care does not stop at the hospital exit or the GP’s door. Carers have sacrificed physical and mental health caring for loved ones during the pandemic; 72% have had no break, and 44% say they are at breaking point. In national Carers Week, will the Minister commit to cross-party talks in the immediate term to fix the social care crisis throughout the UK?
Helen Whately
As the hon. Member says, this week is Carers Week, which is a really good opportunity to raise awareness about the important role that carers play in supporting loved ones and to remember something that I personally am committed to: we must support carers not only in the care that they do but to live their own lives, for which respite care is really important. As part of our reforms to social care, we are listening to carers and want to ensure that their needs are met.
Kim Johnson
In July 2019, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and pledged to fix the broken social care system. Two years on, we are still waiting. There were only warm words in the Queen’s Speech a couple of weeks ago:
“Proposals on social care reform will be brought forward.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 May 2021; Vol. 812, c. 2.]
Can the Minister tell us when the Government will move from rhetoric and warm words and fix this broken system for the people she has just mentioned, who need it desperately?
Helen Whately
I welcome the hon. Member’s support for and interest in social care reform, along with others across the House. We know that social care reform is needed. We have rightly over the last year focused on supporting social care through the pandemic, getting £1.8 billion of extra funding for social care to the frontline and providing billions of items of PPE, over 100 million tests to social care and the vaccination programme to care home residents, those who receive social care and the workforce. We are working on our social care reforms and will bring those forward later this year.
Dave Doogan
Many in this place and across England will be asking, “Where is England’s long-awaited social care Bill?” because they will have seen that the SNP Government are delivering a new deal for the social care sector in Scotland, building a new national care service that will improve workers’ conditions and standards of care, and increasing investment in care by 25%. Will the UK Government follow Scotland’s lead in transforming social care, and will the Minister contact Scottish Government Ministers to learn from our over a decade-long experience of integrating health and social care?
Helen Whately
One of the great strengths of our United Kingdom is our ability to work together and learn from different parts of the UK. We also look at the best in England and, of course, in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman mentions the care workforce. We absolutely want to make sure that this important workforce are front and centre of our social care reform plans and that they receive the training, opportunities, recognition and reward that they deserve.
Mike Amesbury
The Government have had 11 years to reform social care, but with cuts of £8 billion over that period, it is fragmented and costly and does not value workers and employees. Is it not time that the Minister and the Government grab the bull by the horns and introduce a national health and social care service? When are reforms going to come into play—what day, what month, what year?
Helen Whately
It is not just over the period mentioned by the hon. Member that social care reforms have been talked about; this goes back at least 25 years, to when Tony Blair was the Labour leader and Prime Minister. He talked about reforms to social care, but he has also said that it is not simple; these are complex problems to address. When people talk about how social care needs fixing, different people mean different things. That is why, as part of our reforms, we are going to bring forward a long-term plan for reforming social care.
Dame Diana Johnson
Can I just say to the Minister that I think most Members of the House of Commons will find her attitude incredibly complacent on one of the key issues that faces most families in this country? As my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) has just said, there has been an £8 billion cut to social care since 2010. One of the steps she could take straight away is to reinstate that £8 billion to local authorities, so that they can at least provide services through the social care system that we have.
Helen Whately
I have huge respect for the right hon. Lady and her work in many areas, but I am disappointed by her language. She will appreciate that, together, the Department, local authorities and the care sector are working hard on how to bring forward the right package of reforms for the system. We have already taken some of the first steps on that road. For instance, the health and social care Bill includes plans to strengthen oversight of the social care system. That is an important step, but it is the beginning, not the end, of the social care reform road.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Six hundred and eighty-five days ago, the Prime Minister promised to fix the crisis in social care to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve. Since then, more than 32,000 elderly people have died from covid-19 in care homes, millions of care workers and families have felt abandoned and pushed to breaking point, and 300 elderly people have been forced to sell their homes to pay for their care every single week. Does the Minister think that has given people security, let alone dignity, and will she tell the country, after more than a decade in power, specifically when her Government will deliver?
Helen Whately
What I will say, after the enormously difficult year that social care has had through the pandemic, is that that has indeed strengthened the already strong case for reform of social care. I will say to the hon. Member that I want us to have a better social care system, whether it is for our grans and grandads, mums and dads, brothers and sisters, children and grandchildren, or, indeed, as and when we need it ourselves. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform social care. Now is the time, now is the moment and we will seize this opportunity. We will be bringing forward proposals for reform of social care later this year.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
My ministerial colleagues and I are in regular contact with the Food Standards Agency on matters of common concern.
Anthony Mangnall
Next week the Food Standards Agency will produce its annual report and hold its annual general meeting. That report is likely to recommend significant changes regarding live bivalve molluscs, which have a huge impact on my constituency and on the health of the nation for those who eat seafood. Will the Minister commit that any changes recommended in the report next week will be brought forward in record time, so that they may be implemented quickly and we can secure the future of the seafood industry in the United Kingdom?
Jo Churchill
It is a change to be talking about a different sort of mussel in this place during Health questions. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and I are well aware of the challenges that currently face the shellfish industry, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for his dogged determination, especially on behalf of those businesses that rely on exports. We will continue to work closely with the FSA, which I know has been working hard to resolve these issues and make progress. I have been advised that there is potential for change to ensure that classifications are awarded in a proportionate and pragmatic way, while continuing to ensure high levels of public health protection. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to work closely with the FSA and with my colleagues in DEFRA.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for providing me with my only opportunity to answer a question on the Order Paper today. I am delighted to confirm that St Ann’s Hospital in Dorset is already part of our plan to build 48 hospitals by 2030—the biggest hospital building programme in a generation. The new build at St Ann’s will provide child and adult mental health services for the people of Dorset, resulting in outdated infrastructure being replaced by facilities for staff and patients that are at the cutting edge of modern technology, innovation and sustainability, driving excellence in this hugely important area of patient care.
Chris Loder
I thank the Minister for his hard work in reopening the Yeatman Hospital in Sherborne, which will happen in a couple of weeks for A&E. On top of what he has already offered, which I very much appreciate, will he commit specifically to increase inpatient provision for children and young people in West Dorset with severe mental health difficulties, as we have a number of difficult cases?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend takes a great interest in these matters and, as he will know, the number of places commissioned is a matter for NHS commissioners locally. I reassure him that we can commit, and my hon. Friend the Minister for mental health services is committed, to expanding and transforming community mental health services across England, boosted by an additional £79 million this year, so that children and young people get timely access to the support and treatment they need, without having to be admitted to hospital. That is, of course, alongside the investment to which I have referred for inpatient mental health facilities at St Ann’s.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
We are transforming mental health services through the NHS long-term plan, investing an additional £2.3 billion a year by 2023-24. Where national waiting time targets exits, the majority are being met. Targets for eating disorder services are sadly not being met, but additional resources have been allocated to increase capacity and address waiting times. We are working on the consultation responses for the Mental Health Act White Paper, and we will bring legislation forward when parliamentary time allows.
Ian Levy
After a career working in mental health for almost 30 years, prior to entering this House, I was delighted to be asked to become a board member for a local charity, Anxious Minds, which is based in Blyth town centre. Its aim is to improve mental health and wellbeing for local people. Will my hon. Friend assure me and those who worry about the toll that this pandemic has taken on the vulnerable that she will do everything she can to ensure that mental health is given the highest possible propriety as restrictions begin to ease?
Ms Dorries
I thank my hon. Friend for his years of service working in mental health. Mental health is one of this Government’s top priorities, and I assure him that we are doing our utmost to ensure that mental health services are there for everyone who needs them. Through the NHS long-term plan, we are expanding and transforming mental health services in England and investing an additional £2.3 billion a year in mental health services by 2023-24.
In addition, we have published our mental health recovery action plan, backed by a one-off targeted investment of £500 million in addition to the £2.3 billion, to ensure that we have the right support in place this year. The plan aims to respond to the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of the public, specifically targeting groups that have been most impacted. We have set up a cross-Government ministerial group to monitor progress against the actions listed in the plan, and the group will also identify areas for further action and collaboration.
Damian Hinds
I welcome the priority put on young people’s mental health, which is perhaps more important now than ever. Will the Minister give an update on progress on implementing the proposals in the children and young people’s mental health Green Paper, particularly on mental health support teams in Hampshire and nationwide?
Ms Dorries
We are making good progress on implementing the Green Paper proposals, and I am pleased to say that we have established 11 mental health support teams in Hampshire. Nationwide, there are currently 180 mental health support teams, covering around 15% of pupils in England. Over 200 more are in training or being commissioned, and we expect to have around 400 in place by 2023-24, covering 35% of pupils. We recently announced £9.5 million to train thousands of senior mental health leads among school and college staff.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Last year, in my NHS trust 37% of children referred to mental health services were turned away. That was up from 28% the year before. That is 2,649 children not getting treatment despite referrals from professionals. That will be exacerbated, of course, by the acute children’s mental health unit at Ticehurst being shut and no new hospital provision commissioned.
It is not just Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust that is failing; it is services across the country. In 2019, 140,000 children were turned away from child and adolescent mental health services, and some experience exceptionally long waits. Is the Minister comfortable with these huge numbers of children being turned away from treatment? Does she think that these waiting times are acceptable? What message does she have for those children and families who do not receive the treatment that they desperately need?
Ms Dorries
The short answer to that question is no, and that is why we have committed an additional £500 million to address some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman highlights. However, I must reiterate that the majority of our targets, where they have been set, are being met. Sadly, in eating disorders—I hold my hands up—we are not meeting the targets that we want to, but as he may be aware, we are trialling four-week waiting targets for children and young people. The results of that review and pilot will be available soon.
We continue to look at ways in which we can increase access to services for children and young people. Children and young people have told me themselves, via organisations such as Barnardo’s, that they want their mental health services delivered in a different way. They do not want to go and sit in a village hall or a hospital, or wherever they may receive their services from community practitioners; they want some of their services delivered via their phones, laptops or computers. Obviously, one-to-one services have to be available where they are needed, but children and young people are demanding a change, and we are going through that change now.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) raises a very important point and, frankly, I am shocked that the Minister seems so relaxed about it. Across the country, there are numerous children who have waited more than 400 days for help with autism; 280 days for post-traumatic stress disorder; 217 days for suicidal ideation; 195 days for treatment after an overdose—I could go on and on. Children should not have to wait so long for treatment. That will have a scarring impact on their development. These waiting times simply are not acceptable, so will the Minister apologise to these children, and can she explain where it went so wrong?
Ms Dorries
I do not believe that meeting almost all our targets for NHS waiting times for mental health services, with £2.3 billion a year of investment into our NHS and no NHS mental health service closing during the entire pandemic, has been a failure. Of course I am sorry for those children and young people who cannot get access to services as quickly as they want; that is exactly why we committed an additional £500 million and established a mental health recovery plan: so that we can put community services in place to reach those who have been impacted most by the pandemic over the past 15 months. We have a long-term plan in place, with the investment that the NHS tells us that that long-term plan needs to provide the very services that we want to provide. The mental health of children and young people is this Government’s priority. We will continue to invest, and are proving to continue to invest, to make sure that those children and young people access the services they need.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
General practice has remained open throughout the pandemic, offering face-to-face appointments as well as telephone and online consultations, while playing a leading role in our vaccination programme. We are enormously grateful to general practices, the GPs and their broader teams for everything that they have done, but to ensure that general practice can continue to provide all necessary and appropriate care during this very busy time, we have made an additional £270 million available until September.
Robert Largan
If it is done right, we can use technology and data to improve healthcare services, improve patient outcomes and help to save lives, so I welcome the proposals for a new GP data system, but it is vital that we get this right with the appropriate protections in place. With that in mind, will the Minister update the House on these vital reforms?
Jo Churchill
I could not agree more. Data saves lives —it is as simple as that. We have seen that in the pandemic, and it is one of the lessons of the vaccine roll-out. The GP data programme will strengthen the system and save lives. Patient data is, of course, owned by the patient. We are absolutely determined to take people with us on this journey. We have therefore decided that we will proceed with the important programme, but we will take some extra time, as we have conversed with stakeholders over the past couple of days. The implementation date will now be 1 September. We will use this time to talk to patients, doctors, health charities and others to strengthen the plan, build a trusted research environment and ensure that data is accessed securely. This agenda is so important, because we all know that data saves lives.
David Johnston
I have been contacted in recent weeks by quite a number of constituents who are struggling to get a GP appointment, but we have a pre-covid problem as well, which is that thousands and thousands of new houses have gone into the constituency without an increase in GP services. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss how to get my constituents the GP services that they need and deserve?
Jo Churchill
It is right that local health commissioners pay careful regard to the impact of new housing and growing areas, which is to be welcomed. I understand that both practices in my hon. Friend’s area are still accepting patients and that the Oxfordshire clinical commissioning group has been working closely with the practices in Wantage to make sure that the impact of housing growth is being accommodated, which I expect all CCGs and councils to be doing. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.
Paul Howell
I recently met two cancer groups in Sedgefield, the Solan Connor Fawcett Family Cancer Trust and the Great Aycliffe Cancer Support Group, and heard about the wonderful work that they have been doing over the past year. We also discussed how delayed GP appointments have affected early diagnosis of important medical issues such as cancer. Early diagnosis is necessary to provide patients with the best chance of stopping the cancer spreading and of recovering. Furthermore, the later cancer is caught, the more complicated cases become; they take more time and more resources and, of course, are horribly distressing. Will the Minister please tell me what is being done to ensure that backlogs in appointments are being addressed as urgently as possible?
Jo Churchill
I pay tribute to all the cancer charities out there who have done sterling work during the pandemic. As I have said, GP services are open, and they are offering different forms of communication with patients. We are running the Help Us, Help You campaign so that people can come forward when they have symptoms. As my hon. Friend says, identifying cancers early to save lives is part of the long-term plan, but I would like to assure him that my latest data showed that in March 2021 we had the highest ever recorded number of GP referrals for cancer. GPs are working really hard, and if patients are worried about any symptoms, they need to come forward.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
For GPs and for the NHS more broadly, using data effectively is an important way to restore our health services. However, the current plans to take this data from GPs, assemble it in one place and sell it to unknown commercial interests for purposes unknown has no legitimacy whatsoever. There has been no public engagement and no explanation; this has simply been snuck out under the cover of darkness—[Interruption.] I will get there, Minister; do not worry. This is an NHS data grab. The news of the delay is welcome and I am glad that the hon. Lady has made that commitment, but within that, will she commit to ensuring that the 23 June opt-out date is also moved to 1 September and that there will be a full public consultation on whether people want their data used for these purposes?
Jo Churchill
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan). We will be considering everything in the round. As I have said, I have spoken to many of the stakeholders involved and as we move forward we will be ensuring that we take all trusted individuals with us to build confidence in the system.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
The organ donation opt-out system has increased the number of organs available for transplant and is saving hundreds of lives. Since the law changed last year, 296 people in England have donated their organs under the opt-out system. These donations account for 29% of the 1,021 donations that took place last year.
Dan Jarvis [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. She will know that 20 May marked one year since Max and Keira’s law came into effect—a change that will give hope and save lives—but despite the tireless efforts of NHS staff, covid has had a devastating impact on patients in need of life-saving operations. Can the Minister outline how she is going to get organ transplant services back to pre-pandemic levels and tell us what additional resources will be committed in order to support an increase in organ availability?
Helen Whately
I would first like to thank the hon. Member for the part he played in campaigning for this life-saving change to organ donation and bringing about the increase that I mentioned earlier. The current services are now running at pre-covid levels and NHS Blood and Transplant is working with the wider healthcare system to enable as many transplants as possible. The new Organ Donation and Transplantation 2030: Meeting the Need strategy, which was launched last Tuesday, sets out the steps we are taking to increase organ availability further.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I have discussed these concerns with the hon. Member and with the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on medical cannabis under prescription, and he knows that I sympathise deeply with the parents of these children and with the patients and their families, many of whom I have met. They are dealing courageously with conditions that are difficult to treat. My immediate priority was to resolve the supply of Bedrocan oil from the Netherlands. I have further meetings planned to make progress on other issues in this incredibly complex situation.
Ronnie Cowan [V]
I welcome today’s letter from the Minister detailing the extension of the arrangements for the provision of Bedrocan, and I am pleased that we are working towards the manufacture of Bedrocan oils in the UK. I have two issues today. The first is that patients still need to pay for their medicines. If the numbers are so small and this is such a niche product, surely it could be provided free on the NHS. Secondly, I have been told that research is ongoing regarding the wider possibilities for medical cannabis, but despite being promised an update a month ago, I am still waiting for one from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency on clinical trials and the licence application. Could that please be forthcoming?
Jo Churchill
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have met Dr June Raine from the MHRA and subsequently met further specialist clinicians in this area to discuss progress with the research and evidence on supporting prescribing on the NHS. Establishing clinical trials is vital, with the support of the National Institute for Health Research, to make sure that we are making the right decisions on routine funding. From 1 April, we have introduced a national patient registry to record data and monitor patient outcomes in England, with a view to it being rolled out across Scotland and the other devolved Administrations later this year; this covers both licensed and unlicensed cannabis-based medicines on the NHS, with a view to including private patients in due course. As he knows, I am very focused on making sure we get the right solutions for families, but at the heart of this matter always has to lie the safety of what we prescribe.
Mr Speaker
Question 24 about covid-19 variants has been withdrawn, but if the Minister can give a response, we can go to Justin Madders for his supplementary question.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
The Government have produced a four-step road map to ease restrictions across England. Before each step, an assessment is made against the four tests, including assessing the current risk posed by variants of concern. The move to step 3 on 17 May was based on the assessment that the risks were not fundamentally changed by those variants of concern. Step 4 is due no earlier than 21 June and the variants of concern will again be considered in advance.
Justin Madders
On Sky News, on Sunday, the Secretary of State was asked about figures that contradict his claim that India was not put on the red list at the same time as Bangladesh and Pakistan because positivity rates were three times higher in those countries. In response, he said that he did not recognise those figures, but he should have done, because they are his own figures from Test and Trace. Indeed, there are no published figures for the time the decision was made that support his claim. Given the allegation that the only reason there was a delay in putting India on the red list was to help secure a trade deal, and given that this delay is now having serious consequences, will the Minister agree to publish all the data and advice on which the decision was based, in the interests of transparency and accountability?
Jo Churchill
The positivity rates were three times higher from Pakistan than they were from India when we made that decision. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we keep these things under constant review and we would be equally lambasted if decisions were made before we had the correct information. Acting when we have the right information on variants of concern is an important thing; we will keep following the data.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
In October, the Prime Minister confirmed a £3.7 billion funding allocation over the next four years to support the delivery of 40 new hospitals by 2030, and I am delighted that that includes Kettering General Hospital. We have since confirmed that there will be 48 new hospitals built by 2030, and six of those projects are under way.
Mr Bone
I am delighted that one of the new Boris hospitals will be built on the site of Kettering General, starting with an accident and emergency department and with the whole hospital being finished by 2027. Unfortunately, there may well be a substantial delay to that because of red tape and bureaucracy. Will the Secretary of State use his great skills, bang some heads together, and get the pen-pushers and accountants to sort out the delay so that we can get on with this? Will he be kind enough to meet the three hon. Members who represent north Northamptonshire to discuss the issue?
Matt Hancock
Nothing gives me greater pleasure than making stuff happen, so I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and the nearby colleagues who represent the people served by Kettering General Hospital to make sure we can get this project moving as soon as we can.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
Work on the scope and organisation design of the Office for Health Promotion is ongoing. We will present more detail on our plans for the OHP in due course. Public Health England’s “Better Health—Every Mind Matters” social marketing campaign aims to inform and equip the public to look after their mental health. Its NHS-endorsed website offers guidance on the actions that people can take to improve their mental wellbeing, including by practising mindfulness and reflection.
Margaret Ferrier [V]
Research shows that mindfulness training can contribute to improvements in obesity, eating behaviours, addiction and mental health and wellbeing. Will the Minister ensure that the Office for Health Promotion looks at the evidence of how mindfulness can help with how we all manage our health?
Ms Dorries
There is emerging evidence on the mental health benefits of mindfulness, which can take the form of meditation or wider approaches that incorporate a mindful approach. As the hon. Lady may be aware, I have been particularly concerned that we separate out mental illness and wellbeing and mindfulness. We should focus on mental illness, which needs intense clinical intervention in NHS services, but also look at mindfulness and wellbeing. That is why I mentioned “Every Mind Matters”: the facilities are there.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
The pandemic has proven to the public how vital our highly skilled pharmacy teams are in supporting their communities. Pharmacies have massive potential to build on the new services they are already delivering, and we will continue to look at how we can use them further.
Mr Robertson
I thank the Minister for that answer. Can we also make sure that the public are aware of everything that pharmacies can do, so that they can use them to take pressure off GPs?
Jo Churchill
Indeed we can. I would be honoured to work with my hon. Friend to do that so that people think “pharmacy first”. Pharmacies are delivering lateral flow devices into our communities; 500 of them have stood up to be vaccination sites; and we can now refer from NHS 111 and GPs into community pharmacies for the supply of prescribed medicine and for minor illnesses. We need our pharmacies to show their skill base; they are a highly skilled group that we should all be asking to do more and celebrating.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I can tell the House that today, working with local authorities, we are providing a strengthened package of support, based on what is working in Bolton, to help Greater Manchester and Lancashire to tackle the rise in the delta variant that we are seeing there. The support includes rapid response teams, putting in extra testing, military support and supervised in-school testing. I encourage everyone in Manchester and Lancashire to get the tests on offer. We know that this approach can work: we have seen it work in south London and in Bolton, stopping a rise in the number of cases. This is the next stage of tackling the pandemic in Manchester and Lancashire. It is of course vital that people in those areas, as everywhere else, come forward and get the jab as soon as they are eligible, because that is our way out of this pandemic together.
Dr Wallis
Currently, all primary care providers in Wales remain on amber alert, which means that many of my constituents in Bridgend are unable to access necessary services unless it is an emergency. Will my right hon. Friend explain how this situation compares to his Department’s strategy to provide catch-up services as we come out of lockdown?
Matt Hancock
It is very important that, across the country, the UK is open, the NHS is open and that people can come forward and get treatment if they need it. As my hon. Friend knows, I work closely with the delivery of the NHS in Wales. The NHS there is of course the responsibility of the devolved Administration, but I am happy to take up his concern with the new Welsh Minister for Health and Social Services to see what we can do.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
We have seen reports today of how exhausted NHS staff are. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said in the media this morning that he was not sure what more the Government could do to support NHS staff. Obviously, the Government could give them a pay rise, but will the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care also commit today to extending free hospital car parking for NHS staff beyond the pandemic?
Matt Hancock
Of course, we have made hospital car parking free for staff during the pandemic. That is one of the many, many things that we have put in place to support staff. Staff wellbeing support and mental health support have also been incredibly important, learning, as we have done, from the support that we give to others in public service who go through traumatic episodes. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that there is a wide array of things that we need to do to support NHS staff on the frontline.
Jonathan Ashworth
I wanted a commitment to extend the relief of hospital car parking charges beyond the pandemic.
The Secretary of State knows that waiting lists are at 5 million and that 432,000 people are waiting beyond 12 months. Once we are through this pandemic, the priority must be to bring those waiting lists down, but he is about to embark on a reorganisation of the NHS with his integrated care legislation. Local boards permit the private sector to have a seat on them. Virgin Care has just been given a seat on the integrated care system in Bath and North Somerset. He once promised that there would be no privatisation on his watch, so will he instruct that ICS to remove Virgin Care from its board?
Matt Hancock
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that integrating the health service with services provided by local authorities, such as social care, is absolutely critical, and I know that he supports those proposals that have come from the NHS. When it comes to delivering services in the NHS, what matters to patients is that they get high-quality services, for instance, to deal with the backlog, and what matters is getting those services as fast as we possibly can. People care much less about who provides the service than they do about the service getting delivered, and that is the approach that I take, too.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
Today, the Health and Social Care Committee published its report on NHS and social care staff burnout, which chronicles the emotional exhaustion and chronic fatigue felt by many frontline staff in the past year. Much support has been put in place; the 50,000 nurse target is welcome, the extra doctors and nurses hired during the pandemic extremely welcome, but still we have shortages in nearly every specialty, leading to a sense of despair. Will my right hon. Friend consider the recommendation that we make today that Health Education England should be given the statutory power to make independent workforce projections, rather as the Office for Budget Responsibility does for Budget forecasts, so that we can at least look doctors and nurses in the eye and say that we are training enough of them for the future?
Matt Hancock
I am very happy to work with the Select Committee on the forthcoming health and care Bill. The Committee has already had a huge amount of input into that Bill, and I am sure that, during its passage, we will be working together on making sure that this piece of legislation, which has cross-party support, can come through the House in the best possible state. I am very happy to look at the specific proposal, but what I would say is that we have been recruiting record numbers of doctors and nurses to try to make sure that the NHS is always there for all of our constituents and their families.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Matt Hancock
We made very significant progress on this in the Budget immediately following the general election, as the hon. Lady will know. That has removed this problem for the vast majority of doctors who serve in the NHS. I am very glad that we were able to make that progress. I am always happy to look at suggestions from the unions and others, but I am glad to say that we have made a good deal of progress on this one.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the whole team on the incredible work that they did in pretty difficult and urgent circumstances. I reassure him that, as the Prime Minister has said and as the Secretary of State has said from the Dispatch Box, we want the whole country to come out of this lockdown together.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Matt Hancock
Mr Speaker, not only has my hon. Friend made a compelling case for me to visit, but you have just told me to visit, so I have my marching orders. I look forward to my now forthcoming visit to Airedale hospital. I have not been yet, so I am very keen to come.
The Minister of State responsible for the hospital building programme has been heavily involved, and I have been looking at the paperwork. As my hon. Friend knows, on top of the 40 hospitals we announced—six of which are already being built—we have eight further slots to come, and Airedale hospital is very much on my radar for those slots. We will run an open competition and will make sure it is fair, but I will certainly visit.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Matt Hancock
Yes, I will ensure that the Minister of State takes a meeting with the hon. Lady.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely, I 100% agree with my hon. Friend. We have the funding to expand that programme. She will have seen in our national genomics healthcare strategy that newborn screening is specifically highlighted. It is a personal mission of mine to make that happen. I am happy to meet her and Baroness Blackwood, the chair of Genomics England, who has been driving the project forward.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
Yes. The hon. Lady raises a very important issue, and if she writes to me with the full details, we will get right on it.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) [V]
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Nurse education standards are set by the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Its current standards are based on EU law, but that no longer applies to the UK, and it has launched a survey on whether those standards should change. Acceptances for pre-registration nursing programmes at English universities for 2020-21 increased by over 5,000 since the previous year.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady is quite right, and if she was in the Chamber earlier, she would have heard the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), say that we are going to delay the deadline for this programme, including the opt-out, which is currently scheduled to end on 23 June. That has already been welcomed, while we have been in here, by the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Medical Association, and then we will work through these issues. Everybody agrees that data saves lives. We have to make progress in this area, and it is very important that we do it in a way that brings people with us and resolves exactly the sorts of issues that she raises.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Matt Hancock
I am really glad to say that in Bolton and other parts of the country where we have sent in a big package of support, including surge testing—as we have done in Kirklees—we have seen a capping-out of the increase in rates without a local lockdown thanks to the enthusiasm of people locally and, of course, the vaccination programme. That is our goal. Our goal is that England moves together. That is what we are putting these programmes in place to do, and we are seeing them work.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Matt Hancock
Recovering the backlog that has been caused by the pandemic is a huge task for the NHS, and was raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) from the Opposition Front Bench, quite rightly. The backlog has unfortunately been increased as a consequence of the pandemic. We have put in extra money—an extra £1 billion this year—and we are seeing cancer services running at 100% of their pre-pandemic levels, and in some cases above 100%, in order to get through the backlog. The most important thing for the public watching this and for my hon. Friend’s constituents is to make sure the message gets out loud and clear that the NHS is open, and that if they have a problem, they should please come forward.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Matt Hancock
That is not something that has yet come across my desk, but I will make sure that the relevant Minister writes to the hon. Gentleman with as much detail as we know.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Matt Hancock
What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. Of course if someone puts a defibrillator on private land, access to it should naturally be open to anybody who needs it. I will look into the exact legal status, but let us set aside the legal status for a minute. If there is a defibrillator on private land that could save somebody’s life, the landowner should of course allow access to it for anybody who needs it.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
As current Government investment in motor neurone research is not the targeted funding that is needed, will the Minister meet charities, researchers and patients to examine this discrepancy and commit to additional funding of £10 million a year for five years for a virtual motor neurone disease research institute, with a specific focus on helping us to get a world free of MND?
Helen Whately
I will look into the hon. Lady’s specific request, but I can tell her that the Government are actively supporting research into motor neurone disease. For instance, in April I jointly hosted a roundtable event on boosting MND research with the National Institute for Health Research/Sheffield Biomedical Research Centre, which brought together researchers and others. We are absolutely committed to this area of work.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I am very grateful that you could fit me in at the end.
Yesterday during the statement the Secretary of State did not have the information to hand on the efficacy of the covid vaccines in reducing serious disease and hospitalisation. He made a commitment, rightly, to set them out today at Health questions at the Dispatch Box; and I am delighted, with this question, to give him the opportunity to do so.
Matt Hancock
First, I can say that a single dose of the Pfizer or AstraZeneca jab offers protection of 75% to 85% against hospitalisation, while data on two doses, which is currently available only for Pfizer, indicates 90% to 95% effectiveness against hospitalisation and 95% to 99% effectiveness at preventing death. However, my right hon. Friend also asked specifically about the delta variant, and I said that I did not have the figure in my head for the reduction in hospitalisations. I do not know whether I should be glad, but I can report to him that the reason is that there is not yet a conclusive figure. This morning I spoke to Dr Mary Ramsay, who runs this research at Public Health England, and she told me that the figure is currently being worked on. The analysis is being done scientifically and should be available in the coming couple of weeks. This is obviously an absolutely critical figure and I will report it to the House as soon as we have it.
Mr Speaker
I will now suspend the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Ajax Programme
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
(Urgent question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on what progress has been made with the Ajax armoured vehicles programme.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
The Ajax family of vehicles will transform the British Army’s reconnaissance capability. As our first fully digitalised armoured fighting vehicle, Ajax will provide crews with access to vastly improved sensors, and better lethality and protection. Maingate 1 approval was granted in March 2010. Negotiations with the prime contractor to recast the contract were held between December 2018 and May 2019. The forecast initial operating capability, or IOC, was delayed by a year to 30 June 2021—later this month—at 50% confidence, with 90% confidence for September 2021.
Despite the ongoing impact of covid, we have stuck by that IOC date, but of course, it remains subject to review. By the end of next week, we will have received the requisite number of vehicles to meet IOC. The necessary simulators have been delivered and training courses commenced. These delivered vehicles are all at capability drop 1 standard, designed for the experimentation, training and familiarisation of those crews that are first in line for the vehicles. Capability drop 3, applying the lessons of the demonstration phrase, is designed for operations.
We remain in the demonstration phase, and as with all such phases, issues with the vehicle have emerged that we need to resolve. We were concerned by reports of noise issues in the vehicle. All personnel who may have been exposed to excessive noise have been tested, and training was paused. It now continues with mitigations in place as we pursue resolution. We have also commissioned independent vibration trials from world-class specialists at Millbrook Proving Ground, which should conclude next month.
I assure the House that we will not accept a vehicle that falls short of our requirements, and we are working with General Dynamics, the prime contractor, to achieve IOC. Similarly, we are currently working with General Dynamics to ensure that we have a mutually agreed schedule for reaching full operating capability. That is subject to an independent review, which we have commissioned. This is an important project for the British Army, delivering impressive capabilities and employing thousands of skills workers across the UK. We look forward to taking it into service.
John Healey
That was a statement of astonishing complacency. We have seen £3.5 billion paid out, four years late, and just 14 vehicles delivered, light tanks that cannot fire while moving, and vehicle crews made so sick that the testing has been paused. If this is defence procurement that the Minister is content is broadly on track, how badly has it got to go wrong before he will admit that the contract is flawed? This project has been flagged red by the Government’s own Major Projects Authority. The Defence Committee calls it
“another example of chronic mismanagement by the Ministry of Defence and its shaky procurement apparatus.”
Yet the Defence Secretary is failing to get to grips with the failures in this system and failing our frontline troops as a result. He is breaking a promise he made to them in this House when he said:
“When it comes to equipment, the first thing is to ensure that we give our men and women the best to keep them alive and safe on a battlefield.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 556.]
He has been in post for two years now. Since then, the black hole in the defence budget has ballooned by £4 billion up to £17 billion. Ministers are failing British forces and failing British taxpayers.
Have the Ajax problems of noise and vibration now all been fully fixed? How many personnel are under medical treatment following the Ajax testing, and what are the conditions they are being treated for? Can the Ajax now in fact fire while moving? Where will the gun turret be manufactured? What is the full updated cost of the Ajax programme? When will all these vehicles be delivered in full?
This is the largest single procurement contract outside nuclear, and it requires independent scrutiny, so will the Minister invite the National Audit Office to do an urgent special audit?
The Minister says that this is an important project for the British Army. He is right. The defence Command Paper makes it clear that the rapid further cut in Army numbers is directly linked to more advanced battlefield technology based on the Ajax. So will Ministers now halt the plans to cut Army numbers and focus instead on fixing this failing procurement system?
Jeremy Quin
I had imagined that whatever my response, the right hon. Gentleman would accuse me of being complacent. That is the expectation I had and I was not disappointed. We are not in any way complacent about our nation’s defence and security. That is why we are investing another £24 billion in our defence and in our security over the next four years. We are absolutely on top of and getting to grips with our equipment programme and what will stem from it.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues. I can assure him that I am absolutely focused on this project achieving its IOC. I will not hide from him, as I have not from the House, that we have two primary concerns: noise and vibration. On noise, we have mitigations currently in place to enable a certain element of training, albeit reduced training. We are looking at two headsets that hopefully, within the next few weeks, will be approved for use, further extending what we can do in terms of training. But that does not get us to the root cause of the noise. We need to get to the root cause of the noise issues within this vehicle, be they mechanical or indeed electronic; this is, after all, the first digitalised platform of its kind anywhere. We need to resolve those issues.
We are concerned about vibration. I have to say that over many thousands of miles of testing GD has not had the same experience of vibration, but I absolutely trust the reports that have come to me from our service personnel. We are determined to get to the bottom of this. That is why we are using Millbrook, a world-class proving ground, to check exactly what noise comes back on vibration. It may come back with a good answer, but we await that answer. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman —I understand his concerns—that we will not take anything into IOC until we are satisfied that we are getting the kit that we require.
I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman on a host of other issues that he raised. I do not deny that we have serious issues that we need to resolve, but there are a number of points where there is a difference between what is certified and what the vehicle is capable of. I can reassure him that the vehicle is capable of going well ahead of 30 km per hour, but with newly trained crews, a certification has been placed restricting speed, and I would expect that to be lifted during the course of next month. There has been a restriction in terms of going up over a reverse step. This is a vehicle that is capable of reversing over a 75 cm object. A restriction has been placed, and I expect that to be lifted shortly too. This is a vehicle that is capable of firing on the move. That is not something that we have certified it to do as yet. We are working through the demonstration phase, but we will continue to advance that demonstration phase. There will be issues; there always are in demonstration phases.
We do have issues to resolve, but as I say, the key ones are noise and vibration, both of which we are very focused on. I hope that we will be able to get resolution on all these issues, but it is what we are working with, with General Dynamics. It is a firm price contract, so £5.5 billion is the maximum that is payable, including VAT. Currently, we are at just under £3.2 billion spent. There is a heavy incentivisation on our suppliers to ensure that they get this over the line. We are working very closely with them at the very top level of their organisation. The joint programme office was delayed by covid, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware. There were significant covid issues in Merthyr, and they did brilliantly through them. We have a joint programme office on the ground, and a combination of top-down and bottom-up will, I hope, enable us to make ongoing progress.
In terms of the reporting, as the right hon. Gentleman may be aware, an Infrastructure and Projects Authority report has been requested by the senior responsible owner, which was helpful. These things are helpful. It is helpful that SROs and their teams can speak honestly to the IPA and get proper independent assessments. That was conducted back in March, and it has certainly helped. I look forward to making further progress and reporting back on that to interested parties as we resolve the issues that are outstanding.
I reiterate that this is a first-class vehicle. It is the first of its kind. It has an important job to do. It is currently employing around 4,100 people across the length and breadth of the UK. I visited Merthyr, and I am proud of what they are doing there. We will, and we must, get this right and get it delivered.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
For some time, I have been warning the House about the growing, complex threats that our nation faces. Over the next decade, the world will become more unstable and more dangerous. That is why I have argued for an increase of the defence budget to 3%, to meet the integrated review obligations, but it makes the job harder of convincing the Treasury, Parliament and the taxpayer when we see so many errors, delays, cost overruns and redesigns.
The Ajax’s predecessor, the Scimitar, weighed just 8 tonnes, yet Ajax weighs 43 tonnes—almost too heavy to fit in or be carried by many of our RAF aircraft. As the Defence Committee’s report underlines, there seems little operational logic to the Army’s land combat operational capabilities. We are reducing our main battle tank fleet. We are retiring all our armoured fighting vehicles completely and replacing the Warrior with the Boxer, which does not have a turret. I know that the Minister is committed to revisiting all this, and it is a massive headache, but with global threats on the increase, does he acknowledge that we must do better?
Jeremy Quin
There is always room to do better—I totally acknowledge that, and I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his comments. It may not be 3%, but a £24 billion increase is certainly good news for defence and something that was necessary. I can assure him that we are focusing on spending that well and in the interests of our armed forces.
The Ajax is going to be a real game changer on the battlefield. It is larger—it is some 40 tonnes—and Scimitar was a different capability, but my right hon. Friend would be the first to say that things have moved on. There is the range of sensors and the four dimensions that Ajax can produce, allowing it to stand off from the enemy. It is a significant sea change. It has that extra lethality compared with what went before and the extra protection that our troops deserve. This is a vehicle that has an incredibly useful role to play on the battlefield and as part of our operational advantage. The emphasis on our suppliers is to get it right.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
There is in the UK no shortage of MOD procurement debacles to draw on, such as the £4 billion Nimrod MRA4 scrapped before service or the Mk 3 Chinooks—half a billion pounds of aircraft that could not fly low or in bad weather—but this multibillion-pound Ajax failure sets a new low. The UK Government have presided over a procurement project that would see soldiers arriving late for operations in vehicles only capable of a pedestrian 20 mph, with a human endurance range of no further than 30 miles, and then unable to fight duty due to sensory impairment and pain caused by these £3.5 billion boneshakers. Can the Minister confirm that the sight system manufactured by Thales in Scotland is working perfectly and is unconnected with this broader failure? Where was the intelligent client at the heart of this project, and where was the learning from previous procurement fiascos? Is the Minister accepting personal responsibility for this debacle, and if so, how does he plan to atone?
Jeremy Quin
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his wide range of questions. I think he ought to be slightly careful in damning all defence procurement. He mentions Nimrod, but I am sure he is very proud to see Poseidon arrive in Lossie, and indeed the E-7 in due course. I hope he is proud of the work being done on the Type 26 and Type 31 on Rosyth and the Clyde, and the huge amount of work that is going through Scottish industry at the moment, including Boxer. Again, Thales is employed on that, and I am sure will do a good job. I have had no complaints, he will be pleased to hear, about the sighting systems that are made, as he rightly says, by Thales—in Glasgow, I believe, but certainly in Scotland. We are going through the demonstration phase, and as an intelligent client, the MOD is required to check everything we are receiving. I reiterate that we will not take something into service and accept IOC until we are ready to do so, and we are holding our suppliers to account.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend confirm that we are fully committed to the Ajax programme, with its assembly in Wales and huge investment in the Union, and also its operational deployment in 2023-24?
Jeremy Quin
Yes, we are absolutely committed to Ajax. We have come a long way with this project. It was originally approved by Ministers of a different colour back in March 2010, and in saying that I acknowledge that it has been a long time coming. However, we are on the cusp of getting this right and getting it sorted. There are issues that need to be resolved—I recognise that—but we will resolve those issues and we will bring it into service.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
As the Minister has said, in March 2010 the then Government opted for Ajax in contrast to the suggested BAE CV90. This weapon is in operation with seven armies, two of which are members of NATO. It can make 70 kph and it weighs considerably less than Ajax. Is it not possible, in all honesty, that a mistake was made when we opted for Ajax as opposed to the BAE suggestion, which would after all have been manufactured in Newcastle?
Jeremy Quin
I would not dream of answering for the Ministers in the last Administration back in 2010, but I would say a couple of points in mitigation. First, on a tiny point of detail, this vehicle is intended to be able to go at 70 kph, and the temporary limitations are temporary for training purposes. On the broader question, again it is a long time ago, but my understanding is that they are fundamentally different platforms. The Ajax we look forward to taking into service is the first of its nature to have the digitalisation of the platform, with the enhanced lethality and enhanced protection. We stand by the decision that the MOD made, and we are very close to getting to IOC, albeit that we have two significant issues to resolve.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Can the Minister update us on how UK suppliers are involved in the Ajax project, and does he agree with me that projects such as this provide the opportunity to support British jobs in steel, textiles and other types of heavy industry, while protecting our troops on operations?
Jeremy Quin
I am absolutely delighted to. There are some 230 companies, all in all, as part of the supply chain. A lot of them had a tough time during covid; I mentioned Merthyr, where General Dynamics is based, in particular. I am very grateful for the work that has continued on the project throughout. I had the opportunity to visit one of the track manufacturers up in north-west Durham, and there are many others around the UK; the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) referred to Thales in Glasgow, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) rightly referred to components of the electronics from Wales, so there are companies around the UK that benefit. We need to learn lessons from Ajax, but we also need to recognise that there are so many great skills and fine companies across the UK that we need to ensure are properly embedded into the land industrial strategy that we will publish in due course.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Defence equipment is traditionally procured to do damage to our adversary, but I understand that the Ajax vehicle has been giving soldiers a risk of tinnitus and swollen joints if they were driven at speeds above 20 mph. In addition, it is unable to fire while moving. The Minister has just described it as a first-class piece of equipment; the men and women of our Army had better hope that he never procures something that he considers substandard.
In his answers so far, the Minister has told us that he is aware of the problems, but he has not given us any real sense of where the solution is or when it will be coming. Can he tell us any more about when we expect the Ajax to be fully operational? What progress has actually been made, as well as identifying the problems that we are all aware of?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman asks serious questions. I just reiterate that there is a difference between what a vehicle can do and what it is certified to do. With things like fire or manoeuvre and the speed limitation, we should not read into them that the vehicle is incapable either of firing on the move or of going above 20 mph. That is not the case; it is simply that that is not what it is certified to do at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman also highlights, perfectly reasonably, the issues that I touched on about noise and vibration. On noise, there are mitigations in place at the moment, and there are further mitigations in terms of the headsets. When we introduced Ajax, the problems occurred in using the standard British Army headset for use in armoured vehicles; the concern that we came across in testing the inner ear was that that was not adequate for the task.
There are two issues that we are therefore looking at: the headset and the noise of the vehicle itself. The noise can have two components; it can be mechanical, but it can also be the electronic noise generated by the aircraft that is communicating with the headsets. I wish that I could tell the hon. Gentleman that a week on Tuesday it will all be resolved. I cannot, but I can tell him that there are issues that we are seriously working through with the suppliers to ensure that we get there.
With vibration, General Dynamics has not had the same experience that we have had, apparently: over many thousands of miles of driving, it has not seen the same issues. That is why we are going to Millbrook, which will have sensors all over the vehicles to test where the vibration is happening and whether we can isolate it. It may be resolvable quickly; it may not be. I can commit only to telling the hon. Gentleman that we will do the work and that I will ensure that people are aware of how it progresses.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is encouraging that General Dynamics has been able to make a vehicle work satisfactorily in the United States, so will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will not be rushed into bringing this already much delayed vehicle into service until these problems are solved to the satisfaction of the people in the armed forces who will have to fight in it?
Jeremy Quin
I am so glad that my right hon. Friend asks that question, because it requires a very simple answer: absolutely. Unfortunately, as he rightly says, there has been a long pattern of delays with the project, but we are not going to take into service something that does not meet our requirements. It is a firm price contract; we need to have it right, and take it into service when it is right to do that. We are not going to obfuscate in order to do so.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
There are reports in the media citing the leaked Government report on the procurement of Ajax tanks and stating that
“the problems were known to the army as early as 2017, but they”—
the MOD—
“didn’t admit them due to embarrassment.”
Does the Minister agree that it would be far more embarrassing, and a failure in the duty of care to our defence personnel, if the Ajax programme went ahead without finding the root cause or mitigating these serious defects?
Jeremy Quin
I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to find the root cause of the defects—that is absolutely right—or at least, we have to first identify that there are defects and then make certain that we have resolved them. I think that would be a fairer way to put it, and that is what a lot of the testing is doing right now. On when these problems first occurred, I do not think awareness of them came from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority report. I have been aware from social media sources of a suggestion that the Army was aware back in 2017. That has not been my experience, having looked into it. The concerns over vibration are a far more recent occurrence.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
As the Minister is well aware and has articulated well today, this Ajax programme is a critical capability for the British Army. When originally the contract was let, we did not have in this country an assembly line capable of manufacturing land capability at scale, particularly armoured capability. The introduction of this capacity through General Dynamics into south Wales is a very important part of the defence industrial strategy, which he has referenced. It is valuable for the whole House to remind itself that we are not talking in a vacuum here; this is a capability that the Government in the coalition days ensured was built in this country.
We were looking at a design that relied upon economies of scale to bring a state-of-the-art turret, which was going to be jointly deployed on Warrior, with a cannon jointly developed with France, again with state-of-the-art capability and lethality. Can my hon. Friend reassure the House that the cancellation of the Warrior programme will not impact on the ability to deliver turrets and cannons into the Ajax programme and will not add further delay or cost increase?
Jeremy Quin
My right hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience, and I thank him for what he says about the production line. I do not know whether he ever had the chance to visit Merthyr. He probably did.
Jeremy Quin
He did, as I have done recently. It is an impressive factory with impressive personnel doing a good job. We just need to make certain that the whole thing fits together and works, and that is what we are committed to do.
To reassure my right hon. Friend on the Warrior, I have seen no evidence that the cancellation of the Warrior capability sustainment programme should have an adverse effect on the turrets for Ajax. Indeed, I believe I am right in saying that 58 of those have already been manufactured.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
May I also confirm that the Merthyr factory is an impressive capability? The defence and security industrial strategy gives Ajax as an example of regional levelling up, so can the Minister confirm where the turrets for Ajax will be built?
Jeremy Quin
My understanding is that those turrets have been built by Lockheed Martin and are being constructed in Ampthill in Bedfordshire. That is my understanding, but I will double-check. If it is any different, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and leave a copy of my letter in the Library of the House of Commons. It is my understanding that that is happening at Ampthill.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) [V]
Does the Minister agree that the Ajax situation undermines global Britain’s forward presence objectives as envisaged in the integrated review, such as the ability of the Royal Dragoon Guards based in Warminster to project reconnaissance combat teams, which they were being re-roled for? If it turns out that the vibration issue—[Inaudible.]
Mr Speaker
The sound is as defective as the programme. Minister, do you want to try to answer that?
Jeremy Quin
I am very sorry that we have lost my right hon. Friend. It gives me scope to interpret his question. I think he was asking about our capability to equip our recce troops. What we can do is a needed step change. The vehicles we are currently using were brought into service in the 1970s. We need that digitised framework. We need those sensors. We need the four dimensional capability. The programme will significantly help our armed forces, and we will be able to deliver it at speed.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister is a decent person, but this is extremely worrying news. The idea that we have a vehicle that can go almost as fast as a bicycle, but cannot actually fire its weapon on the move, while also posing such a risk to our troops is very worrying. The defence analyst, Francis Tusa, has described this as the Army’s Nimrod MRA4. Is he right, and what does that say about our defence procurement capability or, should I say, incapability?
Jeremy Quin
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his nice remarks. He is also a very decent person, but I fear that he was not listening fully to my earlier responses regarding speed and fire on manoeuvre, which are capabilities that Ajax will be able to deploy. We are still in demonstration phases, so we do not get the full finished article; it is the capability 3 drop that provides us with the vehicle that will be used on operations.
The hon. Gentleman is worried. I, too, am concerned that we have issues. I would much rather have come to this place and said, “All’s well; 30 June 2021—we’re looking good.” The fact that we have tests on vibrations, which will not be fully reported on until the end of July, speaks all one needs to know about that particular date. We have been pushing and pushing, and it is still possible that we will get a very easy answer. I fear that it may take longer, but we will continue to work to resolve these issues. However, we are spending £5.5 billion on a fixed-price contract. A lot can go wrong in a contract. A lot needs to be worked on with the suppliers, and in terms of the demonstration phase, that is what we are going to do.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the MOD has been found not to have undertaken the proper due diligence with respect to its hardware. There are serious questions about not only this hardware, given the reports of potential injuries to personnel, but the process through which it was selected, developed and commissioned. Given tenders such as the Nimrod MRA4 and others like it, the British Government have billions of pounds lying in the balance. Will they therefore commit to reviewing how they handle such tenders?
Jeremy Quin
We constantly look at how we can best procure. Through the defence and security industrial strategy, we are looking at trying to improve significantly the processes that we undergo, including by having far more active contact with companies, particularly onshore UK companies, in order that we are able to work with them, and more agility in the nature of the contracts that we undertake. There is a process in place to ensure that we procure as best we possibly can, although, as I say, it is a £5.5 billion contract doing something that has not been done previously globally, and it is important that we recognise that issues can emerge. The critical point is to spot those issues and then make certain that they are resolved.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to investing in our armoured fighting vehicles. It is vital that we never have a repeat of a situation where our armed forces personnel are put in harm’s way without appropriate protections. However, it is clear that there have been issues with the Ajax programme, so can the Minister assure the House that all steps will be taken to learn the lessons of this and improve our defence procurement?
Jeremy Quin
Yes, we can learn from all procurements. We learn something from everything that is done. I wish this was a totally smooth process. It has not been—from the recast in 2014, to the recast in 2019, the delay to IOC and the fact that here we are, at this point, with two significant issues that I still need to get to grips with and resolve. We will have points to learn from, but I gently say to the House that a demonstration phase is a demonstration phase. We need to learn through a demonstration phase and then apply what we have learned.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Minister seemed slightly hurt that the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), described him as complacent, and then he went on to confirm that description. He talked about vibration. He took the manufacturer’s word for it, even though the users found something different. Talk about shades of “dieselgate”. He said that the noise can be mechanical, but somehow, he does not seem to have got to the bottom of where it is coming from. He said that Ajax is capable of firing on the move, but somehow, it does not seem to be able to do so at the moment. Do the troops on the frontline not deserve something better, and does he not need to get a grip?
Jeremy Quin
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of points. On the vibration, if I took the word of the supplier, we would have met IOC and we would not have issues. I take the word of our crews who have been training on the vehicle; that is why we have taken it so seriously, why we have commissioned the reports that we have commissioned and why the vehicles are currently at Millbrook being put through their paces. I absolutely reassure the House that we will not take the programme into IOC until we are confident that we have achieved what we need to achieve at this stage of the vehicle’s development. I absolutely stand by that.
The right hon. Gentleman also made points about firing on the move and the speed restrictions; there is a difference between the certification of rolling process, certification during a demonstration and future phases, and what the vehicle is capable of.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
On the back of Army modernisation and the £24 billion investment in the integrated review, there is a significant opportunity to grow land exports. Will my hon. Friend confirm to me and the House what export opportunities he expects to arise from the Ajax programme?
Jeremy Quin
I would very much like to see this vehicle as an export opportunity, and I believe it can be. The noise that has been quite rightly and legitimately raised in respect of the issues in the demonstration phase is understandable, but it probably will not help the vehicle’s export potential immediately. I hope that, during the demonstration phase, we can resolve what we need to resolve, and I would love to see a situation in which I can confirm to the House that all is well, that we have hit IOC and that we are going to proceed to FOC. Incidentally, someone asked about FOC earlier but I did not come back to them: we are doing work with Tony Meggs from the IPA to make certain that we get an agreed FOC. I should have said that earlier, but it is now on the record. I hope to get that sorted and then proceed to export what will be a transformational vehicle in service with the British Army to our allies and friends around the world, meaning more jobs for this country.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
In addition to issues with the Ajax programme, the Government are still struggling to get on top of the massive black hole in their equipment plan, with the most recent report from the National Audit Office having found that it “remains unaffordable” for “the fourth successive year”. That is another warning from the NAO that has not been properly heeded by this Government, and the plan is up to £13 billion overdrawn. What plans does the Secretary of State have to plug the huge financial black hole?
Jeremy Quin
With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, the report to which she referred was published prior to the injection of the additional £24 billion earlier this year. As a result of that, we will be publishing an equipment plan that will add up. I recognise that that will be for the first time in many years, and under successive Governments, but we will have a plan of which we can all be proud.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
As a proud member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I am delighted with the £24 billion investment in our armed forces that was set out in the integrated review. As my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) just said, that investment also presents a great opportunity to grow exports. So can the Minister confirm what progress he may have made with colleagues in the Department for International Trade and what opportunities he may expect will arise in respect of armoured fighting vehicles?
Jeremy Quin
That is a positive point on which to end these exchanges—if, indeed, this is the end Mr Speaker. It is absolutely right that we should look at the land industrial strategy to see what we can secure for this country. In terms of armoured fighting vehicles, we have not only Ajax but Boxer, and there is additional work on our Challenger 3 main battle tank. We have a lot of capabilities in the land domain, as we have in respect of exporting ships of various descriptions and the fantastic work that we continue to do on Typhoon and the development of our future combat air system. There is huge potential for us not only to defend our country and keep us secure but to offer huge prosperity benefits to all the people of the UK.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
British Council
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, if he will make a statement on British Council closures.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The British Council is a crucial part of the UK’s presence overseas and a key soft power asset. It works in more than 100 countries to promote UK education, arts and culture, and the English language. The Government remain committed to the British Council. As the integrated review made clear, we value the influence of the British Council. We agreed a 2021-22 spending review settlement totalling £189 million, which is a 26% increase in funding from 2020-21. The British Council has not been cut. Although we have had to make difficult decisions to cut in other areas, we have increased the money we are providing to the British Council. Not only have we increased funding; we have provided a rescue package during the covid-19 pandemic. This includes a loan facility of up to £145 million, with a further £100 million loan being finalised to support restructuring. We have also provided a letter of comfort to ensure that the council can meet its financial obligations.
We found this funding for the council in the context of an extremely challenging financial environment. As a result of the pandemic, the UK is facing the worst economic contraction in over 300 years and a budget deficit of close to £400 billion. This package is necessarily accompanied by changes to the council’s governance essential to modernise the council. These include measures to update the British Council’s charitable objects, to focus the council on its core pillars, to streamline its governance structures and to agree new key performance indicators and targets to monitor council performance in key areas. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and British Council officials have worked together to ensure that the council will align even more closely with the Government’s strategic priorities and can focus on doing what it does best.
Having worked closely with the British Council, we are reviewing physical council presence in-country as part of this modernisation process. These changes will be minimal, but it is a strategic mistake to judge the impact of the council in a digital age solely by the physical office in-country. Rather, it should be judged by its operational presence, by the digital services we are investing in and which have expanded rapidly as a result of covid, and by its ability to operate through regional hubs and third parties. The covid crisis has changed the way we all have to operate. We have also implemented a new evaluation mechanism, so that when Ministers travel, they can assess the value for money and the impact provided by the British Council on soft power. This is a strong rescue and reform package. The council will also shortly have a new chief executive officer, so it will have strong leadership and a governance structure to make it viable and to reinforce its role as a force for good.
Mr Baron
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I also thank colleagues from all parties who are supporting our campaign and who signed the letter to the Prime Minister, and I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question. Speaking as chair of the British Council all-party parliamentary group, I know that our own dealings with the Government and the letter published between the FCDO and the Foreign Affairs Committee confirm that office closures are about to take place overseas. This is about to be announced by the Government. The number varies from five to 20, but even five would represent the largest set of closures in the British Council’s history, and all for the sake of a £10 million shortfall in funding.
The Minister is right when he says that funding has been supplied to the British Council. We all know that the British Council does an excellent job, and I will not waste colleagues’ time by extolling its virtues. It is a key reason that the UK is considered a soft power superpower. Its high-quality, dedicated staff do an excellent job in promoting British culture, education and the English language overseas, facilitating cultural exchanges and building trust between other countries and the UK. In any normal year, it derives only 15% of its funding from the Government because of its commercial activities, but those commercial activities have been savaged by the pandemic. The Government have stepped forward, but their funding is still £10 million short of what the British Council needs to maintain its international network —its footprint of offices overseas—and its programming. The Government have gone so far, but they are falling at the final fence.
The Minister may say that the British Council needs to move into the technological age—he talks of a digital age—but there can be no substitute for a presence on the ground. The litmus test when it comes to the site closures is not only the Government’s talk of hub and spoke arrangements in certain regions; it is whether the country directors themselves are in situ, and country directors are going to be made redundant.
Let us remember that these closures are happening only because of the £10 million in cuts. They are not of the British Council’s choosing, so talk by Ministers that such decisions are for the British Council rings somewhat hollow. There has been strong ministerial involvement in these decisions, as confirmed by the letter to me from the Prime Minister, and it is Ministers who have instigated these cuts.
Very briefly, the closures are wrong because they are not in keeping with the concept of global Britain—the Defence Secretary has said that there is not enough British Council in the world—but they are also wrong strategically. It is a bad decision—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have to go to the Minister. I warned the hon. Gentleman that he had two minutes, and he has now taken three minutes-plus.
Nigel Adams
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a great deal of time for my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who does a great job chairing the all-party group. I am sure he is fully aware that, given the challenging position in which we find ourselves, many arm’s length bodies would be thrilled with a 26% increase in funding for next year.
Obviously, plans for the British Council’s global presence are still being finalised. It is a matter for the British Council to comment on the plans, and if they involve changes in country, I think my hon. Friend would appreciate that it is only right that the British Council is given the opportunity to consult its employees, trade unions and so on. Of course, any final decisions will be communicated in due course.
We will continue to support the council to ensure that it plays a leading role in enhancing UK soft power. My hon. Friend briefly mentioned global Britain before he was chopped off at the knees, and our commitment to it is clear. It is clear in the fact that we are hosting the G7 this week, as well as securing a deal on global tax reform. We also rank exceedingly well in the leading soft power indices and rankings. I, too, am getting the stare from Mr Speaker, so I shall sit down.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I would first like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for his tireless work as chair of the APPG. Secondly, I declare an interest: I worked for the British Council from 1996 until 2008, during which time I was posted to Brussels, St Petersburg and Sierra Leone.
The council’s core purpose is to build long-term, trust-based relationships between the UK and other countries—and my goodness, it delivers. From its global network of world-leading English language teaching centres, to its outstanding arts and culture programmes, its work on democracy and good governance, its education reform and media freedom projects, and its scientific exchange and promotion of the UK’s higher education sector, the British Council provides us with an object lesson in how to win friends and influence people.
The council also provides excellent value for money for the British taxpayer, with the success of its commercial operations gradually reducing reliance on Government financing, but those operations have of course been hit hard by the pandemic, meaning that the council requires UK Government support to weather the storm. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Government are refusing to make good the shortfall, which in turn is forcing the council to look at closing down offices in up to 20 countries. The Government’s position represents the very definition of a false economy. It is short-sighted and would inflict profound damage on Britain’s status as a soft power superpower.
On the eve of the G7 summit, I urge the Minister to think again. Will he please tell me how he intends to support the British Council to fulfil its integral role in making Britain a force for good in the world—an ambition set by the Government in their integrated review? Does he understand fears that the Government’s abandonment of their 0.7% manifesto commitment on foreign aid, combined with their ambivalence towards the council, sends a signal that Britain is withdrawing from the world stage, rather than offering leadership? Will he therefore return to this House before the summer recess with a plan that secures the British Council’s entire global network?
Nigel Adams
May I praise the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done with the British Council— 12 years is a very long stint working for a fantastic organisation—but also prod him gently for talking about our “ambivalence” towards the British Council? I politely remind him that we will be providing £149 million in grant in aid this year and £189 million in grant in aid next year. That is an increase of 26%. We have provided the British Council with a £145 million covid loan and are providing a £100 million loan to help it to restructure. In March 2020, we provided £26 million. Madam Deputy Speaker, £609 million of British taxpayers’ money since the pandemic hit does not sound like ambivalence to me. The hon. Gentleman is right: the integrated review made it clear that we value the influence of the council—of course we do—and we will continue to support the British Council in playing its leading role in enhancing the UK’s soft power throughout its work overseas.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
It was very welcome to hear the Minister’s defence of the spending going towards the British Council and the way in which the Department and the Government have supported this essential service of Britain’s presence overseas. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister would also like to set out not just how we defend such a fantastic institution, but how we improve it and increase its reach. The closure of these five sites will, one must only hope, be reversed soon—perhaps not in exactly the same place, but in other buildings. What plans does he, the Department and the Foreign Secretary have to make sure that the British Council fulfils the opportunity that is before it and does not simply become a backwater?
Nigel Adams
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for his remarks. We will be supporting the British Council going forward. It has undoubtedly gone through a torrid time: the covid pandemic has hit the British Council’s commercial activities incredibly hard. May I also use this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of the British Council, as well as the leadership? They have had a torrid time, as has all the FCDO network, working under such difficult circumstances during the pandemic.
To answer the Chairman’s questions, we are revising the charitable objects of the British Council to focus on arts and culture, English language and education. There will be some key performance indicators coming forward. I work very closely with the chairman and the acting chief executive of the British Council and have met them on many occasions since taking up this position. We will continue to work with them closely. I think that the future for the British Council is very bright going forward, and we intend to continue to ensure that global Britain is a world leader for soft power.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
The decision by the UK Government to refuse to support the British Council in its hour of need is further evidence of the “little Britain” attitude at the heart of this Government. Indeed, this new little Britain approach is so small that the Scottish Tory party wrote to the UK Tory party to question why the Scottish Government have the temerity to pursue links abroad. Yet we learn only a fortnight later that the Government are happy to slash the British Council’s international outposts. So, is the Prime Minister’s “global Britain” pledge as hollow as these moves suggest?
Furthermore, the Government previously described the British Council as a
“key driver of UK soft power overseas.”
If it is integral to the UK’s global outlook, why have this Government decided to withdraw their support? Lastly, once again we see the Government renege on their word. The last Conservative manifesto stated:
“We will work with our cultural institutions like the BBC and British Council to expand our influence and project our values.”
Just like cuts to life-saving support for the world’s most vulnerable, is this yet another broken promise for this Government?
Nigel Adams
I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but references to little Britain are frankly nonsensical. I am not entirely sure whether he listened to my statement, but we are increasing funding to the British Council next year by 26%. That is not abandoning the British Council. We value the work of the British Council. We will be supporting it, we have stuck up for it and we have got it a good settlement going forward. We have helped to bail out the British Council when times have got tough, and we will continue to work with it to ensure that it continues the fantastic work it does around the globe.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
The British Council gives extraordinarily good value for money, as the Minister knows. He will also be aware that taxpayer support for the British Council is significantly less than that provided by their counterparts—and, dare I say it, our commercial competitors?—in France, Germany and Japan. Research by the British Council demonstrates that its building of trust and connections generates greater economic activity. Will he bear in mind the importance of not spoiling the ship for a ha’p’orth of tar? In promoting our values, will he pick up on research showing that our commitment to the rule of law, our free judicial system and the quality of our legal system are also strongly recognised as being critical great British global values?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is spot on, and that is exactly where we are on this. As the integrated review made clear, we value the influence of the British Council globally, and we will continue to support it in playing a leading role. In his foreword the Prime Minister reiterated our commitment to soft power and, indeed, recognised the contribution of the British Council, writing that it is one of the
“vital instruments of our influence overseas”.
That is why we are providing support and continue to work very closely with the British Council.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his encouraging remarks, because as the former chair of the British Council all-party parliamentary group I saw at first hand just how the council works across the globe as the engine room of UK soft power. In the face of the budget short- fall, however, offices will close, programmes will be cut and jobs will be lost. Does he agree that the promotion of British culture and language is key to the UK thriving post Brexit, and vital in building a truly global Britain?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the first time I have seen him in a very long time; may I congratulate him on how magnificent a specimen he looks these days? He raises an important point: it is absolutely essential that we continue to promote the United Kingdom, and the British Council does exactly that. Research has shown that students, for example, are 15% more likely to choose the UK as their study destination after using British Council services. I also thank my hon. Friend for his work as a former chair of the all-party parliamentary group.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
It is clear from Members’ contributions that there is absolute unanimity about the importance of the British Council in promoting Britain’s interests and soft power across the globe. Indeed, the Minister himself has emphasised that. However, there seems to be contradiction between the commitment he expresses and the funding gap that is being allowed to develop. Will he tell us how the Government propose to close that funding gap in future years to ensure that the British Council does not move into some sort of managed decline as a result of a lack of funding?
Nigel Adams
I assure the hon. Lady that it is absolutely our intent to support the British Council—that is why we have increased its funding. As I have said, since the pandemic hit, this Government have committed to providing £609 million, which is a considerable increase. We want to ensure that the council remains on a stable financial footing. I can also tell her that the recently announced new CEO of the British Council is a formidable figure, and I am sure that he will do a fantastic job alongside the chairman, Stevie Spring. I think it has exciting times ahead under such formidable leadership.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
In 2019-20, there were six schools in my constituency that benefited from excellent British Council programmes. Five were twinned with schools elsewhere in the world, and one—Ysgol Llywelyn in Rhyl—received an international school award. Will my hon. Friend confirm that opportunities such as these will not be impacted by covid-induced financial pressures?
Nigel Adams
I think my hon. Friend is referring to the Connecting Classrooms through Global Learning schools programme, which builds long-term relationships between schools, communities in the UK and developing countries. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will continue to fund that programme for 2021-22.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
There is unanimity across the House on the values of the British Council going way beyond narrow commercial ones. This is about the values that we have as a nation, and the kind of world in which we want to live. Even in hard commercial terms, the British Council pays back to this nation what it costs, and in considerable excess of that. What consultation is there with other Government Departments, such as Education, International Trade, and Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy, for example? All those Departments and others would have an interest in making sure that we do not lose up to 20 British Council posts worldwide. That kind of information would allow us to assess whether the Government’s credibility is real on this issue.
Nigel Adams
May I just correct the record? I may have said Stewart McDonald was the incoming CEO. I was confusing him with one of our colleagues; it is Scott McDonald who will be the new chief executive. [Interruption.] Two of our colleagues! Crikey. I am sorry to disappoint the two in question. Anyway, Scott will do a fantastic job leading the British Council.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) makes a good point. Of course we talk across Government—across all our network. We have BEIS employees in posts where there are British Council employees around the country, and we will continue to do that. We want to support the Council in continuing its brilliant role in ensuring that our United Kingdom soft power is enhanced through its work overseas.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister identify which other body promotes the British language, the arts, the global economy, Climate Connection and so many other sectors which are so competently handled within the existing structure? Does he acknowledge the tremendous work that has been done by the British Council so far?
Nigel Adams
Absolutely; we hugely value the influence of the British Council. We will continue to support it in the leading role that it plays, enhancing the United Kingdom through its work overseas. As I mentioned previously, the Integrated Review reiterated our commitment to soft power. It recognised the contribution of the British Council. The Prime Minister’s foreword to the Integrated Review policy paper referred to the British Council as one of the “vital instruments” of our influence overseas.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Minister will shortly be able to travel the world, and when he does so he will find that the presence of the British Council on site is the best embodiment of global soft power that this country has. The British Council has a funding shortfall because it cannot operate commercially. Can my right hon. Friend please find it in him to give that additional support to make sure that that on-site presence is there for when he makes those ministerial visits?
Nigel Adams
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. May I correct the record—with apologies, because she is a very good friend of mine—as I am an hon. Member rather than a right hon. Member? Either way, she will appreciate that plans for the global presence of the British Council are still being finalised. We have provided a package of support and an increase in funding of which, as I said, many arm’s length bodies would be extremely envious. It is, of course, for the British Council to comment on its plans for the overseas network, but I assure my right hon. Friend that those final decisions will be communicated shortly.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Does the Minister not understand that funding for next year is no remedy for cuts, decisions and closures that will take place now? There will be long-term consequences as a result of what he is trying to describe as short-term funding shortfalls. Is that not the problem with the likes of the Prime Minister viewing aid as a giant cash machine in the sky? The Government are losing sight of the long- term consequences of their short-term decisions.
Nigel Adams
I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s assumptions. The impact of the pandemic has forced the Government to take incredibly tough but necessary decisions in many areas. Despite that economic climate, we have managed not just to protect the grant in aid funding that the British Council received this year, but to increase it. As I said, we are also providing a loan to help it get through the impact of the covid pandemic. Last March, when the pandemic first hit, there was immediate assistance of £26 million, plus another £100 million restructuring facility that we are working with the British Council on, so I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s assertions whatsoever.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The French and the Germans are steadily increasing their efforts through the Goethe-Institut and the French Institute, where I spent many happy hours trying to bone up on my inadequate French. Meanwhile, for decades we have been closing British Council libraries, which are often the only places where people can get free access to English literature. Will the Minister go back to his officials and insist that English literature is our greatest cultural export, and that there must be no diminution in our efforts to expand and promote it worldwide?
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend is correct. The British Council is a world-leading provider of language teaching, teacher training and examinations on behalf of the UK Government. It reaches 100 million learners and teachers of English annually across more than 100 countries, and it has been shown that increased levels of English language speaking benefits the United Kingdom.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
The Minister has heard from colleagues across the House of the great support for the British Council, the recognition of its incredible work and the great value it gives. In 2018-19 the British Council estimated that German funding for their soft power agencies was three times that of the UK, and that in France it was twice the UK level. Is the Minister not concerned that the cuts the British Council now has to make will further undermine and reduce our influence compared with our major European neighbours?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Other countries have various programmes, and the Goethe-Institut and the Institut Français have different models. The British Council operates slightly differently with more commercial operations, and it is reliant on less Government funding than the others. Our determination to work as a force for good in the world is an important part of our soft power. The British Council is the key driver in that and will continue to act as a force for good for the United Kingdom, for example by teaching English to young women in south Asia. The education that the British Council provides is outstanding and will continue to be, and we will continue to support it.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I share the concern about the British Council’s funding settlement and the potential office closures, not least because of the understated role that the British Council plays in helping to boost trade. Will the Minister in particular assure me that there will be no cuts to the council’s presence in India, Pakistan and the other counties of the Indian subcontinent, where we have both strong historical links and the need to boost trade?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not in a position to announce any of those arrangements at this point. The plans for the British Council’s global presence are still being finalised, and it is for the British Council to comment on its global network. However, I can assure him that decisions will be communicated very shortly.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
While it is generally agreed across the House that the soft power applied on behalf of the UK by the British Council has been enormous, surely we must take account of the fact that thousands—in fact, tens of thousands—of businesses across this country have had to adjust to the financial disaster that covid has applied to them. The British Council should do no other than that, despite having hundreds of millions of pounds support from this Government.
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. These are extraordinary times and the impact that the pandemic has had on world economies—not just on the UK economy—has sent out a shock wave. We have backed the British Council, we have supported it and we are ensuring that it has an increase in its funding for next year. He is right to point out how important a role the British Council plays in soft power through its work overseas. I am told that one in five world leaders was educated at a UK university, which is more than any other country except the US. Given the fact that 15% of foreign students are influenced by the work of the British Council in determining where they have their education, that is testament to the brilliant work that it does.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I remember, while going on British Council activities in the Balkans after the Kosovo war, the importance of having local offices in Pristina and Belgrade that connected with people. It was the same when I visited the British Council in Mexico; we could report the same across the whole world: the individual importance of having a base. The young people in those programmes were already using online activities. If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that online does not replicate person-to-person contact in building trust and culture. If this were a reduction in UK export support for manufacturing, the Government would be outraged and reversing any of the cuts. Will the Minister look again, in particular at the in-person support, to ensure that there are offices in every location where needed and that the support during the pandemic allows the British Council to grow and not just to survive?
Nigel Adams
It is good to hear the hon. Gentleman’s experience of benefiting from the work that the British Council does overseas. I am absolutely confident in the British Council’s ability to grow, not just survive. As I said, the individuals who will be leading this organisation—Scott McDonald and Stevie Spring—are formidable people with huge commercial experience, and that is exactly what the British Council needs. Any organisation would be proud to have these individuals leading from the front, so I have full confidence in the British Council’s ability, under this leadership, to take this fantastic organisation forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will briefly suspend the House in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Employment Rights
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the latest steps the Government are taking to protect workers’ rights, as we look to build back better from covid-19. That includes our plans to create a single body responsible for state enforcement of employment rights, modernise the regulator of trade unions and address so-called fire and rehire negotiation tactics.
This Government have been absolutely clear that we will do whatever we need to do to protect and enhance workers’ rights in this most challenging year. In April, for example, we increased pay for around 2 million workers, and the coronavirus job retention scheme has already helped to pay the wages of 11.5 million people across the country. We will continue to champion our flexible and dynamic labour market and to maintain the UK’s excellent record on workers’ rights.
Today, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has published its report on fire and rehire. I know that this is a matter of great interest to employers and workers up and down the country, and I encourage all Members to read ACAS’s report. This Government have always been clear that we do not accept fire and rehire as a negotiation tactic. Workers up and down the country have worked flat out during the pandemic, carrying out essential work to keep our economy going. It is crucial that employers take their responsibilities seriously and act appropriately when it comes to discussions about changing employment contracts.
I have been deeply concerned by reports over the last year that some employers may be turning too soon to firing and rehiring employees and are using this as a tactic in negotiations to put undue pressure on workers to rush into accepting new, and often worse, terms and conditions or face losing their jobs. It is unacceptable and, frankly, immoral to use the threat of fire and rehire as a negotiating tactic to force through changes to people’s employment contracts, or for employers to turn to dismissal and rehiring too hastily, rather than continue to engage in meaningful negotiations. We are not talking about something abstract here—this is about peoples’ lives and livelihoods.
At a time when many workers have shown great loyalty and commitment to carry out essential work and keep our economy going in the face of a pandemic, I expect employers to continue to treat their staff fairly and with respect. That is why my Department asked ACAS to gather evidence on the practice, so that we could evaluate whether further action is needed at this time. I would like to thank ACAS for its work, which has provided my Department with a balanced account, based on insights from employer bodies, trade unions and professional bodies.
The report outlines the circumstances in which fire and rehire can be and has been used, and offers views from a range of contributors on whether and how to tackle the issue. There are different views on whether the practice can ever be justified. For some of the organisations consulted by ACAS, it is never acceptable. For others, in its most legitimate form fire and rehire is a route for employers to avoid redundancies and business failures, after negotiations have been exhausted. However, the report finds agreement that fire and rehire can and should be used only in limited, legally prescribed circumstances. Some thought that this should be further reinforced in law, whereas a number of participants cautioned against new legislation, warning that it may have unintended consequences: it may lead to more redundancies.
This is clearly a complex area. Many of the people ACAS spoke to welcomed non-legislative interventions, such as guidance for businesses, the vast majority of which I recognise want to do the right thing. That is why I have now asked ACAS to produce better, more comprehensive, clearer guidance to help employers explore all the options before considering fire and rehire, and encourage good employment relations practice.
Some of ACAS’s participants raised concerns that fire and rehire is used by employers to break continuity of service to limit the ability of workers and employees to access their rights, as certain employment rights require periods of continuous employment. The Government have already committed to legislate to extend the time required to break a period of continuous service. That will make it easier for employees to access their rights and also deter businesses from using fire and rehire to engineer breaks in employment in order to deny individuals important employment rights.
Despite the unprecedented Government support during the pandemic, this has also been an exceptionally difficult time for businesses. Many businesses have shown an incredible ability to adapt and innovate, and have played a key role in tackling the pandemic. Even so, some employers may need to make difficult decisions, in order to avoid redundancies and to ensure their business can survive and succeed. In those circumstances, employers and employees should always aim to reach negotiated agreements about terms and conditions of employment and exhaust every avenue to achieve this. But the reality is that sometimes, regrettably, negotiations will fail. In these circumstances, employers may need to dismiss staff, and potentially re-engage them. Therefore, any potential reform must be balanced against the possibility of the remedy creating a worse problem than the one it is intended to address: we must be careful not to introduce measures that inadvertently run the risk of businesses going bust, and thus more people losing their jobs.
However, having carefully considered the report, the Government want to send a clear message to employers: even if your business is facing acute challenges, all other options to save jobs and a business should be exhausted before considering the dismissal and re-engagement of staff. I believe that we can achieve this working in partnership with businesses and workers, without heavy-handed legislation.
This House should be left in no doubt that this Government will always continue to stand behind workers and stamp out unscrupulous practices where they occur. That is why today I am also confirming the next steps we will be taking to modernise our labour market enforcement regime. In 2019, the Government published a consultation that set out the benefits of bringing together our three existing labour market enforcement bodies into a single organisation. Today, the Government have published their formal response to that consultation. This new single enforcement body will help the country build back better by taking a smarter approach to the enforcement of employment law. It will make it easier for the vast majority of responsible businesses to comply with the rules. It will ensure a level playing field, through effective enforcement against those who cut corners and exploit workers. Today’s Government response sets out the overarching details of the new body: responsibility for tackling modern slavery, enforcing the minimum and living wages and protecting agency workers will be brought under one roof, creating a comprehensive new authority.
The new body will go further than current enforcement, enforcing holiday pay for the most vulnerable workers, as well as statutory sick pay. It will regulate umbrella companies, enforce financial penalties against organisations that do not meet requirements to publish modern slavery statements, and run the unpaid tribunal awards penalty scheme.
Protecting workers requires support for businesses, too, so that employers understand how to comply with the rules. This is in addition to effective, visible enforcement action to deter irresponsible employers. The body will have a spectrum of powers and responsibilities to achieve that, including the ability to issue guidance and compliance notices and levy civil penalties for certain offences, and the power to prosecute the most exploitative employers.
Protecting workers is not just about support for business and effective state enforcement. Trade unions have an essential role in the workplace; I know from my regular close engagement with unions how important their work is. Today, the Government have published our plans to modernise the regulation of trade unions, bringing the certification officer in line with other regulators. These reforms will implement technical measures passed by Parliament via the Trade Union Act 2016, providing reassurance to union members and the wider public.
We are confirming three changes related to the certification officer today. First, we are extending the certification officer’s powers to enable her to proactively investigate when a third party raises concerns that a union or employers association may have breached its statutory duties; we will also expand the powers available to her to conduct those investigations. Secondly, we will give the certification officer the power to apply financial penalties to unions or employers associations where the most serious breaches are found to have occurred. The sanctions will be targeted only at the small minority of unions that breach their statutory requirements and obligations. Thirdly, we will move the certification to a levy funding model, which will bring the certification officer in line with other regulators such as the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Reporting Council. Proper and fair regulation will ensure that all trade unions and employers associations conduct themselves to the highest standards.
The United Kingdom has one of the best records on workers’ rights in the world, going further than the EU in many areas, and we are determined to build on that record. By modernising our labour market enforcement regime, protecting workers more extensively, supporting businesses to comply with the law and preventing them from being undercut by a minority of irresponsible employers, we can continue to be a high-wage, high-employment economy that works for everyone as we build back better.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The Government have overseen a crisis of insecurity and a lack of protections at work, and the proposals announced today will do little to address it. There is no plan to legislate for a single enforcement body, so can the Minister explain how and when that will happen, given that the long-promised employment Bill has been ditched?
There is no new money in this announcement. We had a decade of cuts and underfunding that left us woefully unprepared when the pandemic hit. In the past year, just one workplace in 171 has had a safety or workers’ rights inspection, and not a single employer has been prosecuted and fined for putting workers or the public at risk of contracting covid-19. A staggering 2 million people are paid below the national minimum wage, yet there are currently just 18 employment agency standards inspectors responsible for inspecting 40,000 employment agencies.
Without new funding, the Minister is simply proposing to merge several under-resourced agencies into a single under- resourced agency. The hollowness of the Government’s commitment is underlined by the fact that the post of director of labour market enforcement has been left vacant for the past six months. However, the most glaring omission in this plan is that many of the most exploitative employment practices are perfectly legal.
Bogus self-employment denies millions of workers in the gig economy basic rights and protections, including the national minimum wage, rest breaks and health and safety protections. For those workers it is not a matter of enforcement, because they do not have rights to enforce. They have been totally abandoned by the Government. Will the Minister commit to giving all workers full employment rights to ensure that everyone has dignity and security at work?
On fire and rehire, the Minister says:
“This Government have always been clear that we do not accept fire and rehire as a negotiation tactic.”
These are empty words. The only clear message would be to outlaw the practice. The Government have hidden behind the ACAS report since February, using it as an excuse to do nothing. Today’s announcement that ACAS will be asked to produce further guidance kicks the can down the road yet again. Almost 3 million people—one in 10—have been subjected to fire and rehire since last March.
Allowing working people to be bullied on to lower wages and worse terms and conditions is both morally wrong and economically illiterate. The Government claim to oppose fire and rehire while encouraging it through their inaction because they believe that this one-sided flexibility is good for the economy. How many more millions of workers is the Minister prepared to allow to be fired and rehired before he acts to outlaw the practice?
The proposal to give the certification officer powers to commission investigations and fine trade unions even when there has been no complaint from a member, funded by a levy on trade unions, is an ideological attack on working people. The Minister is proposing to solve a problem that does not exist. The certification officer had a tiny number of cases last year resulting in just one enforcement order. This means that unions will face financial burdens at times when their members are facing hardship, diverting time and resources away from protecting working people to deal with spurious complaints initiated by groups like the TaxPayers’ Alliance rather than fighting for members. If the Minister is genuinely concerned about law-breaking, I suggest he looks closer to home. Staff in his Department are balloting for strike action because of repeated breaches of employment law, including unlawful deductions of wages that force staff to rely on food banks, as well as breaching the working time directive and repeated breaches of Health and Safety Executive covid guidelines.
Trade unions are the best mechanism for protecting workers’ rights, yet the Minister wants to tip the balance of power even further away from them. Compare and contrast this with Joe Biden, who is unshackling and empowering trade unions to rejuvenate the American economy and raise living standards. This Government want to hobble trade unions. The Minister has committed his Government to
“do whatever we can to protect and enhance workers’ rights.”
There is a chasm between the reality and the rhetoric. This is another deceit on working people, but I have news for the Minister: he is fooling nobody.
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman talks about enforcement issues and funding. We have more than doubled the budget for minimum wage enforcement and compliance, which is now over £27 million annually, up from £13.2 million in 2015. There are more than 400 HMRC staff involved in enforcement of the minimum wage. We concluded over 2,700 investigations on the minimum wage and returned more than £16.7 million in arrears to over 155,000 workers. We are determined that people should get a fair wage for a fair day’s work. As we build back better, we will build back fairer, and it will not be on the backs of the lowest paid. That is why we will continue to increase the national minimum wage and the national living wage and also to enforce action on transgressions in that area.
On the Health and Safety Executive and what has happened with covid, the HSE has received £14.4 million in extra funding and has conducted 274,000 spot checks in the past year.
Worker status is clearly complicated when we have three issues of the worker, the employer and the self-employed, but that allows us to have a flexible, dynamic labour market that enabled us, after the last recession, to build back better by delivering more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.
On fire and rehire, we hear a lot in this place about a binary choice, but in reality the situation is far more complicated. As we build back better, we want to make sure that we can protect people’s jobs as well as their working conditions. That is why we have to get that balance right. Only we on the Government Benches will deal with the economy and with businesses, but most importantly with workers who are subject to transgression of their workers’ rights by irresponsible employers, yet not just painting all employers with the same brush.
The hon. Gentleman talked about changes to the certification officer’s duties being ideological. Actually, it is adhering to the law, as it is what we said we would do in the Trade Union Act. All we are doing is implementing what was debated properly and agreed in this place under that Act.
We will protect workers’ rights, protect jobs, and create more jobs, and it will be through a flexible, dynamic labour market, getting that balance right. Rather than just having a 1970s-style binary debate, we want to work for 21st-century working conditions.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement. Many of my constituents work at Manchester airport and will welcome action to address fire and rehire in the aviation sector. A single body for employment rights is also welcome, but I would encourage the Government to go further and establish a single body for whistleblowers to ensure that they are protected from retaliation and blacklisting and that their concerns are properly investigated. Unfortunately, the current legal framework does not tackle these issues, and the recourse for whistleblowers is the heavily backlogged employment tribunal system, where the average wait for whistleblowing cases is more than two years and the success rate is low. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree with me that it is time for an office of the whistleblower to uphold the right to speak up and strengthen these employment rights even further?
Paul Scully
I am glad that my hon. Friend had the opportunity to meet the Secretary of State recently, and we continue to want to work closely with her and other colleagues on this basis, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who also raises the issue on a regular basis with great knowledge from his constituents. We do recognise how valuable it is that whistleblowers are prepared to shine a light on wrongdoing and believe that they should be able to do so without fear of recriminations. It is right and proper that we review the whistleblowing framework, and we will do that once we have sufficient time to build the necessary evidence of the impact of the most recent reforms, so we will consider the scope and timing of a review.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Minister for his statement. I know that, across the House, we recognise that strong employment legislation, regulation and guidance help the businesses that respect such standards be more successful, attract more talented and skilled people, and build better teams than those enterprises that play fast and loose with their own employees’ rights.
While the Minister has outlined a number of measures today, with all these things the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Will the Minister commit to working across the Chamber, with trade unions and employers to ensure that the highest employment law expectations are maintained and enhanced, and the experience of the employee is exactly what it says on the tin when it comes to fair and just working practices? Hon. Members’ casework inboxes are already too full of such cases, and if the Minister were to commit to an annual review of the measures in his statement today, that would help ensure that we were getting this right and protecting workers across the four nations of the UK.
Finally, on fire and rehire, I cannot speak on this subject without praising the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), and his dogged determination in supporting this campaign and his desire to seek fairness for thousands of employees who have been caught in the sordid, pathetic practice applied by unscrupulous employers. Today was the Government’s chance to right a wrong—a chance to end fire and rehire for good. The question is: why has the Minister not taken that chance to put fire and rehire out of its misery and protect thousands of hard-working people across the four nations?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, as I have said, we do not want to go back to the 1970s binary view of workers’ relations. What we want is a 21st-century view, so of course we will continue to look at and review the impact of legislation, guidance and our work on workers’ rights to check that it is working for a 21st-century economy. We will continue to do that, and we will continue to work with colleagues from either side of the Chamber to hear about constituents’ casework. On fire and rehire, as I have said, nothing is off the table. We are charging ACAS with strengthening the guidance in this area to inform responsible employers how to conduct themselves in this area, but as I say, nothing is off the table.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Can I say to the Minister that I am slightly confused by the statement today? He says that the Government say fire and higher is wrong, yet did nothing to intervene to stop its being used inappropriately. He tells us that the single enforcement body will be introduced, which I welcome, but that requires legislation that is not lined up in the Queen’s Speech. This is merely a statement of intent, not a statement of action—a statement of all bark and no bite—so let me ask the Minister: by the end of this year, what will have actually changed?
Paul Scully
In terms of fire and rehire, that guidance will be there. As I have said, fire and rehire in itself is not a binary view. Clearly we need a dynamic labour market. We need to protect businesses from making redundancies and losing those jobs, and we need to save businesses. That is why we are progressing along the way by charging ACAS with strengthening the guidance in this area. We will be working throughout the next few months to make sure, when we have parliamentary time to bring the employment Bill through and create the single employment body, that the guidance will be there and the prep work will have been done.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The best form of employment protection is a thriving entrepreneurial business sector open to innovation and creativity. The Minister has already outlined that the UK has an enviable flexible labour market with the highest participation rate of people in work, the highest levels of employment we have seen for many years, the fastest ever increases in the minimum wage and the highest take for the minimum wage as a proportion of average earnings. Rather than going back to the ideological arguments of the Opposition, will my hon. Friend join me in praising the Biggleswade branch of the Department for Work and Pensions, which I was in a conversation with today? It is embarking on promoting the kickstart programme to get more people into work, particularly young people.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend speaks in his usual eloquent way, talking up the dynamic, flexible economy that makes the UK fantastic and the envy of the world in terms not only of its workers’ rights but its flexibility, which is why we are attracting so much inward investment. I am glad to hear about the Biggleswade jobcentre promoting the kickstart scheme, because it is such initiatives and the extra money we are giving to employers to take on more apprentices that will create levelling-up potential and give people opportunity.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
I was pleased to hear in the Minister’s statement that he accepts there is still some way to go in securing workers’ rights, particularly for those who are most vulnerable. I am surprised he has not concluded that further legislation is required. If the solution is for the new body that replaces these three existing bodies to go further and do more to enhance and strengthen workers’ rights, there must surely be extra funding available to enable it to fulfil its responsibilities. Can the Minister confirm that?
Paul Scully
We have a good history of increasing the funding for enforcement measures, as I have already outlined. Indeed, the single enforcement body, when we are able to introduce it through legislation, will have sufficient funding not only to do its work, but to transition from those three bodies into one.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s statement, because a strong economy utilises all the talents of its workforce. Despite some very strong laws, one in four pregnant women or women on maternity leave experienced discrimination during the pandemic. The Minister knows that every year more than 50,000 pregnant women feel that they have no option but to leave their jobs because they are pregnant. Can he confirm that the new enforcement body will be looking specifically at enforcing pregnant women’s rights at work and outlawing the use of non-disclosure agreements to cover up illegal employment rights abuses?
Paul Scully
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that she continues to do in this area. The law is absolutely clear that discrimination in the workplace is unlawful, with clear regulations in place that every employer must follow. The pandemic has not changed any of that. There is no place for that under any circumstances. We believe that the most appropriate way forward for pregnant women and new mothers is to extend the existing framework of protections set out under regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999. We will do that by extending redundancy protections for six months for mothers returning to work and ensuring that pregnant women also benefit from these additional protections. We will bring these forward as part of the employment Bill, which will also be the vehicle that will bring the single enforcement body together.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
May I start by saying that I very much look forward to supporting the fire and rehire Bill of the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), now that my own Bill has fallen? After months of warm words for the victims of fire and rehire from the Prime Minister through to the Minister, is this it? What do we have? Guidance that amounts to nothing more than utterly shameful lip service. The statement states:
“It is unacceptable and, frankly, immoral to use the threat of fire and rehire as a negotiating tactic to force through changes to people’s employment contracts”.
I agree, so can the Minister tell us whether employers will still legally be allowed to do so: yes or no?
Paul Scully
I have talked about the fact that fire and rehire should not be used as a bully-boy tactic, but the hon. Gentleman talks about it as if it binary. Can he define exactly what it is? Some of the examples I have heard about over the past year would be considered traditional fire and rehire and would be the subject of this debate, while others have drifted into other areas of employment law.
We need to make sure we can continue the flexibility for employers so that they do not have to make redundancies in the first place, because clearly what would affect those employees badly is not having a job. That is why we need flexibility and dynamism, and we must have measures in place to ensure that responsible employers stick to their responsibilities for the lowest paid.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
That is possibly one of the most mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed, ineffectual statements that I have ever heard in this House. It is a betrayal of working people. Fire and rehire commenced in my constituency with companies such as British Airways and Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd, and it spread like a pandemic, harming my constituents. It is galling that these companies have been receiving taxpayer support through furlough, grants, loans and tax reliefs. We need legislation, not guidance that can be ignored. If the Government are to go down the guidance route, will the Minister confirm that they will insist that no grant, loan or tax relief—no taxpayer support—will go to companies that do not abide by this guidance?
Paul Scully
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not at the Dispatch Box talking about mealy-mouthed statements while throwing Chairman Mao’s little red book at me as I talk about supporting business and workers. We will strengthen the guidance. Nothing is off the table. We will clearly see what is going on. We will work with ACAS and colleagues to see how this lands and look at what happens with irresponsible employers. It should not be used as a bully-boy tactic. It is right that we have wrapped our arms around the economy with £407 billion-worth of fiscal and financial support. We now have 407 billion reasons to shape the economy, allow these businesses to survive, protect jobs and create new jobs so that we can build back better.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Today’s statement will be welcomed across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. I think of great employers such as Churchill China, whose chief executive officer David O’Connor started on the shop floor and worked his way up. That employer invested in the company and its workers, and workers’ rights gave him the opportunity to go from firing a kiln all the way to running a multimillion-pound business. As a former trade union rep, I find it confusing that the Opposition bemoan the fact that trade unions should have to pay a levy, rather than UK taxpayers. I assume that is because they are worried that there will be less money in the Labour party coffers. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no reason why trade unions should not pay their own way? Holding trade unions to account, just like holding business to account, is perfectly acceptable.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We will not have shouting.
Paul Scully
It is great to hear that example of my hon. Friend’s constituent, because that is exactly the kind of flexible, dynamic economy that we are talking about. Someone can come from the shop floor and go right the way to the top of their business. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as was said in the debate on the Trade Union Act 2016, that unions can now be held to account, alongside other regulators. There are strictures looking at unions to make sure they do a good job for their members.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lefarydd. Today’s smoke-and-mirrors announcement—rhetorical, rather than under- pinned by legislation—amplifies this Government’s ongoing failure to introduce a new employment Bill to protect workers’ rights. As we continue to struggle through the pandemic, one thing has become clear: the current approach to bereavement leave and miscarriage leave is insufficient and depends too much on the good will of the employer. Will the Government now consider making paid bereavement leave and paid miscarriage leave an employment right from day one?
Paul Scully
We will continue to work with the right hon. Lady and other colleagues to look at the various issues around neonatal leave and carer’s leave, for example. We have also introduced bereavement leave for newborn children and will look at what more we can do in the employment Bill. She talks about rushing towards legislation, but that should never be the first port of call. It is partnership with employers, employees and government that will ensure a flexible economy that works for everybody.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. One of the biggest issues in employment is people having a job in the first place. I am happy to go toe-to-toe any day on our party’s record in government against Labour’s record. Every time the Labour party has been in government, it has left unemployment higher than when it came in. We have had a great record since 2010 on job creation, and we have now created the conditions to bounce back really well, with great job numbers coming through following the covid pandemic. It is also great to see the Government looking properly at fire and rehire. However, one of the biggest issues for workers in my constituency is pensions. It is brilliant to see auto-enrolment come through, which is great for a lot of workers in the workforce, but will the Minister agree to meet me and look at extending that right to all workers over the age of 18? A lot of my constituents start work on the shop floor at 18, rather than after university at 22.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he talks about a dynamic economy, which is why voters turned in their droves to him to represent them in this place, after decades of under-representation. I will gladly meet him to discuss auto-enrolment.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The irony that the Government are consulting on enforcement powers against trade unions but only on guidance for bad employers is not lost on me. Talking about bad employers, zero-hour contracts, unclear employment status and short-notice shift changes were all mentioned in the Taylor report given to the Government five years ago—no rushing into legislation there. When will the Government legislate on the Taylor report recommendations, or will it be left to other Members to bring forward legislation to address these bad employment practices?
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman talks about the certification officer as if it were something new that has just been sprung on people, but clearly it is from the Trade Union Act 2016, so it has been five years, funnily enough. It is only just coming in now because we have tried to get the detail right. As for the legislation from the “Good Work” report that he talked about, the employment Bill will come to this place when parliamentary time allows.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Our business, energy and industrial sectors are pivotal to our economy. Does the Minister agree that the best way of safeguarding jobs and livelihoods for our fantastic workers is to comprehensively ease all covid restrictions in these sectors, and will he please lobby No. 10 to that effect?
Paul Scully
Nobody wants these restrictions to go on a single day longer than they need to. We are in the middle of a frustrating period, with the decision to be made on the 14th of this month. We are looking at the data, and every day that goes by gives us a richer set of data to make the best decision for businesses.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
The case won by the GMB trade union against Uber over the status of its drivers is immensely important, but why are the Government leaving it for these issues to be slugged out, employer by employer, worker group by worker group, in the courts? That is in nobody’s interests, so when will the Government finally bring forward the long-promised employment Bill, which is so urgently needed?
Paul Scully
The Uber judgment that the right hon. Gentleman talks about was a landmark judgment. It is important that we reflect on that, but it is important that Uber, primarily, reflects on that and makes sure that workers are getting their rights, because every worker is different. Indeed, Uber contracts have changed over the last few years, and other companies working in the gig economy have different contracts, so it is complicated, but that is the definition of flexibility and dynamism. None the less, he asked about the employment Bill, and as I have said, it will come forward when parliamentary time allows.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a former employer, I absolutely support the Government’s approach to strengthening workers’ rights and stamping out bad practice. When it comes to enforcement, whistleblowers are far more effective at identifying inappropriate behaviour or practices than regulators are. Nevertheless, from a position where the UK used to lead in whistleblower legislation, it has now fallen behind. It is a key area that we could work on to improve the situation. Will my hon. Friend the Minister set out the approach that the Government will take to improve the legislation?
Paul Scully
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s work in this area. I am looking forward to meeting him and his colleagues to discuss it further, to get his knowledge and the experience of his constituent, who has been put in an incredibly tough and invidious position. As I say, we will review the whistleblowing framework once we have had sufficient time to build the necessary evidence, which will include that conversation. We are considering the scope and timing of the review.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It would be helpful if we could go a little faster, because the House has a lot of business before it over the rest of the day.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
Polling for the GMB union found that 76% of the public want fire and rehire to be banned, including 71% of Conservative voters. If only unscrupulous employers use fire-and-rehire tactics, as the Minister said in a previous answer, a non-legislative solution will do absolutely nothing. How much more consensus is needed before the Minister acts to ban fire and rehire, rather than warm words that do nothing to protect workers in his constituency or mine?
Paul Scully
I have noticed that I can shrink my long list of responsibilities in the ministerial portfolio down to Minister for unintended consequences. I do not want to have a series of legislation, which is a blunt instrument, as if it is tackling a binary tool. That would have unintended consequences for people’s jobs and livelihoods. We want to have a flexible economy so that we get both right.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) [V]
I welcome the way in which the Minister is today extending the rights of the most important asset of any business, which is people. I am sure he will agree how essential it is to ensure that flexibilities enable workers to work the hours that suit them best, while also allowing employers to respond to the changing demands of their customers.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need flexibility in the workplace, including so-called zero-hours contracts, for example. We know that the majority of people who work on zero-hours contracts like the flexibility. However, we want to ensure that we can clamp down on things like exclusivity contracts, which is why we banned those. It is important to get the balance right.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Minister just said that the UK Government will do whatever is needed to enhance and protect workers’ rights, but all he is doing on fire and rehire is to provide more guidance. That is shameful—guidance is not what is needed. We needed to hear about legislation to stop fire and rehire, to outlaw pregnancy and maternity discrimination, and to give flexible-working rights from day one to protect precarious workers, but the UK Government will plainly not do what is needed on employment. Does the Minister appreciate that what is needed now is to devolve this to the Scottish Parliament so that it can do what is needed?
Paul Scully
If the hon. Lady reads the ACAS report, she will see that there is a divergence and a variety of opinions, as well as a wider evidence base about the extent of use and how that is used. That is why we are coming up with a proportionate response. Clearly, the other issues she raises will be in the employment Bill when parliamentary time allows.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I know my hon. Friend understands that right hon. and hon. Members across the House want the UK to be on the front foot on workers’ rights after we leave the EU. Will he offer me a categorical assurance that that will be the case and that there will be no degradation in our world-leading protection?
Paul Scully
Yes, absolutely that is the case. We are determined to ensure that this is the best place not only to set up and have a business, but to work—for workers’ rights, high pay and a highly productive economy. That can only be done by valuing our people.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Government may talk about enhancing employment rights, but they never act and never legislate. Recently, workers in York were being forced on to new contracts until a joint intervention by Unite and me, as a Labour MP, stopped the firing and rehiring. I know it is embarrassing for the Minister to have to defend his Government’s empty promises, dither and delay, but to stop bad employers constantly undermining their workers, we need not more guidance, but legislation. Will he bring forward a Government Bill to end fire-and-rehire practices in this parliamentary Session, which should also insist that any changes to contractual terms are negotiated with workers and their trade unions?
Paul Scully
I have outlined what we are doing around fire and rehire. Extra and enhanced workers’ rights will come in the employment Bill. The workers the hon. Lady describes have recourse, through ACAS and employment tribunals, to take their employers to task.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I welcome today’s announcement. My hon. Friend is quite right to point out the nuance in fire and rehire. Speaking as an employment barrister, I stress that the issue that we lawyers have had is that the employer is required to show only that it is a genuine reason—in other words, low profitability. They are not required to show that they have exhausted every other option, and I welcome the fact that that is now a devolved function of ACAS. Will he consider putting the last resort clause into primary legislation—either the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the new Bill—to give employees rights to go to tribunal?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend, as ever, for her considered response in this area, with the expertise that she brings to bear. Clearly, as I say, nothing is off the table. We are putting the guidance in place with ACAS, but we will look at more measures should we need to.
Point of Order
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last month, I received from a constituent some serious allegations about the conduct of individuals in the cosmetic surgery industry. The allegations involved a surgeon who had been struck off the General Medical Council register in this country, but who was conducting consultations with UK patients via Zoom, from a private clinic overseas. A separate allegation was that a doctor in the UK continued to refer patients to the struck-off surgeon, and that his services were being advertised on UK-based websites.
On 20 May, I wrote to the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries). On 3 June, I received a direct response to my letter. Lo and behold, it was not from the Minister, but from the CEO of Transform Hospital Group, a private company. I know that it was a direct response because the CEO actually states that he had received my letter directly from the Care Quality Commission.
I take an extremely dim view of my correspondence with the Minister being passed on to a private company without my knowledge or consent. I consider that a major breach not only of confidentiality, but of my trust and that of my constituent who made the complaint in the first place. I do not think a Minister’s correspondence should ever be shared with a private company, breaking the bond of trust that we have with our constituents. I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can rectify this and ensure that it does not happen again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having given me notice of his intention to raise this point of order. Mr Speaker shares his concern that sensitive correspondence appears to have been passed from the Department to a private company for a response, and Mr Speaker will be drawing this matter to the attention of the Leader of the House to ensure that these important issues are understood across Government and not only by the people who are paying attention to this particular point of order this afternoon.
The 2016 guidance produced by the Cabinet Office on the handling of parliamentarians’ correspondence goes into some detail, which I will not quote in full now, but the right hon. Gentleman is right in pointing out that that guidance says that
“departments should treat correspondence with great care to ensure that confidentiality is not broken.”
It also states that
“official replies to letters from MPs should only be authorised in exceptional circumstances”.
It would appear that guidance has possibly not been followed in this case.
I would have said to the right hon. Gentleman that I would make sure that the Minister gives an answer, but I am delighted to say that the Minister in question is here in the Chamber, so I shall call her to respond to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for the advance notice of his point of order, because the very short time that I have had has enabled me to do some investigation, and enabled officials to investigate, to find out what has happened.
The chronology is that the Department was passed a letter sent to me by the right hon. Gentleman on 26 May. The letter raised some very serious concerns about the conduct of a doctor working for a cosmetic-surgery provider referring UK patients for consultations with a former doctor who was struck off by the General Medical Council in August 2020 and is now based in Italy.
The right hon. Gentleman and I have had a number of conversations about the cosmetics industry and issues of this nature, so he will understand why I have taken this matter so seriously. Due to the nature of the allegations and the potential implications for patient safety—which I take very seriously, particularly when they pertain to women—my Department raised the issues set out in the letter with the GMC and it was also passed to the Care Quality Commission, which is responsible for regulating providers of cosmetic surgery in England, to enable it to consider the issues that were raised. The CQC needed to go back to the provider to find out whether the allegations were true and what had happened.
I take the complaints very seriously. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as he is aware—we have spoken about this—I had not even seen the letter yet myself. I can only believe that the letter was shared with the GMC and the CQC to ascertain what happened in order to inform a letter that I would then send to the right hon. Gentleman. I have yet to see the letter. I take these complaints incredibly seriously and my Department is reviewing how this information and the letter were handled and how the information was leaked. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman once our inquiries have been satisfied and, as he and I have previously discussed, I shall also write to his constituent.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the point that he has raised has been taken very seriously by the Minister. The House will be pleased to know that the Minister and her Department are taking this matter very seriously indeed, and I will happily tell Mr Speaker that that is the case.
I shall now briefly suspend the House for three minutes in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
0.7% Official Development Assistance Target
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the 0.7% official development assistance target.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Mr Speaker, yesterday you made one of the strongest statements that I have heard from the Chair in more than 30 years, and you made it clear that the House should receive from the Government a meaningful vote. Naturally, in accordance with what you have said, we do not seek to divide the House on the motion today. We seek the meaningful vote that will enable the House to decide whether the Government can break our promise and arguably our law.
I see that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are described as rebels. It is the Government who are rebelling against their clear and indisputable commitments. Who are these so-called rebels? A short perusal of yesterday’s Order Paper shows that we have among our number eight Select Committee Chairs, four distinguished former Select Committee Chairs, 16 former Ministers, 12 Privy Counsellors and four knights of the realm. From the new intake, my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) and for Keighley (Robbie Moore), along with others who have recently arrived in this House, have shown great courage and determination in the face of the possibility of being tarred and feathered by the Government Whips Office.
We are also supported by every former Prime Minister and, I believe, by every former leader of all four major political parties. Over the weekend, the Archbishop of Canterbury said:
“The foreign aid cut is indefensible…Let us…pray”
that it is reversed
“and that our unconscionable broken promise to the world’s poorest people is put right.”
All four distinguished current or former Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee who are in the House support our cause. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) describes himself as the last Thatcherite on the Government Benches.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) might possibly wish to disagree there. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said:
“There is no public accounting justification for slashing budgets by 80% in this way. It is like telling the builder before he finishes your garden wall that you won’t pay at the end. Cancelling projects overseas is just a waste of taxpayers’ money when we should be providing long-term stability for schools, clinics and clean water projects.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing the matter forward. The House is very much united behind him. It is not just the scale of the aid cuts, but the speed of the enforced shutdown of operations that is hugely harmful. Aid and development are not a tap that we can turn off and on whenever we like. It is time for the Government, on this occasion, to step up to the spot and make sure that they reinforce the aid budget and increase it back to what it was in the past.
Mr Speaker
May I just gently say that we have a lot of speakers and I want to hear from everybody? If you are going to intervene, I am sure that you will understand if you go down the speaking list.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course, what he says has been reinforced by every single member of his party who serves in the House, and it is the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, was making: if we turn this expenditure on and off in this way, the taxpayer does not get proper value for money.
Nor is this about party politics. All 650 of us elected to this House at the last election promised to stand by the 0.7%. The Bill enshrining the 0.7% in law was passed unwhipped in this House, with just six dissenters. Outside the House, in every single constituency in the country, there are people taking action as part of Crack the Crises, the growing environment and development group. Each and every one of us is accountable to those constituents, who are taking action in their local schools, colleges, churches, mosques, charity shops, women’s institute branches, congregations and community groups.
Twelve million people—an average of 15,000 per parliamentary constituency—are supporters of the member organisations of that coalition, and they must be heard. The people who sponsor children through development organisations, the members of churches that are twinned with others in the developing world, the people who were there for Jubilee 2000 and for Make Poverty History—they do not forget when we break our promises to them; they organise.
I can assure the House that, were it not for the covid restrictions, the same people who made the human chain around the Birmingham G8 summit and the quarter of a million people who marched on Edinburgh before the Gleneagles G8 would be preparing today to descend on Cornwall to make their views known at this G7 and to protest this unethical and unlawful betrayal. They would be joined by a whole new generation of young people who are watching this Government break our promise to the world’s poorest. They do not like what they see. This weekend, they may not be on the streets, but they will be watching, and they will remember.
For two decades, the UK has been a development leader, not just because that is morally right and accords with our values, but because it is in our own national interest. By making the countries we seek to help safer and more prosperous, we make life for ourselves here in Britain safer and more prosperous.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has been courteous and persuasive in trying to get me to join his cause, but I have declined to do so because I think that the Government are doing precisely what he describes but in ways that do not qualify as aid. I have asked the Government to clarify all the other things that we are doing that are contributing to the reduction of global poverty and, indeed, what we will do with the vaccine programmes to contribute to the alleviation of disease and distress in the poorest countries.
Mr Mitchell
I very much hope that my hon. Friend will stay for the whole debate so that he hears the views across the House. I am sure that will be both instructive and interesting for him.
Mr Speaker, the way the Government are behaving strikes at the heart of our Parliament, as you set out from the Chair yesterday. We cannot secure a meaningful vote. Had we been able to do so yesterday, as I intimated to the House, we would definitely have won by nine, and probably by nearer 20. It is precisely because the Government fear that they would lose that they are not calling a vote. That is not democracy. When countries behave like that in Africa, we British say that they have got it wrong. The Government need to remember that the Government and the Executive are accountable to Parliament, not the other way round, and most especially on issues of supply, as the Minister—he is a very good Minister—knows. That applies in all circumstances, whether the Executive are being run by King Charles I or Boris Johnson.
The Government make two key arguments: first, that they are still spending a huge amount of money—I am sure that is what my right hon. Friend the Minister will say this afternoon—and, secondly, that we are living in unprecedented times for our economy and they will bring the 0.7% back. Let me start with the first—that we are still spending a huge amount of money. Of course, that is entirely correct, but we all promised to spend 0.7% of our GNI, not to change the target and spend 0.5%. All of us made that promise—I have seen every single Member’s manifesto at the last election, and every single elected Member made that promise.
It is arguable, at the least, that the action the Government are taking is unlawful. One of the most senior and distinguished lawyers in the country, the warden of Wadham, Oxford, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, has made it clear that the Government are acting unlawfully because they have changed, rather than missed, the target. I argue to the House this afternoon that what the Government are doing is unethical, possibly illegal and certainly breaks our promise.
On the point about the level of expenditure and the £10 billion, it is rather like buying a car and shaking hands on a deal at 15 grand, only to do a runner while the poor fellow is counting the cash after you have legged it, having handed over only 10 grand. It is not proper, it is fundamentally un-British and we should not behave in this way. It is about the girl whose school closed in South Sudan last week after the headteacher read the letter from the Foreign Office explaining that it is only temporary.
The second argument is that we live in unprecedented economic times and that the Government will bring the 0.7% back, but the 0.7% is configured precisely to take account of our economy. When the economy contracts and goes down, so does the amount of money spent under the 0.7%, and when it increases, that amount goes back up. We are talking about 1% of the money that the Treasury quite rightly spent on covid last year to sustain and support jobs, families and employment. This is 1%—it is practically a rounding error in my right hon. Friend’s books.
We offered an olive branch to the Government last night, which the Government could have accepted, and then we could all have cracked on with other things, by asking them to bring the 0.7% back next year. We accept that they are not going to bring it back this year, but we asked them to bring it back next year, when the Governor of the Bank of England says that the economy will have rebounded to pre-covid levels and growth will be strong. If the Government were serious about bringing it back when the economy improved, they would have accepted the olive branch that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I offered.
Everyone knows what this is about. It is not about the 1% rounding error in the Treasury’s books. It is about the red wall seats. The Government think that it is popular in the red wall seats to stop British aid money going overseas. Indeed, one Treasury Minister told me that 81% of people in the red wall seats do not approve of spending British taxpayers’ money overseas. But we have to be careful about the question we ask, because other polling in the red wall seats shows that 92% of people there do not approve of cutting humanitarian aid. It is also a very patronising attitude to people who live in the red wall seats, because when these dreadful famines, disasters and floods take place, it is the people in the red wall seats who are the first to raise money through car boot sales and pub quizzes to try to help those who are caught. In the words of Talleyrand, the French statesman, this is worse than a crime; it is a mistake. What my right hon. and hon. Friends and I—the so-called rebels—are trying to do is to keep the Government straight.
And so we come to this week’s G7 summit, when the leaders of the richest nations will assemble in Cornwall. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be chairing the summit, and he goes into it in the teeth of a global pandemic, when Britain is cutting its support to the poorest. No other country represented at the G7 is doing such a thing. The French have now embraced the 0.7%. The Germans will spend more than 0.7% this year. The Americans—by far the biggest funders in the world—are seeking an increase through Congress of $14 billion in the amount that is spent. We are the only ones going backwards.
Other G7 countries are noticing what the Government are doing. Is it any wonder that, in a letter to President Biden, a dozen Members of Congress have urged him to upbraid Britain for breaking its promise? One sentence in their letter made me wince. It reads as follows:
“Cutting back on foreign assistance during the worst humanitarian crisis of our generation only undermines our collective global response.”
This is what the journalist who used to serve in this House and who probably understands the Conservative party best said at the weekend:
“Try though seasick government whips will to mount one, there is no civilised defence of this cut. This cut looks like what it is: a cheap and brutal gesture, a piece of domestic applause-seeking”.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a brilliant speech. I just want to flush out one point, which I hope will be a point of consensus. It is possible that this weekend we will get agreement on a fresh issue of $650 billion in special drawing rights. The UK will have surplus SDRs and it is possible that they could be recycled to support aid. It would be a regrettable accounting trick if that, in any way, counted towards making good the cut that has been made. Is that a point of consensus across the House?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good and useful point, and the decisions made on the SDRs will be extremely helpful.
We come, finally, to the essence of all of this. Because of the way the development budget is configured, these terrible cuts are falling first and hardest on the humanitarian sectors. Let me just mention four of them. The first is girls’ education. The Prime Minister has rightly said that it is his main aspiration on these international development issues—this is strongly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin)—to ensure that all girls get 12 years of quality education. That is a wonderful and noble British initiative, but what has happened to the funding? It has been cut by 25%. So on the one hand we have the words—the aspiration—and on the other we have the reality of the 25% cut. Worse than that, UNICEF, which has a fantastic reputation and which the British Government judged just a few years ago to be the most effective of all the UN agencies, has had a cut of 60%. On clean water and sanitation, which is pivotal if we are to conquer this pandemic among the poorest of the world, some 10 million people who were expecting to receive British taxpayers’ support will not now get it. Funding to the UN to save the lives of people suffering with HIV/AIDS has been cut by 80%, which is a death sentence for the people who would have been helped. Finally, we are going to end food assistance for 250,000 people. These are not people who have missed eating for a few days; they are people who are starving, and we are going to cut our support for them directly.
I have never forgotten the experience I had as Development Secretary in Karamoja, in northern Uganda, where I stood under a tree next to a football pitch, which was covered by children who were starving. There were about 200 children there and they were waiting in line. They were suffering from acute malnutrition, and British taxpayers’ money and British humanitarian workers were trying to help them. If we catch them early enough, when they are floppy but not actually medically critical, we give them Plumpy’Nut, a biscuity peanut substance that costs about a 5p a head, and they will be recovered in about an hour and probably running around playing football. However, if we miss that point, they have to go to a clinic, have a drip up and it costs about $180 to put them right.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Does what my right hon. Friend has just said about the 5p not make the point that, although £4 billion is a small amount for a rich country such as ours, it makes an enormous difference in the countries we are trying to help?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and he puts it enormously eloquently. I end my remarks by saying that that story from Karamoja in northern Uganda has lived with me from the day I saw those things. I will be thinking of those children in this debate and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to think about them as well.
Mr Speaker
May I just say that brevity from everybody will allow more Members to get in? Those who intervene will not mind being moved down, because that is the way we are going to help each other.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my friend, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), for his great work in securing this debate, and the many other Members from across this House and the other place with a keen interest in this issue.
It is a great shame that the Government have had to be forced into this debate today when they promised more than six months ago that they would bring legislation to Parliament to ask elected Members of this House whether they supported these cuts to the aid budget. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your support in allowing this debate.
We clearly have a Government in hiding—a Government who have tried over and again to avoid scrutiny and accountability for the cuts that they have imposed, drip feeding information on where the cuts are falling and refusing to release the impact assessments or rationale behind any of those decisions. We have been given conflicting accounts on whether impact assessments have actually been carried out on the cuts, suggesting either that the Secretary of State failed to ask for any, in which case he is clearly out of his depth, or that he is afraid of the public learning the true impact of the cuts and the lives lost. So, which is it? We are no strangers to hyperbole in this House, but it really is no exaggeration to say that the cuts to the aid budget by this Government have cost people their lives. It is utterly shameful.
Let us not pretend that Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers are not ashamed of the cuts foisted on them by the Chancellor and waved through by a Prime Minister either too weak or too incompetent to impose them. The Secretary of State and his Ministers are the ones who have had to front debates, meet their counterparts and post videos, talking about the importance of clean water and sanitation, while slashing funding by 80%, meaning that 8 million fewer women and girls will have access to the most basic necessity of water. Then there is the life-changing impact on girls’ education—a priority, says the Prime Minister, as he hopes no one notices him cutting the education budget by 40%, meaning that 700,000 fewer girls will receive an education.
The Government say that Britain’s focus should be on human rights, but they have halved the funding to the human rights, democracy, and rules-based international system programme. Why should we or the British public trust a word that this Government say?
Yesterday, Members of Parliament from across the House were ready to show that they did not support this Government’s callous and counterproductive cuts to the aid budget, because the real consequences are already being felt in Britain as well as across the world. The Secretary of State has made a 70% cut in funding to research programmes tracking covid-19 variants of concern around the world, including the Delta variant, making the British public less safe.
Britain has built up a reputation as a global development power, thanks to our aid commitment, our dedicated development workers, our academics, and our researchers and scientists, strengthening our position in the world with both our allies and detractors. This Government are tarnishing our global reputation, and tarnishing our soft power and our national interest. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned, the US Democrats have said:
“Cutting back on foreign assistance during the worst humanitarian crisis of our generation only undermines our collective global response”
to the pandemic. They are right. With days to go until the G7 summit, choosing to continue with this cut would see the Government persist not only in undermining the UK’s credibility on the world stage, but in ignoring their commitment to the world’s poorest and the most vulnerable people on earth. Britain is a proud, generous and caring country, and these cuts are an insult to the British people and our proud tradition of showing humanity and leadership on the world stage. Members of the US Congress and the Biden Administration are already warning the Prime Minister about the impact of these aid cuts.
During this deadly pandemic, global leadership and unity are more important than ever, but as the only G7 nation to cut aid and the third lowest donor this year, this signals a retreat—so much for global Britain. If we are to assert ourselves on the world stage, we must be a country that looks outwards—a country that builds relationships outside our borders to tackle the global challenges of the future. This Government have a choice: continue down a path that will cost more lives or listen to colleagues today across Parliament and end this retreat by reinstating our commitment to 0.7% as a matter of urgency.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
Let me begin by acknowledging the words and the good intentions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). He knows as well as I do that decisions such as this are not easy. In short, this is a hugely difficult economic and fiscal situation that requires difficult actions.
Responding to twin health and economic emergencies, the Government have acted on a scale unmatched in recent history to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods and to support businesses and public services, paying out £352 billion in support since the start of the pandemic last year. That is equivalent to 17% of GDP and one of the largest fiscal support packages of any country in the world.
Our plan is working. The economy grew by 2.1% in March alone, and the Bank of England now expects the economy to return to its pre-crisis levels by the end of this year—two quarters earlier than previously expected. At the beginning of the crisis, unemployment was forecast to reach 12% or more. The latest projections show that it is due to peak at 5.5%, meaning that almost 2 million fewer people will lose their jobs than was expected last spring.
As the House will note, however, much of that response has relied on borrowing. Last year saw the highest peacetime levels of borrowing on record—£300 billion of borrowing—and we are forecast to borrow £234 billion more this year and a further £109 billion the following year, so without corrective action, borrowing would continue at untenable levels, leaving underlying debt rising indefinitely. At our higher level of debt, the public finances are more vulnerable to changes in inflation and interest rates. Indeed, a sustained increase in inflation and interest rates of just 1% would increase debt interest level spending by over £25 billion in 2025-26. The goal of any Government should be sustainable finances, and the current level of borrowing is not sustainable.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield used a number of emotive terms around the morality of the context of these changes, but leaving the next generation vulnerable to the degree of fiscal threat that would be entailed with a high debt level is not itself morally sound. At the same time, loading ourselves with more debt now might well damage our ability to spend on aid later. There are some in this House who say that since we are already borrowing to protect jobs and businesses, what is £4 billion more? Indeed, that was the nature of the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). Crucially, the only reason we were able to act during the pandemic in the way that we did is that we came into the crisis with strong public finances, and we believe it is our duty as the economy recovers to return to a sustainable fiscal position.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for giving way and I appreciate his fiscal stance, but can he explain to the House why the only manifesto pledge he has chosen to break is the one that forces the World Food Programme in South Sudan to choose between feeding hungry children and feeding starving children?
Steve Barclay
The point is that we have made a number of difficult decisions, and I will come on to that, but we are also continuing to spend £10 billion in response to the commitments that we have made. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as a former Treasury Minister, is well aware of the fiscal reality we face.
Strong public finances mean making difficult decisions, such as increasing corporation tax. That is one of the difficult decisions that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made, alongside the decision around overseas aid. Indeed, this is something that the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 explicitly anticipates when it refers to the effects of one or more of the following:
“(a) economic circumstances and, in particular, any substantial change in gross national income;
(b) fiscal circumstances and, in particular, the likely impact of meeting the target on taxation, public spending and public borrowing;
(c) circumstances arising outside the United Kingdom.”
In other words, the 2015 Act clearly envisages situations in which a departure from the target may be necessary. It provides for the Secretary of State’s accountability to Parliament by way of the requirement to lay a statement before Parliament and, if relevant, makes reference to economic and fiscal circumstances, as well as circumstances outside the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary has already committed to doing that, as required by the Act.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
That accounts for the cuts in July, but surely it was a political decision, and potentially an unlawful one, to cut to 0.5% in November.
Steve Barclay
The provisional data shows that for the 2020 ODA figures, the 0.7% was met. The point is that the Act allows for the economic and fiscal instance that I just set out—it is in section 2. If the UK were to spend 0.7% of gross national income as ODA, it would cost the country an additional £4.3 billion this year. Given our commitment to fiscal sustainability, we could offset that either by raising taxes or by cutting public spending. [Interruption.] We can come on to that. To put that in context, it means a 1p increase in the basic rate of income tax or about a 1% increase in the standard rate of VAT at a time when taxes are at a historical high.
Mr Mitchell
The Treasury really must do better than that, because 1p on income tax is worth nearly £6 billion, so the increase would be much less than 1p.
Steve Barclay
In the context, it is £5 billion to £6 billion. My right hon. Friend did not set out in his speech how he would address that gap. Which fiscal measures was he suggesting? Was he suggesting a specific tax, in which case I did not hear that in his remarks? Was he suggesting more borrowing, in which case one needs to look at the impact on our stock? Was he, in fact, suggesting spending? [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) mentions Test and Trace. Given that 80% of the Test and Trace budget relates to testing, if she is saying that she wants to get rid of PCR testing or lateral flow testing, she needs to set that out in detail. That speaks to the lack of detail provided; it is strikingly absent from the alternatives put forward.
The fundamental point before the House is that the scale of our overseas aid remains significant. In fact, we continue to lead the world in overseas development. This year we will spend more than £10 million to improve global health, fight poverty and tackle climate change, including £400 million on girls’ education in 25 countries, and we are doubling to £11.6 billion our commitment to international climate finance for the period 2021 to 2026, with at least £3 billion for climate change solutions that will protect and restore nature and biodiversity. According to the OECD, in 2020 we were one of only two G7 countries to actually meet the 0.7% target and the only country to do so each year since 2013. Even after the change we are debating today, we are still the third largest donor in the G7 as a percentage of gross national income, and 0.5% is considerably more than the 29 countries on the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, which average just 0.41%.
Importantly, the Foreign Office makes its aid spending choices based on maximum impact, coherence and value for money. The Integrated Review has reaffirmed our pledge to fight against global poverty and to achieve the UN sustainability development goals by 2030. We are the fifth largest contributor to the UN peacekeeping budget, the third largest bilateral humanitarian donor, the second largest member state donor to the World Health Organisation, and among the world’s largest donors to the COVAX advance market commitment—the global initiative supporting developing countries with access to vaccines. The funding we will continue to make available to countries all over the world is helping to educate young girls, boosting diversity, tackling climate change, vaccinating the needy against deadly diseases such as Ebola and malaria, and improving the nutrition of staple food crops—millions of lives improved, millions of lives saved.
This is a generous and outward-looking country whose impulse has always been to help others around the world. We do not and we will not shy away from making a determined contribution to addressing the world’s problems. But at the tail end of a huge economic emergency, we also have a responsibility to the British people. We are absolutely clear about our intention to return to 0.7% of our national income on overseas aid when the fiscal situation allows, but cannot do so yet. We will, however, keep the matter under careful and regular review. I know that Members on both sides of the House will make their cases cogently and passionately, but for now, the tough choice is the right choice.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I cannot help but reflect, given what the Minister has delivered, that in the phrase that is often used, he knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Let me begin by commending the efforts of all those who have made it possible to have this emergency debate, including those who requested the debate, led by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), and you of course, Mr Speaker, for granting time today.
As we know, it has not been an easy task getting to this point—a point where this Government have finally been held accountable for their actions and made to answer for what is a callous cut to overseas aid. Let us be very clear: this Tory Government have been shamed into coming to the House today. Ever since announcing this disgraceful decision to slash aid for the world’s poorest, the Government have been on the run on this issue. For weeks now they have avoided questions and dodged accountability, but they have been dragged to the Dispatch Box today.
As usual with this Government, the person most responsible for the decision to cut aid is the person first to hide and the last to face accountability. On an issue of this importance and a policy this fundamental, it tells us everything we need to know about this Prime Minister that he does not even have the guts to come before this House to justify his Government’s decision to cut support to those most in need. He is a Prime Minister who casually signs off on these devastating decisions, but a leader who always fails to take any responsibility for the consequences of such decisions.
No damaging decision appears to be off limits for this Government. On overseas aid, living up to our legal responsibilities—our legal responsibilities, Minister—to those most in need should unite various strands of political opinion across this Parliament. Instead, the moral mission of 0.7% spending has been shamefully undermined by a morally bankrupt Government.
It is important to put the decision into a broader context, because cutting the aid budget is not only cruel and counterproductive in its own terms, but an isolated act from a UK Government increasingly alone on the world stage. The UK is virtually the only country that has cut its aid spending. Nearly every other wealthy country has recognised the greater necessity of helping those in need at this unprecedented time of a humanitarian crisis.
The Government’s timing could not be worse. International opinion on these cuts is crystal clear. It is rightly seen as a disgraceful abdication of the UK’s international responsibilities in a year—in a year, Minister —when we should be showing some international leadership at the G7 and COP26. Let us simply take a look at what some G7 countries are doing in comparison with the UK. This year, Canada’s aid budget will see an increase of 28%, France will contribute a 36% increase and, under the Biden Administration, the US will see a 39.4% increase. Yet this Tory Government think it is somehow morally justified to impose these cuts. It is morally and ethically flawed, it is intellectually flawed and it shames all of us that this is done in our name. But I say this to the Minister: it is not done in the name of the majority who have been sent to this House.
The harsh reality is that this decision will cost lives—it will cost lives, Minister. Brexit Britain is rapidly exposing the future it offers of being out of step and out of influence on the world stage, because one thing is for sure: if the Tory Government dig in their heels and slash the aid budget, they are adding insult to injury to those dwindling few who still desperately cling on to the notion of global Britain.
Digging into the details of these cuts reveals what is at stake if they are allowed to continue. The headline figures are stark enough in themselves, with aid spending amounting to £10 billion this year, compared with £14.5 billion in 2020, but it is the impact of where exactly the cuts will fall that tells the real story and exposes the real damage. Almost unbelievably, conflict zones face some of the worst cuts. Syria, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya, Nigeria and Lebanon: all are poised to lose more than half their funding. Is that where we stand? Is that where the Minister stands? Is that where his Government stand?
Children are the next target. The United Nations Children’s Fund faces a cut of 60%. This is harrowing; this is heartbreaking. I ask the Minister: where is the Government’s humanity at a time of need?
Some of the most established and impactful projects are equally at risk, with cuts of £12.5 million to the UN agency that fights AIDS and HIV. That is more than an 80% cut to a programme to fight AIDS, condemning people to an early death that could be avoidable.
Much has already been made of the fact that, by imposing these aid cuts, the Government are brazenly breaking their own manifesto commitment. In particular, I want to draw attention to the fact that they are breaking a very specific commitment that they made to voters about girls’ education right across the globe. It is worth putting that on the record of the House. In 2019, the Conservative party manifesto promised to
“stand up for the right of every girl in the world to have 12 years of quality education”,
and yet that promise has been broken.
Analysis by Save the Children shows that spending on education for girls will be reduced by at least 25%, compared with 2019-20 levels. That is horrific. Not only will these cuts impact now, but the damage will reverberate into the future for those young girls and young women, their hopes and fears crashed on the dogma of the desire to cut UK aid spending. Only this weekend, a letter from 1,700 charities and academics said that families are going hungry and girls are missing school as a direct result of these decisions. I can see that the Minister is nodding. I ask him please to reflect and change the Government’s policy and what they are doing.
Whether the promises are broad or specific, they are apparently all the same to the UK Government, who are telling people that they think their promises are only there to be broken. I acknowledge and give credit to the courage of the many Conservative Back Benchers who have stood against their Prime Minister, who is reneging on the very manifesto that he stood on. Their stance has given us at least a chance to face down the Government on this issue and hopefully force a U-turn.
Frome a Scottish perspective, I cannot hide my genuine disappointment that we cannot count the Scottish Tories among the Conservative Back Benchers with a backbone. For weeks, they have maintained a deafening and shameful silence, but even at this late stage, they have the chance to do the right thing. Whatever our differences, I think they know that cutting international aid during a pandemic does not represent the values of Scotland and our people. That is why the Scottish Government are doing what they can with the powers they have at Holyrood. We have increased international aid spending by 50%—that is what should be done in a pandemic, Minister. The Scottish Conservatives have a choice: either fall in behind their Prime Minister, no matter what he decides, or join us in saying that these cuts to the world’s poorest are not done in our name. If they fail to oppose these cuts, the Scottish Tories should be well warned: it would be not only an inhumane act against the most vulnerable, but an act of sheer hypocrisy.
Today’s debate on aid spending is all the more significant because of the place and the context in which we find ourselves. Morally, we have a responsibility to help protect the most vulnerable around the world. It is also self-evident that if the UK Government were serious about the eradication of covid-19, that must include a commitment to help eradicate covid-19 around the world, because until all of us are safe, none of us is truly safe. These aid cuts are severely undermining that commitment and limit our power in meeting the covid challenge.
There is a broader point, too. As we attempt to emerge from this pandemic, the values we live by and the choices we now make become even more important. Covid has affected every country and every person around the world. We have all faced the same threat; we have all been in it together. If we did not know that before, we should know it now. But the truth is that just because we have experienced the pandemic together does not mean that our challenges are in any way equal. We are privileged. We can live in the hope and expectation that the crisis of the pandemic will pass, but for too many millions in this world, the pandemic is only one more disaster to deal with, in countries that suffer under constant crisis and struggle. Now is not the time to turn our face away from those countries and those people in need. Now is the time to redouble our efforts and our commitment to them.
The World Bank predicts that the pandemic will push an estimated 88 million to 115 million people into extreme poverty, and in the world’s poorest countries, hunger and the causes of malaria are rising. Unless we act now, one crisis will be followed by another, and the cycle will go on—and on, and on. We simply cannot break the poverty cycle by breaking our commitment to overseas aid. This is a choice for the Government; it is the choice for every Member of this House. On these Benches, our choice is clear. It is time to live up to our commitments on aid spending. It is time to live up to our responsibilities to the world’s poorest. It is time to break the cycle.
Mr Speaker
If we can try and help each other now with brevity, that would be very helpful.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting permission for this debate.
I oppose the cut from 0.7% in international development funding for three reasons. First, I stood at the election on a manifesto that said:
“We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development”.
Now, the Government will say, as the Chief Secretary has today, that covid has changed the circumstances, but the Government are also taking pride in and responsibility for the fact that our economy will bounce back this year, and covid has also changed the circumstances for the poorest people around the world. For many of them there will be no bounce back, because for some of them it will simply be too late. So I urge the Government to stand by their word and stand by our manifesto commitment on international development funding.
My second reason is the impact, which I have just alluded to, that the cut will have on the poorest people around the world. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), in his thought-provoking and forceful speech, gave us some examples of the impact the cut will have—the damage it will cause to lives; the lives that will be lost. I want to mention just one particular area of interest to me: modern slavery. As one example, the global fund to end modern slavery is having its funding cut by 80%. That means that programmes will be lost, including programmes to work to end the commercial sexual exploitation of children, with all the damaging and devastating impact on young lives that the loss of that programme will have. The global fund will try to restore that money from elsewhere, including from other Governments. The United Kingdom has been the world leader in tackling modern slavery. Now we see organisations having to go cap in hand to other Governments to make up for the shortfall caused by the UK’s decision to cut international development spending.
Aid spending is not just about people in countries far away. Tackling modern slavery has an impact here on the streets of the United Kingdom. Supporting economic development elsewhere will help to cut the number of people who feel they have to migrate to the UK in order to look for work, and cutting ODA spending has an impact on other Departments. I recall in the Home Office that we used ODA spending to fund some of the work we did with refugees. If we cut that funding, either the work will not be done or the Home Office will have to find that money from other parts of its budget.
The third reason I oppose the cut is the impact on the UK’s standing in the world. People have respected us for our commitment to 0.7%; now, as we have heard, we are the only country in the G7 that is cutting aid at this time. People do not listen to the UK because we are the UK; they listen to us because of what we do and how we put our values into practice. Our commitment to that 0.7% has, for example, enabled us to argue the case for different definitions of ODA spending. Cutting this spending will have an impact on our standing.
Will we suddenly see countries cutting us off? No. Will we suddenly be kicked off international tables? No. But the damage it does to our reputation means that it will be far harder for us as a country to argue for the change that we want internationally—and that is across the board, including at COP26 and in respect of our setting out and putting into place the ambitions of the Integrated Review, which does not even mention modern slavery as one of the Government’s development priorities. I only hope that modern slavery is still on the G7 agenda, as it has been in the past.
The cut from 0.7% will have a devastating impact on the poorest in the world and it will damage the UK. I urge the Government to reinstate the 0.7% target: it is what they promised, it will show that we act according to our values and it will save lives.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your assistance in securing this debate. The number of people not only who have campaigned on this issue for the past year but who want to speak today shows the true strength of feeling on this issue and the cross-party support for it.
I wish to talk about hypocrisy, which it is something I just cannot stand. Unfortunately, the Government’s approach to ODA foreign aid spend is dripping in hypocrisy. The Government have stated their seven global priorities, and we know the priorities for the upcoming G7, but unfortunately what the Government actually do does not match up in any way. I wish to use this speech to highlight specific examples of where the Government are failing.
On global health security, we are cutting by 95% our funding for the global polio eradication initiative, at the exact moment when we are about to eradicate polio. Funding for UNAIDS is cut by 83%, impacting the provision of life-saving HIV treatment to the most marginalised. A programme by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine to build stronger, more resilient health systems in low and middle-income countries is cancelled. The King’s Global Health Partnerships programme “Saving Lives”, which was due to improve care for thousands of pregnant women, is cancelled.
Funding for neglected tropical diseases is wiped out. Funding for life-saving water, sanitation and hygiene projects is slashed by 80% in the face of covid-19 and climate change. The Concern Worldwide project to provide healthcare to people living in remote and disadvantaged areas of Bangladesh is terminated. The project was due to reach 2.6 million people, including 140,000 people living with a disability.
The G7 Foreign Ministers have committed to end violence against women and girls, while girls’ education is a key priority for the Government, yet the women’s integrated sexual health programme is cut by £72 million. The International Planned Parenthood Federation described the “brutal cuts” as
“a tragic blow for the world’s poorest and most marginalised women and girls.”
The UK Bangladesh Education Trust project to educate girls forced into domestic labour has been cut entirely. In Tanzania, the projects of Children in Crossfire and EdUKaid to support children, including disabled children, to access education have been cut entirely.
The United Nations Population Fund is cut by 85%, potentially leading to 25,000 unintended pregnancies. STiR Education projects supported marginalised families across Uganda to access education but have been cut entirely. The projects of S.A.L.V.E.—Support and Love Via Education International—to support girls living on the streets to return to school are cut entirely.
The Women for Women International female empowerment projects in Nigeria and Afghanistan are terminated, leaving thousands of marginalised women abandoned. UNICEF’s core funding is cut by 60%, impacting its ability to provide children with access to water, sanitation, education and health services. An International Rescue Committee project in Lebanon to prevent and respond to gender-based violence, and for child protection, has been cut, depriving 107,000 people of those services. In Sierra Leone, the budget for an IRC programme was cut by 60%. It reached more than 3 million people, mostly adolescent girls.
Humanitarian preparedness and response is also a priority, alongside the G7 commitment to supporting developing countries to tackle and prevent humanitarian threats, but aid to support Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh has been cut by 42%. Mines Advisory Group programmes have been cut by almost 50%, with all funding for work in Lebanon withdrawn. Humanity & Inclusion projects providing speech and physiotherapy sessions for disabled Syrian refugees have been cut entirely. The Tomorrow’s Cities project, working to reduce the risk to poor countries of disasters such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and landslides, has been cut by 70%, compromising the ability of vulnerable communities to respond to disasters. Aid to Yemen has been slashed by nearly 60% in the face of catastrophic famine.
I could go on and on; that is only the beginning of the cuts that this Government are bringing about. That wrecks not only our international standing but the security of this country, because we are cutting money not just for humanitarian projects, but for projects that prevent conflict and poverty. What are some of the main drivers of conflict around the world? Unstable Governments, famine and lack of opportunity.
We were the world’s leading country on a number of those projects, which kept us safe and allowed the world to prosper. By cutting them, and by stubbornly refusing to give us the data on when fiscal circumstances will allow us to go back to 0.7%, the Government are undermining this country and the investment made thus far by the taxpayer.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I will be brief. The arguments for the moral case that we are arguing today should be clear to anybody who has listened to the discussions of the last few days, weeks and months. The Government’s arguments on financial grounds are clearly wrong. This is a rounding error in the national accounts. The Treasury cannot forecast the economy to within £4 billion each year, so how can it account on that basis for this judgment?
I heard that the reason is political; that it is a judgment that the working class of the northern red wall seats do not like foreign aid. Well, I have defended a blue brick in that red wall for 33 years, and I can tell the House that that is wrong. The simple truth is that if we said to someone in one of those seats, “Do you want to spend money on the Ethiopian Spice Girls?” they would say that no, they would rather spend it on a local school or on cutting poverty in Barnsley or whatever it may be.
However, if we asked them the proper question—the real question—they would give us the real, British, generous answer. If we said, “Do you want to act to prevent children dying from dirty water?”, 76% would say yes. If we said the same about starvation, about the same number would say yes. If we said, “Do you want to act to prevent an emergency in a crisis?”, 92% would say yes, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) mentioned. Some 92% of all British citizens would want their money spent on that. What would they think of the 60% cut in the contribution to Yemen, the most difficult emergency in the world today? Or South Sudan? Or the Democratic Republic of Congo? Or Syria? These decisions have consequences, and they are just as smart as we are; they will see those consequences, too.
In the Sahel, 270,000 people a year get life-saving medical support, and that is going to be cancelled this year. That is interesting, because we are also sending 200 British soldiers to the Sahel to help suppress terrorism, and what will this do for that? This will be a recruiting sergeant for terrorism in the Sahel. This is actually acting against our interests and against our soldiers’ interests, and we should remember that when we are doing our accounting sums. Bear in mind that this will not just be poverty; it will be poverty that will be blamed on the west by the people acting against us in the Sahel.
The Minister claimed that the actions he has outlined are in our national interest. While in the long run doing the morally right thing is what is always in our national interest, this is not the right thing. It is the morally wrong decision for the world, and it is the practically wrong decision for our country.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Well, this issue is not going to go away, is it? Why? Because it is about the promise, as we heard in the brilliant speech made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). It is about the promise we made to people who in all likelihood know nothing of its existence, but whose lives have been changed by our generosity. They are people who have drunk clean water or gone to school and mothers who have seen their babies safely delivered or vaccinated, thanks to the immense generosity of the British people. The question is therefore a very simple one: how can it be right or moral to break this particular promise that we gave in good faith to others? The answer is very simple, too: it is not. It is wrong, and, as we have heard, it is damaging our international reputation.
The Prime Minister will sit down opposite the G7 leaders at the end of this week. They are facing exactly the same fiscal pressures as he is, but have the United States, Germany, France, Canada or the other G7 countries cut their aid budgets? No, they have not, because they understand the moral argument.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman listed a few countries. Of course, none of those countries actually commits 0.7% of their GDP anyway.
Hilary Benn
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not the point. We made a promise. I presume he is as committed to keeping promises he makes as the rest of us here in this Chamber.
What of the human cost? We heard from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in her powerful speech about lives blighted, lives shortened and lives lost. Let me just take one example. How can it be right to cut aid for clean water by 80%? The arguments against doing that are so strong, such as the importance of clean water for hand-washing in a pandemic. There is the fact that the single most important thing we can do if we want to reduce infant mortality, apart from improving immediate postnatal care, is provide clean water, because every day babies and small children die because they drink dirty water. Clean water helps girls to go to school, the very thing that the Government say is a priority.
As International Development Secretary—the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield talked about his experience—I learned that there are moments when those of who have the privilege to do the job have our minds changed. We learn and we understand, and we realise why something is so important. In this example, I came across a well one day with a lot of people standing around it. I was told that the well was closed. I had never come across a closed well before, but it was explained that because demand for water in that part of the city was so high, after the first rush of buckets was drawn from it in the morning, the well had to be closed so that the water table had time to replenish to allow the well to be reopened.
One of the people waiting was a girl of about 13 or 14. The well was here and she was standing there—I can remember it to this day. She told me in a very quiet voice that it was her responsibility in her family to get the water every day, because until she did so, she could not go to school. Because the well was closed not just that day, but many days, she was often late for class. That is what this is about: a lack of plentiful, clean water, which all of us here take for granted, meant a lack of education for her and millions of other girls like her.
Are we really going to say that it is acceptable to cut our support for clean water? Is anyone actually going to argue that these cuts are popular with the British people? I fundamentally disagree; the British people are much more compassionate than that. It is not a competition between charity at home and aid abroad. We can, we should, we must do both.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With immediate effect, there is a time limit of four minutes.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]
I want to touch on the two core aspects of this: the political and the humanitarian. Dealing first with the political, we are promoting global Britain, we are told. Once again, we are proudly taking our place on the world stage, we are told, and that is right and good. However, if we are going to do that, we have to be able to hold our heads high, and I cannot see how damaging some of the poorest people in the world will enable us to do that.
Politically as significant is the fact that where we leave a vacuum, others will fill that vacuum. Those others will be China, the Russian Federation and Russia’s client states, Azerbaijan and Belarus. I wonder how many colleagues are prepared to see the emerging democracies turn to communist dictators for assistance, because we have pulled the rug out from under them.
Secondly, the humanitarian effect has been touched on over and over again. In 38 years—tomorrow—in this House of Commons, I have been privileged to travel fairly widely to some of the poorest regions of the world. I assume that the former Foreign Secretary, now the Prime Minister, during his time in his previous office, was able to do that. I am quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a widely travelled man. I suppose that they, like me, will have seen, smelt and tasted the death that comes from poverty and starvation, and seen the misery of young girls having to walk miles every day to fetch foul water. Now, to see the opportunities taken away from those young people around the world is, I believe, unforgivable.
Yes, of course we have run up a huge debt in the course of the covid crisis, but put that in perspective. We are talking about a cut upon a cut. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said in his opening remarks, this was designed to scale against a reduction in gross national income. By reducing the figure from 0.7% to 0.5%, we are exacerbating that cut. In so doing, we are hitting what used to be known as the bottom billion, the 1 billion people in this world who live on less than $1 a day, a figure that the United Nations believes to be the sign of abject poverty.
I want our Prime Minister to be able to go to the G7 with his head held high. I extol the virtues of our contribution to COVAX, but this cut that has been put forward by the Treasury is unforgivable and it must be reversed next year.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and I thank the House authorities and Mr Speaker for the debate today. I have risen to speak because this decision seems, at one and the same time, to be a decision that dishonours our word, dismays our friends and delights our enemies.
I want to make just three points. The first is simple: this decision defaces and demeans the strategy that was set out in this House by the Prime Minister as long as 69 days ago, when he came to that Dispatch Box to present the Integrated Review to the House. He said that he was determined to build resilience at home and abroad and to tackle risk at source:
“We will be…dynamic abroad”.—[Official Report, 16 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 161.]
He declared that 2021 will set the tone for the UK’s international engagement abroad—let us hope not, because on the eve of the G7 this Prime Minister is leading by retreating. The only dynamism he is showing is in the speed with which he is breaking his promises to the world.
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), did not make many speeches about foreign policy, but there was a phrase she used often that was good—the notion of the rules-based order. We should have a Government who extol the benefits and the virtues of a rules-based order. However, we now have a Prime Minister who is ordering the breaking of the rules, not just with the nonsense around the international protocols in Northern Ireland, but with our international promises to the world community. One has to ask, why would anybody trust him? The truth is that he will soon discover that unless he is more hard-line about keeping his promises, our influence in the world will diminish. Once upon a time, it was known abroad that our word was our bond. That is not something to surrender lightly.
My second point is that the Prime Minister risks a serious imbalance in our foreign policy. In today’s world, defence of the realm entails a mixture of deterrence and development. President Biden has a useful guide. He says, “You talk about values. Show me your budget and I will tell you what your values are.” We now have a situation where defence spending is rising by £24 billion and development spending is falling by £4 billion—a £28 billion gap.
Jacob Young
When the right hon. Gentleman was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, did the UK ever meet its 0.7% target?
Liam Byrne
We were proud to set the ambition, and we set a critical path to doing it, because we knew precisely this—that development and deterrence are two sides of the same coin. They are essential to the defence of the realm.
The Prime Minister, when he presented the Integrated Review, boasted that we were about to send the new Queen Elizabeth carrier group on a worldwide tour. In how many of the 100 countries where we are cutting aid will that carrier group come into port? I bet that everywhere it does, we will find that our projection of power is as nothing compared with the power of a project to make poverty history.
Two thirds of the world’s poorest live in fragile, conflict- affected and violent states. It beggars belief that under the Government’s proposals, nations such as Libya and Iraq will no longer receive bilateral aid. There should be a simple rule of policy that we will not drop aid in places where we drop bombs, or where others drop bombs that they bought from us. Investing in places where we can alleviate poverty is one of the biggest investments we can make in safeguarding our security for the years to come.
My final point is simply this. The Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), helpfully set out the extraordinary range of cuts that are now being confronted. As chair of the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, I asked the IMF this afternoon for an update on the sheer scale of investment that is needed to get the global community back on its feet. Low-income countries will now need $200 billion extra to step up their covid response, followed by $250 billion extra in accelerated investment as we try to move from the pandemic to the Paris agreement. We are now going to—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry, we have to leave it there.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on securing this urgent debate.
The United Kingdom is a nation of islands. Apart from one well-known land border, we are surrounded by sea. If we are surrounded by sea, we have a choice. We can turn our back to the sea and look inwards; we can look only at the people in our own country, our own town or perhaps even our own village. I think that makes us smaller and poorer. Alternatively, we can turn round and face the sea. We can face the world. We can be part of a global nation. I think that makes us wealthier, it gives us a better quality of life, and it makes us better as a country.
Being an outward-looking global Britain means many things. It means taking our seat and playing a full role in global institutions. It means meeting our commitments on defence, which the Government are proud to have done. It means trading and promoting free and fair trade around the world, and it means doing our bit for the world’s poorest.
I wish to make three points. First, I accept that this is an exceptional time. There is nothing that I like about this pandemic. I do not like how empty the House is. I do not like not seeing my loved ones. I do not like anything about it, and I accept that it is an exceptional time, but there are organisations that need certainty about their funding from the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) talked about the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery. I, too, have spoken to the Global Fund, which has seen an 80% cut in its spending. It will get by, by going to other countries, but if it does not know that we in the United Kingdom will meet our commitments, it will have to close programmes, and that will leave thousands and thousands of children at risk of exploitation.
That brings me to my second point, which is about keeping our promises. I proudly stood on a manifesto that talked about “proudly” keeping to 0.7%. There are some who think that this is a ruse to introduce 0.5% by the back door. I really hope that that is not the case. The Minister and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have said that we will revert to 0.7% when the economic situation allows. When will that be? When can we have a vote on this matter? When can we know that we will meet our commitments? The organisations, the programmes and the people who depend on that money need to know that it is coming.
My final point is about how joined-up the world is. If the pandemic has shown us one thing, it is that we cannot isolate ourselves from what happens in the rest of the world. No matter how much we might want to turn our backs on the sea and look inwards, we cannot. Variants that developed in far-flung parts of the world, and a virus that developed in a far-flung part of the world in a city that most people probably had not heard of a year ago, have meant that our way of life has changed fundamentally this year. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world; we have to take an active role.
A small amount of money, relatively speaking today, helps to stop refugees travelling in boats on the channel. It helps to stop victims of slavery producing the goods that we are buying in our supermarkets and retailers, and it means that girls will get that 12 years of education. In the week of the G7 and in the year of COP26, this is the time for the United Kingdom to stand with our head held high, show that we meet our global commitments and lead the world.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on securing this debate and on his speech. His recollection of starving children in Uganda brought a tear to my eye, and I was reminded of the extreme poverty I saw when I lived in Ethiopia in the late 1980s. He is right: those memories never leave you. It is those children I met—many of them my own age—who are at the front of my mind now, too.
In his remarks, the Minister drew moral equivalence between maintaining our promises to starving children and leaving future generations with extra debt—how shameful. There is no equivalence there, because one is a death sentence and the other is not, especially when our young people, just like the rest of our country, overwhelmingly support 0.7% being spent on aid spending.
To abandon this commitment comes at a real cost, and it is not just a humanitarian cost. It is true that more lives will be lost this year, next year and the year after that, until the day when the Government finally decide to return to 0.7%, and that is notwithstanding the mess that has been caused by cutting off those funding streams so quickly.
There is also a cost to the UK’s global reputation. How on earth are we to convince developing nations at COP26 to trust our leadership at the most pivotal climate change summit in a generation when in the same breath we have undermined our credibility with them? This is a Government who say one thing and do another, who cannot be trusted, and who behave in a way that is so fundamentally un-British that it makes me feel ashamed.
When the Prime Minister stands up at the G7 this weekend, what will our allies and friends think? The Prime Minister will encourage our allies to pledge more to fund girls’ education while he cuts spending by nearly £200 million. He will offer a hand of friendship to Italy, Germany and France while his Brexit negotiator continues to make incendiary comments about the Northern Ireland protocol. He will speak of the importance of promoting democracy around the world and adhering to the rule of law when this Government deny elected representatives the chance of any vote on aid spending, even when lawyers suggest that we are breaking our own law.
If the Prime Minister wants to make a statement about his Government’s global ambitions, the single most meaningful and impactful thing that he could do right now is give us a vote on whether we should reverse these cuts. If a vote is granted, the Liberal Democrats, who introduced the legislation that enshrined the 0.7% in law, will join others from all sides of the House and will vote to keep our promises and hold on to our word.
I said that this Government and their actions make me ashamed. By contrast, this debate and the clear will of colleagues on all sides of the House to do the right thing should make all Britons proud. I look forward to continuing to work with them for as long as it takes until this Government listen.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
There have been some very moving speeches today. I could spend the time allotted to me repeating the humanitarian points, which by the way I believe in, that we have a duty to the world’s poorest, but my criticism of the Government’s action is based not so much on that as on the question whether this is the right way of proceeding if we are seriously concerned about running the public accounts in an efficient way.
Leaving to one side the fact that there is a manifesto commitment, which is important, I accept that the situation has changed with the pandemic and our economy has declined. Of course, the Government could have cut £2 billion from the overseas aid budget without any adverse criticism, because it was linked to the 0.7%. As our economy declined, we could very easily have cut the aid budget by £2 billion with no argument, but the Government decided to cut it further. What they should have done at that stage was be completely honest with the House and the people and say, if that was their view, “We don’t actually believe in this commitment to 0.7%”—but no, they said, “We still believe in it—this cut is entirely temporary.” But what does “temporary” mean: six months, a year, two years?
It is worse than that. The Government are, in a sense, hoist by their own petard. They have said that this is only temporary, so they have ordered the civil servants in the Department to go on cutting all these programmes. The one way to build in a lot of waste is cutting too quickly, which is almost as wasteful as increasing spending too quickly—I was often critical of the Labour Government when they increased spending too quickly. A lot of waste has now been caused by these civil servants going around cutting all these budgets.
I will leave aside the terrible humanitarian effects, because the point has already been made very effectively by colleagues, but if we accept the Government’s own logic, in six months’ or a year’s time, the same civil servants will be running around restoring all these programmes. There will be a huge amount of waste, and in the meantime, incidentally, a lot of people will have died, a lot of wells will have run dry and a lot of girls’ education will have been ended. People will have died and there will be a huge amount of waste.
Let me offer this compromise to the Government: just be honest, be transparent, be open with Parliament and accept parliamentary democracy. They could set a date—if they wanted, it could be by the Budget or some time early next year—when they will come honestly to Parliament with a policy. I am prepared to be open-minded about this 0.7% and to accept that although it is a manifesto commitment, there may be occasions where it might cause feast to famine to feast, but let the Government make their argument honestly. After all, this is the law; we are supposed to spend 0.7% of our budget by law. If we no longer believe that, we have to come to Parliament to repeal that Act or come to Parliament in the Budget debate and present an alternative. I am not even asking the Government to commit now in the Budget next year to restoring the 0.7%. I am just reaching out to them, with a compromise, to ask them to announce shortly, to end this debate, now and forever, that there will be a transparent, open debate within the next 12 months, so that we can determine this issue forever. Put Parliament first.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
I hope to be brief.
Looking around the world, we see so many problems that need our help—[Inaudible.] It has been a discourtesy to this House and to millions of people up and down the country who voted in 2019 for 0.7%, that this Government tried to cut that without any discussion or debate. I was heartened by the Prime Minister dispatching ventilators and oxygen converters to India, but Nepal is still waiting. India leads the world in vaccine research and production, whereas Nepal has no facilities to produce vaccines. Millions of vulnerable people in Nepal need vaccines, especially second doses. Those are not coming, but we have 500 million doses for 70 million people.
I have visited amazing programmes and met people whose lives were changed and saved by British aid. No one who has seen that work would condone a cut. The cut is barbaric at this time . When I meet people abroad, and online now, I am nothing but proud of our record as a donor to good works, But that work on gender equality, clean water and sanitation, 12 good years of education, ending human trafficking and modern slavery—[Inaudible]. We cannot let this Government waste that work without a fight. We must end this debate and support the return of 0.7% as our commitment to the nation and to the world.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you very much. Sorry about those communications problems, but we got the vast majority of it, Mr Sharma.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I very much welcome this debate today and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). It will help widen our understanding of how British overseas aid commitments work and also our soft power, which allows us to speak with such authority on the international stage and goes in part to justify our seat on the UN Security Council. It is also plays a pivotal role in supporting our economy and strengthening our national and international security, which is what I wish to focus on today. I will just say that for too long our aid programmes worked in isolation of wider Government strategies, often without a British flag to even acknowledge their origins. We have come some way, but I would be the first to say that taxpayers’ money must be wisely spent. As a former soldier, I was saddened and horrified to see the failure to utilise our aid programmes in both Afghanistan and Iraq; we won the war but we lost the peace. Hard power and soft power are two sides of the same coin, and we will need a lot more of both over the next decade—this is something the G7 summit will doubtless attempt to address. Our world is on a worrying trajectory, with rising authoritarianism, growing extremism and the new challenges of climate change and defeating a brutal pandemic that continues to damage economies and take lives, but the west has become risk averse, with an absence of leadership and resolve to address these issues alongside weakened international institutions that are no longer able to defend our rules-based order.
This G7 summit offers an opportunity for Britain to step forward as we have done in the past when other nations hesitated, but when we step back, we not only cause hardship, as we have heard today; we also leave a worrying vacuum that gets filled either by extremists in such places as Yemen and Somalia or more specifically by Russia and China, who pursue very different bilateral relationships that will most likely ensnare yet more nations into economic programmes they can ill afford. China has weaponised its soft power to extend its influence economically, militarily and technologically across Asia and now Africa. Nations are increasingly obliged to look west or east for assistance, and we are progressively seeing our word splinter into two competing geopolitical spheres of influence. That is the face of the new cold war that looms ahead, and this is not the time to reduce our soft power footprint.
We understand the huge bill of £400 billion that the Treasury faces, but if this is all about the money, why not learn from what we did after the war and ring-fence this debt, rather than using austerity measures to balance the books before the next general election? Our last war debt was finally paid off in Gordon Brown’s era as Prime Minister. We should do this in the same way. We should find a fiscal instrument that allows us to manage the books more sensibly here today. As our history shows, we are that Churchillian nation that steps forward when others hesitate. I say this to the House from a security perspective: the next decade is going to get extremely bumpy indeed. The US is once again keen to play its part on the global stage, so in the spirit of global Britain, let us be that reliable ally, let us stay firm and let us honour our manifesto commitment.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
If there was ever a time for humanity to come together, it is now. Millions have lost their lives to covid-19, and millions more will continue to suffer the effects of this global pandemic, so why are this Government choosing to impose devastating cuts to worsen and prolong the suffering of the poorest and most vulnerable communities in the world? Surely the way to honour those who have lost their lives and livelihoods to covid is to ensure that we build forward better across the world. This is the only thing, and the right thing, to do.
The Prime Minister talks about global Britain, but that means nothing when this Government are determined to scale back life-saving assistance to those most in need. He stated that a new royal yacht Britannia would be
“a clear and powerful symbol of our commitment to be an active player on the world stage”.
However, living up to international aid commitments is far more effective in that regard than a flag-waving nostalgia-driven vanity project. If it is financially prudent to spend on a new national flagship and to stockpile even more nuclear weapons, there is simply no excuse not to reverse this devastating cut if we are be an active player on the world stage at the G7 summit this week. Indeed, how can this Government have any credibility whatsoever in calling for others at the G7 to commit to further spending to ensure global recovery when they and they alone are cutting back? The UN has specifically urged Governments to meet the 0.7% commitment, warning that 120 million people have been plunged back into extreme poverty and that the sustainable development goals could be pushed back 10 years due to the pandemic, yet despite all that, this Government have done the exact opposite.
It does not need to be like this. Other G7 countries are increasing their aid and we in the SNP have called for development spending to be ring-fenced at pre-covid levels. The Scottish Government, like others in the international community, will add to vital aid contributions by increasing our international development fund by 50%. The day Scotland becomes an independent player on the world stage cannot come quickly enough. Let us be clear that these cuts will cost lives. Estimates suggest that a million excess child deaths could occur as a result. These could be any of our children. Are we to turn a blind eye because they are someone else’s children? Aid to Yemen, the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, has been cut by 60%. Aid to Africa, where 85% of the poorest 1 billion people will live by 2045, will fall by more than two thirds. In the middle of a pandemic, this Government decided that funding that could have provided 10 million people with access to water and sanitation, the most basic defence against covid, should be withdrawn.
Finally, no one has escaped this pandemic, but the poorest have been expected to pay the ultimate price. No one is pretending either that the challenge of recovering from covid is easy, but as the rest of the world is stepping up, the UK should not be stepping away. Indeed, this is not just about political debate or defeating the Government; it is about saving lives. It is about those who rely on the international community to give them support, who have had their livelihoods destroyed, who will die in the hundreds of thousands, and who have little or no voice. The Government can choose to listen to this House and reverse these cuts, or they can abandon the world’s poorest and become an ever smaller and insignificant little Britain of which we want no part.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
We have heard some very powerful speeches today. Of course, I pay enormous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I respect his impassioned arguments and long-standing commitment to international aid, but, respectfully, I have to offer an alternative view today.
The UK’s commitment to international development is globally recognised. We are proud of our commitment to supporting developing nations, and we have heard that today. From my many years here, I can say that it has not always been this overwhelming a debate in the past. We have to be honest. The unprecedented circumstances of the past 12 months have forced this Government, as it would have done any Government of any complexion, to take some very difficult decisions. Circumstances are exceptional, because so much of our money—probably a globally unprecedented package—was put together to shore up our health service and to shore up our businesses in the face of a global pandemic. I think the Government are right—
Mrs Miller
Will my right hon. Friend just give me a moment to make my argument?
The Government are right not to put their head in the sand. It is not possible to continue with business as usual. These are not normal times. We have a responsibility as a Parliament to act, and to simply dismiss £4 billion-worth of expenditure as a rounding error is, I think, the first time I have heard such a thing in a debate such as this.
Mr Mitchell
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Obviously, she and I do not fully agree on this. Would she like to speculate on why Britain alone of the wealthy nations is cutting its aid when everyone else is either maintaining it or increasing it? Why is our economy so bad that we have to balance the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world, unlike all the other rich countries?
Mrs Miller
I think my right hon. Friend is right, and I would speculate—although I would need to look at the figures in more detail—that perhaps our country has put more money into supporting our health service and more money into supporting jobs. Perhaps we will be in a better position to resume our international aid spending when we are on the other side of this pandemic. He is right that we need to look at that in more detail.
We cannot always forecast the future, and that is why the legislation has provisions in it to be able to make the sort of changes that the Government are proposing today. I say to my right hon. Friend that he makes a very strong argument about the importance of international aid, and he knows that I agree with him on that. I do not think that he should be over-simplifying his argument in the way that he started to in his opening statement today. The action that the Government are taking is not simply regular politics. The fiscal crisis the country faces is a result of the pandemic and that speaks to every constituency throughout the country. Nobody would choose to be in the situation that we face today, but to paint this as the UK walking away from its global responsibilities is wrong and it sends a very wrong message from this place to the rest of the world.
Mrs Miller
I will not give way again, else I will get into trouble with Mr Deputy Speaker.
We remain one of the main funders of international aid around the globe and we need to be proud of that. There has been much talk of reputation in this debate, and I believe that a reputation for fiscal competency is also a key part of our reputation around the world. If we are to remain one of the biggest contributors to international aid, we also need to retain our reputation for fiscal competency. Perhaps some of the fragility of the funding regimes, which a number of right hon. and hon. Members have talked about today, highlights the fragility of what is going on in the international aid sector and indicates the importance of increasing the number of countries investing to the level that we consistently have over a number of years and also of working together more to avoid that fragility in times of crisis.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) is absolutely right: we cannot isolate ourselves, and the pandemic has demonstrated that amply. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be back here soon to confirm when the UK can return to its normal terms of business on international aid. I also hope that he, or perhaps his colleagues, can talk more about what the Government will be doing to fulfil the promises in their equality strategy, so well set out in 2018, because that will all give certainty for the future. But for now, I believe the approach that he is taking is prudent not just for us, but for future generations as well.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I refer the House my declaration of interests.
The UK is at a crossroads. Our citizens and the international community wait to see which way the Government will take. However, it is not that Ministers cannot pick a route; it is that they have chosen, in the words of the brilliant speech by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), to go backwards—and, I would add, have too frequently chosen to go back on their own word. This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to retain aid spending. Ministers now seek to break that promise, despite their massive majority and despite the global pandemic, just when we are needed more than ever and when global Britain could mean something to the countries and people we are in a position to help.
As we have heard, no other G7 country is taking this approach—Germany and the US are increasing their help—and the outcome is also known. Ministers back- tracking and breaking their promise will mean avoidable loss of life and the preventable spread of disease, and in one case—the failure to provide clean water in a Yemeni refugee camp—could even mean more refugees trying to reach the UK.
The broken promise also contradicts the great British tradition of not ignoring problems and not walking on by. We are the good Samaritan—we pitch in; we help. We do so because it is the right thing to do, but it is not just altruism. We also do it because covid has proved more than ever that no one is safe until everyone is safe. Our aid prevents other diseases, such as HIV, spreading to our shores, can help to prevent conflict involving UK armed forces and the creation of refugees seeking further help from the UK, and can help to facilitate trade benefiting British business. Ministers seem ready to stand by and abandon all that.
“Global Britain” means nothing to most people, but it will mean even less without the agencies needed to deliver it—all those international aid organisations, which currently have so little faith in Ministers after the deceitful claim that they were consulted on the abolition of the Department for International Development and the devastating £4 billion cut in the help they deliver on the front line.
We all recognise that covid affects things, but the Government need to be more ambitious for our international reach and for our country. Let us compare how this country has recovered from previous crises. The post-war Labour Government achieved house building on a scale never seen before, created a social security system that the whole country has benefited from ever since and delivered an NHS still proving its worth in the face of covid today—a post-crisis Labour legacy that the whole country remains proud of. By contrast, this Government seem to seek no positive post-covid legacy. Ministers are abandoning even their own manifesto promises to the British people, despite the massive majority—promises on aid and cuts to the armed forces, as well as the pledges to overhaul social care and even on free TV licences for some pensioners. It is a truly pathetic agenda.
That said, I respect the noble aims of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and other Government Back Benchers, including the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I genuinely hope they are successful in overturning the Government’s betrayal of their own manifesto and their wider betrayal of the British people who voted for them.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I have had hundreds of contacts from constituents concerned about the changes being made to our aid programme. Not all of them agree with me, but many do. My judgment is that the people I represent, like their MP, are really proud of the support that we give around the world.
But we should be honest: yesterday’s amendment, which led to today’s debate, was far from perfect. It would not have restored all the projects that we have heard about today. We are still spending £10 billion this year as the Minister rightly said, and we have seen the biggest drop in economic output for 300 years. Therefore, does the 0.7% to 0.5% cut matter? Have we rather pompously overblown our world-leading reputation in this area? My answer to those two questions is: yes, it does matter, and, no, I do not think we have.
I held the international health brief at the Department of Health and Social Care. I have attended G7 and G20 meetings—not at the level of the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and the former Secretaries of State that we have heard from, but I have been in the room. I hear the talk about it damaging our reputation around the world. Perhaps some think that that is overblown—perhaps they think it is part of our pompous overblowing of this issue—but it does matter. I have seen that in the room: what the UK does matters, and countries follow us. We are in a position to ask them to do so because of our deeds.
I have also seen much of the good work that we do. HIV is one of the many examples that I know about and am particularly worried about. An open letter published today by a wide range of organisations working in this field, plus Lord Fowler, who knows a thing or two, says that they fear that the reductions risk
“setting the stage for a resurgence”
of the AIDS pandemic. That sits at such odds with the domestic progress that we have made on HIV and the recommendations of the HIV Commission, which I was proud to be part of, on ending new HIV transmissions by 2030. What will happen around the world with the HIV reduction programmes is tragic.
Anthony Mangnall
My hon. Friend is making an important point about HIV/AIDS. The fact that it has been cut by 80% because of this decision is kicking the can further down the road and making it a bigger problem in the future. Does he agree that this jeopardises everything we have worked for?
Steve Brine
Yes, and frankly it does not really matter whether I do. Dozens of organisations working in this field have written an open letter in The Telegraph today setting out why and how this matters. I am really worried about it.
I think back to my early days in this House, and one of the first things that I did in Winchester, which I am so proud to represent, was to hold a session with the former Minister, Stephen O’Brien, who was a very good International Development Minister. It was called “Ask the Minister”, and it was in St Paul’s church in Winchester. Dozens of constituents came to that meeting to listen to the manifesto commitment that we made in 2010 and the way that we were going to legislate for it.
For me, this is not just a manifesto commitment made then and in 2019; it is a personal commitment that I want to stand by. I know that to meet it, we have to make choices, but it was a choice to make the pledge in the first place, and it is a political choice to keep it or not now. Abandoning 21 June, as we may do next week, is also a choice that will have a price tag attached to it. Perhaps there is a correlation there.
Finally, let me give an example from my Winchester constituency that saddens me. It is actually rather personal, given the global health budget that I used to hold. For many years, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which runs my local hospital in the University of Winchester, has obtained funding and used it to provide support for overseas projects such as stroke services in west Africa, and paediatric maternity surgery and anaesthetic care in several east African countries. It has been funded thorough the Tropical Health and Education Trust, which receives money through UK Partnerships for Health Systems. It has had its programme cut from 2020 through 2024 as a result of this reduction, so it is not just a one-year hit, as some say. It is devastated about the work it is now not going to be able to do.
If anybody on the Opposition or Government Benches, friend or foe of mine, or any of my colleagues speaking against this proposal today, thinks that we enjoy giving the Government a hard time, let me say, we do not. I am here to say what I think on behalf of the people I represent, and I think this is wrong. Even now, at this late stage, let us not do this. As I always say to constituents who disagree with me on this subject—and there will be many—charity does indeed begin at home; it just does not end there.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to hear so many Members across the House joining together, looking at the progress that has been made on HIV/AIDS over the years and urging the Government to change their mind on this funding question. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who chairs the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, which is cross-party, has also done an enormous amount of work on this.
I want to talk today about the impact on British science, but before I do I want briefly to mention the many wonderful experiences that we as Members, in different parties, had in, for example, Kenya or Nigeria, where so many children die from malaria. We know that, with the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting this month, we are meant to be showing a very strong sense of leadership and I feel this kind of decision undermines that.
I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) talk about the waste of the in-year cut. When we cut budgets in-year, we may as well not spend the money at all; we just throw it away. So some medication that is being provided through programmes will actually be disposed of because of an in-year cut. It is a really bad way to manage programmes.
On British science, I declare an interest because my other half is a scientist and is very involved in malaria research. I understand that Dr Gilbert, who in Oxford invented the vaccine, invented it because she has a background in trying to find a vaccine for malaria. It is a very different kind of parasite from coronavirus—of course, coronavirus is much simpler, so it is much easier to get a vaccine—but the reason she is a vaccinologist and understands vaccines is that she worked in global health, and the UK is known for its excellence in that area.
These ODA cuts will have a massive impact on our regional universities. Of course, what we are trying to address are the regional inequalities within the UK. We know, for example—and the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) mentioned the trust in Hampshire—that there are 500 health facilities across Africa and Asia that work closely with the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. They teach medical science and medical research to Africans and in Asia as well. In particular, the concept is so good—this was one of the special things about many of the DFID programmes: it was a hand up, not a handout. Everybody wants to see these programmes where British scientists work closely with African scientists. They are equal scientists, and they work together and collaborate. It is not just handing out in a kind of philanthropic way to make us feel good; it is working on the global problems that affect each and every one of us. We are so far ahead in our vaccine project because of that background in global health.
This debate is taking place in the context of The Times rich list, where there are 23 more billionaires this year. Our economy has the potential, but we have to make our economy work harder so that we can afford this, because it is inequality that is going to bring down our society, which is going to cause even more problems, and we must tackle that difficult problem. Christine Lagarde has been saying it for years, and the IMF is saying it. Tackle inequality, and the rest will look after itself. We have to find a way for the 23 billionaires to help to pay for the £4 billion that we need to maintain this UK excellence across the world.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
This is a very difficult debate for me. It is very difficult because I can genuinely see both sides of this debate. It is difficult because I find myself with a different view from many colleagues on these Benches whom I respect very highly, and it is difficult because I, in my six years in this place, have possibly been one of the most enthusiastic supporters of our overseas aid budget. But we have to make some tough choices at this time, and I am sure that this is going to be the first of many tough choices that this House and this Government are going to have to make in the months and years ahead.
This pandemic started as a health crisis, but the longer- term impact will be an economic and a fiscal challenge. I say that representing one of the most disadvantaged parts of the UK, and it is forecast that the economic impact will be felt deepest and longest there. The money to continue our level of aid spending has to be found from somewhere. I am concerned that one of the effects of the last year is that we seem to have lost a sense of proportion of financial discipline. Colleagues have spoken of £4 billion as a rounding error. I can remember when hundreds of millions of pounds were talked of as a big Government spending item and now we talk of £4 billion as a rounding error. What has happened?
Many have spoken about our breaking of a manifesto promise. I remind colleagues that our manifesto also promised that we would reduce the debt over this Parliament—that the debt at the end of this Parliament would be smaller than at the beginning. We are having to break that promise—we all understand why—but let us not pretend that cutting our aid budget at this time is the only manifesto promise we are going to have to break because of the very difficult situation in which we find ourselves. I find it very uncomfortable that we have to make this cut in our aid spending, but I also feel very uncomfortable adding to the debt that my grandchildren will probably have to pay back for this country. That is a tough choice that we have to make.
We will remain one of the largest contributors in the world. The way some hon. Members are talking here today, it is as though we are completely cutting our aid budget and will never spend another pound. We are still contributing £10 billion—the third highest amount in the G7. Several Members have made comments about providing leadership and losing our influence, but in all the years that we stuck to our 0.7% aid target, how many followed us? Not very many. So let us not overplay our global influence in that regard.
It has been common to trail through tweets this week. I have been quite surprised that some people on these Benches who have been the most enthusiastically in favour of 0.7% today were putting out tweets just a short while ago saying that it was the wrong decision for the Government to make. So I think we need to look at the wider picture.
I simply say two things to the Government. I do not find it easy, but I do understand, in the current context, why the decision has to be made to start making those tough decisions to restore financial discipline. That is something that we on these Benches, in this party, should stand for.
In concluding, I ask the Minister two things. Can we please ensure that the cut to overseas aid is done in a way that minimises the impact on the world’s poorest and most vulnerable? I think there are savings that can be made, but let us make sure that they are made in the right way. With a heavy heart, I support this, but can we please make sure that we return our international aid budget to 0.7% as soon as we possibly can?
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
I thank Mr Speaker for allowing this emergency debate.
The decision to abandon the Government’s own manifesto commitment was not just morally regrettable but, like a disturbing number of actions by this Government in this term, it was unlawful, too. The Government have again bypassed Parliament and demonstrated contempt, in that it has taken until today, in an emergency debate, to address this matter. I commend those Conservative Members who have secured this debate for their articulation of our shared norms of global interdependence and of democratic norms.
Although I appreciate that nobody who has spoken is relishing this change, we have heard from cheerleaders of the policy that we need to help our own instead. That false binary might just ring true if those same voices were not actively advocating against meaningful pay for healthcare workers and against funding catch-up education, and if they were not actively misrepresenting, with tabloid myths that insult the intelligence of the public, the real achievements that the UK has made through aid. Nobody credible denies the serious economic contraction in the situation that we are in, but we are advocating that a principled choice be made, and that this Government and nearly all Members of the House keep a promise that they made.
Last November, speaking about the security and defence review, the Prime Minister said:
“Britain must…stand alongside our allies, sharing the burden”—[Official Report, 19 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 487-488.]
But this retreat does the opposite. For the first time in many years, development progress around the world is going backwards. Reports estimate that 200 million people will be pushed back into extreme poverty because of the pandemic. Decades of practice and evidence under- score the truth that long-term development investment, the like of which UK aid successfully supports, creates resilience that helps the poorest and the most vulnerable to withstand the economic and environmental shocks that are becoming more frequent, which in very large part is due to our actions and our consumption.
This cut is, at the very best, penny wise and pound foolish, because economic investment in aid is far-sighted. Well-nourished children will learn well in school; empowered and informed women will see their children survive and thrive; innovative, invested farmers will be able to feed their family and have more for market. Aid also creates a more secure world. Draining the reservoirs of poverty guards against extremism taking hold and creates a safer future for us all.
The UK’s development record of being a generous aid supporter has been something to be really proud of. Like many hon. Members, I have seen the effect of that money in practice many times, having worked for over a decade in the aid sector. As an Irish MP in the UK Parliament, I think it fair to say that some of the rhetoric and symbolism that I hear around sovereignty, militarism and flags does not move me politically, but like many others, I have been deeply proud of the UK’s record on spending and effectiveness in aid. It is the mark of a serious global actor and an inclusive, modern, progressive union of people.
Whoever policy decisions like this are designed to appeal to, please let us not forget that there is a mainstream of public opinion that believes in multilateralism and generosity—we exist as well. The UK’s aid spend saves lives around the world, but it enriches all our lives here as well, and it should be protected.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, may I thank you and Mr Speaker for allowing today’s emergency debate and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on securing it?
I have had the privilege of representing the UK as a Minister in the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development and of seeing, around the world, the good that our aid budget does. Whether from our work in the midst of the Ebola outbreak in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo—where the fact that the UK had invested in vaccines and their cold chain deployment meant that we were able to contain that deadly disease—or from the work that we put into neglected tropical diseases, which has meant that we have been able to contain and control other diseases from reaching the UK, surely we should have learned how important it is for the UK for us to work on such shared global challenges for humanity.
I have had the privilege of going to Goma, near where the volcano is erupting, and seeing how we have brought fresh water there. It was UK expertise and UK firms that won the contract to do that, which benefits our economy here and those exporters as well. It is a win-win for the UK public and for the world. I feel very strongly that it was a great privilege to say that we were—as we used to be—the only G20 country that met its NATO 2% target and the 0.7% UN target for aid. Surely if global Britain means anything, it means that, and being able to say that so proudly.
I was particularly proud to stand on a manifesto that again committed to those metrics for our position in the world. Politicians hesitate to break manifesto pledges because they know that the electorate will punish them at the next election if they do, whether they are George H. W. Bush saying “Read my lips: no new taxes” or Nick Clegg with his tuition fees. People realise that they should not break manifesto pledges because the electorate dislike it, but in this case I feel that the people who benefit from our aid budget the most are the ones who have no voice in this place. I have met them, and I need to articulate on their behalf how important this spending is.
There is another reason why I feel particularly passionate about the subject: the fact that we have enshrined the 0.7% in law. I know that there is a get-out in section 2 of the 2015 Act, under which a Secretary of State who inadvertently does not meet the 0.7% target can come to Parliament, explain why and state how they will get back to it. However, actually targeting 0.5% is absolutely a contentious legal issue and something that I think may well be challenged in the courts. The Government have a large majority, so the simplest thing to do, if it is such a good idea, would be to come to Parliament for that consent. The power that the Executive have is derived through us in Parliament; therefore they need to show respect for Parliament by coming and asking us, and giving us a vote, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) put it so powerfully.
I could expatiate at length about how passionately I feel that we are making the wrong decision, but in this week, when we are hosting the G7, when we need to vaccinate the world and when cases are really beginning to grow exponentially across many African and Asian countries, and when we heard last week from every country at the 142nd Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly that they need the vaccines, let us get out of this hole by giving our vaccines to the world.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), the former Minister, on her speech. She speaks very powerfully from her own experience of visiting projects. When I was first elected back in 2005, the first overseas visit I was invited to go on was when Oxfam took me to the camps for internally displaced people in the north of Uganda. I had never seen poverty on that scale. It was very much like the sorts of images that we would have seen during the Live Aid broadcasts. That made a huge impact on me, and I have seen on other overseas trips—for example, to look at our disaster relief effort after the earthquake in Kashmir—how much good we can do on the ground, often with very small but much-needed amounts of money.
Many of us sometimes get criticism for travelling abroad as MPs, but it really brings home to us the importance of such pledges. It is frankly shameful that during a global pandemic, when the need for international leadership and support for poorer countries is greater than ever, the Government would renege on their commitment to support the poorest people of the world without bringing it to the House for a vote.
The pandemic has fuelled an increase in gender-based violence, disrupted children’s education, increased food insecurity and threatens access to crucial healthcare. And yet, as we have heard, the UK aid budget for education has been slashed by 40%. UNICEF has lost 60% of its core funding, and the United Nations Population Fund has lost 85%, which it says could mean 250,000—a quarter of a million—more mother and baby deaths. In Yemen, home to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, we are cutting funding by nearly 60%, while refusing to suspend arms sales. The International Trade Secretary has said in response to letters that I have written to her that current arms exports are legal and match the consolidated criteria, but we cannot simultaneously be peacemaker and arms dealer.
I want to make a special plea today, though, for the Government to recognise, ahead of COP26, our obligations towards climate-vulnerable countries. These countries bear very little responsibility for our changing climate, yet are most affected by its consequences, be they rising sea levels, changing temperatures, droughts, declining crop yields or extreme weather events, which are becoming ever more frequent and more severe. There is an urgent need for more funding for climate adaptation, as well as aid to help to address the deepening inequality linked to climate change; and, as we play host to the G7, we should be leading on debt relief for the poorest countries, too. We cannot carry on giving less with one hand and taking away with the other.
I also want to flag up the plight of the small island developing states, as chair of the new all-party group. Although the UN has recognised SIDS as having particular social, economic and environmental vulnerabilities, the common metrics used to determine vulnerability and need when it comes to ODA do not take that into account. As a result, many SIDS do not qualify for aid, yet work by the United Nations Development Programme on a multidimensional vulnerability index shows that the majority of SIDS are far more economically vulnerable than their income level would suggest. SIDS are not only facing some of the very worst consequences of climate change; they have also been devastated financially by the pandemic because of the collapse in tourism and are particularly prone to extreme weather events and other natural disasters. The recent volcanic eruption could cost Saint Vincent and the Grenadines up to 50% of GDP. Other SIDS are trapped in a vicious cycle of debt, including Belize, which has defaulted on or restructured its debt five times in the last 14 years.
To conclude, we are facing the biggest global challenges in our history, with a pandemic that has devastated the global economy and a rapidly changing climate. We know that some nations are more prepared than others for these challenges, and we cannot turn our backs on the vulnerable now.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) [V]
The last year has had unprecedented effects on our economy, our public services and the world, and it has left us facing some profound choices this autumn. For all the reasons that numerous Members have mentioned in the debate, none of us wants to have to make these changes to international aid spending, but if we look at the promises we have made, we will see that we face some very difficult choices this autumn. We have promised to help children catch up on their education, and tomorrow we will have a debate in which numerous Members will say that they want to spend more on that. We have promised to catch up on the NHS backlog, which has inevitably built up during a year in which nurses, doctors and everyone working in the NHS have worked overtime and worked their socks off. They have been under an unprecedented level of strain, which has caused a large backlog in NHS demand.
We also face long-standing questions such as the crisis in social care in local government. Again and again in my surgeries, people come to me to complain about squalid conditions, the difficulty of accessing care and the impossible burdens of paying for care. Last but not least—and I declare an interest here—there is the whole question of levelling up and the many things that we promised to do to change the grotesque inequalities in life expectancy and the grotesque differences in income levels and opportunity around this country.
We have many, many promises to keep. Over the last year, we have done unprecedented things to save jobs and livelihoods—we have spent like never before—and because of that, we now face some very difficult choices. I am not somebody who decries the value of aid. I can see that it does much good around the world, and we will continue to be one of the world’s biggest spenders. None the less, I think that to be in government is to make choices. We face difficult choices, and we have many promises to keep on lots of fronts.
Ultimately, all of us are elected to serve the people and to be servants of the people. It is clear to me from every poll I see and every conversation I have that the public know that we have to make choices. They know that we have to prioritise, and the things that they tell me they want to prioritise the most are our health service and giving opportunities and jobs to the places that need them. These are horrible choices to have to make. I salute all colleagues on the other side of this argument who have come to a different view from mine. None the less, with a heavy heart, I think that this is the right thing to do because of the difficult choices that we face.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
We have a moral duty and, currently, a legal obligation to help those in need. Whether it is securing girls’ education or responding to humanitarian crises in conflict zones, aid can be the first and last hope of improving lives. Britain is the only G7 nation to cut aid during this global crisis, and now its allies are taking note. With the G7 summit set to begin later this week, the Government’s stubborn refusal to reverse this decision will weaken the country’s position considerably. The US Congress has already written a letter urging the UK to reconsider its position.
For aid to be truly effective, the recipient must have consistency and reliability, and that is currently at risk under this Government. My constituent Nicola Sansom is the CEO and co-founder of SALVE International, a small international development charity that has been supporting street-connected children in Uganda since 2008 to have a brighter future through education and family reunification. She had been awarded a grant worth £50,000 from the small charities challenge fund but then received the devastating news that it had suddenly been cut. Nicola’s case is just one of many. Given the last-minute decision to cut funding for SALVE, can that funding be reinstated, so that the hard work done by the organisation does not go to waste and it can make a genuine difference to girls’ education in Uganda? Can the Minister confirm his commitment to get 40 million girls into school by 2025, in the light of an estimated 25% cut to girls’ education funding? How does he expect to fulfil this commitment without adequate funding to ensure that girls are not subjected to violence, abuse and harassment?
In the light of the recent events in Palestine that saw complete disregard for international law by Israeli forces, United Nations Relief and Works Agency funding provides much-needed aid, vital help and educational programming, and helps to strengthen co-operation between Israelis and Palestinians. Given the ongoing blockade of Gaza and the devastating human rights violations, can the Minister guarantee that the UK funding commitment to UNRWA will not be involved in this Government’s discriminatory cut to the UK’s aid budget?
There is an undeniable case that UK aid helps the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. During this difficult time, it is even more important that we continue to empower the powerless.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on everything that he has done to get this debate, and the team behind him on their extraordinary job in helping to run this campaign.
It is, of course, no easy thing to go against the grain of one’s party—although given the amount of times I have rebelled, I am not sure the Whips are going to believe that of me—but I do not do it lightly. I do it with the consideration of why I was sent here, what I believe in, and what, given their views, people who support this party would expect us to do.
Over the course of my time in Parliament, we have had numerous debates about global Britain. For me, it is quite simple: the definition of global Britain and what it embodies is defence, diplomacy, trade and, of course, development. Each one of those pillars relies heavily on the other. Our trade ambitions, our defence operations, our diplomatic networks and our development programmes all peak and trough depending on one another’s successes. Whatever the variation, that quartet of sectors helps to promote Britain on the world stage. They represent a Britain that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) pointed out, does not step back but steps forward. In trade, we are striking many new positive free trade agreements; we are being ambitious, global and outward-looking. In defence, we are sending our aircraft carriers around the world. Our diplomatic network is still viewed as one of the finest in the world. Up until last year, I would have maintained that our commitment to 0.7% was not just the correct thing to do but an act of global leadership that benefits our trade, defence and diplomatic missions, all of which are truly reflective of global Britain. In committing to the 0.7% target, we offered not just warm words but firm action for those most in need.
I have listened carefully to the words of colleagues during this debate and over the course of the past year. I have heard all too often that we simply cannot afford to pay for the 0.7% development budget given the pandemic and the economic climate. Leaving aside the fact that the 0.7% target fluctuates depending on the strength of our economy, ensuring that in good times there is more money and in bad times there is less, I humbly remind everyone in this House that we brought it in in the wake of the financial crisis, when our economic growth was possibly at its lowest, with no forecast to boost it.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is making an extremely good and sensible speech. May I thank him for the immense amount of hard work and leadership he has undertaken in advancing this argument and getting it to this point today?
Anthony Mangnall
That is incredibly generous of my right hon. Friend and I appreciate it.
We stood up just post the 2010 election because it was the right thing to do and because it demonstrated our global leadership and encouraged others to follow suit. It is simply not the case that other countries have not followed suit, with France and Germany now hitting the 0.7% target and America doing likewise, reflecting the fact that our leadership has encouraged them to do so. With a new President in the United States who is reaffirming the rules-based order, we can truly say that we have a global group that will support 0.7%, but not if we do not stick to our guns on this. We have been able to assist in humanitarian crises and conflict zones around the world. We have been able to address the health issues, sanitation issues and education issues, but all that has been put into jeopardy. As has already been mentioned, with this cut from 0.7% to 0.5%, we are cutting global health budgets —down by 14%; girls’ education—down by 25%; clean water—down by 80%; the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids—down by 80%. All these budgets are being cut during a pandemic where the problems are exacerbated as opposed to diminished. No impact assessment has been undertaken and no review has been done of what those cuts would mean to the different organisations. It is a simple stroke of the pen, no vote in Parliament and absolutely no consideration for the consequences.
It is a staggering miscalculation to ignore our international obligations and moral duties, because we cannot protect ourselves at home if we do so. Many have argued that that money should not be spent abroad, but if we wish to tackle terrorism, asylum and climate change, we have to be out there. We have to be co-operating on an international scale to ensure that each of these points is addressed and that we live in a truly globalised world.
We have been told that tough fiscal decisions will have to be made, and I accept that. I recognise the extensive cost of the Government’s very generous support packages, but as of today, the only area in which the Government have cut funding has been the 0.7%, minus of course the public sector pay freeze. Perhaps the Minister —when he returns to the Chamber—might answer why that is. The party committed to 0.7% in 2019, 2017, 2015 and 2010. We all won those elections on the basis of promising that to our electorate. It would be a shame if we could not stand up for the promise to the world’s poorest people that we made to our electorate and deliver on all the programmes depending on UK funding.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for his persistence in bringing this issue to the House today. I am deeply concerned by the UK stepping back from its responsibilities to the world’s poorest and abandoning its commitment by cutting aid, and so are many of my Vauxhall constituents who have contacted me.
Six years ago in 2015, we were the first G7 nation to enshrine in law our commitment to the UN’s target of 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid. As we prepare to host the G7 summit at the end of this week, the UK is breaking its promise, while other G7 countries such as France and the USA are maintaining or increasing their aid commitments. This is not the global Britain we want the world to see. The aid budget should be used to tackle the global challenges facing us all: the pandemic, the climate crisis and rising poverty and inequality.
A few months ago on 8 March, we celebrated International Women’s Day, and men and women across the UK spoke out against violence against women and girls. We can choose to challenge and call out the inequality we know that so many women continue to face. I am sure that Members across the House would agree that one of the best ways to help address that inequality is to ensure that women and girls have access to vital education —not only at home here in the UK, but right across the world.
The UK’s ambitious targets of getting 40 million more girls into school and 20 million girls reading by the age of 10 by 2026 have been adopted by the G7. Indeed, the Prime Minister said a few weeks ago on 12 May:
“Supporting girls to get 12 years of quality education is one of the smartest investments we can make as the world recovers from Covid-19. Otherwise we risk creating a lost pandemic generation…I’m going to be working throughout the UK’s G7 presidency to ensure leaders invest in those girls and boost children’s life chances around the world.”
Reducing the aid budget is in direct contradiction to the rhetoric from the Prime Minister a few weeks ago and the reality faced by millions of people working across the world to support women or girls and many others across the aid sector. The cuts will have far-reaching consequences for some of the world’s most marginalised and vulnerable people. Projects such as the International Rescue Committee’s Girls’ Education Challenge—the UK’s key programme for supporting girls’ education in Africa and Asia—could now be at risk because of this cut. I am concerned by the UK’s sudden role—[Inaudible.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I think we have just lost Florence. I am terribly sorry. [Interruption.] I think we will have to leave it there. I call Pauline Latham.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, a little earlier than I anticipated.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on securing this debate—sad though it is that we have to have it—and thank Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers for allowing us to go ahead. The saddest part is that we will not be allowed a vote on the issue. We will not be able to decide democratically what this House wants to do. It has been decided for us.
I am very disappointed that the Minister is not in his place at the moment, because I wanted to paint a picture of the things that I have seen when travelling with the International Development Committee. I want everyone in the Chamber to imagine that their daughter has got married young, too young, and that there is now no contraception for that daughter, so she has a child early. However, we have not managed to help that future mother with nutrition, so when she has her baby—if she survives it—she will have a child who is stunted. That could be in any country that we help, because those are the poorest people in the world.
The child will never get the brain power it deserves, because it has been starved during the gestation period, but we are cutting the amount of money for nutrition, so he or she will never catch up—can never catch up, because once someone’s brain is stunted, it can never do so. None of us in this Chamber wants to see that happen, but that is the reality of it. The mother could die because there is no contraception, the child will not reach its potential because it is stunted, and the child might never have a job and so afford to send its own children to school. The cycle goes on and on.
The problem is that we will be partly responsible, because we are cutting our aid budget so much. I have seen some of the figures, and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) listed a lot of the cuts, which seem totally random and not thought through—“Oh, we’ll just cut that!”, or, “Yes, we’ll do that!” I think that the problem with some of the Ministers who have made the decisions is that they have not been to see for themselves the devastation of the impact on those poor people, the poorest people in the world, whom we as a very rich nation by comparison should be helping.
I have spent 11 years in this place, sitting on the International Development Committee, so I have seen the good that our aid has done. It is not perfect; we do not always get everything right, but we get a hell of a lot right to help those poorest people. We have saved lives—but we will lose lives.
The Minister is not a callous man or a cold man, and I am sure that when he made his speech, it was not one that he wanted to give. I am sure that he will do what he is told and give the speech he has been given at the end of this debate, but I am disappointed. I hope—now he has returned to the Chamber—that he will read what I have said about what we are doing to the poorest people in the world. He should go back to the Treasury and to the Prime Minister to say, “We are wrong.” It is as simple as that. Let us change our policy and go back to 0.7%.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are trying to get Florence Eshalomi back, to give her the last minute. We will see how that goes.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for securing the debate. I admire the authentic passion that he brings to this subject.
I oppose these unjustified and unwise cuts to aid. The Government are said to be motivated by a wish not only to balance the books and manage public spending, but to court popularity in the red wall seats. I can tell the Minister that opinion in Wales is very much against the Government on this and it will do them no good. When we get that long-overdue by-election in the north-east of Wales, they will see that for themselves.
From a Welsh perspective, I note that smaller European countries—Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg, Norway—have met their 0.7% of GDP targets. Indeed, Sweden has provided not 0.7% but 1.14% of its GDP in aid. Sweden and the others can do this, and they achieve the 0.7% and more. Unfortunately, the UK can but chooses not to do so.
Leading figures in Welsh public life and local constituents alike have expressed their dismay, describing this cut as a double blow to the world’s poorest communities at the time of a pandemic. The Welsh Government themselves, in their policy documents on international matters—their agenda—say that they are
“committed to promoting social justice, fairness and equality”.
What value have those fair words from the Welsh Labour Government when we are tied to and overruled by this mean-spirited, short-sighted policy from the Westminster Government?
The United Nations Population Fund is to be cut by 85%, UNICEF’s core funding to support children by 60%, and total funding by £4.5 billion. Those figures would be a disgrace to any country, but given this Government’s pretensions to be a leading global power and an example to others, they are not only a disgrace but a major self-inflicted blow to the UK’s international standing.
I referred a moment ago to the United Nations Population Fund. What does that cut mean in real terms? Funding is to reduce from £154 million to £23 million, which will lead, it says, to up to 7 million unintended pregnancies, 2 million unsafe abortions and 23,000 maternal deaths. UNICEF says that it is “too soon” to judge effects, but
“children…in some of the world’s worst crises and conflicts will suffer”
as a consequence—as a deliberate effect, unfortunately—of this policy. Lastly, Save the Children says:
“These cuts will trim UK borrowing by a fraction, but devastate lives across many of the world’s poorest countries.”
Because of all that, I join others in appealing to the Minister and the Government to withdraw these cuts.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
As host of this year’s G7 summit, which takes place later this week, the Government should be leading by example. Instead, they are abandoning their responsibilities to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. The Government’s plan to cut UK aid to developing countries will have devastating consequences.
The Government’s decisions will mean a cut of nearly 60% in humanitarian funding to Yemen, in the face of what is considered the world’s worst humanitarian crisis; a cut of 40% in aid going to education, resulting in 700,000 fewer girls receiving an education; and a cut of more than 80% in aid for water, sanitation and hygiene projects in developing nations. The Government should be ashamed.
Save the Children has highlighted that
“areas critical for children like basic nutrition, family planning and reproductive healthcare are all set to see substantial cuts”.
Several constituents have emailed me in recent days to echo that. They have raised concerns that the cuts will have far-reaching consequences for the world’s most marginalised children, especially girls, at a time when they most need our support. In their view and mine, Ministers have turned their back on the world’s most vulnerable children.
How can the Government claim that the UK remains a world leader in international development? In cutting aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income, the UK will drop from the third largest donor in the G7 to third from last, damaging our reputation and credibility on the world stage. The Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto stated:
“We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development, and do more to help countries receiving aid become self-sufficient.”
So much for election promises.
The 0.7% overseas aid target is enshrined in law. Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, has made it clear that the Government’s decision to cut foreign aid without passing new legislation is “unlawful”. The Government have said that
“we will return to our commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development when the fiscal situation allows.”
That is to ignore the immense suffering that the cuts will cause right now. One Wirral West resident who wrote to me with her concerns said:
“There is a danger that, once reduced, it will not return to 0.7%. Other excuses will be found.”
Numerous charities that work in climate and international development—including Greenpeace, Christian Aid and WaterAid—have said that the cuts will make it harder for countries to respond to climate change, and that they
“will inevitably harm the most vulnerable in society, pushing huge numbers back into poverty”.
Ministers should consider the long-lasting damage that their callous, short-sighted and counterproductive cuts to the aid budget will do to the UK’s reputation globally. There is significant opposition in this House and right throughout the country to the Government’s decision to cut overseas aid. The Government must think again, and they must maintain the commitment to 0.7% for international development.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I, too, oppose the cut in official development assistance spending from 0.7% to 0.5%. As we have heard, the fact that the percentage is based on the economy means that there is a reduction anyway, so the cut can be described only as what used to be known as a double whammy—a hit on some very poor people in the world.
In preparation for this debate, I asked the Ethiopian embassy to give me some thoughts on what the cut means to Ethiopia, which is the second-largest beneficiary of UK aid. As the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Ethiopia and Djibouti, I am very proud of that fact and of what we have achieved in Ethiopia. The embassy told me that we have improved access to education, to primary healthcare and to clean water, and resilience to crises such as famine. There we have it: education, health, clean water and food—things that we in this country take for granted.
As many people are, I am from a very ordinary working-class background, but I never had any problems with food, water, education or healthcare. I was very lucky—we were all very lucky—to be born in this country. We did nothing to deserve to be born in this country, where we have all those privileges. We were extremely lucky: millions of people in the world do not have that good fortune. I want us to continue to provide those benefits to countries such as Ethiopia and to many other countries.
It is important that we retain the 0.7% target, because it is not just about cash or money; it is a totemic policy that was put in place as a guide and an encouragement to countries around the world so that they, too, may meet that target. We cannot do it all on our own; we need other countries to help. We cannot tackle climate change all on our own; we need other countries to help.
I am of course very proud of this country and very proud to be British, but we have to recognise that over the past 200 or 300 years we have enjoyed the fruits of the industrial revolution, which all started where I come from in the north-west of England. We have enjoyed the prosperity that came from that; other countries have not enjoyed that prosperity. If, to tackle climate change, we say to those countries, “You can’t do the same as we did”—understandably, because we have a world crisis with climate change—we have to help them to get over it. That is another reason why we should continue with the 0.7% target.
I supported the coalition Government in their attempts to reduce the massive deficit that we had between 2010 and 2015, but nobody in this country will benefit from cutting this £4.5 billion. We have spent upwards of £300 billion on rescuing the economy because of the covid pandemic. That is nobody’s fault—we had to do it. Nobody in this country will benefit from our saving £4.5 billion, but many, many people around the world will suffer if we save that £4.5 billion. I cannot support that policy.
Supporting correctly targeted and transparent international development aid was one of the reasons I wanted to come to this place. There would be no shame on the Government if they were to turn round now and accept that they have got it wrong and reverse this policy, and I ask them to do that.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson).
The overseas aid budget is very, very important, so this debate is incredibly welcome, as it will allow Parliament —not Government—to have its say about the importance of this issue. Unfortunately, the Government’s stance has managed to offend every single church group and charity group that I know of in my constituency. They are appalled by the fact that the Government have sought to undermine the aid budget in this way and to break a solemn promise that they made to the electorate. In fact, it is a promise that they appear to have made on behalf of the whole House, not just their own party.
UK charities have been impacted on unfairly by this decision. The Government need to look at that particular. When charities go out there, make their stand, lobby, and say that they are going to achieve things, their credibility goes on the line. In this case, it has been snatched away from them, not by something that they have done but by something that the Government have done.
I am sure that the Government did not think that, tonight, they would be able to unite the Labour party, members of their own party, the SNP, the Democratic Unionist party and the Liberal Democrats, but they have succeeded in doing so, ensuring that the opposition to what they are planning to do with the aid budget is voiced.
Her Majesty’s Government are breaking their promise made not just on behalf of themselves, but on behalf of everyone in the UK. People voted at the last election with an expectation that this would be done. All the parties were committed to this. It became the law, and now that promise will be breached by the Government. In doing that, they damage the reputation of this Parliament, and they damage the reputation of all parties here. This is a solemn breach, and they must mend it.
The overseas aid budget is our soft diplomacy around the world. We have heard many speak about that and about how other countries engage in much harsher and harder diplomacy—currency-led diplomacy. This is a soft diplomacy that shows that we care, that we are a passionate people. Removing and reducing it says more about who we are as a nation than it does about anyone else. I implore the Government to reconsider this matter urgently.
The Government have set out all their excuses from the Front Bench, but none of them add up economically, morally, or politically. I therefore say to them that they need to revisit this and revisit it fast. If they try to repair the damage, it will just cost them more money. They should just reverse the decision and put it right—just fix it. This is something that we as a nation can afford and that we want to pay for. This is taxpayers’ money and the taxpayers say that they want this to be done. We recognise that the UK economy is in a better place than we had expected, and so it can afford this. Let us keep our word as a Parliament. Let us keep our word as a nation. I implore the Government to keep their word and to deliver on their promise.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
This should not be about political advantage. It is about hundreds of millions of people around the globe whose lives, already fragile existences, are made more vulnerable now by the political calculations, as we have heard, of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. That is their decision. It is a choice for them to claim that this nation is now free to forge its own future, but they are demeaning our international stature by this decision—a reputation reduced at a stroke, as is so often the case under this Government.
This comes at a time when the world would ordinarily be hoping for greater leadership, as we host the G7 as well as COP26 later this year. As we have heard, we are the only G7 country to cut its ODA budget, while others, such as the US, Germany and France, are increasing theirs. I am afraid that cutting the ODA budget at a time when less developed nations are the most vulnerable globally to the pandemic will be seen as one of the most callous choices made by a Chancellor in our lifetime.
It is telling that so many across this House concur with former Prime Ministers of all hues. As we have heard, we are talking about a humanitarian aid cut of 70%. That includes funding to Yemen, considered the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, cut by 60%; life-saving water sanitation and hygiene projects in developing nations cut by 80%; aid going to education cut by 40%, which will result in 700,000 fewer girls receiving education according Save the Children’s analysis; and funding for the global polio eradication initiative cut by 95%. On the micro scale, the small British charity Dhaka Ahsania Mission UK has had its FCDO grant for work in northern Bangladesh cut by 100%. That programme was to bring basic education to some of the poorest and hardest-to-reach rural children in Bangladesh, whose families live and work on some of the most marginal land within the flood areas of the north of the country.
The Government’s drastic cut to overseas aid also risk damaging the world’s ability to fight the next global health disaster, which in turn, in self-interest, would keep Britain safe. In an open letter, 3,000 UK academics and global health experts highlighted how critical our interdependencies are across our world. The health risks and vulnerabilities are shared globally, and so should be the solutions if we are to address the emerging health threats. Just over 2% of Africans have been vaccinated, whereas more than 75% of all vaccines have been administered in just 10 countries.
The decision to cut official development assistance funding means that UK Research and Innovation needs to find savings of £120 million in allocated funds in 2021-22, hitting more than 800 Global Challenges Research Fund projects—for example, Warwick Medical School’s work in Africa on digital health and the introduction of remote consulting. In response to the pandemic, clinics have been contacting patients by phone, rather than offering in-person visits, for the first time in the continent. There is also the example of Newcastle University—perhaps the hardest-hit of all—which is doing leading work on water security and resilience to climate change, and on river deltas, flooding and rainwater. It is working with 90 partners in 20 countries, helping them and stemming migration.
Those projects have shown Britain at its best. They have shown it as reasonable and reliable—but no longer, due to the cuts. We are happy to see an aircraft carrier travel around the world, but at the same time cut projects to the most deserving. Perhaps the most depressing thing was hearing from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who said that this is something of a political gambit to win votes.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister has declared his aim to secure an agreement of the G7 to vaccinate the world against covid by the end of next year, but it is hard to see how he will have the brass neck to push such a proposal when the UK will be the only one in the room cutting overseas aid. The overall budget is being cut by a third, but covid funding masks the drastic cuts to core projects, including on the health and education of women and girls, which the Government claimed was a key policy, as well as those delivering humanitarian aid and addressing HIV/AIDS, conflict zones, famine relief, refugees and child education. It is hard to believe that the Government think it is remotely reasonable to slash funding for water and sanitation in the middle of a pandemic.
Even if funding is restored in a couple of years, the staff, researchers, experience, knowledge, networks and infrastructure of many of those projects will have been lost. The Chancellor has justified the cuts by highlighting the cost of the pandemic, but what does he think it has been like for low-income countries that were struggling even before they were hit by covid?
The UK is also hosting COP26, but any promises by the Minister responsible, the COP26 President, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), will have little credibility, because when he was International Development Minister he made commitments that the UK has now abandoned. In 2019, he promised more than £100 million a year for the global polio eradication initiative, only for the funding now to be cut by an eye-watering 95%. The World Health Organisation has estimated that 80 million children are at risk from infectious diseases such as diphtheria, polio and measles owing to the disruption of immunisation caused by the covid pandemic, so vaccination projects should not face cuts. They need extra support to fund the necessary catch-up programmes. We must not allow the re-emergence of polio and other infectious diseases to take a toll on the children of low-income countries.
Covid is a global crisis and it calls for a global response. So far, the international community has struggled to live up to its warm words of last spring, but the UK is alone in cutting aid at such a critical time. Low-income countries have received less than 0.5% of all covid vaccines delivered so far, and the UK is one of those blocking the sharing of intellectual property and technology. This will prolong the pandemic for all of us and delay the economic recovery of low-income countries, and the UK Government must not compound the problem by removing support from some of the most vulnerable in the world. I support the call to restore overseas funding, and I do not believe that it can wait until next year. The covid crisis is now.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I rise today to make a simple yet resounding contribution to the debate on behalf of the people of Rother Valley, who wholeheartedly support the Government’s decision temporarily to reduce foreign aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of our GNI. The coronavirus pandemic has resulted in the most severe economic situation in 300 years, and residents across my constituency are experiencing great hardship, from losing their jobs to struggling with their mental health. My position is clear. I was elected to look after the people of Rother Valley first and foremost, and I shall do exactly that.
I cannot support proposals to allocate 0.7% of our GNI to foreign aid when there is deep-rooted poverty in my own constituency. Across Rother Valley, the claimant rate is about 5.5% and youth unemployment stands at about 10%. This has massively increased because of the coronavirus pandemic, and it is far too high. For example, in Maltby a staggering 8% of all the residents are unemployed. In fact, Maltby in Rother Valley is one of the most deprived wards in the country, and this situation is mirrored in other pockets throughout Rother Valley, such as Swallownest and Dinnington. That is where our aid money should be going. That is where the support should be going during this national emergency. It should go towards helping to level up Rother Valley for the British people.
But more importantly for this debate is the fact that we are not donating our own money. We are not donating taxpayers’ money for foreign aid, although that in itself would warrant examination; instead, we are sending abroad money that the Government and the state are borrowing. That’s right: we are borrowing money when we can least afford it so that we can send it abroad to foreign powers. How ridiculous that sounds! We are in debt, and getting further in debt because of the coronavirus pandemic, yet we are borrowing more money so that we can send it abroad. This is not our money; we are borrowing this money, and we are getting our own country into more and more debt. Surely we cannot afford to do that at this point.
On top of that, we should be careful about where some of this money is going. We are sending vast sums to dictatorships, to countries with space programmes and nuclear programmes, and to nations that have been receiving aid for decades with little change or positive results. It is a disgrace that we are sending aid to the People’s Republic of China—a hostile state with advanced military and industrial programmes led by a communist regime that threatens the rules-based world order and British interests across the globe—while we still have homeless veterans sleeping on our streets. That is not acceptable.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend mentions China, and that is a very good point because we should not be spending any aid in China. It was cancelled on my first day in office 10 years ago, unless it was legally required, and I am afraid that, in my view, the aid is being spent wrongly by the Foreign Office.
Alexander Stafford
I thank my right hon. Friend for that clarification, but owing to the time I will move forward and end my speech shortly.
Of course we should donate money to the most vulnerable, and my right hon. Friend the Minister has mentioned those who most need it. We should never forget that the UK is the third largest donor in the G7, donating more than £10 billion this year alone, and that we have led the world in providing vaccines to poorer countries, but what seems to have been lost in the noise is that the Government have committed to returning the aid budget to 0.7% of GNI when fiscal circumstances allow. There is no doubt that this will be the case. In fact, the Conservatives are the only party to have ensured that we have met the 0.7% target—Labour has consistently missed it. That sums up the difference between the Conservatives and Labour: we are honest with people about the difficult choices that protect the British people. We are not flip-flopping; we are trying to make difficult choices at a difficult time, in this difficult situation.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The decision by this Government to take essential, life-saving money from the world’s poorest people is absolutely shameful and it has confirmed, once and for all, that the idea of “global Britain” has already lost its moral compass. For this idea to have been confirmed at April’s integrated security review simply beggars belief; the idea that by making the world’s poorest people even poorer we somehow make ourselves safer is absolute nonsense and it takes gaslighting to new extremes.
Do the Government really expect us to believe that the best way to make the people of the UK more safe and secure is to slash vital humanitarian aid to parts of the world that are already ravaged by conflict, war and famine, and thereby to force tens of millions of people to uproot their families and go in search of a better, more secure future? It was breathtaking insensitivity, adding insult to injury, that that same Integrated Review announced that money that could and should have gone to help underprivileged and poor people across the world will instead be spent on increasing the UK’s stockpile of nuclear weapons—it is utterly abhorrent. This country has a historical moral obligation to those countries that are now in the developing world. We have to help them because we are responsible for where they are now. For more than a century the UK grew rich and powerful on the backs of the poor. The countries we invaded, conquered, divided and plundered need our help now and we cannot cut it off like this—it is abhorrent.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Bob Seely, who has 90 seconds.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I shall try to sum up, Madam Deputy Speaker, by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for the debate, and by suggesting a compromise.
I am happy to sign up to 0.7%, but I think we need to work to change the definition, because the one we use is a technical, official one, and we can do better. I suggest broadening the definition of “aid”, so that it includes peacekeeping operations, and the BBC World Service and TV. If I were the Government, I would seek a compromise here to say that we will get back to the 0.7%, but let us work on a longer-term definition that broadens the definition of “aid” from purely economic development—that is what the current OECD Development Assistance Committee ODA definition is—to one that encompasses peacekeeping at the beginning of the developmental process and goes all the way up to the BBC World Service and radio and the support of civilisational values at the other end. That is a longer-term solution, rather than the stale and dry argument between “0.7% good, not 0.7% bad”.
Mr Mitchell
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you and Mr Speaker for granting this Standing Order No. 24 debate today. I urge the Minister here today, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to hear the voice of the House. He is a decent and understanding fellow, and I hope he will reflect on what he has heard this afternoon. I believe that only four of the very many people who have spoken supported the Government’s cuts, and I very much hope he will reflect on the innate decency of the British people in what he has heard from Members from all parts of the House this afternoon. The House is not with the Government on this and they should hear that. They should also hear the voices of their loyal Friends on these Benches; we want the Government to get it right. We are genuinely hugely concerned. We know that the cuts will lead inevitably to hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths, and we are worried about the trashing of our international reputation. These concerns are shared across the House, by the Government’s friends, as well as by the people who are not warm towards this Government. I urge the Chief Secretary to consider what he has heard this afternoon and to reflect upon it in the discussions that he is having in the Treasury.
I note that my colleagues and I were referred to in a normally very wise national newspaper as the sort of people who, “Attend left-wing dinner parties in north London.” I confess that when I am London and not in my constituency of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, I do live in Islington, but I should make it clear that most of my hon. Friends who have joined me today would not be seen dead at a left-wing dinner party, let alone one in north London.
I am extremely grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for chairing the debate and giving the House the chance to consider these matters, influence the thinking of the Treasury and its Chief Secretary, and try to ensure that we get this right.
Anthony Mangnall
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, Mr Speaker said that the Government should come forward with a vote in this House; he was pretty insistent on it, in fact. Today, I see that the press officer of No. 10 has suggested that there will be no vote on the 0.7% because the Government feel that they do not have to have one. Could you provide some guidance on whether that is in keeping with what Mr Speaker said?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, but I am afraid it is rather a continuation of the debate that we have had. I do not think there is much else to add to what Mr Speaker said yesterday, but I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s views.
Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill
Tuesday 8th June 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Act 2021 View all Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I ask the Minister to move Second Reading, I will introduce a three-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. As colleagues will know, this is a very short debate, but I will try to get in as many Members as I can.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.
In the United Kingdom there are a wide range of opportunities for people to invest. The Government’s role is to try to ensure that the system of regulation and financial investment is suitably robust, so that individuals are treated fairly and have confidence in the financial system in which they invest. Unfortunately, no system of regulation can completely eradicate the risk that firms fail, or that there are bad actors intent on committing fraud. This short Bill is aimed at two areas where it is necessary for the Government to step in.
Clause 1 relates to a new Government scheme to compensate London Capital & Finance bond holders who lost money after the firm entered administration in 2019. Clause 2 will arrange a loan to the board of the pension protection fund to pay compensation to occupational pension scheme members who have been victims of pension fraud, following the recent High Court judgment in the case of PPF v. Dalriada. I will now expand briefly on those measures in detail.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will understand that part of the reason why we are here today is because of Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s excoriating report into the capacity of the Financial Conduct Authority. Is he certain that the FCA now has the powers and, crucially, the capacity it needs to ensure that consumers of financial services businesses are properly protected?
Guy Opperman
Yes, I believe that is the case. The Treasury and the FCA are working together. The FCA is under new management, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, and there is an acceptance by the FCA of all the findings in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report. More particularly there is fresh thinking, one hopes, that will be applied going forward.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Kevin Hollinrake
Powers are one thing, willingness is another. The FCA has shown a remarkable reluctance to hold people to account for incompetence or bad actors, as the Minister said. Will not those failings simply continue unless the FCA starts identifying individuals, within its own ranks or within the banks, for those failings, and holds them to account?
Guy Opperman
Clearly, it is not possible to comment on specific future events, but Ministers are liable for the actions of civil servants, through vicarious liability, and we would expect regulators to take a similar approach and, putting it simply, to own the problems they are trying to solve. If that is a lesson learned from this sorry saga, in my humble opinion that would be a good thing. Clearly, it is for the FCA to take a good long, hard, look at itself, and other regulatory bodies, and decide how it will run itself going forward, with suitable input from Government.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
Will the Minister give way?
Guy Opperman
I will not give way any more. I apologise, but we are trying to do this whole debate in 58 minutes. Please bear with me.
As the House will be aware, on 19 April the Economic Secretary to the Treasury provided a written ministerial statement on the Government’s approach to setting up a compensation scheme for London Capital & Finance bond holders who lost money following the firm’s collapse in 2019. LCF was an FCA authorised firm, which sold unregulated non-transferrable debt securities, commonly known as mini-bonds, to investors. Sadly, 11,600 bond holders lost around £237 million when LCF went into administration. For some investors that will have formed part of an investment portfolio, but for others it will have represented a significant proportion of their savings.
Following LCF’s collapse, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury directed the FCA to launch an independent investigation into its regulation and supervision of LCF. As we have discussed, Dame Elizabeth Gloster led the investigation and concluded that the FCA did not effectively supervise and regulate LCF. The LCF business model was, it is accepted, highly unusual in both its scale and structure. In particular, the firm was authorised by the FCA, despite generating no income from regulated activities. That allowed LCF’s unregulated activity of selling non-transferrable debt securities, known as mini-bonds, to benefit from the impact of being issued by an authorised firm. While other mini-bond firms have failed, LCF is the only mini-bond firm that was authorised by the FCA and sold bonds in order to on-lend to other companies.
In response to the regulatory failings detailed in Dame Elizabeth’s report and the range of interconnected factors that led to losses for bondholders, the Government announced two things: first, they would establish a compensation scheme, and secondly, they would accept all of Dame Elizabeth’s report, as did the FCA. It is, however, important to emphasise that the circumstances surrounding LCF are unique and exceptional, and the Government cannot and should not be expected to stand behind every failed investment firm. That would, with respect, create the wrong incentives for individuals and an unacceptable burden on the taxpayer.
Clause 1 of the Bill, which is the LCF measure, covers two key elements. First, it provides parliamentary authority for the Treasury to incur expenditure in relation to the scheme. Secondly, it makes a minor technical change that disapplies the FCA’s rule-making processes for the purpose of the LCF compensation scheme. The Treasury intends to use part 15A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to require the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to administer the scheme at speed on the Treasury’s behalf. The scheme will be available to all LCF bondholders who have not already received compensation from the FSCS and represents 80% of the compensation that they would have received had they been eligible for FSCS protection.
Around 97% of LCF bondholders invested less than £85,000 and will not reach the compensation cap under either the Government’s scheme or the FSCS. The Government expect to pay out around £120 million in compensation to around 8,800 bondholders in total and are committed to ensuring that the scheme has made all payments within six months of this Bill securing Royal Assent.
As colleagues will be aware, this is a two-measure Bill, the second clause of which concerns the Department for Work and Pensions and involves loans to the board of the Pension Protection Fund. Clause 2 amends the Pensions Act 2004 by inserting a new section that will give the Secretary of State a power to lend money to the board of the Pension Protection Fund.
The Pension Protection Fund manages the Fraud Compensation Fund, which pays compensation to occupational pension schemes that have lost out financially due to dishonesty. When set up in 2004 by the Blair Government, the PPF and the FCF did not envisage that pension liberation schemes were in scope for FCF payments. This clause will allow compensation to an estimated 8,806 individuals who have been defrauded following the pronouncement of the recent Court judgment in the Dalriada case.
Pension liberation fraud involves members being persuaded to transfer their pension savings from legitimate schemes to fraudulent schemes, with promises of high investment returns or access to a loan from their pension scheme before the age of 55 without incurring a tax charge. The Pensions Regulator has now placed professional pensions trustees in charge of the affected schemes. Those trustees are seeking compensation on behalf of scheme members through the Fraud Compensation Fund.
Following receipt of a significant number of applications, the Pension Protection Fund sought guidance from the High Court in a test case on which schemes should be eligible for the Fraud Compensation Fund. The Court judgment in the case of the Pension Protection Fund vs. Dalriada was pronounced on 6 November 2020, and the High Court concluded that such pension liberation schemes would be eligible, subject to meeting eligibility criteria. The Government have decided to fully accept the Court’s judgment on this and are committed to ensuring that all those who have been victims of pension liberation schemes are able to claim through the Fraud Compensation Fund. However, it is estimated that claims will exceed £350 million, which is far greater than the £26.2 million of assets currently held in the Fraud Compensation Fund, hence the requirement for clause 2 of the Bill and the action that the DWP and the Government are taking.
This is a necessary, urgent and important Bill which will ensure financial protection and fair outcomes for those falling victim in these particular circumstances. My hope and expectation is that the Bill will receive widespread support, and I commend its contents to the House.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister. As he said, the Bill does two things: it enables a Government compensation scheme for the victims of the collapse of London Capital and Finance, and it authorises a Government loan to the Fraud Compensation Fund—part of the Pension Protection Fund—to be paid for through a levy on the pensions industry. Let me take each of those of turn.
I will start with clause 1 on the LCF compensation scheme. The Minister set out the background and I do not need to repeat it in this short debate, but it involves 11,500 investors losing a total of about £237 million. Some £56 million has been paid out by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to just under 3,000 of those investors, covering those parts of LCF activity that came under the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulated activities. The Bill aims to compensate the rest up to 80% of the £85,000 FSCS limit, meaning pay-outs of up to £68,000 for those eligible. This is expected to cost the taxpayer about £120 million.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Talking about the cost to the taxpayer, I wonder if my right hon. Friend continues to be shocked by the fact that a Member of this House, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), received over £85,000 from subsidiaries that were mis-selling, like a company in my constituency that defrauded my constituents. That money has never been paid back, but that Member received money from the taxpayer, and actually we should be looking at ourselves—
Mr McFadden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I do think it ill behoves any Member, given the scale of the losses and given the necessity of the Government to bring in this Bill to compensate people for their losses, to profit from this either directly or indirectly. I think that should be clear to all of us.
The Government are legislating on this because of the litany of regulatory failures set out in the report on this issue carried out by Dame Elizabeth Gloster. These failures included failures to respond to repeated warnings from investors and potential investors, LCF repeatedly running promotions implying its products were regulated by the FCA, and failures of communication between different parts of the FCA, all in the end leading to this collapse and financial loss. Had the FCA acted earlier, far fewer people would have invested through this firm, losses would have been lower and the taxpayer would not be faced with the £120 million we are talking about today.
Neale Hanvey
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman’s view about a couple in my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency who invested £10,000 each—or £20,000 in total—and did so because the FCA backed the scheme. They feel that the real responsibility lies with FCA and the derogation of its responsibility in ignoring warning signs, while many responsible lenders such as them have lost money they can ill afford to lose. Does he not find it, as I do, a bit rich for the Minister now to say that the Government cannot back every scheme when actually the regulator was at fault in encouraging other people, as he has just said, to invest in that scheme?
Mr McFadden
Many investors did invest because they thought that these mini-bonds were authorised by the FCA, and they were not. A big part of the problem here is having a regulated firm marketing unregulated products. If I am right, the hon. Member’s constituents may be eligible for the compensation authorised by the Bill.
Dame Elizabeth’s report makes it clear how badly the investors were let down by the regulator, and both the Government and the FCA have said that they accept the findings. I have a number of questions that I want to put to the Minister for his wind-up at the end of the debate. First, why is the level of compensation he has chosen 80% of the FSCS level? On what basis was that decision made? Secondly, how will this work practically? I understand that the Government want to avoid the involvement of claims management companies, and that is something I think we would all endorse. How will the Government do that and avoid repeated rounds of claims?
The Bill also gives rise to some important broader questions about policy. The failings identified were serious and substantial, and have to be addressed. The first of those broader questions is: when should compensation paid for by the taxpayer be paid and when not? The Minister quite rightly said that the taxpayer cannot stand behind every investment policy. It would be unfair on taxpayers to expect them to do so, and it would produce perverse incentives. After all, we all know that the value of investments can go down as well as up.
In the case of LCF, it was bonds that were being sold, and the advertising implied a guaranteed pay-out when such pay-outs could not, in practice, be guaranteed. Regulation is not aimed at enabling people to make reasonably informed choices and to understand the risks they are taking. Having made the decision to offer taxpayer-funded compensation in this case, when does the Minister believe it justifiable that the taxpayer should be asked to do that, and when does he not? What was the discussion in the Treasury about how to ring-fence this failure and this company from broader claims for financial compensation? There are calls for compensation quite regularly when investment failures happen. How confident is the Minister that the Treasury will not be subject to legal action from victims of other investment failings?
How confident is the Minister that the FCA can actually make the changes necessary to avoid a repeat of the findings set out in Dame Elizabeth’s report? Callers were phoning the FCA for three years before the company’s collapse. Appendix 6 of Dame Elizabeth’s report states that the FCA received 611 queries from consumers regarding LCF. That is not a random phone call at five o’clock on a Friday that can be missed; it is a pattern of people trying repeatedly to raise red flags and getting nowhere
Individual A said on 15 July 2016:
“This company is doing exactly what the pyramid scams are doing. What they’re doing is they’re paying the money out, the interest out from money which people are paying on the bond… In other words, it’s just a pyramid scam… they’re saying they’ve got charges on their property, security on them, assets on their property, of course they don’t have any assets. It’s all horrendous really, the whole thing”.
There was call after call like that, and they were not acted on. They were not passed up the line, partly because the mini bonds were not regulated. In fact, one caller was told by the FCA call handler that it was not a scam.
There was also the letter from individual financial adviser Neil Liversidge in 2015, three full years before the collapse of the company. He warned that LCF had one customer who was worth—bear with me on the language, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am quoting—
“the square root of bugger all”
and he tried to raise warnings about the practices and health of the company. It appears that that letter was lost.
One of the more damning findings in Dame Elizabeth’s report is that, even if the letter had not been lost,
“It is unlikely that it would have resulted in any, or any substantive, action or re-action by the FCA.”
So little faith did she have in the processes that she appears to have argued that it did not matter that that warning letter had been lost because it would not have been acted on. Imagine if the FCA had acted, in 2015 or 2016, when those reports were received, rather than only at the end of 2018. Another question for the Minister is this: what will the FCA do to improve its handling of reports like this?
Then, there is the so-called halo effect of regulated companies selling unregulated products. Being regulated by the FCA featured heavily in LCF promotions. The financial promotions team at the FCA did warn LCF to dial back on the advertising, but the pattern went on and on, and no one drew the conclusion that this was not just an advertising problem, but a problem with the content of what it was actually selling. Dame Elizabeth states in her report:
“A substantial proportion of the Bondholders said that they would not have invested in LCF had it not been for the fact that it was regulated by the FCA.”
How will the FCA avoid the difference between unregulated activity and regulated companies from being exploited in the future?
The Gloster report was also the subject of a well-publicised disagreement between Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, and Dame Elizabeth, about the nature of responsibility and accountability. Where do the Government stand on this issue? It was all played out before the Treasury Committee in several hearings. Is it the Treasury’s view that senior officials in leading regulatory bodies are responsible for the failing that happen on their watch, or should responsibility apply only to the organisation collectively?
Does the Minister agree with the statement in the report that
“It is difficult to see why an individuals’ willingness to take on challenging tasks in public bodies should absolve them from accountability”?
Or does the Treasury accept the statement from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards quoted in the report that
“A buck that does not stop with an individual...stops nowhere”?
These broader questions matter, because with ever more complex financial markets, the regulators have to be equipped to do the job—equipped through their leadership and their systems, but also through the resources at their disposal. Part of the backdrop to this is the FCA taking on responsibility for tens of thousands more firms after it took on the responsibilities of the Office of Fair Trading back in 2014. Is the Minister confident that it has the resources after the LCF collapse?
Let me turn to clause 2 and the fraud compensation fund. The Bill authorises a loan to be made as a consequence of greater than expected claims on that fund arising from the Dalriada case. It is estimated that the judgment in that case could result in claims of over £300 million. The loan will be funded by a levy on the pensions industry, to be paid back over the next 10 to 15 years. That comes on top of the levy to pay for the Financial Services Compensation Scheme rising sharply since the introduction of the Government’s pension freedom legislation in 2015. Back then, the levy was £300 million; this year, it will be over £1 billion pounds. That is a 48% increase on the previous year and more than triple the level of five years ago. Why does the Minister think the FSCS levy has had to increase so much since the pension freedoms legislation was introduced in 2015? Now we have a new fraud levy to boot.
Surely the right way to tackle this issue is to ask why more and more pensioners are being exposed to fraud and scams in the first place. Why does the Minister think that is happening? Why are more pensioners losing their money? When the previous Chancellor introduced the pension freedoms changes, he said that
“there will be free impartial guidance available to all.”
Six years on, the take-up of that advice is just 3%. Even when the Department for Work and Pensions made a targeted push to increase it, it only got up to 11%, so the vast majority of people using these freedoms are not using that service. Of the small number who take up the option, 72% say they do something different from their first inclination after receiving advice, so it is clear that such advice can help people to make a better decision, yet take-up is nowhere near the promise made at the time.
The promise of pension freedoms being matched with good, trustworthy financial advice has not been kept, and these levies, which will have to be paid by the pension schemes that have been nowhere near fraud and are trying to offer a good service to their members, are being put in place at least in part as a result of the Government’s own pension reforms, which have left more pensioners exposed to fraud and scams. That conclusion was endorsed by the Work and Pensions Committee in its recent report.
What unites both these clauses is people being subject to fraud, often through online advertising. There is a clear need for greater action on this. People are being bombarded on a daily basis with adverts for investments, some of which are scams and attempts at fraud. Financial innovation can be a great thing, but consumers need help in navigating this world, and they are currently being failed by a regulatory system that is lagging behind what is actually happening in the financial markets. There is an online harms Bill coming that, as things stand, does not include plans to crack down on financial crime. I urge the Government to think again on that. To proceed with that Bill without tackling online financial harm would be an enormous lost opportunity to protect consumers against this type of crime.
The answer is not just compensation when people lose money; it is to protect people against financial scams happening before they lose their money, to crack down on the fraudsters while they are peddling their scams and to stop these adverts reaching people in the first place. Not all thieves wear masks. It is possible to rob people of their money through misleading websites and illusory promises of financial gain. It is critical that the laws that we pass in this place keep pace with the innovations in fraud and financial crime that are taking place. For that to happen, it will take a lot more than the two clauses on compensation in this Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now go to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, who has four minutes.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]
This is a very important Bill. It seeks to compensate for some significant wrongs. As part of our ongoing inquiry into London Capital & Finance and the FCA’s response to it, the Treasury Committee has heard many harrowing stories of those who, in many cases, lost life-changing amounts of money as a consequence of what happened.
The Treasury Committee has been involved in the LCF situation for some time. My predecessor, Baroness Morgan, initiated the inquiry by Dame Elizabeth Gloster through approaches by the Committee to the Treasury and the FCA. I take this opportunity to offer my thanks, on behalf of the Committee and of the LCF bond holders, for the very thorough report that she and her team produced, for the witness session she attended as part of our inquiry and for the courtesy and information that she provided to me outside that witness session by way of correspondence and discussions over the telephone.
Dame Elizabeth Gloster carried out some excellent work. As a consequence of her report, the level of the failings on the part of the FCA is very clear. Indeed, the answers to the key questions put by the Government to Dame Elizabeth as part of the directions for her inquiry were clear: the permissions granted to LCF were not appropriate to the business it carried on; the FCA did not adequately supervise LCF’s compliance with the FCA rules and policies; and the FCA’s handling of information from third parties regarding LCF was wholly deficient. The FCA had appropriate rules to regulate the communication of financial promotions by LCF. However, the FCA did not have in place appropriate policies. Numerous red flags were examined by the Committee, but they had been missed over a long period.
There were wider failings within the regulatory system, and we have heard some of those from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). The FCA’s approach to the perimeter was limited. It did not take a holistic view of the perimeter and therefore there was inadequate supervision of unregulated activities. The halo effect, which the shadow Minister also raised, was without doubt a wider systemic problem within the FCA.
Our inquiry is ongoing. We have taken evidence from Dame Elizabeth, from senior personnel at the FCA, including Andrew Bailey, who was the chief executive officer of the FCA during the appropriate period, and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. We will have much to say in our report, which will be published no later than the end of this month.
Looking ahead, the speakers so far have rightly asked how we make sure that this does not happen again. That lies within the transformation programme that the FCA is now undertaking. The Committee will be showing a close and careful interest in the progress of that transformation programme.
By way of intervention, I note the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) about the importance of those responsible for shortcomings being held accountable. We will no doubt have something to say about that in the report.
The whole issue of compensation leads on to the issue of the general view that there should be personal responsibility for investments, as well as Government backing, and we will need to look at that. I am terribly short of time, so I will leave it there. I welcome the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now go to the SNP spokesperson, Peter Grant, who I am sure will be acutely aware of the very limited amount of time that we have left for the debate.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
I am pleased to be able to speak in this short debate and to confirm that the SNP will not oppose Second Reading, but I am angry and frustrated that the debate needs to take place at all. Most parts of the legislation are only necessary because of a catalogue of failures of Government, of legislation and of regulators.
I will speak first about the second of the two parts, on the Pension Protection Fund. One of the first times I spoke in Parliament, just a few days after my maiden speech, I expressed concerns about pension liberation scams. I asked the then Secretary of State what steps the Government were taking to protect people from them, to make sure changing the rules would not just make open season for the scammers. We now know that the answer to that question is that the Government were doing nothing, or if they were doing anything, they did not do nearly enough. Some £350 million has been stolen from people’s pensions using these scams. Those pensioners should be compensated from the Pension Protection Fund, and I would support a provision in clause 2 to allow that to happen.
Clause 1 sets up the promised compensation scheme for victims of the London Capital & Finance scandal. About 11,000 people were affected, of whom 2,000 got some compensation and 9,000 got nothing. I do not think any of the 11,000 understand why some qualified for compensation and some did not. It is very welcome that the Bill will provide some redress for the 9,000 or so bondholders who would have otherwise got nothing. It is welcome, but it is not enough.
The House of Commons Library has described the Government’s decision to set up the compensation scheme as “a somewhat exceptional response.” The response is exceptional, but the scandal to which it responds is anything but. It is the latest, and sadly almost certainly not the last, in a roll of shame that includes Equitable Life, Premier FX, Connaught, Henley pensions, Blackmore Bond and many others. The victims of some of these schemes get compensation, but tens of thousands get nothing.
Blackmore Bond, for example, went into administration in May 2020 and its bondholders are unlikely to see any of the £46 million investment that the company’s directors had promised them was safe and guaranteed. One of my constituents lost his £40,000 life savings to Blackmore Bond. I have to disagree with the Minister’s claim that LCF was unique or even distinctive in any material way from Blackmore Bond and various other mini-bond failures. LCF hid behind its own FCA registration knowing that it had nothing to do with the products it was selling. Blackmore Bond hid behind the FCA registration of other companies that acted as its representatives. The intention in all cases was clear: to mislead investors as to the degree of protection that the Financial Conduct Authority would give them, when in most cases the companies knew that the FCA would give no protection whatever.
Like LCF, Blackmore Bond could have been stopped much sooner if the Financial Conduct Authority had acted on the warnings it was receiving as long ago as early 2017. One came from an eyewitness who offered to let the FCA into his office to watch and listen at first hand to the “unlawful” telephone sales practices that the company’s representatives, Amyma Ltd, were using—his words, not mine. It took two and a half years for the FCA to remove Amyma’s right to act as authorised representatives. Several months later, again as part of its response to the collapse of LCF, the FCA banned the sale of mini-bonds to small retail investors. Some £26 million of the total investor losses in Blackmore Bond were from bonds sold after March 2017—after the Financial Conduct Authority had enough information to take decisive action, but before it had taken the action that was needed.
I want to see legislation, or possibly even an amendment to this Bill, that makes schemes similar to the LCF compensation scheme available to victims of other pension and investment scams without them having to wait for a public inquiry and a new Act of Parliament for every single one. I want to see the Government getting serious about dealing with the shysters and charlatans who too often seem to walk away unscathed from these scandals, or more likely get driven away in their chauffeur-driven luxury cars, leaving their victims in many cases almost destitute. I want to see a regulatory regime that works, not just to compensate the victims at public expense, but to stop the crooks and chancers from being able to con people out of their money in the first place.
The fact that the Minister admitted in his opening speech that paying compensation to all victims of pension or investment scams would place an unacceptable burden on the public finances is one of the biggest admissions of regulatory failure by any Government Minister that I can ever remember. While we welcome the steps taken in the Bill, the message very clearly from the Scottish National party, as it was from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman a few minutes ago, is that this is not even enough to be the start of the action needed to make people’s pensions and investments safe from the crooks.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
I thank the Minister and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for bringing this Bill to the House. I welcome this Second Reading debate and am pleased that the Government are making tangible progress. I also thank Dame Gloster for her report and welcome the fact that the Government have accepted its nine recommendations. My contribution will be brief and I hope that, given the time constraints, Members will forgive me for not taking interventions.
Will my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary clarify whether bondholders will be required to surrender all their bonds to qualify for the Government’s scheme? If that is the case, some of my constituents who invested considerable sums in the scheme will be forced to surrender all their bonds, regardless of the amount invested, to receive the maximum £68,000 of compensation offered by the Government, as opposed to their being able to surrender a portion of their bonds to gain access to the Government’s compensation scheme while still potentially being able to receive further dividend payments direct from the administrators, thereby ensuring that their loss is reduced. My constituents need clarity and it would be most welcome if the Department would consider that. I recently wrote to my hon. Friend about this matter and very much look forward to hearing his response.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
The Bill will bring relief to thousands of investors who were let down not just by a failed company but by a failed system. That is why we need a Bill that will address the failures of regulation, governance and auditing, but this Bill does none of that. The Government are yet again bailing out victims of an under-regulated finance system that is regularly ripping off smaller investors. I have to say that Government Ministers are guilty of gross negligence for standing by while this happens time and again.
LCF was offering customers mini-bonds. The FCA said:
“There is no legal definition of a ‘mini-bond’”,
but it did nothing to stop the mis-selling. The FCA saw no issue with LCF’s operations, yet in March 2019 HMRC found that products advertised as ISAs by LCF did not meet the rules. In addition, the FCA was advising that investments would be protected by the financial services compensation scheme; the High Court judged that they were not. The FCA was asleep at the wheel.
The then chief executive of the FCA, who is now the Governor of the Bank of England, sat on his haunches and did nothing. Some 18 months ago, I called on the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), to delay Mr Bailey’s appointment as Governor, given the concerns.
I am pleased that the Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report actually identifies some of the problems. She described the FCA’s supervision of LCF as “wholly deficient” and said that there were “significant gaps and weaknesses” in the FCA’s practices. She said that staff were
“not…trained sufficiently to analyse a firm’s financial information to detect indicators of fraud or other serious irregularity.”
LCF’s founder was Simon Hume-Kendall, a former chairman of the Tunbridge Wells Conservatives and a party donor. It has been reported that the investors’ cash in LCF has been used to buy horses, a helicopter and lifetime memberships to private Mayfair clubs. Perhaps the Minister could update us on the ongoing inquiries into the activities of this gentleman and LCF.
As has been said, this is not a one-off. There are so many other examples, including Blackmore, Basset & Gold and Chilango. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when further Bills will be introduced to compensate the investors in those schemes who lost so much money. I welcome the Bill—of course I do—but it is now time for the Government to bring forward serious legislation to stop crimes like this happening in the first place and to protect our constituents from these spivs.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) [V]
I welcome the Bill. Those of my constituents who have been affected by the collapse of LCF will welcome the fact that, as a result of the excellent report by Dame Elizabeth, which really lifted the lid on how the Financial Conduct Authority failed in its obligations, the Government have been forced into the position we are in today with this Bill. I welcome that.
As other speakers have said, this is not the first time that the Financial Conduct Authority has failed in its regulatory duty and failed people who are innocents in all of this. Firms assure them that they are regulated and that protection is available, but the savings they invest are then snatched from them. Let us look at the failure of the FCA in this particular case. It failed to meet its statutory obligations. It failed to take any action even when it was found that a regulated firm was engaging solely in unregulated lending. Surely that must have raised concerns that the firm was using its regulated status to engage in activities that were unregulated. Its staff were clearly not trained in taking complaints and passing them on. Indeed, as Dame Elizabeth pointed out, they were actually assuring the public that the claims being made by LCF were correct and that their savings were safe. Even when fraud was passed on up the line to supervisors, again it was ignored. All these regulatory failures require the Government to ensure that there is compensation for individuals.
I agree with the Minister that we cannot cover every spiv and every chancer who tries to take money from people. If we are going to avoid that, we must have proper regulations. If the Financial Conduct Authority has proven that it is not up to the job, new regulators have to be put in place. Those who take on the responsibilities of the Financial Conduct Authority have to be held responsible as well. We cannot simply say that it is about the institution or the people who are in charge; we have to avoid this happening again so that people in my constituency who have suffered do not continue to suffer from these kinds of actions.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
My constituents were not professional financial investors; most were senior citizens relying on the investment for their pension. They worked hard in their younger years to save a little bit here, a little bit there, to ensure that in their twilight years they would have enough to live on—but this security was savagely snatched away from them. They were duped by grossly misleading and deceitful marketing and let down by negligent regulators and ineffective auditors.
Although I am broadly supportive of the Bill, there are two very urgent issues that the Government must address. First, the compensation is capped at 80% of what victims would have been entitled to had they been eligible for the financial services compensation scheme. They were denied that protection simply because mini-bonds were not regulated. The Gloster report states:
“The FCA had identified the risks to consumers posed by mini-bonds from as early as 2013 and the additional risks relating to the use of mini-bonds as a quasi-investment vehicle by at least 2017.”
Yet the FCA and the Government failed to regulate. The Government must therefore recognise their own negligence to regulate, as well as the FCA’s, and commit today to offer the full compensation that victims should have been entitled to.
Secondly, on auditing, London Capital & Finance had only £50,000 of share capital and high leverage in 2016, but its auditors simply waved through its accounts. In 2018, when the firm was all but insolvent, its auditors, astoundingly, had no problem with its accounts. But sadly, as we know, this is not a rare occurrence. BHS, Carillion, Thomas Cook, Patisserie Valerie and many more all sailed through their audits with flying colours despite the horrors lurking beneath. Such scandals required robust action to ensure that they could never happen again, but this Bill does not do that. The Government must therefore set out urgent proposals to address the systemic regulatory failures that this case has exposed in the FCA but also in the auditing industry.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to support the Bill, but to suggest that there are wider issues to be considered from the scandal behind it. In particular, I suggest that there are disturbing echoes of Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report in how the demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria is being considered by the same regulators, and that there is an urgent need to tighten up some major legal loopholes.
The focus of the Financial Conduct Authority’s interest to date in LCF and Liverpool Victoria is very different. LCF was selling, or rather mis-selling, a distinct product. With Liverpool Victoria, the issue is whether it should be allowed to hand over all the capital and assets its British customers have helped it build up over almost 200 years to a privately owned American firm with no commensurate experience, and whether the choices of consumers past and present are being respected. I understand that regulators have had a substantial number of meetings with those pushing the demutualisation, but none with the customers and owners of Liverpool Victoria.
Consumers lost thousands with London Capital & Finance. The customers of Liverpool Victoria also risk losing out significantly. Dame Elizabeth’s report questioned whether policy papers and staff training at the FCA were adequate. In the case of LCF, the inability to detect indicators of fraud was the key driver of her concern, but given that the FCA has made no analysis of what happened during previous demutualisations of financial services businesses—whether customers benefited or lost out; whether customers were presented with fair information and given access to alternative viewpoints—it is difficult to see how staff could be trained to protect the consumer interest properly during a demutualisation. Indeed, all the evidence that has been compiled independently suggests that demutualisations result in worse services for consumers.
It is clear that Dame Elizabeth thought that the FCA was not fit for purpose. It did not protect LCF customers, despite repeated wake-up calls. Similarly, given the complicated nature of financial services businesses, the customers of a financial mutual are not always well placed to make a judgment about whether a vote for a conversion is in their interest; they rely on the advice of others. Customers are not given even-handed information by boards wanting to demutualise—they are certainly not in the case of Liverpool Victoria—to allow them to make an informed decision. The FCA has a critical role, and it needs to exercise a little more robust direction to the board of Liverpool Victoria. Similarly, legislation for friendly societies needs updating so that it properly protects consumers’ assets and ensures that regulators can properly protect consumers during demutualisations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, welcome the Bill and very much look forward to its moving forward. Having read the background information and looked back on what happened, I have a couple of questions, although I support the Bill and think it is important that we do so.
The FCA found in the case of London Capital & Finance that it had been
“misleading, not fair and unclear”
in its advertising, and that there had been
“serious concerns about the way the firm was conducting its business”.
For me, it is clear that the FCA at that time failed the investors. At the same time, Dame Elizabeth’s report concluded that
“the FCA did not discharge its functions in respect of LCF in a manner which enabled it effectively to fulfil its statutory objectives.”
We are where we are tonight, and we have a Bill that I hope will address those issues for this particular group of investors. I just ask the Minister whether—the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) referred to this—in other cases where people have invested similarly and indiscretions and fraud have taken place, they too will be able to benefit from this legislation.
I welcome clause 2, which will give the Secretary of State the power to make a loan to the board of the PPF to enable the payment of compensation to eligible occupational pension schemes following the High Court judgment. That is an essential component of the legislation, as is the fact that it entails the loan being repaid by the fraud compensation fund levy over a period currently estimated to be between 10 and 15 years. We must protect, if we can, the pension schemes and investors through that process and give them peace of mind. The protection of those pensioners is increasingly important to me, as it is to every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate and to the Minister.
I will pose one last question to the Minister, if I may, about those investors who may have passed away without being able to take advantage of this legislation. Will the families of the deceased—those who are no longer here —qualify for the compensation as well?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a great honour to speak in this debate and to have worked with the pensions Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman)—to bring forward this legislation. Many Members of this House, if not all, will have constituents who have been affected by the issues that we have dealt with and discussed this afternoon.
I am pleased that the Bill has the support of Members across the House. I have listened carefully to the debate. Observations have been made about the FCA and about the House’s confidence in its conduct; I will seek to address those points and to respond to the important points raised by several hon. Members about the compensation scheme for London Capital & Finance.
Let me begin with the scope of the compensation scheme and what it means in relation to the Government’s approach to future firm failures—a point that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others raised. The LCF is not the only mini-bond firm that has failed in recent years. The Treasury, in collaboration with the FCA, has examined every mini-bond issuer known to have failed in the past eight years. Following that detailed analysis, the Government are satisfied that the circumstances surrounding LCF are truly exceptional.
As hon. Members may already be aware, the issuance of mini-bonds is not regulated by the FCA. As my hon. Friend the pensions Minister set out, LCF was an FCA-authorised firm despite not receiving any income from regulated activities. LCF is unique in that regard; indeed, it is the only mini-bond issuer that was authorised by the FCA and that sold bonds to on-lend to other companies. That is important, because one of the central findings in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s excellent report is that because LCF was authorised, the FCA should have considered its business holistically, including the unregulated activity of issuing mini-bonds. The FCA cannot be said to have the same responsibilities with regard to unauthorised firms. Although the Government have not seen evidence to suggest that the regulatory failings at the FCA caused the losses for bondholders, they were a major factor that the Government considered when deciding to establish the scheme.
I pause to acknowledge the representations made by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy). I will set out in due course, in the coming months, the details of how the scheme will operate. I am very happy to take correspondence on individual cases, but I think it would be inappropriate to try to address at the Dispatch Box this evening every single case raised. However, I have received and read many letters from individuals who have lost money after investing in LCF and other failed mini-bond firms, including Blackmore Bond and Basset & Gold, which were raised in the debate.
I sincerely extend my sympathy to all those affected, as I know that many individuals have suffered financial hardship—severe financial hardship, in many cases—as a result of their investment losses. However, I must be clear that the Government cannot step in to pay compensation in respect of every failed financial services firm. That falls outside the financial services compensation scheme, would create a moral hazard for investors and would potentially lead individuals to choose unsuitable investments, thinking that the Government would provide compensation in all cases if things went wrong.
The Government’s approach follows the historical precedent. I note that only three compensation schemes have been established in the past 35 years—for Barlow Clowes, a Ponzi scheme that failed in the late 1980s, Equitable Life and LCF—despite many investment firms failing over that period. The Government are also seeking to ensure that the situation never arises in the future. In April, we launched a consultation with proposals to bring mini-bonds into FCA regulation.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) asked a number of questions about the Government’s confidence about the FCA’s capability. As the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham mentioned, the transformation programme that the new chief executive, who has been in post for just over eight months, is undertaking at pace is designed to empower the organisation at all levels to hear the representations that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East made, to act on them, and to deal proactively with the cases that are raised.
Gareth Thomas
It is encouraging to hear the Minister’s confidence in the transformation programme. Given the concerns that consumers might lose out in the demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria, will he sit down with the new chief executive of the FCA and go through how the FCA will ensure that consumers’ interests are properly protected if that demutualisation goes ahead?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman, as ever, for his representations. He has been a determined campaigner for that sector during my tenure. I have regular conversations, at least every six weeks, with the chief executive of the FCA, and we discuss a whole range of matters. I would be very happy to discuss that matter with him when I next speak to him in the next few weeks.
As Members from across the House have recognised today, the measure concerning a loan to the board of the Pension Protection Fund, set out in clause 2, is vital to ensure that those defrauded of their pensions by scam pension liberation schemes are able to access the compensation that they deserve. The Bill will ensure that those whose pensions have been unjustly targeted by fraudsters receive their pensions. We must continue to provide a safety net for people across the UK, who deserve to have confidence that they will have a pension pot for their retirement. I note that a number of observations were made about the ongoing challenge of dealing with the evolving nature of financial services firms and the sophistication of scams. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, and I are working across Whitehall to bring an effective resolution to this matter.
I acknowledge that Members from across the House have supported the principles of the Bill, and I welcome the support that it has received. It will offer some relief to the enormous distress and hardship suffered by LCF bondholders and victims of fraudulent pension liberation schemes. It is an important Bill, and I want to move as quickly as possible from Royal Assent to enact it and deliver that compensation. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will support it this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill:
Committal
The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 17 June.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Alan Mak.)
Question agreed to.
Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) expenditure incurred by the Treasury for, or in connection with, the payment of compensation to customers of London Capital & Finance plc; and
(b) loans by the Secretary of State to the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.—(Alan Mak.)
Question agreed to.
Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (ways and means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill, it is expedient to authorise such levying of charges under section 189 of the Pensions Act 2004 and Article 171 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 as may arise by virtue of that Act.—(Alan Mak.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will now suspend the House for two minutes to make the necessary arrangements for the next business.
House of Commons Commission (External Members)
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
I beg to move,
That, in pursuance of section 1(2B) of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978, as amended, Louise Wilson be appointed to the House of Commons Commission for a period of three years with immediate effect; and Shrinivas Honap be appointed to the House of Commons Commission for a period of three years commencing on 1 October 2021.
Before turning to today’s motion, I am sure that the House will want to join me in thanking Jane McCall, who served as an external member on the Commission for over five years and finished her time in post at the end of April. In addition, Rima Makarem’s three-year term will end on 30 September, and, owing to other commitments, she has given notice that she will not be seeking an extension to her appointment. Having served alongside both of them on the Commission, I am most grateful for their contribution and the valuable external perspective and commitment that they brought to their roles. They always had a particular interest in value for money, which is one of the things that we should take most seriously in the House as guardians of taxpayers’ money. I am grateful for what they have done and wish them well in their future endeavours.
Today’s motion gives the House the opportunity to agree two new external members of the Commission. In February, the Commission endorsed the recruitment process to appoint new external members. The full details of that process are set out in the Commission’s report on the nomination of candidates for its external members, HC 223, which has been tagged to today’s debate.
In March, a sifting panel, consisting of the then shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the Clerk of the House and the secretary to the Commission, Marianne Cwynarski CBE, shortlisted four candidates for interview by the selection panel. The selection panel comprised Mr Speaker, me, the right hon. Member for Walsall South, Isabel Doverty, who is a former civil service commissioner, the Clerk of the House and the secretary to the Commission. Interviews took place in April.
Following that process, the selection panel recommended to the Commission that Louise Wilson and Shrinivas Honap be nominated as its new external members, with Louise replacing Jane McCall and, in due course, Shrinivas replacing Rima Makarem. Should the House agree to these appointments, it is expected that both will also serve on the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee and that Shrinivas will replace Rima Makarem as chairman of that committee.
As the Commission’s report sets out, Louise Wilson is a business leader with an international career combining commercial expertise with extensive non-executive experience in the public, private and charitable sectors. She established her career at Accenture and gained global marketing and commercial expertise at Procter and Gamble, PepsiCo and The Coca-Cola Company—she is very fizzy, I should think, with all that experience at those drinks companies. She founded an international marketing and sponsorship company and, following London’s successful bid, served as the client services director of the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic games. She has previously undertaken non-executive roles across a range of business and charitable organisations spanning education, heritage, culture, visitor attractions, faith and diversity. These have included roles at Historic Royal Palaces, the University of Nottingham, the David Ross Education Trust, the International Women’s Forum, the Harvard Vatican Leadership Trust, the Marketing Group of Great Britain, the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust and, currently, the Northern Ireland Office and the National Emergencies Trust.
Shrinivas Honap is a chartered accountant by profession and served with Vodafone, Capita, KPMG and Egg during his executive career. He currently holds a number of non-executive roles, including as chairman at the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, non-executive director and chair of the Audit Committee at UK Atomic Energy Authority and at the Rural Payments Agency. He has recently been appointed to the Civil Service Pension Board and also serves as a lay member on the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and a panel member at the Competition and Markets Authority and on the Pensions Determination Panel.
The Commission believes that both candidates bring a diverse range and depth of experience and that this will hugely benefit the work of the Commission in the coming years. As a member of the Commission who interviewed them, I add my own very strong personal recommendation. We interviewed two exceptionally strong candidates and the House is very fortunate that they put their names forward and are willing to serve. As such, the House of Commons Commission—I am, in bringing this motion, acting for the Commission—recommends that the House appoints both candidates as external members, each for an initial period of three years. I hope that the House will agree to their appointments today and I commend this motion to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for introducing the motion. On behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, may I warmly welcome the two new external Members of the House of Commons Commission? I have had the pleasure of meeting one already—Louise Wilson. She impressed me greatly. I also read carefully the reports that the Leader of the House has made reference to, with details of the recruitment process. From my so far limited experience of the Commission, I would say that this appears to have been done in a fair and thorough manner. I look forward to meeting the second external commissioner in due course.
I know that we are going to move on subsequent motions without debate, so I would like to place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for her service on the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission as well as to welcome, obviously, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) to that post.
To finish, I would like to strongly recommend, from what I have seen and the evidence that I have heard and read, Louise Wilson and Shrinivas Honap to the House of Commons Commission as external commissioners.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for moving this motion this evening. May I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to Mr Speaker and to the House for not being in my regular place at business questions on a Thursday morning? It is not because I do not want to be here; it is because I also chair the Scottish Affairs Committee, which meets just now on a Thursday morning, and the Conservative members have resolutely refused to move the time of that Committee. I hope to get that resolved as soon as possible.
I know that the Leader of the House always says that there is not a Conservative majority on the Scottish Affairs Committee, which is entirely right, but how we try to work in this House, as you know, Madam Deputy, is through consensus, engagement and working together, so that we can reach an outcome that is positive for everybody. Once again, I appeal to the Leader of the House to make representations to his colleagues, so I can get back here again, because I know that he enjoys a joust with me on a Thursday morning.
I have not had the opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) to her post, because I have not been here on a Thursday morning, so I would like to welcome her now. I also never had the opportunity to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—the three of us served so many years together—and I just wanted to put that on record. I am sure that you will forgive me for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I also want to welcome Louise Wilson. This is a fantastic appointment, and I very much look forward to working with her on the Commission. I had the pleasure of meeting Louise just a few weeks ago. She was as effervescent as The Coca-Cola Company with which she worked with such distinction for all those years. Her experience of the London Olympics will serve her well as we negotiate with the Sponsor Body on the ongoing agonising over restoration and renewal. It has been said that Louise is highly experienced with an extensive track record in business and public service.
I have not had the opportunity to meet Shrinivas Honap. I look forward to meeting him. I totally support what the Leader of the House has said about his background and experience. He does seem to be ideally placed to join us in the House of Commons Commission and I look forward to meeting him in time.
I pay tribute to Jane McCall and Rima Makarem. I got to know both of them, as you did, Madam Deputy Speaker, after all these years in service to the Commission. It is worth noting that we all enjoyed working with them. They brought something special to the deliberations of the Commission, and I wish them well for the future. We have to pay tribute to our external members of the House of Commons Commission. They offer a different perspective from the perhaps institutionalised view that we have as Members of Parliament, and it is worth noting what they bring to the workings of the Commission. We look forward to doing all that as we go forward.
We are, quite rightly, not going to get an opportunity to discuss the appointments to the other bodies. I also welcome the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). It is not often that someone can be a Chief Whip under three different Governments and still be popular and liked across the House, but he manages to do that with aplomb and I wish him well. I also want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). She did a great job in her other roles and I look forward to working with her. And hopefully, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can get to business questions—help me out, Leader of the House so that I can be here.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I am mindful of the concerns of colleagues that they do not want to be delayed for too long. I have no animus against, or indeed any knowledge of, either of the two individuals being appointed, and they may well fit the glowing descriptions that we have heard. I certainly hope so, and no doubt the Leader of the House will be pleased to sit alongside them as well, but I have huge problems with the process. What seems to have happened here, as so often—in fact, almost invariably—with our selection processes, is that we determine and narrow the outcome by the criteria that we use. It is like any algorithm: if we set the criteria for it, it will predict the outcome that we are going to get.
So let us look at the criteria. They include the need for:
“Senior executive leadership experience within a complex organisation”.
Already we are saying, basically, that we want the corporate suits. Male or female, it is the corporate suits we want, not people who have gone out and created and run a business themselves; not people who have actually worked in industry or maybe run a factory and really know about running things; not trade unionists who have had to engage with complex issues; not people who have worked in hospitals—not in senior management but maybe running a ward; and not those who are running a school. Those people do not get considered.
Every time we have a list of nominations, it nearly always consists of those who have been in big corporates and who have then sat on the boards of quangos and charities. It is always the great and the good. We keep appointing them time and time again, then we are surprised that this country ends up being so badly run. Basically, we are drawing from a very narrow cast, and we are constantly enabling them to perpetuate themselves —and not only them as individuals and their narrow range of experience, but their general ethos and that narrow self-perpetuating culture, which I am surprised, frankly, that the Leader of the House so readily accepts.
I have another problem with this. Paragraph 14 of the report from the Commission to the House says:
“In the case of both candidates, the selection panel was satisfied that neither had undertaken any political activity within the last five years”.
I am absolutely fed up with this assumption—again from this self-perpetuating elite that I have described—that party political activity is somehow reprehensible, shabby and shoddy, and that it is only those who will not engage in politics who are fit to be engaged in running public life. That is detrimental both to politics and to public life. I will continue to raise this issue on all such occasions when this same rotten process occurs, because, as we have seen many times, the public see through this arrogant metropolitan intellectual and cultural elite and the way they are running this country. But yet again, all the time, we are playing our part in perpetuating its malign grip. As I have said, I have no animus against the individuals concerned, but I have huge objections to the process.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Before I reply to the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), may I pay tribute to a most distinguished member of the Commission who has stood down? If I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have been a great person to work with on the Commission—always sensible, moderate and seeking consensus, and not using it for party political purposes. Of course, you are no longer party political in these roles, and what fun it was being on the Commission with you. I record our gratitude for the bacon sandwiches, which were particularly appreciated and were, I think, thanks to your lobbying. I thank the shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for their contributions and support. I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Thursday mornings, but sometimes in this place a vote is necessary to get what one wants, and it may be that that is what he needs to do.
On the important points raised by the right hon. Member for Warley, I am not keen on the metropolitan elite any more than he is. I tend to think that they have a set of views that are not particularly my views, or those of my constituents in rural Somerset, so I think his criticisms need to be considered carefully. First, senior executive leadership does not exclude trade unionists or people who have worked in the public sector, and there are senior leadership and executive roles in bodies that are not big business. Indeed, the House has taken people who have not been involved with big business but have been involved in the public sector, and trade unionists would be welcome to apply. They obviously run complex organisations, and the suggestion that they would be excluded is unfair. It is obviously right that the House expects people to have been senior in whatever they have done, whether that is an entrepreneur, a headmaster or headmistress, someone who has run a hospital, a trade union leader, or somebody who has worked for a big company such as Coca-Cola, and that is a broad category to have.
On the question of politics, we have debated this issue before, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that being involved in politics is something one should wear as a badge of honour. It is part of being involved in civic society, and that applies to all parties, not just to those in one of the major parties, and not even if someone is just a good Tory, like me. Whatever, party someone belongs to, they are contributing to society. But—there is inevitably a but—on the Commission, the politics is provided by Members of the House, and there is no point trying to change the balance of the Commission from the balance in the House by appointing outsiders who are political. It is simply a question of appropriateness for the role that they are to fulfil within this House. I think that is fair. Members of the House can be party political if they want to on the Commission, although it tends to work well by consensus, but to appoint external politicians would, I think, border on the eccentric. I have great confidence in the two people we have chosen today, who I think will be a real pleasure to work with.
John Spellar
I would understand if the right hon. Gentleman were arguing, for example, that a political leader of a council might change the balance of the Commission, but if we are trying to get expertise, they would also be used to running large organisations. He rightly said that the Commission tends to work with a degree of consensus; it is not divided. Many other countries managed to encapsulate that. They appoint people to public bodies in the full and public knowledge that they have been politically active. I still do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman thinks that should be a major debarring factor.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I hope I was making clear, I think it debars from the Commission, where politicians are already appointed. It inevitably does not debar from other public sector appointments, where that may be perfectly reasonable, and where people may be appointed because of their connection to a political party if we are seeking a political balance. As I said, I have particular confidence in the two people we are appointing today. I think they will be first class and make a considerable contribution to the Commission and the work of this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Leader of the House for his kind words. It was a great pleasure to be on the Commission, and very enjoyable working with all those who served on it.
Question put and agreed to.
Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission
Resolved,
That Lilian Greenwood be discharged as a member of the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission and Mr Nicholas Brown be confirmed as a member under Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
Resolved,
That Thangam Debbonaire be appointed to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in place of Valerie Vaz, until the end of the present Parliament, in pursuance of paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended.—(Tom Pursglove.)
House of Commons Members’ Fund
Resolved,
That Sir Alan Campbell be removed as a Trustee of the House of Commons Members’ Fund and Mr Nicholas Brown and Craig Whittaker be appointed as Trustees in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 2016.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Business without Debate
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Object. Will I be right, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Division will therefore be deferred?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The right hon. Gentleman is saying no; the Division will be deferred until tomorrow.
John Spellar
The Information Commissioner is doing a lousy job and £200,000 is far too much.
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 9 June (Standing Order No. 41A).
Justice Committee
Ordered,
That John Howell be discharged from the Justice Committee and Laura Farris be added.—(Mike Freer, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Women and Equalities Committee
Ordered.
That Ben Bradley and Peter Gibson be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Lee Anderson and Philip Davies be added.—(Mike Freer, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Kettering General Hospital
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What a joy it is to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker; thank you for staying for the Adjournment. I thank Mr Speaker for granting me this debate and welcome the Minister to his place. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who is a superb representative for his constituents, but who unfortunately, as he holds the high office of the Government Whip, is not allowed to speak in this place. I also thank all the staff at Kettering General Hospital, in particular Simon Weldon, the superb group chief executive, and Polly Grimmett, the director of strategy.
I thank the Minister for the personal interest that he has shown over a long period in Kettering General Hospital. He visited the hospital on 7 October 2019. He responded to an Adjournment debate on the hospital on 23 October 2019, when he announced £46 million of new funding for the proposed urgent care hub, and on 3 February this year he met with the hospital and my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) —who I welcome to his place—and for Corby. I would also like to thank the Prime Minister, who spent five hours on a night shift at Kettering General Hospital in February 2020.
I welcome the Government’s unprecedented investment in the NHS and their commitment to the hospital building programme, which has resulted in promised commitments to the hospital of £46 million for a new on-site urgent care hub, £350 million in health infrastructure plan 2 funding for 2025 to 2030, and a write-off last year of £167 million of trust debt at the hospital. However, promises are one thing and delivery is another. The problem that the hospital faces is that these two funding streams from the Government—£46 million for the urgent care hub and £350 million for the phased rebuild—are not being meshed together by the Health Department and HM Treasury. The danger is that, as a result, the promised investment in the hospital faces potentially serious delays.
The dilemma is this: if the hospital proceeds with the £46 million urgent care hub build as a stand-alone project, there will not be room on the site for the HIP2—health infrastructure plan 2—development post 2025. On the other hand, if the hospital waits for the HIP2 funding, it will lose its £46 million urgent care hub funding commitment, and the urgent replacement for the hospital’s overcrowded A&E may never happen.
I have four main asks of the Health Department and HM Treasury: first, permission for the hospital to draw down on the £46 million urgent care hub funding commitment so that work can start on the initial works required for the project; secondly, permission for the hospital to proceed with the preparation of its outline business case for the HIP2 investment expected after 2025; thirdly, an early advance of £52 million, spread over the next three years, from the £350m HIP2 commitment, so that the urgent care hub can be built not as a stand-alone project, but as the initial part of the phased hospital redevelopment; and, fourthly, that the Secretary of State for Health honours his welcome commitment made on the Floor of the House earlier today, in response to a question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), to meet the three hon. Members for north Northamptonshire to get the issues sorted out. The Secretary of State said: “Nothing gives me greater pleasure than making stuff happen, so I would be very happy to meet…to make sure we can get this project moving as soon as we can.”
Those four asks are not about asking for extra money over and above that which has already been promised. Instead, they outline a sensible, flexible and dovetailed approach to already given funding commitments, so as to maximise value for money for the taxpayer while also ensuring that local people get to see as soon as possible the badly needed improvements to our local hospital, which we have already been promised. Simply put, the problem is this: building the promised urgent care hub is no longer an option on a stand-alone basis. If it is built as a stand-alone project, there would not be enough room on the site for the subsequent HIP2 funding, so the value-for-money solution is to integrate the two funding streams.
Kettering General Hospital is ready to go. It owns the land, so no land deals are required, and no extra public consultation is needed. It has written support from local planners and the regional NHS. It is a phased approach that would deliver visible and real benefits. It is shovel ready and has far lower risks than other hospital build projects. In developing this whole-site plan—integrating the urgent care hub and HIP2 funding streams—the hospital has identified the best way of delivering value for money to get the buildings up and operating, serving local people.
Kettering hospital is unique among the 40 designated hospital rebuilds scheduled to be completed by 2030. First, it already has a Government commitment for a new £46 million urgent care hub. Therefore, its future funding is complicated as it comes from two separate funding pipelines. Secondly, it is ready to go, with an innovative, phased and value-for-money rebuild on land that it already owns, with no planning or consultative hold-ups. Thirdly, it serves one of the fastest growing areas in the whole country. Fourthly, it has one of the most congested A&Es of any hospital in the land, which needs addressing as a matter of urgency. I do not believe that any other hospital in the country has that unique set of circumstances.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recall that this project in effect started before my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) was elected in 2015? It has widespread cross-party support. If this were a business, without doubt a pre-payment would be made, because it would save money in the end and get things done. Are we just caught in a silo, with the Treasury here and the health service there? They must somehow mesh together.
Mr Hollobone
My hon. Friend is quite right. This is not a difficult problem to solve. It requires a political solution and it requires a decision by Health and Treasury Ministers acting together.
Kettering General Hospital is a much loved local hospital. With 500 beds, it has been on its present site in the heart of the town of Kettering since 1897—that is 124 years. There cannot be many hospitals that have such a record. Most of the residents in the parliamentary constituencies of Kettering, Corby and Wellingborough were born there—as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby was—have been repaired there or, sadly, passed away there. There can be very few local residents who have not accessed the hospital at some point during their lives. It also has a fantastically dedicated, talented and loyal workforce.
The pressure on the hospital is being driven primarily by very fast local population growth. The Office for National Statistics has shown that we are one of the fastest growing areas in the whole country, at almost double the national average. The borough of Corby is the fastest growing borough outside London. In the last census, out of 348 districts across the country, Kettering was No. 6 for growth in the number of households and 31st for population increase, while Corby has the country’s highest birth rate.
Kettering General Hospital expects a 21% increase in over-80s in the next five years alone. The area is committed to at least 35,000 new houses over the next 10 years. That means a local population rise of some 84,000 to almost 400,000 people. The A&E department, which is sized to see 110 people a day safely, now sees up to 300 patients every single day. Every day, 90 patients are admitted to the in-patient wards from A&E, and the hospital expects the number of A&E attendances to increase by 30,000 over the next 10 years, which is equivalent to almost 80 extra patients every day. That is why the promised improvements are desperately needed.
The big problem at Kettering General Hospital is that the A&E department is full. It was constructed in 1994 to cope with 45,000 attendances each year. It now has around 100,000 attendances a year, which is well over 150% of the department’s capacity, and by 2045, 170,000 attendances are expected at the same site. The solution to that pressure is for an urgent care hub facility, costing £46 million, to be constructed on the site. It would be a two-storey, one-stop shop with GP services, out-of-hours care, an on-site pharmacy, a minor injuries unit, facilities for social services and mental health care, access to community care services for the frail elderly, and a replacement for our A&E department. All the NHS organisations in Northamptonshire, as well as NHS Improvement regionally, agree that that is the No. 1 clinical priority for Northamptonshire.
The A&E department at the hospital was visited five years ago by Dr Kevin Reynard of the national NHS emergency care improvement programme. He said:
“The current emergency department is the most cramped and limited emergency department I have ever come across in the UK, USA, Australia or India. I cannot see how the team, irrespective of crowding, can deliver a safe, modern emergency medicine service within the current footprint.”
I am glad that the Government have recognised the hospital’s superb business case for this fit-for-purpose emergency care facility that will meet local population growth for the next 30 years. It has been developed with all the health and social care partners across the county so that patients can get a local urgent care service that meets all the Government guidance on good practice, ensuring both that they can get the care that they need to keep them safely outside hospital if necessary, and that if they come into hospital, they are seen by the right clinician at the right time and first time.
In announcing the award of £46 million for the new urgent care hub in the debate on 23 October 2019, the Minister said:
“My officials and NHS England will be in touch with the trust to discuss further details, in order to ensure that funds are released and that work starts on the project as swiftly as possible. I am conscious of the urgency that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering highlighted.”—[Official Report, 23 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 31WH.]
That announcement was 20 months ago, and the hospital has still not had permission to draw down that funding. That is why my first ask of the Government is to grant permission for the funding to be drawn down so that the project can start.
I warmly welcome the Government’s inclusion of Kettering General Hospital on the list of 40 hospitals for health infrastructure plan 2—HIP2—funding from 2025. That is important for Kettering, because 70% of the buildings on the main hospital site are more than 30 years old, and there is a maintenance backlog of £42 million. Some 60% of the hospital estate is rated as either poor or bad.
The hospital plan for the redevelopment of the hospital site as part of the HIP2 programme offers a phased approach over a number of years, with the extra ward space provided by this funding to be built on top of the urgent care hub. That is in contrast with a number of other hospitals in the HIP2 programme that are seeking all-in-one-go funding packages. The hospital is not asking for its HIP2 allocation in an up-front £350 million all-in-one-go lump sum. Instead, it is seeking a modular annual funding requirement for what would be a phased and value-for-money rebuild up to 2030. Surely, out of a £3.7 billion national hospital rebuild programme, providing just £6 million to the hospital this year to get the project started and £29 million next year is not beyond the wit of man.
I know that the Treasury is currently completing a commercial strategy for all the hospital rebuilds so as to standardise hospital redesign, secure key commercial efficiencies in procurement across the country and address digital and sustainability requirements. Kettering General Hospital is fully committed to those Treasury objectives. Value for money is extremely important in delivering the hospital rebuild programme across the country, and if Kettering General Hospital’s innovative and sensible approach was matched with sufficient flexibility in applying the relevant funding streams from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Treasury, Kettering General Hospital could be an exemplar hospital redevelopment that others could follow.
I am using this debate to urge the Government—both the Department of Health and Social Care and HM Treasury—to do the sensible thing: dovetail the two presently separate funding streams for Kettering General Hospital so as to not only optimise value for money for the taxpayer but deliver sooner rather than later the urgent improvements at the hospital that all local residents need and wish to see.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate about the redevelopment of Kettering General Hospital. I know that it is an incredibly important subject for his constituents and, therefore, for him. He is nothing if not a strong champion for the people of Kettering, as Ministers forget to their cost. He works tirelessly on not only this but many other local matters.
I should also highlight the interest in and passion for this subject of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—who remains a friend, despite him seeking to slightly pre-empt and constrain me today by asking a question of my boss, the Secretary of State, a few hours ago in the Chamber—and my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove). As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough rightly said, due to his elevated position as a senior Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby is unable to speak in the debate, but I know from the interactions and conversations I have had with him on many occasions just how passionate he is about this hospital project on behalf of his constituents. I can reassure his constituents that, while he may not be speaking in the debate, I have had many lengthy discussions with him, and I suspect that I will be hearing from him many times in the future—although, hopefully, if I can offer some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, he may be slightly less vociferous in pursuing me on this matter.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering in paying tribute to the chief executive and the team at Kettering General Hospital for the amazing work they do. They have worked tirelessly throughout this pandemic for his constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, as they do day in, day out, year in, year out for the people who live in that area. It has been a pleasure to take a very close interest in this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering knows through his experience in the House, it is sometimes very difficult to say no to him, which can get Ministers into trouble; he is extremely persuasive.
Turning to the substance of the debate, I am delighted that the rebuild of the Kettering General Hospital part of the foundation trust is part of our plans to build 48 new hospitals by 2030—the biggest hospital building programme in a generation. To kick-start the scheme, Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust has already received £3.7 million of seed funding to develop its plans for the rebuilding of Kettering General Hospital.
Before I turn to the urgent care hub, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough highlighted that plans for that had been mooted, discussed and possibly even agreed before 2015—before my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and I joined this House. The difference, I would suggest, is that on that occasion there was no budget allocated to the trust. For the urgent care hub, there is a budget allocated to it now, following our announcement in 2019, which followed lobbying by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering. That funding will help transform the provision of urgent and critical care in this area. As he says, £46 million has been allocated for that project.
My hon. Friend asks why it is that, 20 months on since that debate and that visit—I remember them well and I will turn to them in a moment—the money has not been fully drawn down. This is in no way a criticism, but I would say that that is because of the announcement of the new hospital programme and the fact that the trust has, quite rightly, changed what it would like as a result. Therefore, discussions have had to take place about how those two funding streams can be meshed together. I will turn to that in a moment.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, the urgent care hub and the new hospital that are to be built share a set of common enabling works that have been factored into the new hospital development. As he and his trust have requested, we have shown flexibility and agreed to mesh the two projects together if an appropriate way of doing so, including the funding, can be found. As a result, the trust is seeking to incorporate the urgent care hub delivery into the wider redevelopment of the site. That means that the UCH may now be part of the first stage of building the new hospital, but he rightly highlights how approaching this in a more holistic way than a “phase 1 and 2” approach provides opportunities and synergies for achieving better value for money. He has made that point to me and to others.
On the drawdown of funding, the £46 million is available, subject to business case approvals and how those two funding streams can be meshed together in a single project. On drawing down from the new hospital programme fund more broadly, we have a one-year spending settlement from the Treasury. Therefore, if we wish to start drawing down from future years funding and make commitments, that is a matter for the Treasury and a future spending review. My hon. Friend quite rightly highlights, as I expected he would, the need for a synergistic approach between the Department of Health and Social Care and Her Majesty’s Treasury.
All of the new hospitals that will be delivered as part of the programme, including Kettering, are working with the central programme team, with the support of regional, system and local trust leaderships, to design and deliver their hospital in keeping with this approach. The central programme team and the new senior responsible officer, Natalie Forrest, who joined the team and took over its leadership at the beginning of this year, are working closely with the trust on the new build at Kettering and considering all the options currently on the table. I understand that they have had productive meetings, and I look forward to their having further productive meetings.
The programmatic approach will need to be carefully applied to these proposals, as for any other hospital in the new hospital programme, to see how we can best ensure value for money for the taxpayer through standardisation of design and the use of modern methods of construction, without unnecessarily constraining the ambitions of the trust’s plans, in so far as that is possible. The central team, as I have said, will engage with trusts to maximise the application of these approaches to ensure that the scheme has manageable, realistic and, indeed, affordable costs. Funding discussions for these projects are ongoing, and final amounts will be determined through the established business case and Treasury processes.
To stray slightly from the central theme, as my hon. Friend will know—as, indeed, he said in his remarks—Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust also received £1 million pounds as part of the £450 million investment to help upgrade A&Es and to help the NHS respond to winter pressures and the risks of further outbreaks of coronavirus. That funding was used to support compliance with social distancing and infection prevention and control at Kettering.
On interactions and conversations with the trust, as I have alluded to, the senior responsible officer, Natalie Forrest, met the trust on 2 March for a bilateral roundtable with its senior leadership team to discuss its proposed plans for the build. I understand that those discussions were productive, and they are ongoing. I, too, met the trust in February, with the SRO, to discuss the plans for a new build at Kettering General Hospital. As my hon. Friend mentions, I was fortunate enough to visit the hospital in September 2019 to see for myself, and to be shown by him at his most persuasive, what the case for investment was. As he mentioned, I also had the pleasure of answering a Westminster Hall debate last October on the need for the urgent care hub being funded and built in Kettering, during which I also had the pleasure of confirming the funding, following on from the announcement and promise made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend. Today’s debate is probably not the right time to discuss this, but I know that all three of my hon. Friends have highlighted the wider opportunities of combining health and social care for vulnerable adults in Northamptonshire.
Our ambitious programme to build 40 new hospitals by 2030 has confirmed funding of £3.7 billion at this point. That is an important and extremely positive start, but we continue to work with Her Majesty’s Treasury on future funding for the whole programme, including for Kettering, and the profiling of the availability of that funding. That is not the reason I am not, at this Dispatch Box, being gently lured by my hon. Friend into a clear commitment today on firm profiling of financial allocations for Kettering at this stage; rather, it is because deciding the funding level for a project of this scale, at this early stage in the process, before full design, exploration or scoping is complete, would not be the most appropriate approach, although I take his point about, for want of a better way of putting it, the need for speed.
Our experience of Government projects and, specifically, the lessons learned from the early work of the Chancellor’s Project Speed taskforce and from the experts in the Government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority tell us that confirming funding for large, complex projects too early, before all parties are fully agreed on the future approach, can put the project and its overall cost at risk. I am not in any way questioning the ability of my hon. Friend’s local hospital trust to come up with a costed and extremely effective project plan, but it is important, as he would expect, that we are conscious of the need to ensure that we get value for money and the best outcomes for his constituents.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough and for Corby, for the work they are doing to support the redevelopment of Kettering General Hospital. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough that he would meet him, and I know that he will honour that. I reiterate my commitment that if any point, on perhaps at a more detailed or granular level, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering wishes to meet me or the SRO again, I am happy to do that. Perhaps as we see progress made in opening up our country again, I might be able to enjoy the pleasure of returning to Kettering to see him and his hospital trust in person. I look forward to continuing to work with him to making sure that this ambitious and innovative approach to building new hospitals is a success.
My hon. Friend is, rightly, incredibly proud of his team in Kettering. He and his colleagues have done a fantastic job of gently inducting me into quite how fantastic the team are and what is needed to get this project going. It was one of the first visits I made when I became a Minister holding this role, so I have a particular affection for that area—I am an east midlands MP, so I know it well. I hope that we will continue to be able to work hand in hand with his trust, the national programme and Her Majesty’s Treasury to move this programme forward at pace. I know it is what he wants, but most importantly I know it is what his constituents would want and expect of us.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members of the social distancing regulations. Spaces available to Members are clearly marked et cetera. I am sure you know all about this.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021.
The regulations were laid before the House on 20 April. Ecodesign policies regulate products that consume energy when in use, such as household white goods, by setting minimum energy performance standards to increase their energy efficiency. Ecodesign can also require resource-efficiency measures that seek to make products more repairable and recyclable. Energy-labelling policies are intended to provide clear and consistent information about a product’s energy usage to consumers at the point of purchase, encouraging the uptake of more energy-efficient products. That results in lower energy usage and savings for consumers and businesses on their energy bills. As a whole, we estimate that ecodesign and energy-labelling policies in Great Britain will save £75 on consumers’ energy bills and 8 megatonnes of carbon dioxide in 2021, equivalent to the average yearly carbon emissions from the electricity use of 12 million homes.
The statutory instrument introduces new ecodesign requirements for welding equipment, electric motors, household washing machines, washer-driers and dishwashers, domestic and commercial refrigeration and electronic displays placed on the market in Great Britain. These requirements will raise the minimum energy efficiency of products sold in Britain, reducing energy usage and saving consumers and businesses money on their energy bills. They introduce new obligations on manufacturers to make the products easier to recycle and repair. Consumers will be entitled to access spare parts to repair their appliances, with a wider range available to professional repairers, enabling them to support consumers to keep appliances in use for longer and therefore reducing electrical waste.
The statutory instrument will also introduce an energy label for commercial refrigeration, which will provide information to businesses when purchasing an appliance, helping them to understand and compare the energy consumption of different products. That will encourage businesses to opt for more energy-efficient fridges, helping to cut down on the energy used and associated carbon emissions of commercial refrigeration, for example in supermarkets. By setting ambitious boundaries for the A to G classes on the energy label, innovation will be spurred on as manufacturers compete to achieve the highest energy-efficiency ratings. Through introducing the ecodesign and energy-labelling requirements, we will ensure that we maintain high product standards in Great Britain.
The requirements introduced by the statutory instrument will contribute to savings of approximately 1.7 megatonnes of carbon dioxide by 2050. They will help to reduce the quantity of electrical waste reaching landfill each year and will ensure a common set of product standards with Northern Ireland, facilitating trade across the Irish sea. A public consultation was conducted between September and November last year, with feedback showing strong support for implementing these requirements among manufacturing bases and, of course, environmental campaign groups.
In conclusion, the measures introduced by the SI are aligned with the Government’s carbon budget and net-zero targets, and they will provide greener choices for consumers and businesses to save money on energy bills, as well as encouraging long-term product innovation. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I should inform the Committee before we go any further that, as far as the Opposition is concerned, we think ecodesign is a good thing. Where would we be without those labels on the sides of the televisions that we order on the internet, only to realise when they arrive that they are not as energy-efficient as we thought they were? They do tell us what we have to do the next time.
The whole ecodesign and energy-labelling arrangements have been a great success and, as the Minister mentioned, have contributed positively to carbon saving and the use of more efficient products over the period. However, as she will also know, we have 150 pages of various iterations of ecodesign across a range of products, services and arrangements and a whole series of metrics relating to ecodesign that go much further than just the labelling on particular products.
I want to ask the Minister briefly about the process whereby the regulations have come into place and her intention for that process in future. Of course, she will know that the regulations are not new, but an update of previous regulations that applied across the EU. They are therefore a wholesale translation of ecodesign regulations that referred originally to EU sources and now relate to UK arrangements. They are, with the exception of about two or three words, exactly aligned with the regulations that apply in the EU. However, hon. Members will note that they do not apply in Northern Ireland, which is applying the regulations—which are the same regulations—under EU, not UK arrangements. That potentially works well because they are exactly aligned, but only, as far as UK arrangements are concerned, if the alignment continues.
My first question to the Minister is therefore whether it is her intention for the regulations to continue to align closely with EU regulations. The explanatory notes suggest that there will be a review of the regulations in 2024, 2025, 2026 and 2027—different products will be reviewed on different dates. Are those review dates aligned with the EU’s review dates or are they UK-only? I think the Minister understands that if we review our regulations on a date that is not the same as the EU’s review date, there is the possibility of non-alignment at particular stages. That could cause difficulties through having different regulations in two different parts of the UK. Not only that, but non-alignment could affect manufacturers’ costs and arrangements relating to the transit of products between the UK and EU member states. I would therefore welcome a statement from the Minister that she intends to continue with the alignment for the products we are considering, and that review dates will continue to be aligned with dates for any changes that may be made in the EU for those products.
I raise a slight concern that although we are introducing ecodesign regulations on welding equipment and commercial refrigeration for the first time, they relate to Commission regulations, which were passed some time ago. However, we do not have any guidance on what standards should be used
“until designated standards are available.”
There are no existing regulations in the UK or a transitional method of measurement, yet we are expecting suppliers, as stated in the explanatory memorandum,
“to use the best available standards”.
When will the guidance notes on what standards should be used be available, and does the Minister expect any problems related to the rather jury-rigged system we will have under the regulations for the time being?
I suppose the final question is, why are the regulations not there? We have had plenty of time to get them in, but we still have not done so. I would guess that that will be at least a slight inconvenience to industry, and I hope that the Minister can clarify the situation to provide a little regulatory certainty for the industries affected by these two new areas of ecodesign regulation.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
To cover the specific point about the review date, I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand so I will make sure that we share that with the hon. Gentleman so that he has clarity on how that matches up with whatever the EU timetable is. As he says, the regulations are obviously Great Britain regulations and we will continue to work together closely, and as there are changes they will always be made in a way that upholds the Northern Ireland protocol. We are very clear on that.
Perhaps importantly for the hon. Gentleman’s wider point, later in the year we will publish an energy-related products policy framework that will set out our ambitions as part of that narrative. We have set out the energy White Paper to demonstrate those product methodologies for maximising carbon and energy reduction across all energy-related products. As that rolls out, it will give us the opportunity to build on the forward look for all those products and quite possibly others as we think holistically through every part of our economy and where we want to help consumers and businesses. This is a particularly important piece in helping businesses to think much more proactively about how they can help their businesses get closer to net zero within their own commitments. I hope that this will help to drive that forward.
In March, we reinstated the simple A to G scale to help provide more accurate information. Those new labels are an improvement on the old system, and as the hon. Gentleman says the challenge is to train everybody to think about looking at that before they make a purchase so that they are not disappointed when they do not get the right one. I had that challenge just the other day, Dame Angela, trying to buy a new fridge. It was surprisingly difficult to compare and contrast and find the best one for the relevant price. All this framework is about making things as easy and directly accessible for the consumer as possible so that we really can help people to do their part in helping us to get to net zero.
I hope that barring the question on dates, on which I will return to the hon. Gentleman, I have shown these regulations will help achieve setting those higher product standards and increasing resource efficiency. That is better for the environment and, of course, much better for consumers who are helping us with all of this to meet that net-zero challenge. We will be pushing for household appliances to be more energy and resource-efficient. Consumers will pay less on their energy bills and, importantly, can expect to have access to spare parts for their appliances if something goes wrong. That is a really important shift to ensure that when something goes wrong it is not thrown on the scrap heap but can easily be fixed and much more life can be got out of the whole product.
I underline the fact that this statutory instrument brings tangible benefits for consumers and businesses and helps us to secure those important carbon savings to help us towards our carbon-budget net-zero targets. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Tenth sitting)
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: † Steve McCabe, Sir Charles Walker
† Anderson, Lee (Ashfield) (Con)
† Atkins, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)
† Baillie, Siobhan (Stroud) (Con)
† Champion, Sarah (Rotherham) (Lab)
† Charalambous, Bambos (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
† Clarkson, Chris (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
† Cunningham, Alex (Stockton North) (Lab)
† Dorans, Allan (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Eagle, Maria (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Higginbotham, Antony (Burnley) (Con)
Jones, Sarah (Croydon Central) (Lab)
† Levy, Ian (Blyth Valley) (Con)
† Philp, Chris (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)
† Pursglove, Tom (Corby) (Con)
Wheeler, Mrs Heather (South Derbyshire) (Con)
† Williams, Hywel (Arfon) (PC)
Huw Yardley, Sarah Thatcher, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Tuesday 8 June 2021
(Afternoon)
[Steve McCabe in the Chair]
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
The Chair
Good afternoon. I remind Committee members about the usual things: turn your phones and electronic devices to silent, remember to wear face coverings and observe social distance. Please remove your jackets if you feel so inclined.
Clause 54
Imposing conditions on public processions
Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Clause 55 stand part.
Clause 56 stand part.
Clause 60 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I now turn to the detail of clauses 54, 55, 56 and 60, which all relate to the conditions that the police can place on public processions, public assemblies and, by virtue of clause 60, single-person protests.
The police are able to place conditions on planned or ongoing protests to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. Conditions may also be imposed on a protest if the purpose of the person organising it is the intimidation of others in order to compel them to do or not to do an act that they have the right to do or not to do. The four clauses will ensure that the police are better placed to prevent protests that cause those harms. They will achieve that in the following ways.
Clause 55 will widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on public assemblies, to match existing powers to impose conditions on public processions. Clause 56 will prevent protesters from exploiting a loophole to evade conviction should they breach conditions at a protest and will increase sentences for such offences. Clauses 54, 55 and 60 will enable the police to impose conditions on a public procession, public assembly or single-person protest where noise may have a significant impact on those in the vicinity or may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation. These same clauses will also confer on the Home Secretary the power, through secondary legislation, to define the meaning of
“serious disruption to the life of the community”
and
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of a public procession”,
assembly or single-person protest.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It appears that some of the Bill’s provisions intersect with the Welsh Government’s responsibilities. For example, the responsibility for public order is reserved to the UK Parliament, while the provisions relating to noise generated by persons taking part in a procession look set to overlap with the devolved Government’s responsibilities for environmental health. How have the Government addressed those particular concerns, and have they been resolved?
Victoria Atkins
I am so sorry; I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. Are they that this matter is reserved?
Hywel Williams
I will explain again. As Dr Robert Jones of the University of South Wales points out, the Welsh Government have responsibilities that seem to overlap with provisions in the Bill; their environmental health responsibility on noise is a particular case in point. The Bill says that demonstrations should not be noisy if they cause alarm and so on, but the Welsh Government have those sorts of responsibilities as well. How have those overlapping responsibilities been addressed and how have they been resolved?
Victoria Atkins
I am told that all the provisions relate to reserved matters, so they fall within that framework.
Hywel Williams
I will not pursue this matter further, but is it not clear that the Welsh Government have responsibilities on an environmental basis for noise reduction?
Victoria Atkins
I cannot add to what I said earlier. These are all reserved matters.
I move on to public assemblies. I will explain why it is necessary for the police to be able to place the same conditions on public assemblies as they can on public processions. The case for the changes in clause 55 was made by Her Majesty’s inspector Matt Parr in his report on policing protest, published in March. The report included the following observation:
“there have been some conspicuously disruptive protests in recent years, both static (assemblies) and moving (processions). Protests are fluid, and it is not always possible to make this distinction. Some begin as assemblies and become processions, and vice versa. The practical challenges of safely policing a protest are not necessarily greater in the case of processions than in the case of assemblies, so this would not justify making a wider range of conditions available for processions than for assemblies.”
It is clear that the challenges of safely policing a protest are not necessarily greater for processions than they are for assemblies. The clause will therefore enable the police to impose conditions such as start times on public assemblies, and prevent excessive noise levels.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, contrary to what the Opposition say, the measures are about facilitating peaceful protest, not stopping protest? Obviously, if a protest breaches other people’s right to carry out their normal lives, that is different, but this is about making sure that protests can take place.
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. This is about ensuring that the rights that we have spoken about so far are protected, and that the integral balance of the social contract is maintained. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The police already have the power to impose any necessary conditions on marches. If it is acceptable for the police to impose any such conditions on processions, as they have been able to do since the 1930s, it is difficult to see the basis for the Opposition’s objection to affording equivalent powers to impose conditions on an assembly when it presents an equivalent public order risk.
In his evidence, Chief Constable Harrington said words to this effect—my apologies to Hansard: “We asked for consistency between processions and assembly, which this Bill does.” The police will impose those conditions only where they are necessary and proportionate, complying with their obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. In fairness, Chief Constable Harrington set out the care and training that the police receive to ensure that they can carry out their obligations carefully.
Clause 56 closes the loophole in the offence of failing to comply with a condition attached to a procession or assembly. When the police impose conditions on a protest to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, they ensure that protesters are made aware of those conditions through various means. Those can include communicating with protesters via loudspeakers or handing out written leaflets.
Some protesters take active measures, such as covering their ears and tearing up leaflets without reading them, to ensure that they are not aware—or to complain that they were not aware—of the conditions being placed. Should they go on to breach the conditions, they will avoid conviction as, under current law, an offence is committed only if a protester knowingly fails to comply with the condition.
Clause 56 will change the threshold for the offence to include where a protester ought to have known of the conditions imposed, closing the loophole in the current law. That is a commonly used fault element in criminal law—indeed, I note that the hon. Members for Stockton North and for Rotherham use it in new clause 23, which provides for a new street harassment offence. The police will continue to ensure that protesters are made aware of the conditions, as they currently do. The onus on the prosecution would change from having to show that an individual was fully aware of conditions, to showing that the police took all reasonable steps to notify them. As I said earlier, the standards and burdens of proof apply, as they do in any other criminal case: it is for the Crown to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
This particular proposal was examined by the policing inspectorate and it is again worth quoting from its report in March. It said:
“Our view is that the fault element in sections 12(4) and (5) and sections 14(4) and (5) of the Public Order Act 1986 is currently set too high. The loophole in the current law could be closed with a slight shift in the legal test that is applied to whether protesters should have known about the conditions imposed on them. On balance, we see no good reason not to close this loophole.”
The clause will also increase the maximum penalties for offences under sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Due to the increasingly disruptive tactics used by protesters, existing sentences are no longer proportionate to the harm that can be caused. Organisers of public processions and assemblies who go on to breach conditions placed by the police, as well as individuals who incite others to breach conditions, will see maximum custodial sentences increase from three to six months. Others who breach conditions will see maximum penalties increase from level 3 to level 4 on the standard scale, which are respectively set at £1,000 and £2,500.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Can the Minister give an example of an occasion when the current sentence has not been proportionate, in her opinion? Is she looking at custodial sentences and considering the impact they would have on the courts and on the Prison Service?
Victoria Atkins
The custodial aspect has been increased from three months to six months in relation to organisers of public processions and assemblies who go on to breach conditions, as well as those who incite others to breach conditions. The sentence in relation to the fine is for those who breach conditions. They go in a different category from organisers and those who incite others to breach conditions.
I do not have any examples to hand immediately, but I imagine some will find themselves in my file in due course. We are looking at maximum sentences, but it is still for the independent judiciary to impose sentences in court on the facts of the case that they have before them. That is another safeguard and another check and balance within this legislation. It will be for the judiciary to impose individual sentences, but it is right that Parliament look at the maximum term.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
What evidence does the Minister have for the need for tougher sentences in this area? Are the judiciary saying that they are ill equipped to sentence people appropriately when they have been convicted of this type of activity?
Victoria Atkins
Again, I point to the disruption and to the tactics that have been developing over recent years, which have grown not just more disruptive but, in some cases, more distressing. There are examples of an ambulance being blocked from an A&E department and of commuters being prevented from getting on the train to go to work in the morning by people who had attempted to climb on to the train carriage. We are seeing more and more of these instances, so it is right that the maximum sentence is commensurate.
If protesters feel that such measures are disproportionate, they will presumably put that defence forward in court. It will be for the Crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and for their counsel to mitigate on their behalf. We are trying to show the seriousness with which we take these small instances, where the balance between the rights of protesters and the rights of the community that is not protesting is disproportionate within the checks and balances that we have already discussed in the course of this debate.
I turn now to the measures relating to noise. The provisions will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police may impose conditions on a public procession or a public assembly to include circumstances where noise may have a significant impact on those in the vicinity, or may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation. These circumstances will also apply to single-person protests.
The hon. Member for Rotherham asked whether the noise provision was London-centric, with the biggest protests happening in London. As I said earlier, one would not want to assume that some of the protests that we have seen on the news could not happen outside London, as with the “Kill the Bill” protests in Bristol. It is right that we have clarity and consistency in law across the country so that if a group of protesters behaved in the way people appear to have behaved in the Bristol protests—injuring many, many police officers who were just acting in the line of duty—one would expect the law to apply as clearly in Rotherham as in central London.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for her clarity on that. I completely support her point when violence is being done or emergency services are being blocked and the disruption is in no way proportionate to the nature of the protest, but I would like her to give some clarity on the issue of noise. Is it a decibel thing? Is it an irritation thing? Who decides what the irritation is? What is and is not acceptable? Would the threshold be lower in a small village because noise would not normally be heard, whereas in a big city with lots of industrial sites it would be a lot higher? It is that subjectivity that I put to the Minister.
Victoria Atkins
That is precisely why we are introducing an objective test in clause 54(3). The hon. Lady will see the wording:
“For the purposes of subsection (1)(ab)(i), the noise generated by persons taking part in a public procession may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if—
(a) it may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness with the characteristics of persons likely to be in the vicinity.”
That is consistent with other parts of the criminal law. The wording continues:
“or (b) it may cause such persons”––
that is, persons of reasonable firmness––
“to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress.”
We have been very mindful of trying to help the police because it would be a matter for the police to weigh up during a procession, assembly or one-person protest or before one starts. It would be for the senior officer to make that assessment, but it is an objective test.
I hope that the hon. Lady will not mind my raising it, but the example she gave of the impact that hearing a drill had on her personally was her personal, subjective experience; we are saying that this would have to be an objective test—the reasonable firmness of people in the vicinity of that noise.
Sarah Champion
Let me give an example that I am sure everyone in this room will have experience of, as I have. An MP might be speaking at a demo or rally and a group of people feel the need to say, “See you next Tuesday” during the speech. That distresses the church group being addressed. Would that reach the threshold? Is it more of a decibel thing rather than it being directed to the MP? For example, in Rotherham the community came together to hold peaceful vigils but the far right held counter-protests in which they felt the need to call us paedophiles.
I appreciate that I am being annoying on this, but I just do not get it. These particular cases feel subjective and that is why I would like to get the clarity bedded down.
Victoria Atkins
First and foremost, the hon. Lady is certainly not being annoying; she is doing her job and her duty on the Committee. I am feeling my way here carefully because obviously Ministers should not comment on individual cases, but, on her example, in a scenario where someone is being at shouted at or spoken to as she described, there is a very good argument for saying that the person doing the shouting is committing a public order offence under the 1986 Act—that could be a section 5 offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress at the moment.
Again, I read across to other parts of public order legislation. That is why the objective test is an important one. We want first to be consistent with other public order measures. However, we recognise that there may be some instances in which an individual, for whatever reason—medical or otherwise—may have a particular sensitivity. In the criminal law, we say, “Look, we have got to deal with this on an objective basis, because it is the criminal law and the consequences of being convicted of a criminal offence are as serious as they are.” I have some hypothetical examples to give a bit of colour in due course, but, if I may, I want to complete outlining the checks and balances as written in the Bill so that everyone has a clear picture of the steps that a senior officer will have to go through to satisfy herself or himself that a condition can be imposed on the grounds of noise.
The senior officer must decide whether the impact is significant. In doing so, they must have regard to the likely number of people who may be affected, the likely duration and the likely intensity of that impact. The threshold at which police officers will be able to impose conditions on the use of noise is rightly very high. The examples I have been provided with—I am sure the Committee will understand that I am not citing any particular protest or assembly—are that a noisy protest in a town centre may not meet the threshold, but a protest creating the same amount of noise outside a school might, given the age of those likely to be affected and how those in the school are trying to sit down to learn on an average day. A noisy protest outside an office with double glazing may not meet the threshold, but a protest creating the same amount of noise outside a care home for elderly people, a GP surgery or small, street-level businesses might, given the level of disruption likely to be caused. Again, that refers to the conditions in clause 54(3) about the likely number of people, the likely duration and the likely intensity of that impact on such persons.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
We have heard an awful lot about the police having to apply judgment and make decisions quickly, but, given the examples that the Minister has just read out, does she agree that there is a good dollop of common sense in much of what we need to apply with this legislation?
Victoria Atkins
Indeed. Of course, we are rightly sitting here scrutinising every single word of the Bill carefully, but a senior police officer on the ground will have had a great deal of training and years of experience as an officer working in their local communities. They will also have the knowledge of their local communities. I imagine that policing a quiet village and policing the centre of Westminster are two very different experiences, and the officers making such decisions will be well versed in the needs of their local areas. None the less, officers across the country will be bound by the terms of subsection (3)—those checks and balances I have referred to throughout—and the European convention on human rights.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for being generous; it is appreciated. On the examples I supplied, her response was that the existing legislation ought to be covering the point. She mentioned a case study in which a protest could reach the threshold if there was no double-glazing. What concerns me is the organiser who could now face up to six months in jail. Are they meant to know whether properties do or do not have double-glazing, and therefore instruct the march to be silent for a specific 100 yards, as they could otherwise fall foul of the earlier clause? I say to the Minister that I just do not like subjectivity when it comes to the law.
Victoria Atkins
The organiser in those circumstances would, of course, be liable to having a committed an offence only if they breached the order. Indeed, this is the important point. It is for the police to make that assessment. If the police have a conversation with an organiser and say, “We believe that using your very high-level amplification system in this residential street meets the criteria under subsection (3) such that we are going to impose a condition asking you to turn it down,” the organiser, or the person deemed to be the organiser, will have had that conversation with an officer, and I very much hope that they will abide by the condition. If they do not, that is where the offence comes in, and that is a choice for the organiser.
As is already the case with processions, those conversations will happen and it will be a matter for the organiser as to what course of action they choose to take. One hopes that they will take the advice and guidance of the police, adapt and therefore be able to continue with their protest in a way that meets the expectations of the local community or local businesses. I appreciate that the detail is incredibly technical, and I am trying to work through every set of factual circumstances. I understand absolutely why people want to work through those, but there are checks and balances that run throughout the Bill.
Alex Cunningham
First, does the Minister agree that we must therefore have specific training for the police? She has referred many times to senior officers making decisions, but senior officers might not be available in Stockton-on-Tees or Rotherham, and certainly not in the local village, when there is some form of demonstration. The local PC may well be the person who has to turn up and make some form of decision in this situation. Secondly, on the issue of noise itself, how can a police officer be fair and objective where there are different groups of people who will be suffering differently as a direct result of a demonstration? A bunch of teenagers standing on Whitehall might find the noise and the robustness of the conversation tremendously exciting, but the pensioners group that has gone for tea at the local café might be very distressed. How on earth does the police officer make a balanced decision in that sort of situation?
Victoria Atkins
I can help the hon. Gentleman on the officer point. Pre-procession—in other words, in respect of processions that are yet to happen—the conditions must be assessed, and if ordered, ordered by a chief officer. That is a chief constable outside London, and in London an assistant commissioner. That is the highest rank in a police force. Mid-procession, conditions are imposed by a senior officer, which is an inspector or above, at the scene. So I do not think that the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes will arise. It is another example of the checks and balances that we have tried to put in place throughout this part of the Bill to ensure that these decisions are taken by very experienced and specialised officers.
I have been given another example to help demonstrate the point. A noisy protest that lasts only a short time may not meet the threshold, so the 90 seconds of—I forget the piece of music—
Victoria Atkins
Thank you, Holst. But a protest creating the same amount of noise over several days might meet it, given the extended duration of the protest.
Again, it is about the officer on the ground, or before the protest, making these decisions in the circumstances of the protest and the surrounding area. Situating oneself in the middle of an enormous park would be different from situating oneself in the middle of a residential street, where lots of people are living in mansion flats or blocks of flats nearby—I am thinking specifically of the Westminster example. Those are all factors that the senior officers will have to weigh up.
The vast majority of processions, assemblies and single-person protests will be able to continue making noise as they do now. Most organisations are able to continue to operate with a loud protest on their doorstep without serious disruption to their activities, and most individuals are able to endure loud protests without suffering serious unease, alarm or distress.
Bambos Charalambous
For clarification, is the senior officer expected to know the area and the types of buildings where the protest will be, as well as the nature of the demonstration—whether it will have lots of sound systems, or involve lots of whistles and chants? Is it expected that that will be known beforehand, or is there scope to act if that were to occur during a demonstration?
Victoria Atkins
That serves to demonstrate the dynamic nature of different forms of protest. If a decision is to be made during the course of a protest, it will be made by a senior officer of inspector rank or above, on the ground and assessing the situation. Let me try to provide a practical example. The inspector may assess the situation in Hyde Park, then walk through to an area where there is lots of high-density housing and consider that the circumstances there are different. It is about being able to react to circumstances as they change and evolve in the course of a protest. That is why we are trying to bring consistency between processions and assemblies—because of the dynamic nature of protests—but it will be for the senior officer, working of course with his or her colleagues, to assess the factors laid out in subsection (3).
The police will impose conditions on the use of noise only in the exceptional circumstances where noise causes unjustifiable disruption or impact. I emphasise that in doing so they will have to have regard to the number of people affected and the intensity and duration of the noise, and act compatibly with the rights of freedom of expression and so on within the convention.
The shadow Minister prayed in aid the non-legislative recommendations from HMIC. I want to place on the record that the National Police Chiefs’ Council has established a programme board to consider and implement those. I hope that helps.
Mr Goodwill
Does the Minister agree that not only is it a judgment or decision for the police to make in this situation, but that if a prosecution were to follow, the Director of Public Prosecutions and ultimately a jury would decide whether, on balance, they thought a breach of these provisions had occurred?
Victoria Atkins
Exactly right. The police will first have to satisfy themselves and the CPS that a charge should be brought, and from that all the usual safeguards and standards that we expect in the criminal justice system will apply. For example, the CPS will have to apply the code for Crown prosecutors in relation to the public interest and evidential tests. We will then have the mechanisms in the trial process—perhaps a submission at half-time by defence counsel if they feel the evidence is not there. There are many mechanisms that apply in criminal trials up and down the country every single day, and those mechanisms will be available for offences under the Bill as they are for any other criminal offence.
I have been asked for clarification of the terms: annoyance, alarm, distress and unease. Many of those terms are already used in the Public Order Act 1986 and in common law. They are well understood by the judiciary, and the Law Commission—this is particularly in reference to the public nuisance point, which we will come on to in a moment—recommends retaining the word “annoyance”, as it provides continuity with previous legal cases and is well understood in this context. We understand the concerns about this, but as I say, through the introduction of these words, we are trying to be consistent with the approach that has long applied in the Public Order Act.
It is necessary to apply the measure in relation to noise to single-person protests because they can, of course, create just as much noise through the use of amplification equipment as a large protest using such equipment. Again, the police will be able to impose conditions on a single-person protest for reasons relating only to noise, not for any other reason.
Forgive me: I have just been corrected regarding the briefing I received about the rank of the officer at the scene. It is the most senior officer at the scene, so there is no minimum rank, but it is anticipated in the use of the word that it will be an officer of great seniority. Any protest on which it may be necessary to impose conditions is likely to have an officer present of at least the rank of inspector.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point, but it does mean that the local sergeant or PC in a village or a town centre is going to have to make decisions about these matters. My point was that surely, this means that there needs to be some very specific training on how police should react to demonstrations or other activities of that nature.
Victoria Atkins
I would give the police some credit. First, if it is a protest of any serious size, or the organisers have contacted the police or the other way around, this can and should be dealt with ahead of the protest. In the event of a protest taking people by surprise in a quieter area than a huge metropolis, the police will react as they are very used to reacting in circumstances that need them to be flexible and move quickly, and I am sure they will have people on the scene very quickly who can assist with this. We want to ensure that the expectation is that a senior officer, and certainly the most senior officer at the scene, will be the one imposing these conditions.
I now turn to the parts of the clauses that set out that the Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define the meaning of
“serious disruption to the life of the community”
and
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession”,
or assembly or single-person protest. Again, to clear up any misunderstandings, this is not about the Home Secretary of the day banning protests. Opposition Members have understandably called for clearer definitions wherever possible, which is what this delegated power is intended to achieve. Any definition created through this power will need to fall within what can reasonably be understood as “serious disruption”. The threshold will be clarified, not changed: such definitions will be used to clarify the threshold beyond which the police can impose conditions on protests, should they believe them necessary to avoid serious disruption. This is about putting the framework in place to help the police on the ground.
The regulations will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, which means that they must be scrutinised, debated, and approved by both Houses before they can be made. It will, of course, be for the police in an individual case to apply that definition operationally. They can apply that definition only if the criteria in the Bill are met. This is not about the Home Secretary outlawing particular protests or individual demonstrations; it is about setting a framework for a definition, to help the police operation on the ground to understand the criteria in the Bill. To assist in scrutiny of the Bill, we aim to publish further details of the content of the regulation before consideration on Report.
The clauses relating to protest, public assemblies, marches, processions and demonstrations, as well as other terms that have been used to describe this, represent a modest updating of legislation that is more than 35 years old. They do not enable the police or, for that matter, the Home Secretary of the day to ban any protest. Interestingly, we will come to debates in Committee on new clause 43, which relates to interference with access to or the provision of abortion services. That provision does, in fact, seek to ban such protests, so, again, there is a balancing act, or the grey area that has been referred to in this very debate.
Alex Cunningham
I am interested in what the Minister has to say about new clause 43. Is she indicating Government support for the measures that we are trying to introduce?
Victoria Atkins
No, I am drawing out an apparent contradiction. I do not say that in a pejorative sense. The hon. Member and others have expressed strong reservations and complaints about the Bill. I understand that they will vote against the measures, but it seems that discussions about freedom of speech and expression—that balancing act—will be part of the consideration of the Opposition’s new clause. I am not laying out a position either way; I am observing the difficulty in achieving that balancing act and an apparent contradiction. It is for individual Members to decide matters of scrutiny.
These clauses provide for a sensible alignment of police powers to attach conditions to an assembly or a public procession, and extend those powers to deal with particularly egregious cases of disruption due to unacceptable levels of noise. The measures are supported by the police, who will, as now, have to exercise the powers within the framework of the Human Rights Act. On that basis, and with that detailed analysis, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Imposing conditions on public assemblies
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56
Offences under sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Obstruction of vehicular access to Parliament
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Bambos Charalambous
The clause is designed to protect vehicular access to Parliament, and it will amend the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. That will ensure that preventing access to the parliamentary estate is prohibited, but it will not give the police powers to arrest those who contravene it.
Clause 58 requires a new controlled area around the temporary locations of Parliament, and the central rules around protests may be imposed around the temporary home of Parliament during restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, whenever that may occur.
Clause 59 replaces the common law offence of public nuisance with the statutory offence of intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance. The new statutory offence of intentionally or recklessly causing a nuisance includes the term “serious annoyance”, and it is unclear what will constitute a serious annoyance or serious inconvenience. A person does not have to actually suffer any of the above consequences, but only be at risk of suffering them.
The Minister said in the evidence sessions that the term “annoyance” was not dreamed up on the back of an envelope, but follows many centuries of legal development, culminating in the 2015 Law Commission report. However, that does not help to explain or to guide the police as to how to enforce conditions on a protest that puts someone at risk of suffering “serious annoyance”. During the evidence session, Chief Constable Harrington, the public order and public safety portfolio lead for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, said:
“On serious annoyance, we need to see what Parliament’s decision on the definition of that is and to interpret that accordingly… We will have to see what Parliament decides and whether it is able to give us some clarity about what that means”.––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 10, Q8.]
Can the Minister reassure us today by providing some clarity on what “serious annoyance” might mean and what is the threshold for “serious annoyance”?
I will finish on this point: the designated area for Parliament includes Parliament Square, where can be found a number of statues of celebrated pioneers of struggle and protest, including Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and the suffragist Millicent Fawcett. I wonder what they would think about the state limiting people’s rights of protest in this way. I think we can all guess.
Victoria Atkins
If I may, Mr McCabe, I shall confine my remarks to clause 57, which deals with “Obstruction of vehicular access to Parliament”. I will take up the challenge on annoyance when it comes to clause 59.
Clause 57 delivers a clear recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). Its 2019 report, “Democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association: Threats to MPs”, refers to
“unimpeded access to the Palace of Westminster for all who have business in either House, or wish to meet their representatives”,
and to how vital that is. The report continues:
“Even though there is a special legal regime for the area around Parliament, it is clear that those responsible for policing and controlling that area have not always given the need for access without impediment or harassment the importance it requires. This must change.”
We are acting on the recommendations of the Joint Committee and, through clause 57, strengthening and extending the Palace of Westminster controlled area in relation to section 142A of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
Mr Goodwill
Would my hon. Friend be interested to know that, more than a century ago, precedent was set by the grandfather of the current Lord Montagu? He arrived in a motorcar and the police tried to prevent it from entering the precincts of the Palace, but he insisted that it came in. Precedent was therefore set well over a century ago at the dawn of the age of the motorcar, and I hope that that precedent will be followed.
Victoria Atkins
That is a wonderful example to explain how that fundamental right of our democracy was introduced. I note, of course, that my right hon. Friend has great knowledge and expertise in all matters vehicular, to which I defer.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Power to specify other areas as controlled areas
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
The clause provides the Secretary of State with a regulation-making power to designate new “controlled areas” for the purposes of part 3 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, should Parliament relocate due to restoration and renewal works, or for any other reason. That would include, for example––I am sure we all hope that it does not happen––the House needing to relocate because of a fire or other emergency. We hope fervently that this will not be required for those reasons, but it is the will of the Government, working with the parliamentary authorities, to ensure that the measures relating to controlled areas can be extended to wherever Parliament relocates to ensure the security and safety of parliamentarians in the event of a temporary relocation.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:
Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate has made his remarks on the clause, for which I am grateful.
The clause enshrines in statute the long-standing common law offence of public nuisance. As we heard from a number of our policing and other witnesses, codifying the criminal law in this area will provide clarity to the public, the police, prosecutors and others as to the scope of the offence, giving clear notice of what conduct is covered.
The new offence of intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance has been drafted in line with the recommendations of the 2015 Law Commission report “Simplification of Criminal Law: Public Nuisance and Outraging Public Decency”. The Law Commission held a public consultation, which informed the recommendations of its report. It found that it is necessary to keep this offence, as
“human inventiveness being so great, it is desirable to have a general offence for culpable acts that injure the public but do not fall within any specialised offences.”
The intention of the clause is to codify an existing offence, not to create a new one. That is in keeping with the intention of the Law Commission. As such, it is appropriate to mirror the language from the common law offence as much as possible. For that reason, we have retained the use of the terms “annoyance” and “inconvenience” while adding the caveat of “serious”, so raising the bar for securing a conviction.
It is clear from case law relating to the existing common law offence that those terms connote something more than merely feeling annoyed or inconvenienced. The term “annoyance” has been applied to acts such as allowing a field to be used for holding an all-night rave or conspiring to switch off the floodlights at a football match so as to cause it to be abandoned––certain colleagues will prick up their ears at my mention of that—and to noise, dirt, fumes, noxious smells and vibrations.
The Law Commission provides the further example of vexatious calls to the emergency services’ 999 number or to Childline. Repeated vexatious calls can affect the ability of a local force to respond to genuine emergencies. That gives a flavour of the examples that have long been understood under the common law offence as annoying or inconvenient.
Many of the terms used are well established in law, including criminal law. Indeed, the term “inconvenienced” appears in the Metropolitan Streets Act 1867, “loss of amenity” is used in the Railway Fires Act 1905, and “annoyance” features in the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 —statutes with which I am sure we are all very familiar. These are not vague, untried or untested terms, and I note that the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood is happy to put her name to new clause 2, which concerns kerb-crawling and uses the term “annoyance”.
Introducing the offence in statute will narrow the scope of the offence. The definition will capture different types of harm to the public or a section of the public, including serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience and serious loss of amenity. This is a move away from a loss of comfort, which is in scope of the common law offence.
Contrary to some of the misunderstandings about the clause, we are increasing the fault element. This will require that a person must act either intentionally or recklessly, and it is another softening of the original common law offence. The original common law offence required only the lower-fault element of negligence, which does not require awareness from the defendant.
Finally, clause 59 stipulates a 10-year maximum custodial sentence, which is a reduction from the unlimited sentences that are available under the common law offence. Indeed, the chair of the Bar, Mr Derek Sweeting, supported this move when he gave evidence, saying that he welcomes the fact that we have a statutory maximum of 10 years. The Law Commission found that, as the offence is intended to address serious cases for which other offences are not adequate, a maximum sentence should be high enough to cover such cases. A person prosecuted under the clause is also provided with a defence of reasonableness. The clause states:
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for the act or omission”.
Support for the clause was shared by a number of witnesses in the oral evidence sessions, including policing colleagues, inspectorate colleagues and, as I say, Mr Sweeting from the Bar Council. Clarity is an important facet of criminal law, and the Committee has now heard the careful thinking and consideration behind this important issue not just by the Government, but by the Law Commission. Indeed, there was also a public consultation before it reported. I very much hope that that has served to reassure the Committee about the concerns raised by hon. Members and others, and that it shares with us the intention that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60
Imposing conditions on one-person protests
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Offence relating to residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Bambos Charalambous
I stand to speak out against clauses 61 to 63. In doing so, I am reflecting the views of the Gypsy and Traveller community, the police, and organisations as diverse as the Ramblers Association and Liberty.
I want to start by thanking Abbie Kirkby from Friends, Families & Travellers for all its help on part 4 of the Bill. Part 4—clauses 61 to 63—would amend the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to create a new offence of
“residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle”.
It would also amend the police powers associated with unauthorised encampments in the Act to lower the threshold at which they can be used, allow the police to remove unauthorised encampments on or partly on highways, and prohibit unauthorised encampments that are moved from a site from returning within 12 months.
Like the clauses we have just debated on public order, this part of the Bill is controversial and has generated a number of organised campaigns in opposition to it, including an e-petition that garnered 134,932 signatures. The petition called the Government’s proposed criminal offence “extreme, illiberal and unnecessary”.
Mr Goodwill
Would any of the people who live near one of these illegal camps have signed that petition?
Bambos Charalambous
I do not know who signed the petition, but I am sure it is available. The right hon. Gentleman will have to explore the petition himself to see who signed it.
A broad coalition, from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to Liberty, from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities to the Ramblers Association and from the police to Shelter, is united in the view that the proposals put forward by the Government would be wrong and unhelpful, and go against our basic rights.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
We have a big problem in Ashfield with the travelling community. They come two or three times a year. I did my own poll of about 2,000 constituents, and 95% agreed with me that the Travellers were creating a massive problem—crime was going up, pets were going missing, antisocial behaviour was going through the roof and properties were getting broken into. My constituents do not want them in our area anymore. That was a survey of 2,000 people, and that was the response from 95% of them. That evidence from my area is a bit more compelling than the petition the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which has probably been signed by 100,000 Travellers.
Bambos Charalambous
One of the problems is that there is less local authority provision for Travellers to go to. That loss of provision, which is partly due to cuts to local government, has caused more problems, meaning that more people are on the road at any given time. However, this issue does not affect just the Traveller community, as the hon. Gentleman will see when I go on to make further points. It also impacts people such as ramblers, birdwatchers and others who want to stay out and sleep in their vehicles while enjoying countryside activities.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend has made the point that there is a failure in our society to provide sufficient facilities for people from the travelling community, be they traditional Gypsies or people who choose to go on the road. Does he agree that the Government, rather than bringing in legislation such as this, should turn their attention to providing local authorities with the resources they need to provide facilities for travelling communities? Does he also agree that that should not be left just to some communities; communities across the country should take a share in providing such facilities so that Travellers can live with them cheek by jowl in a peaceful way?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That was highlighted by the representative from the LGA in her evidence to the Committee.
As one of the respondents to the Petition Committee’s survey on the criminalisation of trespass put it:
“The criminalisation of trespass will simply exacerbate an already fraught relationship.”
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Next to my constituency is a Traveller site that has spaces that could be used by people who choose to live a nomadic lifestyle, yet we still have people turning up and using public car parks. People going to do their shopping at the Keel Row shopping centre found that really intimidating and the police had to ask the Travellers to move on. When they did move on, they left a lot of rubbish and the place was really untidy. There was space at the Traveller site, but the Travellers chose not to use it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was wrong?
Bambos Charalambous
I agree that there is no excuse for antisocial behaviour or criminal activity, such as fly-tipping, which is wrong and needs to stop. Equally, where sites are provided, they should be made use of.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must listen to local people in this respect? When sites were proposed in Stockton-on-Tees in 2014, there were 565 individual representations against them, four petitions signed by 850 people and a letter of objection supported by 55 neighbours, so even in Stockton-on-Tees, the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockton North, there is great opposition to having these Traveller sites in their communities.
Bambos Charalambous
Therein lies the problem: many people do not want to have Travellers anywhere near them, and that is partly why there are so few sites. If more sites were made available, that would potentially solve the problem.
Lee Anderson
We have already established that in places where Traveller communities set up, such as Ashfield, crime goes up; we know that there is a direct correlation between Travellers being in the area and crime going up. Does the hon. Gentleman think that crime will come down if we have a permanent site in Ashfield?
Bambos Charalambous
As I have said, there is no excuse for criminality, and the Gypsy and Traveller community is already overrepresented in the prison population, but I do not think that the two issues are necessarily related to what the clause is trying to achieve. The hon. Gentleman is trying to say that the Gypsy and Traveller community is responsible for crime in Ashfield. I do not know the facts and figures in relation to that, but what the clause does is criminalise communities for being in vehicles on public land. While each Member has a concern about their individual constituents, we need to get back to what the Bill is focusing on, which is criminalising anyone in a vehicle, even on their own. I think that is what we need to focus on.
Alex Cunningham
In Stockton, we have had facilities for travelling communities for many years. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that this is about having proper facilities. Perhaps I can point him to the example of the Appleby horse fair, which attracts thousands of people every year. We see them travelling up, and they stay on the byways and all sorts of places along the way, but when they get to the site they are properly catered for. There is proper rubbish removal, proper facilities for animals, toilets and all manner of facilities, and they are put in place to provide for that particular need. Perhaps if other local authorities across the country took that approach, we would not have the problems that Government Members have described.
Bambos Charalambous
Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is right: if more facilities were provided, that would help to solve the problem.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Although these clauses do not apply in Scotland, does the hon. Member agree that a significant number of Gypsy Travellers cross the border daily for work, to maintain family ties and for cultural reasons, and that these measures will cause further discrimination and harassment of this ethnic group, which is protected under the Equality Act 2010 as a recognised ethnic group?
Bambos Charalambous
I entirely agree with the hon. Member’s comments. He is right: this measure is targeting a particular group for criminalisation, and that has to be totally wrong. As one respondent to the Petitions Committee’s survey on criminalisation of trespass put it:
“The criminalisation of trespass will simply exacerbate an already fraught relationship. Travellers will still camp but there’ll be more prosecutions, more distrust, more public money spent on legalities”.
Other people with nomadic lifestyles have told me that they feel that they will no longer be able to live on the road in the way that has been seen in this country since the 16th century, and that the Bill risks criminalising their way of life. At a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, we heard from the community about what might happen to them if these clauses become law. It was absolutely heartbreaking to hear from those people that they fear that their whole way of life will be taken from them if the clauses become law.
Can the Minister tell the House this? Under the provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, what will happen to a Traveller family in a single vehicle who are residing on a highway and have nowhere else to go? Failure to comply with a police direction to leave land occupied as part of an unauthorised encampment is already a criminal offence, but the proposals create a new offence of residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle. The broad way in which it is drafted seems to capture the intention to do that as well as actually doing it, with penalties of imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of up to £2,500, or both. The loose drafting of this legislation invites problems with its interpretation, and it is simply not fair to put that on to the police.
The Opposition’s major concern about this aspect of the Bill is that it is clearly targeted at Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and the criminalisation would potentially breach the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010. When the powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 were first debated in Parliament, it was stated that the powers were intended to deal with “mass trespass”. However, under the Bill even a single Gypsy or Traveller travelling in a single vehicle will be caught by this offence.
These measures to increase police powers in relation to unauthorised encampments are not even backed by the police. When Friends, Families & Travellers researched the consultation responses that the Government had received, it found that 84% of the police responses did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments. Senior police are telling us that the changes in the Bill that relate to unauthorised encampments would only make matters worse: they would add considerable extra cost for the already overstretched police and risk breaching the Human Rights Act.
The views of the National Police Chiefs’ Council were clearly put in its submission to the 2018 Government consultation. It wrote:
“Trespass is a civil offence and our view is that it should remain so. The possibility of creating a new criminal offence of ‘intentional trespass’…has been raised at various times over the years but the NPCC position has been—and remains—that no new criminal trespass offence is required.
The co-ordinated use of the powers already available under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows for a proportionate response to encampments based on the behaviour of the trespassers.”
At an evidence session of this Bill Committee, Martin Hewitt said on behalf of the NPCC that the group
“strongly believes that the fundamental problem is insufficient provision of sites for Gypsy Travellers to occupy, and that that causes the relatively small percentage of unlawful encampments, which obviously create real challenges for the people who are responsible for that land and for those living around… The view of our group is that the existing legislation is sufficient to allow that to be dealt with, and we have some concerns about the additional power and the new criminal provision and how that will draw policing further into that situation.”—[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 15, Q20.]
Siobhan Baillie
I have been listening to evidence about whether the existing powers are sufficient, which I challenge. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that if they were sufficient, we would not also have heard evidence about the tens of thousands of pounds that the case in Dartmoor cost. That was a huge cost to the council, thus making the taxpayer pay twice in having to deal with the issues beside them and through the public purse. We also heard countless other examples of what has been happening in communities. Does the shadow Minister think that our current legislation is truly sufficient? I think we need to look again, which is what the Bill is doing.
Bambos Charalambous
Civil remedies would still be available for people who engage in antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping and so on. All we would be doing is criminalising a particular group of people. In my view, the civil remedies would still be there and the cost to the council would still be there if proper facilities were not provided. To me, just criminalising a particular group of people is wrong.
To continue, the NPCC witness said:
“Really, our point fundamentally as the NPCC group is that the issue here is the lack of provision that theoretically should be made, which means that we have this percentage of Travellers who are on unlawful spaces and you end up in the situations that we end up with. Our view is that the current legislation is sufficient to deal with that issue.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 15, Q20.]
We have to ask: why are the Government determined to lock up Gypsies and Travellers, even against the advice of their own police? As Martin Hewitt clearly stated, existing legislation on police powers and unauthorised encampments is enough to tackle the problem. The police already have extensive powers to move on unauthorised encampments in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and as of January 2020, just 3% of Gypsy and Traveller caravans—694—in England were in unauthorised encampments. Of those, 419 were on sites not tolerated and 275 were on tolerated sites. The police and campaigners tell us the evidence is not there that the new powers are necessary and that many more authorised encampment sites should be provided instead.
Alex Cunningham
I sometimes wonder whether the power to discourage Travellers from moving in is in the hands of communities. Travellers move around the country for work—to pick up scrap, to do all manner of gardening work, such as taking down trees for people, and so on. I have had many an argument with people living in communities who say, “We don’t want Travellers here,” but they put out their fridge or their scrap metal for them, they let them cut down their trees. They provide them with work and an incentive to be in the area. So perhaps people have it in their own power. Travellers will not come if there is no incentive for them.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which is worthy of further discussion.
I will run through a series of points the Minister for Crime and Policing made when responding to a Westminster Hall debate on this question. On concerns about the right to roam being threatened, he said the measures will not affect anyone who wants to enjoy the countryside for leisure purposes, but many organisations, such as the Ramblers Association and CPRE the Countryside Charity, are concerned that although the Government might not intend to capture others enjoying the countryside, they could still do so. The legislation is so open to interpretation that it could easily be applied to anyone with a vehicle. For example, how do the Government propose to ensure that the police distinguish between a modified Transit van or Volkswagen camper used at the weekends and one that is lived in? How will they distinguish between a family going on a caravan holiday and a Gypsy or Traveller family with an identical caravan before stopping them and seizing their property because the police suspect that they might stop somewhere they do not have permission to do so?
The Minister for Policing and Crime also said that there is a high threshold to be met before the new powers kick in, but only one vehicle need be involved, whereas section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act requires six vehicles. The bar seems to have been significantly lowered in the Bill. The police currently have discretion to decide whether to use their powers under sections 61, 62 and 62A to 62E, in the latter cases where a suitable alternative pitch is available, but under the proposals in part 4 of the Bill, police will be dutybound to act when they are informed that a criminal offence has taken place.
The term “significant distress” is highly subjective. Given the high levels of prejudice and hatred towards Gypsy and Traveller communities, we are likely to see countless reports of criminal offences being committed, based on someone saying that they are significantly distressed by an encampment. Marc Willers QC, of Garden Court Chambers, said in the evidence sessions:
‘It seems to me that a lot of the language used is vague and uncertain. There is a reference to causing “significant distress” as one of the conditions that could lead to the criminalisation of an individual who refuses to leave a piece of land. That, in itself, brings inherent problems, because a private citizen could very easily invoke the power and leave a police officer with a fait accompli—in other words, they have no option but to arrest an individual who refuses to leave land in circumstances where the occupier says, “I am being caused significant distress by the very fact that this individual is parking on land that I occupy.”’
Alex Cunningham
I am never happier than when I am in my own caravan—always on an official site—travelling around the country and into Europe. I have seen tremendous growth in the number of people driving motor homes, and I see them parked up all over the country, on private land, public land and elsewhere. Those people are also going to get caught up in this particular legislation, are they not?
Bambos Charalambous
Again, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. We want to make sure that people are free to enjoy the beautiful countryside we are lucky to have in the UK without fear of being criminalised in such a way.
Marc Willers QC went on to say:
“That distress can be engendered or underpinned by the prejudice that Gypsies and Travellers face in our society today. It is a widespread and long-standing prejudice, dating back to the first time that Romani Gypsies came to these shores in the 1500s… There may well be unwarranted and unjustified concerns on the part of the occupier, which could lead to the criminalisation of an individual who has nowhere else to go.” —[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 72, Q104.]
Lee Anderson
At the beginning, the hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about Romani Gypsies coming here more than 500 years ago, but the Gypsy encampments that we are talking about in places such as Ashfield are not the traditional, old-fashioned Gypsies sat there playing the mandolin, flogging lucky heather and telling fortunes. The Travellers I am talking about are more likely to be seen leaving your garden shed at 3 o’clock in the morning, probably with your lawnmower and half of your tools. That happens every single time they come to Ashfield. Does he agree that there is some confusion on the Opposition side as to who these people actually are?
Bambos Charalambous
I have said previously that we certainly do not condone any antisocial behaviour or criminal activity, but this is one of the many prejudices that exist about the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and it is these sorts of problems that would lead to people invoking some of the clauses in the Bill in order to criminalise people.
Mr Goodwill
Trying to describe this as some sort of inherent prejudice misses the point, in that the activities of some of these people are what cause concern to a community—for example, leaving a load of rubbish behind on a lay-by. In Whitby, we get a lot of Travellers coming for the regatta, and it is quite common for restaurateurs to complain to me that they just walk out of restaurants without paying the bill, or haggle over the price and pay only half, and there is nothing they can do about it. That is the problem. It is based not on inherent prejudice, but on actual experiences of dealing with some of these people. They may be only a small minority of the travelling population, but they do tend to spoil it for the rest.
Bambos Charalambous
The situation that the right hon. Gentleman mentions would not be caught by the clause in this Bill anyway. On his wider point, it is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If there is a problem, there is legislation currently available to deal with it. This is entirely unnecessary, and it ends up criminalising a community when the powers to deal with the problem already exist.
Another point made by the Minister for Policing was that the clean-up costs of the encampments can be huge. This is truly a problem, but it will not be solved by these clauses. Friends, Families & Travellers has pointed out that there are tried and tested ways of saving money while supporting families on roadside camps. Adopting a working, negotiated stopping policy where local authorities provide basic facilities such as toilets, water and rubbish collection, and working with families on encampments to agree suitable temporary locations and lengths of stay, has been proven to significantly reduce the costs attached to encampments. Research from De Montfort University found that a negotiated stopping policy developed in Leeds was shown to be self-financing when financially analysed. The creation of permanent pitches leads to the generation of rent and council tax for a local authority. If there are issues of commercial waste management such as large-scale fly-tipping, local authorities can use the legislation that already exists to deal with that crime. Additional legislation is not necessary.
Lee Anderson
About five years ago, we had Travellers come to a car park in my village and they left a load of rubbish there, which cost the council over £1,000 to clean up. A few weeks later, they came back again, left another load of rubbish that cost another £1,000. I got that fed up with the local council that I hired a JCB and put two concrete blocks there, to stop the Travellers coming back and to keep the beauty spot tidy, and I got a £100 fixed penalty notice from my local Labour authority. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that was the right course of action?
Bambos Charalambous
As I have said, there are powers in place to deal with fly-tipping. Where people feel the need to secure certain sites, it is down to the local authority to deal with those issues. I am certainly not encouraging people to take the law into their own hands and deal with things in the ways they see fit. That would be the road to chaos. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, but I am not going to comment on individual situations. The law is there, it is available and it can be used. It has been used quite successfully by many local authorities and the police.
There are other solutions for managing unauthorised encampments such as negotiated stopping whereby arrangements are made on agreed permitted times of stopping and to ensure the provision of basic needs such as water, sanitation and refuse collection. The manifesto commitment and the Government response referred to littering as a problem, but then why do the Government not consider providing more authorised camping sites with proper refuse facilities? Why do the Government think that confiscating someone’s home, putting them in prison and fining them is the answer? Why do the Government not instead consider the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), whose private Member’s Bill would make it an offence to demand money to vacate an unauthorised encampment? That, along with a significant increase in permanent site provision, could prevent Gypsy and Traveller communities from being forced to make unauthorised encampments, having nowhere to go, and prevent the small minority of Travellers who demand money to leave sites where they are not entitled to be.
I acknowledge the difficulty that people or businesses can face with unauthorised encampments on their land. The Victims’ Commissioner put it well when she said that
“unless there is proper provision of authorised encampments, you have two sets of victims. I quite agree with you that the people who are distressed, damaged or whatever by an unauthorised encampment are victims of that. There is no doubt of it…but I want you to take into account the difficulty of finding somewhere to camp in a lot of places, which forces people into an unlawful place.” ––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 21 May 2021; c. 120, Q193.]
The Policing Minister also claimed that money for sites was available in the £150 million affordable homes programme pot, but the last shared ownership affordable homes programme in 2016 to 2021, with a budget of £4.7 billion, awarded grants for just two Traveller sites across the whole country in the scheme’s entire period. They were both just transit sites in Birmingham and Cornwall. That was revealed by Friends, Families & Travellers, which FOI-ed Homes England to find that information. Funding for Traveller sites must be more than warm words.
The Minister also claimed that there has been an increase in the number of caravans on sites from 14,000 in 2010 to 20,000 in 2019, but she failed to point out that the number of caravans counted on sites is different from the actual number of pitches. The 14,000 and 20,000 figures are the total number of caravans counted that are listed as unauthorised sites in the caravan parks. While there has indeed been a rise from 14,730 in January 2010 to 19,967 in January 2020, the number of caravans on socially rented sites fell by 364.
Small-scale, family-run sites are great for those who have the resources to pull this off, but they are incredibly problematic and inaccessible for those who live in areas where land is at a premium and who have limited finances. It is the number of permanent pitches that can really improve things for Travellers, residents, local authorities and the police. Although there has been a 39.9% increase in transit pitches alone, it amounts to an increase of only 101 pitches—the equivalent of 10 per year over 10 years—with an overall decrease of 11.1% in permanent pitches on local authority and registered social landlord sites. In fact, the Government’s published figures show that there has been an overall 8.4% decrease of pitches on local authority Traveller sites. Nesil Caliskan, the chair of the Local Government Association, told us in the evidence sessions:
“There has to be a commitment from local authorities that those sites are allocated. The statutory legislation that already exists for these protected characteristics needs to be taken seriously. We should be meeting the obligations that are already set in statute, which says that we should have adequate sites for these communities, but we just do not.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 68, Q99.]
The Government should focus on ensuring that local authorities have the resources they need to provide more space for Traveller communities to legally reside. By taking an enforcement approach to address the number of unauthorised encampments, the Government are overlooking the issue of the lack of site provision.
Part 4 of the Bill would cause harm to Gypsy and Traveller communities for generations. Gypsies and Travellers are already the most disproportionally represented group in the criminal justice system. Part 4 would compound the inequalities already experienced by Gypsies and Travellers and further push them into the criminal justice system, just for existing nomadically. I urge the Government to rethink these harmful proposals.
Victoria Atkins
I am very grateful to Opposition Members for debating this matter, because it gives me the opportunity to clear up some of the misunderstandings that appear to have arisen during the course of the Bill being debated and scrutinised by Parliament, and indeed by organisations outside Parliament.
We know that the vast majority of Travellers are law-abiding citizens, but when damage, disruption or distress is caused where a person resides on land without consent, it can affect local communities as well as landowners. Residents often feel helpless as their land or local amenities are damaged or disrupted, and councils are left with huge clean-up bills in some cases. In 2016, Birmingham City Council incurred costs of £700,000 due to evictions and clean-up costs resulting from harmful unauthorised encampments—that is £700,000 of taxpayers’ money. It is only right that the Government seek to protect citizens who are adversely affected by harmful unauthorised encampments, and to deter them from being set up in the first instance.
We have held consultations on this issue. In the 2018 Government consultation on enforcement powers for unauthorised encampments, it was made clear that people want to see greater protection for local communities, and for the police to be given greater powers to crack down on unauthorised encampments. In 2019, we ran a further consultation in which we asked how we should extend those powers. Some 66% of the people responding on behalf of local authorities were in favour of a new criminal offence for intentional trespass. At the start of our proceedings in oral evidence, we heard powerful accounts from PCC Alison Hernandez about the impact of unauthorised encampments in her area of Devon and Cornwall. Only today we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, and from my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield and for Blyth Valley, about the impact that unauthorised encampments and harmful behaviour within those encampments have had on their constituencies.
It is that caveat that is critical when we are looking at these clauses. Clause 61 introduces a new criminal offence for people residing on private or public land with vehicles who refuse to leave, without a reasonable excuse, when asked to do so, but only when they have caused, or are likely to cause, significant damage, disruption or distress. That is the key: that is what I kept asking those who spoke against these provisions during the evidence sessions. It is clear that for this offence to be committed, the conditions set out in subsection (4) of the proposed new section must be met: in other words, in a case where the person is residing on the land, significant damage or disruption has been caused or is likely to be caused as a result of P’s residence.
Ian Levy
Would the Minister clear a point up for me, just so I can get straight in my head what this Bill is setting out to do? A few years ago, we had the tall ships regatta in Blyth, and all the caravan sites were full, the bed and breakfasts were full, the hotels were full—it was a fantastic time. We had a massive influx of people coming to Blyth Valley. My cousin is a landowner, and he was asked by a group of people who were coming down whether he could turn over part of a field so that people could put their caravans there. About 50 caravans turned up in total. They stayed, they enjoyed the weekend, and they cleared up after themselves—they had a litter pick when they left, putting all the rubbish to one side. My cousin did not charge the group, but they brought toys for the kids and flowers for his wife. The Bill is not setting out to stop tourism, is it? It is not setting out to stop that guy in his caravan or that man with his camper van. It is to stop the unlawful things that go on: litter, breaking into houses, and anything like that. If the Minister could clear that up for me, that would be fantastic.
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, and I am really happy to clarify this. I understand the concerns that have been voiced, but there is clearly a great deal of misunderstanding as to how these provisions are intended to act. They are intended to address the criminal, damaging, disrupting or distressing behaviour that arises from some unauthorised encampments—certainly not all; we are caveating this very carefully. Where there are unauthorised encampments in which people are behaving in a way that is causing, or is likely to cause, significant disruption, damage or distress, that is the behaviour we are trying to target.
I have listened very carefully to the arguments from the Opposition, particularly those regarding the provision of authorised encampments, and I am going to come on to the details of the Government’s plans for that in due course. However, to say that the answer to this behaviour is to provide authorised encampments is to miss the intention and, indeed, the very drafting of this clause. People can go on to a piece of land without agreement, but this offence will not be committed unless the conditions in subsection (4) are met. That is why I asked some of the witnesses, “What is an acceptable level of distress?” We as constituency MPs need to be able to look our constituents in the eye when we are voting on this legislation and say, “We have weighed up what may be significant disruption, what may be significant damage and what may be significant distress, and have tried to ensure that we are representing your views when we are opining on this piece of legislation.”
Mr Goodwill
The Minister will be aware that quite often, this land is agricultural land, which is needed for farmers and landowners to graze their stock. In a dry season, as it was earlier in this season, the last thing that farmers want is land that they can use for their own livestock being taken over and possibly used for the grazing of the horses of people who have come on to their land.
Victoria Atkins
Of course, it will not just be a question of horses. My farmers have the pleasure of farming some of the greatest, highest-quality agricultural land in the country, and they go to great efforts to ensure that their arable fields are ploughed, sowed, and treated to ensure optimum production of crop yields in each and every field that they farm. The use of a large vehicle—or, indeed, many large vehicles—which is not farm machinery and therefore not driven by the person who tends to a field going on to that field can cause damage. At this time of year, when driving around agricultural areas, one will see entrances to fields blockaded with all sorts of large items to try to ensure that they are not trespassed upon in the way that we are trying to tackle in the Bill.
I draw to colleagues’ attention the fact that we have caveated damage, distress and disruption with the word “significant”. We have tried throughout the Bill to strike a proportionate balance between landowners’ and communities’ rights to the peaceful enjoyment of and access to property and land, and Travellers’ rights to lead a nomadic way of life in line with their cultural heritage. The qualifying condition of “significant” damage, disruption or distress means that a higher threshold must be met than under the existing powers for tackling unauthorised encampments in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which clause 62 amends. Under the provisions of the 1994 Act, the test is simply causing damage, disruption or distress, so the higher threshold in the Bill helps to ensure that the offence and the powers of arrest, seizure or forfeiture are proportionate.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister places a lot of stock in the word “significant”. To play devil’s advocate—perhaps against myself—she may be holding out a false promise to some of the communities we have heard described today. If a gang of Travellers turn up with 10 caravans, move on to someone’s land illegally—or it would be illegal under the Bill—take their rubbish away and do the work they want to do in the area, they will not be caught by the provision because they will not have caused “significant damage”. Communities across the country think that the Conservative Government are about to deliver all-encompassing, “we can move the Travellers on” legislation, but it is simply not the case.
Victoria Atkins
In that scenario, the hon. Gentleman is right, in that we are addressing the behaviour that is set out in proposed new section 60C(4). In the event of a travelling community behaving as he describes, all the existing civil measures that a landowner can rely upon are there to move them on. We are trying to deal with behaviour that causes significant damage, distress and disruption where encampments are unauthorised. We are balancing things carefully because we want to address the serious scenarios that my hon. Friends have described in their constituencies.
As we have touched on in other contexts, the word “significant” is widely used in legislation, for example in section 14A of the Public Order Act 1986 on “Prohibiting trespassory assemblies”, which refers to “significant damage”. The criminal offence is committed only when a person resides or intends to reside on the land without consent with a vehicle. That avoids criminalising other forms of trespass, for example, the offence does not apply to a hiker, someone who is homeless or someone who inadvertently strays on to private land. I know that many colleagues of all parties have received communications from clubs, associations and people who have taken the time to write to their Member of Parliament or the Home Office on the issue and we very much hope that this will provide them with welcome reassurance. We all have the right to enjoy the beautiful national parks and green spaces that this great country has to offer and we will be able to continue to exercise that right.
The types of harms caught by the offence are defined in clause 61 and cover many of the problems we have been told that residents and landowners face through some unauthorised encampments. These include significant damage to land, property and the environment, as well as threatening behaviour to residents and landowners. Regarding distress, an offence is committed only if significant distress has been caused or is likely to be caused as a result of offensive conduct, which is then defined within the Bill. It is therefore not possible for an offence to be caught if a person is distressed by the mere presence of an unauthorised encampment on the land. That is where the civil measures I referred to earlier will come into play.
I was challenged with an example where a landowner is distressed and demands the police arrest someone. As with every other criminal offence, the police will only arrest someone if they are doing so in the course of their duties under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. They cannot and must not arrest someone just because a landowner or anyone else happens to demand it. It is important as we are discussing the Bill that we bear in mind the wider checks and balances within the criminal justice system and the wider principles that apply across all criminal offences.
If someone has met the previously mentioned conditions, to be guilty of the offence, they must fail to comply with the request to leave as soon as reasonably practicable and without reasonable excuse. The duties of the police in relation to safeguarding the vulnerable when taking enforcement decisions will continue to apply, as with any other criminal investigation.
The penalties are consistent with squatting legislation and existing powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. The offence is also accompanied by a power for the police to seize the vehicle and other property of the person committing the offence, which ensures that enforcement action is effective and could also have a deterrent effect. Seizure powers are already conferred on the police in relation to failure to comply with a police direction under the 1994 Act. It is right that the police should have equivalent powers in the context of the new criminal offence.
The seizure power is proportionate. Where possible, police decisions to arrest and seize vehicles should continue to be taken in consultation with the local authority which, where possible, would need to offer assurance that it has relevant measures in place to meet any welfare and safeguarding needs of those affected by the loss of their accommodation. The police will continue to undertake any enforcement action in compliance with their equality and human rights obligations.
The shadow Minister set out the police evidence on these new powers. The responses to the 2018 consultation showed a clear desire from the public for the police to be given more powers to tackle unauthorised encampments, but unauthorised Traveller sites require a locally driven, multi-agency response, led by local authorities and supported by the police. There are incentives in place for local authorities to encourage the provision of authorised Traveller pitches. Local planning authorities should continue to assess the need for Traveller accommodation and identify land for sites.
It is only right that the police are given the powers to tackle instances of unauthorised encampments that meet the conditions of proposed new subsection (4). We are very pleased that the Opposition are adopting the position that we should legislate for changes to police powers when requested by the police, because that gives us hope that they will support the measures in part 3, which we have just debated and which have been requested by the police.
This new offence is not targeted at any particular group. Rather, anyone who causes significant damage, disruption or distress in the specified conditions and who refuses to leave without reasonable excuse when asked to do so will be caught by the offence.
Section 61 of the 1994 Act is currently exercisable where any of the trespassers has caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, Under the amendments in clause 62, the relevant harms comprise damage, disruption or distress, including environmental damage, such as excessive noise and litter. The harms do not need to be significant for police to be able to direct trespassers away in the first instance. That will make it easier for the police to direct trespassers away where encampments are causing problems for landowners, communities or businesses.
We have also increased the period in which trespassers directed away from the land must not return, from three months to 12 months. That is designed to strengthen enforcement powers, acting as a greater deterrent in the first place, and to protect more proportionately the rights of landowners and local communities. We are also enabling the police to direct trespassers away from land that forms part of a highway, to ensure that directions can be given to trespassers on roads.
Our overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers in a way that facilitates their traditional nomadic way of life while respecting the interests of local residents and the settled community. We recognise that the vast majority of Travellers are law-abiding citizens, but unauthorised sites can often give an unfair negative image of nomadic communities, and cause distress and misery to residents who live nearby. We are equally clear that we will not tolerate law breaking.
Statutory guidance will be issued, as provided for in clause 63, and will outline examples of what might constitute a reasonable excuse for not complying with the request to leave. That guidance will be vital to support the police in discharging those functions and will help to ensure a consistent application of the powers across England and Wales. The police must have regard to the guidance when exercising the relevant functions. We envisage that the guidance will set out, for example, what might constitute significant damage, disruption and distress, and what might constitute a reasonable excuse, where someone fails to comply with a request to leave the land. It will be up to the police and courts to decide whether someone has a reasonable excuse for not complying, depending on the specific facts of that case.
We recognise the rights of Travellers to follow a nomadic way of life, in line with their cultural heritage. Our aim is for settled and Traveller communities to be able to live side by side harmoniously, and we hope that the clear rules and boundaries that we are putting in place will facilitate that. We remain committed to delivering a cross-Government strategy to tackle the inequalities faced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. The planning policy for Traveller sites is clear that local planning authorities should assess the need for Traveller accommodation and identify land for sites. Local housing authorities are required to assess their housing and accommodation needs under the Housing Act 1985, including for those who reside in caravans. There is wider Government support for the provision of Traveller sites via the new homes bonus, which provides an incentive for local authorities to encourage housing growth in their areas, and rewards net increases in effective housing stock, including the provision of authorised Traveller pitches.
Alex Cunningham
Does the Minister have an idea what the Government’s plans are in terms of the number of sites that are likely to be created over the next three to five years?
Victoria Atkins
That is a matter for local authorities. We have the planning policy for Traveller sites, which is down to the local planning authority. In the hon. Gentleman’s area, I know not whether his local council agrees with him that there should be more sites, but it would be a matter for the local authority to address with local residents.
We remain committed to delivering the strategy to tackle the inequalities faced by the communities that we have discussed. There is the additional affordable homes programme for local authorities to deliver a wide range of affordable homes to meet the housing needs of people in different circumstances and different housing markets, including funding for new Traveller pitches.
We believe that we have struck the right balance between the rights of those who live a nomadic way of life and the rights of local communities to go about their lives without the significant damage, disruption and distress outlined in proposed new section 60C(4), which, regrettably, some unauthorised encampments cause. I therefore commend clauses 61 to 63 to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Amendments to existing powers
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63
Guidance on exercise of police powers in respect of trespassers on land etc
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64
Causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs: increased penalties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. The clause fulfils the Government’s long-standing commitment to increase the maximum penalty for the offences of, first, causing death by dangerous driving and, secondly, causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs from, in both cases, the current maximum sentence of 14 years to life imprisonment.
As members of the Committee will know, in response to the consultation on driving offences and penalties some time ago, the Government proposed to take forward various changes in the law, including these, and all of them received overwhelming public support and support from other consultees. By enacting this clause we are delivering on the result of that consultation and on a long-standing commitment. That means that when sentencing people for these very serious offences, the courts can sentence up to life imprisonment if the judge sees fit.
Many hon. Members will have constituency cases where families have suffered the terrible trauma of a loved one being killed by a dangerous or careless driver who was driving when drunk. I have certainly encountered a number of such cases in the last six years as a constituency MP, as I am sure each and every Member here has. The criminal justice system can never adequately compensate for the grief caused by the loss of a loved one in such terrible circumstances, but these changes will mean that courts now have the power to make sure that the punishment truly fits the crime.
It is appropriate that the maximum sentences for causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while under the influence are increased from 14 years to life imprisonment. I commend these measures to the Committee.
Alex Cunningham
I am pleased to offer the Opposition’s enthusiastic support for clauses 64 to 66, and particularly for clause 64, which will increase the maximum penalties for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs from 14 years’ imprisonment to imprisonment for life.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for their committed work to increase the penalty for those guilty of causing death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment and for the Bill they have promoted and supported. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East has worked alongside the family of Jaqueline Wileman, from Grimethorpe, who was 58 when she was struck and tragically killed by a stolen heavy goods vehicle in September 2018. I offer my sincerest thanks to the Wileman family for their tireless campaign for change, which they are now able to see become a reality.
Other families of victims of these awful crimes have also long campaigned to see these changes, such as the family of Violet-Grace, who died from injuries inflicted as a result of a car crash caused by individuals driving dangerously in March 2017. I hope that this change in the law, which they have fought to bring forward, will provide some small solace that dangerous drivers who kill will, in future, feel the full force of the law.
Work to address this important issue has been energetic on both sides of the House, and it was the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) who introduced the Death by Dangerous Driving (Sentencing) Bill in July 2020, as a private Member’s Bill co-sponsored by my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East and for Barnsley Central. We are therefore fully supportive of the Government’s proposal to provide the court with a wider range of penalties to ensure that sentences are proportionate and reflect the seriousness of the offending.
The urgent need for this change is illustrated by the fact that, in 2019, over 150 people were sentenced for causing death by dangerous driving. Of those offenders, around 95% received an immediate custodial sentence, of which over 15 received a sentence of more than 10 years. If 10% of offenders are already being sentenced near the maximum threshold, it seems the time is ripe to provide the court with wider sentencing powers for these offences so that offenders are dealt with consistently and fairly.
Although we are fully supportive of these changes, I note that there has been some delay in introducing them. The Government committed to changing the law on causing death by dangerous driving following a review in 2014—seven years ago. As the Minster said, it has been a long-standing commitment. There was also a consultation in 2016, which the Government responded to in 2017, committing to the legislative changes that are now in the Bill. The private Member’s Bill brought forward by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead last year was a real nudge along to the Government, following a perceived dropping of the ball. I would normally say, “Better late than never,” but for a measure as serious as this, and with hundreds of families losing loved ones to dangerous drivers in the intervening years, I wonder what held the Government up for so long.
Speaking of delays, Cycling UK said that, although it cautiously supports these proposals, it fears they will do very little to address the many serious problems with the framework of road traffic offences and penalties. I understand that the Government promised a full review of the framework back in 2014, but it has never happened. I would welcome an update from the Minister on the wider review, which could look at the utilisation of driving bans.
We fully support the proposals in clause 65, which introduces the new offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving, and sets the maximum penalty for the offence on indictment at two years’ imprisonment.
Alex Cunningham
In that case, I will sit down and address that point later.
Chris Philp
I have nothing further to add to my earlier answers. We keep these matters under continual review. There are no plans to make changes just at the moment, but we do of course keep an eye on these matters.
Alex Cunningham
A review was promised in 2014. Is that review likely to be held soon?
Chris Philp
I am afraid that I have no specific information on that, other than to say that we keep an eye on these matters on an ongoing basis.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 64 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65
Causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, driving
Chris Philp
This clause has a very similar intention to the previous clause, in that it introduces a new section 2C offence into the Road Traffic Act 1988 to fill a lacuna in the existing legislation. It does that by introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving. There is currently no offence that covers this, so we are filling a gap that exists in the current legislation.
The new offence created by the clause is committed if a person causes serious injury by driving a car or another mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or public place without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users and, while doing so, causes serious injury.
The maximum custodial penalty for the offence on indictment will be two years’ imprisonment or a fine. The maximum custodial penalty on summary conviction will be 12 months or a fine. Until such time as section 224 of the sentencing code is commenced, the maximum penalty on summary conviction in England and Wales will be read as six months.
This is an important clause, which fills a gap in the current law and ensures that, where serious injury is caused by someone who is driving carelessly or inconsiderately, there will be an offence that can be prosecuted with an appropriate penalty—in this case, a maximum of two years if tried on indictment. I hope the Committee will agree that this is a sensible measure and will support the clause.
Alex Cunningham
As I prematurely said some minutes ago, we fully support the proposals in clause 65, which introduces the new offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving and sets the maximum penalty for the offence on indictment, as the Minister said, at two years’ imprisonment.
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 made provision for new offences for dangerous and disqualified driving, but left the gap the Minister referred to in the law, relating to careless driving that results in serious injury. As I said before, we welcome the sensible proposal in clause 65, which fills that gap and will allow for a penalty that recognises the high level of harm caused by these incidents. As a result, the Opposition support clause 66 and schedule 7, which make minor consequential amendments as a result of clauses 64 and 65.
The Minister will hear me ask about the impact that many of the measures in the Bill will have on the prison system. I will start here. The Opposition would welcome further information from him about the impact on the prison system. I note that the impact assessment estimates that the changes to road traffic offences will result in about 1,300 offenders per annum receiving longer sentences. How does he see foresee that affecting prison numbers as a whole in the coming years? Can he say anything further about what sentence increases for those 1,300 offenders the Government are basing their modelling on? I raise that because the impact assessment estimates that the combined impact of the Bill’s sentencing provisions for adults will result in
“a total increase in the adult prison population of around 700 offenders in steady state by 2028-29 although this impact will begin to be felt from 2021-22 with just over 200 additional prisoners”.
The impact is to be felt very shortly indeed, and at a time when our prison services are recovering from the exceptional operational difficulties of the pandemic.
We know that, despite a building programme, many of our prisons remain unfit for the vast population of prisoners they now have to accommodate. We also know that increased violence—both prisoner on prisoner and prisoner on prison officer—and drugs remain a constant problem for our hard-working governors and prison officers to deal with. Given all the additional prisoners that the system will have to cope with in not just seven or eight years’ time but as early as next year, how will the Government ensure that our prisons do not become even more overcrowded and unsafe? While the Minister offers reassurance on that, will he also outline how the Government will ensure that prisons are properly equipped to carry out important rehabilitative work with offenders?
Chris Philp
Debates about conditions in prisons are probably somewhat outside the scope of our discussion, save to say that the Prisons Minister works on a daily basis to ensure that our prisons provide the right sort of environment, including for rehabilitative purposes.
The shadow Minister asked about the prison population and drew attention to the overall impact assessment for the Bill. As he said, the impact assessment, in which these measures are listed as measures A to C for driving offences, estimates that 1,300 offenders may be affected. The impact on prison places obviously depends on how judges sentence the new offence—measure C in the impact assessment—and how sentences vary under clause 64, which we discussed previously, given that the maximum is being increased from 14 years to life. However, that is all included in the overall figure of 700 places that covers the entire Bill.
The shadow Minister asked about the availability of prison places in the light of the pandemic. That again is more a matter for the Prisons Minister, but the overall prison population today is materially lower than prior to the pandemic—I speak from memory, but I think it is 5,000 or 6,000 lower—for a variety of reasons that I am sure the shadow Minister is aware of. Therefore, the pressures on the prison population coming out of the pandemic may be a little less severe than one might have feared.
I repeat my support for the clause, which fills an important gap in the law.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66
Road traffic offences: minor and consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Chris Philp
Clause 66 and schedule 7 introduce a number of minor consequential amendments to be made to other Acts as a result of the offence we discussed in the previous clause. The consequential amendments to proposed new section 2C to the Road Traffic Act 1988 —causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, driving—are among those. It inserts a new section 3ZB and 3ZC into that Act, and tidies up various other anomalies. In essence, they are minor, inconsequential amendments that follow the previous clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 67
Courses offered as alternative to prosecution: fees etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Clause 67 provides a specific statutory power for the current charging arrangements for education courses offered for minor driving offences as an alternative to a fixed penalty or prosecution. Those courses help to improve road safety and reduce the burden on the criminal justice system. The provisions in this clause will not change the way in which courses are offered, administered or run, but will provide greater transparency over the way that fees are set. A local policing body may charge a fee to cover the cost of the approved course, but also include an uplift as a contribution towards the cost of promoting road safety, including road safety partnerships and speed cameras.
The clause will also allow the Home Secretary to prescribe in secondary legislation the types of courses in which motorists may be charged, the maximum amount that may be charged and the way that the charge can be used. It will allow provision to be made to prevent courses from being offered to repeat offenders. That means that any potential repeat offenders will face the deterrent of fixed penalty fines and penalty points on their licence. Equivalent provisions are made for Northern Ireland, and there are allowances for corresponding or similar provision for Scotland, following consultation with the Lord Advocate.
Bambos Charalambous
We support clause 67 and welcome that the charging regime for courses offered as an alternative to prosecution will be placed on a statutory footing. It makes a lot of sense that a course cannot be offered to repeat offenders, but I would like to ask the Minister a question about proposed new part 4B, section 91G, which states:
“A fee may be set at a level that exceeds the cost of an approved course and related administrative expenses, but any excess must be used for the purpose of promoting road safety.”
Can the Minister provide an example of why a fee would be set at a level that exceeds the cost, and how much that could be? How much do the fees vary across police forces? Police forces can decide which courses to offer, so not all courses will be available in all areas. The same offence committed in different force areas may be dealt with in different ways.
What will the clause do to ensure that there is a consistent application of diversionary courses across the country? If the courses are to be effective methods of deterrence and rehabilitation of offenders, it is important that their use be consistent. In its 2016 report, the Transport Committee said of diversionary courses:
“There are clearly concerns about the transparency of the operation and funding of diversionary courses, reinforced by the variations in fees between force areas and the profits earned by providers.”
It also recommended that:
“the costs for diversionary courses should be standardised nationwide unless there is a clear and convincing reason not to do so…so that the public can be confident in the transparency of these courses.”
Although clause 67 allows the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the level of fees, use of fee income and how fees are to be calculated, can the Minister tell us whether a standardised cost may be considered in secondary regulations?
Victoria Atkins
As I said, the clause permits charges to be laid in excess of the cost of the approved course, but will also permit a contribution towards the cost of promoting road safety, including road safety partnerships and speed cameras. In principle, that seems to be a good approach; if one falls foul of driving legislation, a contribution to the costs of keeping our streets safe locally seems to be a proportionate response.
The current course fee is approximately £100, but that can vary according to local course arrangements. The types of course offered and course costs can be found on the national driver offender retraining scheme, which is available online at www.ukroed.org.uk. The type of course offered and the costs can vary by police force and supplier, but we want to ensure that there is greater transparency in the way that fees are set, enabling the setting of maximum amounts that can be charged to provide, run and administer such courses. There is no immediate intention to introduce standard fees unless it is considered appropriate after consultation with relevant stakeholders.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68
Charges for removal, storage and disposal of vehicles
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
The police have the power to remove vehicles that are illegally, dangerously or obstructively parked, broken down or abandoned, including after theft or a road traffic collision. The cost of the recovery, storage and disposal of such vehicles should not fall to the police or the taxpayer.
Clause 68 will clarify the legal basis for the police’s charging for vehicle recovery under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That will ensure that the police can continue to recover the cost of removing, storing and disposing of vehicles, including those causing an obstruction or danger—for example, vehicles damaged in a road traffic collision. The clause will also ensure that all appropriate authorities covered under the 1984 Act can continue to recover such costs, which includes the Secretary of State and Highways England.
Bambos Charalambous
Clause 68 is described in the explanatory notes as being intended
“to return to a statutory footing”
the legal basis for charging for removing or impounding vehicles. However, in an article in the Daily Mail, it has been described as fixing an “incredible legal gaffe”.
The powers to charge for vehicle removal, storage and disposal were actually introduced in 1984, but the explanatory notes explain that
“the police’s power to charge for the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles within the meaning of ‘civil enforcement areas for parking contraventions’”
seems to have been inadvertently removed due to a drafting error. At the same time, the power of local authorities, the Secretary of State and strategic highways companies to charge for the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles were also inadvertently removed.
I want to ask the Minister about the implications of the error, and what changes or problems the passing of clause 68 might bring. Will the many drivers who for the past 30 years have been charged when the legal basis for that charge did not actually exist be able to take legal action? Will the Government review what has happened?
Howard Cox, of the motoring pressure group FairFuelUK, has said:
“Drivers who in the last 30 years have been charged illegally should demand their vehicle confiscation costs be repaid in full. They should be checking that they have the historic paperwork to mount a legal challenge. This is not a question of their offences being right or wrong—it is down to the government’s incompetence that is off the scale. The authorities and those responsible must pay for this idiocy.”
Jeanette Miller, of the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers, told the Daily Mail that it was
“a major error in the legislation that has resulted in goodness knows how many millions being charged to motorists without any lawful basis”.
She added:
“Where this leaves motorists in terms of seeking refunds is difficult to say. There is a limitation period of six years in pursuing civil claims, but this can start from the date of the breach or, crucially, the date of knowledge.”
The fees for storage and release of vehicles can be hundreds of pounds. The police and other bodies can charge £150 to tow a vehicle, and car-owners can also be charged up to £20 a day for storage of a car and up to £75 to dispose of it. The Government’s impact assessment says:
“There are no impacts associated with this measure. The new provision returns to a statutory footing the position as it applied before the inadvertent removal of these powers due to a drafting error. There will be no additional impact beyond that.”
It is hard to believe that there will be no impact if potentially millions of people have been charged for the storage and release of vehicles when there was no legal basis for that charge.
There is not simple data collection on the number of impounded vehicles, so could the Minister provide us with some figures for how many people she estimates have been affected by this error since 1991?
I also ask the Minister what this will mean for our cash-strapped police forces, local authorities and highways agencies. They could face huge bills if they are forced to compensate drivers for their legal costs, so this error could have serious, wide-ranging consequences. I hope the Minister can reassure the Committee that the Government will be taking swift action to come up with a solution, so that this mistake does not become a national scandal.
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for setting out the history of the regulation and its drafting. The police have other powers to charge for the removal of vehicles used in a manner that is causing alarm, distress or annoyance, or being driven without a driving licence or insurance. The only power affected was the power to charge for the removal of vehicles that were abandoned or broken down.
This provision clarifies the statutory basis of the ability of the police, Secretary of State or strategic highways companies to charge for vehicle recovery. Local authorities were not affected, as the amendment to the 1984 Act focused on the powers of local authorities and inadvertently removed other powers to charge. We believe it has been right for the police to continue to charge for vehicle recovery: that has avoided costs being borne by the taxpayer, and has allowed the police to continue removing abandoned vehicles to keep roads safe for other drivers and pedestrians. If the police were unable to deal with vehicle removal, significant inconvenience would be caused to the travelling public and commerce by the obstruction of highways by vehicles.
The hon. Gentleman stated some of the fees that can be charged. It is important to explain the thinking behind those: police contracts require operators to deal with a range of different vehicles, provide a guaranteed speedy response, and to have specialist equipment and secure storage facilities. Vehicles are often accident-damaged, do not free-wheel and are difficult to access—or they may require forensic examination, and must therefore be removed and stored with the highest standards of professionalism. I believe that is all I can do to assist the hon. Gentleman with his queries.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Production of licence to the court
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 70 to 73 stand part.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 74 stand part.
That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 75 stand part.
Victoria Atkins
Clauses 69 to 74 and schedules 8 and 9 update the law in relation to the production and surrender of driving licences, so as to streamline the processes for the electronic endorsement of driving licences by removing the need for the physical licence to be produced. They also strengthen the rules for the surrender of driving licences where a driver faces disqualification.
The current legal requirement to produce and surrender the driving licence as part of the endorsement process is now outdated. In 2015, the paper driving licence counterpart, which previously recorded the endorsement, was abolished, and the information is now only recorded on Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency electronic drivers’ records. There is therefore no need for a physical driving licence to be produced and surrendered, or for an endorsement to be recorded on an individual’s driving record. The only need for a licence to be produced or surrendered is when the driver may be sentenced to disqualification or is actually disqualified. The clauses and schedules bring the law up to date, removing any need for individuals to deliver or post their licence before a hearing, and leaving only a duty to take their licence to court if there is a hearing and if they attend.
Clause 70 provides the Secretary of State—in practice, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—with the power to require the surrender of a driving licence to the agency where a court has ordered disqualification. Failure to do so would be a summary offence, carrying a maximum penalty of a level 3 fine—currently £1,000. Where an individual is disqualified, the court will notify the DVLA and forward the licence to it when it has been surrendered at court. When it has not been surrendered at court, the DVLA will follow up production of the licence with the disqualified driver using the new power.
The clauses also remove the need for the production and surrender of the driving licence and allow police constables and vehicle examiners to issue a fixed penalty notice without checking and retaining a physical driving licence.
Clause 75 is included at the request of the Scottish Government. Its objective is to make better use of police and judicial resources in Scotland. Currently, the police throughout Great Britain have the power to issue a conditional offer of a fixed penalty notice under sections 75 to 77A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The scheme was introduced in 1989 as an alternative to prosecution for certain low-level road traffic offences. Once a conditional offer of a fixed penalty is issued, an individual has 28 days to accept the offer and make payment. In Scotland, if the offer is not accepted or the recipient fails to take any action, the police will submit a standard prosecution report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for consideration of whether a prosecution should take place.
Clause 75 grants the power to issue fixed penalty notices on the spot in Scotland for minor road traffic offences. That power is already available in England and Wales. In contrast to the position with conditional offers of fixed penalty notices, when the recipient of a fixed penalty notice fails to respond it simply becomes a registered fine at one and a half times the original penalty. That approach is attractive to the Scottish Government as a means of reducing the burden on the police, prosecutors and courts while preserving the recipient’s right to challenge a fixed penalty notice, should they wish to do so.
The clause will apply in the first instance to the police, but the Scottish Government want to be able to consider its potential extension to traffic wardens and vehicle examiners at their own pace and following further consideration.
I commend the clauses and schedules to the Committee.
Alex Cunningham
The Opposition also support the remaining clauses in part 5. They are sensible, helpful and well evidenced, and we are glad to offer our support for them. Currently, when a fixed penalty notice has been issued, a driver must surrender their licence to the relevant authority, but since the paper counterpart licence was abolished in 2015, there is no need for a driving licence to be produced for an endorsement to be recorded against a driver’s driving record.
Clauses 69 to 74 will finally remove the redundant requirement for a physical driving licence to be produced when a fixed penalty notice has been issued and they will also strengthen the rules for the surrender of driving licences when a driver faces disqualification.
Clause 69 will amend section 27(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to provide that courts are no longer required to oblige licence production. Instead, the courts will be provided with powers that they may exercise at their discretion. This power will apply both where the court proposes to disqualify and where it disqualifies a licence.
Clauses 70 and 71 make further amendments to the 1988 Act, the effect of which, when taken together with clause 69, is to remove the need to produce a driving licence from the fixed penalty process. This streamlining is welcome and hopefully will in some small way reduce the administrative burden on our under-resourced and overstretched courts system, as it will no longer need to handle the physical licence where a driver faces endorsement, but not disqualification.
In recent years, attempts have been made to update the law in this area through private Members’ Bills, which have had Government support. The attempt made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) fell after its Committee stage because of the 2017 general election. The attempt made in the 2017-to-2019 Session by the right hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) did not even manage to progress past its First Reading. I am glad that the Government are at last introducing the measure in a Government Bill in Government time.
We are also content with clause 75, which extends the police power that the police in England and Wales currently have to issue on-the-spot fines for certain moving traffic offences to police in Scotland. I am aware of the Department for Transport’s joint consultation with the Scottish Government on this topic from 2018. Doesn’t it take a long time for things to happen in law? The majority of the responses to the consultation supported the proposed changes and seemed to indicate the need for fixed penalty notice reform in Scotland for suspected road traffic offences, which the Government are sensibly introducing here.
Allan Dorans
I wish to confirm that the Scottish Government welcome the clauses that affect Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 70 to 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Adjourned till Thursday 10 June at half-past Eleven o’clock.
Written evidence reported to the House
PCSCB24 Travelling ahead: Wales.
PCSCB25 The Magistrates Association
PCSCB26 Iryna Pona, The Children’s Society (supplementary submission)
PCSCB27 Howard League for Penal Reform
PCSCB28 Fair Trials
PCSCB29 Chief Superintendent Paul Griffiths, President, Police Superintendents’ Association (supplementary submission)
PCSCB30 Local Government Association (supplementary submission)
PCSCB31 Dr Robert Jones, Lecturer in Criminology, University of South Wales
PCSCB32 British Transport Police
PCSCB33 Maureen Martin et al (re: Reject New Clause 43)
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 8th June 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 June 2021 - (8 Jun 2021)
The Chair
Good morning. Before we begin, let me do the usual preliminary reminders. Please switch your phones and electronic devices to silent. Mr Speaker does not allow tea or coffee in the Committee Room. Members should observe social distancing and sit only in the marked places. Members should wear face coverings when not speaking, unless they are exempt. If you could hand your notes to Hansard colleagues, that would be very helpful indeed.
We will now resume line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room. I remind Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or new clause to a Division that they should indicate their intention to do so when speaking.
Clause 54
Imposing conditions on public processions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 55 stand part.
Clause 56 stand part.
Clause 60 stand part.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Clauses 54 to 60 make up one of the most controversial parts of the Bill. We have seen fierce debates in Parliament and in the media, and protests up and down the country. Beneath the hyped-up culture wars is the very real issue that we will debate again today: what is the balance between our democratic right to protest and the rights of those around us? That is a legitimate question for the Government to ask.
How do we ensure that protests are peaceful? How do we balance the rights of others to go about their daily business? How do we, as parliamentarians, set the framework within which the police can do their jobs? The Opposition believe that the Government’s plans do not answer those questions and we reject the attempts to amend the Public Order Act 1986 with this loosely drafted legislation that would restrict democratic rights to peaceful protest.
Clause 54 imposes conditions on public processions, including powers for the Secretary of State to define serious disruption to the life of a community or the activities of an organisation carried out “in the vicinity” of a public procession, as well as powers for the police to impose conditions when they believe that noise might have
“a significant impact on persons in the vicinity”
or may result in
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation”.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
We probably all have our favourite demonstration from our past. Mine was in the 1970s, when I was a student at Darlington College of Technology. It is lamentable that nowadays students do not spend more time on the streets demonstrating. I remember that day well, because we were going down the streets, shouting, “Heath out! Heath out!” That was the day that Heath resigned. We were very pleased with ourselves—a tremendous result from that demonstration. Does my hon. Friend agree that these restrictions could mean that students will feel even more inhibited about demonstrating in future?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I remember going on the “grants not loans” demonstrations in the late ’80s. He clearly had incredible persuasion in the demonstration he went on, resulting in the desired outcome, and I congratulate him on bringing about that change.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I am pleased to hear that one of us at least had an extremely effective demonstration technique. I can recall many people on our side of the debate going on demonstrations and chanting, “Maggie, Maggie, Maggie! Out, out, out!” for years, and she did not move.
Bambos Charalambous
Not all demonstrations are successful, but that does not mean that people should not protest.
Clause 55 allows the police to place any necessary condition on a public assembly, as they can do now with a public procession. Clause 56 removes the need for an organiser or participants to have knowingly breached a condition, and it increases the maximum sentences for the offence. Clause 60 imposes conditions on one-person protests. Clauses 54 to 56, and clause 60, would make significant changes to the police powers, contained in the Public Order Act 1986, to respond to protests.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned one-person protests. Would he include in that the unacceptable behaviour of Labour’s Scarborough Borough Councillor Theresa Norton, who on 1 May sat in the middle of St Nicholas Street in Scarborough and caused widespread disruption to people going about their everyday business?
Bambos Charalambous
I am not aware of the situation that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about or the circumstances that brought it about. Clearly, people need to be respectful of the people around them when they protest, and they must do so in a lawful way.
Taken together, clauses 54 to 56 and clause 60 make amendments to the 1986 Act that will significantly expand the types of protest on which the police could impose conditions.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Can the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back about 12 or 13 months to the Black Lives Matter demonstrations on Whitehall, when several of his colleagues—Labour MPs—were out there with the rioters? Is that an acceptable level of protest?
Bambos Charalambous
Parliamentarians have a long history of protesting with many different organisations, so I encourage those who feel strongly willed to join protests, if they are appropriate. Clearly, such protests need to be within the scope of the law. If they are breaking the law, the protests need to be dealt with. That is why we have the law, and that is why the law is in place. People need to be respectful of the law in all circumstances.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend was as struck as I was when we had the witnesses in front of us and the police said that, actually, they feel that they have enough powers. They might not be used evenly across the country, which is obviously something on which we need more robust guidance. I remember that when I was very young, in ’89, I came down from the University of Sheffield to protest against the poll tax. We had big demonstrations here in London, and the police felt completely able to charge us on horses. We were kettled, and it was terrifying. Multiple arrests were made without the due process going through. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the witnesses, the police seem to have the powers. Is he as concerned as I am about where these changes are coming from, what the motivation is, and whether they are actually necessary?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. These are operational matters for the police. The police currently have the powers, and they have to be mindful of the impact of their powers on a demonstration and whether they will inflame the situation. Good policing will err on the side of caution on some occasions, but sometimes the police need to deal with a situation that they think will get out of hand. Trying to legislate for what is in the discretion of police officers is wrong, and we should actually trust the police in using their powers of discretion.
The clauses would also widen the types of conditions that the police could place on static protests. The clauses would significantly lower the legal test that must be met for the police to issue conditions on protests. The police would be able to issue conditions on protests where they are noisy enough to cause “intimidation or harassment” or
“serious unease, alarm or distress”
to bystanders. Before using their amended section 12 powers to issue conditions on a protest, the police would have to consider the “likely number of persons” affected by the protest, the “likely duration” of the impact, and the “likely intensity” of the impact. The clauses would also widen the types of conditions that police can issue on static protests to match their powers relating to protest marches. The police would also be able to issue any condition on static protests that they think is necessary
“to prevent…disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”.
Alex Cunningham
Has my hon. Friend had a chance to see the written evidence submitted by Zoe Everett? She describes herself as
“a member and supporter of ACORN for several years.”
In her written evidence, she said:
“Any peaceful assembly of members of the public, be they large-scale political demonstrations and marches, one-person protests, or local campaign actions by community organisations, are likely to be considered disruptive by those who are the intended object of the protest, be they state actors, private businesses and other organisations, or private individuals.”
The point that she makes in her submission is that these increased powers could drive more and more people directly into the criminal justice system. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be lamentable if people who simply want to protest about something very close to their heart could find themselves criminalised as a result of this new legislation?
Bambos Charalambous
Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The people who want to impose these conditions are the very people who the protesters are trying to change; they do not like that, which is why they want to impose these conditions upon them. It is a suppression of people’s rights.
Mr Goodwill
The protest in Scarborough was all about building a third runway at Heathrow and climate change. The holidaymakers taking advantage of the first opportunity to come to the coast were not people directly responsible for making that decision. Their lives were being disrupted and they were not the people directly responsible for the issue that Councillor Norton was concerned about.
Bambos Charalambous
Again, I cannot comment on that individual protest, but the issue of climate change is a very important one; it affects us all, irrespective of where we live. The issue of a third runway may have also been about a wider issue that would have affected everybody, irrespective of where they live. As I say, I cannot comment on that individual protest, but we have to appreciate that certain protests have a wider significance than just the locality where they happen.
Alex Cunningham
The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby makes a really interesting point, because people were demonstrating in his constituency and it came to the notice of the local MP, so he has been directly influenced because of the demonstration that took place in his constituency, and he is the decision maker in relation to this particular issue.
Bambos Charalambous
Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and that demonstration is now going to be in the parliamentary record, so I think the person making the demonstration will have achieved her objective.
Mr Goodwill
I have to say that the correspondence I received in relation to this protest was not from people sympathetic to it. The correspondence was from people whose lives were being disrupted and who wished that something could have been done more quickly to stop that one person from sitting in the middle of the street, disrupting the whole town centre and affecting people’s jobs and livelihoods in Scarborough.
Bambos Charalambous
I accept the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. However, if the purpose of the protest was to create greater publicity for the issue, then the person making the protest will have achieved her objective. That is not to say that disruption was not caused by the person making the protest.
Maria Eagle
I am listening to this exchange with some care. Does my hon. Friend agree that the context of all of this is that there is a fundamental right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly in this country, which is protected by articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights? It is only lawful to interfere with that where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. And it is within that context, of our having those rights as citizens, that any measures proposed in the Bill should be judged.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. These are human rights that have been fundamentally fought for and won. We need to do everything we can to secure them, and they should not be watered down as easily as is being proposed in the Bill.
These powers would also amend the offence of failing to comply with a condition imposed by the police on a protest. It would remove the legal test that requires protesters knowingly to breach a condition to commit an offence. People would commit the amended offence if they disobeyed a condition that they ought to have known was in force. Finally, these powers would allow the police to issue conditions on one-person protests. Currently, protests must involve at least two people in order to engage police powers.
The question we raised about how to ensure that protests are peaceful and how to balance the rights of others to go about their daily business is an important one as the covid crisis eases. We know that the emergency legislation introduced by this place shifted the balance of power away from citizens and towards the state. Organisations such as Liberty, Members across the House, lawyers and others have been concerned throughout that those powers are too great. We gladly handed over those powers, which was the right thing to do, but it is crucial, as we move out of the covid crisis, that we restore those rights with equal enthusiasm.
We need to remember that covid and public health formed the context within which many of the arguments over protests during the past year have occurred. Things have not been as they normally are. Decisions about allowing protests have had an extra layer of complexity, because of the need to protect public health. Decisions have been hampered by the inevitable problems of interpreting exactly what new laws mean, or should mean, in terms of protest. The fact that covid laws did not ban protests has meant that each decision has in part been subjective, putting the police in the firing line for every decision made.
I have heard many times from the police over the past year that they have struggled to be the ones interpreting the law, without the leadership from Government that they needed. The lack of the promised direction from the Home Secretary over the weekend of the Sarah Everard vigil is a stark case in point. The police were seen to be the ones making the political decisions because there was too much ambiguity in the law. That must be a firm lesson for us going forward. It is our job to define the law in a clear way, so that the police are not the ones getting the blame for our law making.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend has got to the nub of the problem, which was highlighted by a number of the witnesses, as I will come to in my speech. This is ambiguous and lacks the clarity that the police need. There is no drive from the police that they need this measure, so why is it in the Bill? What is the motivation behind it? I support my hon. Friend in saying that it should not be there.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will come to later. The Bill includes many ambiguous clauses that will no doubt cause lots of legal argument in the effort to define what they mean. That puts the police in an impossible situation.
A good starting point for this debate are the Peelian principles expressed by Sir Robert Peel when he set out ethical policing in the early 19th century:
“To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.”
Alex Cunningham
I do not know what my hon. Friend’s postbag or email account has been like over recent weeks, but I have been inundated by emails from individuals and organisations asking me to oppose these measures proposed by the Government. Not one person or organisation has contacted me in favour of these measures. He talked of the importance of the police having the approval of the public for what they are doing, but the public do not want this change. Surely the Government do not have the approval of the people for this piece of legislation.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes a good point: policing is done primarily by consent. If the consent is not there and the police do not have the approval of the people, it is a recipe for more disorder. That tips the balance—
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I wonder where the constituents are coming from for the hon. Member for Stockton North.
I can assure him that in South Derbyshire my mailbag is full of mail from people saying, “Please get on with this. We don’t believe that the police use the police powers that they have already, so we need new police powers to make sure that they have those powers and will use them,” in the sure knowledge that their MP backs the Minister putting this through, but also that I am on the side of my residents.
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Member makes an excellent point, but the point is that the police are the ones making the decision, and they should make the decision, because they are in the firing line. They are the ones who actually have to deal with the situation, and they have to call it as they see it. What they do not need is more legislation from Parliament, because they already have the powers in place. They are the ones who have to decide how those powers are used.
Maria Eagle
Does my hon. Friend agree that the police already have significant powers under the Public Order Act 1986 to impose conditions and to prohibit protests, that they have broad discretion as to how those powers are applied and that that can enable individual officers in charge of these matters to use their judgment? Is it not the case that this Bill is seeking to plug gaps that do not appear to exist?
Bambos Charalambous
Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Good policing is done with discretion. What the Bill tries to do is to look at different ways of making the police do certain things that they may not want to do. I think that discretion is a great tool that the police have at their disposal, and they use it very well in what are often very difficult situations.
The Peelian principles are also:
“To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.”
Every word of the Peelian principles holds true today.
It is our belief that the powers in this Bill threaten the fundamental balance between the police and the people. The most draconian clauses are not actually what the police asked for. We believe that these new broad and vague powers will impede the ability of the police rather than helping them to do their job, that these clauses put way too much power into the hands of the Home Secretary and that the powers threaten our fundamental right to peaceful protest. We know that hundreds of thousands of people are very concerned that their democratic right to protest is threatened by these new provisions on public order.
Alex Cunningham
Has my hon. Friend seen the written evidence submitted by Leeds for Europe? It addresses some of the points that he has just outlined. It says:
“The proposals risk making protests ineffective and…curtail fundamental rights of citizens in a democracy, which allow people to express their concerns about the government of the day or other issues that they feel passionately about.”
I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that for the Home Secretary to have these new extensive powers proves that this objection is well founded.
Bambos Charalambous
Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This measure puts more power in the hands of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary may have different views in the future and use the powers in an authoritarian way, which may have a further impact on people’s rights.
Lee Anderson
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best way to protest is through the ballot box?
Bambos Charalambous
That is one way to protest, but elections only come every three or four years. In the intervening period, people have no way to exercise their right to protest via the ballot box and so have other means. The ballot box is also a vote on a whole range of things, while a protest might be for an individual issue not covered by an election.
A few weeks ago, we debated a petition signed by more than 250,000 people. The right to protest is a fundamental freedom and a hard-won democratic tradition that we are deeply proud of. Throughout our history, protests have led to significant changes for the better in this country. Suffragette protests put an end to the discrimination against women in our democracy. Historic trade union protests led to outlawing exploitative employment practices in factories, lifting health and safety standards for workers. Such protests have forced Governments to make the significant changes that we now recognise as fundamental parts of a civilised society.
If the public order provisions in the Bill had been in place when the suffragettes marched for the right to vote, would the women who shouted and screamed noisily for their future have been arrested? Does the Minister think that the marchers for the right to work or those on the anti-apartheid protests should have been stopped for causing annoyance or being too noisy? Do the Government want to stop the children who are shouting loudly for action on climate change or to prevent people across the country from marching to remind people in the establishment that black lives matter?
I support the police 100%; we in the Opposition listen every day to what they tell us. This is a most serious issue, but it is not quite as cut and dried as the Government would have us believe. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services reported on public order measures in its inspection report, “Getting the balance right?” On public order legislation, the inspectorate called for
“a modest reset of the scales”.
By any measure, this is not a modest reset.
The support for new powers on public order was qualified support for the five Government proposals the inspectorate was asked to respond to. What Matt Parr’s report actually said was that the vast majority of police forces were happy with the existing legislation. It was mainly the Met that wanted new powers to deal with very specific events—mainly large-scale, peaceful, Extinction Rebellion protests. What the police have asked for, they have not been given.
In the evidence session, Matt Parr said:
“We were very clear in what we said that any reset should be modest. We also said that, because of article 10 and article 11 rights, some degree of disruption is not just an inevitable by-product, it is sometimes the whole point of the exercise of protest, and on that basis, it has to be encouraged.”
He went on to say that the proposal—these clauses—
“clearly aims to set a lower bar. Personally, when I reviewed it, I did not think the bar was necessarily the problem. There is just as much of a problem with educating and training the police officers and making sure they understand how article 10 and 11 rights can be properly tempered. It was a question of training and understanding as much as it was of where the bar was for disruption.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 52-53, Q77.]
Alex Cunningham
I know this makes me a very old person, but I go back to the 1970s again and police and the exercise of their powers. I was a reporter at a sister paper of The Northern Echo, which had a strike that lasted for some 12 months. Eventually, the company managed to start producing a paper. We demonstrated outside every night and attempted to stop them getting the paper out of the building. It was very successful. The police were using existing powers to arrest many people, but there were very few, if any, convictions. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the new powers here, which we do not really know how the police are going to interpret, could lead to more people being arrested and ending up in the criminal justice system?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend again makes a very good point. The Government clearly have a desire to imprison more people, because they are embarking on a prison-building programme—I do not know whether that is part of the reason why they are introducing these powers. Good policing is using discretion, dealing with each occasion as it arises and policing in a sensitive way. Arresting people should be a last resort, albeit one that the police should use when appropriate.
To quote Matt Parr further:
“I think there are dangers and, as ever, the bar for measuring what was significant or what was serious should be a high one. We all recognise that. It should not be done on the flimsiest of pretexts. Again, it would then be open to challenge, and I think police officers would only wish to use it when they were confident.”—(Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 53, Q77.]
Matt Parr made some important points that should serve as a reminder to Ministers of the problems with clauses 54 to 60. He did not want a lower threshold; he wanted more training for police officers so that they can better understand how articles 10 and 11 might be adhered to. However, the clauses widen the legislation significantly. Does that not make the job of the police in enforcing the legislation more complex?
Lochlinn Parker, the head of civil liberties at ITN Solicitors, said:
“It is going to be down to police officers to try and determine a highly nebulous idea: what is annoying? Everybody is annoyed when a protest takes over the street, but lowering that [threshold] significantly is creating a situation where, if minded to, there will be very little protest that would be lawfully allowed.”
He continued:
“Police will be asked, as they frequently are by the government and the press, why wasn’t more done to stop this protest which caused disruption and problems”.
He also said:
“The political pressure on the police, and potentially their own inclinations in terms of keeping control and order, is going to come to the fore.”
Bob Broadhurst was gold command for the policing of the 2009 G20 protests and now lectures at the London Policing College. Apparently, he choked on his coffee when reading the explanatory notes for the Bill. He said:
“They’re saying protestors are now using new tactics—they’re locking themselves in, they’re gluing themselves down, they’re blocking roads. They were doing that 30 years ago.”
He went on to say:
“None of these tactics are new.”
Clifford Stott, a professor of social psychology at Keele University and expert in protest and police behaviour, argues that, although he vehemently disagrees with the proposals,
“under the Human Rights Act, the police will not be able to enforce any elements of the legislation which interfere with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights—freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association.”
Sarah Champion
Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that the people who are absolutely set on protesting are going to do it regardless of the legislation, in that getting arrested is almost part of their MO? Does he also share my concern that the Bill will have a chilling effect on people’s right to protest, full stop? Secondly, there will be people who are, in their understanding, at completely lawful protests, and will, without any intention on their part, get caught up when the bar is lowered. A whole group of people who should not be arrested will, as my hon. Friend said, be clogging up the police system.
Bambos Charalambous
Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The lowering of the bar will mean that innocent people will be caught up in something when they have gone to protest about a perfectly valid issue that they are concerned about. They may get caught up in this unwittingly and could end up being criminalised as a result .
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is being most generous in giving way. Does he agree that this unnecessary criminalisation of dissent, which would happen if the Bill were enacted, goes against the very best traditions of our history and democracy? We have always prided ourselves on enabling people to dissent and on allowing people to express their views in the public space about current laws and things they wish to change. If these provisions were enacted, it would go completely against that tradition.
Bambos Charalambous
Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Many of the rights we have today are hard won and came about through protest. If it were not for those protests, we would not be here today—certainly, there would not be any female MPs if those rights had not been won.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Forgive me. I do please want to place on the record the enormous contribution that the suffragists made. Indeed, some would argue that while the suffragettes did powerful work in raising awareness, it was the suffragists who worked with male Members of Parliament to pass the very laws that were needed to enable women to sit in this place.
Bambos Charalambous
I acknowledge the huge contribution that the suffragists made, but the suffragettes brought the campaign to prominence. The words displayed by the statue of Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square are the words that she delivered in a speech about Emily Davison, who threw herself under the King’s horse in 1913, which was another act of protest.
Let me conclude what I was saying about the comments of Clifford Stott, professor of social psychology at Keele University. Professor Stott said:
“If then subsequently this government or a subsequent government scraps the Human Rights Act, then those protections”—
that is articles 10 and 11—
“would no longer exist, and the government and police could interfere with those protected rights.”
Furthermore, Matt Parr was clear in his recommendations. They are about training and resources, which he asked the Government to ensure were in place for policing.
Alex Cunningham
I want to quote again the evidence of Leeds for Europe because there is a real reputational issue here for our country and our Government:
“Such draconian laws seem to align E&W to regimes such as those in Turkey, Hungary and Belarus, rather than those that we were aligned with when part of the EU. The police will have scope to expand their powers against the citizens and to use more active intervention, which might result in more draconian measures… There is a significant risk that the police would be regarded as a hostile agency and individuals seen as enemies of the state rather than people with genuine concerns and causes that they want to promote.”
Surely my hon. Friend agrees that we do not want to be seen as a country that oppresses its people in such a way.
Bambos Charalambous
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Absolutely, we do not want to be a country that is seen to be oppressing its people. Those rights to protest are at first lost gradually, then quickly, so the transition from what is seen to be a democracy to authoritarian state happens very quickly and we need to be wary of that. We cannot go down that path.
Sarah Champion
I am grateful that the Foreign Secretary has been very good on protecting the right to protest internationally. It seems somewhat hypocritical that we are reducing the right to protest here while on the international stage we are advocating for it.
Bambos Charalambous
Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We cannot be seen to be criticising other Governments for the way they suppress the right to protest when we are doing the same here. That weakens our global standing and we should not go down that path.
The College of Policing has authorised professional practice, or APP, that contains 30 tactical options to deal with public disorder and protest. It is out of date. It does not include recent relevant case law or information on certain new and emerging tactical options. The college is planning a review. The inspectorate states:
“By 30 June 2022, the College of Policing, through its planned review, should bring the public order authorised professional practice (APP) up to date and make arrangements to keep it current, with more regular revisions as they become necessary. It would also be beneficial to consolidate the APP, protest operational advice and aide memoire into a single source (or a linked series of documents).”
The inspectorate notes:
“We found that forces do not do enough to share legal opinion or case law on protest policing. And officers and staff rarely use Knowledge Hub’s ‘Specialist Operational Support—Public Order Public Safety’ group… By 31 December 2021, chief constables should make sure that their legal services teams subscribe to the College of Policing Knowledge Hub’s Association of Police Lawyers group.
By 31 December 2021, the College of Policing should ensure that all Public Order Public Safety commander and adviser students attending its licensed training are enrolled in the College of Policing Knowledge Hub’s Specialist Operational Support—Public Order Public Safety group, before they leave the training event…
In making decisions about how to respond to a protest, public order commanders need to consider domestic human rights legislation. And they must also consider a patchwork of European case law. These have established precedents on issues such as how long protests can reasonably go on for, and the level of disruption that protests can reasonably cause.”
The inspectorate stated:
“Examining the gold strategies and silver plans submitted as part of our document review, we found that commanders generally showed a grasp of human rights legislation. However, we did not see evidence that they consistently considered the wider legal picture.”
The inspectorate also recommended:
“By 30 June 2022, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, working with the College of Policing, should provide additional support to gold commanders to improve the quality of gold strategies for protest policing. This support should include the creation and operation of a quality assurance process; and/or the provision of more focused continuous professional development. The additional support should ensure that gold commanders for protest operations include an appropriate level of detail within their gold strategies. This may include the levels of disruption or disorder above which enforcement action will be considered…
By 30 June 2022, the National Police Coordination Centre should revise the national post-event learning review form so that it contains a section to report on the policing operation’s impact on the community…
Forces usually have good protest-related briefing processes and commanders’ decisions generally reach the front line effectively. However, gold strategies often do not set out the limits of acceptable behaviour from the protesters. Better explanations of these limits would help officers to understand what is expected of them and empower them to take appropriate action.
Non-specialist officers receive limited training in protest policing. As a result, they often lack confidence in using police powers. Some officers are anxious about attracting complaints and being filmed in protest situations. It is important that forces provide good-quality training and briefing before deploying officers into these situations.
Forces should make better use of community impact assessments to evaluate the impact of protests on those who live in, work in or visit an area. The process should include regular reviews and updates, so the police can respond to changing circumstances. Only seven of the ten forces we inspected submitted any community impact assessments for examination, and some of those we examined were of a poor standard”.
With the covid legislation, we have seen the difficulty that rushing through new police powers can bring for the police. They have managed to do a brilliant job of enforcing the new laws, but they have faced a number of difficult decisions owing to the loose drafting of the law, and they have received criticism where they have got it wrong. The new protest powers will force the police to make political decisions about which protests they deem unlawful. That is extremely concerning and will put the police and the public in a difficult position.
Why do the Government want to make the police the gatekeepers for public protests? The Government are choosing to ignore the many peaceful protests that go ahead and are attended by police. The public order measures in the Bill risk putting the police in a trying position more often, and they risk creating more disorder and disruption. The Government should be putting the police in a position whereby the rules are not too confusing or too broad. If they do not do so, that will only create more flashpoints.
It is clear that police support for the Bill is not what the Government are saying it is. The Metropolitan police want more clarity on ways to manage very disruptive protests that go on and on, and to make sure that emergency services can get through roads. That is understandable, but the police want more clarity and certainty, which is what they said in the evidence sessions. These provisions bring the opposite. Instead of a modest reset, we have in front of us clauses that significantly widen police powers on public order.
Clauses 54 to 60 mark a substantial change in the approach to policing protest, which has the potential to be applied disproportionately and could curtail article 10 and article 11 rights that the inspectorate of constabulary is keen to protect. The police already have the powers to break up protests that cause harm, serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of a community. Many of the country’s best lawyers are telling us that the Public Order Act 1986 and the many other powers on the statute book to police protests are enough.
Alex Cunningham
One of the things that troubles me most about the Bill is the stuff in relation to this place—this Parliament of ours, and this democracy—and the fact that people could be prevented from protesting on our doorstep and disrupting our lives. People should have a right to disrupt the lives of MPs and those who work in this place, in order to get their point across. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for all the things that the Government want to do with the Bill, one thing they should not deny the people is the right to protest at the seat of our democracy?
Bambos Charalambous
Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are the decision makers in this Parliament. We are the ones who make decisions that impact on people’s lives, so if we do not hear and are not aware of the protests, how will that change be brought about?
Mr Goodwill
Surely the point is that as elected representatives, it is our responsibility to cast our votes in this place on behalf of those people. If a protest outside prevents us from coming here, that is acting against democracy, not in favour of it.
Bambos Charalambous
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Yes, we should be allowed to come here. Nobody has prevented MPs from coming to Parliament since the civil war, and that right has existed and will continue to exist. We have the right to be here as elected representatives, and nothing should infringe on that right. That does not mean, however, that people should not be allowed to protest outside Parliament. We should be able to hear their voices and hear what they have to say. They should be allowed to make that protest.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. The point I am trying to make is that many of us drive here from distant parts of the country, which was particularly the case during lockdown. If we could not drive through Parliament Square and arrive at this building, we could not do the job on behalf of our constituents. That is tantamount to people blocking a polling station on polling day. I am sure he would condemn that as well.
Bambos Charalambous
I use public transport—I am a London MP, so it is easier for me to do that to get here—but clearly MPs should have access to Parliament. I am not disputing that at all because we need to be able to get here to act on behalf of our constituents, but I disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.
Maria Eagle
I understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. That is a concern, of course. Does my hon. Friend agree that there have been many protests outside here? I have been a Member 24 years and have seen a lot of protests outside Parliament. The vast majority did not in any way at all threaten my ability to get here to vote in Divisions. The issue is proportionality.
Is it right to ban protests because there may have been an occasion when hon. Members were prevented from being able to drive to their place of work because of the way a protest in Parliament Square had been policed? That is an important point. It is about proportionality. We do not ban everything to prevent one instance of an undoubtedly undesirable effect at the far end of the spectrum. Is that not correct?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. It is a question of proportionality, and we need to make sure that we are allowed to get here as parliamentarians, but also that protesters are allowed to air their views. It is about striking that balance. The legislation goes too far the other way, and does not strike such a balance. It is too much against the right to protest.
The reports by the inspectorate ask for modest changes, but the Government decided to go much further. The Bill targets protesters causing “serious unease”, those being too noisy and those causing serious annoyance. Clause 54 amends section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 so that police officers can issue conditions on protest marches that generate noise, but may have significant relevant impact on persons “in the vicinity” or that may result in “serious disruption” to the activities of an organisation in the vicinity.
Sarah Champion
I do not know whether it was recorded properly, but I do not think we ever got to the bottom of what “serious noise” was. During our evidence session, a drill was going in the next room. I suffer from tinnitus and it was driving me insane. I could not concentrate and I wanted it to stop, but there are examples of protests at which I would be chanting and would think that that was acceptable. Did we ever get to the bottom of what “serious noise” was?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I do not think that we ever did, and that is part of the problem because there will be a disparity in how the Bill is implemented, which will lead to confusion because what one person regards as noise may not be what another person regards as noise. The last thing we want is confusion when protests are being policed.
Under clause 54, noise would have to have a relevant impact, resulting in intimidation, harassment, serious unease, alarm or distress to bystanders. The vague term “serious unease” is a very low threshold for police-imposed conditions.
Sarah Champion
Owing to the areas I campaign on, I have had protests against me and that does cause me serious unease—it is horrible. They have led to death threats and all manner of things, but I would not stop people’s right to protest because we all have our rights and I find it incredibly chilling that people’s rights are going to be stopped.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The term “serious unease” is vague. As MPs, we get, as the Minister has said, death threats and abuse, which we should not get, but “serious unease” is a very low threshold.
Victoria Atkins
Let me make a genuine effort to help Her Majesty’s official Opposition. They are surely not saying that death threats are an acceptable form of protest. Death threats are terrifying for those who are victims. Indeed, I would say they impede democracy in this country precisely because people worry about the threats to their personal safety. I just want to clarify.
Sarah Champion
On a point of order, Mr McCabe. I think the Minister has misinterpreted what I said. I had protests against me that were rallying the crowds, which led to the exact same phraseology that went into death threats. I am saying that that was incredibly chilling and uncomfortable. Of course I wanted it to stop, but I do not try to deny people’s right to protest.
Bambos Charalambous
My understanding is that the clauses will not affect people’s right to picket, but will the Minister provide reassurance that people’s right to picket or attend demonstrations will not be affected? There is also a penalty for someone who breaches a police-imposed condition on a protest when they ought to have known the condition existed. If someone attends a protest and the police have placed conditions on the number of people allowed to attend, how will the attendee know whether they are the 101st person to join a demonstration that has a limit of 100?
Alex Cunningham
I want to take my hon. Friend back to the issue of noise. Paragraph 546 of the explanatory notes to the Bill states:
“Where a senior police officer reasonably believes, having had regard to various factors, that the noise generated by a one-person protest may have a relevant impact on persons in its vicinity or may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the one-person protest, the senior police officer may give directions imposing on the person organising or carrying on the protest such conditions as appear to them necessary to prevent such disruption or impact.”
The Government give us that explanation, but they still do not define what a disruptive noise is. It would be helpful if the Minister told us.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It would be helpful if we had an idea of the definition of “disruptive noise”. If we are to pass the Bill, we should know what we are passing.
There have been problems when the police have not satisfactorily communicated conditions to protesters. Will the Minister provide the Committee with evidence to justify the proposed widening of criminal responsibility in clause 56? The HMICFRS report talked about a slight shift in the legal test on that, but what the Government propose goes way too far. Sir Peter Fahy, former chief constable of Greater Manchester police, said that the legislation includes “some really dodgy definitions” that the police are supposed to make sense of. The point of protest is to capture people’s and the Government’s attention. Sometimes protests are noisy and sometimes annoying, but they are as fundamental to our democracy as Parliament is and as the courts are.
On 6 October last year, I had the pleasure of witnessing an impressive and effective protest outside Parliament, which was organised by the Let Music Live campaign to highlight the plight of freelance musicians who received very little support from the Government during the coronavirus pandemic. The protest involved 400 socially-distanced musicians, all dressed in black, playing 90 seconds, or 20%, of Gustav Holst’s “Mars”. Not only was the demonstration eye-catching, but it used the sound and the loudness of Holst’s piece to convey the message.
The demonstration consisted of 90 seconds of sound building until it came to an abrupt stop. Would such a protest fall foul of clause 54? I fear it might, but who would be qualified to assess whether a 90-second blast of Holst’s “Mars” constituted noise that might have a “significant” or “relevant” impact on “persons in the vicinity”? The phraseology is so vague and devoid of precise meaning that it will be a legal nightmare for the police to determine what the terms “significant”, “relevant” and “impact” mean for the purposes of the Bill.
Sarah Champion
I wonder whether the bar would be set at exactly the same level if the music were not classical, but heavy metal. Are we getting into a really subjective area here?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this will be very subjective. I used to play rugby, and this is what we would have called a hospital pass. It is going to put the police in an impossible situation, and they will have to make judgments about what constitutes “significant”, “relevant” and “impact.”
Maria Eagle
Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to putting the police in an invidious position, the measure will promote different interpretations across different forces, and possibly within the same force? The officer on duty who has the obligation to make the call may well have a different view from another officer, on another day. What we are promoting here is confusion rather than clarity.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is going to be subjective. What one person considers noise might not be the same for another person. There may be a different view from different officers in the same force, which will lead to confusion.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. There is the potential for the Bill to have unintended consequences. In my Stockton-on-Tees constituency, all the churches come together once a year in the parish gardens, although they have not been able to do that in recent times. They have loud music, guitars, drums and all manner of things going on. Backing on to the parish gardens is the Royal Oak pub. Under this legislation, people in the Royal Oak may think that the people demonstrating their faith in the parish gardens are a public nuisance and are getting on their nerves as they enjoy a pint, and they could complain to the police.
Bambos Charalambous
I do not know whether that would be captured by the legislation, but if it would be captured, that would be wrong. I mentioned the Let Music Live protest. Even if such a protest were deemed permissible, it would still cause many problems of interpretation for the police, who would have to use the Bill to define whether the protest had “significant” or “relevant impact.”
Aside from music, what about singing? Singing songs and chanting have been a feature of every protest or demonstration that I have ever been on. Would singing be captured by the clause? The hymn “We Shall Overcome” was adopted as an anthem and sung as a protest song. In 1963, the folk singer Joan Baez led 300,000 protestors in song as they sang “We Shall Overcome” at the Lincoln Memorial as part of the civil rights movement march on Washington. Some 300,000 people singing “We Shall Overcome” must have made a fair bit of noise. Imagine a crowd of 300,000 outside the Houses of Parliament singing “We Shall Overcome.” Who would determine whether that constituted noise having a “significant” or “relevant” impact on “persons in the vicinity”?
Lee Anderson
There is another chant, “What a load of rubbish,” and that is pretty much what I am hearing today. Does the hon. Gentleman realistically expect that the police could stop 300,000 people singing a song?
Bambos Charalambous
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and ask, well, why not? Does he not think that is a noise? If it is not a noise, why is that not set out in the legislation? Where is the guidance on it? The legislation is badly worded and wrong, and its vagueness will cause confusion. The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated the point I am making; he says it is a load of rubbish, but in my view that would be captured under the legislation. Are songs and music exempt? Perhaps the Minister will tell us.
Some protests and processions are loud, colourful and joyful. I am sure the Minister is aware of the explosion of colour and sound that is the Pride parade, which takes place in towns and cities across the country. Pride in London is a wonderful event, and the procession is a joy to watch. It is also very noisy. There are drums, whistles, sound systems and cheering crowds; it is quite something. Will the London Pride parade, which passes down the top part of Whitehall, constitute noise and have a significant and relevant impact on persons in the vicinity? Part of the point of Pride is to be noisy. Could Pride be outlawed for being noisy? If not, why not? Let me put on record my support and solidarity of the LGBT+ community during this Pride month.
Even if the Minister brushes off music, song and noise made by the Pride parade as not constituting noise for the purposes of the Bill, does she concede that noise can be an integral part of protest? Earlier this year, we watched in horror as the military staged a coup against the democratically elected Government of Myanmar. There was outrage among people as the military clamped down on protest and imposed curfews. Faced with the prospect of curfews and armed brutality against street protests, protestors found other ways to make their protest heard. In February, in the city of Yangon, ordinary citizens staged a noisy protest, by banging pots and pans and anything they could lay their hands on from their balconies and homes, to create an almighty din and show civil disobedience and anger against the coup. Those same protestors in the UK, banging their pots and pans, would fall foul of clause 54. Noise is part of protests; whoever drew up the proposals clearly has not thought through the dilemma that the police will face, putting them in an invidious position as they try to enforce these sloppily drafted clauses.
I am surprised that the Government, who pride themselves so much on their libertarian values, are so prescriptive and authoritarian in trying to pass the legislation. The right to protest is a fundamental freedom, as is freedom of speech. The former Prime Minister and Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), was right when she said on Second Reading that the legislation is concerning and risks going against the right of freedom of speech. On the power of the Home Secretary to make regulations on the meaning of serious disruption to the activities of an organisation or the life of the community, the right hon. Member made another important point, saying:
“It is tempting when Home Secretary to think that giving powers to the Home Secretary is very reasonable, because we all think we are reasonable, but future Home Secretaries may not be so reasonable.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 78.]
If there were a peaceful protest outside the Home Office that the Home Secretary did not like, everyone could be criminalised for shouting too loud, so that people working were not disturbed. Does the Minister have a cause that she cares deeply about and may want to protest about? The Home Secretary would have the ultimate say on whether what she was saying was right or wrong. I know that I would not want the Home Secretary to have that power.
Michael Barton, the former chief constable of Durham police, compared the measures in the Bill to those of a paramilitary-style police force, and asked if the Government are
“happy to be linked to the repressive regimes currently flexing their muscles via their police forces?”
I reiterate his question to the Minister, and I hope she will answer it. The very same Home Office that is offering Hong Kongers British national overseas visas to escape the oppressive regime that last week banned the annual vigil to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 would criminalise those Hong Kongers for demonstrating loudly outside the Houses of Parliament. Once again, the Government are on the wrong side of the argument; instead, they find themselves on the same side as those who curtail the right to protest and silence the voices of the people.
Sarah Champion
The march in Hong Kong that my hon. Friend refers to shut down the city. We, as a country, have been very outspoken about China’s action towards those protestors, for criminalising them in such a mass brutal manner. I bring my hon. Friend back to the hypocrisy that we might see should we welcome those protestors with welcome arms while, as he says, criminalising them in this country.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Why do we criticise the regime in Hong Kong when we are going to be imposing limitations on the right to protest here? It just does not make any sense. It does not add up.
Sarah Champion
It is very obvious that this is a contentious topic, and the one that has gained the most media attention for this Bill. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for making a very persuasive case. I must challenge my friend the hon. Member for Ashfield because I think his criticism was unjust, but it does highlight that what one person thinks is nonsense can be a very passionate thing for another, and we all deserve the right to protest.
I would like to start by making the argument, again, that the police already have wide powers to impose conditions on both static assemblies and marches, as well as broad discretion in how those powers are applied. Let me quote from the Liberty briefing:
“The cumulative effect of these measures—which target the tools that make protest rights meaningful – constitute an attack on a fundamental building block of our democracy.”
Liberty say that the clauses are fundamental block on our democracy. They say that these are draconian measures that impose disproportionate controls on free expression and the right to protest; measures that will have an unfair impact on black, Asian and ethnic minority people.
It is unfortunate that the amendments tabled by Labour have not been selected. I would like to state that Labour is very supportive of the measures that allow access for emergency services, but overall I personally think that the clauses go far too far, and I support my honourable colleagues in wanting to vote against this clause. It should not be in this Bill.
I am interested to hear from the Minister whether she agrees with the witnesses we heard from that the police already have sufficient powers to deal with protests. In the evidence session, Matt Parr said,
“there is quite a stark difference between London, which obviously gets a disproportionately large number of protests, and elsewhere.”
He said that senior police officers outside London
“tended to think they had sufficient powers”—[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 53, Q77.]
Again, I would be very interested to hear from the Minister if she thinks that these measures are actually London-centric, and not needed in places like Rotherham—I see the Minister grimace, and I share that—or if they are needed across the country. Furthermore, how will she make sure that police forces across the country handle them at the same level, and will there be training and support to enable them to understand exactly where to apply them?
I ask that because in Rotherham, after the scale of the child abuse in the town became known, the far right would come and basically put the town into lockdown every month. It was incredibly intimidating. It stopped businesses being able to trade and basically drove people off the streets and out of the town centre because they were too scared to go in. We then had a change in the police officer in control of the protests. He swiftly applied different measures on the route they could take—they could not meet in the centre of town—the level of planning and the level of security that the protestors had to put in place, and quickly the protests started to diminish to the point at which they stopped. It was clear to me at that point that the police do have the powers; it is about whether they know about them and have the ability and indeed the resources to enforce them.
Rotherham has a long and proud but also bloody history of protest. I think in particular of the battle of Orgreave, which was a pivotal event in the UK miners’ strike and has been described as a brutal example of legalised state violence. That was just one event of many in the mid-1980s that led to the Public Order Act 1986. Why has it taken from 1986 until now for Ministers to feel that we need new legislation? I also raise that because the brutal way in which the police dealt with those protestors has led to mistrust and suspicion towards our police forces and I really do not want to see this legislation, if it goes forward, building on that level of mistrust not just in Rotherham but across the country, because once trust is lost it is almost impossible to bring it back.
I turn to some of the key organisations that submitted written evidence or were witnesses and spoke against these measures. Liberty has said that
“the Bill drastically limits the right to protest.”
The Good Law Project said:
“The provisions threaten to neuter protests in ways that would render them ineffective—effectively taking away one of the only ways in which people can express their dissatisfaction in a democratic society.”
It went on to say:
“The Bill renders the UK an outlier when it comes to international human rights norms around the right to peaceful assembly.”
I find it really disturbing—not least as Chair of the International Development Committee—that we are stepping away from our international obligations and doing so on the right to protest, which I know the Foreign Secretary is really keen to uphold internationally. The movement we see in the Bill is disturbing.
Rights of Women said:
“The Bill is a further dangerous extension to police powers that exemplifies the rolling back of our human rights and ignores a history of violence against women at the hands of the police.”
A petition entitled “Do not restrict our rights to peaceful protest” in response to the Bill has more than 250,000 signatures. Two hundred and forty-five organisations signed a letter co-ordinated by Liberty and Friends of the Earth to the Government on 15 March, which said that the Government’s proposals were cause for “profound concern”. The organisations highlighted “draconian…police powers” to restrict protest. Organisations who signed the letter include Amnesty International, Greenpeace, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Unite, Rights of Women, Inquest and the Northern Police Monitoring Project.
The Bar Council said:
“There are clear tensions between this section and the freedom of protest and expression (both protected under the European Convention on Human Rights). It gives expansive powers to the police, which encompass the arrest of one individual who is independently protesting. There are legitimate concerns that it would allow the Government to prevent protests with which it does not agree.”
That is one of my biggest concerns. Let us look at former and current Government Ministers who are against the proposals.
Alex Cunningham
The written evidence from Leeds for Europe quotes Mr Justice Laws saying that a margin must be given to protests. He also said:
“Rights worth having are unruly things. Demonstrations and protests are liable to be a nuisance. They are liable to be inconvenient and tiresome, or at least perceived as such by others who are out of sympathy with them.”
However, under the new powers in the Bill, if the Home Secretary is out of sympathy with a particular protest or protest group, she could ban them from protesting. Surely that is an affront to our democracy.
Sarah Champion
It absolutely is. My hon. Friend lays a very startling future before us. It might not even get to the Home Secretary—it might be an individual police officer who makes the call, or a chief constable or a police and crime commissioner. That is what concerns me.
By their very nature, protests are designed to be annoying, to be loud, to raise their views. When we look back at our history, where would we be without protest? It is inconceivable. This country has a proud history of protest—however annoying, however much of a nuisance protests are. That is what moves us forward as a democracy. To lose that, or to have it chipped away, is a very disturbing position.
That view is echoed by former and current Government Ministers. On 7 September 2020, the Minister for Crime and Policing, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), affirmed:
“The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental tool of civic expression”
and promised that protest
“will never be curtailed by the Government.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 384.]
What has changed in the intervening nine months?
The former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC, said that
“no new laws were required if the police used the substantial powers they already have”.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead said:
“I do have some concerns about some of the aspects of the public order provisions in the Bill. I absolutely accept that the police have certain challenges...but freedom of speech is an important right in our democracy, however annoying or uncomfortable that might sometimes be…Protests have to be under the rule of law, but the law has to be proportionate.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 78.]
We would all agree that protests have to be under the rule of law, but I think we would disagree on the proportionality.
Also on Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said:
“Is the Bill perfect? No, it is by no means perfect. I hope that it will be corrected as it goes through. Will that happen? Certainly. I accept that there are issues around freedom of speech and the right to assemble, and I think that these will be dealt with during the course of the debate.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 90.]
I hope that that is true.
Let us turn to the ambiguities in the proposed legislation. Evidence given by witnesses in the Joint Committee on Human Rights session on the proposed police powers showed that the terms
“serious unease, alarm and distress”
are not sufficiently clear for protesters to predict when conditions might be imposed on demonstrations. I reiterate the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate: the Minister needs to set out exactly what serious unease, alarm and distress is, as well as what serious noise is. Jules Carey from Bindmans LLP said the terms are
“too vague in law to have any meaningful impact or sensible interpretation. They also create a threshold that is too low.”
The Good Law Project says of the clauses that,
“the cumulative effect is likely to be deeply damaging”
because of their ambiguity, and because the police
“will have considerable scope to test the limits of their own powers.”
The Bar Council said:
“The present drafting is also vague and will require interpretation by the senior courts before the precise meaning of the law becomes settled. We consider this to be undesirable in legislation which limits fundamental civic rights.”
The Good Law Project, the Bar Council and witnesses from evidence sessions for the Bill Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights say the wording is too vague for protesters to interpret. How will the Minister ensure protesters will not get arrested at peaceful protests due to their understanding of current legislation?
In our evidence sessions, Matt Parr, Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary, said:
“We were very clear in what we said that any reset should be modest.”
We seem to have drifted a long way from modest—most organisations who have given evidence have argued that the changes in this part of the Bill are not modest. He continued:
“We also said that, because of article 10 and article 11 rights, some degree of disruption is not just an inevitable by-product, it is sometimes the whole point of the exercise of protest, and on that basis, it has to be encouraged.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 52, Q77.]
Councillor Caliskan, from the Local Government Association, said:
“In my experience, from having spoken to council leaders from across the country, the best way that peaceful protest is facilitated is planning in advance. That means the community and organisers having a good relationship with the police, and local forces working closely with local authorities”.––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 60, Q92.]
That is another concern—that these parts of the Bill will undermine the good working relationships and trust, and that will go on to make it even more difficult to organise peaceful protests.
Maria Eagle
I have already made a number of interventions and do not intend to make an extremely long speech. I want to make some points about what I consider to be wholly unnecessary proposed changes to our right to protest in this country. While it is nice and quiet in this Committee Room while we consider the Bill line by line, it is certainly not the case that these proposals have been greeted quietly in any sense of the word outside in the society on which the Bill seeks to impose its new arrangements.
This part of the Bill has attracted extremely, broad, wide and deep condemnation across a number of sectors. It is important to bear that in mind when we consider whether the Bill offers a reasonable balance. There always has to be a balance between the right to protest and our rights as individual members of society in this democracy, and the wider, broader interests of society in getting on with its business. That has always been a balance that the Government of the day in any democracy have to strike. There is no difference between our current Government seeking to strike that balance now and any Government in the past seeking to do that, because there does have to be a balance.
The question is whether or not the proposals in the Bill that are being brought forward by the Minister are necessary and proportionate; whether or not they actually strike that balance; whether or not our existing arrangements, which have been ongoing for some time, are wholly inadequate enough to need altering. I do not think there is any doubt about the fact that the Bill, as proposed, would make it harder to protest. The question, then, is this: if one accepts that there is a need to alter the situation—which I do not—are these proposals proportionate and do they do what is necessary, even from the point of view of the Government?
The first thing that we need to take into account, as I have said, is that there is a broad set of people and civil society organisations—academics, former Home Secretaries, police chiefs and lots of individuals—who have signed petitions to say that this is entirely wrong and an unwarranted interference in our democratic freedoms. The Bill has been condemned by hundreds of civil society organisations and 700 or so legal scholars who urged the Prime Minister to ditch draconian restrictions on the right to protest, as was reported in the Independent. Some of those 700 legal scholars might be renowned for being able to interpret the proposed wording of the statute in front of us. To find 700 legal scholars saying that this is draconian and unnecessary is something we should consider and take into account.
Petitions organised by various civil society organisations—my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham referred to at least one of them—have received more than half a million signatures from fellow citizens, calling for this part of the Bill to be removed. That is significant dissent that should be considered and taken into account. Former Home Secretaries and Prime Ministers have expressed concern from across the political parties, not all of them opponents of the current Government and some from within their own ranks. They have expressed, at the very least, concern about the extent of the proposed measures.
The starting point ought to be our democratic rights as individuals to freedom of expression and assembly, protected at present by articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights. The fundamental provision is the right to say what one wants and protest. Obviously, that is always subject to the law, but the starting point is that those rights should be infringed or curtailed only where necessary and proportionate. The presumption ought to be that we protect those rights. The authorities in a democracy such as ours that signed up to the European convention on human rights should have a positive obligation to facilitate those rights for individual citizens.
We have all come across protests that we do not agree with. Members on the Government side might have come across more protests that they do not agree with than I might have. That does not give us the right to ban them. In fact, it is an essential part of our democracy that we should facilitate such activities, particularly if we do not agree with them.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Could she point out where the Bill differentiates between protests we agree with and those we do not agree with?
Maria Eagle
I am not saying that the Bill does. I am not looking at any particular Member, but I know the attitude of some Members is somewhat determined by whether they agree with the protest in front of them. I have been inconvenienced by protests I agreed with and protests that I did not; the inconvenience is the same. Because of the democratic nature of our society, we ought to try to protect the right to protest and freedom of expression, and subject them only to necessary and proportionate restrictions. We should not let our individual natural feelings impinge on our views on whether they are proportionate and necessary.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady makes some reasonable points, but would she agree that, in the case of some of the Extinction Rebellion protests, people who were possibly sympathetic to their views were turned against them by the disruption and problems caused by people climbing on the roofs of trains or gluing themselves to buildings?
Maria Eagle
I do agree with that point. One might then have an argument with the organisers about whether the nature of those protests is appropriate. I still do not think that it is a reason to remove people’s fundamental right to protest just because some protests are inconvenient, annoying and noisy.
Alex Cunningham
I do not think that the provisions were covered by the European convention on human rights. We have a proud history of demonstrations being effective in this country. May I refer my hon. Friend to the Tolpuddle martyrs? In the 1830s, seven men were arrested for secretly signing up to a trade union, and were eventually transported to Australia. Thousands of people took to the streets across the country, and marched through London demanding that that unlawful conviction be overturned. The seven men who were transported to Australia were eventually pardoned and brought home. Demonstrations bring about change, and we must not interfere with them.
Maria Eagle
I agree. I do not accept that we must not interfere at all, but we must interfere in a proportionate and necessary manner. There is always a balance: freedom of expression is not absolute; freedom to protest is not absolute. There is always a grey area. I am trying to be helpful and not just condemn what the Government are seeking to do out of hand, although I disagree fundamentally with the provisions, which go too far.
Clause 54 amends the Public Order Act 1986 to allow the police to impose conditions if they have a reasonable belief that the
“noise generated by persons taking part in the procession may”—
not “will”—
“result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity”
or
“may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity”.
The clause confers a power on the Home Secretary to make regulations. There has been some to-ing and fro-ing in Committee about the meaning of
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity”.
We all have views—and there are different views—about what “a relevant impact” is, and what “serious disruption” amounts to.
We may have a subjectively different understanding of what noise is. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham revealed that she has tinnitus, and noise for her is different from noise for me. That is almost certainly the case for all of us, so inherently noise is a subjective issue, which makes it difficult for those charged with these decisions to make them in a coherent, objective—they cannot be objective if they are subjective—and sensible way that means that these laws will not fall immediately into disrepute for being contrary and different when interpreted by different people in different places. Having utterly subjective interpretations that can lead to something as serious as the banning of a demonstration or an arrest or conviction for an offence, when all that the person was seeking to do was protest, which is a democratic right in a fundamentally democratic society, can cause all kinds of difficulties.
That is why I am concerned about some of the provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate has made the point that the provisions tend to lower the threshold at which some kind of action is likely to be taken by the officer in charge of policing the demonstration. That can drag into criminality what was merely righteous anger or proper dissent in a democracy. That is dangerous too.
The power to regulate protests simply because they generate noise presents an existential threat to the right to protest. When it applies even to a single-person protest, it appears to be an attempt to snuff out protest or to enable the police to have the powers to snuff out a protest, even if it is protest by only one person. The police already have powers to impose conditions on protests and to divert, stop or ban protests. I am not arguing that that is wrong. Over time, it has proven to work quite well. We can all come up with instances where the police went too far or did not go far enough and things went wrong, but that is the messy business of living in a democracy, the advantages of which much outweigh the disadvantages. In that sense, I do not mind the grey area.
Victoria Atkins
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. It is a pleasure to appear opposite the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. He did a fine job in the temporary absence of the hon. Member for Croydon Central.
I welcome this debate because it is only in a Public Bill Committee that we get the chance to scrutinise a piece of legislation line by line, word by word, as has been amply demonstrated this morning. Second Reading is important, of course, but it simply does not provide the time for this sort of back and forth about the Government’s intentions behind each line of legislation, and indeed the intended consequences, so I genuinely welcome this approach..
I also very much welcome the constructive views that have been put forward by Opposition Members in relation to this part of the Bill, because it goes without saying, of course, that it is our job as a Public Bill Committee to do this. It also demonstrates the important role that this place plays in scrutinising legislation and holding the Executive to account.
I note that there are some misunderstandings about what the Bill entails, and I very much welcome the opportunity to correct some of those, in a way that I hope and expect will reassure Committee members. Hon. Members have made very fair points about the right to peaceful protest being part of living in a democracy, and part of the social contract between the state and citizens. As part of that social contract, there are constraints both on citizens—we are expected, as members of this society, to observe and abide by the rule of law—and on the state.
That is why, for example, we have this process in Parliament, and not just in relation to this piece of legislation; it is for every single piece of legislation introduced by any Government of any colour. We have measures such as the European convention on human rights, an incredibly important document whose influence runs throughout this part of the Bill and other relevant parts. I say this because I very much want to approach this discussion with a constructive tone, to try to clear up some of the misunderstandings that have emerged about what the Bill encompasses.
I have enjoyed hearing some of the recollections of hon. Members about attending protests, particularly that of the hon. Member for Stockton, North, who I think is claiming credit for a Prime Minister standing down because he went out protesting—perhaps I am being mischievous. In a mischievous tone, I also note that nobody has yet mentioned the Iraq protests and how those massive protests did not change the course set by the Government who were then in power.
The first misunderstanding that I want to clear up—first and foremost—is that this Bill is not about banning peaceful protest, and nor can the measures within it enable the police, or indeed the Home Secretary, to ban peaceful protest. Nothing in the Bill does that. I state that clearly and proudly on the record, so that people listening to this debate from outside this Committee Room understand that that is simply not the case. That is a misunderstanding and I am very keen to clarify it.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
We have probably all received emails suggesting that the Bill will ban protest. Indeed, we have not just seen emails but violence, and protests that have led to violence and attacks on the police. I think that it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we use language in such a way that, while we are challenging the provisions of the Bill and talking about churches and noises and having all those debates, we make it absolutely clear that we are not stopping protests with this legislation.
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. There is a responsibility on all of us in the language we use. I know that in the heat of debate and the joy of advocacy, one can sometimes get a little bit carried away. But I am really keen that in this Committee we understand that the Bill is not about banning peaceful protest, particularly because of the unrest that we have seen in some parts of the country, which I will come on to in a moment.
Another perhaps colourful piece of advocacy that seems to have crept into the debate this morning is that the Bill is somehow about imprisoning more people. That is simply not correct. Indeed, anyone making such allegations should be mindful of the fact that, of course, as with any other criminal offence, the standard and burden of proof remains the same: namely, that it is for the Crown to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Those fundamentals of our criminal justice system remain throughout this process.
Maria Eagle
I am not saying that clause 56 will send more people to prison, but the Minister will accept that it increases the maximum penalties.
Victoria Atkins
It does. I will come to that, if I may, but there is a difference between increasing the maximum and doing this, as some have claimed—I accept that it is in the heat of debate—in order to put more people in prison. That is not the intention.
Alex Cunningham
But the Minister will accept that the provisions in the Bill will criminalise more people who participate in protests.
Victoria Atkins
Again—forgive me; I am tackling this as if I were prosecuting. The hon. Gentleman is making several leaps of assumptions before he arrives at that destination. I will go through the clause in great detail and lead him through it so that he understands the checks and balances in the legislation. There is an extraordinary leap in his assertion, which I hope to answer in due course.
Peaceful protest is absolutely fundamental to a free society. The right to peaceful protest will not be, and will never be, in question by this Government. The measures in part 3 of the Bill will not suppress the right to protest. To refer again to the European convention on human rights, the Lord Chancellor—as any Secretary of State must—has signed a statement to the effect that, in his view, all the provisions in the Bill are compatible with the rights under the convention. The Bill is about updating the Public Order Act 1986, which is some 35 years old, by enabling the police to impose conditions in careful sets of circumstances as set out in the Bill, which we are scrutinising.
We all stand up and share the value of free speech and freedom of assembly. However, under articles 10 and 11 of the convention, those are not absolute rights, as the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood fairly agreed. There is a balancing act between the rights and freedoms of protestors and of those who are not joining in the protest. We know, sadly, that in recent years some of the tactics used in the course of protests have chipped away at that balance. For example, some protestors delayed an ambulance reaching an A&E ward, putting lives at risk. Some protestors disrupted the transport system during rush hour, delaying hundreds of hard-working people.
Interestingly—this is where we see the real tension between competing rights—some protestors have blockaded printing presses, thereby disrupting the freedom of the press, which I am sure we all acknowledge is a fundamental right. We have been talking about protests with which we may not agree, and I am sure we are all familiar with newspaper articles or depictions in the media with which we may not agree, but it is the right of the free media in our country to report in accordance with that freedom and independence. In fairness to the Opposition, I know that they agree with that, because in the wake of the blockade of printing presses last year, the Leader of the Opposition said:
“The tactics and action of Extinction Rebellion, particularly blockading newspapers, was just wrong in my view and counterproductive.”
As the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood eloquently described, there is this grey, messy area in which we try to address that balance of competing rights between protestors and people who are not joining in the protests but may be affected by them. We know, however, sadly, that not every protest is peaceful. I would like to take a moment to reflect on the danger in which police officers can find themselves when they are policing a protest that goes wrong.
In recent months, we have seen protests outside London. The hon. Member for Rotherham rightly challenged me about this being London-centric, and a smile came to my lips because I was thinking, “We can never assume that the sorts of protests we see in central London will not happen elsewhere in the country.” Indeed, the great city of Bristol has in recent months seen for itself, through the so-called “Kill the Bill” protests, which apparently aim to bring this piece of legislation to a halt, the impact that protest can have on police officers, who are trying to do their job in balancing the rights of protestors and safeguarding the social contract to which I have referred.
Sarah Champion
Would those actions not already be criminal activity under existing legislation?
Victoria Atkins
They would. The hon. Lady may remember that I questioned Mr Wagner about his interpretation of the Public Order Act. We acknowledge, and I think the police have said, how dynamic a public protest can be; it changes very quickly and they have to make decisions very quickly, on the ground. I asked Mr Wagner, because I was slightly concerned about some of the evidence he had given earlier:
“Do you accept that the Public Order Act 1986 is a piece of legislation that has stood the test of time and should remain in law?”
He said:
“I think I would be neutral on that. It is a very wide piece of legislation. Every time I read it, I am pretty surprised at how wide it is already. What I am pretty clear about is that section 12 does not need to be widened.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 76, Q109.]
Then I asked whether that meant the Public Order Act went too far for his liking. He replied:
“Well, potentially. The proof is often in the pudding. It depends on how the police use it and whether they are using it effectively.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 76, Q110.]
I agree wholeheartedly with his summation that it is about how the police employ the powers, but we need to just have in mind the range of views that have been expressed by witnesses giving evidence to the Bill Committee, whether in writing or orally. It would appear that there are some for whom the current legislation goes too far, yet we hear of instances such as the “Kill the Bill” protests where very significant harm has been done to police officers. Hon. Members will be able to draw on their own memories of other protests that have resulted in police officers being very badly injured and hurt by the protests of a minority. It shows, again, the need for a balance.
Maria Eagle
Is what the Minister says not an argument for banning all protest? It is not at all clear, at the beginning of a protest, which protests are going to go wrong in that way. She said herself that things can change very quickly. It cannot be predicted.
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady has summarised the very great responsibilities borne by senior officers in charge of protests. Of course protest should not be banned—I said at the beginning that that is not what the Bill is about—but the point does show the very fine judgments that senior police officers have to make in the moment of the protest. Where there are organisers, they will have been able to have discussions beforehand, but where protests spring up on social media and it is not clear who the organisers are, police officers are having to make decisions on the ground very quickly.
I am asked what has changed in the 35 years since the Public Order Act came into force. The role of social media in getting the message out, and protests being organised at very short notice, means that it can be difficult for police officers to identify to whom they should be speaking when it comes to how these protests or gatherings are policed and managed.
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned Pride. I would not call Pride a protest, although it may have had its roots in protest. I hope we now see it as a glorious celebration enjoyed, from the photographs I have seen in newspapers, by the police as much as by other people in attendance. That is an example of a gathering where the organisers are very clear, and they work extremely well with the police to ensure that the procession, the celebration, is enjoyed by all and is safe for all.
Sarah Champion
First, people all around the world are being murdered for being gay, so there is the element of protest. Secondly, can the Minister confirm that the measures she is putting in the Bill would address the fire-starting protests that come up? If that is the nub of what she is trying to address, it seems to me that the clauses go a lot further than that.
Victoria Atkins
That is one of the things addressed by the Bill’s clauses. If I may, I will go methodically through the examination of the clauses.
There is a reason why we are trying to draw consistency between processions and assemblies. In 1986, the distinction between the two might have been very clear, but we heard evidence from the police that nowadays a protest can become an assembly and an assembly can become a protest. They change, so we are trying to bring consistency between the two forms of gathering, irrespective of the mobility of the participants, so that we have clarity of law as to what applies to participants when they gather together.
At this stage in my submission, I am going to introduce some context. Again, the misunderstanding might have arisen that the measures will apply to every single protest that ever takes place, which is not the case. In his oral evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 28 April this year, Chief Constable Harrington said that between 21 January and 21 April this year, more than 2,500 protests were reported to the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and of those 2,500 protests, conditions were imposed on 12.
As I develop my argument and talk about these powers being used very carefully by the police, and about the checks and balances within the legislation, I point to how rarely the conditions are imposed in the range of protests that go ahead. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby might have wished that conditions were imposed in other protests, but we foresee the legislation being deployed rarely and very carefully.
Maria Eagle
Does the Minister believe that, were the provision to be enacted and the thresholds reduced, as some of us have argued, more protests would have conditions imposed? Does she have a view on how many more or fewer protests would have conditions imposed?
Victoria Atkins
Again, this comes to the checks and balances in the clauses that I will go through in detail. It will be for the officer to make decisions, either on the ground or ahead of the procession, but there have been instances where the police do not have the confidence under the current legislation to impose conditions in relation to noise specifically. When one hears about the problems that residents and others in the vicinity of the noise experience, one can see why they would wish that conditions were imposed. As I say, I will go into more detail in a moment.
To set the context, the recent report on the policing of protests, produced by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, found that the balance between protesters’ rights and the rights of local residents and businesses, and those who hold opposing views, leans in favour of the protesters and that a modest reset of the scales is needed. Again, this is the messy, grey area that the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood referred to. As with all existing public order legislation, we are making use of the new powers. The police will continue to be required to demonstrate that their use is necessary and proportionate and compliant with the Human Rights Act.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Tenth sitting)
Tuesday 8th June 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 June 2021 - (8 Jun 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Good afternoon. I remind Committee members about the usual things: turn your phones and electronic devices to silent, remember to wear face coverings and observe social distance. Please remove your jackets if you feel so inclined.
Clause 54
Imposing conditions on public processions
Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Clause 55 stand part.
Clause 56 stand part.
Clause 60 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I now turn to the detail of clauses 54, 55, 56 and 60, which all relate to the conditions that the police can place on public processions, public assemblies and, by virtue of clause 60, single-person protests.
The police are able to place conditions on planned or ongoing protests to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. Conditions may also be imposed on a protest if the purpose of the person organising it is the intimidation of others in order to compel them to do or not to do an act that they have the right to do or not to do. The four clauses will ensure that the police are better placed to prevent protests that cause those harms. They will achieve that in the following ways.
Clause 55 will widen the range of conditions that the police can impose on public assemblies, to match existing powers to impose conditions on public processions. Clause 56 will prevent protesters from exploiting a loophole to evade conviction should they breach conditions at a protest and will increase sentences for such offences. Clauses 54, 55 and 60 will enable the police to impose conditions on a public procession, public assembly or single-person protest where noise may have a significant impact on those in the vicinity or may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation. These same clauses will also confer on the Home Secretary the power, through secondary legislation, to define the meaning of
“serious disruption to the life of the community”
and
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of a public procession”,
assembly or single-person protest.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It appears that some of the Bill’s provisions intersect with the Welsh Government’s responsibilities. For example, the responsibility for public order is reserved to the UK Parliament, while the provisions relating to noise generated by persons taking part in a procession look set to overlap with the devolved Government’s responsibilities for environmental health. How have the Government addressed those particular concerns, and have they been resolved?
Victoria Atkins
I am so sorry; I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. Are they that this matter is reserved?
Hywel Williams
I will explain again. As Dr Robert Jones of the University of South Wales points out, the Welsh Government have responsibilities that seem to overlap with provisions in the Bill; their environmental health responsibility on noise is a particular case in point. The Bill says that demonstrations should not be noisy if they cause alarm and so on, but the Welsh Government have those sorts of responsibilities as well. How have those overlapping responsibilities been addressed and how have they been resolved?
Victoria Atkins
I am told that all the provisions relate to reserved matters, so they fall within that framework.
Hywel Williams
I will not pursue this matter further, but is it not clear that the Welsh Government have responsibilities on an environmental basis for noise reduction?
Victoria Atkins
I cannot add to what I said earlier. These are all reserved matters.
I move on to public assemblies. I will explain why it is necessary for the police to be able to place the same conditions on public assemblies as they can on public processions. The case for the changes in clause 55 was made by Her Majesty’s inspector Matt Parr in his report on policing protest, published in March. The report included the following observation:
“there have been some conspicuously disruptive protests in recent years, both static (assemblies) and moving (processions). Protests are fluid, and it is not always possible to make this distinction. Some begin as assemblies and become processions, and vice versa. The practical challenges of safely policing a protest are not necessarily greater in the case of processions than in the case of assemblies, so this would not justify making a wider range of conditions available for processions than for assemblies.”
It is clear that the challenges of safely policing a protest are not necessarily greater for processions than they are for assemblies. The clause will therefore enable the police to impose conditions such as start times on public assemblies, and prevent excessive noise levels.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, contrary to what the Opposition say, the measures are about facilitating peaceful protest, not stopping protest? Obviously, if a protest breaches other people’s right to carry out their normal lives, that is different, but this is about making sure that protests can take place.
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. This is about ensuring that the rights that we have spoken about so far are protected, and that the integral balance of the social contract is maintained. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The police already have the power to impose any necessary conditions on marches. If it is acceptable for the police to impose any such conditions on processions, as they have been able to do since the 1930s, it is difficult to see the basis for the Opposition’s objection to affording equivalent powers to impose conditions on an assembly when it presents an equivalent public order risk.
In his evidence, Chief Constable Harrington said words to this effect—my apologies to Hansard: “We asked for consistency between processions and assembly, which this Bill does.” The police will impose those conditions only where they are necessary and proportionate, complying with their obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. In fairness, Chief Constable Harrington set out the care and training that the police receive to ensure that they can carry out their obligations carefully.
Clause 56 closes the loophole in the offence of failing to comply with a condition attached to a procession or assembly. When the police impose conditions on a protest to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, they ensure that protesters are made aware of those conditions through various means. Those can include communicating with protesters via loudspeakers or handing out written leaflets.
Some protesters take active measures, such as covering their ears and tearing up leaflets without reading them, to ensure that they are not aware—or to complain that they were not aware—of the conditions being placed. Should they go on to breach the conditions, they will avoid conviction as, under current law, an offence is committed only if a protester knowingly fails to comply with the condition.
Clause 56 will change the threshold for the offence to include where a protester ought to have known of the conditions imposed, closing the loophole in the current law. That is a commonly used fault element in criminal law—indeed, I note that the hon. Members for Stockton North and for Rotherham use it in new clause 23, which provides for a new street harassment offence. The police will continue to ensure that protesters are made aware of the conditions, as they currently do. The onus on the prosecution would change from having to show that an individual was fully aware of conditions, to showing that the police took all reasonable steps to notify them. As I said earlier, the standards and burdens of proof apply, as they do in any other criminal case: it is for the Crown to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
This particular proposal was examined by the policing inspectorate and it is again worth quoting from its report in March. It said:
“Our view is that the fault element in sections 12(4) and (5) and sections 14(4) and (5) of the Public Order Act 1986 is currently set too high. The loophole in the current law could be closed with a slight shift in the legal test that is applied to whether protesters should have known about the conditions imposed on them. On balance, we see no good reason not to close this loophole.”
The clause will also increase the maximum penalties for offences under sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Due to the increasingly disruptive tactics used by protesters, existing sentences are no longer proportionate to the harm that can be caused. Organisers of public processions and assemblies who go on to breach conditions placed by the police, as well as individuals who incite others to breach conditions, will see maximum custodial sentences increase from three to six months. Others who breach conditions will see maximum penalties increase from level 3 to level 4 on the standard scale, which are respectively set at £1,000 and £2,500.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Can the Minister give an example of an occasion when the current sentence has not been proportionate, in her opinion? Is she looking at custodial sentences and considering the impact they would have on the courts and on the Prison Service?
Victoria Atkins
The custodial aspect has been increased from three months to six months in relation to organisers of public processions and assemblies who go on to breach conditions, as well as those who incite others to breach conditions. The sentence in relation to the fine is for those who breach conditions. They go in a different category from organisers and those who incite others to breach conditions.
I do not have any examples to hand immediately, but I imagine some will find themselves in my file in due course. We are looking at maximum sentences, but it is still for the independent judiciary to impose sentences in court on the facts of the case that they have before them. That is another safeguard and another check and balance within this legislation. It will be for the judiciary to impose individual sentences, but it is right that Parliament look at the maximum term.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
What evidence does the Minister have for the need for tougher sentences in this area? Are the judiciary saying that they are ill equipped to sentence people appropriately when they have been convicted of this type of activity?
Victoria Atkins
Again, I point to the disruption and to the tactics that have been developing over recent years, which have grown not just more disruptive but, in some cases, more distressing. There are examples of an ambulance being blocked from an A&E department and of commuters being prevented from getting on the train to go to work in the morning by people who had attempted to climb on to the train carriage. We are seeing more and more of these instances, so it is right that the maximum sentence is commensurate.
If protesters feel that such measures are disproportionate, they will presumably put that defence forward in court. It will be for the Crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and for their counsel to mitigate on their behalf. We are trying to show the seriousness with which we take these small instances, where the balance between the rights of protesters and the rights of the community that is not protesting is disproportionate within the checks and balances that we have already discussed in the course of this debate.
I turn now to the measures relating to noise. The provisions will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police may impose conditions on a public procession or a public assembly to include circumstances where noise may have a significant impact on those in the vicinity, or may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation. These circumstances will also apply to single-person protests.
The hon. Member for Rotherham asked whether the noise provision was London-centric, with the biggest protests happening in London. As I said earlier, one would not want to assume that some of the protests that we have seen on the news could not happen outside London, as with the “Kill the Bill” protests in Bristol. It is right that we have clarity and consistency in law across the country so that if a group of protesters behaved in the way people appear to have behaved in the Bristol protests—injuring many, many police officers who were just acting in the line of duty—one would expect the law to apply as clearly in Rotherham as in central London.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for her clarity on that. I completely support her point when violence is being done or emergency services are being blocked and the disruption is in no way proportionate to the nature of the protest, but I would like her to give some clarity on the issue of noise. Is it a decibel thing? Is it an irritation thing? Who decides what the irritation is? What is and is not acceptable? Would the threshold be lower in a small village because noise would not normally be heard, whereas in a big city with lots of industrial sites it would be a lot higher? It is that subjectivity that I put to the Minister.
Victoria Atkins
That is precisely why we are introducing an objective test in clause 54(3). The hon. Lady will see the wording:
“For the purposes of subsection (1)(ab)(i), the noise generated by persons taking part in a public procession may have a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the procession if—
(a) it may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness with the characteristics of persons likely to be in the vicinity.”
That is consistent with other parts of the criminal law. The wording continues:
“or (b) it may cause such persons”––
that is, persons of reasonable firmness––
“to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress.”
We have been very mindful of trying to help the police because it would be a matter for the police to weigh up during a procession, assembly or one-person protest or before one starts. It would be for the senior officer to make that assessment, but it is an objective test.
I hope that the hon. Lady will not mind my raising it, but the example she gave of the impact that hearing a drill had on her personally was her personal, subjective experience; we are saying that this would have to be an objective test—the reasonable firmness of people in the vicinity of that noise.
Sarah Champion
Let me give an example that I am sure everyone in this room will have experience of, as I have. An MP might be speaking at a demo or rally and a group of people feel the need to say, “See you next Tuesday” during the speech. That distresses the church group being addressed. Would that reach the threshold? Is it more of a decibel thing rather than it being directed to the MP? For example, in Rotherham the community came together to hold peaceful vigils but the far right held counter-protests in which they felt the need to call us paedophiles.
I appreciate that I am being annoying on this, but I just do not get it. These particular cases feel subjective and that is why I would like to get the clarity bedded down.
Victoria Atkins
First and foremost, the hon. Lady is certainly not being annoying; she is doing her job and her duty on the Committee. I am feeling my way here carefully because obviously Ministers should not comment on individual cases, but, on her example, in a scenario where someone is being at shouted at or spoken to as she described, there is a very good argument for saying that the person doing the shouting is committing a public order offence under the 1986 Act—that could be a section 5 offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress at the moment.
Again, I read across to other parts of public order legislation. That is why the objective test is an important one. We want first to be consistent with other public order measures. However, we recognise that there may be some instances in which an individual, for whatever reason—medical or otherwise—may have a particular sensitivity. In the criminal law, we say, “Look, we have got to deal with this on an objective basis, because it is the criminal law and the consequences of being convicted of a criminal offence are as serious as they are.” I have some hypothetical examples to give a bit of colour in due course, but, if I may, I want to complete outlining the checks and balances as written in the Bill so that everyone has a clear picture of the steps that a senior officer will have to go through to satisfy herself or himself that a condition can be imposed on the grounds of noise.
The senior officer must decide whether the impact is significant. In doing so, they must have regard to the likely number of people who may be affected, the likely duration and the likely intensity of that impact. The threshold at which police officers will be able to impose conditions on the use of noise is rightly very high. The examples I have been provided with—I am sure the Committee will understand that I am not citing any particular protest or assembly—are that a noisy protest in a town centre may not meet the threshold, but a protest creating the same amount of noise outside a school might, given the age of those likely to be affected and how those in the school are trying to sit down to learn on an average day. A noisy protest outside an office with double glazing may not meet the threshold, but a protest creating the same amount of noise outside a care home for elderly people, a GP surgery or small, street-level businesses might, given the level of disruption likely to be caused. Again, that refers to the conditions in clause 54(3) about the likely number of people, the likely duration and the likely intensity of that impact on such persons.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
We have heard an awful lot about the police having to apply judgment and make decisions quickly, but, given the examples that the Minister has just read out, does she agree that there is a good dollop of common sense in much of what we need to apply with this legislation?
Victoria Atkins
Indeed. Of course, we are rightly sitting here scrutinising every single word of the Bill carefully, but a senior police officer on the ground will have had a great deal of training and years of experience as an officer working in their local communities. They will also have the knowledge of their local communities. I imagine that policing a quiet village and policing the centre of Westminster are two very different experiences, and the officers making such decisions will be well versed in the needs of their local areas. None the less, officers across the country will be bound by the terms of subsection (3)—those checks and balances I have referred to throughout—and the European convention on human rights.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for being generous; it is appreciated. On the examples I supplied, her response was that the existing legislation ought to be covering the point. She mentioned a case study in which a protest could reach the threshold if there was no double-glazing. What concerns me is the organiser who could now face up to six months in jail. Are they meant to know whether properties do or do not have double-glazing, and therefore instruct the march to be silent for a specific 100 yards, as they could otherwise fall foul of the earlier clause? I say to the Minister that I just do not like subjectivity when it comes to the law.
Victoria Atkins
The organiser in those circumstances would, of course, be liable to having a committed an offence only if they breached the order. Indeed, this is the important point. It is for the police to make that assessment. If the police have a conversation with an organiser and say, “We believe that using your very high-level amplification system in this residential street meets the criteria under subsection (3) such that we are going to impose a condition asking you to turn it down,” the organiser, or the person deemed to be the organiser, will have had that conversation with an officer, and I very much hope that they will abide by the condition. If they do not, that is where the offence comes in, and that is a choice for the organiser.
As is already the case with processions, those conversations will happen and it will be a matter for the organiser as to what course of action they choose to take. One hopes that they will take the advice and guidance of the police, adapt and therefore be able to continue with their protest in a way that meets the expectations of the local community or local businesses. I appreciate that the detail is incredibly technical, and I am trying to work through every set of factual circumstances. I understand absolutely why people want to work through those, but there are checks and balances that run throughout the Bill.
Alex Cunningham
First, does the Minister agree that we must therefore have specific training for the police? She has referred many times to senior officers making decisions, but senior officers might not be available in Stockton-on-Tees or Rotherham, and certainly not in the local village, when there is some form of demonstration. The local PC may well be the person who has to turn up and make some form of decision in this situation. Secondly, on the issue of noise itself, how can a police officer be fair and objective where there are different groups of people who will be suffering differently as a direct result of a demonstration? A bunch of teenagers standing on Whitehall might find the noise and the robustness of the conversation tremendously exciting, but the pensioners group that has gone for tea at the local café might be very distressed. How on earth does the police officer make a balanced decision in that sort of situation?
Victoria Atkins
I can help the hon. Gentleman on the officer point. Pre-procession—in other words, in respect of processions that are yet to happen—the conditions must be assessed, and if ordered, ordered by a chief officer. That is a chief constable outside London, and in London an assistant commissioner. That is the highest rank in a police force. Mid-procession, conditions are imposed by a senior officer, which is an inspector or above, at the scene. So I do not think that the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes will arise. It is another example of the checks and balances that we have tried to put in place throughout this part of the Bill to ensure that these decisions are taken by very experienced and specialised officers.
I have been given another example to help demonstrate the point. A noisy protest that lasts only a short time may not meet the threshold, so the 90 seconds of—I forget the piece of music—
Victoria Atkins
Thank you, Holst. But a protest creating the same amount of noise over several days might meet it, given the extended duration of the protest.
Bambos Charalambous
For clarification, is the senior officer expected to know the area and the types of buildings where the protest will be, as well as the nature of the demonstration—whether it will have lots of sound systems, or involve lots of whistles and chants? Is it expected that that will be known beforehand, or is there scope to act if that were to occur during a demonstration?
Victoria Atkins
That serves to demonstrate the dynamic nature of different forms of protest. If a decision is to be made during the course of a protest, it will be made by a senior officer of inspector rank or above, on the ground and assessing the situation. Let me try to provide a practical example. The inspector may assess the situation in Hyde Park, then walk through to an area where there is lots of high-density housing and consider that the circumstances there are different. It is about being able to react to circumstances as they change and evolve in the course of a protest. That is why we are trying to bring consistency between processions and assemblies—because of the dynamic nature of protests—but it will be for the senior officer, working of course with his or her colleagues, to assess the factors laid out in subsection (3).
The police will impose conditions on the use of noise only in the exceptional circumstances where noise causes unjustifiable disruption or impact. I emphasise that in doing so they will have to have regard to the number of people affected and the intensity and duration of the noise, and act compatibly with the rights of freedom of expression and so on within the convention.
The shadow Minister prayed in aid the non-legislative recommendations from HMIC. I want to place on the record that the National Police Chiefs’ Council has established a programme board to consider and implement those. I hope that helps.
Mr Goodwill
Does the Minister agree that not only is it a judgment or decision for the police to make in this situation, but that if a prosecution were to follow, the Director of Public Prosecutions and ultimately a jury would decide whether, on balance, they thought a breach of these provisions had occurred?
Victoria Atkins
Exactly right. The police will first have to satisfy themselves and the CPS that a charge should be brought, and from that all the usual safeguards and standards that we expect in the criminal justice system will apply. For example, the CPS will have to apply the code for Crown prosecutors in relation to the public interest and evidential tests. We will then have the mechanisms in the trial process—perhaps a submission at half-time by defence counsel if they feel the evidence is not there. There are many mechanisms that apply in criminal trials up and down the country every single day, and those mechanisms will be available for offences under the Bill as they are for any other criminal offence.
I have been asked for clarification of the terms: annoyance, alarm, distress and unease. Many of those terms are already used in the Public Order Act 1986 and in common law. They are well understood by the judiciary, and the Law Commission—this is particularly in reference to the public nuisance point, which we will come on to in a moment—recommends retaining the word “annoyance”, as it provides continuity with previous legal cases and is well understood in this context. We understand the concerns about this, but as I say, through the introduction of these words, we are trying to be consistent with the approach that has long applied in the Public Order Act.
It is necessary to apply the measure in relation to noise to single-person protests because they can, of course, create just as much noise through the use of amplification equipment as a large protest using such equipment. Again, the police will be able to impose conditions on a single-person protest for reasons relating only to noise, not for any other reason.
Forgive me: I have just been corrected regarding the briefing I received about the rank of the officer at the scene. It is the most senior officer at the scene, so there is no minimum rank, but it is anticipated in the use of the word that it will be an officer of great seniority. Any protest on which it may be necessary to impose conditions is likely to have an officer present of at least the rank of inspector.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point, but it does mean that the local sergeant or PC in a village or a town centre is going to have to make decisions about these matters. My point was that surely, this means that there needs to be some very specific training on how police should react to demonstrations or other activities of that nature.
Victoria Atkins
I would give the police some credit. First, if it is a protest of any serious size, or the organisers have contacted the police or the other way around, this can and should be dealt with ahead of the protest. In the event of a protest taking people by surprise in a quieter area than a huge metropolis, the police will react as they are very used to reacting in circumstances that need them to be flexible and move quickly, and I am sure they will have people on the scene very quickly who can assist with this. We want to ensure that the expectation is that a senior officer, and certainly the most senior officer at the scene, will be the one imposing these conditions.
I now turn to the parts of the clauses that set out that the Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define the meaning of
“serious disruption to the life of the community”
and
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession”,
or assembly or single-person protest. Again, to clear up any misunderstandings, this is not about the Home Secretary of the day banning protests. Opposition Members have understandably called for clearer definitions wherever possible, which is what this delegated power is intended to achieve. Any definition created through this power will need to fall within what can reasonably be understood as “serious disruption”. The threshold will be clarified, not changed: such definitions will be used to clarify the threshold beyond which the police can impose conditions on protests, should they believe them necessary to avoid serious disruption. This is about putting the framework in place to help the police on the ground.
The regulations will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, which means that they must be scrutinised, debated, and approved by both Houses before they can be made. It will, of course, be for the police in an individual case to apply that definition operationally. They can apply that definition only if the criteria in the Bill are met. This is not about the Home Secretary outlawing particular protests or individual demonstrations; it is about setting a framework for a definition, to help the police operation on the ground to understand the criteria in the Bill. To assist in scrutiny of the Bill, we aim to publish further details of the content of the regulation before consideration on Report.
The clauses relating to protest, public assemblies, marches, processions and demonstrations, as well as other terms that have been used to describe this, represent a modest updating of legislation that is more than 35 years old. They do not enable the police or, for that matter, the Home Secretary of the day to ban any protest. Interestingly, we will come to debates in Committee on new clause 43, which relates to interference with access to or the provision of abortion services. That provision does, in fact, seek to ban such protests, so, again, there is a balancing act, or the grey area that has been referred to in this very debate.
Alex Cunningham
I am interested in what the Minister has to say about new clause 43. Is she indicating Government support for the measures that we are trying to introduce?
Victoria Atkins
No, I am drawing out an apparent contradiction. I do not say that in a pejorative sense. The hon. Member and others have expressed strong reservations and complaints about the Bill. I understand that they will vote against the measures, but it seems that discussions about freedom of speech and expression—that balancing act—will be part of the consideration of the Opposition’s new clause. I am not laying out a position either way; I am observing the difficulty in achieving that balancing act and an apparent contradiction. It is for individual Members to decide matters of scrutiny.
These clauses provide for a sensible alignment of police powers to attach conditions to an assembly or a public procession, and extend those powers to deal with particularly egregious cases of disruption due to unacceptable levels of noise. The measures are supported by the police, who will, as now, have to exercise the powers within the framework of the Human Rights Act. On that basis, and with that detailed analysis, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Bambos Charalambous
The clause is designed to protect vehicular access to Parliament, and it will amend the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. That will ensure that preventing access to the parliamentary estate is prohibited, but it will not give the police powers to arrest those who contravene it.
Clause 58 requires a new controlled area around the temporary locations of Parliament, and the central rules around protests may be imposed around the temporary home of Parliament during restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, whenever that may occur.
Clause 59 replaces the common law offence of public nuisance with the statutory offence of intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance. The new statutory offence of intentionally or recklessly causing a nuisance includes the term “serious annoyance”, and it is unclear what will constitute a serious annoyance or serious inconvenience. A person does not have to actually suffer any of the above consequences, but only be at risk of suffering them.
The Minister said in the evidence sessions that the term “annoyance” was not dreamed up on the back of an envelope, but follows many centuries of legal development, culminating in the 2015 Law Commission report. However, that does not help to explain or to guide the police as to how to enforce conditions on a protest that puts someone at risk of suffering “serious annoyance”. During the evidence session, Chief Constable Harrington, the public order and public safety portfolio lead for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, said:
“On serious annoyance, we need to see what Parliament’s decision on the definition of that is and to interpret that accordingly… We will have to see what Parliament decides and whether it is able to give us some clarity about what that means”.––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 10, Q8.]
Can the Minister reassure us today by providing some clarity on what “serious annoyance” might mean and what is the threshold for “serious annoyance”?
I will finish on this point: the designated area for Parliament includes Parliament Square, where can be found a number of statues of celebrated pioneers of struggle and protest, including Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and the suffragist Millicent Fawcett. I wonder what they would think about the state limiting people’s rights of protest in this way. I think we can all guess.
Victoria Atkins
If I may, Mr McCabe, I shall confine my remarks to clause 57, which deals with “Obstruction of vehicular access to Parliament”. I will take up the challenge on annoyance when it comes to clause 59.
Clause 57 delivers a clear recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). Its 2019 report, “Democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association: Threats to MPs”, refers to
“unimpeded access to the Palace of Westminster for all who have business in either House, or wish to meet their representatives”,
and to how vital that is. The report continues:
“Even though there is a special legal regime for the area around Parliament, it is clear that those responsible for policing and controlling that area have not always given the need for access without impediment or harassment the importance it requires. This must change.”
We are acting on the recommendations of the Joint Committee and, through clause 57, strengthening and extending the Palace of Westminster controlled area in relation to section 142A of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
Mr Goodwill
Would my hon. Friend be interested to know that, more than a century ago, precedent was set by the grandfather of the current Lord Montagu? He arrived in a motorcar and the police tried to prevent it from entering the precincts of the Palace, but he insisted that it came in. Precedent was therefore set well over a century ago at the dawn of the age of the motorcar, and I hope that that precedent will be followed.
Victoria Atkins
That is a wonderful example to explain how that fundamental right of our democracy was introduced. I note, of course, that my right hon. Friend has great knowledge and expertise in all matters vehicular, to which I defer.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
The clause provides the Secretary of State with a regulation-making power to designate new “controlled areas” for the purposes of part 3 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, should Parliament relocate due to restoration and renewal works, or for any other reason. That would include, for example––I am sure we all hope that it does not happen––the House needing to relocate because of a fire or other emergency. We hope fervently that this will not be required for those reasons, but it is the will of the Government, working with the parliamentary authorities, to ensure that the measures relating to controlled areas can be extended to wherever Parliament relocates to ensure the security and safety of parliamentarians in the event of a temporary relocation.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate has made his remarks on the clause, for which I am grateful.
The clause enshrines in statute the long-standing common law offence of public nuisance. As we heard from a number of our policing and other witnesses, codifying the criminal law in this area will provide clarity to the public, the police, prosecutors and others as to the scope of the offence, giving clear notice of what conduct is covered.
The new offence of intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance has been drafted in line with the recommendations of the 2015 Law Commission report “Simplification of Criminal Law: Public Nuisance and Outraging Public Decency”. The Law Commission held a public consultation, which informed the recommendations of its report. It found that it is necessary to keep this offence, as
“human inventiveness being so great, it is desirable to have a general offence for culpable acts that injure the public but do not fall within any specialised offences.”
The intention of the clause is to codify an existing offence, not to create a new one. That is in keeping with the intention of the Law Commission. As such, it is appropriate to mirror the language from the common law offence as much as possible. For that reason, we have retained the use of the terms “annoyance” and “inconvenience” while adding the caveat of “serious”, so raising the bar for securing a conviction.
It is clear from case law relating to the existing common law offence that those terms connote something more than merely feeling annoyed or inconvenienced. The term “annoyance” has been applied to acts such as allowing a field to be used for holding an all-night rave or conspiring to switch off the floodlights at a football match so as to cause it to be abandoned––certain colleagues will prick up their ears at my mention of that—and to noise, dirt, fumes, noxious smells and vibrations.
The Law Commission provides the further example of vexatious calls to the emergency services’ 999 number or to Childline. Repeated vexatious calls can affect the ability of a local force to respond to genuine emergencies. That gives a flavour of the examples that have long been understood under the common law offence as annoying or inconvenient.
Many of the terms used are well established in law, including criminal law. Indeed, the term “inconvenienced” appears in the Metropolitan Streets Act 1867, “loss of amenity” is used in the Railway Fires Act 1905, and “annoyance” features in the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 —statutes with which I am sure we are all very familiar. These are not vague, untried or untested terms, and I note that the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood is happy to put her name to new clause 2, which concerns kerb-crawling and uses the term “annoyance”.
Bambos Charalambous
I stand to speak out against clauses 61 to 63. In doing so, I am reflecting the views of the Gypsy and Traveller community, the police, and organisations as diverse as the Ramblers Association and Liberty.
I want to start by thanking Abbie Kirkby from Friends, Families & Travellers for all its help on part 4 of the Bill. Part 4—clauses 61 to 63—would amend the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to create a new offence of
“residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle”.
It would also amend the police powers associated with unauthorised encampments in the Act to lower the threshold at which they can be used, allow the police to remove unauthorised encampments on or partly on highways, and prohibit unauthorised encampments that are moved from a site from returning within 12 months.
Like the clauses we have just debated on public order, this part of the Bill is controversial and has generated a number of organised campaigns in opposition to it, including an e-petition that garnered 134,932 signatures. The petition called the Government’s proposed criminal offence “extreme, illiberal and unnecessary”.
Mr Goodwill
Would any of the people who live near one of these illegal camps have signed that petition?
Bambos Charalambous
I do not know who signed the petition, but I am sure it is available. The right hon. Gentleman will have to explore the petition himself to see who signed it.
A broad coalition, from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to Liberty, from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities to the Ramblers Association and from the police to Shelter, is united in the view that the proposals put forward by the Government would be wrong and unhelpful, and go against our basic rights.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
We have a big problem in Ashfield with the travelling community. They come two or three times a year. I did my own poll of about 2,000 constituents, and 95% agreed with me that the Travellers were creating a massive problem—crime was going up, pets were going missing, antisocial behaviour was going through the roof and properties were getting broken into. My constituents do not want them in our area anymore. That was a survey of 2,000 people, and that was the response from 95% of them. That evidence from my area is a bit more compelling than the petition the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which has probably been signed by 100,000 Travellers.
Bambos Charalambous
One of the problems is that there is less local authority provision for Travellers to go to. That loss of provision, which is partly due to cuts to local government, has caused more problems, meaning that more people are on the road at any given time. However, this issue does not affect just the Traveller community, as the hon. Gentleman will see when I go on to make further points. It also impacts people such as ramblers, birdwatchers and others who want to stay out and sleep in their vehicles while enjoying countryside activities.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend has made the point that there is a failure in our society to provide sufficient facilities for people from the travelling community, be they traditional Gypsies or people who choose to go on the road. Does he agree that the Government, rather than bringing in legislation such as this, should turn their attention to providing local authorities with the resources they need to provide facilities for travelling communities? Does he also agree that that should not be left just to some communities; communities across the country should take a share in providing such facilities so that Travellers can live with them cheek by jowl in a peaceful way?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That was highlighted by the representative from the LGA in her evidence to the Committee.
As one of the respondents to the Petition Committee’s survey on the criminalisation of trespass put it:
“The criminalisation of trespass will simply exacerbate an already fraught relationship.”
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Next to my constituency is a Traveller site that has spaces that could be used by people who choose to live a nomadic lifestyle, yet we still have people turning up and using public car parks. People going to do their shopping at the Keel Row shopping centre found that really intimidating and the police had to ask the Travellers to move on. When they did move on, they left a lot of rubbish and the place was really untidy. There was space at the Traveller site, but the Travellers chose not to use it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was wrong?
Bambos Charalambous
I agree that there is no excuse for antisocial behaviour or criminal activity, such as fly-tipping, which is wrong and needs to stop. Equally, where sites are provided, they should be made use of.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must listen to local people in this respect? When sites were proposed in Stockton-on-Tees in 2014, there were 565 individual representations against them, four petitions signed by 850 people and a letter of objection supported by 55 neighbours, so even in Stockton-on-Tees, the constituency of the hon. Member for Stockton North, there is great opposition to having these Traveller sites in their communities.
Bambos Charalambous
Therein lies the problem: many people do not want to have Travellers anywhere near them, and that is partly why there are so few sites. If more sites were made available, that would potentially solve the problem.
Lee Anderson
We have already established that in places where Traveller communities set up, such as Ashfield, crime goes up; we know that there is a direct correlation between Travellers being in the area and crime going up. Does the hon. Gentleman think that crime will come down if we have a permanent site in Ashfield?
Bambos Charalambous
As I have said, there is no excuse for criminality, and the Gypsy and Traveller community is already overrepresented in the prison population, but I do not think that the two issues are necessarily related to what the clause is trying to achieve. The hon. Gentleman is trying to say that the Gypsy and Traveller community is responsible for crime in Ashfield. I do not know the facts and figures in relation to that, but what the clause does is criminalise communities for being in vehicles on public land. While each Member has a concern about their individual constituents, we need to get back to what the Bill is focusing on, which is criminalising anyone in a vehicle, even on their own. I think that is what we need to focus on.
Alex Cunningham
In Stockton, we have had facilities for travelling communities for many years. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that this is about having proper facilities. Perhaps I can point him to the example of the Appleby horse fair, which attracts thousands of people every year. We see them travelling up, and they stay on the byways and all sorts of places along the way, but when they get to the site they are properly catered for. There is proper rubbish removal, proper facilities for animals, toilets and all manner of facilities, and they are put in place to provide for that particular need. Perhaps if other local authorities across the country took that approach, we would not have the problems that Government Members have described.
Bambos Charalambous
Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is right: if more facilities were provided, that would help to solve the problem.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Although these clauses do not apply in Scotland, does the hon. Member agree that a significant number of Gypsy Travellers cross the border daily for work, to maintain family ties and for cultural reasons, and that these measures will cause further discrimination and harassment of this ethnic group, which is protected under the Equality Act 2010 as a recognised ethnic group?
Bambos Charalambous
I entirely agree with the hon. Member’s comments. He is right: this measure is targeting a particular group for criminalisation, and that has to be totally wrong. As one respondent to the Petitions Committee’s survey on criminalisation of trespass put it:
“The criminalisation of trespass will simply exacerbate an already fraught relationship. Travellers will still camp but there’ll be more prosecutions, more distrust, more public money spent on legalities”.
Other people with nomadic lifestyles have told me that they feel that they will no longer be able to live on the road in the way that has been seen in this country since the 16th century, and that the Bill risks criminalising their way of life. At a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, we heard from the community about what might happen to them if these clauses become law. It was absolutely heartbreaking to hear from those people that they fear that their whole way of life will be taken from them if the clauses become law.
Can the Minister tell the House this? Under the provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, what will happen to a Traveller family in a single vehicle who are residing on a highway and have nowhere else to go? Failure to comply with a police direction to leave land occupied as part of an unauthorised encampment is already a criminal offence, but the proposals create a new offence of residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle. The broad way in which it is drafted seems to capture the intention to do that as well as actually doing it, with penalties of imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of up to £2,500, or both. The loose drafting of this legislation invites problems with its interpretation, and it is simply not fair to put that on to the police.
The Opposition’s major concern about this aspect of the Bill is that it is clearly targeted at Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and the criminalisation would potentially breach the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010. When the powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 were first debated in Parliament, it was stated that the powers were intended to deal with “mass trespass”. However, under the Bill even a single Gypsy or Traveller travelling in a single vehicle will be caught by this offence.
These measures to increase police powers in relation to unauthorised encampments are not even backed by the police. When Friends, Families & Travellers researched the consultation responses that the Government had received, it found that 84% of the police responses did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments. Senior police are telling us that the changes in the Bill that relate to unauthorised encampments would only make matters worse: they would add considerable extra cost for the already overstretched police and risk breaching the Human Rights Act.
The views of the National Police Chiefs’ Council were clearly put in its submission to the 2018 Government consultation. It wrote:
“Trespass is a civil offence and our view is that it should remain so. The possibility of creating a new criminal offence of ‘intentional trespass’…has been raised at various times over the years but the NPCC position has been—and remains—that no new criminal trespass offence is required.
The co-ordinated use of the powers already available under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows for a proportionate response to encampments based on the behaviour of the trespassers.”
At an evidence session of this Bill Committee, Martin Hewitt said on behalf of the NPCC that the group
“strongly believes that the fundamental problem is insufficient provision of sites for Gypsy Travellers to occupy, and that that causes the relatively small percentage of unlawful encampments, which obviously create real challenges for the people who are responsible for that land and for those living around… The view of our group is that the existing legislation is sufficient to allow that to be dealt with, and we have some concerns about the additional power and the new criminal provision and how that will draw policing further into that situation.”—[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 15, Q20.]
Siobhan Baillie
I have been listening to evidence about whether the existing powers are sufficient, which I challenge. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that if they were sufficient, we would not also have heard evidence about the tens of thousands of pounds that the case in Dartmoor cost. That was a huge cost to the council, thus making the taxpayer pay twice in having to deal with the issues beside them and through the public purse. We also heard countless other examples of what has been happening in communities. Does the shadow Minister think that our current legislation is truly sufficient? I think we need to look again, which is what the Bill is doing.
Bambos Charalambous
Civil remedies would still be available for people who engage in antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping and so on. All we would be doing is criminalising a particular group of people. In my view, the civil remedies would still be there and the cost to the council would still be there if proper facilities were not provided. To me, just criminalising a particular group of people is wrong.
To continue, the NPCC witness said:
“Really, our point fundamentally as the NPCC group is that the issue here is the lack of provision that theoretically should be made, which means that we have this percentage of Travellers who are on unlawful spaces and you end up in the situations that we end up with. Our view is that the current legislation is sufficient to deal with that issue.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 15, Q20.]
We have to ask: why are the Government determined to lock up Gypsies and Travellers, even against the advice of their own police? As Martin Hewitt clearly stated, existing legislation on police powers and unauthorised encampments is enough to tackle the problem. The police already have extensive powers to move on unauthorised encampments in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and as of January 2020, just 3% of Gypsy and Traveller caravans—694—in England were in unauthorised encampments. Of those, 419 were on sites not tolerated and 275 were on tolerated sites. The police and campaigners tell us the evidence is not there that the new powers are necessary and that many more authorised encampment sites should be provided instead.
Alex Cunningham
I sometimes wonder whether the power to discourage Travellers from moving in is in the hands of communities. Travellers move around the country for work—to pick up scrap, to do all manner of gardening work, such as taking down trees for people, and so on. I have had many an argument with people living in communities who say, “We don’t want Travellers here,” but they put out their fridge or their scrap metal for them, they let them cut down their trees. They provide them with work and an incentive to be in the area. So perhaps people have it in their own power. Travellers will not come if there is no incentive for them.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which is worthy of further discussion.
I will run through a series of points the Minister for Crime and Policing made when responding to a Westminster Hall debate on this question. On concerns about the right to roam being threatened, he said the measures will not affect anyone who wants to enjoy the countryside for leisure purposes, but many organisations, such as the Ramblers Association and CPRE the Countryside Charity, are concerned that although the Government might not intend to capture others enjoying the countryside, they could still do so. The legislation is so open to interpretation that it could easily be applied to anyone with a vehicle. For example, how do the Government propose to ensure that the police distinguish between a modified Transit van or Volkswagen camper used at the weekends and one that is lived in? How will they distinguish between a family going on a caravan holiday and a Gypsy or Traveller family with an identical caravan before stopping them and seizing their property because the police suspect that they might stop somewhere they do not have permission to do so?
The Minister for Policing and Crime also said that there is a high threshold to be met before the new powers kick in, but only one vehicle need be involved, whereas section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act requires six vehicles. The bar seems to have been significantly lowered in the Bill. The police currently have discretion to decide whether to use their powers under sections 61, 62 and 62A to 62E, in the latter cases where a suitable alternative pitch is available, but under the proposals in part 4 of the Bill, police will be dutybound to act when they are informed that a criminal offence has taken place.
The term “significant distress” is highly subjective. Given the high levels of prejudice and hatred towards Gypsy and Traveller communities, we are likely to see countless reports of criminal offences being committed, based on someone saying that they are significantly distressed by an encampment. Marc Willers QC, of Garden Court Chambers, said in the evidence sessions:
‘It seems to me that a lot of the language used is vague and uncertain. There is a reference to causing “significant distress” as one of the conditions that could lead to the criminalisation of an individual who refuses to leave a piece of land. That, in itself, brings inherent problems, because a private citizen could very easily invoke the power and leave a police officer with a fait accompli—in other words, they have no option but to arrest an individual who refuses to leave land in circumstances where the occupier says, “I am being caused significant distress by the very fact that this individual is parking on land that I occupy.”’
Alex Cunningham
I am never happier than when I am in my own caravan—always on an official site—travelling around the country and into Europe. I have seen tremendous growth in the number of people driving motor homes, and I see them parked up all over the country, on private land, public land and elsewhere. Those people are also going to get caught up in this particular legislation, are they not?
Bambos Charalambous
Again, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. We want to make sure that people are free to enjoy the beautiful countryside we are lucky to have in the UK without fear of being criminalised in such a way.
Marc Willers QC went on to say:
“That distress can be engendered or underpinned by the prejudice that Gypsies and Travellers face in our society today. It is a widespread and long-standing prejudice, dating back to the first time that Romani Gypsies came to these shores in the 1500s… There may well be unwarranted and unjustified concerns on the part of the occupier, which could lead to the criminalisation of an individual who has nowhere else to go.” —[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 72, Q104.]
Lee Anderson
At the beginning, the hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about Romani Gypsies coming here more than 500 years ago, but the Gypsy encampments that we are talking about in places such as Ashfield are not the traditional, old-fashioned Gypsies sat there playing the mandolin, flogging lucky heather and telling fortunes. The Travellers I am talking about are more likely to be seen leaving your garden shed at 3 o’clock in the morning, probably with your lawnmower and half of your tools. That happens every single time they come to Ashfield. Does he agree that there is some confusion on the Opposition side as to who these people actually are?
Bambos Charalambous
I have said previously that we certainly do not condone any antisocial behaviour or criminal activity, but this is one of the many prejudices that exist about the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and it is these sorts of problems that would lead to people invoking some of the clauses in the Bill in order to criminalise people.
Mr Goodwill
Trying to describe this as some sort of inherent prejudice misses the point, in that the activities of some of these people are what cause concern to a community—for example, leaving a load of rubbish behind on a lay-by. In Whitby, we get a lot of Travellers coming for the regatta, and it is quite common for restaurateurs to complain to me that they just walk out of restaurants without paying the bill, or haggle over the price and pay only half, and there is nothing they can do about it. That is the problem. It is based not on inherent prejudice, but on actual experiences of dealing with some of these people. They may be only a small minority of the travelling population, but they do tend to spoil it for the rest.
Bambos Charalambous
The situation that the right hon. Gentleman mentions would not be caught by the clause in this Bill anyway. On his wider point, it is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If there is a problem, there is legislation currently available to deal with it. This is entirely unnecessary, and it ends up criminalising a community when the powers to deal with the problem already exist.
Lee Anderson
About five years ago, we had Travellers come to a car park in my village and they left a load of rubbish there, which cost the council over £1,000 to clean up. A few weeks later, they came back again, left another load of rubbish that cost another £1,000. I got that fed up with the local council that I hired a JCB and put two concrete blocks there, to stop the Travellers coming back and to keep the beauty spot tidy, and I got a £100 fixed penalty notice from my local Labour authority. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that was the right course of action?
Bambos Charalambous
As I have said, there are powers in place to deal with fly-tipping. Where people feel the need to secure certain sites, it is down to the local authority to deal with those issues. I am certainly not encouraging people to take the law into their own hands and deal with things in the ways they see fit. That would be the road to chaos. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, but I am not going to comment on individual situations. The law is there, it is available and it can be used. It has been used quite successfully by many local authorities and the police.
There are other solutions for managing unauthorised encampments such as negotiated stopping whereby arrangements are made on agreed permitted times of stopping and to ensure the provision of basic needs such as water, sanitation and refuse collection. The manifesto commitment and the Government response referred to littering as a problem, but then why do the Government not consider providing more authorised camping sites with proper refuse facilities? Why do the Government think that confiscating someone’s home, putting them in prison and fining them is the answer? Why do the Government not instead consider the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), whose private Member’s Bill would make it an offence to demand money to vacate an unauthorised encampment? That, along with a significant increase in permanent site provision, could prevent Gypsy and Traveller communities from being forced to make unauthorised encampments, having nowhere to go, and prevent the small minority of Travellers who demand money to leave sites where they are not entitled to be.
I acknowledge the difficulty that people or businesses can face with unauthorised encampments on their land. The Victims’ Commissioner put it well when she said that
“unless there is proper provision of authorised encampments, you have two sets of victims. I quite agree with you that the people who are distressed, damaged or whatever by an unauthorised encampment are victims of that. There is no doubt of it…but I want you to take into account the difficulty of finding somewhere to camp in a lot of places, which forces people into an unlawful place.” ––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 21 May 2021; c. 120, Q193.]
The Policing Minister also claimed that money for sites was available in the £150 million affordable homes programme pot, but the last shared ownership affordable homes programme in 2016 to 2021, with a budget of £4.7 billion, awarded grants for just two Traveller sites across the whole country in the scheme’s entire period. They were both just transit sites in Birmingham and Cornwall. That was revealed by Friends, Families & Travellers, which FOI-ed Homes England to find that information. Funding for Traveller sites must be more than warm words.
The Minister also claimed that there has been an increase in the number of caravans on sites from 14,000 in 2010 to 20,000 in 2019, but she failed to point out that the number of caravans counted on sites is different from the actual number of pitches. The 14,000 and 20,000 figures are the total number of caravans counted that are listed as on authorised sites in the caravan count. While there has indeed been a rise from 14,730 in January 2010 to 19,967 in January 2020, the number of caravans on socially rented sites fell by 364.
Small-scale, family-run sites are great for those who have the resources to pull this off, but they are incredibly problematic and inaccessible for those who live in areas where land is at a premium and who have limited finances. It is the number of permanent pitches that can really improve things for Travellers, residents, local authorities and the police. Although there has been a 39.9% increase in transit pitches alone, it amounts to an increase of only 101 pitches—the equivalent of 10 per year over 10 years—with an overall decrease of 11.1% in permanent pitches on local authority and registered social landlord sites. In fact, the Government’s published figures show that there has been an overall 8.4% decrease of pitches on local authority Traveller sites. Nesil Caliskan, the chair of the Local Government Association, told us in the evidence sessions:
“There has to be a commitment from local authorities that those sites are allocated. The statutory legislation that already exists for these protected characteristics needs to be taken seriously. We should be meeting the obligations that are already set in statute, which says that we should have adequate sites for these communities, but we just do not.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 68, Q99.]
The Government should focus on ensuring that local authorities have the resources they need to provide more space for Traveller communities to legally reside. By taking an enforcement approach to address the number of unauthorised encampments, the Government are overlooking the issue of the lack of site provision.
Part 4 of the Bill would cause harm to Gypsy and Traveller communities for generations. Gypsies and Travellers are already the most disproportionally represented group in the criminal justice system. Part 4 would compound the inequalities already experienced by Gypsies and Travellers and further push them into the criminal justice system, just for existing nomadically. I urge the Government to rethink these harmful proposals.
Victoria Atkins
I am very grateful to Opposition Members for debating this matter, because it gives me the opportunity to clear up some of the misunderstandings that appear to have arisen during the course of the Bill being debated and scrutinised by Parliament, and indeed by organisations outside Parliament.
We know that the vast majority of Travellers are law-abiding citizens, but when damage, disruption or distress is caused where a person resides on land without consent, it can affect local communities as well as landowners. Residents often feel helpless as their land or local amenities are damaged or disrupted, and councils are left with huge clean-up bills in some cases. In 2016, Birmingham City Council incurred costs of £700,000 due to evictions and clean-up costs resulting from harmful unauthorised encampments—that is £700,000 of taxpayers’ money. It is only right that the Government seek to protect citizens who are adversely affected by harmful unauthorised encampments, and to deter them from being set up in the first instance.
We have held consultations on this issue. In the 2018 Government consultation on enforcement powers for unauthorised encampments, it was made clear that people want to see greater protection for local communities, and for the police to be given greater powers to crack down on unauthorised encampments. In 2019, we ran a further consultation in which we asked how we should extend those powers. Some 66% of the people responding on behalf of local authorities were in favour of a new criminal offence for intentional trespass. At the start of our proceedings in oral evidence, we heard powerful accounts from PCC Alison Hernandez about the impact of unauthorised encampments in her area of Devon and Cornwall. Only today we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, and from my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield and for Blyth Valley, about the impact that unauthorised encampments and harmful behaviour within those encampments have had on their constituencies.
It is that caveat that is critical when we are looking at these clauses. Clause 61 introduces a new criminal offence for people residing on private or public land with vehicles who refuse to leave, without a reasonable excuse, when asked to do so, but only when they have caused, or are likely to cause, significant damage, disruption or distress. That is the key: that is what I kept asking those who spoke against these provisions during the evidence sessions. It is clear that for this offence to be committed, the conditions set out in subsection (4) of the proposed new section must be met: in other words, in a case where the person is residing on the land, significant damage or disruption has been caused or is likely to be caused as a result of P’s residence.
Ian Levy
Would the Minister clear a point up for me, just so I can get straight in my head what this Bill is setting out to do? A few years ago, we had the tall ships regatta in Blyth, and all the caravan sites were full, the bed and breakfasts were full, the hotels were full—it was a fantastic time. We had a massive influx of people coming to Blyth Valley. My cousin is a landowner, and he was asked by a group of people who were coming down whether he could turn over part of a field so that people could put their caravans there. About 50 caravans turned up in total. They stayed, they enjoyed the weekend, and they cleared up after themselves—they had a litter pick when they left, putting all the rubbish to one side. My cousin did not charge the group, but they brought toys for the kids and flowers for his wife. The Bill is not setting out to stop tourism, is it? It is not setting out to stop that guy in his caravan or that man with his camper van. It is to stop the unlawful things that go on: litter, breaking into houses, and anything like that. If the Minister could clear that up for me, that would be fantastic.
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, and I am really happy to clarify this. I understand the concerns that have been voiced, but there is clearly a great deal of misunderstanding as to how these provisions are intended to act. They are intended to address the criminal, damaging, disrupting or distressing behaviour that arises from some unauthorised encampments—certainly not all; we are caveating this very carefully. Where there are unauthorised encampments in which people are behaving in a way that is causing, or is likely to cause, significant disruption, damage or distress, that is the behaviour we are trying to target.
I have listened very carefully to the arguments from the Opposition, particularly those regarding the provision of authorised encampments, and I am going to come on to the details of the Government’s plans for that in due course. However, to say that the answer to this behaviour is to provide authorised encampments is to miss the intention and, indeed, the very drafting of this clause. People can go on to a piece of land without agreement, but this offence will not be committed unless the conditions in subsection (4) are met. That is why I asked some of the witnesses, “What is an acceptable level of distress?” We as constituency MPs need to be able to look our constituents in the eye when we are voting on this legislation and say, “We have weighed up what may be significant disruption, what may be significant damage and what may be significant distress, and have tried to ensure that we are representing your views when we are opining on this piece of legislation.”
Mr Goodwill
The Minister will be aware that quite often, this land is agricultural land, which is needed for farmers and landowners to graze their stock. In a dry season, as it was earlier in this season, the last thing that farmers want is land that they can use for their own livestock being taken over and possibly used for the grazing of the horses of people who have come on to their land.
Victoria Atkins
Of course, it will not just be a question of horses. My farmers have the pleasure of farming some of the greatest, highest-quality agricultural land in the country, and they go to great efforts to ensure that their arable fields are ploughed, sowed, and treated to ensure optimum production of crop yields in each and every field that they farm. The use of a large vehicle—or, indeed, many large vehicles—which is not farm machinery and therefore not driven by the person who tends to a field going on to that field can cause damage. At this time of year, when driving around agricultural areas, one will see entrances to fields blockaded with all sorts of large items to try to ensure that they are not trespassed upon in the way that we are trying to tackle in the Bill.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister places a lot of stock in the word “significant”. To play devil’s advocate—perhaps against myself—she may be holding out a false promise to some of the communities we have heard described today. If a gang of Travellers turn up with 10 caravans, move on to someone’s land illegally—or it would be illegal under the Bill—take their rubbish away and do the work they want to do in the area, they will not be caught by the provision because they will not have caused “significant damage”. Communities across the country think that the Conservative Government are about to deliver all-encompassing, “we can move the Travellers on” legislation, but it is simply not the case.
Victoria Atkins
In that scenario, the hon. Gentleman is right, in that we are addressing the behaviour that is set out in proposed new section 60C(4). In the event of a travelling community behaving as he describes, all the existing civil measures that a landowner can rely upon are there to move them on. We are trying to deal with behaviour that causes significant damage, distress and disruption where encampments are unauthorised. We are balancing things carefully because we want to address the serious scenarios that my hon. Friends have described in their constituencies.
As we have touched on in other contexts, the word “significant” is widely used in legislation, for example in section 14A of the Public Order Act 1986 on “Prohibiting trespassory assemblies”, which refers to “significant damage”. The criminal offence is committed only when a person resides or intends to reside on the land without consent with a vehicle. That avoids criminalising other forms of trespass, for example, the offence does not apply to a hiker, someone who is homeless or someone who inadvertently strays on to private land. I know that many colleagues of all parties have received communications from clubs, associations and people who have taken the time to write to their Member of Parliament or the Home Office on the issue and we very much hope that this will provide them with welcome reassurance. We all have the right to enjoy the beautiful national parks and green spaces that this great country has to offer and we will be able to continue to exercise that right.
The types of harms caught by the offence are defined in clause 61 and cover many of the problems we have been told that residents and landowners face through some unauthorised encampments. These include significant damage to land, property and the environment, as well as threatening behaviour to residents and landowners. Regarding distress, an offence is committed only if significant distress has been caused or is likely to be caused as a result of offensive conduct, which is then defined within the Bill. It is therefore not possible for an offence to be caught if a person is distressed by the mere presence of an unauthorised encampment on the land. That is where the civil measures I referred to earlier will come into play.
I was challenged with an example where a landowner is distressed and demands the police arrest someone. As with every other criminal offence, the police will only arrest someone if they are doing so in the course of their duties under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. They cannot and must not arrest someone just because a landowner or anyone else happens to demand it. It is important as we are discussing the Bill that we bear in mind the wider checks and balances within the criminal justice system and the wider principles that apply across all criminal offences.
If someone has met the previously mentioned conditions, to be guilty of the offence, they must fail to comply with the request to leave as soon as reasonably practicable and without reasonable excuse. The duties of the police in relation to safeguarding the vulnerable when taking enforcement decisions will continue to apply, as with any other criminal investigation.
The penalties are consistent with squatting legislation and existing powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. The offence is also accompanied by a power for the police to seize the vehicle and other property of the person committing the offence, which ensures that enforcement action is effective and could also have a deterrent effect. Seizure powers are already conferred on the police in relation to failure to comply with a police direction under the 1994 Act. It is right that the police should have equivalent powers in the context of the new criminal offence.
The seizure power is proportionate. Where possible, police decisions to arrest and seize vehicles should continue to be taken in consultation with the local authority which, where possible, would need to offer assurance that it has relevant measures in place to meet any welfare and safeguarding needs of those affected by the loss of their accommodation. The police will continue to undertake any enforcement action in compliance with their equality and human rights obligations.
The shadow Minister set out the police evidence on these new powers. The responses to the 2018 consultation showed a clear desire from the public for the police to be given more powers to tackle unauthorised encampments, but unauthorised Traveller sites require a locally driven, multi-agency response, led by local authorities and supported by the police. There are incentives in place for local authorities to encourage the provision of authorised Traveller pitches. Local planning authorities should continue to assess the need for Traveller accommodation and identify land for sites.
It is only right that the police are given the powers to tackle instances of unauthorised encampments that meet the conditions of proposed new subsection (4). We are very pleased that the Opposition are adopting the position that we should legislate for changes to police powers when requested by the police, because that gives us hope that they will support the measures in part 3, which we have just debated and which have been requested by the police.
This new offence is not targeted at any particular group. Rather, anyone who causes significant damage, disruption or distress in the specified conditions and who refuses to leave without reasonable excuse when asked to do so will be caught by the offence.
Section 61 of the 1994 Act is currently exercisable where any of the trespassers has caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, Under the amendments in clause 62, the relevant harms comprise damage, disruption or distress, including environmental damage, such as excessive noise and litter. The harms do not need to be significant for police to be able to direct trespassers away in the first instance. That will make it easier for the police to direct trespassers away where encampments are causing problems for landowners, communities or businesses.
We have also increased the period in which trespassers directed away from the land must not return, from three months to 12 months. That is designed to strengthen enforcement powers, acting as a greater deterrent in the first place, and to protect more proportionately the rights of landowners and local communities. We are also enabling the police to direct trespassers away from land that forms part of a highway, to ensure that directions can be given to trespassers on roads.
Our overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers in a way that facilitates their traditional nomadic way of life while respecting the interests of local residents and the settled community. We recognise that the vast majority of Travellers are law-abiding citizens, but unauthorised sites can often give an unfair negative image of nomadic communities, and cause distress and misery to residents who live nearby. We are equally clear that we will not tolerate law breaking.
Statutory guidance will be issued, as provided for in clause 63, and will outline examples of what might constitute a reasonable excuse for not complying with the request to leave. That guidance will be vital to support the police in discharging those functions and will help to ensure a consistent application of the powers across England and Wales. The police must have regard to the guidance when exercising the relevant functions. We envisage that the guidance will set out, for example, what might constitute significant damage, disruption and distress, and what might constitute a reasonable excuse, where someone fails to comply with a request to leave the land. It will be up to the police and courts to decide whether someone has a reasonable excuse for not complying, depending on the specific facts of that case.
We recognise the rights of Travellers to follow a nomadic way of life, in line with their cultural heritage. Our aim is for settled and Traveller communities to be able to live side by side harmoniously, and we hope that the clear rules and boundaries that we are putting in place will facilitate that. We remain committed to delivering a cross-Government strategy to tackle the inequalities faced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. The planning policy for Traveller sites is clear that local planning authorities should assess the need for Traveller accommodation and identify land for sites. Local housing authorities are required to assess their housing and accommodation needs under the Housing Act 1985, including for those who reside in caravans. There is wider Government support for the provision of Traveller sites via the new homes bonus, which provides an incentive for local authorities to encourage housing growth in their areas, and rewards net increases in effective housing stock, including the provision of authorised Traveller pitches.
Alex Cunningham
Does the Minister have an idea what the Government’s plans are in terms of the number of sites that are likely to be created over the next three to five years?
Victoria Atkins
That is a matter for local authorities. We have the planning policy for Traveller sites, which is down to the local planning authority. In the hon. Gentleman’s area, I know not whether his local council agrees with him that there should be more sites, but it would be a matter for the local authority to address with local residents.
We remain committed to delivering the strategy to tackle the inequalities faced by the communities that we have discussed. There is the additional affordable homes programme for local authorities to deliver a wide range of affordable homes to meet the housing needs of people in different circumstances and different housing markets, including funding for new Traveller pitches.
We believe that we have struck the right balance between the rights of those who live a nomadic way of life and the rights of local communities to go about their lives without the significant damage, disruption and distress outlined in proposed new section 60C(4), which, regrettably, some unauthorised encampments cause. I therefore commend clauses 61 to 63 to the Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. The clause fulfils the Government’s long-standing commitment to increase the maximum penalty for the offences of, first, causing death by dangerous driving and, secondly, causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs from, in both cases, the current maximum sentence of 14 years to life imprisonment.
As members of the Committee will know, in response to the consultation on driving offences and penalties some time ago, the Government proposed to take forward various changes in the law, including these, and all of them received overwhelming public support and support from other consultees. By enacting this clause we are delivering on the result of that consultation and on a long-standing commitment. That means that when sentencing people for these very serious offences, the courts can sentence up to life imprisonment if the judge sees fit.
Many hon. Members will have constituency cases where families have suffered the terrible trauma of a loved one being killed by a dangerous or careless driver who was driving when drunk. I have certainly encountered a number of such cases in the last six years as a constituency MP, as I am sure each and every Member here has. The criminal justice system can never adequately compensate for the grief caused by the loss of a loved one in such terrible circumstances, but these changes will mean that courts now have the power to make sure that the punishment truly fits the crime.
It is appropriate that the maximum sentences for causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while under the influence are increased from 14 years to life imprisonment. I commend these measures to the Committee.
Alex Cunningham
I am pleased to offer the Opposition’s enthusiastic support for clauses 64 to 66, and particularly for clause 64, which will increase the maximum penalties for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs from 14 years’ imprisonment to imprisonment for life.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for their committed work to increase the penalty for those guilty of causing death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment and for the Bill they have promoted and supported. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East has worked alongside the family of Jaqueline Wileman, from Grimethorpe, who was 58 when she was struck and tragically killed by a stolen heavy goods vehicle in September 2018. I offer my sincerest thanks to the Wileman family for their tireless campaign for change, which they are now able to see become a reality.
Other families of victims of these awful crimes have also long campaigned to see these changes, such as the family of Violet-Grace, who died from injuries inflicted as a result of a car crash caused by individuals driving dangerously in March 2017. I hope that this change in the law, which they have fought to bring forward, will provide some small solace that dangerous drivers who kill will, in future, feel the full force of the law.
Work to address this important issue has been energetic on both sides of the House, and it was the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) who introduced the Death by Dangerous Driving (Sentencing) Bill in July 2020, as a private Member’s Bill co-sponsored by my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East and for Barnsley Central. We are therefore fully supportive of the Government’s proposal to provide the court with a wider range of penalties to ensure that sentences are proportionate and reflect the seriousness of the offending.
The urgent need for this change is illustrated by the fact that, in 2019, over 150 people were sentenced for causing death by dangerous driving. Of those offenders, around 95% received an immediate custodial sentence, of which over 15 received a sentence of more than 10 years. If 10% of offenders are already being sentenced near the maximum threshold, it seems the time is ripe to provide the court with wider sentencing powers for these offences so that offenders are dealt with consistently and fairly.
Although we are fully supportive of these changes, I note that there has been some delay in introducing them. The Government committed to changing the law on causing death by dangerous driving following a review in 2014—seven years ago. As the Minster said, it has been a long-standing commitment. There was also a consultation in 2016, which the Government responded to in 2017, committing to the legislative changes that are now in the Bill. The private Member’s Bill brought forward by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead last year was a real nudge along to the Government, following a perceived dropping of the ball. I would normally say, “Better late than never,” but for a measure as serious as this, and with hundreds of families losing loved ones to dangerous drivers in the intervening years, I wonder what held the Government up for so long.
Speaking of delays, Cycling UK said that, although it cautiously supports these proposals, it fears they will do very little to address the many serious problems with the framework of road traffic offences and penalties. I understand that the Government promised a full review of the framework back in 2014, but it has never happened. I would welcome an update from the Minister on the wider review, which could look at the utilisation of driving bans.
We fully support the proposals in clause 65, which introduces the new offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving, and sets the maximum penalty for the offence on indictment at two years’ imprisonment.
Alex Cunningham
In that case, I will sit down and address that point later.
Chris Philp
I have nothing further to add to my earlier answers. We keep these matters under continual review. There are no plans to make changes just at the moment, but we do of course keep an eye on these matters.
Alex Cunningham
A review was promised in 2014. Is that review likely to be held soon?
Chris Philp
I am afraid that I have no specific information on that, other than to say that we keep an eye on these matters on an ongoing basis.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 64 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65
Causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, driving
Chris Philp
This clause has a very similar intention to the previous clause, in that it introduces a new section 2C offence into the Road Traffic Act 1988 to fill a lacuna in the existing legislation. It does that by introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving. There is currently no offence that covers this, so we are filling a gap that exists in the current legislation.
The new offence created by the clause is committed if a person causes serious injury by driving a car or another mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or public place without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users and, while doing so, causes serious injury.
The maximum custodial penalty for the offence on indictment will be two years’ imprisonment or a fine. The maximum custodial penalty on summary conviction will be 12 months or a fine. Until such time as section 224 of the sentencing code is commenced, the maximum penalty on summary conviction in England and Wales will be read as six months.
This is an important clause, which fills a gap in the current law and ensures that, where serious injury is caused by someone who is driving carelessly or inconsiderately, there will be an offence that can be prosecuted with an appropriate penalty—in this case, a maximum of two years if tried on indictment. I hope the Committee will agree that this is a sensible measure and will support the clause.
Alex Cunningham
As I prematurely said some minutes ago, we fully support the proposals in clause 65, which introduces the new offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving and sets the maximum penalty for the offence on indictment, as the Minister said, at two years’ imprisonment.
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 made provision for new offences for dangerous and disqualified driving, but left the gap the Minister referred to in the law, relating to careless driving that results in serious injury. As I said before, we welcome the sensible proposal in clause 65, which fills that gap and will allow for a penalty that recognises the high level of harm caused by these incidents. As a result, the Opposition support clause 66 and schedule 7, which make minor consequential amendments as a result of clauses 64 and 65.
Chris Philp
Debates about conditions in prisons are probably somewhat outside the scope of our discussion, save to say that the Prisons Minister works on a daily basis to ensure that our prisons provide the right sort of environment, including for rehabilitative purposes.
The shadow Minister asked about the prison population and drew attention to the overall impact assessment for the Bill. As he said, the impact assessment, in which these measures are listed as measures A to C for driving offences, estimates that 1,300 offenders may be affected. The impact on prison places obviously depends on how judges sentence the new offence—measure C in the impact assessment—and how sentences vary under clause 64, which we discussed previously, given that the maximum is being increased from 14 years to life. However, that is all included in the overall figure of 700 places that covers the entire Bill.
The shadow Minister asked about the availability of prison places in the light of the pandemic. That again is more a matter for the Prisons Minister, but the overall prison population today is materially lower than prior to the pandemic—I speak from memory, but I think it is 5,000 or 6,000 lower—for a variety of reasons that I am sure the shadow Minister is aware of. Therefore, the pressures on the prison population coming out of the pandemic may be a little less severe than one might have feared.
I repeat my support for the clause, which fills an important gap in the law.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66
Road traffic offences: minor and consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Chris Philp
Clause 66 and schedule 7 introduce a number of minor consequential amendments to be made to other Acts as a result of the offence we discussed in the previous clause. The consequential amendments to proposed new section 2C to the Road Traffic Act 1988 —causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, driving—are among those. It inserts a new section 3ZB and 3ZC into that Act, and tidies up various other anomalies. In essence, they are minor, inconsequential amendments that follow the previous clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 67
Courses offered as alternative to prosecution: fees etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Clause 67 provides a specific statutory power for the current charging arrangements for education courses offered for minor driving offences as an alternative to a fixed penalty or prosecution. Those courses help to improve road safety and reduce the burden on the criminal justice system. The provisions in this clause will not change the way in which courses are offered, administered or run, but will provide greater transparency over the way that fees are set. A local policing body may charge a fee to cover the cost of the approved course, but also include an uplift as a contribution towards the cost of promoting road safety, including road safety partnerships and speed cameras.
The clause will also allow the Home Secretary to prescribe in secondary legislation the types of courses in which motorists may be charged, the maximum amount that may be charged and the way that the charge can be used. It will allow provision to be made to prevent courses from being offered to repeat offenders. That means that any potential repeat offenders will face the deterrent of fixed penalty fines and penalty points on their licence. Equivalent provisions are made for Northern Ireland, and there are allowances for corresponding or similar provision for Scotland, following consultation with the Lord Advocate.
Bambos Charalambous
We support clause 67 and welcome that the charging regime for courses offered as an alternative to prosecution will be placed on a statutory footing. It makes a lot of sense that a course cannot be offered to repeat offenders, but I would like to ask the Minister a question about proposed new part 4B, section 91G, which states:
“A fee may be set at a level that exceeds the cost of an approved course and related administrative expenses, but any excess must be used for the purpose of promoting road safety.”
Can the Minister provide an example of why a fee would be set at a level that exceeds the cost, and how much that could be? How much do the fees vary across police forces? Police forces can decide which courses to offer, so not all courses will be available in all areas. The same offence committed in different force areas may be dealt with in different ways.
What will the clause do to ensure that there is a consistent application of diversionary courses across the country? If the courses are to be effective methods of deterrence and rehabilitation of offenders, it is important that their use be consistent. In its 2016 report, the Transport Committee said of diversionary courses:
“There are clearly concerns about the transparency of the operation and funding of diversionary courses, reinforced by the variations in fees between force areas and the profits earned by providers.”
It also recommended that:
“the costs for diversionary courses should be standardised nationwide unless there is a clear and convincing reason not to do so…so that the public can be confident in the transparency of these courses.”
Although clause 67 allows the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the level of fees, use of fee income and how fees are to be calculated, can the Minister tell us whether a standardised cost may be considered in secondary regulations?
Victoria Atkins
As I said, the clause permits charges to be laid in excess of the cost of the approved course, but will also permit a contribution towards the cost of promoting road safety, including road safety partnerships and speed cameras. In principle, that seems to be a good approach; if one falls foul of driving legislation, a contribution to the costs of keeping our streets safe locally seems to be a proportionate response.
The current course fee is approximately £100, but that can vary according to local course arrangements. The types of course offered and course costs can be found on the national driver offender retraining scheme, which is available online at www.ukroed.org.uk. The type of course offered and the costs can vary by police force and supplier, but we want to ensure that there is greater transparency in the way that fees are set, enabling the setting of maximum amounts that can be charged to provide, run and administer such courses. There is no immediate intention to introduce standard fees unless it is considered appropriate after consultation with relevant stakeholders.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68
Charges for removal, storage and disposal of vehicles
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
The police have the power to remove vehicles that are illegally, dangerously or obstructively parked, broken down or abandoned, including after theft or a road traffic collision. The cost of the recovery, storage and disposal of such vehicles should not fall to the police or the taxpayer.
Clause 68 will clarify the legal basis for the police’s charging for vehicle recovery under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. That will ensure that the police can continue to recover the cost of removing, storing and disposing of vehicles, including those causing an obstruction or danger—for example, vehicles damaged in a road traffic collision. The clause will also ensure that all appropriate authorities covered under the 1984 Act can continue to recover such costs, which includes the Secretary of State and Highways England.
Bambos Charalambous
Clause 68 is described in the explanatory notes as being intended
“to return to a statutory footing”
the legal basis for charging for removing or impounding vehicles. However, in an article in the Daily Mail, it has been described as fixing an “incredible legal gaffe”.
The powers to charge for vehicle removal, storage and disposal were actually introduced in 1984, but the explanatory notes explain that
“the police’s power to charge for the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles within the meaning of ‘civil enforcement areas for parking contraventions’”
seems to have been inadvertently removed due to a drafting error. At the same time, the power of local authorities, the Secretary of State and strategic highways companies to charge for the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles were also inadvertently removed.
I want to ask the Minister about the implications of the error, and what changes or problems the passing of clause 68 might bring. Will the many drivers who for the past 30 years have been charged when the legal basis for that charge did not actually exist be able to take legal action? Will the Government review what has happened?
Howard Cox, of the motoring pressure group FairFuelUK, has said:
“Drivers who in the last 30 years have been charged illegally should demand their vehicle confiscation costs be repaid in full. They should be checking that they have the historic paperwork to mount a legal challenge. This is not a question of their offences being right or wrong—it is down to the government’s incompetence that is off the scale. The authorities and those responsible must pay for this idiocy.”
Jeanette Miller, of the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers, told the Daily Mail that it was
“a major error in the legislation that has resulted in goodness knows how many millions being charged to motorists without any lawful basis”.
She added:
“Where this leaves motorists in terms of seeking refunds is difficult to say. There is a limitation period of six years in pursuing civil claims, but this can start from the date of the breach or, crucially, the date of knowledge.”
The fees for storage and release of vehicles can be hundreds of pounds. The police and other bodies can charge £150 to tow a vehicle, and car-owners can also be charged up to £20 a day for storage of a car and up to £75 to dispose of it. The Government’s impact assessment says:
“There are no impacts associated with this measure. The new provision returns to a statutory footing the position as it applied before the inadvertent removal of these powers due to a drafting error. There will be no additional impact beyond that.”
It is hard to believe that there will be no impact if potentially millions of people have been charged for the storage and release of vehicles when there was no legal basis for that charge.
There is not simple data collection on the number of impounded vehicles, so could the Minister provide us with some figures for how many people she estimates have been affected by this error since 1991?
I also ask the Minister what this will mean for our cash-strapped police forces, local authorities and highways agencies. They could face huge bills if they are forced to compensate drivers for their legal costs, so this error could have serious, wide-ranging consequences. I hope the Minister can reassure the Committee that the Government will be taking swift action to come up with a solution, so that this mistake does not become a national scandal.
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for setting out the history of the regulation and its drafting. The police have other powers to charge for the removal of vehicles used in a manner that is causing alarm, distress or annoyance, or being driven without a driving licence or insurance. The only power affected was the power to charge for the removal of vehicles that were abandoned or broken down.
This provision clarifies the statutory basis of the ability of the police, Secretary of State or strategic highways companies to charge for vehicle recovery. Local authorities were not affected, as the amendment to the 1984 Act focused on the powers of local authorities and inadvertently removed other powers to charge. We believe it has been right for the police to continue to charge for vehicle recovery: that has avoided costs being borne by the taxpayer, and has allowed the police to continue removing abandoned vehicles to keep roads safe for other drivers and pedestrians. If the police were unable to deal with vehicle removal, significant inconvenience would be caused to the travelling public and commerce by the obstruction of highways by vehicles.
The hon. Gentleman stated some of the fees that can be charged. It is important to explain the thinking behind those: police contracts require operators to deal with a range of different vehicles, provide a guaranteed speedy response, and to have specialist equipment and secure storage facilities. Vehicles are often accident-damaged, do not free-wheel and are difficult to access—or they may require forensic examination, and must therefore be removed and stored with the highest standards of professionalism. I believe that is all I can do to assist the hon. Gentleman with his queries.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Production of licence to the court
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 70 to 73 stand part.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 74 stand part.
That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 75 stand part.
Victoria Atkins
Clauses 69 to 74 and schedules 8 and 9 update the law in relation to the production and surrender of driving licences, so as to streamline the processes for the electronic endorsement of driving licences by removing the need for the physical licence to be produced. They also strengthen the rules for the surrender of driving licences where a driver faces disqualification.
The current legal requirement to produce and surrender the driving licence as part of the endorsement process is now outdated. In 2015, the paper driving licence counterpart, which previously recorded the endorsement, was abolished, and the information is now only recorded on Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency electronic drivers’ records. There is therefore no need for a physical driving licence to be produced and surrendered for an endorsement to be recorded on an individual’s driving record. The only need for a licence to be produced and surrendered is when the driver may be sentenced to disqualification or is actually disqualified. The clauses and schedules bring the law up to date, removing any need for individuals to deliver or post their licence before a hearing, and leaving only a duty to take their licence to court if there is a hearing and if they attend.
Clause 70 provides the Secretary of State—in practice, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—with the power to require the surrender of a driving licence to the agency where a court has ordered disqualification. Failure to do so would be a summary offence, carrying a maximum penalty of a level 3 fine—currently £1,000. Where an individual is disqualified, the court will notify the DVLA and forward the licence to it when it has been surrendered at court. When it has not been surrendered at court, the DVLA will follow up production of the licence with the disqualified driver using the new power.
The clauses also remove the need for the production and surrender of the driving licence and allow police constables and vehicle examiners to issue a fixed penalty notice without checking and retaining a physical driving licence.
Clause 75 is included at the request of the Scottish Government. Its objective is to make better use of police and judicial resources in Scotland. Currently, the police throughout Great Britain have the power to issue a conditional offer of a fixed penalty notice under sections 75 to 77A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The scheme was introduced in 1989 as an alternative to prosecution for certain low-level road traffic offences. Once a conditional offer of a fixed penalty is issued, an individual has 28 days to accept the offer and make payment. In Scotland, if the offer is not accepted or the recipient fails to take any action, the police will submit a standard prosecution report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for consideration of whether a prosecution should take place.
Clause 75 grants the power to issue fixed penalty notices on the spot in Scotland for minor road traffic offences. That power is already available in England and Wales. In contrast to the position with conditional offers of fixed penalty notices, when the recipient of a fixed penalty notice fails to respond it simply becomes a registered fine at one and a half times the original penalty. That approach is attractive to the Scottish Government as a means of reducing the burden on the police, prosecutors and courts while preserving the recipient’s right to challenge a fixed penalty notice, should they wish to do so.
The clause will apply in the first instance to the police, but the Scottish Government want to be able to consider its potential extension to traffic wardens and vehicle examiners at their own pace and following further consideration.
I commend the clauses and schedules to the Committee.
Alex Cunningham
The Opposition also support the remaining clauses in part 5. They are sensible, helpful and well evidenced, and we are glad to offer our support for them. Currently, when a fixed penalty notice has been issued, a driver must surrender their licence to the relevant authority, but since the paper counterpart licence was abolished in 2015, there is no need for a driving licence to be produced for an endorsement to be recorded against a driver’s driving record.
Clauses 69 to 74 will finally remove the redundant requirement for a physical driving licence to be produced when a fixed penalty notice has been issued and they will also strengthen the rules for the surrender of driving licences when a driver faces disqualification.
Clause 69 will amend section 27(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to provide that courts are no longer required to oblige licence production. Instead, the courts will be provided with powers that they may exercise at their discretion. This power will apply both where the court proposes to disqualify and where it disqualifies a licence.
Clauses 70 and 71 make further amendments to the 1988 Act, the effect of which, when taken together with clause 69, is to remove the need to produce a driving licence from the fixed penalty process. This streamlining is welcome and hopefully will in some small way reduce the administrative burden on our under-resourced and overstretched courts system, as it will no longer need to handle the physical licence where a driver faces endorsement, but not disqualification.
In recent years, attempts have been made to update the law in this area through private Members’ Bills, which have had Government support. The attempt made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) fell after its Committee stage because of the 2017 general election. The attempt made in the 2017-to-2019 Session by the right hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) did not even manage to progress past its First Reading. I am glad that the Government are at last introducing the measure in a Government Bill in Government time.
We are also content with clause 75, which extends the police power that the police in England and Wales currently have to issue on-the-spot fines for certain moving traffic offences to police in Scotland. I am aware of the Department for Transport’s joint consultation with the Scottish Government on this topic from 2018. Doesn’t it take a long time for things to happen in law? The majority of the responses to the consultation supported the proposed changes and seemed to indicate the need for fixed penalty notice reform in Scotland for suspected road traffic offences, which the Government are sensibly introducing here.
Allan Dorans
I wish to confirm that the Scottish Government welcome the clauses that affect Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 70 to 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
World Oceans Day 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes made to the normal practice in order to support new hybrid arrangements. Timings of the debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate, so there will be a suspension between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive at the start of the debates in Westminster Hall, and Members are expected to remain for the entire debate, although I am aware that one Member has to leave early for an important meeting, which is perfectly understandable.
Members are visible to each other at all times, whether attending physically or virtually. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall clerks at westminsterhallclerks@ parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I would also like to remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated masks should be worn in Westminster Hall unless you are speaking. Members attending physically who are speaking in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats become available, as they can speak only from the horseshoe, where there are microphones.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered World Oceans Day 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The Earth is a blue marble. Over 70% of its surface is covered by water, and the algae that live on the surface account for more than 50% of the oxygen we breathe. So far, the ocean has absorbed one third of all human-created emissions, and regulates our climate. Our oceans are too big and too important just to be the domain of MPs such as me, who are blessed with a constituency with a sea shore. The oceans are home to over a quarter of a million known species and another 2 million as yet unknown, and they are the main source of protein for more than 1 billion people.
United Nations World Oceans Day is a celebration of the potential of our sea, and this year’s theme is life and livelihood. Globally, fishing supported some 39 million jobs in 2018, and the UK’s fishing industry alone is worth almost £1 billion to our economy. In my North Devon constituency, many local businesses and families rely on the maritime economy, and we need to revert to sustainable fishing practices to ensure that we use those precious resources in the best way possible. Additional jobs, fish and associated economic benefit could be derived if our fish stocks were restored to their maximum sustainable yield.
Conservative Governments have led the way for the UK to become a global ocean champion, with our extensive network of marine protected areas. However, we could make use of our post-Brexit freedoms to ban bottom trawling. Research suggests that emissions from bottom trawling alone could be as high as those from all UK agriculture.
Why does that matter? Our seabeds are significant carbon stores, or sinks. When they are disturbed by bottom trawling or dredging, or even by anchors being thrown overboard, the stored carbon becomes resuspended in the water, and potentially escapes back to the atmosphere as CO2. Over 200 million tonnes of this blue carbon are stored on the UK’s ocean floor—a third more than is held in our stock of standing forests.
The role of coastal and marine habitats in drawing down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in seabed, sediment, seaweeds, salt marshes and seagrass beds has been somewhat neglected. Increasing blue carbon habitats could result in a reduction of carbon in our atmosphere, while reducing the disturbance of the seabed ensures that it remains stored. As a Marine Conservation Society blue carbon champion, I believe that if we are to meet net zero by 2050, we must consider blue carbon part of the solution, not to mention integrating it in our carbon accounts. Along with other hon. Members, I recently wrote to Lord Deben, the chair of the Climate Change Committee, to ask him to look into the feasibility of making that happen.
My North Devon constituency is home to the first UNESCO biosphere, and today is the 50th anniversary of the Man and the Biosphere programme. Our world-leading biosphere conducts a wide range of ongoing projects, including those investing in seaweeds, seagrass and salt marshes. I am truly fortunate that I spend my weekends in and on the sea, surfing and gig rowing. I live and breathe the ocean. Sir David Attenborough’s legendary “Blue Planet” brought the ocean to all our living rooms, and we now need to link that passion to action to ensure that it is there for future generations.
No wonder 85% of people in England and Wales consider marine protection important to them. Take whales, for example: not only are they delightful to watch when we are lucky enough to see them, but they are brilliant tacklers of climate change. Each great whale sequesters around 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide on average in their lifetime, which is equivalent to the carbon sequestration of almost 1,400 trees.
We need to ensure that we are all aware of the value of our oceans and what lives within them, and be aware that, while the benefits of rain forests are so widely taught, our oceans and blue carbon are absent from far too many curriculums.
I am proud that the UK, through leading the Global Ocean Alliance and co-chairing the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, is pushing to protect at least 30% of the global ocean in marine protected areas and through other effective area-based conservation measures by 2030—the 30by30 target.
It is great news that this morning the Government have announced plans to pilot highly protected marine areas in English waters, creating sites where all activities that could have a damaging effect on wildlife or marine habitats would be banned. The independent Benyon review concluded that such HPMAs would have an important role to play in helping the marine ecosystem to recover. The Government have my full support in taking those steps.
Biodiversity is also crucial. With 90% of big fish populations depleted, and 50% of coral reefs destroyed, we are taking more from the ocean than can be replenished. As the UN states when referencing World Oceans Day:
“To protect and preserve the ocean and all it sustains, we must create a new balance, rooted in true understanding of the ocean and how humanity relates to it. We must build a connection to the ocean that is inclusive, innovative, and informed by lessons from the past”.
Connect to the ocean we must. I frequently collect litter on our beaches and am horrified by the volume of plastics, microplastics and nurdles on North Devon’s beautiful beaches. The tragic situation with the container ship in Sri Lanka last week—it caught fire and spilled its cargo into the ocean—has brought nurdles something of an unwanted fame, but it highlights the fact that we are indeed shipping those pellets around the world in containers that end up in our seas. Is that what we want? If not, what are we going to do to change it?
Plastic pollution is visible and tangible, and we feel we can do something about it by picking it up, but so much of what is going on in our oceans is not visible. Sewage pollution is another challenge along my constituency coastline. I was one of the MPs to support the Sewage (Inland Waters) Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), and I am delighted to see so much of it incorporated in our landmark Environment Bill, which yesterday received its Second Reading in the House of Lords.
I also hope that introducing the debate will reduce the pressure on my inbox, as I receive an abundance of emails from constituents linked to the Surfers Against Sewage campaign each time the water quality is reduced in North Devon. I very much hope further steps will rapidly be taken to reduce the discharge into our rivers, which ultimately reaches our oceans.
Blue carbon is part of the solution, not part of the problem, when it comes to achieving net zero. I hope that today’s debate offers a chance to focus not just on what we have achieved, but on how much more there is still to do to restore our oceans and to optimise their link to our lives and livelihoods.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Before I call Kerry McCarthy, I should say that colleagues will be aware that there are around 10 Back Benchers who want to speak. If Members take five minutes each, we will all get on great.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing the debate and on an excellent speech. I do not think there was anything in it with which I could disagree.
Sadly, World Oceans Day has increased in importance each year as our seas fall victim to the impact of climate change and our abuse of our planet’s precious resources. Like the hon. Lady, I have signed up to be a blue carbon champion in this Parliament as part of the project run by the Marine Conservation Society and Rewilding Britain. I also support the WWF Ocean Hero campaign. I pay tribute to all those groups for their campaigning, along with the likes of Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, Surfers Against Sewage, and Pew, to name but a few.
The challenges facing our oceans are huge and numerous. Rising temperatures, over-fishing, ocean acidification, coral bleaching, bottom trawling, bycatch and extreme weather events are wreaking havoc on our ocean environments, threatening the rich biodiversity within them and the livelihoods of those who depend on the blue economy. The prospect of deep-sea mining is also deeply alarming. Our oceans’ resources should be protected, not plundered, and I am pleased that we are proceeding with caution on that front, but I would be very concerned if, on the basis of the current evidence, any licences for exploitation were granted. I know that they are up for review soon, so I hope the Minister can offer us reassurance on that point.
As an island nation and with so much of the world’s seas and oceans falling within our territorial waters, the UK should lead the way on the issue. We hear talk of ambition with the 30by30 target, but what we have in reality is marine protected areas that are little more than paper parks, as the review by the Environmental Audit Committee found in the previous Parliament. As with the Fisheries Act 2020, the Government have been actively stripping marine protections out of legislation. I welcome the Benyon review and the announcement on highly protected marine areas, but I am slightly cynical about what that will mean in practice. I hope it represents an improvement on the marine protected areas.
As the hon. Member for North Devon said, we need a proper commitment to outlawing destructive practices such as over-fishing and bottom trawling, and we need sustainability to be put at the heart of our fisheries strategy, with the ramping up of monitoring and enforcement. The Government must also press forward with a ban on the detonation of munitions, as those detonations harm marine life, and the adoption of less damaging deflagration techniques. We need to think long term about ocean protection, setting out how we can reach net zero emissions in our marine activity and developing a blue carbon strategy to rewild our oceans, protect blue carbon stores and develop low carbon fisheries and aquaculture. I am glad that the Marine Conservation Society has called for exactly that today.
As chair of the recently formed all-party parliamentary group on small island developing states, I have been speaking regularly to nations that have contributed least to the changing of our climate, but which suffer the worst effects of that. Rising sea levels are an existential threat to many small island developing states, as are climate-related extreme weather events. Those nations rely heavily on the blue economy for food, resources and tourism, and they have been badly hit by covid and the closure of countries to tourism in the past year.
Small island states desperately need support for ocean conservation measures and climate change adaptation, including natural climate solutions such as restoring mangroves and coral reefs. During sessions of the group, it has been really interesting to hear that instead of giving money for the building of concrete sea barriers, it would be far better to rely on natural carbon solutions. Reforming access to climate finance and investing in the blue economy—for example, through debt-for-climate swaps and blue bonds—will be central to that.
This is a pivotal year for ocean protection with the convention on biological diversity, COP26, and the global ocean treaty being negotiated internationally. We know that our oceans have an immense capacity to heal themselves if they are given the space to breathe, but that requires us to be much bolder at home and abroad to ensure that those precious resources are protected and restored. When we talk about ocean protection, it is obligatory to talk about “Blue Planet”, which, as I never hesitate to point out, was made by the BBC’s natural history unit, based in Bristol. As Sir David Attenborough said last year:
“We are at a unique stage in our history. Never before have we had such an awareness of what we are doing to the planet, and never before have we had the power to do something about that. Surely we all have a responsibility to care for our Blue Planet. The future of humanity and indeed, all life on earth, now depends on us.”
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on having the foresight to secure this important debate on World Oceans Day. Although the world’s oceans are an enormous stage, they are all interconnected. Whatever happens in one place can have global implications. If someone somewhere gets it wrong and manages a particular fishery or coastline irresponsibly and recklessly, everyone can suffer, but if we get it right somewhere, in however small a way, there is the potential to spread benefits, opportunities and good practice around the world.
My apologies, Mr Hosie, but I am going to be parochial, in that the focus of much of what I will say is on, in or off my own backyard—the UK waters of the East Anglian coast. In October 2019, the East Anglian fishing industry came together with local councils, Seafish and the New Anglia local enterprise partnership to produce the Renaissance of the East Anglian Fisheries report. With Brexit about to happen, the report made recommendations as to how to revitalise the local fishing industry.
Some of those proposals have had to be revised as a result of the outcome of Brexit negotiations, which were a disappointment to so many. However, Brexit provides the opportunity to manage our own waters in a better, more responsible way, and I will briefly highlight five areas where we can do that for the benefit of the marine environment and local people in coastal communities.
First, we need to review our marine governance arrangements. The UK has a complicated, multi-layered and multi-bodied system of marine management. That often leaves fishermen annoyed, frustrated and irritated as they find themselves being inspected by different officials from different bodies carrying out the same checks for the same reasons within days of each other.
Secondly, we need to put in place a comprehensive marine planning system that enables us better to manage the many activities that take place in UK waters. Those waters are becoming crowded places with many competing and conflicting uses—for example, wind farms, cables, marine protected areas, extraction of aggregates, capital dredging, the disposal of sediments, and a wide variety of fishing activities. The UK was one of the first countries in the world to legislate for a comprehensive marine planning system that would enable us better to manage those often conflicting uses. However, there is much work to be done and our exit from the EU gives us the opportunity to get on and do it.
Thirdly, fisheries management and marine conservation must be properly integrated in the marine planning system. Until now, that has not been possible as both were part of the EU legislative framework. Thus, we have a disjointed management system that is out of step with the UK’s ambition to be a global leader in marine conservation and marine management.
Fourthly, we need a system that better understands and better manages the impact of displacement, which can have devastating consequences for the marine environment, small-scale fishermen and coastal communities.
My final point is that we should do something different. We should involve the fishing industry—fishermen—in decision making. The sustainable future of the fishing industry depends entirely on healthy fish stocks. Fishermen have unparalleled local knowledge, and it makes sense to work with people with knowledge. To involve them in decision making would be in keeping with the spirit of World Oceans Day.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie, and I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing and leading this important debate to consider World Oceans Day.
I am the Member of Parliament for Gower, and I am very proud of the Gower peninsula and all it has to offer. A precious and diverse seabed surrounds the peninsula—we must consider that on World Oceans Day, and work with our fishing industry—and the Gower constituency is renowned for its salt marshes, its cockle beds and its environment.
When we talk about plastics pollution, it is important to consider the many organisations that help to keep our beaches and our seabeds clean, as well individuals, such as young Sonny in my constituency, and community groups such as Pennard Community Council, which go out and keep their precious areas clean. They are to be commended for their hard work, but the Welsh Labour Government are also to be commended, because it is so important that we work together across the four nations to protect our seabeds. The UK marine strategy is already backed up by secondary legislation and works across all four nations; however, in its current state, it is no longer fit for purpose. There is a focus on indicators rather than action, and insufficient accounting for the increase in the effects of climate change on our seas. This year, the United Kingdom has a prime opportunity to set a new mandate for our marine strategy: to restore and safeguard declining coastal ecosystems and to demonstrate global leadership in ocean recovery.
I, along with many other politicians, support the OceanHero programme: it was really important that we were there to speak to the World Wild Fund for Nature about the problems that we have on our seabeds. We have to take control now, and understand that we have to change to move forward. “The Blue Planet”, as many have mentioned, was an eye-opener for so many people, sitting in their armchairs and watching the world around us. We have to look after our seabeds, and I totally support what the hon. Member for North Devon has said in today’s debate. I will draw to a close and say thank you very much, Chair.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on having secured this important debate on World Oceans Day. I count myself incredibly lucky that I have been able to see the sea from every house I have lived in, over my whole life—occasionally I had to stand on tiptoe from an upstairs window to be able to see it, but I have always lived in sight of the sea. Some of my happiest memories, both of my childhood and of raising my own family, are of days spent on or beside the water. I grew up with an amazing awareness of what an incredible place the sea and our oceans are, but also with a deep respect for them: not only are they a great place for fun, enjoyment and leisure but they contain incredible power and can, at times, do incredible damage. It is therefore absolutely right that we have this day once a year to remember our oceans and focus on them, and to remind ourselves what a major role they play in our lives and our natural environment.
The UK, as a proud island maritime nation, has always played an important role in global affairs relating to the sea, and it is right that we continue to play a global leadership role now. As others have already said, the UK cannot deal with all of the issues that affect our oceans on its own: it is going to take global co-operation, and it is good and right that the UK plays a leadership role in bringing that together. For far too many years, we tended to see the ocean as this great big dumping ground that we could pour raw sewage into and let our waste end up in, because it was big enough to cope; it would manage; the waste would not have much effect.
However, thankfully, in more recent times we have changed that view, and have come to realise the incredible damage that we were doing to our oceans. As others have mentioned, the BBC’s “Blue Planet” programmes with David Attenborough really brought home to the British public the damage we were doing, and how we needed to change our ways. I am glad that that is happening. Since I was first elected to this place in 2015, I have had the honour of chairing the ocean conservation all-party parliamentary group—which was previously called Protect Our Waves—and working particularly closely with Surfers Against Sewage and other organisations, such as the Marine Conservation Society, to continue to press in Parliament for more action.
In the time I have left, I would like to mention a couple of areas in which I believe we are making progress, but we need to go further; the first is with regard to plastics. We have all been shocked to learn just how much plastic there is in our seas and oceans. The stat that really brought that home to me, which I read some time ago, was that if we did not change our ways by the year 2050, there would be more plastic than fish in our seas. It is good to see the action that is being taken, both by Governments and by other organisations, such as the million mile beach clean that recently took place, through which thousands of tonnes of waste were removed from our beaches. However, we cannot go on relying on beach cleans for ever. We have to address the source, and stop putting as much plastic waste into the seas. That is where a deposit return scheme will play an important part in increasing recycling rates. I am delighted that the Government are committed to that, though we are all a bit disappointed that it is going to take a year longer than we hoped. Let us take that year and ensure that we get a world-beating deposit return scheme; that it is the best we can do to increase recycling rates and reduce the amount of plastic thrown away to end up in our oceans.
The other issue I want to touch on is that of sewage discharged into our seas. It is the reason Surfers Against Sewage began their campaign 30 years ago. We have made great progress, but we still need to go much further. Raw sewage is still far too often discharged into our waterways, ending up in the sea, or is discharged directly into our seas.
I welcome the Government’s agreement to adopt new measures in the Environment Bill that will better enable us to hold water companies to account, but we need to ensure that the legislation has real teeth to hold them to account and take the necessary action to stop discharging raw sewage into our seas. I plead with the Minister to ensure that the Environment Bill enables us to do that in an effective way. I am delighted to have made this short contribution to today’s debate. Let us all continue to work together and provide global leadership, particularly in this year when the G7 summit and COP26 are being held in the UK, to ensure that we work together around the world to nurture and protect our oceans.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
We have had a couple of late withdrawals so colleagues can now take up to six minutes.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am very pleased to participate in this debate. I echo the thanks to the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for her excellent exposition of the challenges before us. World Oceans Day supports the implementation of worldwide sustainable goals and fosters public interest in the protection of the ocean and the sustainable management of its resources.
The Scottish Government are committed to conserving our marine environments and protecting natural biodiversity. Evidence of that is that the first no-take zone—the first marine protected area—in the United Kingdom was established in Scotland, in Lamlash bay on the beautiful Isle of Arran, in my constituency. It was established in 2008, one short year after the Scottish Government first took office, after previous successive Governments had failed to offer the necessary support for that to happen.
Thanks to work of the Community of Arran Seabed Trust—or COAST, as it is known—supported by local MSP Kenneth Gibson, no shellfish or fish can be taken from Lamlash bay’s waters or seabed, including the shore area. The University of York found last year that, far from being a paper park, the action of creating this marine protected area had transformed the ecosystem. This no-take zone has been lauded as a great success. What has happened in Lamlash should serve as a template for other marine protected areas.
There is no doubt that human activity has had a significant impact on our seas and oceans. I refer hon. Members to the rapid decline in shark populations on a global scale, because humans have replaced them as the oceans’ top predators. There was an interesting debate here on that issue yesterday. The shark population is being severely impacted by the horrific practice of shark finning, the process of slicing off a shark’s fin and discarding the rest of the still-living animal into the ocean. Unable to swim, it sinks to the bottom and dies a slow and painful death. So much for shark fin soup and other shark fin products. Sharks are essential to healthy oceans for a number of reasons, which I do not have time to go into.
The ocean is home to most of the earth’s biodiversity, but human activity is threatening its ecosystem. We all know of the great damage being caused in the seas by sea blasts, a dreadful legacy of war. The way we dispose of munitions is hugely detrimental to our seas and the sea creatures that live in them. It does not have to be that way. We know that low order deflagration is an effective and much less environmentally damaging alternative.
On World Oceans Day, let us all give more thought to the good we can do as a species by reducing our extractive and destructive activity in the seas and oceans, and how we can perhaps repair some of the damage we have done by letting the ecosystems of our oceans recover, repair and regenerate, free from our interference or with much less interference from us. The oceans and seas, like the world, do not belong to us. We have inherited them, just as future generations will go on to do. Sometimes, I think we can forget that.
COP26 provides us with an opportunity for fresh impetus on that and so many other environmental issues globally. We need to ensure that we are sharing expertise to promote and protect natural habitats, clean up our oceans and work with international partners for better commitments to climate action to make sure our oceans and seas are sustainably managed and biodiversity is conserved. Let us try and leave our seas and the natural world in better shape for future generations. What has happened in Lamlash bay is a tiny snapshot of what we can do as a species if we have the political will. That, surely, is our duty.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing the debate as we celebrate World Oceans Day. The topic is extremely important to my constituents in Truro and Falmouth, as well as to wider Cornwall. It is also one of the reasons I came into politics. My constituency has a north and a south coast. We have the gentle, rolling and calm inlets of the south coast, including the port of Falmouth, Portloe and Portscatho, and the dramatic wind-whipped surf beaches of the north coast, including St Agnes, Perranporth and Holywell Bay. St Agnes is home to Surfers Against Sewage, and I want to thank them for their tireless campaigning.
If you speak to anyone who swam or surfed in the sea in the 1980s and early 1990s, we all have stories of looking down and seeing—how shall I describe it?—objects and matter that had gone straight down the loo and into the sea. Things are generally better nowadays, thank goodness. According to the Marine Conservation Society, 77% of people who visited the sea in the last 12 months said they felt happier and 81% of people who visited the sea in the last 12 months said they felt healthier.
Healthy oceans are vital to life and to the livelihoods of our planet. Ocean protection and the conservation of marine biodiversity are essential for building resilience and adapting to the impact of climate change, as well as supporting its mitigation. Falmouth Harbour Commissioners are actively regenerating the seagrass beds off Flushing, and I went to visit them recently. They are also developing an advanced mooring system to ensure yachts and boats continue to moor there, but that the lines and anchor chains no longer decimate the seagrass beds.
Marine protected areas need to be effectively managed and well resourced, and regulations need to be put in place to reduce overfishing, marine pollution and ocean acidification. Effective management of the oceans, both locally and globally, is fundamental to the future of Cornwall’s fragile but sustainable inshore fishing industry, and I want to echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) about the need to simplify and overhaul our current complicated management system.
I am extremely pleased that the UK has led the way in efforts to secure an international agreement to protect at least 30% of global oceans by 2030. I also welcome the fact that the Government are playing a leading role in negotiations for a new agreement on conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction through the BBNJ agreement. Further commitments are also welcome, including the new £500 million blue planet fund to support developing countries to protect the marine environment and reduce poverty as part of the UK’s commitment to spend at least £3 billion on international climate finance and to protect and restore biodiversity over the next five years. There will always be more that we can do, but we should not underestimate the achievements so far.
Turning to the wider point of water quality, we know that it is essential for life on planet Earth. The pollution of our rivers and oceans has had a huge detrimental effect on us and our wildlife. Thankfully, because of the extensive lobbying by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the Government have committed to publishing a plan by 2022 to reduce sewage discharges, to report to Parliament on progress and to place a legal duty on water companies to publish data on storm overflow operations on an annual basis. The legislation will also require the Government to set legally binding targets for water quality.
The earth is warming at a very worrying rate. Increasing ocean temperatures affect all marine life, causing coral bleaching and the loss of breeding grounds for fish and mammals. They affect the things that we rely on from the ocean, threatening our fish stocks, as I mentioned earlier, causing more extreme weather and accelerating coastal erosion.
I am delighted that the Government are accepting the recommendations of the Benyon review and intend to designate highly protected marine areas as soon as possible. I hope the Minister will assure us that, as we host the G7 in Cornwall this week and COP26 in Glasgow later this year, there is a real push for ambitious and accelerated action to improve the quality and biodiversity of our oceans.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I must apologise to you and to the Minister that I will miss the end of the debate because I have a Committee clash.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing a debate on our oceans. We are an island nation; the seas surrounding us have shaped our history and helped to make us who we are, so it is appropriate that we gather here today on World Oceans Day. Our mariners sailed the wide oceans for centuries, bringing back wealth and knowledge and building an empire that once covered a quarter of the surface of the planet. The islands and territories that remain of that once powerful empire mean we have a responsibility for a massive ocean estate, much of it far from our own shores.
Of all nations, we island dwellers have a responsibility to safeguard the marine environment. Our hearts should bleed at the thought of dolphins drowning after becoming entangled in discarded packaging, turtles choking on plastic bags that they mistake for jellyfish, or birds trying to feed plastic to their hungry chicks. The facts are disputed, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimates that around 12 million tonnes of plastic enters our oceans each year. We have a moral duty in this House to take action.
This Conservative Government are doing more than any Government ever before to address the pollution tragedy. We were one of the first countries in the world to introduce a wide-ranging ban on microbeads in personal care products. Our bag charges have caused the use of plastic bags to plummet. Our deposit return scheme should mean that millions of bottles are returned for recycling, not casually cast away. Our plan for extended producer responsibility will mean that companies that benefit from plastic packaging should pay the cost of its disposal. If correctly constructed, that should provide a strong incentive to cut down on unnecessary use of plastic, ensure more packaging is reusable or recyclable and create a new income stream to help clean up our streets and oceans. Our manifesto commitment to bring an end to waste exports outside the OECD will mean taking greater responsibility for our own waste, dealing with it back here at home.
There is so much more to do, so I appeal to the Minister to try to make progress as soon as possible on the deposit return and the EPR schemes. It is three years since they were first announced, and we need to get them into operation. We have led the debate at a global level on marine conservation, as other hon. Members pointed out, through initiatives such as the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance. Now, we have an unprecedented opportunity to use our presidencies of the G7 and COP26 to push for urgent global action to protect the rich biodiversity of our seas. The COP21 conference in China on biodiversity must also have a strong emphasis on ocean recovery. Future generations will judge us on whether we succeed or fail in meeting the great environmental challenge that we are considering. We must strive to pass the test.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship Mr Hosie. It is a pleasure to speak in this important Westminster Hall debate on World Oceans Day. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important debate and on her excellent speech. As we are an island constituency, we on Ynys Môn understand more than most the importance of our healthy oceans. Healthy sea waters are critical to fishing and agriculture businesses such as Holyhead Shellfish, and vital to our tourist trade, with operators such as Seacoast Safaris taking visitors to see the dolphin, porpoise and seal populations that flourish locally. Our island waters are clean enough to support breeding seahorses at Anglesey sea zoo.
When we are considering how our oceans can help us achieve our net zero targets, there is a focus on renewable marine energy production, such as that being developed by businesses like Minesto and Morlais based on Anglesey, but in this year of COP26, we should also be focusing on the contribution that blue carbon can make to achieving those targets.
Blue carbon is the carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by our ocean ecosystems. Anglesey is rich in a range of marine environments, including salt marshes, sand dunes, mudflats and areas of seagrass. All are significant sequesters of carbon. Large stretches of coastline in areas such as Cymyran, Newborough and Aberffraw are prime examples of these diverse landscapes. We host two marine protected areas in the Menai strait and the Anglesey coast salt marsh. Groups such as the Friends of the Isle of Anglesey Coastal Path actively clean, monitor and protect our coastline and it is extensively used by the School of Ocean Sciences at Bangor University for study and research. Using their knowledge and experience, we can preserve and rebuild these critical resources so that they can contribute to our 2050 targets.
At least 113 million tonnes of carbon are already stored in the top 10 cm of the Welsh marine environment, which equates to almost 10 years’ worth of Welsh carbon emissions. It represents more than 170% of the carbon held in Welsh forests. It is even estimated that the amount of carbon sequestered by the Welsh marine environment every year is equivalent to the average annual fuel consumption of 64,000 cars. That carbon is held in a number of different ways, but it has been shown that salt marshes have the highest carbon burial rate per unit area compared with other blue carbon habitats. Studies also show that intertidal mudflats and seagrass foliage account for much higher rates of carbon sequestering than previously thought. For example, seagrass covers only 0.1% to 0.2% of the global ocean floor, but is responsible for between 10% and 18% of the total carbon storage in the ocean.
However, the Blue Carbon Initiative, which includes representation from Bangor University, estimates that, worldwide, between 340,000 and 980,000 hectares of coastal blue carbon ecosystems are being destroyed annually. It is vital that that trend is reversed. Natural Resources Wales has recently carried out extensive restoration of sand dunes in Newborough and it actively monitors areas such as the Cefni salt marshes. Such projects, which restore intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats and protect the features that allow them to flourish, would yield the greatest per unit area benefit in terms of increased carbon sequestration.
I urge the UK and Welsh Governments to take account of the contribution that can be made by our marine environment towards neutralising our carbon emissions, and encourage them to invest in extending, enhancing and improving these critical but fragile environments.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for setting the scene so well, and for requesting the debate, the granting of which gives us all the opportunity to contribute. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie)—I am not sure of my pronunciation, but that is how we say it in my neck of the woods. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady; I would probably book a holiday in her constituency, as every time I hear her talk of it, it sounds such a wonderful place.
As a keen conservationist and a lover of nature, I am happy to celebrate this day with other UN nations and members. I have lived all but four years of my life close to the water. My parents came from the west of the Province; my father was from Donegal and my mother was from Strabane, in County Tyrone. We moved east to a village called Ballywalter, in the very east of Northern Ireland. So all my life—bar four years—has been spent living alongside the beach and the sea. My mum and dad always had a fascination and love for the sea, which is why they went there. That was where they were able to relax and it is where we played and had fun as children, many years ago. That was not yesterday, by any means; it is a long time ago. However, that was our introduction to the beach and the sea.
I therefore know and care about the imperative nature of the ocean; it is imperative even to those of us who are probably really landlubbers but live close by the sea. I live between Greyabbey and Kircubbin on the Ards peninsula; the sea is as close to me as Westminster bridge out there is to Parliament. The Irish sea, on the other side of the peninsula, is only five minutes away. I believe that I have a wonderful appreciation and understanding of the part played in our daily lives by the raging seas. I see them as being fascinating and reassuring, and—believe it or not—I also find them quite calming.
I was not surprised to learn that the ocean produces at least 50% of the planet’s oxygen. It is home to most of Earth’s biodiversity, and seafood is the main source of protein for more than a billion people around the world. Nor did it come as a shock to me to read in the wonderful briefing paper produced by the Library—it does some incredible research for us—that it is estimated that by 2030, there will be 40 million people employed in ocean-based industries.
Nevertheless, I believe that we are yet to understand the depth of the majesty of the ocean and the potential that lies within that depth. The writer of Psalm 104 put it beautifully:
“O Lord, how manifold are your works!
In wisdom have you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
Here is the sea, great and wide,
which teems with creatures innumerable,
living things both small and great.”
How well that is put in the Bible, in Psalm 104.
The potential of the ocean is both untapped and unfathomable. However, what is clear is that we must make a better job of harnessing the seas and, first, of protecting them. I have seen images of the destruction of our seas by our carelessness, which have caused me great distress and have distressed other Members too. As other Members have said, it is past time that we channelled our inventiveness and energy into seeking to repair that which we have so thoughtlessly damaged in the past. I say “we” because it is the people of this Earth who have done it.
I was delighted when my own local council, Ards and North Down Borough Council, invested in the first sea bin in Northern Ireland, as an innovative way of hoovering the surrounding seas for our rubbish. A sea bin is a floating rubbish bin made of natural fibre that moves up and down with the tide, collecting floating rubbish. Water is sucked in from the surface and passes through a catch-bag outside the sea bin, with a submersible water pump. Water is then pumped back into the sea, leaving litter and debris trapped in a special catch-bag, so that it can be disposed of property, as it should be.
Sea bins can collect up to half a tonne of debris each year and have the potential to collect a percentage of the oils and other pollutants floating on the water surface. A sea bin is a small but an effective thing, and it shows that if there is a mind to do something, we can do it. My council has purchased three sea bins, but how sobering it is to think of the vast number of sea bins that would be needed to put even a small dent into the waste that lines our oceans. Nevertheless, if we all play a small part, then collectively all our small parts become a great part and we can make a difference.
It is for this reason that I absolutely support the Government commitment to establish a new £500 million blue planet fund, using overseas development assistance to support developing countries, protect the marine environment and reduce poverty. It will also contribute to the UK’s commitment to spend at least £3 billion of international climate finance to protect and restore nature and biodiversity over the next five years. Unfortunately, that is a drop in the ocean—to use a pun—compared with what needs to be done, but it is a start.
I am always reminded of the story of the starfish. I will conclude by telling it:
“One day a man was walking along the beach when he noticed a boy picking something up and gently throwing it into the ocean.
Approaching the boy, he asked, ‘What are you doing?’
The youth replied, ‘Throwing starfish back into the ocean. The surf is up and the tide is going out. If I don’t throw them back, they’ll die.’
‘Son,’ the man said, ‘don’t you realize there are miles and miles of beach and hundreds of starfish? You can’t make a difference!’
After listening politely, the boy bent down, picked up another starfish, and threw it back into the surf.
Then, smiling at the man, he said… ‘I made a difference for that one.’”
That is what we can all do—each one of us can make a difference individually, and by working collectively, in our own way. If we all took that attitude and did what we could, this debate would be a very different one in 10 years’ time. Then we could all be very thankful, because we are doing this not for ourselves but for our children, our grandchildren and for the world as a whole. We can note the difference that is made, if each of us would reach down and give it our best throw.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important debate.
I will touch briefly on some of the excellent contributions so far in the debate, starting with the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who made a characteristically thoughtful contribution. An interesting point for me was her comment that the UK should be leading the way on the issue, given its history and its maritime experiences over the years. She highlighted the danger of marine protected areas being only paper parks. That is a concern I share. She also noted the stripping out of marine protections from legislation by the UK Government, and she expressed a certain amount of cynicism about what that all means in practice. I am afraid that I share that cynicism. She said that this is a pivotal year for ocean protection, but ended by pointing out that the capacity for oceans to heal themselves is known, and will hopefully be sought and achieved.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke of our oceans as increasingly crowded places, with many often competing activities. He made an excellent point about the importance of involving and consulting fisherfolk in decisions about marine planning. I absolutely agree with that.
The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) mentioned the power of the documentary series “Blue Planet” and the effect it has had of raising consciousness about the importance of the protection of our blue environment.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) mentioned that the first marine protected area to be established in the UK was in Scotland, in her constituency of course, and she highlighted the dreadful plight of sharks mutilated for food, and in particular the plight of cetaceans affected by sea blasts.
I read many years ago, as a child, a kind of science fiction book about a time traveller who came back from the future to warn our world about the polluting materials we were dumping in our seas, which were poisoning all forms of sea life in his time. It was a long time ago, and I was only nine or 10 years old, but it had a really powerful effect on me. I look back on it, and it started a life-long awareness of what the long-term impact could be of the decisions we take now on the environment of the future. I recall that there was a happy ending to the story, in which an intrepid youngster took on the authorities—along with the time traveller—and saved the day. Unfortunately, that is only the stuff of storytelling. We will get no such second chance, unless time transportation novels like that reveal themselves one day to be predictions and not simply fantasy.
This is the predicament we face on World Oceans Day: a legacy of centuries of abuse of our precious blue environment. I welcome the opportunity to raise awareness of it. For too long, we have treated our oceans with an almost casual disregard, too often thinking, “Out of sight, out of mind.” I have done quite a bit of research into the subject, and have looked into the impact of millions of tons of munitions dumped into our seas since at least the end of world war one, with their long lists of dangerous gases, chemicals and radioactive materials. Too many parts of ours seas are off limits to fishers, following the haul-up from the sea floor of a lethal weapon. The offshore wind industry is now being presented with problems around the safe removal of those munitions, including—as was mentioned by my hon. Friend for North Ayshire and Arran—decommissioning blasts and their effects on cetaceans, as was highlighted by Joanna Lumley in the campaign on that issue. That is not to mention the Boris bridges to Northern Ireland across Beaufort’s Dyke, with its discarded cocktail of who knows what. Dumps like these are properly the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, which deposited the vast bulk of them over the years, and I will certainly continue to press the issue until some resolution is found, hopefully well before it contaminates our oceans any further.
The issue is not, of course, just about what has been put into our oceans over the years; it is also about the impact of the great increase we have seen in recent years of activity on our waters, and what that is putting into our air. The disaster of Brexit will see increased UK reliance on foodstuffs shipped from many thousands of miles away, resulting in increased food miles and emissions. Perhaps the Brexiters thought the collapse of the fresh seafood produce market that exported daily to Europe would compensate for that in some way; perhaps they did not take any of it into consideration at all, which, frankly, seems more likely.
There are increasing concerns being raised by Governments and residents about the impact of shipping emissions on the populations of coastal areas, in ports such as the Port of Leith in my constituency. Shipping accounts for 3% of global emissions and emits around 1 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases every year. I recognise that this is not a simple issue to resolve, but solve it we must.
I am pleased to see the UK Government finally following Scotland’s lead and the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations by incorporating its share of shipping emissions into its new carbon budget, but they need to go further and faster if the UK is to reach at least its net zero commitments by 2050. This year, as they host COP26, I hope the Government are looking to other countries as well as Scotland for inspiration for the sort of bold steps they could consider in the fight against global warming.
In California, decisions taken on the reduction of shipping pollution require ships to use low-sulphur fuels and to cease dumping acidic water and heavy metals into the sea. Last year, it also introduced rules that mean stringent emission standards for diesel trucks servicing dock areas, which will require more ships to plug into electric power when docked.
The EU is considering legislation that mandates the use of sustainable fuels on ships calling into European ports. I believe that this is the first transport mandate of its kind, as it targets users rather than fuel suppliers and manufacturers, therefore preventing ships from simply refuelling outside the EU’s boundaries.
The US is considering introducing a programme that will monitor, report and verify emissions for ships coming into US ports. China has established a domestic emission control area, with all ships docking at ports within the area switching to low-sulphur fuel. Some local governments there are offering shipowners incentives to retrofit ships with electric or liquefied natural gas propulsion, and they have invested in power infrastructure at seaports.
It seems to me that there is an unstoppable momentum building behind such proposals. The UK really should step up and show that it is at least giving serious consideration to bold steps, or it risks further compromising its international standing and reputation. There are reasons to be optimistic in some areas as technology improves—for instance, the testing of the world’s first hydrogen-powered ferry in Orkney. Such pioneering efforts show that successful alternatives to dirtier fuel are possible.
With regard to the enormous problem of ocean pollution already touched on by several Members, there is still much to be done. However, the Scottish Government have shown what can be achieved with the necessary political willpower and guts, by leading the way on a deposit return scheme that is soon to be implemented and on plastic issues such as microbeads and plastic-stemmed cotton buds. Our national marine plan and the 36 new marine protected areas created, including the largest MPA in Europe, are further welcome developments.
However, there is much more to be done if we are to meet our ambitious targets for greenhouse gas reductions, which are some of the toughest in the world. I welcome the news that the Scottish Government will be appointing environmental champions—world experts to keep Scotland at the forefront of tackling the ecological emergency and ecological decline.
I am a big fan of nature-based solutions, and I am concerned that they are too often overlooked in favour of new technologies. These might appeal to the techie types among us, but they are currently so expensive, and so far off being able to play a significant role in carbon reduction at this stage of development, that their promise appears remote and almost impractical. Therefore, practical and relatively inexpensive solutions such as improving salt marshes, seagrass beds and mangrove areas could play an important role in carbon dioxide mitigation. The Marine Conservation Society suggests that these potentially amount to 5% of the emission savings needed globally, even before taking into account the carbon stored in marine life and the enormous stores of carbon contained in seabed sediments.
Unless we see genuinely co-operative efforts from Governments across the world to address and solve the problems we face, those who come after us will curse us for timorously tinkering around the edges and leaving them with a toxic legacy. Scotland is ambitious for its seas, its coast and its communities, and it recognises the vital importance of reaching out to and working with other countries.
Climate change is a global issue, and we all have to work together on it. Where Scotland misses out most is by not having its own voice in the discussions about what needs to be done; we do not have the same opportunities to try to persuade the international community of the need for proper action. A case in point is COP26 in November: although it is on our turf, we cannot take part in it properly; we cannot engage in the diplomatic efforts which really make these conferences tick.
We urgently need action now. We cannot wait for a time traveller to come back in time to rub our noses in the disastrous long-term effects of decisions caused by our ignorance and negligence. We want a Glasgow agreement at COP26 in which all countries commit to taking the action needed to tackle the climate emergency. I urge the UK Government to take their responsibilities seriously and work with others, including the Scottish Government, to achieve that.
It is really good to see World Oceans Day being celebrated in this way, to reflect on the impact of humankind on our oceans, and to recognise that the time to take action is now. There is no time to waste.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
In is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important debate on World Oceans Day. As she, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) highlighted, the world’s oceans cover 70% of the planet and could be one of the most effective carbon sinks if they are looked after properly. Oceans not only host an abundance of biodiversity, known and unknown, but they absorb 25% of all CO2 emissions—50% more than the atmosphere—and store more carbon than all the rainforests combined. Closer to our shores, coastal waters in the UK store an estimated 205 million tonnes of carbon, as several hon. Members highlighted.
Protecting our oceans is fundamental to our fight against the climate emergency. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) about the action by local volunteers to keep beaches clean, and from the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) about the greater efforts needed to tackle plastic waste to protect marine mammals, birds and fish. The hon. Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about our fantastic coastal communities and the horrific threat of damage from sewage and waste. Will the Minister set out what actions and plans there are to address and end the pollution of our seas by plastic and sewage waste?
Protecting our oceans is fundamental to our fight against climate change, and it is really important to look at this globally. Salt marshes and seagrasses are a huge carbon store, holding almost 450 million tonnes of CO2 per year—half the emissions of the entire global transport system. Experts believe that rewilding key marine ecosystems is absolutely necessary and that around the world they could lock away 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon each year—5% of the savings needed globally to avert climate catastrophe. However, in the UK we have lost 90% of our seagrass meadows to pollution, dredging, bottom trawling and coastal development. If we continue business as usual, our sea shelf sediments could release 13 million tonnes of stored carbon over the next decade.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East about current protections being paper parks—a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree. We should be protecting and restoring seagrass, salt marshes, oyster reefs and kelp forests at the same urgency with which we are calling for the protection of rainforests and our own woodlands and peatlands. Ministers recently—perhaps belatedly—published their trees and peatlands strategies, but we have heard little about specifically restoring our marine environments, despite campaigners at the Marine Conservation Society and Rewilding Britain calling for the Government to kick-start a programme of ocean rewilding. So far, their calls seem to have been ignored.
We urgently need an ocean rewilding strategy that, unlike the recent peatlands and trees strategies, is ambitious and detailed enough to meet the scale of the crisis we are facing. When will we see a plan for the restoration of our marine environments? That must also include a sustainable plan for fishing. Evidence shows that over-fishing and practices such as bottom trawling can have disastrous effects on ocean habitats. It is good that the Government have signed up to the UN pledge to protect 30% of our waters, but full protection means implementing no-take zones, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) mentioned. If the Government are serious about this pledge, for the sake of our own coastal communities and fishing industry they should outline where these no-fish zones will be, explain the plan, and set out what consultation there has been with the fishing and maritime communities up and down the country and the fishing industry.
I would be interested to know what lessons the Minister has learned from the designation of Plymouth Sound as a national marine park—a designation that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) campaigned hard for. We need to learn from the experience of Plymouth, where the UK’s first national marine park has just been established, so that we can further protect our oceans. This sort of designation builds on the success of the post-war Labour Government’s creation of national parks, and sends a clear message that these waters are important, valued and should be protected for future generations and for our own.
Finally, the Government have made it clear that they intend to amend the Environment Bill to set out targets on species abundance, which will be announced after COP15. I am afraid the pun is too hard to resist: this sounds a little like a cop out. The UK Government should not just reflect the consensus, they should lead the charge against the nature and biodiversity crisis. I am keen to hear the Minister set out what proposals they intend to take to COP15 to protect marine habitats and biodiversity. The Government Front-Bench team has given us a lot of exaggerated rhetoric about the nature and environmental credentials that they hold, but so far the rhetoric has not yet met the reality. Without a clear strategy and with matching clear targets going into the UN conference on biodiversity, I am concerned that we will see more of the same and the UK falling behind on the protections that we need.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie, especially on this auspicious World Oceans Day. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this debate on this day. She expresses so much passion for the sea and the ocean, which is quite understandable given her constituency, which I have had the pleasure of visiting. She is a great champion for the seas, but she is not alone in caring for them. An ocean literacy survey released today highlighted that 85% of people said that marine protection was personally important to them. Even in this Room, no matter what party Members represent, there is so much synergy in what we are talking about today and in our endeavour to do something about ocean recovery. So I thank my hon. Friend again, and welcome the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake); it is good to hear her speak on this subject.
As many others have done, I will highlight that our ocean plays a vital role in contributing to biodiversity. It provides 80% of life on Earth and regulates the planet’s climate. It absorbs over 90% of all excess heat in the Earth’s system. We rely on the oceans for our survival, livelihoods and wellbeing. Despite all these things, the ocean is under huge threat from multiple natural and anthropogenic pressures, including climate change, over-fishing and pollution of many types, but plastics in particular. This needs to change.
This is the pivotal year that could really help us to trigger the change needed to raise ambition on the ocean and stimulate the recovery we need. It marks an unprecedented alignment of domestic and international marine agendas, which is why we are calling 2021 a marine super-year. Through our COP26 and G7 presidencies, the UK can influence to build momentum and advocate for greater ocean action, championing global collaboration and towards ocean health and resilience. I know that is something that all hon. Members support, as indicated through the all-party parliamentary group on ocean conservation, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double).
Our G7 presidency is already significantly raising the profile of our ambitions and actions concerning the ocean. The G7 Climate and Environment Ministers’ meeting in May delivered a strong suite of ocean commitments, including the G7 ocean decade navigation plan. That plan established a framework for the G7 to collaborate and advance our collective work on transformational ocean science for ocean action, through- out the UN decade of ocean science for sustainable development.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon spoke about the 30by30 target, as did many other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who is a great champion for the ocean—I can see her surf board behind her. The 30by30 initiative is championed by the UK through the Global Ocean Alliance and the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, of which the UK is ocean co-chair. I am delighted that between those two alliances 80 countries now support the 30by30 target. That is a vital and positive step towards our collective endeavour to deliver ocean recovery.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon highlighted marine litter, which I know she does a lot about locally, and plastic pollution. Rightly, that is a key priority of the super-year agenda. I echo concerns about the ship off the coast of Sri Lanka. We are holding discussions with the Sri Lankan Government on minimising environmental damage following the fire on the X-Press Pearl, and we stand ready to support them at this challenging time.
Scientists predict a threefold increase in the amount of plastics in the ocean between 2015 and 2025 alone, which is alarming. The issue crosses country boundaries and requires international action. Last November, Lord Goldsmith expressed UK support for starting negotiations on a new global agreement to tackle marine plastic litter and microplastics. The agreement will build on the important work we are already doing to tackle marine litter domestically and internationally. For example, together with Vanuatu, the UK leads the Commonwealth Clean Oceans Alliance to reduce plastic pollution in the oceans in support of meeting sustainable development goal 14, “life below water.”
In parallel, we are taking steps here in the UK and focusing our efforts on attacking plastic pollution at its source. The 25-year environment plan sets out how we will improve the environment over a generation and includes a commitment to eliminate “all avoidable plastic waste.” It includes developing extended producer responsibility, consistent collection and deposit-return schemes, which we are consulting on now. That was referred to by a number of hon. Members, including eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, who talked particularly about the deposit-return scheme, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who urged speed on these initiatives. To clarify, the extended producer scheme for plastic packaging is due to come into force in 2023-24 and the deposit-return scheme in 2024, so we are moving on this.
In addition, we are consulting on an EPR scheme for fishing gear by the end of 2022. Abandoned and discarded fishing gear is having a devastating effect on the marine environment. It is classed as marine litter and has been highlighted as having the most dramatic and terrible effect. It is pleasing that we are consulting on that. We are taking a whole-lifecycle approach to the way we are dealing with plastic.
My hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay and for Truro and Falmouth touched on the issue of sewage. I think they will agree that big progress is being made, thanks to great work by many organisations, particularly Surfers Against Sewage. I hope they are supportive of the fact that through the Environment Bill we are now bringing in measures to make it a statutory requirement to produce a plan on storm overflows. Also, water companies will now report data all year round on the state of the water on the coast. The storm overflows taskforce is working at pace on tackling the sewage issue as well. We are moving as fast as we can on that.
Alongside the crucial steps to tackle marine plastic litter, we are undertaking a wealth of actions to protect our marine wildlife and nature and to support a sustainable and thriving fishing industry, referred to by many hon. Members. We have a big opportunity now that we are an independent coastal state. The UK marine strategy provides the framework for us to achieve good environmental status in our UK seas. We have published an updated part 2 of the strategy, and will consult on updating part 3 in the summer. The strategy, together with the climate change objectives of the Fisheries Act 2020 and the marine policy statement, will form the major pillars of our protection of the marine environment.
The UK is a global leader in marine protection across the entire UK marine estate, including UK waters and our overseas territories. At least 60% has been designated marine protection areas. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who painted a charming picture of his childhood by the sea, mentioned “Blue Planet”. The blue planet fund has been critical in our endeavours and has exceeded its target of protecting and enhancing over 4 million square kilometres of marine environments around five UK overseas territories. That is largely thanks to Tristan da Cunha’s designation as a new protection zone in November 2020.
We have an extensive network of 372 marine protected areas, which protect 38% of UK waters, including the majority of the salt marsh and seagrass habitats referred to by many hon. Members. We are now focusing on making sure those areas are properly protected. That is crucial. Of the MPAs, 98 have management measures in place to protect sensitive features from bottom trawling—using bottom-towed fishing gear—which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon and the hon. Member for Bristol East.
We have been able to put those measures in place through concerted endeavours with the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority and the Marine Management Organisation. While we were in the EU, bringing forward management measures for our offshore MPAs proved very difficult. Our leaving the common fisheries policy and the introduction of the Fisheries Act 2020 changed all that. Within days of the Act being passed, powers become available. The MMO launched a consultation on draft byelaws for the four highest priority sites: the Canyons, Dogger Bank, Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge, and South Dorset. We can use the new measures to really protect the seas in a much more meaningful way than was ever possible before. The MMO is reviewing a response to that consultation. We have an ambitious three-year programme for assessing sites and implementing byelaws to manage fishing activity in all the offshore MPAs by 2024. I hope the shadow Minister sees that we are acting on the whole area of marine recovery, especially around our own shores.
I am delighted to announce that the Government response to Lord Benyon’s review into highly protected marine areas is published today. The Government welcome the report and accept the central recommendation that we take forward some pilot sites in English waters. We will identify the locations, and the first will be designated by the end of 2022. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Bristol East, who asked about that. By setting aside some areas of sea with high levels of protection, MPAs will allow nature to recover to a much more natural state, allowing the ecosystem to thrive in the absence of damaging activities. It will be about a balance—supporting sustainable industries in the marine environment while increasing marine protection.
I was very interested to hear about the no-take area around the Isle of Arran mentioned by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). I have to take slight issue, though, in that the very first no take zone designated was actually Lundy, an island not far off the Bristol coast. When I was an environment correspondent for ITV and HTV, a couple of my greatest memories were of going to Lundy to report on the nature and the wildlife there, but also on the terrible disaster—hon. Members might remember it—when the Sea Empress crashed off the coast of Wales and the oil went towards Lundy, which is a world heritage island. However, it is great that we have these areas, and that they serve as models.
There was a reference to the potential value of highly protected marine areas for blue carbon, and a really strong message was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). She paints such a great picture of her constituency, and I would love to come and see those seahorses breeding—how absolutely wonderful. Yes, there is potential in all of those things, and they are all areas that are coming under our microscope.
A number of hon. Friends and other hon. Members mentioned marine planning, and we heard very clear, eloquent points about its complexities from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). This year, we will publish the final four marine plans, building on those already in place in the south and east of England, Scotland and Wales. That will mean that, for the first time, we will have a complete set of plans covering English waters, and those marine plans will provide a transparent framework that will enable us to manage competing demands in an evidence-based way. As was highlighted by a number of colleagues, evidence and science are crucial, and we have to use them in a way that protects the marine environment while supporting sustainable development, such as offshore wind.
I must point out for clarity that the definition of “natural environment” in the Environment Bill does include the marine environment, so everything in there also relates to this area. I also wanted to assure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, that we will be setting the species abundance targets by 2022, in line with the dates set for all of the other targets that we have a legal duty to set.
Penultimately, I am going to touch on sustainable fishing, because that issue is so important. As has been said, fishing is part and parcel of our lives around this coast. The Fisheries Act sets out a legally binding framework to protect and recover stocks, support a thriving, sustainable fishing industry, and safeguard the marine environment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, it is so important to engage the fishing industry about this new world for ocean recovery. As set out in the recently published action plan for animal welfare, we will also bring in legislation to ban the import and export of detached shark fins. The UK is also already using its status as a newly independent member of several regional fisheries management organisations to press for sustainable management of international fisheries. That includes supporting robust action to protect vulnerable marine species such as the northern Atlantic shortfin mako shark through the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and yellowfin tuna through the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. I think I have demonstrated that we are seizing all opportunities to get involved in this space, both domestically and internationally.
I have a second to touch on the subject of deep-sea mining, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bristol East. We have agreed not to sponsor or support the issuing of any exploitation licences for deep-sea mining projects until there is sufficient scientific evidence regarding the impacts on ecosystems and until strong, enforceable standards are developed by the International Seabed Authority. I think that gives reassurance on the important points she raised.
To conclude, we have heard some tremendous speeches, showing that we have so much in common on this issue. Our attention is rightly focused on ocean recovery on World Oceans Day. We have the power to do something about our oceans, as David Attenborough has been quoted as saying. I hope I have demonstrated that the Government are using their powers. I also hope I have given assurances, especially to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who was somewhat negative on that point. I have laid out a raft of measures to show that we are taking urgent action. Everyone will agree that this is a crucial time to act—in this, the super-year for the ocean.
Selaine Saxby
I am glad to see that there is such wide support for protecting and restoring our oceans on this World Oceans Day, in what I hope will be a marine super-year. Colleagues are right that we can do more to reach 30by30, to recognise the contribution that blue carbon can make to achieving net zero, and to highlight the importance of our oceans to lives and livelihoods.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered World Oceans Day 2021.
Social Distancing Restrictions: Support for the Night-Time Economy
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
I remind Members that we have made some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall, except when you are speaking.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered social distancing restrictions and support for the night-time economy.
I asked for today’s debate because I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the night time economy. As the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, I also represent a large and diverse number of venues, bars and clubs. Not only am I the MP but, like many Members, I am a patron of many of the venues in my constituency, such as Revenge and Legends, and I miss my nights out with my friends as much as I know the venues miss having us. When I talk to bar and club owners, they tell me the same thing: the uncertainty is killing them.
On 16 December, when covid cases were spiralling out of control, the Prime Minister insisted it would be “inhuman” to cancel Christmas, and he gave every assurance that it would go ahead. Pubs and restaurants had their staff hired, and the stockrooms were full and ready for a shortened Christmas season. On 19 December, just three days later, and after saying it would be inhuman, the Prime Minister cancelled Christmas. I do not say that he made the wrong call in locking us down. History will show that he was right to do so or, if not, that he should have done it earlier.
I raise what happened in December because I worry that we are repeating ourselves. The Prime Minister bumbles away through his interviews, assuring the nation that everything will be just fine with the road map on 21 June. Meanwhile, we have Whitehall officials briefing today’s papers that the date will be pushed back. What is it? My fear is that the harsh reality will catch up with the Prime Minister yet again and he will have to acknowledge what we already know: the 21 June deadline might have to be pushed back a few weeks to get everyone vaccinated. Those who will suffer are the workers and businesses who have trusted in good faith that they should work towards that date, although—granted—no cast-iron guarantee has ever been given.
The Night Time Industries Association conducted a survey of its members. Nine in 10 businesses fear that a delay in the full reopening of nightlife would threaten their survival; 85% require at least two weeks’ notice to open up, and over a third said they need four; 95% have already made financial commitments; on the logistics of opening up on the 21st, 54% have already ordered stock—as a real ale man, I know that that stock goes off incredibly quickly, so it has to be used in time; 73% of businesses have called in staff; 60% have sold tickets; 64% have booked entertainment; and 80% have already spent finances on marketing and promotional materials.
Louise from the Camel Club, a family nightclub in Huddersfield, told our APPG that she does not know under what conditions the nightclub will be able to open. She does not even have a rough idea of the direction that it will be going in. For example, when it opens, is social distancing likely to be required? What other rough ideas will be given? This has made it extremely difficult to even prepare. She is plucking things out of thin air rather than at least following guidelines that could change. That makes things difficult operationally and financially, so what guidelines can be issued so that clubs can at least work towards a general direction? Will they be able to open on the 21st? If not, can there be reassurances that financial support will be offered?
The pandemic has presented a real jobs crisis too. According to Unite, 48% of hospitality workers say that they will look for work in a different sector post pandemic. The industry is heading towards a skills employment crisis. The problem is that the so-called barista’s visa—the roll-out of potentially low-paid, exploitative apprenticeships on a visa—is not the way forward. There have been 650,000 job losses across this sector alone.
This is not just a problem for those in hospitality. There is a knock-on effect—for example, in the security business. The UK Door Security Association warns that six out of 10 supervisor posts are now unfilled in nightclubs, music venues, pubs, bars and festivals. The posts being unfilled risks the venues being unopened. That was one of the reasons we had to cancel Pride in Brighton: we just could not secure the security staff, as well as not having the underwritten insurance, because the Government did not underwrite that either.
So many door staff have been forced to find other forms of income. They have opted to use their security licences in more stable environments, such as retail or covid testing centres. There is an increase in resource demand, as venues have to adhere to covid requirements. If they are able to go ahead, many festivals will now be squeezed into a tight summer season. We also see increased demand in certain pinch points.
The Government must work with the associations, and with organisations such as Unite and other unions, in their proposed hospitality commission, to establish a plan for the sector, to retrain workers who lose their jobs and to ensure that those people do not face long-term unemployment. In my view, the kickstart scheme is not fit for purpose on hospitality. It has offered only 60 of the 1,260 placements to hospitality workers. Hospitality training programmes should be focused on upskilling the industry and creating new, quality jobs with guaranteed hours.
Business owners in the night-time economy now have debts equal to three years of trading profit. That is £2.5 billion just in debts that they did not have before the pandemic and that they will have on opening day. They are also having to potentially invest in social distancing measures that they do not know will even be implemented. That is why the Government need to give more guidelines on what might happen.
The moratorium on forfeiture is to be lifted at the end of this month, and no solution has been offered to address the legacy of rental debt wrought by the pandemic. Some 75% of night-time businesses say they fear bankruptcy or insolvency when the moratorium ends, if there is no solution to commercial debts. Some 80% of commercial tenants in the sector still face unproductive discussions with landlords. The situation requires the Government not just to issue guidelines or suggestions to landlords, but to require landlords to get around the table and negotiate with businesses. The Government should come forward with a package to ensure that businesses take no more than a third of the burden—effectively, one year’s operating profits—and that the rest is shared with landlords, other suppliers and maybe even the Government in long-term solutions that would mean these businesses do not go bust, which many are doing.
Regardless of what decision is made next week on social distancing, this issue is not going to go away. We need to hear some concrete proposals from the Minister on what long-term help the Government plan to provide to solve the crisis. Will he commit to matching the Welsh and Scottish Governments in their commitment to 100% business relief for qualifying night-time economy businesses in the 2021-22 financial year? Will he commit to delaying the rise in VAT for cultural, ticketing and other night-time economy venues in the 2021-22 financial year? Will he pledge that the Government will follow the science, allowing events with the mitigations that have been shown to be effective in trials, such as testing, vaccines or other measures, and allowing venues to open in certain situations?
I end with the words from Matthew from Chalk, a nightclub next to my constituency—100 yards across the border. He said to the APPG that he has invested his life savings in the venue—his blood, sweat and tears. Nightclubs are responsible for life-forming experiences for young people—and those who are less young—and are an integral part of our society. They must be protected. They are an integral part of the economies of many cities and towns across our country, and provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of people. I hope the Minister can give Matthew and many others some reassurances about going forward in the next few weeks, so that we can start to get our businesses opened and our economy supported.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) on securing today’s important debate. I thank him for his work and all those colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group for the night time economy, which is a hugely important sector, culturally, economically and for people’s wellbeing.
This area of the economy is being hard-pressed because it is not a binary situation like retail, which is either open or not—obviously there are measures within, but on the whole it is either open or not open. Clearly, restrictions are being put on the hospitality sector, the night-time economy and the wider hospitality sector, such as weddings, and that is happening at a cost, with extra staffing and reduced capacity for those venues. They have been incredibly hard-pressed.
The sector also creates millions of local jobs. Many sectors and industries within hospitality—events and entertainment, healthcare, security, cleaning, transport, logistics, retail, health and fitness centres—are all part of the hospitality ecosystem. The sector is also key in driving other vital sectors of the economy, including tourism, entertainment, the arts and cultural activities, such as theatres and comedy clubs. We recognise the huge disruptions that the covid-19 pandemic has caused to people’s lives. It has presented unprecedented challenges to those sectors.
The Prime Minister’s road map is an important step towards reopening the night-time economy, but we need to be driven by the data and proceed cautiously towards step four. That is why we have opened the economy in gradual steps, as it is vital that we do not jeopardise the success of the vaccination programme. I hope this debate will go some way to restoring public confidence and kick-starting recovery for the industry to make sure that people in the sector know that everybody in this place, from either side of the House, is fully committed to making sure that we can restore our night-time industry.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown talked about December and what happened at Christmas. For that reason we are going through the gears gradually, carefully and slowly. We have been at pains to talk about the fact that it is “data not dates”. Everyone will obviously put their hook on 21 June, but although—to provide enough certainty—we have said that that is what we are aiming for, we have been really careful to say that the decision needs to be based on data. Caseload, case rates, the effect of the vaccination on variants, the roll-out of the vaccination programme, and obviously hospitalisations and the pressure on the NHS, are among the things that we are testing and gathering evidence for. Every day that we continue with that process, we are getting richer data.
The promise has been clear that the decision will be made and announced on 14 June. I appreciate that, for some businesses—especially those producing real ale, as it takes a couple of weeks to brew and, as the hon. Gentleman says, it has a short shelf life—that will not be enough time. However, the key thing is that the full opening up would not be before 21 June. Media speculation does not help and I have been at pains, when speaking to newspapers and TV, to ask them not to speculate for speculation’s sake. That causes cancellations, especially for events that require planning, such as certain nightclubs, weddings or ticketed events. That speculation is harming business.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) on bringing the matter forward. He is right; it is the uncertainty. We understand the issues to do with the timescale and then it falls back, but I want to make a plea, to back up the hon. Gentleman, for those workers. In my constituency, I know that some have had real uncertainty over the future of their jobs. First, they are on furlough. Then, they are off furlough. Then, something else happens and they find themselves off furlough and they cannot get back on again. Can the Minister say what consideration the Government have given for businesses that have furloughed some of their staff, have taken them off with an option of opening and then find themselves in the predicament where they wish they had not taken them off furlough to start with? Also, what discussion has the Minister had with the devolved Administrations?
Paul Scully
That is an interesting point. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It is a really important point. I will come back to staffing overall in a second. He is right. I have had some interesting discussions with the hospitality sector over the past week or two, since the last reopening, when they have been looking at staffing issues. A number of people have come up with different ways of covering the staff shortages they have outlined. First, it is difficult to get some people back from furlough, because they are happy and prefer to be on furlough. They may be cautious about coming back to the workplace and have not the confidence to do so.
There are clearly some people who have left the country, especially in London and the likes of Brighton, where we rely on a significant number of workers from Europe and around the world. There are rural and coastal areas where businesses struggle to find people in general. There are also people on furlough who may have been running two jobs and have made a choice. For whatever reason, possibly because of the speculation that I was discussing about the uncertainty of hospitality and the night-time economy reopening, they have chosen to go to their other job—the non-hospitality job. That clearly provides a challenge and is something that we have to work through and be alive to.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown talked specifically about security staff and the need to maintain safe venues. Clearly that is something that we are aware of and we are working through the Home Office to see what more we can do to support them.
I shall return briefly to the road map. The Prime Minister has the step-by-step plan to be led by the data as we ease restrictions. We have progressed through that road map, on the basis of the latest data, easing restrictions further when it has been safe to do so. We want to make sure that as the night-time economy and hospitality reopen, we remind people that the hospitality sector has done so much to put mitigations in place—the time, the money, the effort, the staff, the one-way systems, the screens and what-have-you. We want to reassure people that they are safe by following the guidance and putting those measures in place, but providing a really warm welcome as well. We want people to go out and enjoy themselves. We want to give them the confidence to come out on the first day and make sure that they have enjoyed a fun time and want to come back time and again. As we break the cycle of people being locked away at home, we do not want them to necessarily just sit there and contain themselves with their bottle of wine and ready meal in their garden, because there is so much that Brighton, London and Northern Ireland have to offer in the night-time economy.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Could the Minister address one request that I get a lot from the night-time economy, by giving some pre-guidelines of what the opening up might look like, even if that were to change? Looking at another sector, I went to visit my local caravan club site recently. They were given three days, from the announcement to open up the site, to implement the measures that the Government required. If they had been given just a week, they told me, even if it was to say, “This is what we are currently thinking; it might change, but this is where you can start planning,” it would have really helped.
Could we learn that lesson with the night-time economy and give them a heads-up? Could we say, “This is where the current thinking is. We don’t know the date when it will happen—it might be this week, next week or the week after—but this is roughly what it will look like when you are opening up”? Could we make it clear whether it will be a free-for-all when we do, or whether it will be a case of, “You can open up, but here are the requirements that you will have to meet”? That would make a big difference for a lot of these venues.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Gentleman and totally accept that. We are in a frustrating period; it is frustrating for all of us. None of us wants this to go on for a day longer than possible, but as he knows, a number of reviews are under way—the certification review, the social distancing review and the events pilot—all of which are due to be completed this week. They will not only inform the Prime Minister in making his decision ahead of 21 June, but inform us of what works, what might not work and so on for larger events and for social distancing.
In all this, we have worked with organisations such as UKHospitality, Hospitality Ulster, the British Beer and Pub Association and the Night Time Industries Association to try to get a view about what the effects of any residual social distancing and mitigations will be on their economy. We can therefore get the balance right in giving them a chance to make a profit. Let us bear in mind that every time we walk down a street at the moment and see a busy, bustling pub, it is still losing money; it is just minimising cash burn and minimising its losses. It is not making money. It has not got a chance of making money until it can open fully, because of the capacity issues. As I say, it might look busy, but it is still constrained.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact answer that he wants and that the sector needs, but we are trying our best to ensure that we can work with the sector and have a dialogue rather than just say, “Okay, this is the kind of stuff we are going to do. What do you think about it?” At every stage it has been difficult to work through those dates as we have come through them, but I believe that we will get there.
I know that not every venue will open fully on 21 June, because that is what happened on the other two dates as well. That is the date, and different people will work through their venues to best suit their staff rotas, their suppliers and perhaps just ensure that they can give that safe and warm welcome. We want to ensure that the Government’s programme is one-directional; and clearly, businesses do not want to be stop-starting because of economic constraints of a more local making, shall we say.
There were a number of issues on financial support. Let me first cover the rents moratorium. Throughout the process we have had a number of cliff-edge scenarios that we have tried to avoid, whether the end of the business rates holiday or the VAT relief. Those are big-ticket items. If I remember rightly—I might get these the wrong way round—business rates was about £11 billion of taxpayers’ money and VAT was something like £27 billion. It was of that order. Those are big amounts of money, so we clearly need to work that through in a holistic fashion for the Chancellor, but we have always tried to flex to view the situation as is, rather than try to predict too far into the future. Clearly, I do not think any of us expected us to be in this situation in March or April last year, when the pandemic Budget was announced.
The moratorium is the one complicated issue. Business rates relief is the Chancellor saying, “Okay, fine, we can extend this. The Treasury will take the hit.” I understand that ultimately it is taxpayers’ money, but the Treasury will take that view and it is the Treasury’s decision. On rent moratoriums, there is clearly a commercial rent, and landlords are businesses as well. We sometimes look at rogue landlords, but there are many mom-and-pop owners who own a property or two. There are also pension funds that own property, and that has ramifications on pensioners and investors in those pensions. Obviously, some landlords also have shareholders.
We must therefore look carefully at getting the right balance, but we are working through that as quickly as possible because we know that the most immediate effect will be on tenants. It will be on those hospitality venues who, for the reasons we have said, cannot operate to capacity very quickly. We are hoping to come up with something that works for both tenants and landlords and furthers those discussions. We want to have constructive discussions, as the hon. Gentleman said, because it is in the landlords’ long-term interests to ensure that they can do so. Beyond that, we will make sure that we can get to more of a fundamental review of the landlord-tenant relationship, because the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about how we go beyond reopening.
I have been working with the hospitality sector on the strategy—what we do next. Bear in mind that our Department did not have a hospitality team before all this, but we now have a permanent hospitality team within the Department, and I now include Hospitality Recovery Minister in my vast array of titles and responsibilities. It is important that the hospitality industry has the seat at the table that it worked so hard for.
There are three Rs: reopening—we have to get back to full capacity to start making money again and start paying back the three years of debt that the hon. Gentleman talked about. Then, recovery—going through that process, starting to have more easements from local authorities to help support that. It is also about resilience, which brings us back to the long-term issue of staffing. What makes hospitality so flexible is that it has a low bar for entry. A student can go in and do a few shifts at a pub without any qualifications. But we want to make sure that people can see a career path in hospitality, so that although there is a degree of flexibility, that is not the same as instability. We want to give that stability through a greater skills offering for the hospitality sector. As we build back better and fairer for the workers in that sector, we will also build back greener, seeing what more we can do to further the Government priority of driving towards net zero, by means of practices in the hospitality sector. There is a lot to be working on.
We are gradually removing restrictions and reopening the economy via the road map. It is a frustrating time, waiting for Monday to see what the decision is, but we have to remain cautious and continue to follow advice on safe behaviours. It is key that we remind people that this is not like a thriller movie, when someone shoots the baddie at the end and the credits roll. We will be living with this for some time. In the meantime, hon. Members are sitting with their masks on because we need to remember social distancing, “hands, face, space and fresh air” and get the vaccine when it is offered.
We will continue to work closely with businesses, local authorities and other stakeholders to support those industries and ensure that the UK night-time economy can recover and return stronger. As we continue those reviews in tandem with the vaccine programme, we are hopeful that further venues will be able to reopen as we approach step four of the road map. That will be no earlier than 21 June, following a review of data. Protecting the health and safety of the British public is our top priority, but we will not keep the restrictions in place any longer than necessary. Until then, everyone must continue to play their part.
Question put and agreed to.
11.28 am
Sitting suspended.
Community Renewal Fund and Levelling Up Fund in Wales
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes in practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between each debate. Members participating physically and virtually must arrive at the start of debates in Westminster Hall, and they are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address, which is westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk.
Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and when they leave the room. Mr Speaker has stated that Members must wear masks in Westminster Hall unless they are speaking. I also remind Members that those who are sitting in the Public Gallery should move to the horseshoe just before they are called to speak. If Members sitting around the horseshoe could kindly facilitate that, that would be fine.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Community Renewal Fund and Levelling Up Fund in Wales.
I am very pleased to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Rees. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) for helping to secure this important debate, and Mr Speaker for the opportunity to lead it. The debate gives the House the opportunity to address the broken promises made by Tory Ministers and the empty words of the Prime Minister, who has done nothing but let Wales down. Most important of all, it gives us all a chance to give voice to the thoughts, concerns, needs and wants of the people of Wales. I know my colleagues on this side of the House agree with me, and I suspect that many on the other side do, too, because funding for our communities is vital and much needed, but it is crucial that the funding is transparent, fair and balanced. Its distribution must not be another example of doing to people; we must focus on doing with people. As things stand, the levelling up fund and the community renewal fund fail on both those counts.
The levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund pit nations such as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland against the many regions up and down England. That simply is not good enough. Is it any surprise that the constituencies represented by Cabinet Ministers have received funds ahead of other parts of the United Kingdom? That is what happens when control is left in the hands of Ministers in Whitehall rather than in the hands of local communities up and down the country.
The so-called levelling-up fund will see decisions made in Whitehall rather than Wales, and will be driven by Departments with no history of delivering projects in and across Wales, no record of working with communities in Wales—north, south or mid—and no understanding of the priorities of those communities now or in future. That is why the First Minister of Wales, my right hon. friend Mark Drakeford MS, was correct to say that the Tory attempt to level up the economy in Wales is, simply put,
“a plan made for Wales – without Wales”.
That simply will not do.
I am a very proud member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, where we heard evidence on this subject just a few weeks ago. We heard from four council leaders across Wales, the Minister for Economy in the Welsh Government, the Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, and the director of policy, cities and local growth unit—quite a mouthful. Some key themes emerged from that important evidence session: there is not enough money in the pot to replace what Wales currently receives from the EU; there has been insufficient communication; the bidding criteria are not clear, and the mechanisms to decide on successful bids are submerged in confusion and chaos; the element of competitiveness is unwelcome, and Welsh areas are pitted against not just other Welsh areas but England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Those of us living and working in Wales prefer to work collaboratively to get the best for our communities, rather than compete aggressively to win small amounts of funding. Another key theme we found in our evidence session is that the timeline is too short; the deadline for bid submissions is impossibly short. Next week is the deadline for the very first round of bids; that means that councils have to submit shovel-ready projects rather than the most important and useful projects. That is not the best way of working.
When speaking to our Committee, Vaughan Gething made it abundantly clear that the Welsh Government had effectively been cut out of the bidding process completely, and that relationships with the Westminster Government were in a very cool phase at present. But the final part of our evidence session was perhaps the most concerning, as we heard two Government Ministers give different accounts of the bidding process and how the successful bids would be judged. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales was clear that he expected the Wales Office to be involved in the scrutiny of bids, but the Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government was adamant that the Wales Office would not be involved, but that his Department would be setting up additional teams of people in Wales to get involved in the process. I am still not clear why this additional layer of bureaucracy is necessary.
The levelling-up fund money is not new money. If it was not being funnelled through this fund, it would have been allocated to Wales through the Senedd, the democratically elected Parliament of the people of Wales, and it would have been allocated in accordance with the priorities of the Senedd, decided by the people of Wales. However, rather than respecting democracy and looking to work with the Welsh Government, Tories in Westminster have decided to trample over our democracy and have by-passed the Senedd completely. That is probably why, at the most recent opportunity the people of Wales had to express their view, they re-elected their Welsh Labour Government for a record sixth term of uninterrupted government. This is true to form for the Tory Ministers on the other side of the House, because they ride roughshod over democracy by taking decisions on devolved matters in Wales and remove most means of being held accountable by creating a system in which the people of Wales will have no say. It is unacceptable.
It is clear to me, and I know to many on this side of the House, that the way this whole sorry affair has been handled shows that the Tories know they have lost the trust and support of the people of Wales. On taking office, the Prime Minister made himself the Minister for the Union. Far from unity, every decision he has made and every step he has taken has sown discord and disunity across our country. As each day passes, the situation and future of the Union grow ever graver. I say this with no relish, but with increasing fear and concern for our Union.
The strong ties of family, faith, support, solidarity and togetherness that bind this Union are continuing to fray because of the failure of Tory Ministers to recognise that unions are formed of voluntary, consenting parties that need and deserve respect. Importantly, as I have already indicated, this Union is made up of four equal and proud partners. Nobody disagrees with the creation of the means to support and empower our communities, by using these funds, but as is so often the case with this Government, it is how it is done—or not done.
These funds could have been a step towards greater, more equal co-operation between Whitehall and the devolved Governments in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh, but it has not happened. That is why I call on the Minister today to give us a reasoned explanation of what is actually going to happen, because we need to know and we need to know now.
The Secretary of State for Wales is a decent man, but it is a matter of regret that his decency has not stopped him from going along with the Prime Minister’s dismissive approach to the Welsh Government, the Senedd, devolution and the devolution settlement. This sits at the door of the Prime Minister, and it is time that he steps up or stops letting Wales down.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
If Back-Bench speakers could confine themselves to five minutes, we should get everyone in. The Opposition spokesperson can speak for 10 minutes, the Minister can speak for 10, and Ruth Jones will have time at the end.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your Chairmanship for the first time and to follow my colleague on the Welsh Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). I start by saying clearly that I welcome these funds. I welcome these new pots of money that have been created to achieve, we hope, good and lasting things in Wales and in our constituencies. I welcome the design of the funds, the commitment on the part of the UK Government and the vision that lies behind the funds—what they actually speak to and represent. It is a vision of a fairer, more balanced economy right across the whole United Kingdom.
The theme of an unbalanced, lopsided economy is one that we have talked about a lot over the years as Welsh Members of Parliament, recognising that Wales remains one of the poorest parts of the whole United Kingdom, recognising that other nations and regions of the United Kingdom seem to have been able to power ahead much more effectively with economic growth and prosperity creation. Too often in Wales, it feels that we are stuck and have been left behind. Certainly, the statistics seem to demonstrate that. I welcome the vision that the Government have announced and outlined, and the way that the funds give meaning to that.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Newport West about the devolution settlement, I do not believe it was ever part of the devolution vision originally sold to the Welsh people 20 years ago that a sort of Berlin wall would be created to stop the UK Government spending money for the benefit of its citizens in the devolved nations. I do not believe that was ever part of the original devolution vision.
When I was Secretary of State for Wales, there was never a shortage of Opposition MPs knocking on the door of the Wales Office asking, “Are there any pots of money available from UK Government to help schemes and projects in individual constituencies?” That was even when those projects and schemes touched on devolved areas. For the first time, we have funding streams available that complement, but do not compete with, what the Welsh Government are trying to do. As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I see that as a healthy thing.
I believe leaders of local authorities such as mine, and others from which we heard evidence at the Welsh Affairs Committee two weeks ago, welcome the opportunity for engagement with UK Government and what these funds bring for our communities. More direct contact between Welsh local authorities and UK Government is healthy. Again, it was never part of the devolution settlement sold originally to the Welsh people that local government in Wales should become a no-go area for UK Government. It is surely healthy for UK Government to have direct and meaningful relationships with local government. That is not to compete with the Welsh Government or ride roughshod over the devolution settlement but to create that healthy connection.
The Minister and I have talked before about post-Brexit funding, the successor to EU funds, and the need for better-quality projects and investment in Wales. We have had 20 years of EU funding, and it is not always obvious what that funding has delivered for our communities. I am not saying that very worthwhile projects have not been supported—of course they have been—but it is difficult to point to clear-cut examples of EU funding for projects and investment that has moved the dial, helped create better, more balanced growth and better-quality, higher-paid jobs in Wales, and made that kind of step change. I would emphasise to the Minister that this new generation of funding needs to support those better-quality projects and investments. The greater involvement of local authorities can help foster that, because local authorities on the ground often have the best knowledge of what is going on in their communities.
My final point is about my community in Pembrokeshire. I have been working with the local authority on a bid for this funding, focusing on town centre regeneration in Haverfordwest, which I hope is successful. Town centres need to do different things in future and not rely as heavily on retail as they did in the past. Covid has provided a catalyst for change in our communities. The bid we are working on could represent a new future for Haverfordwest town centre. It could benefit from tourism and our cultural heritage.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, I think for the first time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on securing the debate and covering in such detail some of the challenges of the levelling-up fund. In similar fashion to the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), I say to the Minister and all Conservative Members present that I welcome any funding that brings investment into my Ogmore constituency. I am not against funding coming into any of my communities.
I happen to represent some of the most economically deprived parts, not just of Wales but of the UK. I am well aware that investment is needed in my constituency. That investment could be in jobs, growth and physical regeneration, including around the town centre. In my constituency there are smaller towns in many of the valleys. Historically, they were full of hustle and bustle because of industry that has now left those communities, so they need the investment that the Welsh Government have provided until now, with European Union funding, but which has also come directly from the two local authorities that my constituency sits in.
I am not happy with the process. I think that it should be decided within the Welsh Government, because that is the system that has been in place for EU structural funding since 1999, and we should respect the devolution settlement. However, I am realist. I am not in government in Westminster, so I genuinely want to work with the Wales office and Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers to ensure that investment comes to my constituency.
The first bidding round is on 18 June. Two local authorities, as I have set out, cover my constituency, and a third borders my constituency—I can see the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) looking straight at me on a screen. I have been lobbied by officials in Bridgend, Rhondda Cynon Taf and the Vale of Glamorgan authorities about a possible bid in my constituency covering all three county areas. This is a very exciting and positive bid that could bring about meaningful change and regeneration to the second largest—I represent several towns; my constituents would argue which is the second largest—town in my constituency, to bring about meaningful investment that could be of real benefit to the constituencies of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) and of the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan.
However, there is confusion. It is not clear which bid I would support, because my authorities wish to put in other bids. Officers have no relationship with HCLG officials, because there has been 20 years of separation following devolution. They are therefore starting from scratch on relationships and conversations. When, as MPs we ask Ministers, either in HCLG or in the Wales Office, who is leading on what, there is confusion. There is not a straightforward answer.
At the last Welsh questions, I asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he could try to explain the process, and I then wrote to him. Despite various HCLG Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, telling me that there would be two further rounds of bidding, no dates are available for those rounds. The Secretary of State told me that there would possibly be only one additional round of funding in the comprehensive spending review for the next round, so what happens to the third round? What are the dates towards which local authorities should work to ensure that they can put in those bids?
Alongside that, we have the community renewal fund. As I mentioned, Ms Rees—you know my constituency very well indeed—my seat sits in the RCT and Bridgend County Borough Council area. RCT is part of the community renewal fund priority bidding area, but Bridgend County Borough Council is not. Despite the deprivation—the Minister and I have corresponded about this—and the challenges facing those communities, it is not seen as a priority area for the UK Government, and I have still not got to the bottom of why neighbouring authorities, including seats with fewer areas of deprivation and fewer challenges in skills and growth, have been prioritised, but mine has not. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) will make similar points about his county area—as, indeed, will my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones).
In closing, I have a series of questions. We rarely have an opportunity to question the Minister in such a direct way. Could I have the dates for rounds 2 and 3 of the funding bids for my local authority? In written answers I was told that they were not available. What happens to priority bidding if there are multiple authority bids from two or three authorities? Will there be second and third funding rounds? After priority bids, of which there is one, the Welsh Secretary says that other bids can be supported in the usual way. Will the Minister set out what the usual way is? I have yet to find an answer.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) [V]
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Rees, like many other Members present. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on securing this important and timely debate before 18 June, the deadline for the first round.
I say warmly and enthusiastically that the levelling-up fund is welcome. It is something that I have sought to work with and work on for many years, from the time of the referendum on leaving the European Union, and I am excited and I congratulate not only MHCLG but also the current Secretary of State for Wales and the Wales Office for securing this and seeing it through right to the very end. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) highlighted, there are many MPs from across the House who would come to see the Secretary of State at various stages, seeking support for a range of projects but maybe not fully understanding that the lack of capacity to spend and the lack of a budget—both resulting from the legal constraints at the time—meant that the Wales Office could not help. Now it can help, working with colleagues at MHCLG.
We should also remember that levelling up was the key theme, along with getting Brexit done, during campaigning for the last general election. I therefore reject the complaints from some Opposition Members. It is clear that the Government secured a majority on their levelling-up agenda —this is a key part of it—together with getting Brexit done, given that the then-European aid programmes obviously have come to an end and this naturally and logically follows from that.
It is telling that the communities that often received the largest amounts of European aid were some of the communities that voted in the strongest numbers to leave the European Union. That tells us something—that the programme, as it was, was not working. We know that more than £4 billion has been spent over almost 20 years of European-aided programmes in Wales, but clearly, sadly and unfortunately, Wales remains the poorest part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, a fresh approach is welcome.
I am disappointed that many colleagues on the Opposition Benches seem to welcome funds when they come from Europe but do not necessarily welcome them as much when they come from Whitehall. This is an opportunity to bind the Union together, and to recognise that UK taxpayers support UK residents wherever in the United Kingdom they live. My constituency received very little, if anything, in European aid because it did not fall into west Wales and the valleys. Some smaller sums were available, but certainly not transformational funds that would make a world of difference, like the opportunity offered by the levelling-up fund. I welcome it, I believe my constituents strongly welcome it and I congratulate the Vale of Glamorgan local authority on its engagement with the process in seeking to meet the 18 June deadline.
Barry, the largest town in my constituency, has some of the most deprived communities in Wales but, because of the structures that the Welsh Government and the European Union previously introduced, Barry and those communities were not able to benefit from additional aid outside the Welsh block grant. Now, under the levelling-up fund, they can. Barry has turned a corner in the last decade and exciting developments are taking place. However, the levelling-up fund offers us the opportunity to take it to the next level.
The proposal that we are looking to bring forward is a marina, which will complement so many other exciting projects that are taking shape. That exciting project had to be brought together within quite a short time. I hope the Minister will recognise that authorities in Wales tend to be smaller, and therefore their capacity to develop bids within a relatively short period is not as great as that of some authorities elsewhere in the UK. Similarly, some authorities, particularly those in south-east or eastern parts of Wales, are not used to bidding for such large infrastructure projects or schemes. They lack experience and therefore will need extra support.
Finally, it would help if the Minister would underline when the next round will open and whether, if a bid is unsuccessful on this occasion, positive feedback may be given to make it appropriate for the next round of funding.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Rees, and I warmly welcome this afternoon’s debate. Like Bridgend county borough, Caerphilly county borough contains some of the poorest communities in the whole of the United Kingdom. Lansbury Park in Caerphilly, and the town of Bargoed—also in my constituency—are not included on the Government’s priority list of communities that should receive funding from the community renewal fund. That is because Caerphilly borough is not on the Government’s priority list. Equally, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), Deri, Fochriw, Rhymney, New Tredegar and many other poor communities are to be excluded because Caerphilly county borough is not on the priority list.
However, the Chancellor’s constituency of Richmond in Yorkshire is included on the list. Many other areas that are obviously doing relatively well, thank you very much, are also included on that list. The reasons for that list being selective may be political, but I will leave that to one side—Members may come to their own judgment on that. The technical reason for Caerphilly county borough not being included is the relatively high travel-to-work rates from that borough: for example, people are travelling to Cardiff for work in significant numbers. However, that gives the incorrect impression that the borough as a whole is faring quite well. The reality is that there are parts of the Caerphilly borough that are far from prosperous, and those areas clearly need continuing support.
These exclusions are worrying as regards the fund, but to be frank, the community renewal fund is small beer. The shared prosperity fund is more important, because that is the fund that will effectively replace the European Union’s structural funds. However, we are told that the community renewal fund is the precursor to the shared prosperity fund, so I should like to ask the Minister three questions today.
First, the Minister has said very clearly that the Welsh Government and central Government should work together. Can the Minister commit himself to work with the Welsh Government so that in Wales, the criteria for the allocation of resources under the shared prosperity fund are drawn up jointly by both Governments?
Secondly, is it the Minister’s aim for areas such as Caerphilly, which benefited substantially from the EU’s structural funds, to also benefit from the shared prosperity fund? If the Government believe—as they say they do—that resources should be allocated on the basis of need, surely there should be a continuity of funding, and comprehensive criteria should be used to determine the actual need in those areas.
My third question is whether the Minister will commit to visiting my constituency, and the town of Bargoed in particular, to see for himself and to talk to local people about what the needs of the community are. That would be extremely important, so that an accurate assessment can be made and so that funds can genuinely be allocated on the basis of where they are needed the most. I very much hope that the Minister takes up my kind invitation: he can be assured of a warm welcome in the valleys.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, and to speak in this debate on the levelling up and community renewal funds in Wales. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on having secured this debate.
My constituency of Ynys Môn is a priority area for the community renewal fund and a category 2 area for the levelling up fund, and I welcome the opportunity given by the UK Government to bid for these two funding proposals. The funds echo the assessment that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) made in his report, “Levelling up our communities: proposals for a new social covenant”, that such funds should be
“more local, more human, less bureaucratic”.
These funds seek to establish a relationship between the UK Government and local communities. They hand the responsibility for selecting and championing local projects to those who can best represent the needs of a local community—the local authorities and Members of Parliament who represent them.
Ynys Môn has been battered by years of underinvestment from the Welsh Labour Government and has one of the lowest gross value added figures in the country, so when the funds were announced I was inundated with requests, applications and ideas from my constituents. The ideas came from local enterprises, small local charities and individuals, as well as from well-established, wider local community groups. I was already well aware of some of the ideas, but others came out of left field and left me excited about the level of local engagement suddenly activated by these new funding pots.
They offered a range of exciting solutions to local concerns: arts and amenity centres, such as the Ucheldre Centre; local and cultural establishments, such as the Holyhead Maritime Museum; enterprises specialising in bringing employment and regeneration, such as Môn Communities Forward; groups such as PIWS, which wants to facilitate visitor access for the disabled; and many more. There are opportunities that clearly define themselves as falling into the community renewal fund because they are primarily revenue funding; others are candidates for levelling up because they desperately need capital spend and many fall into both camps.
I was delighted to speak to staff at the Isle Of Anglesey County Council about how best to work with them on developing the bids, when to put forward a levelling-up fund proposal and how best to assess which ideas should go forward. It was a great opportunity to engage with Annwen Morgan, the chief executive, and Llinos Medi, the leader of the council, about how the UK Government could support them in an arena that had previously been the remit of EU funding criteria.
I know that rural communities can find it difficult to find the resources to put together bids for funding, so I was particularly pleased that that has been taken into account. The UK Government will provide the Isle Of Anglesey County Council with £145,000 in capacity funding to help it to deliver excellent bids. I, too, offered my own resource to assist in any way that I could. My council is now at the stage of assessing bids for the community renewal fund and I am meeting council officers on Friday to carry out the assessment of which bids will go forward for the 18 June deadline.
Looking to the future, the community renewal fund is the predecessor to the shared prosperity fund, so I expect that feedback from it will inform the future structure of the shared prosperity fund. Similarly, the levelling-up fund criteria are not set in stone and will develop over time. I welcome these funds for all Welsh authorities, including my own. They strip away the old criteria imposed by the EU and apply a more localised approach. They provide funding to help under-resourced authorities develop bids that will stand out and achieve funding, and they encourage local engagement.
This country has had an exceptionally challenging 18 months and we have seen the very best of our communities going above and beyond to support each other. The community renewal fund and the levelling-up fund give the UK Government, local councils and Members of Parliament the opportunity to work together, to invest in and support the very heart of our communities in Wales.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on securing this vital debate.
In 2018, the all-party parliamentary group on the UK shared prosperity fund, which I am honoured to chair, set out our expectations of the SPF. One point that we wanted to make very clearly was that we fully accept, and indeed welcome, the transition from the EU role in the structural funds to the shared prosperity fund. We are completely agnostic on the source of the funding and the management of it. We are interested in outcomes and results, and that is what today’s debate is about. I ask colleagues on the Tory Benches, please stop propagating the myth that this is about sour grapes on our part. It is not. We all want the best for our communities. It would be helpful if Members stopped using that damaging rhetoric.
Then and now, our clear message was that it is not a penny less and not a power lost. We have urged Ministers to ensure not only that the EU development funding be replaced pound for pound, but that decisions be taken by those who know our communities best, rather than by remote control from Whitehall and Westminster. Fast-forward three years to this debate on what is effectively the pilot for the SPF—the community renewal fund—and unfortunately it is becoming increasingly clear that the APPG’s recommendations have fallen on deaf ears.
Our disappointment in the Government’s response is based on five central concerns. First, the Government’s use of spin, smoke and mirrors means that the announcements are not what they seem. Money is moved and funds are rebadged to give the impression of extra resources, but the reality is that there is no new money.
Secondly, it is clear that the programmes are being used for nakedly political purposes and not directed to communities with the greatest need. Perhaps the most egregious example of this pork barrel politics came when a chunk of the towns fund was siphoned off to the Chancellor’s wealthy constituency. Now we see the same shenanigans with the UK community renewal fund, which includes so-called priority areas such as Derbyshire Dales, Herefordshire and Richmondshire, yet excludes the likes of Caerphilly and Bridgend. It is precisely the same story with the levelling-up fund and there could be more trouble ahead. If the community renewal fund is anything to go by, the £1 billion shared prosperity fund will be a veritable bonanza of pork barrel politics for Conservative MPs.
Thirdly, the bidding process seems to have been designed to hinder effective delivery. Its competitive nature is not only inconsistent with the stated purpose of targeting on the basis of greatest need, but wastes precious local authority time and resources and is too short term. The community renewal fund is allocated money for only a one-year cycle, whereas the EU funding stream was allocated on the basis of seven years of funds to communities that fell below a certain level of deprivation. Will the Minister therefore please commit today to scrapping the inefficient competitive bidding process for the shared prosperity fund and replacing it with a system based on the strategic allocation of resources over a multi-annual period?
Fourthly, the Conservative Government’s centralised approach betrays the basic principle of devolution. Until recently, spending on regional and local economic development was a devolved matter, or, in the context of EU funding, undertaken by the devolved nations within a framework agreed between the UK and the EU. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are major players, with responsibility for agencies that play a big part in local and regional development. The UK Government must therefore bring the devolved Administrations into the heart of the decision-making process. The Welsh Labour Government know Wales, its economy, its needs and its people far better than a civil servant in Whitehall can ever do.
Finally, the delivery timescale of the community renewal fund and the levelling-up fund is frankly shambolic. Already overstretched council teams, who are dealing with the demands of a pandemic, are being asked to meet unrealistic deadlines with incomplete information on the funds. Neath Port Talbot Council has done a fantastic job in putting proposals together at the last minute, but it could better serve residents if it were given more time and information.
The terms “levelling up” and “community renewal” should have real meaning—to the constituents we represent, to the areas that have been hit hardest by 11 years of austerity, and to the industries and sectors that have been hardest-hit by the pandemic. Unfortunately it appears that, for the UK Government, they are little more than slogans.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on securing the debate. I agree with the comments that it is very timely, ahead of the 18 June bidding deadline.
It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who made some great points, particularly on assessing the impact and delivery of the funds, as opposed to getting bogged down in where the money came from, who managed it and exactly what happened along the way. That is what my constituents care about. They want to see the regeneration of Porthcawl and of Bridgend town centre. They want this investment in their community for themselves and their families, and they are not interested in politics.
I draw the attention of Labour Members who said that they feel a greater role for the Welsh Government is needed to what is happening in Wales about freeports. It is a classic example of where the two Governments are supposed to be working together to deliver that fantastic initiative in Wales, yet we are well behind our counterparts in England because the Welsh Government cannot seem to come to the table to talk about basics. They say they want a greater role in the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund, but how can they ask for that when they have so badly let down the communities across Wales when it comes to implementing the UK Government’s freeports policy?
I welcome these funds—both the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund. They are opportunities for direct investment in communities across Wales and as the Member of Parliament for Bridgend, I am very grateful for them. That is because one thing that we need to remember is that Wales has two Governments—not one, or one in one place and one in another. It has two Governments that should work in parallel, delivering on their respective briefs.
The levelling-up fund was a key manifesto pledge that we made, and our levelling-up agenda is key and has been for some time. It is not a secret; it is not out of the blue. We have been talking about it for a long time and now we are finally going to deliver on it.
I will also talk about the involvement of MPs. Lots of comments have been made about who is best placed to make these decisions, support these bids and direct this funding. Actually, it is really great news that these funds will place some emphasis on what MPs have to say, and will encourage a greater working relationship and facilitate dialogue between MPs and their local authority. That surely counts for a lot when it comes to ensuring that the people and communities get what they are asking for.
The point made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) is that some of the areas in Wales that are currently in receipt, or that were in receipt, of the highest amounts of EU funding were the ones that voted for Brexit. That should not be lost on us, because when I was knocking on doors, speaking to constituents or receiving emails from them, it became clear to me that there was a huge disconnect, despite what people say, regarding the way those funds were managed. There was a huge disconnect between what people felt they needed in their village, town or community and what actually got delivered. Having a fund designed by the UK Government for the people of Wales, in which the local Members of Parliament are very active, is a very viable and good way of doing things.
As far as the community renewal fund is concerned, which, as we have heard, is the precursor to the shared prosperity fund, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) said that we want to see this system evolve, which is a fair comment, and that we want the Government to learn the lessons from that fund before the SPF is implemented. We also need to ensure that the formulas used to determine the priority groups are a little bit more transparent, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) highlighted; we perhaps need some more information from the Government on that. There were also comments that getting some clarity on the dates and details of the second and third rounds of bidding would be appreciated. I am grateful that the Minister is here today, hopefully to provide us with that clarity.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees for the first time, I believe.
Like others, I welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on securing it. However, I think that there is some important context to it. I was won over by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock)—although I think we are all hon. Friends today in talking up Wales—on the importance of outcomes rather than governance.
The hon. Gentleman convinced me not to talk at length about this issue, but I will touch lightly on the setting up of Welsh European Funding Office, or WEFO. If we look at the comments from decades ago when that was funded, we see similar points to those being made in this debate today. There were similar criticisms of how WEFO was set up and how EU structural funds were being spent.
There are teething issues with new funds. I hope that the Minister will touch on them, go further with the dates and will explain exactly how the new arrangements will work. But there are some cheap political points being thrown around here, which do not do justice to what the hon. Member for Aberavon was talking about, namely focusing on the outcomes that this money is meant to achieve.
I will make one last point about WEFO. It is the fact that Wales qualified three times for the highest EU structural funds. Areas of eastern Europe that were just recovering from serious Communist rule recovered at a quicker pace than the Welsh Government and WEFO enabled many areas of Wales to do.
So the hon. Gentleman will forgive me and my constituents if we want to try something different this time; I hope that he will forgive me and my constituents if we look to the UK Government to get money directly into projects in our constituencies. We will be judged on the outcomes: I very much welcome that and I will give the Minister a hard time on outcomes and any commitments made about funding. If this was Barnettised, we would be getting less money now. That minimum 5% promise—I hope it is much more than that—is more than the Barnett consequential, so there are some cheap political shots.
I have been working and talking with my local authority, which has hugely welcomed the fund, the fact that it can engage directly with the UK Government and the breadth of funding that that will release over the longer term. It hugely welcomes the new funding pots to which it can go directly. Of course, it wants collaboration with the Welsh Government, and so do I, but that works both ways.
When the Welsh Government put money into broadband, I welcomed that. It is a reserved area, but we need to work together. When the Welsh Government opened foreign embassies and employed people around the world working on trade and investment—a reserved area—I welcomed that; we need to work together. However, the second the UK Government dare to send a Minister over the border or dare to create new funding pots for our constituents and businesses, there are outcries. That is not collaboration. The Welsh Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot invest in any area of policy they want and then cry the second the UK Government do so.
While my hon. Friend the Minister may be an English MP, I implore him to reflect on the invite from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) to go and visit his constituency: he can also visit my constituency, because he is a UK Government Minister. That involves Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England—I would prefer to see investment given in that order—and he is really a Minister who represents all four corners.
I will finish with just a hint of what this means to Montgomeryshire and the excitement felt on the high streets of Welshpool, Machynlleth, Newtown and especially any community that looks at the Montgomery canal. The Minister will be getting a bid—a fabulous, spectacular bid; one that stacks up, I am sure, and one that I hope he okays—to open the Montgomery canal back to the UK network. It is a great Union story, but it is also a huge opportunity for mid-Wales and for Montgomeryshire tourism, but one that I fear would not ever have happened if we did not have these funding pots and these new UK Government initiatives.
We will be judged on outcomes, and I have no doubt that at the next general election the outcomes of these pots will be absolutely central to votes in Wales. So, no pressure, Minister, but we will be watching. I seriously ask Opposition Members to examine their rhetoric and think about what they are asking for. They are not English MPs. We are all Members of the United Kingdom Parliament and they should expect both Governments —UK and Welsh—to invest in their constituencies.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
It is lovely to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) for securing this important debate.
Wales was the UK nation that benefited from EU funding most, including in my constituency of Cynon Valley, which is extremely deprived and has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the UK. It is extremely concerning, as others already illustrated, that these schemes will not provide a fraction of the funding and fall short of what is needed to replace what we had under EU funding in Wales. Yes, we all welcome the funding, but let us not pretend: it is a fraction of the funding that we had previously under the EU. “Not a penny less” is being translated to millions of pounds less by the UK Government, and that is after 10 years of brutal austerity that has had a devastating impact on communities in Wales. The funds are forcing us into a competitive bidding process, pitting local authorities against one another. That is not consistent with my understanding of “levelling up”, which, by its very definition, should target less prosperous areas. A far more effective way of boosting local economies would be through cross-border collaborative working, and that is not happening.
The methodology used to prioritise constituencies is seriously flawed. I cannot understand why deprivation has not been used as a measure for the levelling-up fund, and we have yet to see the methodology used to select the community renewal fund’s priority areas. As priority has not been assessed on a needs basis, prosperous areas have received extra funding—including the constituencies of both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Housing, Communities and Local Government—while deprived areas in Wales such as Bridgend and Caerphilly have been excluded, as colleagues have already said.
The timescale, as has also already been said, does not allow for strategic, creative or transformative projects to help local communities. The Tory Government have a proven record of supporting their pals and cronies, and I have serious concerns that the money will be used to bolster Conservative incumbents. The experience of the towns fund in England does not instil confidence in me. The fund, totalling £3.6 billion, went overwhelmingly to Conservative target seats, and when scrutinising the spending, the Public Accounts Committee said that the distribution had
“every appearance of having been politically motivated.”
I fear that the Government are more interested in electioneering than in making lasting improvements to our communities.
The shortcomings, confusion, lack of clarity, mis- information and—quite frankly—shambles of the entire process were highlighted at the recent Welsh Affairs Committee attended by me and other Members here today. We heard evidence from local authority leaders, the Welsh Government, and the UK Government. There was a clear discrepancy between the evidence and experience of those in Wales and what was being said by the UK Government. Yes, Welsh Government and local authority leaders want a collaborative and inclusive approach, but they clearly said that that has not been happening—I have a transcript. They want to work with UK Government, but they are being excluded from the process.
Another concerning issue that came out in the evidence was the lack of clarity over the roles and responsibilities of different UK Departments, especially in relation to decision making: what roles the Wales Office and the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government would play. I would appreciate clarity on that issue from the Minister. That session really did raise more questions than answers. As a Committee, we will collectively pursue some of the issues that arose further.
The whole approach is, without a doubt, another example of UK Government riding roughshod over the devolution settlement. Decisions about Wales should not be made by Departments in Whitehall, which have no experience of delivering projects in Wales. We have a democratically elected Government in Wales, and they are best-placed to make decisions for Wales. I and many others in Wales do not trust the Tory Government to deliver change. We do trust our Welsh Government, as evidenced by the Senedd election results last month. I strongly urge the UK Government to take a collaborative, inclusive approach, working with the Welsh Government and local authorities to control the Wales levelling-up allocation, and it must be based on a principle of “Not a penny less, not a power lost”.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Rees, in my first Westminster Hall debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on securing it.
I start by saying that I welcome the UK Government’s vision for investment in Wales, their involvement in all parts of the UK, and their encouragement of a strong working relationship with the devolved Administration in Wales. I also welcome the timing of this debate as we transition out of Europe and out of a pandemic. Like the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), I could list the many local projects and groups that have been eager for funding and that have contacted me for information about the lifeline given to them. I am reminded, however, of the tourist lost in the countryside who stops to ask a local person for directions. The local pauses and says, “If I were you, I wouldn’t start from here.” The sentiment is legitimate but the advice is unhelpful, and that is the case too—I am afraid—for much of what we have heard from Opposition Members in this debate. To make progress ourselves across this landscape, it is essential that we establish what is fact, and build our arguments from that ground. I hope to do just that with my contribution today.
First, we must acknowledge that sovereignty lies with the UK Government, here in Westminster. In recent weeks, we have heard other ideas and aspirations: that sovereignty is pooled, that it is between equal constituent parts of the UK, or that it would be even better if federated. The kindest word for these ideas is “aspirational”. It is not how things are.
The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the mechanisms of financial transfer created within it, which will deliver the funds that we are discussing today, were established here in Westminster. When the Welsh Government sought to challenge the UK Government, Lord Justice Lewis, sitting with Mrs Justice Steyn, refused the application stating
“the claim for judicial review is premature”
and noting that it was “unnecessary” and “unwise” for them to give a view on the Welsh Government’s arguments. So the first fixed point for our journey is that these funds are properly and legitimately conceived by the UK Government for the benefit of UK residents in part of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, I am sure we can all agree that decisions should be taken and functions delivered closest to where they will have their effect. That principle of subsidiarity balanced by pragmatism underpins localism and devolution. However, devolution of powers from Westminster to Cardiff Bay has not carried on beyond Cardiff to local authorities in Wales. What the Senedd has seen as good for itself has not extended to what it thinks is good for local authorities in Wales, including the administration of funds.
In 2020, the Welsh Government was the lead organisation for about 53% of the total EU funds awarded to Wales; Welsh local authorities were entrusted with less than 10% of project funding. By contrast, in England, just 7.4% of funds were handled by the UK Government, whereas local authorities were responsible for almost 37% of funds. That is not just my observation—the Welsh Local Government Association also knows it. Its “Manifesto for Localism” puts greater fiscal autonomy and flexibility for councils at the heart of plans for recovery from the pandemic. The second fixed point, then, is that the funds are consistent with the principles of subsidiarity, real devolution and trust in local decision-making.
My third and final point is representation. The cry goes up that money spent in Wales should be decided in Wales—that the true representation of Wales is in Cardiff. The fact is we are all here in a UK Parliament by the votes of UK residents. Anyone who suggests that we are not representative of Wales should think very carefully about what they are implying about their own legitimacy and the judgment of the residents who put us here. After all, turnout in the general election 2019 was 67%, but it was just 47% in the recent local elections in Wales.
At its heart, this debate is about trust, and not funding. I am here as a resident and representative of Aberconwy, trusted by its residents to influence the decisions made on their behalf in this place. I welcome the dialogue I am having with Conwy County Borough Council and I am excited by its vision. I cannot think of a single neighbour, resident or community in Aberconwy who will be upset by the offer of these funds, and I am confident of the positive impact the funds will have on the lives of those who live, work and play in Aberconwy.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), a fellow member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, on securing this debate.
I strongly support the key principle that lies behind these two funds—namely, the UK Government’s commitment to levelling up the whole of the United Kingdom, all parts of the Union, to ensure that no community is left behind. A very important feature of the funds is that they involve decentralising power and working more directly with local partners and communities across Wales and the UK, who are best placed to understand the needs of their local areas and are more closely aligned to the local economic geographies to be able to deliver quickly on the ground. I am an MP for North Wales, which often feels forgotten by the Labour Welsh Government in Cardiff so, for me, this decentralised approach is particularly welcome.
I welcome the UK Government’s provision of an additional £220 million funding through the UK community renewal fund to help local areas prepare for the launch of the UK shared prosperity fund in 2022. I welcome the fact that the community renewal fund, which is largely revenue based, aims to support people and communities most in need across the UK to pilot programmes and new approaches, and that it will invest in skills, community and place, local businesses and supporting people in employment.
I have seen the benefits the levelling-up fund could bring to my own constituency of Clwyd South through the bid currently being prepared jointly by Wrexham County Borough Council and Denbighshire County Council, which focuses on projects along the Dee Valley, including the regeneration of the Trevor Basin, as well as improved travel connectivity and investment in Chirk, Llangollen and Corwen. It provides a unique opportunity for the councils to access funding from the UK Government to bring forward significant development and regeneration opportunities, which both councils have been developing since the inception of the 11-mile world heritage site in 2009, making the most of the Llangollen canal and steam railway.
The levelling-up fund is a game changer and will help to deliver a fundamental shift in aspiration, confidence and opportunity. That is all the more important to an area with a desire to emerge from the worst recession in living memory and a worldwide pandemic with a renewed vigour and determination to put the world heritage site where it belongs: at the heart of the visitor economy in the region and at the centre of the drive for prosperity in north Wales.
I am very pleased that at least £800 million of the total £4.8-billion levelling-up fund will be invested in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that, for the first round of funding, at least 5% of the total UK allocation will go to Wales. That is as much as, if not more than, what would have been received through the Barnett consequentials. Further to this, of course, each of the 22 local authorities in Wales will receive £125,000 in capacity funding to help build their relationship with the UK Government and draw up top-quality proposals. Wales has proved to be at the leading edge of those councils putting forward proposals, with 13 out of the 22 local authorities in Wales having applied in the first round of funding—the highest percentage of any part of the Union.
The UK Government intend to create careers, not just jobs. Their objective is to make sure that wherever you are born and grow up, you will have a fair opportunity to succeed in life and do not have to leave your home town to find a good career.
In conclusion, levelling up is about not just the physical infrastructure of communities, but the social infrastructure, supporting local transport, high streets—[Interruption.]
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
The hon. Gentleman seems to be frozen and I do not think we will get him back.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, and I apologise for my delay in making it to the Chamber. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on securing this debate.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) said that we should be outcome focused, and I absolutely agree, but I also argue that good processes help to deliver good outcomes. The initial deadline of 18 June means there were 74 working days, in the context of responding to the pandemic, for local authorities to process what was needed and to make applications. That is clearly insufficient time. For the community renewal fund, the spending must be completed by 31 March 2022. Therefore, applications are limited to projects that are ready to go, rather than those that would take a longer time and arguably deliver better outcomes. I reiterate the point made by the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns): this disadvantages smaller local authorities that do not have the same capacity and will not have an ongoing programme of funding bids.
Previously, 40% of Welsh apprenticeships were funded by EU structural funds. The current funding will provide £220 million to the whole UK. Wales, as many Members have said, is guaranteed at least 5% of that, which is £11 million. I struggle to see how else that can be explained other than as a loss of over £300 million of funding to Wales. The prospectuses of both funds stress that they are competitive and point to the need to get value for money. That intrinsically suggests that the process is driven by cost savings and not communities.
Other Members have mentioned the process of how the two funds have been created and that their formation has not been transparent. The Welsh Government do not appear to have had any meaningful engagement. This lack of transparency makes it appear, at the very least, as if that information has been given strategically to Conservative Members of Parliament. Both funds state that the only role of the Welsh Government in the decision-making process is to consult as appropriate. Ultimately, this is the centralisation of a decision-making process and it omits the devolved Administration.
I conclude with two questions that I would like the Minister to address today. Given the importance of maintaining strong UK relationships—as a Scottish MP, I take an interest from that perspective, too—will the Secretary of State and the Minister commit to a meaningful relationship with the Welsh Government in the formation and administration of the UK shared prosperity fund? Was it discussed at last week’s four nations meeting? When will Parliament receive a full read-out of that meeting from the Government?
Secondly, can we get a clear outcome on how the Government plan to meet their pledge that Wales will not lose out on funding that it previously received from the EU, including whether certain areas and priorities will lose funding?
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on securing today’s important and timely debate.
We have heard about the additional funding to Wales, and let us be in no doubt: there is nobody who will not welcome funding to Wales, wherever it comes from. However, the Welsh budget is still lower per person in real terms than it was in 2010, so that additional funding is all the more important. The important issue today, as we have heard from a number of Members, is the lack of clarity, which is causing concern. There are questions about why some areas have been identified for funding and others have seemingly been overlooked, as well as over the incredibly short timescale for submitting bids.
Then there is the top-down, Whitehall-led approach that the Government have insisted on using for both funds. Welsh local authorities, like my own in Merthyr Tydfil, and Caerphilly County Borough which covers the upper Rhymney valley part of my constituency, have had 20 years’ experience of working together through the Welsh Local Government Association and alongside the Welsh Government to deliver successful regeneration projects. It is deeply concerning that instead of a strategic, joined-up approach to investment in tackling the urgent issues affecting our communities, we now see a centralised Whitehall-led approach being administered by Departments with no real understanding of the needs of Welsh communities. They have limited experience of working with communities in Wales and little understanding of the priorities of those communities, and there is a complete bypassing of devolution, as we have heard numerous times this afternoon. That is not the partnership approach that we could have all supported; it is a real step backwards.
I want to give the Minister one example. Some years ago, prior to entering this place, I was a local councillor and was heavily involved in a regeneration strategy in my own local community in New Tredegar. A hugely successful regeneration project had £6 million of EU funding, but that was only a catalyst and we also had funding through the Welsh Government, the private sector, the lottery and other charitable partners—and not least the local community. Fifteen years later, those projects are still going from strength to strength. I illustrate that example because of the nature of the partnership between a number of agencies, not least the Welsh Government.
During this afternoon’s debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West talked about the vital need for transparency, fairness and balance. She talked about not doing “to” communities but doing “with” communities, and I think that is a hugely crucial point. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) talked about the need for greater involvement of local authorities, because it is local authorities, after all, who know their communities best.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) talked about the need for funding across all of Wales, as well as the question raised by various Members on the future rounds of funding and the role of MPs in the process. I declare an interest in that, because I am in the same situation as my hon. Friend as we cover a number of areas. There are important questions within that.
The right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) said that some parts of the House seemed to welcome EU funding but not UK Government funding. I do not think anybody is suggesting that in the slightest. The important point is that all funding needs to be co-ordinated better with all partners, not least the Welsh Government and local authorities, as I have said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) talked about the poorest communities in some of our constituencies, my own included. The Caerphilly borough, as he mentioned, covers two and a half constituencies, and contains some of the most deprived communities in Wales, if not in Europe. Some of those communities have been on the Welsh index of multiple deprivation over a number of years, so for them to be excluded from the community renewal fund’s priority list is just mind-boggling. My hon. Friend also cited examples of other areas across the country that are not deprived, or do not appear to be. There are real questions about the criteria used for this fund, and as we move forward with the shared prosperity fund, those questions will become even more important.
The hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), and for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) talked about the abundance of local projects in their areas. Those have been worked up, and I think we all share that experience right across the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) talked about the all-party parliamentary group on the UK shared prosperity fund, and the disappointment that there is no new money and that the funding is not diverted to those communities in the greatest need. That issue of tackling need and deprivation in communities is something that has come up throughout today’s debate, as well as in the Welsh Affairs Committee recently and in a number of other conversations, so it really does need to be addressed.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) talked about freeports and projects that we would like to see go forward. However, I gently ask him to compare the level of money provided in England—the £25 million or thereabouts—with the £8 million that is offered for the same projects in Wales, and then question why there are barriers to those projects going forward in Wales.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) talked about an issue that a number of Members raised, and which the Minister will hopefully address in his summing up: clarity about the dates of future rounds. He asked us to think about trying something different. We are all up for trying something different, but it does need to be inclusive of all partners, so I ask him to make that request of his own side to ensure that all partners, including the Welsh Government, are included in the process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon also talked about the need to target deprivation and about the lack of clarity that emerged in the recent session of the Welsh Affairs Committee. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) talked about the focus on outcomes and about the hugely challenging timescale and deadline for these funds. I hope I have not left anybody out.
I want to ask the Minister a number of specific questions, some of which have been addressed during the debate. Areas such as those covered by Caerphilly and Bridgend County Borough Councils have been excluded from the priority lists for the community renewal fund. As I mentioned, and as we have heard during the debate, those areas contain a number of the poorest and most isolated communities in Wales, and the fact that they have not been included is mind-boggling.
I and many other colleagues have called for clarity about the shared prosperity fund for a number of years, and we are told that it will possibly be launched next year. Will the criteria set out for the community renewal fund, which has been badged as a precursor to the SPF, be binding on the roll-out of the SPF, or will there be greater flexibility? Will the Minister commit to having another look at the deprivation issues, and at deprivation being a factor in those criteria? That is something that has been puzzling a lot of us.
MPs such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, who talked about straddling two county boroughs, are in an impossible situation. Surely it would make more sense for funding to be allocated on a local authority basis, rather than a constituency basis, and for those local authorities to devise projects and take them forward. Can bids be submitted by two local authorities in two separate rounds with the MP’s support, or is it the case that once a bid has been approved—possibly in the first round—that is it for that constituency? If we could get that clarity soon, before the first round, that would be helpful.
Finally, what measures will the Minister take to ensure that we can move forward in a spirit of collaboration involving all partners? As I said at the start, any investment is welcome, but it should be done in partnership with regional and local government, and the Welsh Government, who all have significant experience in these areas. Speaking as somebody who is very much pro-Union, we achieve much more when we all work together in partnership for the good of all.
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, for the first time I believe. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) for securing this hugely important and timely debate. It has been a constructive and informed debate about the issues that we face in delivering these funds. The one thing that has definitely united every contribution today is that everybody in the Chamber wants to secure the best possible future for their constituencies and their communities. Despite differences of opinion, we all agree about the importance of delivering for Wales.
As a Government, we are absolutely committed to unlocking economic prosperity across all regions of the United Kingdom. That is why we believe in levelling up as a central part of our economic agenda. As part of that, we want to address long-standing economic inequalities and deliver opportunity for people, regardless of where they are born or grow up. We want everyone to have the same access to life chances.
A number of both thematic and technical questions have been raised in the debate, and I will try my best to answer as many of them as possible. I want to touch on a large number of them. For the first time in years—decades, maybe—we can provide direct financial support to regenerate towns, high streets and communities right across the country through the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. I think people want to see that type of investment in cultural and heritage assets and high street regeneration, which are so critical to levelling up. Those powers are in addition to the existing powers of the devolved Administrations, and we want to work very closely with them to make sure that they are used to the best effect. We are very conscious that effective relationships in the UK Government—between my Department and Ministers in MHCLG and other Departments—will be critical to making sure that we level up in the way that we intend. That has been a big theme of this debate.
I do not agree with the assertions that we have not engaged with the Welsh Government or local authorities during the course of the development of the funds; we have been engaging with the devolved Administrations and local authorities since 2016, when we started holding engagement events to look at the design of the successor to the EU structural funds. We have held a number of those events right around the United Kingdom, with more than 500 stakeholders attending, including a number of them in Wales.
We held four events in Cardiff and one in St Asaph in January 2019, which Welsh Government officials attended. A key theme that came through in those sessions, including in points made by the Welsh officials, was the need to reduce the bureaucracy of EU funding; another was to make sure that we have the opportunity for collaborative projects across boundaries in Wales. The sessions in Cardiff looked at similar themes, including how to administer the UK SPF and the investment priorities for Cardiff. We held those events with Welsh external experts from a number of different sectors: rural development, business, higher education, the voluntary sector, the community sector and, of course, local authorities.
We also looked at the findings of the Welsh Government’s consultation on replacing EU structural funds. We were very supportive of their recommendation for local authorities in Wales to have a greater role than was available under the delivery of EU structural funds. That is at the heart of the approach we are trying to take here. It is not just about the involvement of the Welsh Government—that is hugely important—but about local authorities, communities and others. That is a key part of this work. We think local authorities can come up with creative local solutions to local issues. That is exactly what we are trying to achieve with this fund.
Hon. Members were right to highlight the fact that we need a constructive relationship with the Welsh Government moving forward. We absolutely want that, which is why we are setting up an inter-ministerial group with the Welsh Government, to have a regular forum to discuss these matters and make sure that there is open dialogue about the importance of these funds. We are also engaging with the Welsh Local Government Association, which I am meeting next week.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) asked, importantly, whether we will prove that we will engage by visiting constituencies. I would be absolutely delighted to cross the bridge, which is in my constituency, and meet him to discuss that further. The same offer, of course, goes to those on the Opposition Front Bench—I am always very happy to discuss these matters on a collaborative basis.
A number of questions about the levelling-up fund were raised in the course of the debate. It is a £4.8 billion fund that is a hugely important opportunity for our whole country to invest in infrastructure that matters. Those are exactly the things we have heard about during the debate. At least £800 million of the levelling-up fund will be invested in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland over 2021-22 through to 2024-25.
I would reinforce the points we heard about the first round of funding, in which at least 5% of that allocation went to Wales. That means Wales will receive more under this design than if the money were Barnettised, because that money is a floor, not a ceiling. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams). This is categorically a better deal for Wales, offering a larger share of funding than would have been delivered otherwise. That is underpinned by the certainty of Wales being no worse off than under this approach.
There are other advantages, as this allows us to maximise the strategic benefits of the UK Government. We have seen how that has worked effectively over the past year or so in delivering covid support. As we heard today, we have also allowed, under the design of this funding, cross-border bids to come in. We heard about some exciting opportunities for cross-border bids. The levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund have been specifically designed to allow cross-border bids, which will be another tool to bind our Union even closer.
This process also allows more direct and greater local authority and community involvement. Hon. Members rightly talked about the index we published, which categorises different parts of Wales, and 17 of the 22 local authorities in Wales are priority places for the levelling-up fund. That will help all those local authorities in the bidding process.
I will try to answer a number of the technical questions that were asked. There was a recurring question about deadlines put in place for the first round of levelling-up funding. We have tried to put in place a system that allows local authorities to get moving on projects that they want to deliver in a timeframe. We heard from a number of Members about the need to demonstrate real delivery in the years ahead. That is what we are trying to achieve. We do not want to hold back local authorities that have projects that are ready.
From the engagement we have had with local authorities in Wales, it is appears that they are well prepared for the process: 13 of the 22 local authorities in Wales have told us that they are submitting bids to the levelling-up fund by the deadline later this month. Every single local authority in Wales has opened calls for projects for the community renewal fund. That is a higher percentage for both funds than any other nation in the UK. Local authorities in Wales are well prepared to get their bids in.
I would highlight the importance of the £125,000 capacity funding that we are providing to councils. That helps them to build a new relationship with the UK Government and to start gearing up to deliver the funding. We are excited about the opportunities that that brings. There were also questions about dates around funding, and we will be setting out details later this year. We do not have a specific date that I can give today.
Another question was about how MPs support bids in the usual way. It is important that MPs write to their local authorities, making clear which is their preferred supported bid under the levelling-up fund. If MPs want to support other bids that do not count as part of that weighting process, they can do so by writing to me or to the Secretary of State, or by supporting a bid through their local authorities, making clear which is their approved bid.
The question was asked whether once a bid is approved, that is it. It is a case of one successful bid per constituency in this Parliament. If that bid is successful and a project is being delivered in a constituency, it will not be eligible for a later round of funding. There was a technical question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) about feedback on the bids that do not pass the process. Places will receive feedback. We want to ensure that, if people do not pass the first stage, they are in a good situation to submit a second bid.
There was a question about the role of the Wales Office. On the funds we have already launched—the levelling-up fund and the CRF—where appropriate, we will seek advice from the territorial offices and the devolved Administrations at the shortlisting stage. We had questions about the IMD and why deprivation is not included. It is not included because it is not a catch-all that reflects the outcomes from the funds that we are trying to deliver, but I have heard that representation loud and clear. We heard a number of points about the UK community renewal fund and the need to improve on the delivery of EU structural funds. We absolutely take that point; a large number of Welsh local authorities are identified as priority places.
We heard from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) about the importance of focusing on delivery. There are a number of lessons that we want to learn from the UK CRF, informing delivery of the UK SPF. I am afraid that I do not have time to go into them now, but I am happy to speak in more detail another time if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so. We are absolutely conscious of the need to make sure that this is positive investment delivered into Wales. We think that there is a big opportunity for the UK SPF to do that.
I have two last quick points. The first is on the MP’s role in delivering the funding, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis). We think MPs have an important role to play in bringing together local stakeholder opinion, in helping to make the decision and in helping stakeholders to submit bids and work with Government.
There are so many more questions that we could have answered, and I am happy to meet any colleague here today who wants to talk about the matter in more detail. We believe that these are important funds, critical to the levelling-up agenda, that we are investing in exciting opportunities across Wales. I look forward to working with colleagues in delivering them.
Ruth Jones
I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. It was relatively harmonious, because—let’s be honest—we are all here today to fight for the best for our communities. Let me be clear that no one here is dismissing the moneys on offer in these funding streams, and we are grateful, but we need assurances from the Minister that Wales will receive its fair share of replacement moneys now we have left the EU.
Speakers today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), and the shadow Minister, have highlighted the confusion that still exists around the bidding process, and around the number of rounds and the criteria that successful bids will be judged by. We need clarity, and we need it now. I am grateful for some of the Minister’s answers, but I urge him to go further and make the process clearer for us all—as quickly as possible please.
It has been good to be able to discuss the new funding streams in a relatively collegiate manner. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) said, outcomes and results, not party-politics, are what we need here. It is not about where the money comes from; it is about making sure that the people of Wales get what they deserve. The funds are much needed, because after 11 years of Tory austerity, Wales has been hit hard. It is time that those wrongs were righted—and quickly. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said, last year Wales received £375 million from the EU, whereas this year there is just £220 million for the whole UK. We are going to be missing out on funding here.
The Minister spoke about the Barnett formula. We were not talking about Barnett, however, because the money was not Barnettised, and we do not want it Barnettised now either. We just want Wales to have the fair share that it deserves. The overarching concern remains the same: why does the Minister not want to empower the democratically elected representatives of the people of Wales to direct what is spent, and where?
In drawing the debate to a close, I thank you, Ms Rees, for your excellent chairmanship. I also thank those who have taken part, and the Minister for his response and his time. I am sure that this will not be the last debate on the vital topic of funding for Welsh communities, and that there will be many more questions, and hopefully clear, concise answers, in the weeks and months to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Community Renewal Fund and Levelling Up Fund in Wales.
Delivery Charges in Highlands and Islands
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
We do not have anyone participating under the hybrid arrangements today, so Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered delivery charges in Highlands and Islands.
It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. Like many before me, I represent a part of the world that suffers from delivery charges and surcharges, misleading delivery ads, and a general feeling that we are always being forgotten about and simply punished for our post code.
In my short time in this place, I have discovered that it is customary to show off some statistical knowledge, so please bear with me and allow me to put this on the record. People living in the Highland Council area pay the highest average price for large parcel deliveries. Compared with other general regions of Scotland, the highlands and islands pay the highest average price at every parcel size and have the lowest delivery availability probability—that is, parcels that they will not get. To be precise, my constituents pay, on average, £14.67 more than people in the south of Scotland for a large parcel. For a small parcel, they pay about £5 more. The delivery prices we pay in the highlands and islands are 20% higher than those paid by my friends in Glasgow.
That is enough of statistics. The other day, my constituent Graham, a brave man who served Queen and country for long enough, came to see me about a teensy little parcel containing two tiny batteries that he had nearly ordered online. When he saw that it was going to cost him £10.95 for them to be delivered to the highlands, as opposed to £4.95 for the rest of the UK, he quite understandably decided not to place the order.
The Minister will be familiar with an organisation called Resolver, which looks at the problems uppermost in people’s minds. It has confirmed to me that in the UK, delivery charge rip offs—I call them that—are the second biggest irritation people complain about, behind online shopping. While the debate is primarily about the particular challenge we face in the highlands and islands, I put it to the Minister that the standards and regulations surrounding the delivery service in the UK are not doing anyone a huge amount of justice and I suggest that people across our four nations are pretty cross about their experiences. I do not believe that any of us can ignore that.
To set an historical context, I can say that it was not always like that. On 9 January 1840, the penny post was introduced. That world-beating innovation meant that a letter that arrived anywhere in the UK—from the Shetland Islands to Cornwall via Kinlochbervie or Durness or Inverness to London—did so for precisely one penny. Back then, no one was disadvantaged because of where they lived, and it is wonderful that the same was true of a parcel. Okay, a heavier parcel cost more than a lighter, but it did not matter where it was coming from or going to. There was a flat and fair rate, regardless of where people lived.
The batteries of my constituent, the brave soldier Graham, are the perfect example of an unfair extra charge being levied on people simply because of where they live. I use it because that sort of example strikes a chord in people’s mind. How very different is today’s ethos from the higher-minded ethos that led our Victorian forebears to introduce the penny post. Quite simply, the present situation stinks, and I must admit—forgive my language—I am sick and tired of going on about it.
There seems to be far too much buck passing and slopey shoulders, to use a good Scottish expression. The Scottish Government always say that delivery charges are reserved to Westminster and that while, yes, it is regrettable—and they wave a finger or two about it—it is up to Westminster to sort it out. Then, at the drop of a postman’s hat, Westminster is only too keen to burble on about market forces and say that it is up to the Scottish Government to improve transport links and reduce the price of getting stuff from A to B. There is some truth in that, but it makes me wonder how on earth people ever got the Penny Post going in 1840, long before the transport infrastructure we have today, but do it they did. That is a matter of fact and historical importance.
Amid the buck passing, we are where we are today, with whopping great charges that people cannot afford, particularly during the covid pandemic, when we are relying heavily on online orders. What is to be done? Let me make some suggestions. I believe that both Governments must, to coin a phrase, extract digits, as the late Duke of Edinburgh might have said. They must work together, stop bickering about the Union and who does what, and just sort the problem out.
Secondly, between us, we must fix our roads and properly invest in our transport infrastructure. Dodging potholes often doubles journey times and therefore costs where I live. I therefore gently say to the Minister that if, out of the goodness of his heart, he took a peek at my letter about the levelling-up fund, which has just been debated and has the Highland Council in the bottom tier for investment in Scotland, I would be awfully grateful.
That leads me to another, positive suggestion. Local delivery firms—we have several good examples in the highlands of Scotland—go up and down our roads all the time. They know where the bad potholes are and exactly where a certain Mrs McKay lives in a remote part of Sutherland. That local knowledge is crucial. Legislation should be put in place to oblige companies that do not use Royal Mail for delivery to use local firms. The national firms have a worryingly high level of lost deliveries, and I believe that going local will help solve the problem.
What are we going to do to punish repeat offenders who do not comply with the standards laid out by the Advertising Standards Authority? In all truth, a strongly worded letter will not hack it. Businesses, whether big online retailers or local couriers, should be keen to be transparent with customers about delivery charges and, where possible, enforce a flat-rate fee that does not discriminate by postcode.
There are innovative ideas that could be made to work. For some time, I have gone on about the campaign for community banking hubs, where different banks come together and offer customers their services out of the same room. A shared distribution centre of some sort in the highlands could be a possible solution, which the Minister might care to look at and discuss with businesses in my patch, in his constituency and in other parts of the UK.
Royal Mail rightly has a public service obligation by law. I believe that the law of the land should be changed so that the same standard of service is forced on all other delivery companies and the firms that seek to use them. Next year, Ofcom will review the regulatory framework for Royal Mail. I sincerely hope that the Minister and his colleagues in Government will consider extending Royal Mail’s “one price goes anywhere” rule to other companies.
As I discussed with the Minister before the debate, we last debated delivery charges in December 2020, thanks to the excellent initiative of the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). He and I and many others have followed the issue on the Scottish Affairs Committee, which has had much to say about it. We have all engaged with Citizens Advice Scotland’s campaign on delivery charges over the past year. Yet, despite political support from all sides, we are still in the same boat. Right now, that boat does not seem to be going anywhere.
In a spirit of co-operation and helpfulness, I implore the Minister to discuss some of the proposals that I have outlined today with industry and perhaps come up with a plan of action. Deeply unfair delivery surcharges must be consigned to the dustbin of history. Nobody should be victimised simply because of where they live—not just in the highlands of Scotland, but in remote parts of England or Wales. It is simply wrong. In January 1840, the Penny Post set the gold standard and we should look to the high ethical standards of our forefathers. All our constituents will be greatly relieved if we can do something about this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing today’s important debate. Its subject continues to be important for his constituents and, similarly, for other Members across the House, including, as he mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who raised this last, in December 2020. The hon. Gentleman was there, and he and my hon. Friend came together in a cross-party spirit, because this is very much a geographical issue rather than a political issue, although there are often political levers we can look to to see what we can work on together.
It is not unreasonable for business to seek to cover the legitimate costs of delivery, but it feels to some customers outside the major conurbations that charges are going beyond that, so I have a lot of sympathy for the case that the hon. Member has made—that consumers in some parts of Scotland continue to be treated differently from those in other parts of the UK. I also recognise that similar issues exist for consumers in, for example, Northern Ireland and, latterly, the Isle of Wight. I am pleased to take part in this debate and to update Members on developments since the previous debate in December 202, but let me first remind colleagues of the Government’s general approach.
The Government recognise that delivery costs can be higher when reaching some parts of the UK, but delivery surcharges should be based on real costs of transportation. Businesses are strongly encouraged, as far as possible, to provide consumers with a range of affordable delivery options. Moreover, the Government have ensured that there is access for everyone, including small retailers, to an affordable, consistently priced postal service for deliveries across the UK under the universal postal service. Royal Mail, through the universal service obligation, must deliver parcels up to 20 kg five days a week at uniform rates throughout the UK.
The Government believe that businesses should be free to choose partners and make the contractual arrangements that best fit their commercial needs. At the same time, consumers need transparency of information so that they can choose the supplier who best meets their requirements. The resulting competition should lead to a more efficient allocation of resource.
Consumer protection laws require transparency of costs, including delivery charges. Retailers are therefore required to be up front about their charges, including where they deliver to, what they charge and when any premiums apply. In that regard, at least, the law was working well for the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, Graham, in terms of his batteries, because at least he could make an informed decision, as unfair as he felt that extra transaction cost was. With that transparency, consumers know exactly where they stand and can therefore decide accordingly. If retailers are to take advantage of the considerable opportunity for online sales, they need to take heed of the needs of consumers in all parts of the country, developing delivery solutions to realise sales potential in every single area.
Our legislation is robust. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 set out that the information given by traders to consumers regarding those delivery costs, including any premiums, must be up front and transparent, as I have said.
In response to concerns raised previously by hon. Members about understanding the rules, highland trading standards established a website to provide advice and delivery charges for consumers and businesses. Any consumer who believes that the rules have been breached should report it through the deliverylaw.uk website so that incidences are recorded and appropriate enforcement can be taken.
Furthermore, as I reported to the House last year, a significant volume of enforcement work has been undertaken by the Competition and Markets Authority and the Advertising Standards Authority. The ASA has issued enforcement notices to online retailers where parcel surcharging practices have been raised and has achieved a compliance rate of over 95%. The CMA has continued to issue advisory notices to the major retail platforms and has published guidance to retailers who sell via those platforms. It continues to work through primary authorities to ensure improvement in this area. On the legal compliance side, our enforcement partners are continuing to monitor the situation and to take action where necessary.
In November last year, the postal sector regulator, Ofcom, published updated information on how this part of the market is operating, as part of its annual postal service monitoring update. I set out Ofcom’s findings in the December 2020 debate in the House. Ofcom found that operators take different approaches to the pricing of parcel delivery services. Some vary their prices by location, but others do not. Businesses have options. For the subset of suppliers who vary delivery charges by location, some use a binary standard charge and an out-of-area charge and some set different prices for different areas. In other cases, the actual prices charged for business-to-consumer parcel deliveries are bespoke. Although operators may start with a standard rate, they often negotiate charges on a bespoke basis with individual retailers. As I outlined in the previous debate on this issue, some major retailers, such as Argos and Wayfair, have taken positive steps, vastly improving the delivery service by removing surcharges for most customers in the Scottish highlands and islands.
The Government have no role in interfering with business decisions. Businesses can adopt a range of options on delivery charges and may apply none at all, and the parcel delivery market is competitive. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross talked of the Penny Post, which was, in its time, an important standard to reach, but the post service has moved on in the past few years. Parcels, rather than letters, are more predominant in people’s lives than ever before, and the market is hugely competitive. Steps taken by suppliers to apply no delivery surcharge will put downward pressure on charges from other suppliers. Royal Mail clearly needs to be in that space, looking at that downward charge, to be able to modernise and compete with other suppliers.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government continue to look at this issue. The Consumer Protection Partnership brings together consumer protection organisations from across the UK. It runs a dedicated working group, including consumer advocates, trading standards and Government representatives, to focus on this issue. The working group also includes the Scottish Government.
Ofcom will be undertaking a review of its future regulatory framework for post over the next year. In the call for input between March and May this year, Ofcom invited views and comments from stakeholders. It intends to publish a full consultation on the future regulation of postal services later this year, before concluding its review in 2022. The review will consider issues affecting the broader postal sector, as people’s reliance on parcels continues to grow.
Other ongoing work to enhance compliance with the legislation includes updating the best practice guidance available from the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. The updated guidance has been informed by CPP members, as well as other organisations, and aims to drive the messaging out to online retailer platforms and delivery services.
I continue to believe that the legislative framework is robust and provides appropriate protections for consumers. The Government remain committed to ensuring that the universal service obligation, including the delivery of parcels at a set charge throughout the UK, remains affordable and accessible to all users. My priority is continued enforcement of the law to ensure that customers are not surprised by delivery charges and are able to make choices based on clear information. In that way, consumer decisions will apply competitive pressures that can drive down delivery charges to the benefit of all.
On behalf of the Government, I express my gratitude to postal and parcel workers across the UK, who have been working tirelessly throughout the pandemic to keep us all connected. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross once again for bringing this important debate to the House, and you, Ms Rees, for chairing it. I look forward to continuing to work on this issue. I know we will be back here again to speak on behalf of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others in the affected areas.
Question put and agreed to.
Learned Societies at Burlington House
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members participating physically and virtually must arrive for the start of the debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to stay 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 remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the learned societies at Burlington House.
First, I declare an interest as a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, which is one of the learned societies. I am grateful for the huge interest in the debate, but I will not take interventions so that we can get more people in. If necessary, I am happy to give up my right to reply at the end. I just want to get on with it.
I particularly welcome the Minister who has taken a real personal interest in the problem since he was put into his current role. I want to thank all colleagues who responded to the quite intensive lobbying by the Society of Antiquaries, the Geological Society, the Linnean Society and the Royal Astronomical Society who, together with the Royal Society of Chemistry, form the learned societies who have called Burlington House in Piccadilly their home since the 1850s. Those learned societies, also known as the courtyard societies, are under-appreciated gems in UK research and academia, but they have global standing across a number of scientific and historical fields. I have had loads of emails. Just this morning I had a letter from various professors in Denmark and museums and learned societies in support of the case that I am making this afternoon. As the chief executive of the Royal Academy of Arts, the learned societies’ next-door neighbour, recently put it,
“These charities have stood sentinel on this site since the 19th century, preserving our histories, furthering our understanding of the world and promoting its study to bring about discoveries and advances in the field of science, history, astronomy, natural history and earth sciences.”
The societies, together with the Royal Academy, were originally housed in Somerset House, but were turfed out by the Government of the day and relocated to Burlington House in Piccadilly, which, from 1855, gradually became their home and effectively a cultural hub for the arts and sciences. It was here that Darwin explained the theory of evolution and Schliemann showed off his discoveries from Troy. Important scientific works have been deposited and priceless artefacts safeguarded, including some of the oldest existing copies of the Magna Carta and iconic items entrusted to the societies to keep safe for the British public, and to foster both academic and public understanding of our heritage. There are works by Galileo, Copernicus and Newton.
The Society of Antiquaries, the Geological Society and the Linneans are the oldest of their kind in the whole world. The Society of Antiquaries has been an educational charity of global historical and cultural significance since 1707. The Geological Society, founded in 1807, is the UK’s national society for earth sciences, whose charitable work focuses on improving our knowledge and understanding of the earth. These are not dusty museums set up to indulge crusty old anoraks like me. They are very much living, breathing and highly relevant institutions that provide guidance to the Government on matters such as climate change and greenhouse gases, the safe disposal of radioactive waste, and the impact of immigration planning on the future of UK science. Those are just a few of the roles of the Geological Society, for example. It also gives strategic advice on HS2.
The 4,000 members of the Royal Astronomical Society advise and publish on solar system science, geophysics and many other areas crucial to the protection of our environment, and the Linneans play a substantial role in providing evidence and guidance on the biodiversity crisis and the ever-increasing demands of the global population. All of a sudden, if they were not there, a very large hole would be left. But their very existence is threatened because of a change to the way that their landlord—in this case, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—charges the learned societies rent. In effect, that has meant that in the past 10 years, the annual rent charge has increased by 3,000%. In the case of the Linneans, it has gone up from £4,000 a year to £130,000 a year, and rents are set to double further in the next decade. That was not what was envisaged when a new rent framework linked to the local rental values was first mooted under the previous Labour Government.
When the societies signed the lease back in 2005, they accepted that by 2085 they would pay commercial rent. However, at the time, calculations showed that the societies would have 45 years to adapt to a new model of income generation and rental payment before a dramatic increase. That increase actually started after just seven years, and was so rapid that the societies cannot adapt in time.
The societies are not the sort of luxury retail emporia to be found in other parts of Piccadilly. They are charities with limited income and particularly limited routes to raise more income while their tenancy is highly uncertain and their leases specifically prevent a third party from taking a charge on the properties, meaning that the societies cannot approach major funding bodies for grants to adapt and improve their building. The leases also prevent additional income generation through subletting or commercial activities—they cannot even have a café.
They are severely hamstrung in increasing their revenue, without which they cannot afford to pay their rent. But there is a Catch-22 as well: if they cannot afford their rent, they will have to move, but in the case of the antiquaries, the cost of moving the thousands of priceless fragile treasures would bust that society. Even the prospect of moving to a warehouse on a cheap industrial estate in a town in the midlands or north of England is a non-starter, let alone the fact that it would break up the hub and make the collections largely inaccessible to fellows and the public alike.
Their location in the heart of London enables courtyard society activities across the United Kingdom. As in other areas of operation, affordable tenure at New Burlington House allowed the courtyard societies to dedicate resources to active programmes outside London, from specialist meetings to large national conferences, matching local interests to available expert speakers. The societies are committed to a levelling-up agenda, and have been for a long time, reaching out and undertaking community-based learning. The London base is crucial to that work; they need the base to house their collections and to be near other societies, within easy reach of their important stakeholders who travel to Burlington House from all over the UK and internationally.
The societies are not expecting something for nothing. They have accepted that their rents should rise. At the behest of a previous Minister, at their own cost, they undertook a public value contribution analysis by the consultants PwC in 2019, which calculated that the learned societies together give an annual public benefit of some £47,368,500 to the British public, communities, and science and academic institutions throughout the UK. Surely it is only reasonable that the public benefit should be taken into account when calculating the rental value of those properties. In the case of the antiquaries, the same PwC study calculated that of the £5.4 million public benefit that the antiquaries generate, some 78% would be at risk each year if the society were to be forced out of its current premises.
The societies all want to increase that public benefit. They want to greatly expand engagement with the public at Burlington House and around the country, with other societies in schools and universities, with businesses, charities and many other partners. Indeed, the Society of Antiquaries has shown how this can be done with its other property at Kelmscott Manor in Oxfordshire, the former home of William Morris. Because it owns the property, it has been able to raise over £6 million from the national lottery heritage fund and others, to build a new education centre. When it reopens after the pandemic next year, it expects to double the number of visitors to more than 40,000. The same advantage awaits the other courtyard societies if they have a secure and affordable tenure, which is the basis of the problem.
We appreciate that Government have made certain proposals and have been helpful, most recently under the new Minister, including offers of a rent freeze, a rent holiday and some adjustments. However, the problem is that the rent now is unaffordable and without a new long-term lease, the offer to help seek lottery funding will not work. Since just 2019, the rent has increased by a further 39% at a time when financial positions have been made even worse by the pandemic. The situation has gone from bad to worse.
The problem is that the Government are still treating the buildings as investment properties housing commercial tenants rather than as the academic charities and educational research institutions that they really are. Unlike commercial tenants, they cannot just sell more widgets or put up the price of their widgets—or, perhaps more appropriately for Piccadilly, Louis Vuitton bags and designer frocks.
We need the Government to take a different approach and to recognise the learned societies for the unique tenants that they really are. The societies will be putting further alternative proposals to the Government and I am glad that there now appears to be a dialogue; for quite a long time, there was a logjam and dialogue just was not happening. Again, I thank the Minister for helping to facilitate that.
Among those proposals we should ideally seek a new long-term lease arrangement, as the Royal Academy negotiated some years ago, whereby they pay a peppercorn rent and have become commercially viable and very successful. The societies could make an up-front payment, made up of cash and in-lieu components, reflecting the public value assessments that have been mentioned already, and ownership of parts of their valuable collections could pass to the Government to make sure that they are enjoyed by even more members of the public.
Perhaps the management of the learned societies could pass to other Government Departments, where they could more readily be appreciated and engaged as cultural and heritage assets. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is an obvious candidate and I know that the Secretary of State has been sympathetic about taking a closer interest in and engaging with some of the learned societies. It would be helpful to understand on what basis discussions have already taken place. Apparently there have also been discussions between DCMS and the National Lottery Fund, because, as it stands at the moment and as I have said, the learned societies just cannot access those funds because they do not have the security of tenure.
The other solution is that MHCLG changes its rental policy so that it can charge a nominal rent but at a level that at least equates to the capital charge levied on the Department as a consequence of holding this asset. We believe that there are parallels with the way that the Ministry of Defence values some of its defence assets, for example, and the way that the Department has disposed of previous assets of historical and cultural value, such as Somerset House and the Royal Naval College.
Whatever solution is found, the Government really need to revisit the way that they charge the learned societies to reside in their purpose-made home at Burlington House. I am sure that colleagues who are here today, and the many others who have shown support for the cause, will help to play whatever part MPs can to help to forge a new arrangement between Government and these unique institutions, so that they can stay in their natural home, a cultural and scientific hub in central London, working with each other and with the Government to produce huge value for the whole country, worth well in excess of the sum of their individual parts.
I know that the Minister is the man to make that happen and I am delighted that he has agreed to visit the learned societies—hopefully next month—to see them at first hand. I hope that that will help to produce a long-term, fair and sustainable settlement that will see these unappreciated gems flourish further, and for the whole country to benefit as a result in tackling the big challenges of the day in science, environment and culture. It all rests on the shoulders of the Minister; I am sure that he will not disappoint and that we will have a solution to take back to the learned societies, which eagerly await the outcome of the debate.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
If Back-Bench speakers could confine themselves to three and a half minutes, we should get everyone in.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I should declare that I am a candidate for fellowship of the Royal Society of Antiquaries; so, if anybody in this room is a fellow, please do not blackball me. I should also say that the president of the Royal Academy, the first elected woman president of the Royal Academy, is sort of my adopted surrogate sister, Rebecca Salter.
I start from a fundamental principle, which is that this is basically a part of our national heritage and I cannot see why we would want to unpick any of it. It is part of global Britain, too, for all the reasons that have already been advanced. We stand tall in so many of these fields because of work advanced by these charities, in particular because they are within the capital and in a place that was purpose built for them. That is vital.
The courtyard societies are a harmonious whole. If commercial bodies sold Louis Vuitton handbags or whatever in each of the different buildings, what could then be made of the courtyard and its entrance? That would wholly disadvantage the experience of the artistic, creative, intellectual and academic basis upon which the courtyard was built. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. The societies have managed to work together, one with another, to be able to achieve far more on behalf of academia and so many of the different scientific and intellectual pursuits there.
It was specifically built for them. There were endless debates in the House of Commons for weeks, months and years. It took 15 years for them to decide exactly what was to happen. It was built for them; it is form and purpose united. Why on earth would we want to unpick that? As has already been said, the cost of removal of all the valuable and fragile material in the libraries and various exhibits would be so prohibitive that we would effectively be closing down some of those charities. That would be a terrible mistake.
I would say to the Government what I said to the Labour Government when we were in power, because this has been going on all the time that I have been an MP. It was the Deputy Prime Minister who first meddled with it in 2004 and ended up having to backtrack. I said, “Please, Government, stop pulling at the threads of this.” I thought earlier today that the little thread on my sleeve could be pulled, but then the button came off. It may seem like we are sorting out a little thread, but it ends by dismantling the whole seamless garment.
I will end with a simple point made by Gladstone when debating this issue:
“Vacillation, uncertainty, costliness, extravagance, meanness, and all the conflicting vices that could be enumerated were united in our present system. There was a total want of authority to direct and guide.”—[Official Report, 16 August 1860; Vol. 160, c. 1360.]
Things do not seem to have changed much. The Conservative MP, Beresford Hope, said that the traditions of old historic London were every day swept away. I am sure the Minister would not want to be the person who finally swept away this part of historic London.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing the debate and on an outstanding campaign that he has waged over the past few months on behalf of the learned societies. It has been a model of good lobbying of the best possible kind. I agree with everything he and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) have said. I will not repeat it, to cut things reasonably short.
I am reminded of Churchill’s great remark, I think about this place originally.
“We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.”
That quotation applies very much to the learned societies. They shaped those buildings and we shaped them together, over a matter of 200 years, or thereabouts. The shape and existence of those buildings and the things in them shape the learned societies. It would not be possible to remove them willingly and put them into an industrial estate somewhere on the outskirts of London. It would simply not work. Those buildings and the learned societies are integral to each other.
That applies to so many other great Government owned or publicly owned buildings across our nation. With those other buildings—cathedrals, churches, this palace, Buckingham Palace and the MOD buildings—the Government have taken an extremely sensible view over many years, which is to conclude that they are worth nothing. They are not worth anything; they cannot be sold. This palace could not be sold and is, therefore, worth nothing. Of course, it costs money to maintain but it cannot be sold.
The problem behind this particular episode is that the Government have concluded that the building is a valuable asset that they own, and which they can therefore sell or otherwise maximise income from it. That is the wrong presumption. That building was not set up as a Government asset, which could be subsequently sold. It was set up to be the home of the learned societies. Therefore, we require an extremely radical approach, not through a renegotiation of the lease, which cannot succeed. The lease cannot work and they cannot afford to pay the rent, so there is no point renegotiating it. These learned societies cannot pay a rent to the Government. Therefore, let us consider renegotiating it fundamentally. If we depreciate the value of an asset, that depreciation cannot count against profit and loss. It must not work at all.
I would like to think that the Government will consider not bleeding the assets, which is what they are effectively trying to do, whether through rent or another way. We should not be bleeding the assets; they are cultural and historic assets and they should belong to and be preserved by the nation. There are all sorts of ways of making sure they do not cost anything. None the less, the notion that a building, worth billions, freehold, should somehow become a national asset that is there to bleed seems to me to be entirely wrong. The capital value should be set at zero—the same applies to a great many other national assets of one sort or another. This is a political decision. It is not a cultural one; it is not a financial one; it is a political decision.
We need a Government who will say, “This is an asset to our nation. This is an asset that we want to preserve. This is an asset that does more for our nation”— £47 million worth more for our nation, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. Bleeding it, getting rent out of it and selling it off would achieve nothing for the cultural and intellectual assets of the United Kingdom. Finding a way of keeping the learned societies there, finding a way of making it possible for them to succeed in that location, seems to be something that we as a Government ought to be doing.
I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will not simply talk about the renegotiation. I want to hear a really radical restart to say, “These assets must be left as they are.”
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for leading this campaign, which I wholeheartedly endorse.
In the centre of London, our capital city, we have a world-class and unique cultural, educational and scientific hub that has come about because of the work that was done, going back to the time of Lord Palmerston and beyond, to create that juxtaposition of the Royal Academy, Burlington House and the courtyard societies. It is irreplaceable and, as has been observed, putting any other type of tenant in there for commercial operation would destroy something that scarcely exists anywhere else. Perhaps the French might claim something similar, but it is a unique selling point.
As we talk about the value of soft power for the United Kingdom, the value of our scientific, educational and intellectual attainments is a key selling point in that assertion of Britain’s soft power and reputation in the wider world. Against that background, it is surely immensely short-sighted to treat this unique set of properties as an investment portfolio, as has been observed.
I have a lot of sympathy for the Minister. He is an excellent Minister and I am delighted to see him in his post. I moved into the same Department in 2010, doing much the same job, and I discovered that there were things that sat on our portfolio that none of us had ever imagined until we walked into the door of the Department. The truth is, it is a bit of an accident of history that this has ended up on the Department’s books because they are the ultimate successors in title to the old Ministry of Public Buildings and Works, which was merged into the Department of the Environment years ago. In reality, this is a cultural and an educational asset, and therefore needs to be approached as such, as has been observed, rather than as part of the Government’s investment property portfolio. I would appeal to the Minister to sort that out.
I welcome the energy and commitment that the Minister has brought to this subject. Having talked to constituents who work and are engaged with the learned societies on a professional basis, I know they are conscious that things have moved since he has been in the Department. I hope he opens up the logjam and recognises, as has just been said, that the current arrangement leaves a lease that is unaffordable in financial terms and constrains the societies from expanding their other sources of income and activities, as charities might wish to do. They would like to do more, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said. They are keen to maximise their footfall and potential in the centre of London. That cannot be done anywhere else. Off what is almost the nation’s high street we have this unique cultural gem, and it would be a crying shame to allow that to be lost or dissipated; my constituent, who is a professional curator, attests to the massive wasted costs that will be involved in a forced move.
There is the old phrase about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. I do not think that applies to this Government and I am sure the Minister will prove that. We place the value, in this instance, above the price, because it is much greater for this country. I hope that he will respond positively to the debate.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lefarydd. I, too, would like to thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing this debate, and for his campaign. I am pleased to add my voice to the campaign to secure the long-term future of the learned societies at Burlington House.
Others have eloquently discussed and will continue to discuss the importance of the work of the other learned societies based in the scientific and cultural hub of Burlington House, but it is the Society of Antiquaries and its connection to Wales, through the Welsh Fellows Group, on which I would like to elaborate.
The Welsh national group has long been one of the most accurate and effective fellows groups in researching the historic environment and promoting the understanding and appreciation of Welsh heritage. The group also organises antiquarian events, outings and lectures, helping fellows who live throughout Wales to remain engaged and involved in the full activities of the fellowship, in addition, of course, to the London programme. Past events have included archaeological lectures at Cardiff University and annual field weekends in Wales, such as the 2016 trip to Sir Fynwy, where the programme included visits to castles at Hay-on-Wye and Usk, Llanthony abbey at Abergavenny and Clytha House and gardens.
The relationship between the Welsh national group and the parent society is of real practical value. It promotes the interests and the results of the Welsh group’s work on the international stage. It also provides networking opportunities for members and helps to maintain an effective flow of knowledge and understanding of heritage issues and policy between London and Wales.
Members of the Welsh group have testified to me about the essential value of the central and special location at Burlington House for the achievement of the society as a whole. To go briefly off record into my personal experience as a child, I remember the delight of attending exhibitions at Burlington House. It is a really special place. It brings different experiences to different people. The United Kingdom as a whole would be the poorer if we were to lose it. The relocation of Burlington House would be not only financially damaging for the society, but culturally damaging for Wales.
I call upon the Government to do something that I would have thought would be essentially conservative for a Conservative Government—to conserve an affordable and sustainable arrangement that allows the learned societies to remain at Burlington House and which, in doing so, allows them to preserve their unique record of history, discovery and heritage, and to continue their work in promoting and strengthening historical learning and research as it relates to Wales.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) [V]
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship for the second time today, Ms Rees. It is a pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing the debate and the eloquent way in which he introduced it, which hit so many of the important marks. It is also a pleasure to take part in a debate where there seems to be unanimity across the parties in the House. The challenge is to find a solution that will work for everyone, and that meets the objectives and challenges that have already been set out.
I do not plan to detain hon. Members for too long; much of what I wanted to say has already been said. I merely want to underline a few points and offer a potential way forward.
We all recognise the unique part that the learned societies—the courtyard societies—including the Royal Society of Chemistry, play in our community and in society, including the public good they bring to culture, science and academia, and the positive influence they bring to global Britain, as has been said. I would add to that the importance of their independence and the scrutiny and the standards they set across their various specialist fields.
As well as their role, their history and their contribution needs to be recognised, as many hon. Members have stated this afternoon. It is part of our heritage. I understand the accounting policy change, the value of capital and the return on investment that Governments, going back 20 years or so, have wanted to gain. However, in reality—this point has already been made—their role in our heritage has made them heritage assets in themselves. The benefit is gained by so many of us right across the UK, but the prominence of their location really matters. It was good to hear from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who tied in that Welsh link with these organisations that have their headquarters in London, highlighting their reach right across the United Kingdom.
These important organisations are considered in terms of accounting policy and investment property, but in my mind, they should be considered as heritage assets. That would give the Minister greater flexibility to come up with a solution that will meet their demands and needs. I cannot imagine that it is beyond the ability of a bright, ambitious Minister and his officials to come forward with a solution that will work for all of these organisations. Doing so will also place him in a strong position to seek to influence these organisations in a positive way, so that they can extend their reach across the UK—so that their London base is their headquarters, but their reach continues right across the United Kingdom.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) [V]
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for having secured this important debate, and put on record my interest as an elected fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) should not worry: I am not going to blackball him in his election. I also put it on record that I will also speak in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for museums.
The Society of Antiquaries, along with the other learned societies in Burlington House and the courtyard, is undoubtedly a national treasure. I am glad that the Minister is going to take the opportunity to visit that society, because he will be dumbstruck by the wealth of cultural heritage there. Some of those manuscripts managed to escape even the dissolution of the monasteries, yet they are now being threatened by the financial situation that the society finds itself in. When he goes on his visit, he will see remarkable portraits, including not only the earliest surviving portrait of Richard III but Hans Eworth’s portrait of Mary I. He will see the processional cross that was rescued from the battle of Bosworth, which is one of the reasons why I held the launch of my book, “Bosworth: The Birth of the Tudors” at the society in 2013. He may also know from his notes that as a Government Minister—the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation—I held a keynote address at the Society of Antiquaries in 2019, in which I underlined the Government’s respect for the arts and humanities.
The society’s collection is unique, with 40,000 artefacts and 130,000 books and manuscripts. It simply cannot be replaced: three of the earliest copies of Magna Carta are among them. My concern is that, with the ratcheting effect of the rent going up, following the supposed agreement over eight years to reach market rent, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) mentioned, the society cannot even afford to pay the current rent of £150,000 a year, which has risen from £4,800 over an eight-year period—a 3,100% increase. The society is asset-rich and very cash-poor, and money that could be spent on preserving these artefacts or on future research projects for early-career researchers is being drained to pay the rent. An agreement should be found—perhaps an in lieu payment of artefacts could be made to the Government, and those artefacts could then be preserved for the sake of our national heritage.
This Government are committed to standing up against cancel culture—they are absolutely right to do so—and to stopping statues from being pulled down so that we can respect our heritage and learn from it, but one of our greatest national assets, artefacts and institutions is being pulled down in front of our very eyes. That is the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister, who so values cultural heritage, would wish. I urge the Minister to look seriously at what could be done to protect the society for the future.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for arranging this session. I do not have a book to plug and I am not clever enough to be a fellow or even a candidate, but I am passionate about trying to find a solution for the societies. We have high hopes for the Minister, as has been seen. Please, please, please free the big planet-sized brains in the learned societies. They need to be freed by you from the interminable discussions about rent and leases, to let them get on to use those planet-sized brains to help solve the greatest challenges of our time and educate people along the way, because we know they can do that.
It takes years of history and knowledge to solve challenges, and the learned societies have hundreds of years of respect and experience between them. The Royal Astronomical Society founded in 1820, the Geological Society founded in 1807, the Linnean Society founded in 1788, the Society of Antiquaries founded in 1707—so much would be lost by a forced relocation that is unnecessary, and that would be a brutal disrespect to all that has gone before.
I thank my Stroud residents, who wrote to me in large numbers and who brought the issue to my attention. Stroud is a cultured and learned place and is also the best place to live, according to The Sunday Times; I have to get that in for a whole year. The cultured and learned place that is Stroud is absolutely exasperated. My small patch of Gloucestershire cannot understand how we have spent 16 years trying to settle a matter that would effectively mean that we are preserving the learned societies for future generations—future generations like that of my baby daughter, who I want to grow up to be a candidate or a fellow, certainly.
What are we asking the Government to do? I have a briefing about that, but what we are asking the Government to do is to stop faffing around. We call on the Government to provide for an affordable, sustainable arrangement that allows the societies to remain at Burlington House, and to use the apartments as appropriate for their needs in the 21st century. That will preserve the unique and irreplaceable record of history, discovery and heritage. In the year of UK COP, G7 and the fact that we are leading on so many aspects of global policy, let us not lose the backbone and history that we have in the learned societies as we go along.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, and I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who obtained the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) I, like others, am not eminent enough to be a fellow of one of the societies, nor am I even a candidate, it has to be said, but in researching the issue, and having had conversations with a number of constituents who brought it to my attention, I have appreciated that the courtyard societies are unappreciated gems, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said.
What is going on here in the Government? I suspect that what is proposed will bring little additional resources into the Department—the amount is not even petty cash, and yet the societies have added so much to broader society and to our local communities through their work over many years. As has been said, we are talking about a 3,000% increase in rents. The societies quite clearly do not have the funds to purchase alternative accommodation, and they are focused on persuading the Government to allow the societies to remain and to carry on their work. Like so many organisations within our constituencies—voluntary groups and community groups—they spend so much time having to find the next funding stream that it takes the energy away from what they are actually trying to achieve. We do not want to put these societies into the same category. Much praise has been laid upon the Minister, and I must say it is very justifiable. Like others, I look forward to hearing how he will explain the arrangements. So many of the debates that we attend are summed up by a Minister saying a lot of words but not actually informing us of the solution to the problem. We want an actual solution, and I am confident that the Minister will provide it.
I add my support to all that has been said. We have organisations here that provide so much in added value to our society. Let us not lose them for the sake of a few extra pounds in the Government’s coffers.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time this afternoon, Ms Rees. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) not only on securing the debate but on his energetic campaigning on behalf of Burlington House. Appropriately, as a new Welsh MP, my first contact with the issue of the future of the learned societies at Burlington House was through an email last year from Cardiff, from Professor John Hines, the chair of the Wales fellows group and vice-president of the Society of Antiquaries of London.
Professor Hines, like the right hon. and hon. Members who have already spoken in the debate, made the case with great eloquence for the continuation of the bespoke Government arrangement that has delivered immense public value as a hub of cultural and scientific discovery. As my hon. Friend mentioned, there has been a significant economic benefit from that. It is worth repeating the figure he mentioned of £47.4 million per annum, because it is a significant amount of money, and how it is estimated that almost a third of that value could be lost through the damage caused by relocation.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) emphasised the benefits of decentralised activities, so I will not go back over that ground, but I strongly agree with the points she made. I would like to quote from Professor Hines’ letter to me, which covers some of the right hon. Member’s points as well as others. He wrote:
“Our relationship with the parent society—
in this case, it is the Society of Antiquaries, but I think it is representative of the other learned societies based at Burlington House—
“is of inestimable practical value in placing our own concerns and achievements on the international stage”—
that is particularly important in areas such as Wales that need to ensure that they have representation at the highest level in the UK. He continues:
“learning from networking opportunities, and maintaining an effective flow of information and understanding over heritage matters and policy between the capital of the United Kingdom and the Principality. We are especially able to testify to the vital importance of a central and appropriate location for the fulfilment of the special aims of the Society.”
That sums up why this is an important issue not only for the centre of London but for the whole of the UK. I therefore urge the Minister to find an acceptable solution along the lines outlined by my hon. Friend, which would enable the learned societies to remain at Burlington House. That would enrich not only their activities in London but their wider work in Wales and across the UK.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Thank you, Ms Rees, for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition. It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing the debate and setting out so clearly and powerfully the dilemma facing some of the country’s most respected academic and cultural institutions. I thank all hon. Members who took part. We heard from every single one about the value of the learned societies and their concerns about the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), as so often, gave us a history lesson and set out eloquently the heritage value of the learned societies. What is notable about the debate is how many Government Members have expressed their concern and dismay. The Government have united the House in opposition to the situation that the learned societies have been placed in, potentially being forced to move from buildings specifically set up for their use as a cultural hub in central London.
The problem of unaffordable, escalating rent rises set by a landlord trying to maximise income is not unique, but what is wrong is that the rental arrangement for the societies should be unique, because their history and contribution to our society is unique, and there is a long history of British Governments providing them with an affordable tenancy in acknowledgment of their national value. These are model tenants who make essential contributions to our culture, heritage and society. In the post-covid world, where the climate challenge is huge, our policy makers may well be ever more in need of the advice and intellectual rigour of these learned societies. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said, surely this is a case of a government knowing the price of something but not its value. That is not to say that the economic value is insignificant. As we have heard, PricewaterhouseCoopers say that the total contribution these societies make is well over £47 million per year.
The proposed rents are unsustainable for the societies. If they were forced to find new premises, it is highly unlikely that they would be able to afford another accessible city-centre location without the kind of special affordable rent agreement that was previously in place. A more remote location would reduce public access to the collections.
A relocation would be extremely expensive and likely require millions of pounds to be spent on transporting a huge collection of fragile items and customising a suitable place to store them. PwC estimated that almost one third of the societies’ public benefit value could be lost through the damage caused by forced relocation. Some of these losses would be priceless if the societies are forced to dispose of some of the precious objects in their care.
The societies have attempted to negotiate to secure a solution with the Government. Offers and counter-offers have been made, which have either still been unaffordable to the societies or have been rejected by the Government. Now is the time for the Government to really get serious about finally resolving this problem. For a Government who like to talk about global Britain, they are showing very little respect for protecting globally important British artefacts and institutions. The increases in rental income will be of relatively minimal benefit to the Government, but will do serious damage to the historic British institutions and to their cultural contribution.
The Opposition urge MHCLG to go back to negotiating in good faith with the learned societies, with the concerted aim of finding a sustainable solution that works for both parties and maintains the learned societies in their current home. I encourage the Minister to look at the various proposals put forward by Members today and by the learned societies, for example the acquisition of the long-term lease equivalent to fair market value that was offered by the societies in early 2020. If there are legitimate reasons for rejecting that or other offers, the Government need to be transparent about what they are, to continue the dialogue and to offer the societies the opportunity to work through them and to work together.
I close by making the point that many businesses are struggling at the moment with commercial rent debts, as a result of the pandemic. The Government’s response has been to issue a code of conduct for landlords to encourage them to negotiate with tenants to find a workable solution for both parties. Surely the Government need to lead by example.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. Like others, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing this debate. We have heard fantastic contributions from right hon. and hon. Members from across the House. I note the silent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), whose presence in the Gallery signifies a strong interest in the subject matter under discussion.
I am grateful for the contributions, but take issue with the idea that responsibility for the problem needs to sit with DCMS because they are more cultural. That is unfounded. Within MCHLG we have a strong appreciation of the cultural and scientific elements that are being discussed. We fully appreciate that heritage, and for that reason we all want to see the future of the five learned societies secured, not just in the short term but for many years to come, at a venue befitting their enormous scientific and cultural contribution.
I believe, as do the Government, that the right venue is New Burlington House. In deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), unfortunately there will still be some faffing about. We are in the early stages of negotiation; we have just pitched our offer to them and are now awaiting a response, so there will be faffing. Hopefully, with a Minister who is keenly engaged in the subject, we will be able to make some headway.
I echo the comments made by hon. Members who recognise the incredible work done by the Geological Society, the Linnean Society, the Royal Astronomical Society and the Society of Antiquaries, which seems to be well represented by Members, and the Royal Society of Chemistry. I will temper any praise with the caveat that many of the wonderful collections housed by those societies are not usually open to the public. We heard a fine outline of some of the things that are available, and I am looking forward to seeing those works myself. The Government recognise their contribution, but we need to support them to survive and adapt in a post-covid world to become, dare I say, modern and accessible institutions for all. Others have quoted Charles Darwin, as one of the Linnean Society’s most notable past fellows: it is not the strongest of the species that survives, or the most intelligent; it is the one most adaptable to change.
The legal position is that in 2005 the High Court confirmed that a landlord and tenant relationship existed between MHCLG and the five learned societies. Both parties openly negotiated and agreed an 80-year lease, which would protect the learned societies from paying full market rent until 2085. This agreement, which included a £1 million contribution to repairs from my Department, remains in place today, with MHCLG acting as a supportive landlord, working with its tenants to help the societies deliver their mandates.
Here is, unfortunately, where we get to the faffing. Under the current rental agreement, the rent set for each year is determined by a valuation designed to bring rents gradually to market value by 2085, when the lease expires. The market value is determined by market evidence from comparable properties being used for education or cultural purposes. Given the references to a posh merchandise that might be available locally, it is important to stress that market value in this context does not mean the same value attributed to office tenants or luxury retailers on Piccadilly. Both the learned societies’ and my Department’s valuers agreed the evidence that determines value, and I think we can all agree that that reflects the terms settled upon by the learned societies.
Chris Bryant
I want to return to the point that the Minister made about what the learned societies do. I would dearly love them to be able to take some of their experience and knowledge around the country more, but it is very difficult to do that if all the money is spent on paying rent to the Government. I wonder what a sensible assessment of, say, £150,000 a year could do for one of the learned societies, as opposed to what it can do for Government. That might be a sensible part of trying to assess a way forward.
Eddie Hughes
I am sure I will repeat this later on, but we have made our pitch to the learned societies and we are awaiting their response. Given the commercial sensitivity of those negotiations, it important that we wait to hear from the learned societies themselves about what they think the way forward will be.
We must acknowledge that the growth in annual rent under the lease contract has been unpredictable. UK rents have grown significantly since 2005, causing a significant challenge for the learned societies. Achieving a rent that represents value for money to the taxpayer while giving security and certainty for the learned societies is the Department’s goal, and we hope to achieve that in collaboration with the learned societies.
Rent for 2020-21 financial year is £15.35 per square foot, which was agreed through the formula and is some 70% lower than the £50 per square foot that is the current market value for similar use—as I said, for educational purposes, not compared with the much more expensive commercial properties. That was agreed by both parties. However, we have heard the real financial concerns of the five learned societies, and the issue has received significant media coverage. In 2019, the societies sought a grant from our Department that would allow them to purchase a 125-year lease from us at a peppercorn rent. We assessed the proposal and of course considered the benefits, which are incredibly difficult to put a value on, of keeping the learned societies at Burlington House.
The Treasury’s Green Book rules require us to assume that if a learned society vacated Burlington House, it could be replaced by a similar tenant who would meet the cost of the rent at the market rate. So, it is not in our Department’s gift to grant that peppercorn lease. I fully appreciate that others have said that different options might be available to the Treasury, but considering such options is clearly way above my pay grade.
James Gray
Will the Minister not accept that he is missing the point? We are saying that this cannot be done—this building cannot be leased at a commercial rent. We want the Government to assess the building as having cultural value and preferably to give it entirely free of charge to these learned societies. And the notion that somehow or other, over 85 years, the rent may rise to the market rate is ludicrous. It cannot do so—these societies will go broke, these collections will be ruined and the Government will be to blame. We want the Government to renegotiate fundamentally and to charge them nothing.
Eddie Hughes
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution; the suggestion that he has made is clearly one for the Treasury to consider. However, in the meantime—as I said at the outset—it is the Department’s starting position that we are determined to try to keep the learned societies at Burlington House. So, as we enter into negotiations with them, I am sure that we will have the opportunity to discuss options further.
In January last year, we explained that we could not proceed with a peppercorn rent arrangement and proposed a simplified agreement, which involved slow convergence to the market rent by 2085. We subsequently held further discussions and recently we have put forward the proposal that I referred to, in order to provide security and guarantee predictable future rents for the learned societies, protecting them from market volatility while ensuring that they only have to pay market rent at the end of the lease.
This proposal is predicated on what I believe is a fair and reasonable condition that the learned societies should work with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and its arm’s length bodies to become more accessible to the wider public and to advance their cultural and educational agenda, so that the societies’ work continues to benefit as many communities as possible. The societies’ future must also reflect a more open and commercial existence, in order to identify and deliver alternative sources of income.
In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned the fact that there would be a restriction stopping the societies from having, for example, a coffee shop. I am sure that restriction is in place now, but it would be open to us to enter into discussions as to whether we could make changes of use, or to see whether there are other opportunities that could be pursued for commercial purposes. It is important to engender a conversation and get that discussion under way.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for saying that I cannot refer in detail to the negotiations that are under way. However, what I can say at the moment is that both parties are in the early stages of the negotiations, and I very much hope that a constructive and positive dialogue will result in the learned societies remaining in Burlington House for the foreseeable future.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend again for raising this issue today and I thank the other Members who have made pertinent and important contributions to the debate. The Government want to continue working closely with the five learned societies and indeed with MPs from all parties in the House, following their valuable contributions today, to ensure that the outcome of our negotiations is a positive one and that we make sure that the learned societies remain in Burlington House for the future, safe in the nation’s capital, where they can continue for generations to come.
Tim Loughton
I should have said at the outset that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
This has been an excellent debate. I thank all hon. Members for the conciseness of their contributions, which were all the more powerful for it. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) said, it all comes down to: “Stop faffing around!”
I am delighted that the Minister absolutely appreciates the value of the learned societies, and I in no way meant to impugn his own culture by suggesting that DCMS might be an alternative landlord. However, the problem is that talking about formulas and talking about tweaking formulas just does not cut it. The learned societies would have to sell a hell of a lot of coffee to get anywhere near paying the sort of rents that are being proposed, and at the current rate they are going to be on a full market rent by 2040, not 2085. This is coming down the tracks very quickly.
This is a crisis facing the learned societies. If the Minister genuinely believes, as I hope he does, that Burlington House is their home, and that we need them to open up—we have given examples to show that they desperately want to open up, but they are hamstrung by the financial positions that they find themselves in—I hope that he will consider the way the rent structure works at the moment. It just does not work for these learned societies. We risk losing the huge contribution that they make unless he does that—
Written Statements
Platinum Jubilee Civic Honours Competition
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
I am pleased to announce that the UK Government are today launching a civic honours competition to mark Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee in 2022. This includes competitions for city status and Lord Mayor (or Provost) status.
City status and Lord Mayor (or Provost) status are civic honours granted by The Queen acting on the advice of Her Ministers under the royal prerogative. The granting of both city status and Lord Mayor (or Provost) status is purely honorific and comes with no additional funding or powers. Since the 1970s, these awards have been granted through competitions and are usually held to coincide with jubilee years, most recently for Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee in 2012.
Entry guidelines and an application form have been published on www.gov.uk. In their applications, local authorities are being asked to give particular reference to their area’s:
Distinct identity;
Civic pride;
Cultural infrastructure, interesting heritage, history and traditions;
Vibrant and welcoming community;
Record of innovation;
Sound governance and administration;
Associations with royalty; and
Other particularly distinctive features, age, residents or communities who have made widely recognised significant contributions to society and cultural infrastructure.
All local authorities across the United Kingdom who believe that their town or city deserves consideration for these rare honours are invited to apply. The city status competition will also be open to eligible applications from the Crown dependencies and overseas territories.
The guidelines specify a standard format for entries. Local authorities are urged to use the standard format, which is intended to limit the costs of entering the competition and to introduce a fair basis for comparison between entries. The closing date is 8 December 2021.
The honours will continue to be rare marks of distinction conferred, on ministerial advice, under the royal prerogative, rather than rights to be earned by the meeting of specific criteria. All valid entries will receive individual consideration on their merits and the Government look forward to announcing the results of the competitions in 2022.
[HCWS75]
Employment Rights
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I am pleased to announce the latest steps the Government are taking today to better protect and enforce workers’ rights, as we look to build back better from covid-19.
Firstly, the Government have today published their response to our 2019 consultation on creating a single enforcement body for employment rights. This Government have been absolutely clear that we will do whatever we can to protect and enhance workers’ rights, and this new body will help the country build back better by taking a smarter approach to the enforcement of employment law.
Today’s response to the consultation sets out the overarching details of the new body. Responsibility for tackling modern slavery, enforcing the minimum wage and protecting agency workers—currently spread across the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and HMRC —will be brought under one roof, creating a comprehensive new authority.
This “one-stop shop” approach will help improve enforcement through better co-ordination and pooling of intelligence, and providing a single, recognisable port of call for workers so they know their rights and can blow the whistle on bad behaviour. It will also make it easier for the vast majority of responsible businesses to do the right thing by their employees by providing clear guidance on their obligations.
Our consultation response also confirms that we will extend state enforcement to cover holiday pay and statutory sick pay for vulnerable workers and will regulate umbrella companies. The new body will also enforce financial penalties against organisations that do not meet requirements to publish modern slavery statements, as well as run the unpaid tribunal awards penalty scheme.
Protecting workers requires both support for business—so employers understand how to comply—as well as effective, visible enforcement action to deter irresponsible employers from undercutting the vast majority who want to do right by their workers. The body will have a spectrum of powers and responsibilities to achieve this, including compliance notices and civil penalties, as well as the power to prosecute.
The single enforcement body will be delivered through primary legislation and is the latest initiative in this Government’s wider efforts to protect workers’ rights. In the last year alone, the Government have boosted the minimum wage for around 2 million employees, protected furloughed workers’ parental pay, cracked down on restrictive employment contracts, and more.
Secondly, as well as modernising our enforcement regime, the Government are today publishing their consultation responses on bringing the Certification Officer in line with other regulators; these reforms will implement technical measures passed by Parliament via the Trade Union Act 2016, providing reassurance to union members and the wider public.
Our reforms will make the Certification Officer a more effective regulator, with powers and funding more in line with similar bodies, They will give the Certification Officer the power to proactively investigate issues without having to wait for complaints from union members, the power to issue financial penalties, and put their office on a more sustainable model of levy funding. This proper and fair regulation will ensure all trade unions and employers’ associations conduct themselves to the highest standards.
Thirdly, I wanted to update you on the publication today by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service of their report on “fire and rehire” and the Government’s response to the evidence it provides. I have asked ACAS to produce better, more comprehensive guidance to help employers explore all options before considering dismissal and re-engagement.
This Government have always been clear that we do not accept fire and rehire as a negotiation tactic. Workers up and down the country have worked flat out during the pandemic, carrying out essential work to keep our economy going. It is crucial that employers take their responsibilities seriously and act appropriately when it comes to discussions about changing employment contracts.
The report shows that the practice of fire and rehire includes instances where it has been threatened but not implemented, as well as companies dismissing and re-engaging employees. It is neither a new phenomenon nor is it concentrated in a particular sector or type of employer. While there is no quantitative data, there is a sense that fire and rehire had become more prevalent in the years before covid-19 as well as during the pandemic.
This is clearly a complex issue and we understand that sometimes, regrettably, employment negotiations will fail. In these circumstances, employers may feel they need to dismiss staff, and potentially re-engage them.
However, the Government want to send a crystal clear message to employers that all options must be exhausted before considering dismissal and re-engagement of staff. It is unacceptable to use the threat of fire and rehire as a negotiation tactic to force through changes to employment contracts.
The United Kingdom has one of the best records on workers’ rights in the world—going further than the EU in many areas—and we are determined to build on this progress. By protecting workers more extensively, supporting business to comply with the law, and preventing them from being undercut by a minority of irresponsible employers, we can continue to be a high-wage, high-employment economy that works for everyone as we build back better.
The geographic scope of the bodies being subsumed into the single enforcement body vary; the Certification Officer’s geographic coverage applies to Great Britain—there is a separate Certification Officer for Northern Ireland.
I will place copies of the Government response to Single Enforcement Body consultation, the Government response to the Certification Officer levy consultation and the Government response to the Certification Officer Enforcement powers consultation in the Libraries of the House.
[HCWS72]
Benyon Review
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
In 2019 the Government commissioned Richard Benyon to conduct a review of the potential role for highly protected marine areas (HPMAs). HPMAs are similar to the marine conservation zones already established. However, there is strict protection with a presumption against any activity involving extraction, destruction or deposition being permitted in those areas and strict protections on other damaging activities. The review reported last year in June 2020.
The Benyon review concluded that HPMAs would have an important role in helping the marine ecosystem recover. It concluded that there could be spill-over benefits for marine life in adjacent areas to highly protected areas. The review recommended that the Government pilot around five HPMAs to test the proposition further and test delivery. It also recommended that some or all of the pilot sites could be co-located with existing marine protected areas such as marine conservation zones, in effect to upgrade the status of some of those sites.
Today is World Ocean Day when, across the globe, people are taking action to protect and recover our global ocean. This Government are committed to ocean conservation and leaving our environment in a better state than we found it, including the marine environment. I would like to thank Lord Benyon and the panel for their work on the review, and the broad range of stakeholders who contributed to it. The Government welcome the report and accept the central recommendation that we should take forward some pilot sites.
DEFRA will begin introducing HPMAs by identifying a number of locations within English waters to pilot our approach. These may be inside or outside the existing marine protected area network, and in inshore or offshore areas, recognising that HPMAs must be in the locations best able to deliver protection and recovery.
However, the Government recognise that the strict protections implied by HPMAs will cause some concerns with other sea users. In particular, the fishing industry will be concerned about further displacement from fishing grounds when they are already being excluded from some areas ear-marked for offshore wind energy development.
We recognise that there is a balance in supporting sustainable industries in the marine environment while increasing marine protection to ensure a healthy, resilient and diverse marine ecosystem. In developing our response to the review we have engaged with a broad range of stakeholders. We will develop criteria for HPMA identification and create a list of potential sites this year, followed by designations of a number of sites in 2022. We will also set out how we will work with stakeholders, the governance and management of sites and how we will monitor and evaluate sites.
The Benyon review did not cover Scottish and Welsh waters but did include Northern Ireland’s offshore waters. We understand that DAERA wishes to have executive competence transferred to it in relation to certain marine functions, including designation and management of MPAs, in Northern Ireland offshore waters. Amendments to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 made by the Fisheries Act 2020 allow DAERA to make orders to protect the marine environment from fishing activities in the offshore region. We therefore do not propose identifying any of the initial HPMAs in offshore Northern Ireland waters.
Copies of the Government response are being placed in the Libraries of the House.
[HCWS71]
Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans in High-rise Residential Buildings Consultation
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh), has today made the following written ministerial statement:
Today, the Government publish a new consultation on Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans in High-rise Residential Buildings which will be open from 8 June to 19 July 2021.
This new consultation contains proposals to implement the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 Report recommendations on Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans in high-rise residential buildings. These recommendations require a change in law to place new requirements on owners or managers of multi-occupied high-rise residential buildings.
This consultation supports delivery of two of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 1 recommendations and is part of the Government’s package of reforms to improve building and fire safety in all regulated premises where people live, stay or work.
We are consulting on the following proposals:
Proposal 1: We propose to require the responsible person to prepare a personal emergency evacuation plan for every resident who self-identifies to them as unable to self-evacuate—subject to the resident’s voluntary self-identification—and to do so in consultation with them.
Proposal 2: We propose to provide a template to assist the responsible person and the residents in completing the plan, and to support consistency at a national level.
Proposal 3: We propose to require the responsible person to complete and keep up-to-date information about residents in their building who would have difficulty self-evacuating in the event of a fire—and who have voluntarily self-identified as such—and to place it in an information box on the premises to assist effective evacuation during a rescue by the fire service.
Proposal 4: We propose, in order to assist the responsible person and support consistency at a national level, to provide a template, most likely in a one-page format, to capture the key information to be provided in the information box.
Further details can be found in the consultation and its supportive documents available at: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/personal-emergency-evacuation-plans. A copy of the consultation will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS73]
Office for Nuclear Regulation: Corporate Plan 2021-22
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) has made the following written statement.
Today I will lay before this House the Office for Nuclear Regulation Corporate Plan 2021-2022. This document will also be published on the ONR website.
I can confirm, in accordance with Schedule 7, Section 25(3) of the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published documents on the grounds of national security.
[HCWS76]
Action on Climate Change: Pension Schemes
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The UK was the first G7 country to legislate for net zero and it will be the first to legislate for the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures—ensuring we tackle climate change and deliver safer, better and greener pensions.
Today I have laid the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Climate Change Governance and Reporting) Regulations 2021. These regulations are world-leading and will embed the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures into UK law.
Climate change is an existential challenge to our environment, but not only that: it poses a systematic financial risk and threat to the long-term sustainability of UK pensions. With almost £2 trillion in assets under management, all occupational pension schemes are exposed to climate-related risks—which could have a detrimental impact on their members’ future retirement income. Pushing forward our drive for greener pensions, I consulted on detailed requirements to allow more effective governance of climate risks and disclosure in line with the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures’ recommendations in August last year. Further consultation on draft regulations took place earlier this year. We have worked directly with industry throughout this process, recognising widespread acceptance across the sector for the principle of more effective action on climate risk. The Government laid the legislative groundwork for these regulations in the Pension Schemes Act 2021.
These regulations will deliver world-leading change to the pensions industry, ensuring trustees identify, assess and manage climate-related risks and opportunities relevant to their pension scheme. As a result of our work, the vast majority of pension schemes members’ savings will be invested in schemes whose trustees have a specific legal duty to actively consider the risks and opportunities a transition to a low carbon economy brings.
I have taken the decision not to include a review clause in the regulations, invoking section 28(2)(b) of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. I recognise the importance of monitoring and evaluating the initial impact of our regulations, which is why I have committed publicly in our consultation response to undertake a review in 2023. This will cover all the aspects normally required by a statutory review clause.
[HCWS74]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for this debate is one hour.
UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2021
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2021.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that this draft order, laid before the House on 14 April 2021, be considered. I am grateful for the opportunity this afternoon to debate this important order, which allows the Scottish Government to fully implement their new environmental governance body, Environmental Standards Scotland, which I will now refer to as the ESS. This order is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to devolution and is made in consequence of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, which I shall now refer to as the continuity Act.
I will begin by providing some background to this order, which is to be made under the Scotland Act 1998. The 1998 Act devolved powers to Scotland and legislated for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. Scotland Act orders are a form of secondary legislation made under the 1998 Act, which are used to adjust Scotland’s devolution settlement. The order before your Lordships today is a Section 104 order, which allows for necessary or expedient legislative provision in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. In this case, provision is required in consequence of the aforementioned continuity Act.
The continuity Act, which received Royal Assent on 29 January 2021, enables Scottish law to continue to keep pace with future EU developments, following the UK’s exit from the EU. It also establishes a new regime of environmental governance in Scotland, including the new governance body, the ESS. The ESS will enforce compliance by the Scottish Ministers and public authorities in Scotland with environmental law, and it will assume statutory powers and functions once fully vested. The ESS will also provide scrutiny of the effectiveness of environmental law and of its implementation and application. Reserved bodies in Scotland will naturally be excluded from its oversight.
It must be emphasised that the purpose of the debate is not to consider the content of the continuity Act or the powers of the ESS; rather, the amendments to reserved legislation that the order seeks to implement. The Scottish Parliament has already legislated to create the ESS, but consequential amendments are required to reserved legislation to give full effect to the ESS and allow it to carry out its functions.
I will now turn to the instrument itself and explain what it does. Its consequential purpose is twofold. First, it will make the ESS part of the Scottish Administration. This will provide for its designation as a non-ministerial office that is independent from Scottish Ministers but accountable to the Scottish Parliament. It also provides that the Crown Suits (Scotland) Act 1857 does not apply to the ESS, with the effect that the Lord Advocate cannot sue or be sued in place of the ESS. Secondly, it amends the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 by adding the ESS to the list of bodies whose members are disqualified from being Members of the House of Commons. This is required to ensure the independent basis of the body’s work.
The Scottish Government are unable to make these amendments to reserved law, so, without the order and the small changes it makes to UK legislation, the Scottish Government could not confirm the ESS as a body of the Scottish Administration. It would also mean that members of the ESS could stand in the House of Commons, which would undermine its purpose as an independent body.
Your Lordships may wish to note that equivalent provisions for environmental governance in England are contained in the UK Government’s Environment Bill. This Bill completed its Second Reading in this House yesterday, 7 June, and is now preparing for the Committee stage. Like the continuity Act, the Bill sets a new and ambitious domestic framework for environmental governance. The Government are aiming for the Environment Bill to have Royal Assent by the autumn.
This Bill will set up the office for environmental protection, which I will subsequently refer to as the OEP. The OEP is a similar organisation to the ESS and will hold the Government to account on their environmental commitments. Both the ESS and the OEP are still being set up. However, I can confirm that the ESS has been operating on a shadow, non-statutory basis since 1 January 2021. A transition team has been appointed to help to establish the ESS and to ensure that it is prepared to take on its statutory functions once vested. Similarly, work establishing the OEP is continuing at pace. From July 2021, the new interim office for environmental protection will be set up in non-statutory form to provide independent oversight of the Government’s environmental progress and to build a strong foundation for the OEP delivering its full statutory functions.
There will naturally be scenarios where governance bodies in different parts of the UK will have to co-operate on issues where there is an overlap or joint exercise of reserved and devolved powers. As independent bodies, it will be for these bodies to determine how best to work on these issues. However, we can be sure that good communication and co-operation will be key, and it is expected that both bodies will collaborate to maintain environmental standards across the UK.
One example here is standards for waste disposal, for which guidance documents have been produced for similar, but separate, regulatory systems in Scotland and England. Should any concerns be raised to either the OEP or the ESS with respect to the application of the guidance, it would make sense to work together to address concerns. Another example is producer responsibility, a UK-wide regime where co-operation would be needed for the regulation of compliance schemes registered in one nation but operating across the UK. Indeed, through their respective legislation, each body will be required to consult other environmental governance bodies where a particular exercise of its functions may be relevant to the exercise of the other’s.
In summary, this instrument facilitates the implementation of the ESS by adding the body to the Scottish Administration, and ensuring that its members are disqualified from becoming Members of the House of Commons. It demonstrates the commitment of the UK Government to strengthening the devolution settlement and the partnership working between the two Governments to deliver for Scotland. I commend the order to the House, and I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the statutory instrument before us this afternoon. I thank my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie for introducing it and for the brief conversation we had earlier in this regard.
I want to focus on some of the issues that my noble friend highlighted in his introduction: primarily, what the relationship will be between the ESS and the OEP, and what remedies will be at the disposal of each respectively. I should perhaps also declare that I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates.
With regard to the role of the ESS, I take the opportunity to explore and perhaps understand better what powers, and in particular what resources, will be available to the ESS and, more specifically, what the comparative remedies will be and whether they will be sufficient. My noble friend referred to the debate yesterday on Second Reading of the Environment Bill. We are tasking both these bodies with major jurisdiction and enforcing not just new targets that may be set under the Environment Bill but our existing international responsibilities.
I understand that each will have their role set out in their respective jurisdictions in implementing our current international commitments. I am thinking of the Berne convention, which looks at some of our international obligations in habitats and environmental protections, as well as the whole raft of retained EU law. In particular, what will cause great interest in the context of the Environment Bill is the EU habitats directive and the extent to which we may stray from what was originally intended and which in any event has been gold plated.
My further understanding is that the trade and co-operation agreement provides for a level playing field, which commits the UK—I therefore understand that the ESS will apply this in Scotland and the OEP will apply it in England—to maintain the broad common standards on environmental regulations to which we have agreed. I understand also that the trade and co-operation agreement, which we have concluded as part of our agreement with the EU, although that seems a long time ago now, includes a commitment for the EU and the UK to co-operate effectively in maintaining and enforcing the law on climate.
It is intended that regular meetings will be held between the EU and relevant supervisory bodies in the UK. I understand, if the Scotsman is correct, that the ESS has already undertaken almost a courtship with, or a reaching-out to, its EU counterparts in the EU Commission. Can my noble friend follow up in writing, if not today, on the extent to which that is the case and, if it is the case, whether it is intended that there will be separate overtures from the ESS representing Scotland in this regard and the OEP representing England in a similar regard? That would be very helpful to know.
It is not just the domestic issue of environmental enforcement to which I refer but our current and future international commitments, to which my noble friend referred in passing. That is the main thrust of my interest today, along with the degree of independence which the ESS will enjoy from the Scottish Administration and the OEP will enjoy from the English Administration. I understand that the order before us today says that the ESS will become part of the Scottish Administration. I have great difficulty understanding that expression if it is actually to operate independently. That is referred to in paragraph 2.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum. It would be helpful to understand the extent to which it is intended that the ESS will operate independently.
It is very clear in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the relevant schedule to the Environment Bill—I cannot remember which one it is—that the English Secretary of State will have regard to the independence of the Organisation for Environmental Protection. However, Clause 24 of the Bill clearly says that the Secretary of State will issue guidance, which it is expected the OEP will follow. That is highly regrettable, and I am tabling an amendment to explore that further in Committee, because it goes to the heart of independence that the OEP should be operationally independent. I hope my noble friend will be able to confirm that, perhaps in writing subsequent to this meeting. I certainly hope that he will be able to confirm this afternoon that it is expected that the ESS will operate independently of the Scottish Government.
Perhaps particularly vexatious are the remedies that will be available to each body. It does not seem to be set out in any great detail what the remedies would be, should there be what used to be called an infraction proceeding. In the Commission, you used to be able to refer this to the European Court of Justice, which would uphold any of the effective remedies—not just fines but demands to desist that could be laid down by the European Commission. Paragraph 6.3, on page 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, simply tells us:
“ESS has the power to investigate whether a public authority is failing (or has failed) to comply with environmental law, as well as any question about the effectiveness of environmental law or whether it is (or has been) implemented or applied effectively.”
This is obviously only a cursory reading. The EM goes on to say:
“ESS has the power to take appropriate action to secure a public authority’s compliance with environmental law, and to secure improvement in the effectiveness of environmental law or how it is implemented or applied.”
My concern in regard to that part of the statutory instrument before us today was reflected in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in yesterday’s proceedings on the Environment Bill. The OEP does not seem to be empowered to issue fines or any demands to desist. The noble Lord said:
“Of course, the OEP, resources permitting, can apply to a court for an environmental review, but that procedure is itself fatally limited for two interlocking reasons”—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1231.]
which the noble Lord went on to highlight.
Say, for example, that there was a huge chemical spill and it was the fault of a chemicals company, or there was sewage in a major river. My main concern, having sat as an MEP for 10 years, is that we are stepping back from the powers that the European Commission had, and it was made very clear at the time we were leaving the European Union that we would have similar powers in UK legislation. So I would be grateful if my noble friend could point to the ESS’s specific powers, and ideally also the OEP’s.
I will conclude by saying that it is very good to have had the opportunity to discuss these issues. What is as yet unclear is how the relationship between the OEP and the ESS will unfold and who will have the responsibility for ensuring that the two co-operate and collaborate as intended under the instrument before us this afternoon.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, as the Minister said, this order is needed to enable Environmental Standards Scotland to become fully operational. As he also said, the board has been appointed, it has been meeting monthly since January, and it is laying the foundations for its work once it is vested later in the year. Of course, this order is necessary to enable it to be vested.
The objective is for it to be independent of the Scottish Government and transparent in its working. However, it is worth noting that its board members are appointed by Scottish Ministers, who also control its budget. So time will tell how effective its teeth as a watchdog will prove to be.
It is a matter for the Scottish Government how divergent environmental standards in Scotland will be from those in the EU or in the rest of the UK. However, the Scottish Government have stated their objective of staying close to the EU in pretty well every aspect. This is primarily to sustain the fantasy promoted by Scottish Government Ministers that there will be a quick and easy route back into the EU for an independent Scotland. Close—or even cursory—examination of the facts would suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, the fantasy is maintained.
In those circumstances, I would presume that Ministers would want minimal divergence from EU rules. The question is whether the ESS, an independent body, would be able to take a different view if it felt that it was in the interests of the Scottish environment. If England or other parts of the UK pursue different environmental standards over time—I accept that there is an agreement to try to maintain the same standards at the moment, but this could change—that too could present a tension that tested the independence and the powers of the ESS.
It is asserted in the Explanatory Memorandum that the ESS does not affect small businesses as it applies to public bodies, but might there be an indirect effect for businesses; for example, businesses supplying goods or services to public agencies that may be required to comply with environmental standards? Indeed, they should be required to comply with such standards, but it is difficult to see the case for saying that it has no impact on small businesses.
The Minister said specifically that reserved agencies were exempt from the ESS’s jurisdiction. Are the UK Government relaxed about the direction the ESS may take as a fully devolved body? Will engagement on shared or common issues that may arise be pursued on a constructive basis of mutual respect and compromise? I speak as a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, which met this morning and had an extremely useful evidence session with the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop. One point that is being made is to try to create a climate of co-operation across the United Kingdom rather than one of megaphone confrontation. Of course, these new agencies will not be subject to common frameworks because they did not exist when that process was set in motion, but will the very useful principles being developed by common frameworks be applied to any divergence, difference of opinion or potential dispute between the emerging new agencies in different parts of the UK?
The Minister mentioned the UK internal market Act. Might that impinge on the work and operation of the ESS? Under the Act, would UK Ministers be able to overrule the ESS? Will the ESS be consulted on or informed of likely impacts on environmental standards during any trade negotiations? From utterances from Ministers and other government officials at this stage, the answer would appear to be no, their argument being that it is a reserved matter that devolved Administrations should not be part of, which the devolved Administrations of course strongly challenge.
If the UK Government negotiated a trade agreement that changed, for better or worse, environmental standards in England, would they be able to say that, under the terms of the trade agreement, those standards would have to be accepted by the ESS, with the ESS therefore effectively finding itself independent of Scottish Ministers but subject to direct jurisdiction of UK Ministers? I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether that is likely to be the case. I hope the Minister will at least agree that any divergence of approach on environmental standards needs to be handled with extreme sensitivity.
In conclusion, does the statutory instrument effectively guarantee the independence of the ESS from Scottish Ministers, given that they appoint and control the budget, and does it have the same effect for UK Ministers? Clearly, that will be a matter of some concern in the future. We have operated under the umbrella of the European Union for more than 40 years. That has been the testing framework to ensure that tensions were minimised. There is no immediate desire to diverge from that, but, over time, there may well be differences and changes that could create tensions. One would like to think that there will be mechanisms and a will to ensure that those tensions are resolved. I must make it clear that that will needs to come both from the UK Government and from the devolved Administrations. I accept and understand the purpose of this order, but I hope that the Minister will in turn accept that it raises some pretty interesting questions which we would like to hear answers to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for his clear explanation of what this order does. We on these Benches broadly support the purpose of the order, which I understand to be to make Environmental Standards Scotland a part of the Scottish Administration as a non-ministerial office accountable to the Scottish Parliament. I echo the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
I shall frame my concerns about the ESS, if I may call it that, under six headings. The first is independence. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, made the point that all the board members are appointed by Ministers and the budget comes, in effect, from Holyrood Ministers. The independence of the ESS is important, because one of the major bodies it will be acting as a guardian of and watchdog over will be the Scottish Administration. Will the Minister explain how the independence of the ESS is to be ensured?
The second is the differences between the ESS and the OEP. We on this side of the House are concerned to see that environmental standards are kept up in Scotland and right across the United Kingdom. That will necessarily require co-operation between the ESS and the OEP. What steps are being taken to ensure that there is proper co-ordination between the activities of the two bodies and, separately, co-operation between the ESS and the enforcement of European Union standards?
The third is enforcement power. We on this side of the House are disappointed that in Holyrood the Tories and the SNP worked together to defeat a Labour amendment that would have empowered the ESS to take enforcement action on individual decisions. That would have provided continuity for the existing European Union arrangements under which anyone in Scotland could have raised a complaint if they thought that a decision taken by a public body contravened environmental law and could have expected action to be taken if that complaint turned out to be justified. If the ESS does not have the power to take that sort of action, how will complaints that public bodies are contravening environmental standards be enforced in the courts after the setting up of the ESS?
The fourth is the overall relationship between the devolved Parliaments and the United Kingdom Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, referred to a megaphone relationship between the two. I agree. I noted that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom indicated that there was going to be a summit which he invited the First Minister of Scotland, the First Minister of Wales and the First Minister of Northern Ireland to attend. That has now been postponed while there is haggling over the agenda. Will the Minister explain what has happened about that summit? Could he give us some indication of what steps the United Kingdom Government are taking to move on from a megaphone relationship to a proper relationship between the two?
My fifth point is a more technical question. Section 19 of the 2021 Scottish Act establishes Environmental Standards Scotland, the ESS. On what date is Section 19, and therefore this order, coming into force?
My sixth and final point echoes a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie. What is the relationship between the internal market Act and the powers of the ESS? Can the UK Government in effect put a stop to an the ESS enforcement action, if they want to, with their powers under the internal market Act?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this short debate. Let me start by saying that I appreciate the broad support for this order from all concerned. Let me also say, particularly in relation to the six points made just now by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that if I do not answer all the points today, I will most certainly study Hansard and write to him.
The Government are absolutely committed to working collaboratively with the Scottish Government to ensure a functioning settlement for Scotland, and I hope that this instrument and my remarks today demonstrate that commitment. However, important questions have been asked both recently and this afternoon, querying the relationship between the ESS, the OEP and other devolved environmental governance bodies. I hope that I can attempt to answer them.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked how the ESS and the OEP will work together near the borders. I will answer that in a moment. She also asked about the funding aspect. Again, I have an answer for that.
Clearly, there was a mood in this debate—particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh—regarding independence. The Scottish Government have designed the ESS as they see fit, which is consistent with the devolution settlement. Similarly, the UK Government have carefully designed the OEP for it to deliver its functions effectively in England and over reserved matters.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the ESS and its engagement. I can confirm for her that the ESS has already undertaken early engagement with the OEP and the UK Government. The trade and co-operation agreement—the so-called TCA—is a complex matter. I will need to write to my noble friend, as I think she expected.
My noble friend also asked about the powers of the OEP. As she might expect me to say, I realise that this matter was raised during yesterday’s debate on the Environment Bill. I do not believe that this is the place to debate it, but I understand the gist of her question; I know that she will have time to debate it before too long during the upcoming Committee stage of the Environment Bill.
Moving on to the details of the ESS, my noble friend Lady McIntosh raised the matter of how the ESS deals with Scottish public authorities that breach environmental standards and environmental law. This is really more a question of remedies. Once the relevant provisions of the continuity Act have been commenced, the ESS will have a range of formal powers at its disposal to ensure that public authorities comply with environmental law, including powers to prepare compliance notices and improvement reports. I am aware that the organisation’s principles state that it will seek to resolve issues through agreement, where possible, with recourse to its formal powers where the ESS considers it necessary to deliver the expected outcomes. The ESS has powers to issue compliance notices to public authorities where an authority is failing to comply with environmental law and that failure is causing, or has caused, environmental harm or a risk of such harm. The ESS will also have the power to report public authorities to the Court of Session where they fail, without reasonable excuse, to adhere to the compliance notice.
On the ESS and the OEP working together within a common or similar framework, I assure the Committee that, as both bodies are independent of Ministers, it would be inappropriate for a common framework to be agreed. However, environmental bodies across the UK will need to co-operate to ensure that shared environmental objectives continue to be achieved through effective delivery. Where devolved Ministers or public bodies are also responsible for delivery through devolved functions, it would be for the relevant governance body, such as the ESS in Scotland, to agree how to co-ordinate any subsequent action, depending on the specifics of the particular issue.
As I said earlier, the Scottish and UK Governments have started discussions on co-ordination in UK governance as part of wider discussions on the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement. In particular, there will need to be agreement on how our arrangements will meet aspects of that agreement covering good regulatory practice and co-operation on effective performance.
To come to my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s question about the ESS and the OEP working together on the border, as independent bodies it is for them to determine their approach to collaboration and co-operation. The legislation that establishes these bodies ensures clarity for parties when dealing with matters of mutual interest. The UK Government anticipate that this network of bodies will deliver effective governance across the UK.
In terms of matters European, which a couple of speakers raised, I was asked whether the ESS will look to apply policies to Scotland that are being developed in Europe. That is a key question. In exercising its functions, the ESS may keep under review developments in international environmental protection legislation to inform advice on whether changes should be made to Scottish environmental law. The power to make provision corresponding to EU law in devolved areas rests with the Scottish Parliament. Part 1 of the continuity Act gives Scottish Ministers the discretionary power to make regulations to achieve alignment with EU law where no specific powers are available.
Moving on to independence, which was raised, I may need to write more on this matter. Perhaps I may reiterate to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that the ESS, as a non-ministerial body, is accountable to the Scottish Parliament but has operational independence from both the Scottish Parliament and Government. The appointment of board members must be approved by the Scottish Parliament, and Scottish Ministers must seek parliamentary approval to remove members on the grounds of impairment or unsuitability. I feel that I may need to write further on a point raised by the noble and learned Lord on the appointment of board members. I hope that I have given some reassurance, but I may need to go slightly further.
I was asked how the ESS will be funded. The ESS will receive a budget allocation from the Scottish Government and will publish its own annual reports and accounts. Under the continuity Act, Scottish Ministers are required to ensure that the amount of resources allocated for use by the ESS is reasonably sufficient to enable it to perform its functions. In its annual report, the ESS must include an assessment of whether the resources allocated for its use in the financial year to which the report relates were sufficient to enable it to carry out its functions, so I hope that gives some reassurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked whether the OEP will be extended to Northern Ireland. I know that the answer is that it is very much for the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide whether to extend the OEP to cover Northern Ireland. If the OEP is to operate in Northern Ireland, it will clearly be beneficial to ensure that any gap between it becoming operational in England and Northern Ireland is minimised. I think he will know that DAERA and Defra officials are working closely with the chair-designate of the OEP to ensure that as much preparatory work as possible can be completed in advance of the Environment Bill receiving Royal Assent, thereby allowing the Northern Ireland Assembly to consider commencement at the earliest opportunity.
I believe that I have covered the majority of questions raised. However, other questions were raised, and judging by my notes I will need to read Hansard tomorrow. I think I shall have to write, as there are some questions that I still need to address, but I hope that has covered the bulk of it.
I conclude by saying that the UK’s new approach to environmental governance, which we have discussed today in relation to this order, is testament to our leadership on environmental issues. I am very aware of COP 26, which is being hosted in Glasgow. I believe the ESS will make a valuable contribution to this cause. With that, I commend the order to the committee.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Room is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for this debate is one hour.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2021
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2021.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 26 April 2021, be approved. Under this order, trials without a jury can take place in Northern Ireland for a further two years from 1 August 2021. The current provisions expire on 31 July. This is the seventh such extension of these provisions, but I hope to leave noble Lords in no doubt of the continued necessity of these provisions for another two years.
I will start by providing some background. The presence of violent terrorist and paramilitary groups, which continue to exert coercive control over the communities in which they operate, poses specific risks to Northern Ireland’s criminal justice system. Regrettably, this makes the non-jury trial provisions necessary for a small number of exceptional cases.
We must recognise that the security situation in Northern Ireland remains unique and volatile. There is a small number of people who continue to try to destabilise the political settlement through acts of terrorism. Their activity causes harm to individuals and communities across Northern Ireland. Violent dissident republican terrorist groups continue to plan and carry out attacks against the police, prison officers and members of the Armed Forces. The threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism remains at “severe” in Northern Ireland, meaning that an attack is highly likely.
I must also mention paramilitarism. Members of paramilitary groups are still lining their own pockets and using brutal violence, intimidation and fear to exert influence and control in their communities. They hold their own communities back, deterring investment and jobs and preventing people from moving forward with their lives. Statistics from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive indicate that 2,773 people have been driven out of their homes since 2014 due to paramilitary and sectarian intimidation. In addition, a report published by the Department of Justice, Northern Ireland, in 2019, found that 15.4% of respondents agreed that paramilitaries create fear and intimidation in their area. This kind of activity can never be justified.
Real fear and intimidation are caused by terrorists and paramilitary groups across and within communities in Northern Ireland. Where the defendant or the crime is suspected of being associated with a proscribed organisation, this fear and intimidation has the real potential to impact the administration of justice in two ways: either via a direct threat to jurors from members or supporters of that organisation, or via the perceived threat that the jurors feel in participating in such a case. Either could lead to a perverse verdict.
It is important to note that non-jury trial provisions are available only in exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland, where a risk to the administration of justice is suspected by the Director of Public Prosecutions. This could, for example, be through jury tampering, whereby intimidation, violence or the threat of violence against members of a jury could result in a perverse conviction or acquittal. It could also be due to jury bias; there is the potential for jury bias as a result of the defendant’s alleged association with a proscribed organisation, or if the offence being tried is in connection with religious or political hostility. Such cases are high profile and continue to provoke strong public opinion on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland.
Decisions for non-jury trials are made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the circumstances of both the offence and the defendant. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland must suspect that one or more of four conditions is met. The conditions are specified in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 and relate to association with proscribed organisations or offences connected with religious or political hostility.
A case that falls within one of the four conditions will not automatically be tried without a jury. The DPP must also be satisfied that there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired if a jury trial were to be held. In Northern Ireland today, there is a presumption of jury trial in all cases. In 2020, only 1% of all Crown Court cases in Northern Ireland were conducted without a jury. To reiterate, this is not like the old Diplock system. Non-jury trials are now the exception, and there is a presumption of jury trial in all cases before the Crown Court. This is in stark contrast to the old Diplock system where the default was a non-jury trial for certain offences. Non-jury trials are not Diplock courts.
I now touch on the public consultation. The Secretary of State held a full public consultation on whether or not the non-jury trial provisions should be extended. The consultation ran for 12 weeks and concluded in February this year. It received a total of 13 responses from interested stakeholders and organisations, many of whom have in-depth specialist knowledge of this issue. The contents of all consultation responses, whether in the majority or not, were considered in detail by the Secretary of State when reaching a decision. In addition to the consultation responses, the Secretary of State receives regular briefings on the security situation in Northern Ireland, and it was his knowledge in the round that informed the conclusion reached by him.
In light of all the evidence and views before him, the Secretary of State has decided to renew the non-jury trial provisions for a further two years and to keep them under regular independent review. This decision reflects the fact that the number of consultation responses that supported an extension of the provisions far outweighed those that opposed the extension. The ongoing review of non-jury trials has been included in the remit of the Independent Reviewer of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 since 2017.
As I said earlier, I am aware that this will be the seventh extension of the non-jury trial provisions under the 2007 Act and that these were designed to be temporary. However, I trust that noble Lords will agree that the safety of the people of Northern Ireland is paramount and that the administration of justice cannot risk impairment. The Government are, of course, committed to working strategically with security partners to tackle the threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism and to support the Northern Ireland Executive’s programme to tackle paramilitarism. However, we are not prepared to put individuals’ safety or the administration of justice at risk and believe that further progress on the Northern Ireland security situation is required before we can be confident that these non-jury trial provisions are no longer required.
In order to work towards this, the Northern Ireland Office will establish a working group, as recommended by the Independent Reviewer of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act. The intention is that this group will identify practical measures that can reduce the number of non-jury trials and examine the indicators that would assist in determining when the provisions could be brought to an end. The working group will comprise a mixture of security, legal, academic and other independent bodies. The consultation responses were highly supportive of the formation of this group, with respondents expressing a clear wish to participate.
Over the past 10 years, non-jury trials have consistently accounted for less than 2% of all Crown Court cases. This figure reflects the small but consistent need for non-jury trials in Northern Ireland. In the light of all the evidence before him, the Secretary of State has decided to seek to renew non-jury trial provisions for a further two years and to continue to keep them under regular independent review. Noble Lords can rest assured that the Secretary of State has not taken this decision lightly.
I beg to move.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clarity on this issue. I am pleased to support the order before us.
Young people in Northern Ireland now live in a different climate to that of their parents and grandparents. We still have some distance to travel, but it is important to acknowledge that good progress has been made to date. We have a responsibility to ensure that peace, stability and justice are protected and long lasting.
In relation to the matter before the Committee, David Seymour, the Independent Reviewer of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act, suggested in his annual report that
“the time has now come for a serious assessment of whether NJTs remain necessary.”
I contend that the security and integrity of our justice system is paramount and must continue to be protected.
Today, there are only a small number of cases where a non-jury trial is necessary. In those very exceptional circumstances, it remains my view and the view of my party that the current provisions, although far from perfect, should continue to serve Northern Ireland as a necessary function in supporting the effective delivery of the criminal justice process.
Naturally, there is a certain reluctance to renew such exceptional provisions. I, too, wish that such measures were a thing of the past. Nobody wishes to have trials without a jury but, given Northern Ireland’s exceptional security complexities and the spectre of threats of intimidation from dissident, paramilitary and other criminal elements, the renewal of non-jury trial provisions must be welcomed.
It is my hope that a day will come where measures such as those before us will be unnecessary. Regrettably, we are not quite at that stage yet. The onus is on all of us to continue to work together maturely to work out practical ways forward towards a more normalised society in Northern Ireland: that is, a society that no longer requires such measures. Hopefully, there will be even fewer non-jury trials in the next few years, making such legislation redundant.
I am pleased to support this legislation today.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of extending the measures before us. They certainly remain an important tool in specific circumstances to protect Northern Ireland’s criminal justice system. I wish we were in a place in 2021 where specifically designed Northern Ireland-only provisions such as this were a thing of the past. But it is always worth saying that we have come a long way, even if we are not quite where we want to be yet in Northern Ireland. We have relative peace, our political institutions remain in place, and businesses and tourists from around the globe continue to see Northern Ireland as an attractive place both to do business and to visit as a tourist.
However, we still live in a divided society, with a lingering legacy and the huge, complex challenge before us all of the severe threat from terrorists and paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. Non-jury trials need to continue in order to combat those who wish to use fear and intimidation to undermine Northern Ireland’s peace, and indeed the criminal justice process itself. It is vital in Northern Ireland that we protect the justice system. The Minister alluded to the number of non-jury trials. They have accounted for less than 5% of all Crown cases in Northern Ireland over the past five years. Of course, we know the important role that the PPS plays in identifying cases for non-jury trials in Northern Ireland. I welcome the commitment from the Government to see an end to non-jury trials in Northern Ireland when it is safe to do so.
I support these measures at this time and, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, indicated, it is my hope too that the day will come when such measures, and other similar measures, will not be necessary.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his explanation of this order, the main purpose of which is to extend for a further two years the provision that certain offences in Northern Ireland can be tried without a jury. I note what the Minister said: that this is the seventh such extension. Like other noble Lords, I hope that, in the fullness of time, there will be no necessity for these non-jury trials, although they are small in number.
At the very outset of this debate, I will say that I have always been and will remain, along with my party, totally opposed to violence, terrorism, mayhem and murder in Northern Ireland. I totally repudiate those acts of violence and terrorism to pursue political ends. Nothing can replace political dialogue, discourse and democratic means of accountability. So it is important that the institutions—the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Executive, the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council, along with other necessary means of discourse infrastructure such as the joint intergovernmental conference involving both the British and the Irish Governments—are sustained and underpinned, because political stability is the key here to our future stability as a region within the island of Ireland and within these islands. That is the key, and we all have a role in this, as politicians and members of the wider community, and as two Governments.
I have been opposed to the indiscriminate and unfair system of trials without a jury, going back to the days of the Diplock courts. I know that these are not Diplock courts, but they do breed a lack of confidence and trust in the judicial system. The Diplock courts system was associated with emergency legislation during a period of heightened paramilitary violence against the police, prison officers and the security forces. It also impacted on the wider community. However, I understand the reasons and the necessity for this legislation, particularly with the prevalence of dissidence, but I hope that this will be the last such extension and we can move to a totally normal society, because that is what the local population wants to see.
For me, the judicial system needs to be jury based at all levels. I realise that those involved in policing and justice issues will state that the threat from terrorism remains severe. There are threats from dissident republicans and loyalists, which have been heightened in the past few months because of opposition by some to the Northern Ireland protocol. There have also been attacks on security forces, but this should not mean that there is a need for a continuation of such non-jury trials into perpetuity.
I should also say that the days have long gone of the hegemony and domination by paramilitaries in communities. They should no longer be allowed to imperil communities. One message that I would give to them is: “So long, goodbye”. We, as communities, have had to tolerate the existence of paramilitarism for far too long. It is 23 years since the Good Friday agreement, and it is time that they hung up their boots.
There is a need to ensure that we have a full judicial system that does not restrict the right of defendants to trial by jury of their peers, whether in the interests of administrative speed or for some other policing and political reasons. Maybe the Minister could advise us today on the future intentions of the Government and what discussions are taking place with the Minister for Justice in the Northern Ireland Executive to do just that.
I noted that the powers in the 2007 Act allowed the DPP to issue a certificate for a non-jury trial that is subject to renewal every two years, and that is what we are doing today. We are in a relatively peacetime situation. The Minister has indicated instances where this has been used, with a very small number in the past year. Given that, can he give us the assurance today that this will be the last extension? I noted that the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee stated:
“Whilst acknowledging the reasons for trial without jury, we have concerns about their potential impact on trust in the judicial system and expect this option to be used only sparingly.”
I have concern about the impact on the trust of the people in the judicial system. Issues to do with human rights compliance, fairness and the quality of justice come into play in this respect.
For my part, I do not rest easy with the contents of the legislation, as it does not lend itself to a fair and just judicial system. However, at the same time, I recognise their necessity. I hope that it is the last extension. The bottom line is that we want to see an end to paramilitarism, and to see the building up of a sound political system full of political and economic stability, giving hope to our population throughout Northern Ireland.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
Before calling the next speaker, I remind the Grand Committee that, if there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn this Committee for five minutes for a vote. That may very well happen in the next few minutes.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as the Minister and others have said, this is the seventh time that we are renewing these regulations—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
The vote has been called, so we will move to the vote and, after five minutes, come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her full speech.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the Divisions in the House have been deferred because of the technical problems and we will therefore resume our debate. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, to begin her speech again.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I repeat that this is the seventh time that we are renewing these regulations. I am very pleased that the Government say that they want to see an end to the use of non-jury trials when it is safe to do so and compatible with the interests of justice. Now is clearly not that time, so I support the renewal today, but I believe that this an opportunity to look at some of the conditions in the regulations. I welcome the Independent Reviewer David Seymour having said that
“the time has come for serious assessment”
of whether non-jury trials “remain necessary”. I also welcome the working party that the Secretary of State has set up and would be interested to know whether the Minister has any idea of its timescale.
David Seymour’s report also said that in marginal cases the DPP
“should consider not issuing a certificate”
but putting in more jury-protection measures. Is this also being considered?
As a non-lawyer I get the feeling that, sometimes, going for a non-jury trial could be seen as a softer option. We do need to look at some of these conditions. On one of the tests, the Director of Public Prosecutions can certify only if he suspects that any of the conditions prescribed in the subsection are met and if he also suspects that, because such conditions are met, there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired with a jury. However, the threshold for “suspicion” is low—suspicion is a lesser state of mind than belief. While suspicion might be entertained in good faith and is not therefore to be regarded as synonymous with a pretext, it surely follows that suspicion may be shown subsequently to be entirely unfounded; a suspicion must be capable of rational justification.
One of the conditions is that the defendant is, or is an associate of, a member of a proscribed organisation, or has at any time been a member of an organisation that was at that time proscribed. But Section 1(9) gives a very broad definition of an associate, which includes a friend. As we know, there are persons who have publicly renounced their own former terrorist feelings and affiliations, and some have a wide circle of friends—some, for example, have friends even here in Parliament. This could be construed as meaning that, if an MP or Peer is charged with an ordinary common-law offence such as misconduct in public office, and is, or has been, a friend of Mr Y, who is a former and now repentant member of a terrorist group, the MP or Peer will satisfy the condition in the Act.
The regulation also explains that religious or political hostility can be based, to any extent, on a supposed religious belief or political opinion. Suppose, for example, two members of the same party in Northern Ireland disagree, perhaps on abortion, and get very angry and one punches the other and causes a severe injury to his jaw. He will be charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent. Now Mr A, the person who has caused the grievous bodily harm, will satisfy the condition in Section 1(6). It is surely absurd that the funnel for non-jury trials should be so wide as to permit so many persons to potentially satisfy the enabling set of conditions in Section 1(2). So I believe that these conditions must become more tightly drawn; that is something that the working party and others must look at over the next two years.
The test in Section 1(2)(b) is also too low. The DPP has only to be satisfied of a possible risk to the administration of justice. Surely, at the very least, this test should require a likelihood that the administration of justice would be impaired. Does the Minister not think that it would be a good idea to require the director to satisfy a High Court judge unconnected with the trial that the test was properly met? This would arguably enable the protection provided by Section 7 of the 2007 Act to be revoked, as the decision of the director would have been validated by a High Court judge.
Although this is about security and threats to jurors, it must also be about the public interest, which must always be about the transparency of the law and our justice system. Non-jury trials must never be used, particularly in cases of corruption. I worry slightly about the word “exceptional” because it does not always seem that the trials are being used in what I would class as exceptional cases.
A worrying example is the National Asset Management Agency, a body created by the Government of Ireland in 2009 in response to the Irish financial crisis and the property bubble bursting. Corruption has been alleged in the scheme, and some people have been charged with fraud. One of the young activists in Northern Ireland, whom the High Court in Northern Ireland has described as a journalist, gave evidence to a statutory scrutiny committee investigating political corruption. He has now been charged with conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. Out of the blue, a non-jury certificate has been issued in this case.
To me, non-jury trials should be for where terrorism is involved and there is clearly a threat to individuals. I believe that this has been an overreaction by the DPP and a gross overinterpretation of the regulations. So all I am really saying is: let us use the next two years to look at this much more carefully and make sure that we are not back in another two years, simply renewing the same regulations, without realising that maybe, just sometimes, they are being abused.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, our commitment to trial by jury has never been in doubt. In the United Kingdom, jury trial has always been rightly seen as a cornerstone of citizens’ involvement in democracy. The derogation for jury trial in Northern Ireland therefore has to be justified as a necessary and temporary emergency measure.
The question that this House is considering today is whether the case has been made for a two-year extension—for the seventh time, as we have heard—of the exceptional system that permits non-jury trials on indictment in Northern Ireland under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 if the statutory conditions, which are stringent, are met.
We reluctantly accept that the case has been made for this extension, but we have heard it stressed that non-jury trials take place in only a very limited number of cases and in exceptional circumstances. In 2019, there were only 14 non-jury trials in the Crown Court, out of a total of nearly 1,300.
However, sadly, as has been recognised by all who have spoken, violence in Northern Ireland continues. In 2020, there were 13 casualties as a result of paramilitary-style shootings and 42 casualties of such assaults. In April of this year, there were a number of violent incidents aimed at members of the Northern Ireland police service, including that near Dungiven, where an explosive device was left at an officer’s home.
We are therefore forced to the conclusion that, although we would prefer criminal offences to be tried and proved before juries without exception, there is a continuing danger of violence associated with paramilitary groups, which carries with it the risk of jury intimidation. The intimidation with which we are concerned is not just the intimidation of individual jurors but sometimes involves whole sections of communities being put in fear, so that jury selection, the trial process, the taking of evidence, jury deliberations and jury decision-making are all put at risk in extreme cases.
However, there are two important sets of safeguards—one specific and one more general. Specifically, the 2007 Act gives the DPP a discretionary power to certify for a non-jury trial only if he suspects that one of four conditions is met, relating to the offender or the offence, which establishes a link to a proscribed organisation or religious or political hostility as a motivating factor.
Secondly, the DPP must consider that there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired if there were a jury trial. I interpose that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is right to say that suspicion is not itself a high threshold, even though such suspicion has to be rationally held.
The more general safeguard arises from the involvement of the independent reviewer of the 2007 Act, a post held by David Seymour. In his annual reports, the independent reviewer keeps under review the issue of non-jury trials. In his 10th report, published in 2018, Mr Seymour reported that the existing arrangements were working reasonably well; he did not suggest any changes to the legislation. Prior to the publication of his 13th report in April of this year, the Northern Ireland Office, as we have heard, held a public consultation on a further extension of the provision for exceptional non-jury trials. The majority of respondents were in favour of such an extension, expressing concerns for continued paramilitary activity, including forcing people from their homes—a horrible kind of violence, mentioned by the noble Viscount in opening—a continued risk of jury tampering and possible jury bias. Nevertheless, most respondents wanted to see a return to universal jury trials as soon as the removal of non-jury trials could be safely achieved without risk to the interests of justice.
In his 13th report, the independent reviewer said that the time for a serious assessment of whether non-jury trials should continue had arrived. He expressed the view that there appeared
“to have been no meaningful dialogue … in recent years”
on this issue and said that
“after 14 years, a robust examination of the need for these provisions is now required.”
Along with Jonathan Hall QC, the UK Independent Reviewer of Terrorist Legislation, we agree with that recommendation.
As the noble Viscount said, the Northern Ireland Office has now announced that it will establish a multidisciplinary working group to identify practical measures to reduce the number of non-jury trials, while leaving the provisions of the 2007 Act in place. That is very welcome. However, we profoundly hope that we will soon find a way of bringing an end to non-jury trials in Northern Ireland.
To that end, can the Minister provide more detail to Parliament about the remit of the working party? What questions will be asked and how wide-ranging will the permitted inquiry be? Will it be possible for it to recommend an end to the provisions? I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in asking: what will be the timescale for this working party’s work? When will the working party be selected and what will be the criteria for selecting members? What powers will it have in relation to evidence gathering and when will it report? Can the Minister also commit to publishing its recommendations as soon as they are ready, along with the government response? We urgently need to reach a safe but just solution to this issue.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hay, mentioned in his contribution that the world has changed a lot in Northern Ireland with regard to this matter over the past 20-odd years. Certainly, my memory of when I started as a junior opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland 26 years ago is that it was a different world with regard to how juries were intimidated—and, of course, how judges, both Catholic and Protestant, were assassinated. The criminal justice system was hugely compromised by the Troubles and all that went with them.
Of course, that was exacerbated by the fact that Northern Ireland is a small place. Although it could be argued that juries can be intimidated in London and other great cities in Great Britain, it is not quite the same because of the small size of Northern Ireland and the fact that people know each other in a very special way. So we understand the reason for it, but the world has changed. As the Labour Opposition, we reluctantly support the extension but agree with the Minister that only a tiny number of cases are now dealt with in this way—I think he said it was currently 2% of criminal cases. In 2017, for example, out of 1,640 criminal cases, only nine were non-jury ones. However, that is still nine too many in a liberal democracy.
I welcome the Government’s review of this, as other members of the Committee have, and the setting up of a working party. Yes, we would like to know its terms—who goes on it and when it will report, and so on—but the idea of a working party to look at when this will end is excellent. I would particularly like the Minister to take up the important issues referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.
I will make another couple of points before I conclude. First, this measure comes against a background of a backlog of thousands of criminal cases in Northern Ireland which have not been heard yet, particularly because of Covid. That has an impact on the need to deal not just with those who perpetrated the crimes but with the victims. We do not want the victims to fall out of any criminal justice system because of that backlog. Perhaps the Minister could say a few words about how the Government propose to deal with that.
Finally, this is about security. We do not have the paramilitary threats that we used to have, but there is a paramilitary threat—linked most of the time to criminality—right across Northern Ireland. Although it is not huge, a number of Members of the Committee have indicated that political instability can lead to security problems, and there is no doubt that things are unsettled in Northern Ireland at the moment. The DUP is currently in crisis because of what happened to the First Minister. Clearly the unionist community is unsettled by the Northern Ireland protocol. Let us remember that the Good Friday agreement was there to satisfy both nationalists and unionists, so these things have to be addressed. We are almost in the marching season, and there could be difficulties unless we try to address that political instability.
I say for the umpteenth time that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and the Government should now concentrate on engagement with the European Union—which itself should stop talking about legal writs and start talking. The Government should pay less attention to articles in newspapers and more to proper diplomacy and negotiation, and try to resolve at least the most difficult issues surrounding the protocol so that at least there is an attempt to engage Northern Ireland political leaders, the Irish Government and the European Union in ensuring that things settle down. If there is not a settlement politically, there will still be insecurity, and if there is still insecurity, because there are still nasty people about, there will still be a need for non-jury trials. Hopefully that will not happen, but let us hear what the Minister has to say in response.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I start by thanking all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I appreciate the support that has come from all quarters, starting with the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Belmont and Lord Hay, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Hoey. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his support—although I noted that he made the point that it was with some reluctance that he supported the case in this order for a two-year extension.
As I said at the outset, this is an exceptional system—as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, mentioned too—used in only very limited circumstances. There is rightly a presumption for jury trial in all cases. As I have already said, non-jury trials account for less than 2% of all Crown Court cases in Northern Ireland.
The threat from terrorism in Northern Ireland remains severe—the noble Lord, Lord Hay, spoke eloquently about this, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—and it has been at the same level for more than 10 years. However, the Government remain committed to tackling the threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism and to supporting the Northern Ireland Executive’s programme to tackle paramilitarism. But we believe that further progress on the security situation is required before we can be confident that these non-jury trial provisions are no longer required. As I said earlier, I think that here I am echoing the views from this debate.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for her eloquent views on this matter. She is right that the way forward in Northern Ireland is strong political dialogue and discourse to provide political stability. That is so necessary, and I know that she is working very hard on that, as are many others involved in politics in Northern Ireland.
Having listened to this debate, I shall focus my remarks on the working group. I hope that I will be able to answer questions on it, as I think it is an open door for the way forward. Before I start, I want to pick up on something that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said. He was right that there were 13 responses to the consultation, down by two on the previous occasion in 2019, and the vast majority were in favour of what the Government have decided to do. It is right to point out that the Bar of Northern Ireland was not wholly in favour and produced some points—which I shall not go through today—but David Mulholland, who produced the response, said he was supportive of the working group, would welcome dialogue with stakeholders and would like clarification from the Northern Ireland Office on the timeframe. I shall give a short response on that in a moment.
As I have said, the UK Government continue to be committed to bringing an end to these provisions. As indicated by the majority of consultation responses, the time is not right for this now. However, the working group will assist in pursuing this aim. Following this consultation, the Secretary of State decided, as we know, that a working group should be convened to identify practical measures that could be taken to reduce the number of non-jury trials. During the renewal debate in 2019, noble Lords asked what criteria the Government would use to determine when the non-jury trial provisions were no longer needed, so the working group will also examine what indicators would assist in determining when it would be safe and compatible with the interests of justice to allow the provisions to expire.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about future intentions in working with the Justice Minister. I hope I can reassure her that the Northern Ireland Department of Justice will be invited to participate in the working group. She also expressed concerns about fair trial. I will allude that in a moment. As the noble Baroness said, the seventh extension is here. However, we hope that it will be the last, and I want to say a little more about that.
The provisions were designed to be temporary and the Government remain fully committed to bringing them to an end when it is safe to do so and when it is compatible with the interests of justice. In order to work towards this, the Northern Ireland Office will establish a working group. The intention is that this group will identify practical measures that can reduce the number of non-jury trials. The responses to the consultation were highly supportive of the formation of this group.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, asked about a date. None of us wants to see the system in place for longer than is needed, but much depends on the security situation. The Government will keep the provisions under constant review. We introduced a further safeguard in 2017 requesting that the then independent reviewer of the JSA, David Seymour, review non-jury trials in his annual work. As was mentioned by other speakers in this debate, the new independent reviewer of the JSA, Marie Breen-Smyth, will keep the annual review of non-jury trial provisions in her remit.
Whether non-jury trials are fair was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. We believe they are. The European Court of Human Rights guarantees fair trial; it does not guarantee jury trial. Every defendant facing a criminal charge is entitled to a fair trial. This principle remains where the trial is by judge alone. All defendants who are convicted of a crime have the right to seek an appeal. Under this system, only the mode of trial is changed. Non-jury trials deliver an equivalent quality of justice to jury trials. Where there is a risk of paramilitary or community-based pressures on a jury, they could actually be fairer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, asked further questions about the working group. On the timescale, again, if the Motion passes through both Houses, the NIO will write to the proposed membership to convene the first meeting of the working group as soon as possible—hopefully this summer.
I want to clarify the term “associate”. The DPP is independent and makes a decision on meeting one of the conditions and on the suspicion of a risk to the administration of justice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked whether a judge can help with decisions and why a judge cannot decide whether a non-jury trial is needed. If a judicial process were adopted, it would take longer for decisions on the non-jury trial to be reached, delaying the administration of justice. We believe that the DPP is in the best position to make the assessment of risk that the decision will require. The decision is similar to that on whether to prosecute. The DPP already makes decisions about mode of trial in Northern Ireland—that is, whether certain offences should be tried before a jury in the Crown Court or without a jury in the magistrates’ court.
The noble Baroness also asked about the decision to issue a non-jury trial certificate. Perhaps I can reassure her by saying that a non-jury trial is possible only when the DPP issues a certificate for a specific case in relation to a trial on indictment, as tried in the Crown Court. As I said earlier, decisions for non-jury trials are made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the circumstances of both the offence and the defendant. Further, the decision for issuing a certificate is based on a two-stage test set out in Section 1(2) of the JSA. The DPP must, first, suspect that one or more of the four conditions is met and, secondly, be
“satisfied that … there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired if the trial were to be conducted with a jury”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked about a particular case. She will know that I cannot comment on any particular case, I am afraid. She also made points about transparency. Again, let me provide some reassurance. Since the provisions have been in place, the DPP has shown that he applies the statutory test stringently. Statistics provided by the PPS show that the DPP regularly rejects applications for non-jury trial certificates, evidencing the thorough consideration given before a certificate is granted. We can be confident that only exceptional cases are certified for non-jury trials.
I realise that time is running out. I conclude by thanking all noble Lords again for contributing to this short debate. I will of course study Hansard with my usual scrutiny, and will be pleased to write to noble Lords where I have not managed to answer any questions.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4.27 pm, when we will move on to the next item of business. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. All Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will be adjourned for five minutes. The time allocated for the following debate is one hour.
Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations, which were laid before the House on 21 April 2021, be approved. I will refer to them as the fees regulations.
As the environmental regulator of the offshore oil and gas industry, which I shall refer to as the offshore industry, BEIS’s Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning, OPRED, recoups the cost of its regulatory functions from the industry, rather than the taxpayer footing the bill. OPRED’s role is to minimise the impact of the offshore industry on the environment by, for example, controlling air emissions and discharges to sea and minimising disturbance over the lifecycle of operations, from seismic surveys through to post-decommissioning monitoring. Regulatory activities for which OPRED can recover costs are covered in two ways: within a suite of regulations that are covered by the fees regulations and by four fees schemes that are not, because they do not require legislative change and will be amended administratively.
OPRED’s annual fees income is on average £6.2 million, which is recovered from around 130 companies. These are billed quarterly. OPRED recovers its costs via fees based on hourly rates. The fees regulations will increase the hourly rates used to calculate fees payable by the offshore industry. The fees relate to the provision of regulatory functions for the environmental management of offshore operations. Currently, the fees that OPRED charges for providing its regulatory services are based on hourly rates of £190 for environmental specialists and £101 for non-specialists. Environmental specialists are qualified technical staff who carry out the legislative functions of the Secretary of State and non-specialists are administrative staff who support them.
The current hourly rates have been in place since April 2020. OPRED has reviewed the cost base and concluded that the existing hourly rates need to be increased to fully recover the costs of providing specific regulatory services. The fees regulations will therefore amend the charging provisions by increasing the hourly rates for environmental specialists and non-specialists to £197 and £108 respectively. As the increases relate to cost recovery, they do not represent monetary changes linked to inflation.
OPRED’s fees are determined by adding together the recorded number of hours worked by environmental specialists and non-specialists on cost-recoverable activities, multiplied by the hourly rates. The new hourly rates were approved by Her Majesty’s Treasury in November last year. They were calculated in line with the Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance and cover the expenditure on all resources used by OPRED to support cost-recoverable activities: for example, staff salaries, accommodation, IT and office services and corporate services such as human resources, senior management, legal, finance and learning and development.
Guidance on OPRED’s fee-charging regimes is published and clearly explains the scope of the cost-recoverable functions undertaken by OPRED and how the costs are to be calculated and recovered. The cost-recoverable functions undertaken by OPRED include: the evaluation of applications and issuing of consents for seismic surveys and the conducting of appropriate assessments on the likely significant environmental effects of proposed projects; assessing and approving operators’ oil pollution emergency plans; and compliance monitoring activities, including offshore environmental inspections.
The revised fees to be paid will increase by a small amount, sufficient only to allow OPRED to recover its eligible costs. In this regard, the additional total cost resulting from the increase in hourly rates will be around £300,000 per year. OPRED’s guidance on its fees-charging regime will be revised to reflect the new hourly rates. Those charged by OPRED are aware that it reviews its hourly rates annually and, although there was no statutory requirement to consult on the fees regulations, in February OPRED informed the offshore industry of the planned increase to the hourly rates. No representations were received.
I conclude by emphasising the importance of the increase to the hourly rates being introduced by the fees regulations. The increase will enable OPRED to recover the costs of providing regulatory services from those who benefit from them, instead of those costs being passed on to the taxpayer. The fees regulations were debated and approved by the House of Commons on 26 May. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support the measure and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for setting out so clearly the background to these regulations and their effect, as he always does. I support the regulations, which represent the annual review of the hourly rates used to determine the fees payable by the offshore oil and gas industry to BEIS’s Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning, for activities engaged in by OPRED in relation to environmental management of the offshore hydrocarbons industry. These activities include the conservation of habitats and species, as well as matters relating to the storage of gases and some of the seismic changes on the continental shelf. As the Minister rightly said, the last review of fees was conducted in April 2020 and the industry, when asked about the increases, had no comment to offer.
The regulations appear reasonable and unexceptional, but I would like to explore with my noble friend the Minister the current position on carbon capture and storage. It has long been recognised that carbon capture and storage can play a key role in economic terms for the United Kingdom and, crucially, in achieving net zero. Indeed, its deployment could lead to the UK offshore oil and gas sector actually becoming carbon negative.
The Government committed to CCS deployment at scale happening during the 2030s, subject to the costs coming down. For that to happen, clearly there needs to be commissioning from the fast approaching mid-2020s. We have massive potential for this as the United Kingdom’s continental shelf, because of oil and gas drilling, is absolutely the area to develop it in. Of course, we have staff and personnel who could be deployed from the UK oil and gas industry to help with speedy deployment of CCS—staff who have the relevant expertise. I would be most grateful if my noble friend could update the Committee on progress in that area.
I recall the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who of course has massive knowledge and expertise in this area from his commitment to it and his time in the energy industry, doing a brief report for the Government on this area when Amber Rudd was Secretary of State. The only downside then apparent was the cost; that was some five to six years ago, and I believe that the cost may now have come down and that the attitude of government to the cost may have changed, in any event—along, indeed, with the attitude of the world. Perhaps governmental and world attitudes have changed, as they need to, as we approach the time when action is absolutely vital. We need to do this at speed and at scale, looking at experience elsewhere: in the United States, Canada and, I think, in Australia. Can my noble friend give some update on progress in this area, ahead of the important COP 26 in Glasgow and the fast-approaching need for immediate action?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this looks like a fairly simple instrument, and I congratulate the Minister on laying it out with what appeared to be great transparency—so I thank him for that. We seem to be looking at some incredibly paltry rises in administration fees to deliver a government service to the oil and gas industries at cost price. Why are we selling at cost price? I do not understand. This is a subsidy for a government service, and yet another example of the oil and gas industries being massively undercharged, in spite of their negative impact on the environment and highly polluting practices.
I salute the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, too, for his enthusiasm and optimism about carbon capture and storage. He is absolutely right that it would be a fantastic thing if we had it, and action is vital now—but we do not have it. So why not take another route, which is to make the oil and gas industries pay their fair share, not only of what we allow them to have but for the pollution that they cause? I can well imagine that no representations were received from the industry. If my fees were being increased from £190 to £197 I would probably not complain either, because the increase is negligible. Why are the Government doing this? Quite honestly, I think that this is a ridiculous SI. What we should have in front of us is something that actually reflects what is happening in the world in terms of the climate crisis.
I have a question here that I would like an answer to. Can the Minister outline what changes the Government will seek at COP 26 to make sure that fossil fuel companies stop getting a free ride, so that their financial costs reflect their true environmental and social costs? We heard an Oral Question today about a government guidance document, Aligning UK International Support for the Clean Energy Transition. We have some cheek talking about this sort of thing and proselytising about it when we are actually subsidising polluting oil and gas industries. What I would very much like to know is: how on earth are this Government ever going to live up to the sort of standards that we expect to see from a responsible Government?
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his clear explanation of this SI, which, on the face of it, seems pretty uncontroversial. Given that his department is responsible for the environmental regulator—OPRED—and aims to recoup the costs of its regulatory activity from the industry rather than from taxpayers, which I wholly support, it seems as if the increases in cost that we are being asked to approve today fit with that aim.
Protecting the environment and controlling our emissions and discharges into the sea are hugely important for the future of the planet, the future of our country, the future of our children and future generations. However, I wonder whether I could follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and ask one or two questions about the rationale for the pricing structure that is being applied to what are, in effect, qualified technical specialists in environmental matters. Rather low fee rates seem to be being applied here. Even with the increases, we are talking about something like £1,400 a day. Daily rates for lawyers or specialist consultants are more like double that, or even more. Even for the non-specialists, we are talking about perhaps £700 to £750 a day.
I understand that we do not want to destroy or damage an industry that literally keeps the lights on in our country, but I want to ask my noble friend the Minister something particular; I do not expect him to have the answer to hand, but I would be grateful if he could write to me. To what extent are the employees—I assume they are public employees—who are doing this very important work members of public sector pension schemes? Have the true costs to the taxpayer of those pension contributions and ultimate pension payments been factored in to the costs being charged to these oil and gas companies?
Clearly, we must control air and sea pollution. The industry itself has accepted this regime. Again, I understand that the department may not wish to rock the boat—if noble Lords will excuse the expression—but it is important that taxpayers do not subsidise the cost of regulation for this industry in any way. In the current environment, the costs of a public sector pension scheme are more like 40% to 50% of salary on top of actual earnings. I would be interested to know whether this has been reflected in the new charges or the old charges.
I have one final question. I believe that the Government are doing marvellous work, and I commend my noble friend the Minister, his department and Defra for what they are aiming to do to control environmental damage. However, it is important, and I would be grateful if my noble friend could give the Committee some idea of the measures being taken to encourage the offshore oil and gas industry to rapidly diversify away from fossil fuels, abandon new developments because there is risk of stranded assets down the line and invest in alternative energies, such as offshore wind and solar power. That could replace some of the activity and jobs that are otherwise potentially at risk in areas that have become so dependent on our very successful oil and gas industry.
I support the measures but have some further questions and concerns, and I would be grateful to hear my noble friend’s response.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to welcome the regulations before us this afternoon—certainly as far as they go. I thank my noble friend for his clear introduction to them.
My concern follows directly from the plea of my noble friend Lady Altmann to look more to offshore wind farms—that is what concerns me. Paragraph 13.2, on page 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, says:
“It is crucial that all businesses operating offshore, regardless of size, are subject to the same regulatory regime to ensure that they continue to provide a high level of protection for the marine environment.”
If my understanding is correct and the regulations before us this afternoon refer only to the offshore hydrocarbons industry, which regulations from his department, which I understand will be the regulatory authority, actually apply to offshore wind farms?
I mention this because we did a piece of work before the EU Sub-Committee was disbanded at the end of the period of its supervisory authority. I quote what one of the witnesses said about how we mitigate the offshore wind pollution of our shores:
“It is fair to say that offshore wind is still a very new sector. It has been around for only the last 10 years. It has, throughout that period, innovated and continues to do so. It is probably fair to say that the focus for that has been more on construction impacts, and potentially pre-construction impacts, and less on the overall operation. Moving forward, we need to bring together the cumulative and ongoing impacts from servicing of the wind farms, for example, and the additional disturbance from vessels that are regularly attending.”
It concerns me that we are seeing a 10-gigawatt increase in one year alone—so we are literally upping the renewable source of offshore wind farms. Yet it is staggering to think that, as I understand it, no research at all has been done into the effects of not just, as the lady witness said, the construction phase and the ships going out to deliver materials but the operational phase and, for the purposes of these regulations, decommissioning. I presume that each wind turbine will have a life of some 10 or 15 years. This urbanisation of the sea, as the witnesses in that hearing called it, has specific ecological impacts on the maritime environment.
If my further understanding is correct, the maritime environment and marine ecology are not included in the Environment Bill, so we have two omissions: no research on the ecological and environmental impacts, in terms of not just noise but disruption to marine life. We have to ask ourselves: why are dolphins, porpoises and whales beaching in increasing numbers on our shores? I would like to think that it is not because of offshore wind farms, but we honestly do not know. I take this opportunity to ask why hydrocarbons, a very important part of the economy, have been singled out for this particular type of regulation? Which regulation covers offshore wind farms? Is there a similar regulation to what is before us this afternoon in relation to the recovery of the charges?
So how do offshore wind farms relate to the comparative structure and fee structure in the regulations before us relating to hydrocarbons? Also, mindful that there will be a rising degree—10 gigawatts in one year— of noise pollution in both the construction and operational phases, will my noble friend put my mind at rest that some research has been done over the period and that the regulatory regime is akin to that before us this afternoon?
With those concerns, I endorse the regulations before us. I am absolutely concerned that any regulatory regime should apply to all protections for the marine environment, whether in relation to hydrocarbons or to offshore wind farms.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this SI has been prepared by BEIS, which explains that its purpose is to increase the hourly rates used to determine the fees payable by the offshore oil and gas industry and the Oil and Gas Authority to BEIS’s Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning—OPRED—for certain activities undertaken by OPRED in relation to the environmental management of the offshore hydrocarbons industry.
We are told that the instrument is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It contains enabling powers that are both negative and affirmative. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 makes provision for the affirmative procedure to take precedence over the negative procedure where there is a combination of instruments. To enable OPRED’s new hourly rates to be introduced from 1 July 2021, the instrument will enter into force on the day after it is made, which will be beyond the common commencement date of 6 April 2021.
As the Explanatory Memorandum says, the increases in eligible costs to be charged to the offshore hydrocarbons industry and the Oil and Gas Authority were identified following a review of the cost base for the current OPRED fee schemes. The increases, which will allow OPRED to recoup the costs for the provision of regulatory services, are not alterations to reflect changes in the value of money. The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom.
I support this SI and particularly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said about bringing in wind and solar energy procedures to replace those for the current sources of energy.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument with his customary clarity. My starting point is a certain scepticism about this SI similar to that expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Personally, I think the SI should be unnecessary, because the industry should be paying all the costs of the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning. If it were not for the activity of the industry, that regulator would not need to exist, and given the profits which the companies concerned have made over the years it is unclear to me why the taxpayer is picking up any of the cost. I note that the description of the role of OPRED on the GOV.UK website includes
“protecting the taxpayer from bearing the full cost of decommissioning”.
Can the Minister tell us why we are paying any of this cost?
I also note the contrast between the way in which the oil and gas companies are treated, paying only part of the cost, and the way in which, for example, people who wish to become British citizens are treated; they pay not only the full cost of processing their application but many multiples of it, because for some reason they alone of British citizens are regarded as an easy touch to pay a supercharge for the cost of our border and immigration system as a whole. The oil and gas companies must have some very important friends to have achieved an outcome where they not only do not pay the full cost of decommissioning but they continue to receive huge subsidies to exploit fossil fuels that imperil the future of our planet.
On the increase in fees to which this statutory instrument gives effect, can the Minister clear up some issues? First, can he clarify the total amount of revenue raised by the fees which the SI relates to? The Minister gave us a figure of 1,243 hours as the figure representing an average of hours per annum spent on potentially cost-recoverable activity. If we take the average of the specialist and non-specialist hourly rates, it comes out at £152.50 per hour. If that was multiplied by the number of hours, it would come to—if my maths is correct—about £189,557. Is that the correct figure raised by the fees levied under this SI? If it is not the correct figure, can the Minister tell us what it is and how it is calculated between specialist and non-specialist hours, because the Explanatory Memorandum and the SI do not give the breakdown?
The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that the calculation of the costs charged to the industry
“removes the hours spent on leave, bank holidays, staff management etc.”
Why are those excluded given that they are clearly staffing costs?
Can the Minister also tell us the total cost of running the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning? I think he told us in his introductory remarks that the fees and other charges outside the ones we are discussing in this SI raised £6.2 million. Does this cover the entire cost of running the regulator? If not, what is the deficit?
Can the Minister remind us of the total level of subsidies provided by Her Majesty’s Government to the oil and gas industry in the last year for which figures are available? I hope that the noble Lord will not try to tell us that the Government do not provide any subsidies, because that sort of dissembling is exactly what has got the UK ranked joint bottom for transparency on these issues among the G20 nations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raised some important issues about how we get the industry moving towards transition rather than the existing policy of maximum economic recovery, which makes no sense in the context of our climate goals. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised some interesting issues about wind farms and the marine environment.
I await with interest the Minister’s response on those and his response to my questions. I do not oppose the increase in charges set out in this SI, but I strongly object to the continued subsidies that are pumped annually to an industry that poses an existential threat to life on this planet.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I, too, thank the Minister for his introduction to the regulations before the Committee. It was necessarily detailed. The Explanatory Memorandum was fulsome in listing all the various regulations under various Acts of legislation where cost recovery is now embraced as part of government policy and fee schemes are introduced. His department is to be commended for the coherent analysis of fees payable by the offshore hydrocarbon industry and Ofgem to the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning—OPRED—for certain activities. I now understand better the Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance on the methodology of cost-recoverable activities.
I have very few questions about these regulations. However, to start with, can the Minister confirm whether OPRED is entirely cost neutral to the taxpayer and that all its costs are recoverable? I thought I heard him say that its full budget of £6.2 million was recovered from industry. I think that is correct and that OPRED prevents a lot of possible pollution occurring.
The cost recovery system appears entirely non-judgmental—that is to say, there appears to be no analysis of the cost increases against any parameter. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, called the increase negligible. However, I note that the cost increase of £7 per hour for both specialist and non-specialist staff in tandem is slightly above the rate of inflation. As the increase is in tandem to two different rates, it is not by any defined percentage consistently. Will the cost recovery system in the department in this instance be reviewed on any regular basis? I would not expect the policy to be changed into a profit centre.
From this, it can be asked whether and by what means costs are controlled. No doubt it is by the wages policy undertaken by public bodies such as OPRED and under the influence of HM Treasury. I am sure that any validation of cost increases across any organisation is not necessarily a smooth process. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, expressed, the future of the infrastructure on the continental shelf will become very important for the urgent development of CCUS and hydrogen. With that, I am happy to approve the regulations today.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. It is not often that I come along with charging instruments to have people complain that we are not increasing the fees enough but, as always, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, provides a contrary view to established practice in this House. Nevertheless, it was an interesting debate.
As I said during my opening remarks, the fees regulations will enable OPRED to recover its costs for the provision of regulatory services under the offshore oil and gas environmental legislative regime, as opposed to such costs being passed on to the taxpayer. In response to the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Grantchester, let me set out the position on OPRED’s budget and fees income. As they both said, OPRED’s annual fees income is £6.2 million on average. This represents around 65% of the cost of running its environmental operations unit. The total costs of around £10.6 million a year include that of the office in Aberdeen and corporate support provided from London.
On chargeable activities, OPRED considers the environmental implications of all offshore oil and gas operations before issuing permits and consents covering areas as diverse as seismic surveys, marine licences, oil pollution emergency plans, chemical permits, oil discharge permits and consent to locate permissions for offshore installations. To this end, OPRED reviews around 5,000 applications for permits and consents annually. In addition, there is a regular programme of monitoring and inspection to ensure compliance with the environmental regulations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, in line with Her Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance, OPRED does not charge for policy work—for example, the enacting of new, or revisions to existing, offshore environmental legislation. Nor is OPRED able to charge for enforcement activity, such as prosecutions. Let me also point out that OPRED had originally planned to implement the changes to its hourly rates through the Oil & Gas Authority (Levy and Fees) Regulations 2021, which were laid before Parliament under the negative resolution procedure and entered into force on 1 April 2021.
However, OPRED is relying on a power that requires an affirmative procedure. This is because the increases allowing it to recoup the costs for the provision of regulatory services are not alterations to reflect changes in the value of money. The OPRED provisions were therefore not suitable for the Oil and Gas Authority’s regulations, hence the proposal to introduce these fees regulations.
In response to my noble friend Lord Bourne, who asked about UK progress on the deployment of carbon capture and storage, let me highlight the following. CCS will be essential for meeting the UK’s 2050 net-zero target, playing a vital role in levelling up the economy, supporting the low-carbon economic transformation of our industrial regions and creating many new, high-value jobs. In November 2020, we announced a £1 billion CCS infrastructure fund, which will provide industry with the certainty required to deploy CCS at scale.
In addition, CCS will play an important role in the Government’s industrial clusters mission, which sets out the ambition to establish the world’s first net-zero carbon industrial cluster by 2040, backed by £170 million from the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, with the spend profile running between January 2021 and March 2024. In February this year, BEIS published a consultation seeking stakeholder input on a potential approach to determining a natural sequence for locations to deploy CCS. Close to 100 responses to the consultation were received and BEIS recently published guidance for organisations wanting to take part in phase 1 of the CCS cluster sequencing process, which helps to meet the Government’s commitment to capture 10 million tonnes of CO2 per annum and have 5 gigawatts of low-carbon hydrogen capacity by 2030.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who asked why the costs were rising by such a very small sum and appear, as she said, to be subsidising the industry for government service, I remind her that, as I said earlier, the fees are calculated in accordance with Her Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance, of which I am sure the noble Baroness is a great supporter, and any revisions to OPRED’s charges that result from annual reviews can cover only the actual cost of providing its regulatory services. OPRED is not permitted to make a profit under Treasury rules. I know that the noble Baroness will be a strong supporter of Treasury rules, so our hands are tied in this regard.
When conducting future annual reviews of the fees-charging regime plus associated functions, OPRED will ensure that the fees being charged fully reflect its regulatory activity and, in turn, the level of offshore operations in any given year. It is important to emphasise that, while the offshore oil and gas industry transitions to a net-zero basin, a comprehensive environment regulatory regime will be applied to its operations to ensure that a high level of protection for the marine environment is maintained. As we move towards net zero, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will also no doubt be delighted to hear that oil and gas will play a smaller role in meeting UK energy demand; however, it will still continue to play a role.
In response to my noble friend Lady Altmann, OPRED is an integral part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It is based in Aberdeen and currently has 97 staff. Those staff are civil servants. The calculation of the fees includes the full economic costs of the staff, including superannuation costs, which are also taken into account.
Questions were asked by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, about decommissioning costs. They are recovered through separate fees regulations. Currently, about 50% of the cost of running this unit is recovered through fees, and a consultation opened on 24 May on a proposal to increase fees recovery to around 80%.
My noble friend Lady Altmann also asked about transition. I would like to mention the North Sea transition deal, which will help significantly to reduce emissions, ensuring a net-zero basin by 2050 and supporting our goal of decarbonising the wider economy. Commitments in the deal will help to achieve a reduction in UK greenhouse gas emissions of 60 million tonnes, including 15 million tonnes through the progressive decarbonisation of UK production over the period to 2030. If the UK stopped producing gas, we would then need to import it and would therefore have little control over the carbon intensity of those inputs while losing the benefits of a domestic natural resource.
In response to the points made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, I am sure that she is well aware that the wind farm fee regime is not part of these regulations. I will write to her on the main points she asked about. The North Sea transition deal will harness the existing skills of the offshore oil and gas sector supply chain to help to deliver our new low-carbon technologies, such as hydrogen and carbon capture usage and storage, helping the UK to meet its net-zero targets.
I think I answered the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, in the early part of my speech.
On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, the fee increase mainly comprises two elements: an increase in staff costs as a result of a pay award and an increase in corporate costs relating to IT, HR, finance et cetera, which is allocated on a per head basis. As I explained earlier, it is all in line with the Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance, which does not allow OPRED to make a profit on its activities.
In response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, although it might be helpful to the industry to have a form of indexing, again, this would fall foul of the favourite document of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones: Her Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance regime, which provides that charges should be set to recover the full costs of the service being provided. This approach is intended to ensure that the Government neither profit at the expense of the industry nor make a loss for taxpayers to subsidise. OPRED’s fees are reviewed annually to ensure that, year on year, the full costs of the service are recovered. If costs were to reduce, the fees would also reduce; however, if the costs increase, the fees will also increase so that the burden does not fall on the taxpayer but remains on those benefiting from the service.
I think I have dealt with most of the questions asked by noble Lords and I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the Grand Committee stands adjourned until 5.15 pm. I ask anyone leaving the Room to please sanitise their desk.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations, which were laid before the House on 28 April 2021, be approved.
Before I begin, let me provide a brief overview of ecodesign and energy labelling and what these policies are attempting to achieve. Ecodesign policies regulate products that consume energy when in use, such as household white goods, by setting minimum energy performance standards to increase their energy efficiency. More recently, ecodesign policies have also included resource efficiency measures, which seek to make products more repairable and recyclable, thereby reducing their use of material resources. In effect, ecodesign policies make the products we use in our homes and businesses more environmentally friendly, and also support long-term product innovation.
Energy labelling policies are intended to make clear and consistent information on a product’s energy usage readily available to consumers at the point of purchase, to help them make more informed purchasing decisions. In effect, energy labelling encourages the uptake of more energy-efficient products, thereby reducing energy usage and saving consumers and businesses money on their energy bills.
Taken together, these policies make an important contribution to reducing energy use, improving environmental outcomes and cutting energy bills. It is estimated that the suite of ecodesign and energy labelling policies in force in Great Britain will save consumers £75 on their energy bills and save 8 megatonnes of carbon dioxide in 2021—the equivalent of the average yearly carbon emissions from electricity use of something like 12 million homes.
This statutory instrument seeks to enact commitments made by the UK in 2018 and 2019 when it was an EU member state in support of a package of new product-specific ecodesign and energy labelling measures. New ecodesign requirements are introduced by this statutory instrument for welding equipment, electric motors, household washing machines and dishwashers, domestic and commercial fridges, and televisions placed on the market in Great Britain. These requirements will raise the minimum energy efficiency of products on the market. In effect, this will phase out the least energy-efficient products—in other words, the most costly and environmentally damaging products to run.
New obligations on manufacturers to make these products easier to recycle and repair will also be introduced. When buying a new washing machine or television, consumers will now be entitled to access spare parts with which to repair their appliances. This will help consumers keep appliances in use for longer, thereby reducing electrical waste. A wider range of spare parts and helpful information will be made available to professional repairers, which will facilitate even more complex repairs to be carried out by people with the right skills to do it safely.
In addition, this statutory instrument will introduce an energy label for commercial refrigerating appliances for the first time. Underpinned by new minimum energy efficiency requirements, the energy label will provide information to businesses when buying a new refrigerated sales cabinet, for example, to help them to understand and compare the energy consumption of different products. This will encourage businesses to opt for more energy-efficient fridges for use in supermarkets and other commercial environments, helping to cut down on the energy use and associated carbon emissions of this product group. Furthermore, by setting ambitious boundaries for the A-G classes on the energy label, this policy will spur innovation in the design of commercial refrigerating appliances as manufacturers compete to achieve the highest energy efficiency ratings.
By introducing these more ambitious and environmentally friendly ecodesign and energy labelling requirements, we will ensure that we maintain high product standards in Great Britain and push the market to achieve ever greater carbon savings. The measures introduced by this SI will contribute savings of approximately 1.7 megatonnes of carbon dioxide between now and 2050. On top of this, the resultant reduction in energy use will improve air quality in Great Britain and cut many pounds from household and business energy bills. As I mentioned earlier, through greater repairability and recyclability of these electrical appliances, the measures introduced by this SI will help reduce the quantity of electrical waste reaching landfill each year. Lastly, introducing these requirements in Great Britain will ensure a common set of product standards with Northern Ireland, thereby facilitating trade across the Irish Sea.
A public consultation was conducted between September and November 2020. Feedback on the consultation proposals showed significant support among the respective manufacturing bases for the affected products and among environmental campaign groups for implementing these new requirements in Great Britain.
In conclusion, introducing these requirements is aligned with the Government’s ambitions to achieve our carbon budget and net-zero targets; they will take us ever closer to reducing our energy use and environmental impact. Furthermore, the new measures will provide greener choices for consumers and businesses and will encourage product innovation. I therefore commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is impossible for me as a Green to disagree with anything in the opening statement, because these are things that we have been saying for 30 or 40 years—so I am glad that the Government have finally caught up with all these concepts, such as lower power usage, longer life for all sorts of goods, repairing them, saving money for customers on their bills and having less waste to landfill. Those are all things that we have been arguing for for decades. However, in the statutory instrument, all I could really see is that it changes the flag on a label from an EU flag to a union flag. Please tell me if I am wrong; it is a very thick document, so presumably something else is in it, but that seemed to me the only pertinent point.
The rest of the instrument is all about ensuring that EU law continues to operate effectively in the UK. For me, it is another sad reflection of this Government’s implementation of Brexit, because they made lots of promises about how we would be free from the shackles of the EU and how it would allow us to have the best environmental protections in the whole world—world-leading environmental protections, even. But the reality is that we are actually keeping 99% of EU laws, or weakening them, and then just sticking a union jack label on. Perhaps the Minister can point me to where I have gone wrong on this.
After reading this, I wonder what happened to creativity, ambition and even, as the Minister said, innovation. I know that the Government were carrying out a consultation on higher energy standards, and I am curious about that because, although I had only a quick search, I could not see the results. I do not know whether it is still ongoing, but it will be interesting if that says anything about improving on EU levels.
Of course, as any fool doth know, the cleanest, greenest and cheapest energy that you can have is the energy that you do not actually use. Our appliances and devices still use far more than they need to. The EU’s headline energy efficiency target for appliances is for at least 32.5% by 2030. Are we going to improve on that or are we going to be left behind? The consultation to which I referred talked about the possibility of appliances being part of a smart grid—so, for example, a freezer could store the energy and might store electricity in the form of extra cold to be used when there was a bit more demand or energy is scarcer. That is an important advance in an entire rethinking of the energy system, relying on renewables and storage.
There is also talk of displaying lifetime energy costs at the point of purchase for a product, plus additional information on the cost of running it and, importantly, how easily it can be repaired, reused and recycled—namely, how durable it is. I have quite a lot of questions, but my main one is: what has happened to that consultation on higher energy standards, and has it encouraged the Government to raise their own standards?
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory comments and his explanation of this statutory instrument.
I note that the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“this legislation will protect the Great British market from the risk of ‘dumping’ of less efficient products which do not meet the minimum standards in the EU and in Northern Ireland ... For some products, without this SI suppliers may need to have two product lines—one for the GB market and one for the EU and Northern Ireland market ... Suppliers may also have to undertake dual conformity assessment procedures to ensure compliance with both sets of requirements. This legislation avoids this outcome and the associated costs to business.”
I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that this is a powerful argument for regulatory alignment and, indeed, for membership of the single market and, in order to influence the single market, membership of the European Union—but that is perhaps for another day.
I wonder whether the Minister can answer a few questions about this SI. Paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“In order to demonstrate or measure conformity with the ... Labelling requirements introduced by these Regulations, designated standards must be used ... However, none of the standards for the requirements in these Regulations is available to be designated yet due to their ongoing development.”
Is it usual to introduce legislation imposing labelling requirements where standards have not been designated? I understand that some of the products covered will be expected to use existing standards, but the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“For commercial refrigeration and welding equipment, for which there are no existing Regulations nor a transitional method of measurement, we expect suppliers to use the best available standards.”
Can the Minister explain what that means and how conformity will be achieved between different manufacturers? Who will decide?
Could the Minister also explain why the regulations do not apply to appliances that are battery operated but can operate via a separately purchased AC/DC converter? Can the Minister also tell us what the practical difference is between the EU provision, referred to in paragraph 7.12, for a “product database” and the UK Government’s proposal for a “publicly accessible website”? Can he explain how those two differ? Can he also tell us when the designated standards are likely to be available?
Finally, I note that, while the standards for the appliances under this regulation relate to energy efficiency, products covered here include dishwashers and washing machines. I wonder what plans the Government have—or whether there are different measures by which they can set standards for water usage. People who took part in the debate on the Environment Bill will know the difficulties and pressures that are caused by excess water usage, so I hope that the Government will consider how these may be brought in in future.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
Once again, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the regulations. They seem to be simple, straightforward updating regulations to continue the in-built progress to consumer standards from increases in product developments. This raises energy performance and efficiency standards in electric motors, various household goods and now, for the first time, welding equipment and commercial refrigeration. Has welding equipment become an everyday item in the marketplace?
I am pleased to the see that the Government are being practical and sensible in resisting the temptation to insist that the UK undertakes its own post-Brexit consumer products standards. While these standards were agreed by the UK as a member state, I trust that the Government will continue with this alignment. Independent standards would be extremely tedious in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol and would add greatly to costs generally.
As these regulations continue with the updating practice that existed before Brexit, I presume that trading standards will be able to pick up the changes relatively smoothly. Since monitoring of regulations and post-implementation reviews will continue, does the Minister foresee any problem resulting from these regulations across any part of the United Kingdom? The full 29 schedules covering online labelling and internet selling would suggest that the department is following well-worn pathways and extending these to welding equipment with practised ease.
If I may, I will make one consumer observation on product development. I do not often stray into the market for vacuum cleaners but, when I have done so, I have seen that generally the most powerful machines become irreplaceable with powerful replacements no longer available. Does the insistence on energy-saving improvements necessarily rule out the continuation of more powerful machinery in the marketplace? The more power that is needed tends to lead to these more powerful machines being withdrawn. Do the minimum energy performance standards—MEPS—need to take account of the range of options available within the average energy efficiency of all products in a product category? There may be other cases in the household product marketplace. Does the Minister have any insights from the department on this aspect?
I am glad that repairability is now being recognised as important. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, remarked, it does seem rather unusual under paragraph 7.8 in the Explanatory Memorandum to bring in regulations on ecodesign and energy labelling before any of the standards for the requirements are available to be designated, due to ongoing development work. While I appreciate that the GB market must be protected from the risk of the dumping of less efficient products, should these regulations not be implemented in tandem with the EU, can the Minister explain why this is happening in this case? With that, I am happy to approve the regulations today.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, let me thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As I said before, the Government are committed to delivering their carbon budget and net-zero targets. These regulations will help to achieve this by increasing resource efficiency and setting higher product standards, leading to 21.5 terawatt hours of electricity savings in the domestic sector by 2050, equivalent to around 1.7 megatonnes of carbon dioxide.
In response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I thought for one brief moment that she was about to agree with something we were doing but, sadly, about two minutes into her speech, my hopes were dashed: she did not quite agree with everything we were doing, although perhaps she thought that we were on the right track.
On what the SI actually does, it will raise the minimum energy efficiency requirements of these products. Manufacturers will be obliged to make products easier to recycle and repair, including giving consumers access to spare parts to repair their appliances. An energy label for commercial refrigeration will be introduced to provide businesses with information to help them to understand and compare the energy consumption of different products, encouraging them to opt for more energy-efficient fridges. Furthermore, the measures will ensure a common set of product standards with Northern Ireland, helping to facilitate trade across the Irish Sea.
The regulations closely reflect the EU regulations, with the exception, as the noble Baroness pointed out, of the UK flag. We will be coming forward with our own proposals for how the UK can go further with ecodesign and energy labelling in future with our energy-related products framework. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be delighted to support us when we do so.
In response to the noble Baroness’s question about consultation, the 2020 call for evidence will help to inform which products and policies to pursue as part of our energy-related products policy framework, which was announced in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan last November. To support building the UK evidence base for energy-related products, we have launched a study that will help to inform which products are high priority in terms of their overall environmental impact, considering their contribution to carbon emissions and resource depletion and the potential for improving their environmental performance. I am sure the noble Baroness and the Greens will welcome the Government’s intention to launch a world-class product policy framework for energy-related products later this year, when more details will be set out on future policy and ambitions.
In response to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, who asked about designated standards, it is not uncommon to introduce new requirements before standards have been officially designated here. The regulations and supporting test standards have been discussed at length with industry, and alternative methods are available to measure the technical parameters. The designation process will take place very shortly, and the designated standards will be made clear in guidance. I would be very happy to write to the noble Lord about battery-powered appliances. It is a fact that the UK no longer has access to the public part of the EU product database, so the same information will be available to consumers on a free-to-access website. In relation to water usage, as part of our world-class policy framework we will set out our ambition to maximise the energy, carbon and energy bill savings from these energy-related products.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the Northern Ireland protocol. These regulations will apply to Great Britain only. Under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, equivalent eco-design and energy label requirements already apply in Northern Ireland in line with EU regulations. This will ensure that a consistent approach on product standards is followed across Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the EU. In all future policy we will need to uphold the terms of the protocol.
To close, let me underline once more the main purposes of the instrument. It will help raise the minimum energy efficiency of a range of electrical products sold in Great Britain, including many household goods, such as washing machines, dishwashers and televisions. It will involve new obligations on manufacturers to make products easier to recycle and repair through better access to spare parts, and it will introduce energy labelling for commercial refrigerating appliances for the first time, helping to make the fridges we see in our supermarkets and shops more energy efficient. These measures will help to spur innovation, maintain high product standards and give consumers the choice of more energy-efficient products on the market. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing and wear face coverings while in the Chamber except when speaking. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Message from the Queen
The Lord Chamberlain (Lord Parker of Minsmere)
My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
“I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.”
The Lord Speaker
My Lords, Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Disability Benefit Claimants
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that guidance to frontline staff on how to treat vulnerable disability benefit claimants is followed.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The DWP has a range of methods in place to ensure that front-line colleagues follow the guidance correctly when supporting vulnerable customers. These include quality checking of calls with claimants, examining notes and other actions, as well as checking the technical aspects of a case. DWP staff also have clear escalation routes in place to help colleagues support vulnerable customers. These include referral to vulnerable customer champions and advanced customer support senior leaders, who can help where additional support needs are identified.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome that reply as far as it goes, but what we need to know now is what measures the Government have in place to identify vulnerable disability claimants who have died, some by suicide and some by serious harm in which the DWP or its contractors may be implicated.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We feel very sad about anyone who takes our DWP welfare and is made sick or, sadly, dies; our hearts go out to them. However, we have made a range of improvements, increasing staff awareness of the vulnerability of claimants and how to respond to that. Training now includes mental health awareness, unconscious bias training and how to manage specific vulnerabilities such as homelessness and domestic abuse.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister agree that the problems relating to welfare benefits are less to do with staff guidance and more to do with the low levels of benefits, along with the inflexibility of the system? Does she accept that however well trained front-line staff are, they cannot compensate for a system that Disability Rights UK has described as unfit for purpose?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry, but I do not agree with the noble Baroness. Over the past 18 months we have invested heavily in welfare. The most important thing we do is to look after our vulnerable customers and make sure that they get the welfare they are entitled to.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, front-line staff will deal not only with people with disabilities but those suffering with mental health conditions. Many of these conditions may not be obvious to staff. What training do front-line staff receive on mental health conditions?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is correct that this is also about mental health conditions. Since 2018, the DWP has provided training on supporting vulnerable customers. That training goes out to all new staff in service delivery. We have also been rolling out further training on mental health behaviour and relationships. This is supported by comprehensive guidance covering a range of different complex needs. For disability benefits assessments, health professionals will have undergone comprehensive recent training on functional disability and mental health conditions. Mental health function champions provide additional expertise to those teams within the assessment centres.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, there is a history here of the first interview not going well and not establishing the underlying problem. What training—training is not the right word—what freedom is given to the initial interviewer to say, “I do not understand everything that is going on here”, and to be able to call for help? Will this be taken as a benefit and not something that is simply slowing down the system?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I know that the noble Lord understands these systems very well. All health professionals receive comprehensive training in disability analysis, which includes an evaluation of how medical conditions affect claimants in their day-to-day activities, as well as awareness training in specific conditions. He probably knows that with regard to autistic spectrum disorder, staff are working with the Autism Alliance to develop further training specifically to help people who find those first interactions with the system very difficult. We are also putting clear markings on assessments when they are first made in order to identify those people with vulnerabilities.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I am interested in the work of the Serious Case Panel. Is my noble friend able to give me an update on the work of this panel and its progress?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Serious Case Panel was established only last year—2020. It has now met five times and it is going to meet very soon—later this month. The panel does not investigate individual cases; it considers themes arising from a range of sources, including internal process reviews and front-line feedback, which is important. It also agrees recommendations for organisational learning, where needed, and will assign a director-general for committee accountability for delivering these recommendations within the department. It may be useful for noble Lords to know that the panel’s terms of reference and minutes from all its meetings can be seen on GOV.UK.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I declare my registered links with Mencap. Does the department have any staff members specifically trained to communicate with people suffering from learning disabilities? If so, does the department take proactive steps to make known to such people, and to their carers, that this facility does in fact exist?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, yes, we do. We have mental health function champions. The assessment of mental, cognitive and intellectual function is an integral part of all disability benefit assessments. Health professionals have undergone comprehensive training in the functional assessment of disabilities and that includes mental health conditions.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have a systemic problem. The NAO found that at least 69 suicides could be linked to problems with benefit claims and that the DWP had failed to investigate many of those cases properly or learn from them. The Minister mentioned the Serious Case Panel. I have looked at those minutes and I am sorry to say that they are so brief and redacted as to be pretty much entirely unrevealing. How can the House be assured that every recommendation from an internal process review will in future be implemented?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
There are three different panels here. We have the internal review panel, which looks, as the noble Baroness said, into specific cases. Then there is an internal process review group of senior officers and leaders in the DWP who will look at the IRP actions and feed into the wider organisation. That is important. Then we have the Serious Case Panel, which considers systemic themes and issues coming from IPRs and learns from them and acts on them.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, what training and support have Her Majesty’s Government put in place for staff who may be dealing with people with suicidal thoughts or plans?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend raises an important issue. Comprehensive guidance is available to all work coaches and case managers on how to deal with threats of self-harm. This guidance applies to all methods of communication, including the online journal. When a threat of self-harm is identified, agents follow a six-point plan and I am happy to let my noble friend have that. The plan helps them take the right action, at the right time, to ensure that the customer receives the support they need.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister has given us an extensive account of mental health training. I am sure she is aware of the Z2K #PeopleBeforeProcess report which looked at PIP payments. One of the respondents to the survey behind that report said that the assessor
“noted in the report that I couldn’t have mental health problems as I wasn’t rocking back and forward.”
How does the Minister account for that statement and many others in that report in the light of the training she outlined?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
All I can say to the noble Baroness is that that is obviously unacceptable. The DWP will look at that report and take action.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and we now come to the second Oral Question.
Clean Energy Transition Guidance
Baroness Blackstone
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact their document Aligning UK international support for the clean energy transition guidance, published on 31 March, will have on international fossil fuel investment; and what discussions they have had with other Governments about implementing such guidance.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The Government are grateful for the positive response from international partners to this new world-leading UK policy position. We have held productive discussions with like-minded countries on this agenda, including through our G7 presidency and broader initiatives, such as the E3F export finance coalition. It is encouraging to see an increasing number of similar commitments from key partners, such as the United States, in aligning their support towards clean energy.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s new policy ending support for overseas fossil fuel projects, but the CDC is able to make investments in financial institutions, which, in turn, will continue to make investments in fossil fuels. How are the Government going to stop public money supporting fossil fuels in this way?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness will understand that the CDC has an independent board, but its policy is fully aligned with the Government’s by excluding fossil fuel investments, except under certain tightly limited circumstances. As such, the policy excludes future investment in the vast majority of fossil fuel subsectors, including coal, oil and upstream gas exploration and production. It has invested over $1 billion of climate finance in the past three years and set a target for 30% of all new commitments, in 2021, to be on climate finance.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
The Government’s guidance states:
“Support for unabated gas fired power generation is conditional on: a country having a credible NDC”—
nationally determined contribution—
“and long-term decarbonisation pathway to net zero by 2050 in line with the Paris Agreement”.
There are other conditions. How do the UK Government reach this determination? Is this made known to companies and published before any applications for export finance support are made? Will the Government have a traffic light system for this?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
As I said, the guidance document was very tightly worded and there is a set of tightly defined criteria that must be met before any support for unabated gas power is approved. This judgment as to whether the criteria are met will be based on all available evidence sought from the relevant project sponsor, the financing institution, the partner Government and the advice of experts in the relevant department or departments. Based on this evidence, and in borderline cases with the approval of relevant Ministers, proposals will be judged either to meet the tightly defined criteria and approved or not. I am afraid I have no knowledge of the intention to introduce a traffic light system.
Lord Oates (LD)
Will the Government use the opportunity of the G7 meeting later this week and COP 26 at the end of the year to seek international support for reform of the capital requirement and Solvency II regulations, so that risk weightings relating to the funding of fossil fuel exploration and exploitation adequately reflect the macroprudential risk that such activities pose to the international financial system and the global economy as a whole, not to mention the future of the planet?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and might write to him on some of the detail. I can say that the UK is a leader in ambitious climate action, both domestically, with the most ambitious emissions-reduction target in the group, and internationally, doubling our international climate finance to £11.6 billion from 2021 to 2025. This policy decision and its swift implementation demonstrate our commitment and, over the coming months, we will work closely with like-minded partners to see similar principles adopted elsewhere. When the Prime Minister launched the UK’s presidency of COP 26 in February last year, he pledged our ambition for COP 26 to be the point where the world comes together,
“with the courage and the technological ambition to solve man-made climate change”.
We want to see our policy act as a catalyst for others, while still providing finance for the right projects in countries that desperately need power.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
My Lords, if, as we are told, power from renewables is cheaper than power from fossil fuels, would this measure not be unnecessary, since no developing country would want to build fossil fuel power stations? If, however, that assertion about the cheapness of renewables is a fib, and our policy is to reduce the supply of cheap fossil fuel power and to force countries to rely on more expensive renewables, how will this help poor countries to develop?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Solar and wind are indeed now cheaper than existing coal and gas power plants in most of the world. Investments in fossil fuels will become increasingly risky, including for developing countries. Shifting away from fossil fuels is compelling, from both a climate and an economic perspective. The priority for the UK is to support renewable energy as the default choice, enabling us to continue to support developing countries to meet their growing energy needs and increase access to electricity, in line with both the sustainable development goals and the Paris Agreement. The UK has launched the Energy Transition Council to bring together political, financial and technical leaders, but one still has to remember that 600 million of the population of Africa have no access to any electricity.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support this policy and welcome its emphasis on renewables. Will my noble friend take this opportunity to confirm that there will be a moratorium on fracking activities, either in this country or abroad, which the Government might be tempted to support? While I support helping countries urgently in need of power, it seems odd that UK Export Finance provided £47.6 million of support to build two of the largest solar plants in Spain. Will my noble friend confirm that there were no worthy projects in this country that were perhaps deprived of support from UKEF, as a result?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I can confirm to my noble friend that there is already a moratorium on fracking in the UK. I have been told that the UK also does not support international fracking. The moratorium came in following events during fracking operations at the end of 2019, and the Government confirm that we will take a presumption against issuing any further hydraulic fracking consents. This sends a clear message to the sector and to local communities that, on current evidence, fracking will not be taken forward in England. I am not sure of the exact details of the solar project in Spain, but I can confirm that export finance is given to projects where there is a significant benefit to the UK supply chain. If I have got that wrong, I will write and correct.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, in announcing the ending of support for fossil fuel projects abroad, there was mention of exceptions for some projects. I wonder whether the Minister could give a list of these or, if more appropriate, just mention a few now and write to me with a complete list.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
There are a number of exemptions from this, one of which is providing support and promoting exports that improve the efficiency, health and safety, and environmental standards of existing assets. We will also support projects that assist with the decommissioning of existing fossil fuel assets and support gas power where it is part of a credible emissions-reduction plan, in line with the Paris Agreement. This goes back to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on how we will evaluate these projects. The investment must not delay or diminish the transition of that country to renewables and there must be no risk of it becoming a stranded asset due to climate change factors.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Is it not slightly hypocritical of our Government to pontificate on this issue when they are funding, through the British taxpayer, a fossil fuel plant project in Mozambique?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The Mozambique project is one of huge controversy. It was supported by UK Export Finance in July 2020 under previous policies and would not be approved today. It has now contractually committed to that support. UKEF will continue to monitor that situation closely. All support provided by UKEF has been in line with the scope of the new policy since March, which ends new direct financial or promotional support for the fossil fuel energy sector, other than in the limited circumstances I have outlined. It aligns support with clean energy.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, one of the many exemptions to the policy is for countries that do not have a reliable or complete electricity grid—for example, Nigeria, where the UK recently invested in a gas and diesel power company. Do the Government intend to put an end date on this exemption or will we continue to support fossil fuel-generated power indefinitely?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I know that there are agreements in the policy to review it at certain intervals and I suspect that we will allow these exemptions until the next policy review. But, as I said, there are 600 million people in Africa with no access to electricity, and we cannot hold back development where we can assist by providing some form of grid or power system in the interim.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.
Destination Management Organisations
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ravensdale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role destination management organisations can have in support the recovery of the (1) national, and (2) international, visitor economy from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; and what support they are providing to such organisations.
Lord Ravensdale (CB) [V]
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in so doing, note that I am co-chair of the Midlands Engine APPG.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, in March the Government commissioned an independent review of the destination management organisations in England to look at these issues. The review is ongoing and will report later in the summer. It will make recommendations on how DMOs might best be structured and funded to support the post-Covid recovery of the tourism sector. Last year, the Government provided £2.3 million in financial support to England’s DMOs so that they could continue to carry out vital business support roles during the pandemic.
Lord Ravensdale (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for that response. Local connections and knowledge of place are key for DMOs. Does the Minister agree on the importance of community-based action for DMOs and that freedom from hierarchical structures is key in helping them undertake their role effectively—for example, freedom from the constraints inherent in local government structures and strengthening connections with LEPs, town funds and future levelling-up opportunities?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that there are several different models of DMO, but the Government recognise the point that he makes about the important role that DMOs currently play in supporting local communities, sharing their expertise and building connections across destinations. The review will consider the points he raises, taking into account current examples of best practice, and will make recommendations based on that.
Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]
My Lords, what support for the recovery of these organisations are the Government giving regarding the resulting instability of endless changing of the red, amber and green countries?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government recognise and regret the disruption to travellers, particularly those who had been planning trips to Portugal recently. We have provided £2.3 million in the last year specifically to support the destination management organisations in recognition of their crucial role.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, in this country we are very lucky to have so many museums and art galleries that are free to the public. And yet, on occasion, DMOs have included in the list of things they can do for visitors “entry into the British Museum”, et cetera. Will the Government undertake not to support any organisations that market themselves in this way?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am very happy to take the points raised by the noble Baroness back to colleagues in the department.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, local authorities deserve praise for their work during the pandemic to promote staycations: getting people to fall back in love with the great British holiday either by exploring new places in our rich and varied country or revisiting childhood destinations. Are the Government considering giving these hard-pressed councils and destination management organisations additional financial and other support, at a time when the UK desperately needs to grow domestic tourism and the hospitality industry is suffering?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that the Government have given huge support—over £25 billion—to the tourism, hospitality and leisure sectors. We made an additional grant of £425 million specifically to local authorities, making clear that tourism and events were eligible for that funding, at the discretion of local authorities.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, a recent survey of tourism businesses by the Tourism Alliance highlighted some severe staffing problems: only 18% of businesses in the tourism and hospitality sector say that they have enough staff, and almost one-third have had to reduce their capacity, services or hours because they simply cannot get the staff. What action are the Government taking with DMOs to rectify this situation, which is wrecking the recovery not just of the tourism industry but of local economies?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a good point, but the picture is slightly more complicated than the one that she paints. She is right that there are areas of shortage, but in significant portions of the industry staff are still on furlough. There are great geographic variations on that, and we are working closely with the sector to assess how we can respond to the challenges it faces.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the stronger towns funding, the future high streets fund, the levelling-up fund, the UK shared prosperity fund, the welcome back fund and the coastal community fund are being co-ordinated to provide a coherent strategy for tourism and, specifically, for seaside towns?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank my noble friend for highlighting the varied and sustained support that the Government have been offering in the range of funds that he cited, some of which have been available since 2019 and others which are yet to be launched. We are working across Whitehall and with local and regional stakeholders, including DMOs, to make sure that ongoing investment in places reflects their local priorities and needs.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, there is a question about how much the Government appreciate the important role local authorities should be playing in the visitor economy. The news of further job losses for visitor and museum staff, such as the 50% losses currently threatened in Harrogate Borough Council, is hugely worrying. Local authorities need to be given the resources to do the job intended for them.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government absolutely recognise the role that local authorities play, and, as the noble Earl is aware, they are important funders of DMOs. The review will look at the right funding structure for these organisations going forward.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that regional transport authorities have an important role to play in welcoming and facilitating both national and international tourism? I am thinking, for example, of the sorts of visitor welcome centres that Transport for London has habitually maintained at major London rail termini. Will she take steps to ensure that funding is directed at keeping these in operation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government recognise the role that regional transport authorities can play in providing information and assistance to visitors, as my noble friend has outlined, particularly when they co-ordinate that work with the DMOs. I have already mentioned the £25 billion provided to support the sector, which has been one of the worst hit; we have supported over 87% of businesses in this area.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
The Government’s support in that respect is very welcome. One of the themes of these questions is greater co-ordination between DMOs and greater co-ordination of funds. Are the Government planning a big domestic marketing campaign, given that Matt Hancock has turned us into a captive audience for domestic tourism?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We are currently working with VisitBritain, VisitEngland and local partners, including DMOs, to champion the diverse tourism offer we have in this country through the Enjoy Summer Safely campaign. We spent £19 million on domestic marketing activity last year, and much more is planned for this year.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, given that many visitors wish to see international artists, how much does the noble Baroness think this question is bound up with post-Brexit rules on touring, and the difficulty of getting artists to this country and getting our artists to other countries?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The two issues obviously have a link. Particularly for international tourism into this country, the range of events we have traditionally offered has been very important. We are obviously trying to balance that with the safety of citizens.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, in its recent submission to the Independent Review of Destination Management Organisations, the Local Government Association proposed that local councils should be given the power to reinvest the money generated by tourism into their local areas. Can the Minister comment on whether this recommendation will be supported by the Government, since local councils need to pay for the facilities to support such tourism?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I really would not want to prejudge the review’s findings. When we get those later this summer, we will respond on a way forward.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
NHS Digital: Primary Care Medical Records
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cumberlege
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the plans by NHS Digital to collect primary care medical records; and in particular, the arrangements for (1) patient consent, and (2) the sharing of patient data with third party organisations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, data saves lives. We have seen that in the pandemic, and it is one of the lessons of the vaccine rollout. The GP data programme will strengthen this system and save lives. That is why we are taking some time to make sure it is as effective as possible, so the implementation date will now be 1 September. We will use this time to talk to patients, doctors and others to strengthen the plan, to build a trusted research environment and to ensure that the data is accessed securely.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s reply, especially hearing that this is all to be put back until 1 September. That is a very good decision, because we have heard that patients have not been able to get their GP to accept the information on the form for them to opt out of the proposed system. The system is not working at the moment, and we are very concerned. There was a thought that the system would be anonymised, but that is not what is proposed. It is pseudo-anonymisation, with NHS Digital having the capacity to identify individuals. There is no capacity for people to unanonymise. It needs a really thorough rethink. I very much congratulate—
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
Could I ask the noble Baroness to ask her question?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am enormously grateful for the noble Baroness’s endorsement of our decision to delay the rollout. As the absolute epitome of the patient safety cause, she knows more than anyone the importance of data to that cause. I completely endorse the points she made.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, informed consent is at the heart of good patient care. Can the Minister tell us what plans Her Majesty’s Government have to inform patients that they have the right to opt out of having their personal medical information collected in this way? How will this be advertised?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, engagement with the Royal Colleges, the BMA and GPs on a one-to-one basis has brought about a system that has a national data opt-out and a tier 1 opt-out with GPs. This is fully explained in all our materials and there has been a campaign to raise awareness among patients. We are taking a brief pause to ensure that patients have almost as much time as they could possibly have to make the decisions they would like to make. That is a wise decision in the circumstances.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, by coincidence, I received a text from my GP surgery yesterday inviting me to click on a link if I wished to opt out of having my data shared. I do not. Does the Minister agree that data sharing plays a vital role in advancing diagnosis and cures for a range of diseases and illnesses? Of course we need to ensure that there is public trust on anonymity. Can he give us more information on that and on cybersecurity?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s anecdote. It is no coincidence that he got the text yesterday. We have energetically promoted this opportunity to patients and we are grateful to those who have engaged. He is entirely right. Patient data played a critical role in the development of the shielding list during Covid, in the recovery clinical trials programme and in the vaccine priority list. Clinical data is essential for patient safety. That is why we are modernising the system by which we access it.
Baroness Hollins (CB) [V]
My Lords, the choice on the opt-out preference form is either:
“I do not allow my identifiable patient data to be shared outside of the GP practice for purposes except my own care”,
or:
“I do allow my identifiable patient data to be shared outside of the GP practice for purposes beyond my own care.”
The big question is: what is identifiable? For some people with disability, mental health and/or trauma histories, data might be easily identifiable. I knew nothing of this until last week. I await with interest the noble Lord’s reply.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The nature of the data is very explicitly described in the documents that the noble Baroness will have referred to. If she likes, I would be very happy to send her a full set of details. Of course, many patients have engaged with the process and, like the noble Lord, Lord Young, have made the wise decision to remain enrolled in the system.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, my honourable friend Jon Ashworth called for this delay yesterday in the Commons. It is not often that we can say thank you to the Minister at such short notice, but it is very welcome that the Government have agreed to this delay. The eighth Caldicott principle—I assume that the Minister is aware of the principles—makes it clear that it is important that there are no surprises for the public around how confidential information about them is used. If GP data can be used by a third party, be they public or private, how will that principle be fulfilled?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind remarks. As she knows, there is an incredibly rigorous system for ensuring the safe curation of this data, and I pay tribute to the Caldicott Guardians, the ICO and the IGARD board, which has put in place a very tough and rigorous surveillance system to ensure that all the data sharing that goes on within the NHS complies with the legal requirements and the guidelines laid down by law and by the NHS. These are tough conditions and they are applied very rigorously.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a relief to hear that there will be a delay, but I am astonished that the Government have left it this late. When will the data protection impact assessment for this be published, and will the Minister place a copy of the DPIA in the House Library, so that Members can read NHS Digital’s own statements about the privacy risks and the impact of the programme? It might help the ICO in its deliberations about whether the system proposed is safe.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful for the question. I will look into that date and share whatever materials are available.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am fully behind the sharing of information, for the reasons that the Minister explained. But does he agree that to ensure public confidence, the Government have to do something about the current clunky opt-out approach that they have taken and make it easier, and publish the names of the companies to whom this information will be given and what they are paying for it? The Government must not hide behind commercial confidentiality. We as patients have an absolute right to know this.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the opt-out system deserves to be looked at. We are undertaking a review of the opt-out system to streamline it along the lines that he described. However, he peddles a slightly false impression. There are extremely detailed considerations in the IGARD minutes, available online—39 pages from the last meeting—which go into great detail on the arrangements for the sharing of each piece of data. On payment for the data, I remind him that—as I am sure he already knows—these are payments for costs and not payments for any kind of charge. All data is shared for very strict reasons to do with research and planning. There are no other reasons for sharing the data.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, we urgently need better flows of clinical data between different parts of the NHS, but the public are understandably anxious, given the well-publicised data leaks and thefts of recent years, and particularly given that the proposed scheme is not limited to the NHS but includes external third-party commercial enterprises. Why have the Government done so poorly at explaining to the public the need for such information flows and the health benefits that they bring? Why have they not, at least in the first instance, constrained the sharing of data more narrowly, in order to build up the necessary degree of public confidence?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I contest the premise of that question. I have not had a single complaint from anyone who has had the vaccine or been on any prioritisation list for the vaccine. Tens of millions of people have had it and they embrace the fact that their clinical data was used to roll out the vaccine. I accept the noble and gallant Lord’s point on explaining. We can do more to explain to the public. We want to engage the professions and the public in a story about how they can use their clinical data more emphatically. On the way in which the data is shared, it is already extremely tightly controlled. I would be glad to go through that with the noble and gallant Lord if that would be helpful.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
G7 Global Tax Agreement
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the announcement of the G7 global tax agreement on 5 June, whether tech companies will pay more tax in the United Kingdom after the proposed removal of unilateral digital services taxes.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the reforms agreed by the G7 countries include a global minimum tax of at least 15% and changes to profit allocation rules that mean large digital companies will pay more tax in countries where their customers are located, including the UK. The detailed design of the new rules is still under consideration, so it would be premature to provide revenue estimates. When the rules are implemented, the revenue impact will be formally assessed and certified by the OBR.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
I congratulate the Chancellor and the Government on reaching this landmark agreement. It is a positive step towards a global level playing field and an end to the unjust practice of offshoring. While this is a welcome starting point, does the Minister agree with the Chancellor’s assessment that this is a fair deal, given that the proposal now outlined clearly favours high-income countries at the expense of lower-income ones? Would it not be fairer for the Government to pursue a path on which additional tax revenues are distributed without preference being given to the countries in which multinationals are headquartered?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his words of welcome. This is indeed a significant agreement. I disagree with his assessment of what has been agreed so far. It will benefit all countries, including lower-income countries. As he will know, this is not the end of the process. A key part of this process so far and going forward is the OECD inclusive framework, which means that less economically developed countries have an equal voice in the final agreement to those that are more economically developed.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the global tax agreement is to be welcomed, despite inevitably leaving some unanswered questions. As we know, the agreement was struck among the G7—generally the most sophisticated and prosperous of Governments, with more developed tax systems. The tax avoidance industry has yet to be put loose on the detailed proposals to see how resilient they are. Concerns have already been expressed about a loophole being identified, with minimum tax applying only to profits exceeding a margin, and different business models—
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Can the noble Lord please put his question?
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab) [V]
I am sorry. The question is: so far as further implementation is concerned, what support will be given by the sophisticated economies to the less sophisticated, which might struggle with some of this?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I just said to the right reverend Prelate, the UK robustly supports the BEPS initiative being taken forward by the OECD’s inclusive framework group, which includes more than 100 jurisdictions and ensures that less economically developed countries have an equal say in developing international solutions. I assure the noble Lord that the UK Government also put resources into developing countries to help them to build the tax resources they need, so that they can ensure the effective enforcement of rules and collection of taxation.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, a lot of the attention has been on the minimum tax rate announced as part of the agreement—I hope the Government will not be tempted to go above the 15%—but more important than the rate is what will be taxed. Does the Minister agree that the UK must not allow global rules to override our freedoms to incentivise investment through things such as freeports and super-deductions?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that the UK Government’s freeports will not be affected by this announcement. Freeports are not about corporation tax directly but are designed to support a wide range of businesses with a wide range of tax offers focused on local regeneration, such as full relief from SDLT, enhanced capital and building allowances, business rates relief and NICs relief.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the US has used its might and played a blinder? Countries such as the UK will of course see increases in tax revenues under the new global corporate tax schemes, but the overwhelming winner is the US Treasury. Could a better system to benefit the UK—and indeed many other countries, including developing countries—have been devised?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I again disagree. The agreement we have reached, although only at a G7 level, is hugely significant and represents progress on work that started five years ago on this initiative but a lot longer ago under other initiatives. A key part of that work for the UK has been the inclusion of both pillars of this agreement. That is something the US had not always signed up to and is a key shift in its position from previous negotiations.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
The initiative of President Biden, supported by the G7, is very warmly to be welcomed, but a number of potential loopholes have already been exposed—for example, that this tax would not apply to profits below 10%, when it is perfectly possible for companies to manipulate their figures so that in particular countries their profits are below 10%. Are the Government committed to closing off all those loopholes, so that these big corporations really do pay their fair share of the tax?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I emphasise again that the G7 agreement was a really important milestone in progressing this international work on tax. It is only the first step towards that agreement, and there is much more detail to be worked on. The next step will take place at the G20 next month, when more details will be discussed with a wider range of countries.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I will pick up on the point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. While we all welcome the progress made, does my noble friend not agree that companies, such as Amazon in particular, will generate less than a 10% margin, mainly due to their monopolistic position, therefore avoiding the tax? Would it therefore not be sensible to retain the digital services tax and beef it up so that the tax cannot be passed on to suppliers, as is currently the case, and more importantly so that profits made on goods sold outside the marketplace are also fairly taxed?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I cannot comment on individual companies. As part of the further work we are doing, we are considering how pillar 1 will apply to groups that have different activities and business lines, some of which may meet the scoping criteria and some of which may not. Pillar 1 is designed to respond to concerns around international tax rules not adequately dealing with digital businesses generating profits in countries where they do not have physical presences. Online sales businesses are not necessarily within that. We recognise the concerns about tax treatment of online retailers; that is why we are doing other work across the tax system, such as the fundamental review of business rates. In the call for evidence we asked about the scope and potential impacts of an online sales tax, for example.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise that the Minister does not feel she is able to offer an estimate of the amount of additional tax, but could she at least give us an indication of when the additional tax might arise?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, that is also subject to ongoing negotiations, including at the G20 next month. I assure the noble Lord that the digital services tax is intended to stay in place until we have implemented the new international agreement, not just agreed it in principle, so those revenues will continue to flow.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, could my noble friend answer the question that was put previously: is it not the case that the US is the main beneficiary in tax revenues from this? Could she deal with the point about Amazon? She says she cannot deal with particular individual taxpayers, but the whole point of this measure is to deal with Amazon, which is destroying retail businesses across the country because they have to pay rates. On the digital service tax, could she confirm that Amazon reacted to it by simply passing on the 2% to its third-party retailers, and that there was no disadvantage to it at all? As my noble friend Lord Leigh has pointed out, Amazon would not be covered by this measure. How can you enter into a deal without knowing the detail in advance?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, a lot of the detail is still being worked out. However, I reassure my noble friend on a number of fronts. As part of the work on the detail of the agreement, we are considering how pillar 1 will apply to groups that might have different business lines, some of which may fall within the criteria and others outside them. I would say to both my noble friends, as indeed I did, that the agreement is designed to address specific concerns about digital companies, or companies that do not have physical presences in the countries where they have activities. We are doing other work to address concerns around online retailers; for example, I mentioned the fundamental review of business rates that the Government are currently undertaking.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister has said, these are very early days. From the information that she has given us today in reply to very specific questions, we are not sure whether we have a framework that is good, bad or indifferent. It is a bit like the curate’s egg: it is good in parts. Could she give us some idea of when the discussions will be sufficiently refined so that Chancellors of the Exchequer in national countries can begin to consider the income stream that they have to assist with their own domestic problems of fixing a budget?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I can clear up some ambiguity. The Government view the agreement that we have reached this week as completely good and in the interests not just of developed countries but of developing countries. It is a significant agreement. It is the first time that there has been G7 alignment on the core parameters of a two-pillar solution to this issue. It sets out the scope and effect of pillar 1, a minimum rate of corporation tax across the world and the application of that minimum rate on a country-by-country basis. So there is a level of detail but there is more work to do. As I have said, the next stage of that work is in July at the meeting of the G20.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]
My noble friend has rightly said that the next stage is that G20 meeting. What assessment have Ministers made, and what assessment was made at the discussions last weekend, of the likelihood of countries outside the G7 agreeing to these plans without some changes having to be made?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that this represents the basis of a potential agreement and compromise between different countries, but obviously it is important that those countries have their say and their voice in the process. The fact that this is the first time the G7 have been aligned behind a set of parameters provides important momentum but there is more work to do.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I assume the Government did some economic modelling before entering into this agreement and making a written promise to abandon the digital sales tax upon the implementation of pillar 1. If so, when will the Government publish the details of their modelling so far so that we can examine their policy in detail?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the digital sales tax was always intended to be a transitional approach. The UK Government’s preferred solution has always been an international agreement. We are only part of the way through negotiating that but the agreement reached at the weekend represents important progress.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, if tobacco taxes discourage smoking and carbon taxes discourage pollution, what do business taxes do?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, a global minimum rate of 15% will protect against multinational tax avoidance while leaving appropriate room for countries to use corporation tax as a lever to support their economic, fiscal and environmental objectives.
Lord Suri (Con) [V]
My Lords, given that there is more work to do to agree the details of this tax agreement, it is only right to remove the digital services tax once the new agreement is finalised and in place.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I can reassure a number of noble Lords that the noble Lord is correct that we will be removing the digital services tax only once we have full agreement and a plan for the implementation of a new international system. That is the position of the UK and it is supported by several other countries in the negotiations, such as France and Canada.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 8th June 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Onshore Wind Bill [HL]
Tuesday 8th June 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Onshore Wind Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Onshore Wind Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Agricultural Exports from Australia: Tariffs
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
In the UQ Answer, the Government were adamant that:
“Any deal we strike will contain protections”
and said that
“any liberalisation will be staged over time, and any agreement is likely to include safeguards”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/5/21; col. 549.]
Can the Minister now provide any details? Has any information been provided? We need to know the elements of any agreement now.
Is there any independent governance of trade deals and tariffs? Your Lordships have received any number of letters co-signed by the Minister and his counterpart in Defra; there was one dated 1 November on trade and standards. Does any parliamentarian have access to independent and expert advice when reviewing the impact of each trade deal on agriculture? Is there any impact assessment? Is there any trade and agriculture commission to provide any report? Why is there any disagreement in Cabinet? Why do the Secretary of State for Defra and the previous Secretary of State disagree? Does the Minister have any answers?
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
The noble Lord has made a number of points, but I will deal with the most significant. On the TAC, both the Agriculture Act and the Trade Act require the trade and agriculture commission to be in operation before the FTA is implemented. It is currently being established and expressions of interest to assemble the commission are out, so it will be able to report on the Australia free trade deal if it comes into effect. That report will be made available to the House. On safeguards, of course we recognise the need to reassure farmers and rural stakeholders that our market access proposals will not threaten sensitive sectors. The deal will include safeguards to defend the industry against import surges and the precise details of these are still being negotiated.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
ONS data from two weeks ago showed that the UK lost £1 billion in goods exports in just one month in January to our nearest trading partner, Ireland. This is more than the entire £900 million gain the Government are forecasting over 15 years for their agreement with Australia. The Government’s own scoping document stated:
“A trade agreement with Australia could increase UK GDP in the long run by around 0.01% or 0.02%”.
The EU scoping exercise for its own agreement with Australia in 2018 suggested 0.01% to 0.02%. Can the Minister explain why the Government are failing to secure any increase on their agreement with Australia than the UK would have had before Brexit? Why has there been such a collapse in trade with our nearest neighbour and trading partner, Ireland?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
With due respect, I do not think January can be taken as a representative month. I do not think any trends are yet fully established. As noble Lords know, there was some stopping beforehand and there was particular disruption as people got used to the new system. With regard to the Australia free trade agreement, we intend to secure reductions in tariffs on UK exports to Australia, which will save UK businesses millions of pounds. The deal will support over 15,300 business which already export goods to Australia, and I am sure the noble Lord would like to welcome this.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend accept congratulations on the fantastic work he has done on negotiating this trade deal together with Liz Truss, the Secretary of State, who seems indefatigable in her energy? Could he perhaps remind the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, of the enormous benefits this deal will bring to the Scotch whisky industry—not least in having tariff-free access to Australia, but also in opening the door to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will offer huge opportunities to Scotland’s biggest export industry?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind words, which I will certainly pass on to my colleague the Secretary of State. The noble Lord is completely right: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which this is a gateway to, will be of huge benefit to UK businesses big and small. This is something we should all welcome.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, following on somewhat from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, how will the Government include Northern Ireland in the Australian agreement if it is unlikely that the EU will accept Australian meat and phytosanitary standards?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
As noble Lords know, the Northern Ireland protocol is still subject to discussion and refinement between the parties. Clearly, Northern Ireland stands to gain in many ways from a trade agreement with Australia; for example, machinery and manufactured goods account for around 90% of all goods exported from Northern Ireland to Australia and are used extensively in Australia’s mining, quarrying and recycling sectors. These exports will certainly benefit from reduced tariffs in this deal.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as MP for Kilmarnock, the home of Johnnie Walker, I lobbied for the lifting of all tariffs on Scotch whisky, so I welcome an FTA with Australia that removes that 5% tariff—but not at the price of unfettered access on beef and lamb, which NFU Scotland says will devastate family farms and is wholly unacceptable to farmers and crofters. Bearing in mind what Brexit has done to the Scottish seafood industry, despite repeated government assurances, is Ministers’ rejection of what they say are farmers’ invalid fears based on an objective impact assessment, or is it just an alternative opinion?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, as a fellow whisky drinker, I share the noble Lord’s sentiments. Fears about a flood of cheap imports affecting our agricultural sector are, with due respect, overstated. Australia, of course, is a much smaller market than the EU so we expect low volumes with high standards. For example, we currently import 250,000 tonnes of beef each year, with 91% coming from the EU and 190,000 tonnes from Ireland alone. Less than 1% of Australian beef exports come to the UK market. Even if that figure was to increase, as we expect it will, it will still not dent these much larger figures from the European Union.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered farming links. Is the Minister aware that the president of the Farmers’ Union of Wales, Glyn Roberts, has written to the Prime Minister stating that if Welsh farmers were to employ the land and management practices commonplace in Australia they would face prosecution or even imprisonment? Michael Gove has previously stated that importing meat in such circumstances represented a red line that would not be crossed. Why have the Government betrayed that pledge?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I am not familiar with the letter the noble Lord refers to, but I will make sure to study it after this Question. As I said earlier, we do not believe that this deal will mean a flood of cheap imports. We will use a range of tools to defend British farming. I want to emphasise the opportunities that this deal will give to British farmers in terms of their exports, whether they are large or small and whichever part of the United Kingdom they come from.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, we do not reduce tariffs on imported food as a favour to Australia, we do so as a favour to ourselves—which may incidentally happen to benefit some Australian exporters. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that reducing the cost of food makes everybody better off, especially people on low incomes for whom the food bill is the highest proportion of the monthly budget? In doing so, this gives us more money to spend on other things and thereby stimulates the whole economy.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, as ever my noble friend encapsulates precisely the advantages of free trade agreements and I thank him for that.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this trade agreement contains an ISDS mechanism, which provides private corporations with the right to bypass the laws and courts of both parties. During the passage of the Trade Bill, the Minister confirmed government support for reforms to the ISDS through the UN Commission on International Trade Law’s proposals for a multilateral investment court. Can he update us on progress?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, the precise details of the UK-Australia free trade agreement are a matter for ongoing negotiations. In respect of ISDS, the UK Government consider the inclusion of ISDS provisions in FTAs on a case-by-case basis and in light of the unique UK-Australia investment relationship. We are huge investors in each other’s markets and appropriate ISDS will benefit investors on both sides.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many noble Lords are absolutely thrilled at the announcement that this deal is about to be agreed? If we are to grant the European Union unfettered tariff- and quota-free access to the United Kingdom market, what possible objection could there be to allowing the same to Australia—an advanced, civilised country with high standards? There can be no objection at all. Does my noble friend agree that if the National Farmers’ Union continues to resist every change consequent on Brexit in such a curmudgeonly fashion, it will be losing and forfeiting opportunities for its own farmers and members to export throughout the world and, in this case, to Australia?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is completely right. We should all recognise that British beef and lamb are among the best in the world and the Australia-UK FTA will bring new export opportunities to British farmers. We should be proud that the UK produces high-quality premium produce that is globally sought after. A deal with Australia is a gateway to joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership and there will be a growing demand for UK meat in these markets.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Covid-19: Government Handling and Preparedness
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, research released for Carers Week makes sobering reading. During the pandemic, 72% of carers have had no break whatever and, of those few who have had a break, many used the time for housework or their own medical appointments. With the risk of a third wave still a cause for anxiety, what plans are in place, or indeed in development, to ensure that unpaid carers can have restorative breaks and that their needs are at the heart of the Government’s plan for social care reform?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I absolutely join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to all carers, particularly unpaid carers, who have shouldered a huge burden in the past 18 months. The role that they have played has been a real example of the sense of service and commitment that characterises the social care community in this country. We have put in place a large amount of resources through local authorities and payments to local authorities to support carers. That has helped in infection control and to reduce the itinerant nature of some social care in order to prevent the spread of the disease. But it is undoubtedly true that the burden on unpaid carers remains immense, and we continue to support, both through local authorities and through charities, the work that they do.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, in the national Carers Week, it is worth remembering that the 2017 report on Exercise Cygnus said:
“Local responders also realised concerns about the expectation that the social care system would be able to provide the level of support needed if the NHS implemented its proposed reverse triage plans.”
It also recommended that local support should be developed and planned for social care and health. Was that recommendation put into practice? Were the concerns expressed by local responders borne out last year? Will the Government now publish their internal review of pandemic preparedness to ensure that the lessons have been truly learned?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is entirely right. It was known at the very beginning and it was clearly understood that those in social care—and those who support those in social care—were in the gravest possible danger in such a pandemic, and we were focused from the beginning on giving them the right amount of support. The Cygnus report correctly identified that, and that was why we put provisions for social care into our action plan from the very beginning. It is unfortunately a truism that those who are most vulnerable are, I am afraid, at greatest risk from such a pandemic, and those who support the vulnerable will shoulder a huge burden. That is why we have put in a large amount of resources to support those people and why, when the inquiry comes, we will undoubtedly focus on how we can improve those processes.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I will move on to another point. At the end of May, Portugal was deemed safe to host the Champions League final; five days later, it was not, despite 100,000 tests by the authorities with only six positives. This caused tens of thousands of people and businesses horrendous disruption and distress. Will my noble friend, on my behalf, kindly remind the Secretaries of State for health and transport that using emergency powers with no debate and with both Houses not sitting yet again is wholly unacceptable and can no longer be tolerated?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely share my noble friend’s frustration at the situation. Of course we all enormously regret the fact that our efforts to open up international travel were unfortunately reversed because of the presence of dangerous variants of concern in the Portuguese community—in this case, particularly the Nepal variant of concern. However, I cannot agree with her that quick decisions based on accurate data are not appropriate in the depths of a pandemic. It is absolutely right that we move quickly to close down a change of transmission and that we protect the vaccine from variants that may present a severe danger to this massive national project.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, this is rather relevant to the previous question: how many additional Covid cases in the UK were caused by the delay in closing our borders to travel from India after we knew about the new variant? Is the Minister making representations to the Prime Minister and appealing that no such delay should occur again as variants emerge in different countries across the world, to protect the health of the people of the UK?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether I have the data that the noble Baroness has asked for. I also contest the premise of her question. We have moved extremely quickly when presented with clear data, as my noble friend rightly pointed out, and I hardly need go over the timelines for the decisions around Pakistan, Bangladesh and India, which have been gone over many times indeed. I reassure the noble Baroness that we are absolutely determined, at this delicate phase of the pandemic, to ensure that our borders are extremely tough and that we do whatever we can to keep the variants out. At the same time, we are cognisant that people do have commitments overseas and we are leaning, wherever we possibly can, to opening up the borders.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister recall the independent review by Dame Deirdre Hine, presented to the coalition Government in 2011, which said:
“The planning for a pandemic was well developed, the personnel involved were fully prepared, the scientific advice provided was expert, communication was excellent”?
She reported on the exceptional level of preparedness the UK had attained. Why, by 2020, had all that careful preparation by our Labour Government been so catastrophically eroded, despite the fact that the pandemic remained top of HMG’s risk register?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure that any Government, even the Labour Government in the noble Lord’s time, could claim to have some kind of forecasting ability that could possibly have predicted the precise shape and impact of this pandemic. Even now there are things about this virus that we do not know. At the beginning, in January, February and March, the precise features of this virus were not fully understood, and it was not possible to prepare for this particular pandemic in its precise shape and nature. To pretend otherwise is doing this House a disservice.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I will follow on from that. The Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces are often accused of being prepared for the last war rather than the next one. In truth it is impossible to be ready for the next war unless, of course, you intend to start it. The best you can achieve within finite resources is to be ready for “a” war, not “the” war. You must then adjust what is inevitably a generic preparedness to meet a specific set of circumstances. Might the department of health’s preparedness for a global pandemic be more sympathetically viewed if this important subtlety were better explained and better understood? Might the criticisms that are made therefore be more objectively assessed as those that are fair and those that, frankly, are somewhat vacuous?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we will need to wait for the inquiry for a thorough post-mortem on what was or was not thoroughly prepared for. It is fair to say that the developed nations of the world had invested a huge amount in modern clinical medicine, yet that did not serve to prepare us for the precise circumstances of a respiratory pandemic. I pay tribute not only to those in the public health profession but to those in the military, who did so much and moved so quickly to deliver the kind of protection that this country has benefited from during the pandemic.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, when the pandemic hit this country, one of the reasons we were so badly hurt was the shortage of intensive care beds, the number of which had been run down progressively for many years, despite the World Health Organization pointing out the inherent dangers in that. So could the Minister say, without waiting for the inquiry, what our policy on intensive care beds is now?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness probably knows, we are investing hugely in new hospital capacity, but I would question whether it was simply the lack of ICU beds that was at the heart of the challenge. The truth is that this was a virus that hit our population massively, and even if we had had double the number of ICU beds, we would have been hard hit and could not have avoided the kind of NPIs that eventually stopped the virus in its tracks. Modern medicine can do many things, but it cannot fight a virus from the wardroom.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for this update today and congratulate him on yet another long stint at the Dispatch Box.
We face some uncertainty, as we often have throughout the past 15 months, but we know the delta variant is now the dominant variant in the UK; we know that 73% of delta cases are in unvaccinated people; we know that one dose offers less protection against this variant; and we know that, although hospitalisations are low, an increase in hospitalisations will put significant pressures on the NHS as it tries to deal with the care backlog. We also know, of course, that long Covid is significant and debilitating for so many people. As the Statement makes clear, this is a race between the vaccine and the new variant. I therefore invite the Minister to narrow the timeframe between the first and second dose, given that we know that one dose is not as protective as we would like. We have seen that Wales will be vaccinating everyone who is over 18 from next week. Could the Minister tell us when England will follow?
We all know about the outbreaks among schoolchildren and young people. We know that children can transmit the virus and that children can be at risk of long Covid. In that context, why is mask wearing no longer mandatory in secondary schools? It is good that the JCVI will be looking at vaccination for children. Could we please know the timeframe for when the JCVI will report?
I turn to Nepal. UK Ministers justified the decision to move Portugal from green to amber in the travel list owing to the threat of the new Nepal Covid variant—a mutation of the delta variant—which experts believe may have the potential to make vaccines less effective. Some 23 cases of the Nepal variant have been detected in the UK, up to 3 June. Can the Minister confirm whether these cases are all associated with travel, particularly from Portugal?
In this, Carers Week, from these Benches we join the Minister in paying tribute and are grateful to the 6.5 million people who are carers. Making caring visible and valued is the aim, and this year of all years we need to support them in doing so. Our carers across the country have faced huge challenges during the pandemic; three-quarters of them confess to being exhausted, and a third confess to feeling unable to manage their caring responsibilities.
I am sure the Minister has already read the report produced by the Commons Health and Social Care Committee which addresses the issue of NHS and care staff in England being so burned out that it has become an emergency that risks the future of the health service. This is a highly critical report which said that workers are exhausted and overstretched because of staff shortages. It said that the problems existed before the pandemic, although coronavirus has made the pressures worse. It reports that one of the main problems is that there was no accurate forecast of how many staff the NHS needed for the next five to 10 years—something that we know as “workforce planning.” NHS workers, traumatised and exhausted, need to know there is a solution on its way to fix staff shortages. When will there be an NHS and social care workforce plan? How will the Government respond to the urgent situation that this report reveals? How will the NHS stop the haemorrhaging of its staff, which is already happening?
Combined with all this is the fact that we know that the NHS estate is in urgent need of attention and investment, and so Labour is today calling for a new rescue plan. Data also reveals the scale of the pressure on hospitals before the pandemic and how much worse it is now. Freedom of information requests show that the pressure on A&E was already very serious, with waits in ambulances jumping by 44% in the year preceding the pandemic. We know that the underfunding of the NHS, and the unpreparedness of the UK for a pandemic, has been paid for by people’s lives and by the exhaustion of our NHS. Surely these things call for a long-term NHS rescue plan, with the staff, equipment and modern hospital facilities that we deserve.
I turn briefly to the issue of data again. I record that I welcome the delay in proceeding with this proposal from the Government, but I think the Minister and the Government need to address the transparency that is vital around two things. The first is that somebody should be able to retrieve their data if they want to and pull it back; and the second is that, if their data is being used by a third party, they need to know who that party is, what the data might be used for and who benefits from that. My contention has been, for many years from this side of the House, that NHS data is a gigantic asset that we have that can be used to benefit the world, but we need to make sure that it is the NHS that benefits from the sale of our data—not private sector companies or individuals but our NHS.
Finally, I recently visited the Covid memorial wall myself. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has visited the wall of red hearts that we have opposite Parliament. The Covid memorial wall is immensely moving and a poignant reminder of the scale of loss that we as a country have experienced. Does the Minister believe that the wall should become a permanent memorial? If not, what should be a permanent memorial of the loss that we have sustained?
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I also want to thank the Minister for his long stint at the Dispatch Box, yet again.
I want to start with the issue about consultation on NHS Digital patient data, which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, just alluded to. In 2013, the Government wrote to every household to explain the care.data project. This new scheme has had no such communication with the public. As people hear about it, they are increasingly concerned about the breadth of data that will be captured. Will the Minister agree to use the delay to ensure that every adult in England is written to as a matter of urgency, including an opt-out form they can use if they so choose?
I also want to pay tribute to our health workers and carers—paid carers and especially the unpaid carers—who have gone not just the extra mile over the last 14 months but a whole marathon. Can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to help the exhausted staff and carers who know that there are many miles still to go before we are through this? Help is needed right now for them in an emergency plan that does not just focus on getting back to work as normal.
The Minister is right to say in the Statement that there is no room yet for complacency. The delta variant will not be the last variant trying to wriggle between those who are protected and those who are not. We are concerned that there is not a focus on communicating to the public about how we need to find a way to live with Covid circulating, as my noble friend Lord Scriven said yesterday. We have moved into Covid being endemic, and the public will want and need to know what they should do over the next few months.
Communication about the vaccine figures is cheering to hear, but still too many Ministers talk about the one-dose level, not the two. The Minister in the Lords, to his credit, usually make that point, but the Prime Minister and many other Cabinet Ministers do not make it clear that we need 90%-plus of adults to have had two doses before we are anywhere near safe, and that social distancing, mask wearing and hand washing will still need to happen.
I thank the Minister for giving more information yesterday on the isolation support pilots. He said:
“In Blackburn and Bolton, this will include trialling broadening eligibility during surge testing, so that all those who are required to self-isolate, who cannot work from home and earn under £26,000, receive a £500 payment.”—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. GC 202.]
That is still only £50 a day if you are expected to self-isolate. If you are told to isolate on a Monday, and usually work nine to five, this works out at £7.81 per working hour—less than the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is the very minimum that the Government believe an individual can live on, why are they paying less than this to people for doing the great public good of self-isolating? What about people who work in risky occupations and have been told to isolate multiple times over the last year? For them, it is not just one period of 10 days.
From these Benches, we believe that the Government need to pay people’s wages. Now that fewer people should be required to self-isolate, as community cases are lower, we should be diverting resources to really get right what the Government have been getting wrong all along. We must stop Covid in its tracks. Examples from other countries show that paying wages has a strong and demonstrable effect.
On international travel, the red terminal at Heathrow is an improvement, but there are still issues with those arriving from amber countries, who are asked to jump on public transport to get home and need to travel in various ways before they are tested, once in this country.
Given the increase in cases of the delta variant among primary-age pupils, would the Minister outline what measures are being taken to prevent transmission in schools? When will the JCVI report on vaccines for 12 to 17 year-olds? Are any plans beginning to consider whether vaccination should happen for the under 12s? We strongly echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about mask wearing in schools. Is this really the right time to stop that happening?
Finally, I note that the consultation on vaccine and testing certificates has closed. Will the Minister say when the Government will publish their plans following that consultation? What type of legislation will be brought in on this, and will Parliament be able to see and comment on any regulation prior to it being enacted?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am thankful, as ever, to both noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, for thoughtful and challenging questions. I will try to deal with as many as I can.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about the narrowing of doses. May I remind her that for those classed as vulnerable and those aged over 50, the dose period has been narrowed from 12 weeks to eight weeks. We are giving some latitude in the areas of special enforcement for the narrowing of the doses. I completely endorse her points on that and reassure her that plans are afoot. As for moving the age group to those aged over 18, our instincts are that the JCVI prioritisation process has worked extremely well. It is clear, it is fair and it has been effective. In conversation with those at the G7, I received a huge amount of admiration from other countries for how well that prioritisation process has gone. Therefore, we are reluctant, at this very late stage, to jump the gun on that, but I take her point that particularly those in areas where the infection rate is ticking up may benefit from early vaccination. Therefore, we constantly look at and review that point.
As for vaccination of children in schools, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, as they know, the MHRA has given its approval. The ball is now in the JCVI court. We are going to wait for it to pronounce. The state of our vaccine supplies means that we do not have a supply for children at hand right now, so there is scope for a really thoughtful conversation on that. When the JCVI has pronounced, the Government will engage on its recommendations, but I do hear, loud and clear, the obvious support that it has in this House.
As for the Nepal variant, I cannot say exactly how much of it came from Portugal, but it is true that it was present in the UK before Portugal was green-listed, so I think it is fair to say that not all of it came from there.
Moving on to NHS staff, I completely pay tribute to the contribution of NHS staff and those who work to support the NHS, social care and public health. I recognise completely the picture painted by the noble Baroness: many feel exhausted and burned out. Our focus is therefore on recruitment and the recruitment of more GPs and nurses is going extremely well. I would be happy to share updated statistics on that if it would be helpful. The work plan—the NHS People Plan—has within it a clear outline of the kind of workforce planning that we have in place. That is something that the recruitment programme has fully embraced.
I agree that the pressures on A&E, and on acute late-stage interventions from the NHS, have been rising for years—for decades. This is an unsustainable model in the long run, which is why this Government are fully committed to the prevention agenda. We have put in place plans for the Office for Health Promotion. That will be the device for using data to support our prevention agenda, and we will be working particularly with local authorities, and increasingly through the NHS, to ensure that we are putting in place measures that improve the nation’s health and that we do not just focus on those who are already extremely ill.
Moving on to data, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind comments. I completely agree that transparency is absolutely right. We want to be as transparent as possible, with both the professions and the public. These are complex issues. I accept that we could do better to improve our communications. We will be using this two-month hiatus as energetically as we can to engage the public and the professions in the changes that we are bringing about. They are changes that are absolutely essential for any modern use of data to promote resource allocation—when it comes to the workforce, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out—and for research. I really would encourage all noble Lords who are interested in this to look at the minutes of IGARD. Noble Lords will see exactly which data uses are being sanctioned, and will be amazed by the extremely high-level, science-led research programmes that the GP data is contributing to. It will reassure noble Lords that this is an extremely well guarded and thoughtful process, and a massive asset to the nation. I agree with the noble Baroness that our data is a huge national asset; it is there to benefit patients and is mainly used for clinical trials and for planning within the NHS. That is right and I can reassure her that that is the way we intend to continue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about mental health support for care workers and NHS staff. I reassure her that we have put in a huge amount of support for NHS staff: 10,300 calls have been made to the helpline, there have been 4,600 conversations on the national line and 200,000 downloads of the app, and 500,000 have engaged through the web page. The provision of mental health support for NHS staff has been extremely helpful for those stressed by the last few months, but we continue to invest in that area.
I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that those receiving isolation payments are still eligible for their benefits. They will get support from housing benefit and other benefits if they qualify.
The noble Baroness asked about schools. The use of testing to protect schools has been one of the phenomenal success stories of this pandemic. There have been 65 million tests deployed since January, and a million tests were deployed on Sunday alone. That is both to break any chains of transmission within schools and to protect the opening of schools, which every parent in the country knows is an essential objective of our pandemic response.
On certification, we are making an enormous amount of progress. That is a Cabinet Office lead. When the plans have been crystallised, they will be published, and I am extremely hopeful that we will be able to make progress.
Lastly, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned the memorial wall. I am aware of it and have seen very moving pictures. I have not yet visited the wall, but I will take this prompt to go. While I am not across the future plans for the wall, I am grateful for the suggestion and will take it up.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, could the Government try to get back the initiative so that we are talking about a health service and not constantly talking about Covid? I have some numbers: 114 people are in hospital with the delta variant. Of those, 83 are unvaccinated, 28 have had one dose and just three have had two doses—114 in total. This morning, the cancer support unit released some new figures: referrals are down by 350,000 over the year, there is a backlog of 40,000 new patients, and the survival rate is back to 2010 levels. We have this completely out of kilter, and it is largely because the Opposition are obsessed with it. I ask the Minister to go back to the department and try to reclaim the huge tragedy of unmet need in the National Health Service that has built up because we have done nothing but prosecute Covid. We have to learn to live with it.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely understand my noble friend’s concerns, but I do not accept that we have done nothing. It is quite wrong to suggest that the NHS has done nothing but Covid. In fact, I am incredibly impressed by how well services have been maintained during an extremely difficult period. Were he to join clinicians in the NHS or the department, he would know that there is a laser-like focus on catching up. I remind him that there were 1.86 million urgent referrals and over 470,000 people receiving cancer treatment between March 2020 and January 2021—that is not doing nothing. An extra £1 billion is being used to boost diagnosis and treatment across all areas of elective care. On 25 March, NHS England published its 2021-22 priorities and operational planning guidance, and there is a Minister-led group under Minister Ed Argar, which is absolutely focused on the restart in cancer care in particular. I reassure my noble friend that there is a focus on this, and we are doing everything we can to get through the incredibly important backlog of work that needs to be done.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Statement confirms that a continued increase in vaccinations is essential to defeat the new delta variant, which has now become dominant. I believe it is the six-month anniversary of the first vaccination, so I congratulate the noble Lord on the progress so far. Has he considered consulting behavioural scientists about what incentives might create a greater vaccine take-up, as has happened to some extent in the United States? Also, there are still many vaccine sceptics out there who are influenced by conspiracy and other ridiculous scare stories propagated deliberately on social media. Can the noble Lord reinforce the Government’s message with a campaign to vaccinate for victory on the very same platforms that are carrying the negative messages?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments. Yes, we are engaged with behavioural scientists, but I reassure him that lotteries for vaccines are not on the cards. Taking vaccines into communities has proved an extremely effective measure. I led a call with council leaders in the north-west—from Lancashire and Greater Manchester—and there I heard about the effective use of small mobile units and tents to bring vaccination teams into either religious or community settings to make it easier to get a vaccine. That simple measure appears to be a really winning formula, and one that we are investing in in a very big way.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I echo my noble friend Lord Balfe’s figures on Covid-19 hospitalisations: of the 114 people in hospital, just three had received both doses of vaccine. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the best approach the Government can follow is to continue with an urgent and comprehensive vaccination programme—with the further easing of restrictions secondary to the goal of a successful national vaccination campaign—using, not least in local communities, positive influences in communities wherever possible? Will he also accept the thanks of the Olympic and Paralympic athletes for the positive approach the Government and the International Olympic Committee have taken to ensure that athletes and their support staff will be vaccinated before leaving for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am extremely grateful for my noble friend’s comments on the Olympics, and we wish our Olympic champions all the best luck. We keep our fingers crossed for Tokyo, under very difficult circumstances. On the vaccination programme, he is entirely right: positive influences are key. It has been interesting that the positive influences we think have made the biggest impact are not necessarily only the celebrities—they are community influencers who work in clinical settings and are present at a grass-roots level in communities. That is why a large volume of videos, endorsements, community meetings and answering quite reasonable, but sometimes very sensitive, questions from the public have been the essence of our vaccination communications programme. It seems to be extremely successful: the younger age groups seem to be stepping up for the vaccine in proportions that we could not have believed possible some months ago, and we hope very much that this will continue.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, my 13 year-old son is a chorister at Truro Cathedral, where they have composed a song, “Gee Seven”, which 25,000 children across this country and others will sing online to G7 leaders tomorrow. He says the thing that they want most is for the parents and grandparents of children in poorer countries that have not had access to vaccines to get the access that parents and grandparents have had in this country, so that those other children can feel safe about their families. Will the Minister and his colleagues think about that before vaccinating teenagers in this country, who are not at great risk? The COVAX programme is currently 192 million doses short of its targets for supporting poorer countries. Incidentally, if that is not enough morally, he might also consider that so long as we are not successfully vaccinating in these poorer countries, the chances of new and more dangerous variants coming to this country and causing deaths again are all the more likely.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord points out a dreadful dilemma that is on our minds all the time. I completely agree with his point that supporting those in the developing world is a priority and responsibility for those of us in the developed world. His son is entirely right that we should be thinking very much of those who are vulnerable or in urgent need as we consider our vaccination programme. But our responsibility as a Government is to the British people. We must look after the British people first, and there is no benefit to anywhere in the world if Britain comes close to shaking off this awful virus but falls over at the last minute because we have not seen the job through. We intend to support COVAX in the way he describes—in particular, the manufacturing of the vaccine in regional hubs. There, the AstraZeneca and Oxford vaccine has played a critical role. The profit-free availability and generous licensing arrangements being offered by AstraZeneca are having a huge impact on the global rollout of the vaccine. In the meantime, we are absolutely driving through the vaccine programme here in the UK, in the knowledge that, if Britain can emerge safely, that is of benefit not only to British taxpayers and patients but to the whole world.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I remind your Lordships’ House of my interest as Deputy Colonel Commandant Brigade of Gurkhas. I thank my noble friend for his part in ensuring the Government’s swift response to the plea for help from Nepal in the delivery of some essential medical supplies. But there is one element missing: vaccines. Given that the Government have committed, via the COVAX consortia, to deliver 2 million vaccines to Nepal, and given that my noble friend has just said that vaccinating the developing world is a priority, I simply ask him why the UK cannot deliver those 2 million doses of vaccine bilaterally now and simply net them off our contribution to COVAX in future.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for his advocacy on behalf of Nepal; we are all extremely moved by the stories from Nepal and the challenge that it has had from Covid. We are extremely supportive of his initiative for both medical supplies and the vaccine but, as I said, there is a sequencing challenge here. Our priority as a Government is the British people. It is important that we see the job through. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out, there is a threshold to which we need to get the British public to ensure that the R rate remains below one and that the new India variant, or any other variant, does not run amok and drive up hospitalisation in the UK. Until we have reached that point, we must focus on the job at hand. In the meantime, and in parallel, we are doing absolutely everything we can to grow global manufacture of the vaccine and ensure that countries such as Nepal receive secure and reliable supply. My noble friend should be reassured that we are absolutely firm in that commitment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, we have often heard it said that we will not all be safe until the whole world is safe. Today, UNICEF, the children’s charity, is lobbying the G7 Ministers, asking for an ongoing distribution of vaccines to poor and developing countries, rather than supplying surplus vaccines at the end of our programme, because they may not be able to use them in the best possible way at that stage. Will the Minister, further to the answers he has already given, go back to his ministerial colleagues and the Prime Minister and urge them to please undertake that global vaccination programme, along with other G7 countries, now? The WHO said yesterday that inequitable vaccination is a threat to all nations.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely endorse the sentiments of the noble Baroness and can absolutely reassure her that this is top of the agenda for the G7 leaders’ meeting later this week. The Prime Minister will absolutely be ramming home the message that she put extremely well. Roughly 1 billion vaccinations have been done around the world so far; that leaves another 7 billion or 8 billion to do. We need manufacturing on a scale that the world simply does not have today to see that job through. That is why the UK has contributed so much through the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is a wonderful, portable, cheap and flexible platform for creating vaccines for the world. We are ensuring that that magic source is available to all those who can contribute vaccine manufacturing capacity anywhere in the world. In the meantime, we will ensure that any capacity that we have after we have done the British public is made available, but we have to see the job through here in the UK. It would be utterly counterproductive if the UK, having got so far, tripped over at the last hurdle.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, having spent much of the Whitsun Recess trying to do my best to support the beleaguered hospitality sector in west and north Yorkshire, two messages rang out loud and clear: first, the problems that many establishments are facing with staff shortages, in part due to Covid restrictions, which are affecting levels of service; and, secondly, the absolute calamity for many establishments if the lifting of Covid restrictions is delayed beyond 21 June. Can my noble friend therefore assure the House that, in taking what I accept are finely balanced decisions about lifting restrictions, the plight of our hospitality sector and the livelihoods of those who work in it will be properly considered?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I pay tribute to those in the hospitality and related sectors—both those who manage and those who work in it. It has been one of the toughest aspects of this awful pandemic to see these valued and important industries really hammered by the closures that have been necessary to stop the transmission of this awful disease. I hear my noble friend’s message absolutely loud and clear. We are on the final slopes of this journey. We want to ensure that, when we open, we stay open and there is no yo-yoing. That is why we are committed to looking at the data in the run-up to 21 June. His point is extremely well made, and we will definitely take it on board.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and, in doing so, pay my respects to all carers, particularly those unpaid carers, without whom many more may have perished. I have two points. First, how are the Government encouraging GPs and hospitals to monitor and collect information on patients who may be concerned about or reporting long Covid symptoms without knowing it, and those who may be complaining of or experiencing post-vaccination effects? Secondly, now that the JCVI recommendation is being considered for vaccination of 12 to 15 year-olds, the Minister will be fully aware of the major concern aired by parents—who are all over the radio, with their views and questions—feeling confused about informed choices. Can the Minister assure all parents that, if vaccination is approved, they will be given the fullest information available on the potential side-effects, and that no parent who may choose to opt out of the vaccination for this age group will be pressured or demonised?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness for raising in the same breath the importance of secure data arrangements and the question of what we are doing on long Covid, because we could not do what we are doing on long Covid if we did not have access to GP records. The truth is that we are doing an enormous amount. Long Covid, as the noble Baroness knows, is touching more than 1 million patients here in the UK. We have got NICE to take steps to put in place a really clear clinical definition. The NHS has mobilised Covid-specific clinics, which we acknowledge are under pressure but which are an extremely valuable resource for understanding this dreadful condition. NIHR has mobilised research resources, and I pay particular tribute to Great Ormond Street and its CLoCk research project, which is looking at long Covid among children—something which of course concerns us all. Lastly, the royal colleges have done an enormous amount to present both new data and training tools to their members and to feedback information from the front line. Long Covid will be one of the lasting and most concerning aspects of this dreadful pandemic, but we are putting everything we can into dealing with the consequences.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, may I once again raise with my noble friend an issue that I have been returning to for some months now? When are we going to ensure that all those who attend to the most intimate needs of residents of care homes are vaccinated? There are still far too many who have refused vaccination; it should be a condition of employment that they are vaccinated. My noble friend has indicated sympathy with this point of view, but nothing has yet been done.
While I am on my feet, as we have plenty of time and we are allowed to raise two points, why was the advice to choral societies changed after 17 May? Suddenly, 2 million singers and 40,000 choirs can only rehearse with six people indoors. This has caused enormous distress and the cancellation of many performances. It has damaged morale in places such as Lincoln very significantly.
Lord Bethell
I pay tribute to my noble friend. He was an early bird in championing the vaccination of social care workers. He has made his point clearly and has definitely influenced policy in this area. I would like to reassure him that it is simply not the case that nothing has been done. A review is going through the matter at the moment. This is not something, I am afraid, that could be implemented by government fiat; it is important that we go through the process, not least to maintain people’s trust. One of the aspects of the successful vaccine rollout is that we have not behaved abruptly. We have not sought to admonish or to demonise anyone who is hesitant about taking the vaccine. Instead, we have sought to engage, and that is the reason why we are going through an extremely thorough review and engagement programme. I completely understand my noble friend’s frustration that this cannot be done more quickly, but I would like to reassure him that, on balance, this is the way in which to get the task done in the most impactful and effective way that we can think of.
On choral societies, I completely sympathise with my noble friend’s point. I was at Garsington Opera on Sunday, and my spirits were lifted by the sound of the singing in that wonderful place. I have only the assessment of the PHE officials to hand; it has become clear that the dangerous presence of aerosols in the air has been the really effective transmission mechanism for this dreadful disease. It is just an unavoidable and inescapable truth that people singing their heads off will fill a room with loads of infectious aerosol, and that is the reason why this decision has been made. It is regrettable, and I understand the consequences and I have been contacted by many who are concerned and affected by it. But I would like to reassure my noble friend that it has been done for the best reasons and for, I believe, very strong scientific reasons.
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pinnock
That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England) (Amendment) Order 2021, laid before the House on 31 March, be annulled because it introduces a significant policy change without being subject to sufficient parliamentary scrutiny; it affects the ability of communities to have a say in important changes to their local areas; and it does not present an effective or sustainable solution to the housing crisis (SI 2021/428).
Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2019-21 (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a member of Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I thank the Minister for taking part in this debate. I am sure he will give a clear explanation of what he believes this piece of secondary legislation will do. However, until today, none of these significant changes has been the subject of political debate either in this House or in the other place. As a negative instrument, this piece of secondary legislation would have sailed into law without any further ado. My colleagues and I between us have extensive experience of planning matters, particularly as they impact individuals and local communities. We believe that legislating for significant changes to planning law in this way, by stealth and without public scrutiny, is totally inappropriate in a democracy.
The report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew this conclusion:
“Given that the changes made by this Order are permanent and may have a considerable impact on high streets and the development of key infrastructure, such as schools, colleges, universities, prisons and ports, the instrument again raises the question whether it would have been more appropriate to make these changes in a Bill, enabling Parliament to scrutinise the changes and their potential impact more fully. This is particularly apposite as the instrument also puts the Government’s approach to protecting historic statues, including those which may be controversial, on a statutory footing.
This Order is drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that it is politically or legally important and gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.”
I concur completely.
Those are the reasons why I have tabled a fatal Motion against this statutory instrument. To be clear, I am not opposed to the process enabled by the general permitted development order, which permits some planning changes without a full planning application process. The process of permitted development has been successfully used for some time. The Government, though, have gradually increased the number of planning changes that can be made without full local consideration of the impact on communities. With this SI, there is a considerable extension of permitted development rights to include, for instance, major extensions to schools and prisons. Permitted development explicitly removes the right of the voice of local people, often those directly affected, to be heard and considered. People care deeply about the place they live in and want to be able to voice an opinion.
This instrument permanently extends permitted development rights in four further ways. There is an extension of the right to change shops, offices and commercial buildings to residential use. This has been enabled by the changes made by an SI last year that altered the planning use classes, whereby all shops except small local ones, offices, cafes, gyms and some commercial properties were moved to the same planning use class and thus more easily given permitted development rights to move to residential use.
Some minor caveats are proposed. Prior approval of the local planning authority has to be given in some instances. Those relate to noise and transport impact—but just those related to rights of access—and ensuring space standards and even adequate light. Who would have thought that that needed to be controlled? Of course, it is good to regenerate town centres by enabling more residential use. Some of us have been arguing that for several years but this order is not the way to go. Shop fronts could be changed to residential and the cohesive attraction of a high street completely lost. These changes are permanent and apply equally to conservation areas, which have special protection under planning law. A full planning application would enable such issues to be more readily and openly resolved.
In a further insult to leaseholders who are currently fighting the Government’s complete intransigence on safeguarding them from developers’ fire safety failings, the Government note that prior approval to consider fire safety issues will not be part of the instrument and will be added later. Fire safety as regards changes to residential use is seen as an afterthought. Yet, changing offices to residential use will have considerable implications for fire safety.
The instrument also enables schools, colleges, universities and prisons to expand by as much as 25%. That is a large extension for, say, an average high school of 1,000 pupils. Just think of the consequences in terms of traffic and, more importantly, school admission planning. Growth in one school is often at the expense of another, which is harmed as a consequence. The idea that this huge change can be made less bad by submitting a travel plan that is unenforceable, which it is hoped will be sufficient to quell the anger of local people at a significant rise in school traffic, cannot be and is not a serious proposition.
Port facilities can be built and extended just by saying so. There will be no consideration for local people and certainly no opportunity for them to have their say.
Meanwhile, in the fourth part of this statutory instrument, statues and monuments are being protected by the requirement for a full planning application and for the Secretary of State to be informed of any changes. Statues to the respected and the notorious are to be fully protected but the rights of people to have their say on major changes in their communities are to be removed by the flick of a pen.
In my experience, earlier extensions of permitted development are not going well for the Government. The right to erect 25-metre mobile phone masts without any ability for local people to amend the outcome caused outrage in one of the villages that I represent as a councillor, as did the right to build an extra storey on to a retirement bungalow in a street of retirement bungalows. People just want the right to influence what happens in their neighbourhood or wider community. It is what you expect in a democracy.
The Motion that I am proposing is definitely not to hinder change and halt development but is aimed at ensuring that individuals and communities are engaged and involved in planning decisions that affect their lives. Any argument that suggests that this is all about the speed of planning decisions ignores factual evidence that shows that planning decisions are currently made within reasonable timescales—set by the Government—and are of the same timescale as those that require prior planning approval. I urge Members to support my Motion for the sake of good governance and the democratic process. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd and chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association. I should make clear that at the appropriate time I intend to divide the House on my regret Motion.
It is extremely disappointing that this order is before us. I concur with many of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. However, sadly, it is how the Government operate, with scant regard for communities, the need to make their areas sustainable or, frankly, any understanding of what a stable community actually is. The order is another example of the Government’s inept planning policy. I have stood here so many times in recent years discussing orders, planning Bills and so on. They are just non-stop and I am sure we will be back again. The Government are completely inept in what they are doing.
Imagine if the roles were reversed. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, would be standing up and demanding, “You must let local communities have their say. How dare you do this?” I am sure that he would make the arguments that I am now giving. The Government have no interest in what local communities want to do. The noble Lord should know because he has been the leader of a council, whereas I have been only a member of a council. He knows how much councillors are the voices of their local communities and how much the local community wants to engage with its council. What we have here pushes all that to one side. It will hold back our high streets and open the floodgates for poor-quality housing in towns, cities and villages across England with no regard for what communities actually want.
What happened to localism? That word has disappeared from the Government Benches recently. There is nothing about that any more. Now Whitehall will decide and you will do as you are told. Localism was another fad from the Government—another slogan that has now gone out of fashion.
The country is in desperate need of affordable housing. We talk about it all the time. This order does nothing to achieve that. Instead, what we have here is a developers’ charter that removes powers from locally elected representatives and hands them to Whitehall-appointed boards. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, there is virtually no scrutiny whatever, just a negative Motion before the House. There is no legislation here. The Government are not prepared to put it in front of the House of Commons. It is only because we have tabled the regret Motion and the fatal Motion that we are actually debating these issues. The Government are running scared from debating them.
There are three main reasons why I have tabled this regret Motion and I will set them out. I believe that this order will hold back communities. First, it takes away from local people and locally elected people the ability to make their points known. Local councillors know their area best. They are the right people to decide. Instead, we are transferring powers to Whitehall-appointed boards. It shows contempt for local representatives. More than that, is the Minister actually saying that the boards and the Government know better than local councillors and local people? Surely, he is not saying that at all. Local communities know their interests and their needs and know what needs to happen in their area.
The second concern from these Benches is the risk of swathes of poor-quality housing appearing as a result of this order. We have enough poor-quality housing in this country. We have a housing crisis, as the Minister knows. We talk about it all the time in this House. This will do nothing at all to help that. We need good-quality homes and this, sadly, will do nothing to deliver on that.
The third point is about how it seems acceptable to let it go through with little scrutiny in Parliament. The risk is that we will see retail units being converted to low-quality flats. There is no guarantee that they will be what the local community actually wants. It could also decimate town centres. We all know that our high streets are in crisis. I would like the Minister to set out for us how this order will help and save our high streets. It does nothing for them at all. It adds to the risk that our high streets will become ghost towns. In these tough times for local businesses, the Government should be standing with businesses and communities and ensuring that our high streets and town centres are developed and supported, but, sadly, they are not.
To be clear, I intend to divide the House on my regret Motion when the time comes but neither I nor my Benches will be supporting the fatal Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I like the noble Baroness very much and I respect her views but I am also conscious of the constitutional position of this House. The House has the power to put forward fatal Motions but should use that power very sparingly. I want to express my regret, annoyance and anger at what the Government are doing here. They need to behave better on these things and should have put them in front of the House of Commons in proper legislation to have them debated.
I suspect the Government are not doing that because they know the problems they will have from their own Back Benches in the other place, in particular, if they put these proposals forward. That is why they are using this negative measure. It is regrettable that it takes away the voice of local communities and will hold back the high street. It also does nothing to improve the housing situation. I suspect that this is the way that the Government will continue on a number of issues. I will leave it there. As I said, I will put my regret Motion to the vote but will not support the fatal Motion.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has withdrawn from the debate so I call the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to take part in this short debate. I support every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friend Lord Kennedy have said. This is a quite extraordinary piece of secondary legislation covering permitted development rights, which I have had an interest in for many years. My remarks will cover not only what is in the order but what is not in it. I fully intend to ask the Minister one or two questions as to why.
First, regarding what is in the order, and in support of what the two noble Lords have spoken about, I note that paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that this process allows
“for local consideration of key planning matters through a light-touch prior approval process.”
Those are lovely soft words that should make everybody say, “Well, it is all right.” Actually, as the two noble Lords have said, it is not all right and is taking away local democracy where it is very important. As my noble friend said, where is localism? It is crazy.
I think there are going to be very serious problems with some of the proposed changes between commercial and residential, with very few constraints and local comments. I had a message from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, this morning. He suggested that giving away permitted development rights without any preliminary consideration of visual effects, massing, overlooking and those kinds of amenity considerations ultimately erodes the quality of the environment. The noble Earl regrets not being able to speak but he is a real expert on these things and I think his views need to be taken into consideration.
It is extraordinary that this draft order has suddenly been brought forward. I suspect it was done to ensure that no more statues are removed without planning permission. It seems an extraordinary priority for Ministers, with all the housing problems that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have spoken about, to worry about statues. We may need changes to schools, colleges, universities, hospitals and prisons but they all need to be done properly. I do not see any constraints within these regulations to give the local planning authorities—which actually know what they are talking about—any meaningful input to Whitehall running everything.
There is another problem that is not in the order. That is to do with permitted development rights for Highways England to demolish bridges. A number of noble Lords have spoken about this in times past. Highways England has sought and is using permitted development rights to demolish bridges which are apparently no longer fit to take 44-tonne lorries. Many of the bridges are on side roads and bridleways or footpaths or could become bridleways or footpaths subject to the comment and approval of local planning authorities.
Highways England is going around the countryside saying, “We’re going to demolish 100 or 200 of these bridges because they are too expensive to maintain.” Highways England took them on, knowing the cost of maintenance and knowing that they would never have to redesign and rebuild them to carry 44 tonnes; the agency is doing this in the hope that no one will know and that the planning authorities will not be able to do much about it.
The other part of permitted development rights included in this regulation is the development of docks, piers, harbours, water transport, canals or inland navigation undertakings. I understand that this is needed primarily to facilitate free port development. While that sounds quite reasonable, I am not convinced that free ports will necessarily see the light of day. It is probably a reasonable thing to do, but I will ask again: what role will local planning authorities have within this particular part of the regulation?
What is missing are any permitted development rights changes on the railways. As noble Lords will know, railways have permitted development rights to do lots of things, given their ownership of the tracks and stations, but my understanding over the years is that the railways have been fairly reticent about making changes if they feel that there will be a problem with the local planning authorities. They have often sought planning permission, even though they could have argued that it was not strictly necessary because of their permitted development rights. Perhaps the Minister could explain why there is nothing about railways in the order. What rights do the railways have in respect of changes that they might make to stations, tracks and signals, fencing and everything else which they could obtain through permitted development rights, but then do not necessarily do that?
On the one hand we have Network Rail bending over backwards to be helpful, but on the other it is still a railway—HS2—that is trampling over the rights of all individuals, environmental or otherwise, due to a fairly flawed hybrid Bill that went through your Lordships’ House several years ago. There is a significant incoherence and uncertainty about what the railways are allowed and not allowed to do, along with what they choose to do and choose not to do.
Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned fire and safety which, as we all know, is still the subject of massive worry for many residents. I fear that these regulations will not help those residents in any way, either historically or in the future.
I support both these Motions tabled in the names of the two noble Lords and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lord Berkeley for setting out so clearly what is wrong with this statutory instrument. I agree with all they have said about its shortcomings, and in particular, I share the anger of my noble friend Lord Kennedy. I want to add my voice on a couple of key issues.
The Government pay lip service to the idea of localism. We know that the Conservative Party pays no heed to its manifestos, but the 2019 version says explicitly:
“Local government is the bedrock of our democracy.”
It also promises
“beautiful, high-quality homes with every community able to decide on its own design standards for new development, allowing residents a greater say on the style and design and development in their area, with local councils encouraged to build more beautiful architecture.”
Really? Are these proposals going to lead to more beautiful architecture? What nonsense. The reality is that this approach is not localism, it is that the Secretary of State knows best.
I am another ex-councillor who believes in local government, warts and all. These regulations are wrong in principle. There is no doubt that changes which are this fundamental and will have an impact on the look of our towns and cities for decades to come should be enacted in primary legislation. It is clear that in practice, these new rules will limit the role of the local planning authority in determining the appropriate uses for its particular area.
The fundamental problem is actually more than a problem—it is a catastrophe. The new rules will allow residential development in potentially unsuitable locations. That is the whole point of the proposals because otherwise this statutory instrument would not be required. What we know is that these will be the slums of the future. More specifically, the new rules will allow commercial frontages on high streets to be converted to residential use in a way that will wreak even more harm on the traditional function of town centres, already under so much pressure. Albeit that there will be a need for separate planning permission for the external treatment of buildings, we know from experience that there is always considerable room for uncertainty by gaming the system, in particular about the vacancy requirement.
We all know that developers cheerfully agree to include shops and pubs within a development and then ensure that they remain vacant until the local authority gives in to the effective blackmail. Of course we need more housing, but this is the wrong way of providing the high-quality stock that we so desperately need. History tells us how to achieve the massive new-build housing programme we need, and it was provided, surprisingly, by a former Conservative Government in the 1950s, summed up in an adequately resourced programme of council housing.
Then there is all this stuff about statues, memorials and monuments. How will the Minister present this with a straight face? We know what they are doing, they know we know what they are doing, and we know that they know, et cetera. Where is the problem that this is supposed to address? It is there only to play to the ignorance and prejudice of the base. The giveaway is in the press release by the Secretary of State on 17 January 2021 under the heading “New legal Protections for England’s Heritage”. It says:
“New legal safeguards introduced for historic monuments at risk of removal. All historic statues, plaques and other monuments will now require full planning permission to remove, ensuring due process and local consultation in every case. The law will make clear that historic monuments should be retained and explained”.
The giveaway is that the Secretary of State will be able to call in any application and ensure that the law is followed. The threat is clear: it will be the Secretary of State who decides, not the local authority and the local community. That is made even more manifest in the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum to the effect that the Government will introduce a requirement for local planning authorities to notify such planning applications to the Secretary of State. Really? Does he not have better things to do?
What needs to be understood is that saying that monuments should be retained and explained is a political statement, taking one side in a deeply contested debate. It is a view that members of the Conservative Party are fully entitled to hold, but it is wrong to write such a political statement into the law of the land.
Finally, as an aside, free ports are a pointless zero-sum gimmick, and there really is no more to say.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. This is yet another attack on local democracy. I held elected office on Somerset County Council for 20 years and on South Somerset District Council for 10 years. I am passionate about the role of local and national democracy and the right of those who hold elected office to be able to communicate with and represent the views of those who live in the area for which they were elected.
Introducing these changes via the negative procedure to avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny is to deny communities the right to say what happens to them. Local voters may not have voted for the person elected, but it is a duty of the councillor to do their best to take account of all views, when making decisions. These decisions should involve planning permissions. I took this seriously once I was elected. Whether the application is for a school, a children’s home, housing for the disabled, housing for those who are upsizing to four bedrooms or housing for those who are struggling to make ends meet and need a roof over their heads, local input is important. I fully support the comments of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the previous two speakers.
I know that the Minister, who was a long-standing and well-respected councillor, understands these issues. However, the Government have been chipping away at local democratic involvement in planning processes for a while and I find the proposals before us today a step too far for me and my colleagues. I believe that my colleague, my noble friend Lady Pinnock, is likely to divide the House.
Yesterday, we debated the Environment Bill, wherein the Government are looking to local authorities to ensure diversity gain when planning permissions are granted. There is a dichotomy here between what the Government want from their planning system and what they are prepared to allow it to do. We are one of the oldest and finest democracies in the world, both nationally and locally. Our elected representatives, in the vast majority of cases, take their roles seriously. If we ignore the importance of local democratic representation, we do so at our peril. Local councillors know their areas; they know what housing is required and where it is best situated. This is not always popular with some sections of communities, but to remove it altogether is very unwise.
Given that this may be my only opportunity to speak on this SI, I will talk to it. The Government’s consultation on these changes, which are permanent and not temporary, ran from 3 December 2020 to 28 January 2021. At the start of this period, the country was getting ready for Christmas and the hope of seeing our families. This was quickly crushed. By the end of the period, we were well and truly in lockdown and councils were not meeting in public but via Zoom. This can hardly be said to be extensive consultation.
The Explanatory Memorandum is very clear on what is covered and it is chilling. I agree with the Government that permitted development has an important role to play, but what is proposed does far more than streamline the planning process; it drives a coach and horses through it. It will certainly speed up housing delivery, but just what type of housing communities it produces, if any, is another matter. Turning business premises into dwellings is not likely to lead to more employment.
No change of use is allowed if premises have been empty for the previous three months, but temporary closure due to Covid is exempt. However, it is possible for landlords to give businesses notice to quit, leave the premises empty for three months and then apply to convert them into dwellings. All homes will be required to meet the minimum national prescribed space standards. Can the Minister tell us when these were last revised and if another review is planned for the future? I am horrified that the Government are thinking of residential use on heavy industrial and waste-management sites. Although impacts have to be assessed, these can easily be simplified to allow development.
I turn now to health centres and registered children’s nurseries. I despair: to allow these vital centres of communities to be turned into homes is appalling. We have a housing crisis, but we also have a mental health crisis among children, young people and women in particular. Health centres provide a vital service and should be preserved, at all costs. Children’s nurseries are a lifeline, not only for women returning to work, but as an opportunity for young children to meet, learn how to socialise, share and play—all part of their emotional and physical development. Surely these two categories of service provision should be excluded from being taken over for housing.
The Explanatory Memorandum is helpful in listing what is going to happen and when. For instance, a developer or landowner can apply for PDR to convert an office block into housing, and can do that now. Later in the year, the Government will produce separate legislation to amend the right to introduce an additional prior approval on fire safety in relation to the building changing use. By this time, the building is likely to be half way constructed, without fire safety regulations having been considered. The right to change the use of offices, shops, takeaways, et cetera, to dwellings will attract a fee of £100 per dwelling house, up to a maximum of £5,000. If the maximum fee is reached, it will be for a conversion of potentially 50 dwellings from a single commercial property. Will they all have relevant parking?
On the subject of fees, paragraph 7.18 of the EM refers to applications attracting a fee of £96 to be introduced later by secondary legislation, which will also introduce the fee of £100. I ask the Minister whether these fees, which will be introduced later in the process, will be applied retrospectively or effective from some date in the future. It appears that this fee of £96 could cover a larger extension to a hospital or university. That seems like a snip to me; perhaps I have misunderstood the EM, so would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification. I note that all PDR developments must be completed within three years. If only this applied to extant planning permissions, we would not have a housing crisis in the first place.
Paragraph 11.1 refers to guidance being
“available in time for the new rules coming into force”.
As this SI was laid on 30 March and came into force on 1 April, I wonder where this guidance is. Has it been finalised and published? Are local authorities aware of what it actually says?
Lastly, I refer to Article 6 of the statutory instrument itself,
“Insertion of Class MA in Part 3 of Schedule 2”.
Under “Development not permitted … MA.1”, paragraph (1)(f) says,
“if the site is occupied under an agricultural tenancy, unless the express consent of both the landlord and the tenant has been obtained”.
Farming and agriculture are in a state of flux. Farmers are having their previous income, under the CAP, reduced each year and the replacement funding, under the environmental land management scheme, is by no means certain or transparent. Development land attracts a far higher price than agricultural land. I can envisage a situation in which a landlord approaches a tenant and offers a sum of money for vacant possession. A tenant, not certain of what the future holds for him or her, may accept. The landlord will then apply for PDR, which will be granted.
We will see farm buildings and land converted into dwellings. While this has happened on a small scale in the past, to the advantage of many villages—where farm buildings have provided bungalows for the local elderly to downsize—this was through the normal planning route. However, at the moment, at a time of anxiety in the farming community, there is the possibility of widespread conversions and the resultant loss of agricultural holdings. At this time, the mantra should be not only “build, build, build”, but “grow, grow, grow”. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on this clause.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I completely agree with the speeches of my noble friends Lady Pinnock and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I am not and never have been a local councillor, but my noble friend Lady Pinnock asked me, as a police officer, to speak on the protection of statues.
I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, has said on this issue. The order includes a permanent change to Class B of Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, which specifies that development is not permitted if it involves the demolition of certain structures, even if development otherwise would be permitted. The exemption applies to the demolition of statues, memorials and monuments which have been in place for at least 10 years. The changes in this order mean that, in future, this will require an application for planning permission, unless they are already covered by other legislation. This permanent change in legislation is justified as a result of a change in government policy announced in a Written Ministerial Statement—a change that provided no automatic opportunity for debate in Parliament.
Paragraph 7.29 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Statues, memorials and monuments which are erected to commemorate prominent individuals and events can become the subject of disagreement. Government considers that decisions to remove such public landmarks should be made following proper process in accordance with the local development plan, national planning policy and other material considerations, and consultation with the public.”
Although this all sounds very reasonable, as the next paragraph explains,
“Separately to this legislative change”
the Government have
“introduced a requirement for local planning authorities to notify such planning applications to the Secretary of State”,
to allow the Secretary of State to call in such applications for their determination, instead of determination by the local planning authority.
Quite rightly, the Government’s other legislation proposed to protect statues—to enable magistrates to commit someone to the Crown Court if they damage a memorial, in order that a harsher penalty can be imposed—is being proposed in, and will be debated fully as part of, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. That is primary legislation—Clause 46 of the Bill currently before the other place. That the Bill offers more protection to statues than to emergency workers speaks volumes about this Government’s priorities.
This is a significant policy and legislative change, giving central government decisions on local planning issues because, potentially, a 10 year-old statue is in the way of what would otherwise be permitted development. But the Government have given themselves the power to overrule local democratic authorities as a result of a policy change announced in a Written Statement and implemented by means of a statutory instrument, subject only to the negative procedure. That is totally unacceptable.
This, and the other major legislative changes proposed in the order, has no place in a statutory instrument, let alone in one subject only to the negative procedure. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, whom I greatly admire and respect, to say that a fatal Motion should only rarely be used, but this is one of those rare occasions. When my noble friend Lady Pinnock divides the House, I will be voting with her. I urge all noble Lords to do the same. Parliament is being treated with contempt, and we should not allow that.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I too declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. I have a very strong sense of déjà vu, or Groundhog Day, because here we go again. This is of course a key issue for us on this side of the Chamber, because, despite overwhelming evidence from an amazingly wide range of sectors and professional bodies, apart from cutting red tape and speed, there are no compelling reasons to bring forward another raft of permitted development rights removing the need for full planning permission. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us. This considerable disquiet has changed to a rather loud chorus of bewilderment and disbelief that these PDRs continue to be brought forward without even an attempt at an impact assessment or evaluation.
Much of the detail has already been given by my noble friend Lady Pinnock and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Berkeley, on the level of parliamentary scrutiny and the undue haste to bring these changes into law under the negative procedure, which leaves a debate such as this the only route for any scrutiny. We on these Benches are by no means unsympathetic to the aims that the Ministers claim for them, but these proposals will not in any way contribute to those aims—quite the reverse. Paradoxically, we are likely to see property owners taking the quick and easy option of a change of use via PDRs, when a greater involvement by the local planning authority might have helped achieve a wider and more comprehensive scheme that would further the Government’s stated objectives. Among local planning officers, there is already anecdotal evidence: “Oh my God, if only they’d come to us first, we could have made this better”.
We also believe that this continuous erosion of the ability of communities and their local elected representatives to contribute to the shaping of the places they live in is damaging to democracy and ultimately counterproductive. People already feel disempowered by the planning system—you need only attend a local planning committee to know that. Even if they are denied a role in the planning process, they will, thank goodness, find a way to make their voices heard.
Of the several aspects of this SI, I give full support and agreement to the position on statues, ably outlined by my noble friend Lord Paddick and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. In line with our localist principles, we believe that this is a matter for local communities to decide. We have heard from my noble friend Lady Bakewell about the potential loss of health centres and nurseries, and the danger that this will be exacerbated if such facilities can be converted to residential use without permission. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, extremely practical examples of how Whitehall does not always know best.
I would like to focus on further conversions to housing on the high street. The debate today shows that opening up high streets to property speculation—which is what this is—is a misguided attempt to answer current challenges that have existed for years and have been exacerbated significantly by Covid and by changes in our shopping patterns. We believe that it will only worsen the ingrained inequalities that have been so starkly exposed by the pandemic.
Back in 2019, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee produced a report on the future of the high street, which argued that the Government should suspend any further extension of PDRs, pending an evaluation of their impact on the high street. And here we are again. It is clear that this united opposition to the extension of PDRs, backed by evidence, has simply been ignored by the Government, apart from some small changes, such as that the homes created now should contain a window. It is too late for those that I brought to the attention of the House two years ago—the notorious case in Watford—but it is progress.
Changing the face and fortune of a town takes years. I know, because it was one of my primary objectives for 16 years while Mayor of Watford. Put bluntly, it is hard-going and requires building enduring partnerships with different stakeholders—easier said than done with the competing aims and demands from all those with a legitimate interest in the high street—and genuine community buy-in, as many of the changes are very significant, which is never easy to obtain and even more difficult to hold over time. Most of all, it needs a plan, resources and time. It flies in the face of all my experience that a planning free-for-all is the answer to that problem.
I am also concerned by the implication in these proposals that local authorities do not know what their high streets need and are not already working to produce good solutions. Good councils have long recognised that housing in a town centre is a good thing. They were at the forefront of recognising how repopulating town and city centres could turn urban decline into renaissance. They promoted flats above the shops, mixed-use development to create residential, leisure and community uses alongside retail, and a move to have activity in our town centres that was not just about daytime shopping and late-night drinking. It has taken years to get to that point in many a high street, including ours, and yet these proposals have the ability to undo that work.
Someone has to hold the ring for a whole place, not just think about making a fast buck from a single site. What will our high streets look like in five, 10 or 15 years’ time? How do we get there from here? We believe that these proposals undermine such strategic thinking, with a misguided attempt at a quick fix. They certainly undermine the democratic mandate of elected representatives.
These are big issues but, from my experience, PDRs have always had the potential to be controversial, and have been a source of anger and upset from affected residents. I have stood looking out of a window in a family’s beautiful home while having to explain that the significant extension their neighbour was building was legal, permitted by government rules and did not need planning permission, and that thus the council had no power to suggest amendments, let alone refuse it. I remember the look of incredulity on their faces. It was one small family home, but the impact on their enjoyment of it was huge. This is often the case, which is why council officers try to balance the needs of all parties and why obtaining planning permission has a useful and positive purpose, which appears not to be recognised by the Government.
Some of the issues the Government believe they are trying to solve are absolutely legitimate, and their views are shared by those on our Benches, but we are asking: why not allow people putting forward such schemes to apply for planning permission, as now? This would mean that genuine consultation can occur, and that planners and councillors would be able to do their jobs. It would help the Government’s professed objective of driving up quality and building beautiful. Prior approval gives officers a rotten job to deal with, knowing that they cannot really say no—after all, that is the purpose of these changes—and councillors still have to carry the can for a decision that they cannot influence or change. It is lose-lose for all but the developer/investor.
That is the crux of this issue, illustrated so well by my noble friend Lady Pinnock, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and others. The Government have continually eroded the role of local democracy to decide on or even influence matters that suit the circumstances of its communities. We believe that there is more to come in the future planning Bill. All this is before we even get to the quality of the conversions, which were heavily criticised by the Government’s Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission, which concluded that they have diminished quality, delivered low levels of affordable housing and reduced developer contributions. It said that increased PDRs had “inadvertently permissioned future slums”. That was colourfully articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. There is very little time to talk about the impact on conservation areas.
We feel that these reforms lack the critical safeguards to prevent further damage to already suffering high streets by turning community amenities into often substandard homes. Those are some of the reasons why we wish to express more than mere regret at what is happening to our planning system and, more importantly, to our communities and our democracy.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting and passionate debate on this order. I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their contributions. I will take this opportunity to respond to some of the points which have been raised.
Before I do so, I will set out briefly what is included in this statutory instrument, which introduces a number of important measures. First, it includes the new permitted development right, discussed today, to allow for the change of use from the commercial, business and service use class to residential use. Secondly, to support the ambition of Project Speed and to ensure that new investment in public service infrastructure is planned and delivered faster and better, this order introduces important measures to allow schools, hospitals and prisons to expand their existing premises, helping to deliver additional capacity for local communities more quickly. Thirdly, it includes measures relating to freedoms for development at ports, including free ports. Finally, it includes measures to support the Government’s heritage agenda by allowing for local consideration of the removal of statues and monuments, which are often important heritage assets. This issue was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Paddick.
I turn to the points raised on the adequacy of parliamentary scrutiny by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, as well as by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. The general permitted development order under which permitted development rights are granted is made principally under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—the primary legislation. That Act enables the Secretary of State, through secondary legislation, to make a development order under the negative resolution procedure. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that this statutory instrument was laid before Parliament under the negative resolution procedure. That is the procedure that Parliament approved when it passed the parent Act. As demonstrated today, the House may call attention to and debate particular legislation of interest.
The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Berkeley, the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thornhill, and others raised community engagement and prior approval by the local planning authority, as well as the adequacy of local decision-making. The permitted development right for the change of use from the commercial, business and service use class is subject to prior approval by the local planning authority if that authority so wishes. This enables the consideration of key planning matters in consultation with the local community. Adjoining owners or occupiers are required to be notified. The council may then consider representations made on those specified matters for prior approval as set out in the legislation. That was summarised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Other matters the local planning authority can consider include, in conservation areas, consideration of the impact of the loss of ground floor commercial use; and, in all areas, access to the site, flood risk, the impacts of noise on future residents, any impacts on occupiers from the introduction of residential use in an area that is important for heavy industry, storage and distribution and waste management, and—this responds to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville—the impact of the loss of health centres and registered nurseries on the provision of such services. The local authority is required to take into account any representations made to it as a result of any consultation when making its decision whether to grant prior approval.
It is important to recognise that the Government are committed to delivering the new homes that the country needs. Last year around 244,000 new homes were delivered, which is the highest number in over 30 years. Permitted developments are just one mechanism under which new additional homes can be delivered, and they encourage the development of existing buildings on brownfield sites. They protect the green belt. This enables additional net extra homes.
I do not agree with the points made about a lack of focus on quality. This will not be a floodgate to poor-quality housing—I think that that is the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, used. On this point, 72,000 new homes have been provided. There has been the example of the one home in Watford without natural light, and we recognise the issue of space standards. That is why we have listened to the House and made sure that we have taken steps to address these problems. We have introduced a condition that all homes delivered through permitted development rights must, since April this year, meet the nationally described space standards, and we require that all homes delivered under permitted development rights should include adequate natural light in all habitable rooms.
To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, I say that the nationally described space standards were introduced in 2015. My understanding is that there are no plans to review them, since they were introduced relatively recently.
As the Minister with responsibility for fire and building safety, I also point out that all homes built through permitted development have to meet building regulations, including fire and other building safety requirements. My department, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, has made it very clear that there are restrictions on the use of combustible materials when additional residential storeys are added.
There has, quite rightly, been a great deal of concern about the importance of high streets. On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I reassure the House that we are committed to boosting regeneration and supporting our high streets and town centres. The pandemic has taken its toll and magnified the problems facing town centres and high streets, and we want to support them in adapting to these changes to become thriving, vibrant hubs where people live, shop, use services and spend their leisure time. We have therefore allocated £3.6 billion through the towns fund and an additional £4.8 billion in the levelling-up fund, which, alongside the high streets task force, will give high streets and town centres expert advice to adapt and thrive, and funding to help create jobs and build more resilient local economies and communities.
This new permitted development right will simplify the planning process and enable best use of existing and underused buildings. This is not about developers gaming the system; it is about ensuring that we see active high streets, that vacant premises do not sit there unused, blighting an area, and that there is greater flexibility in planning to enable the change—in this case—to residential use. But there are protections: there is a size limit of 1,500 square metres of floor space so that we focus on the medium-sized high street for this planning flexibility. In conservation areas, it further allows for consideration of the impact of the loss of ground floor use to residential on the character or sustainability of the area.
I beg the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to reconsider the use of a fatal Motion. I have been educated by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that fatal Motions come along very infrequently; I can count them on the fingers of one hand. We need to recognise that the fatal Motion would also impact on the delivery of public services in our schools and hospitals. The legislation is a very important part of our ability to grow our public service infrastructure: it enables permitted development rights for larger extensions for schools and hospitals, and enables schools, colleges and universities to increase their capacity by up to 25%, enabling them to respond to the challenges the country has faced in the pandemic and provide adequate social distancing. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider not dividing the House, because any move to annul this order would affect our ability to deliver this critical public service infrastructure.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is testing my knowledge of railway policy as the Minister responsible for local government, but we will take note of the important point he raises about the permitted development rights to demolish bridges and follow it up with the Department for Transport. With regard to the reason for the omission of railways, we will liaise with the Department for Transport on how we can best support infrastructure delivery, including for railways, and the asks of Network Rail.
In conclusion, I hope that I have provided some assurance on the benefits of these measures, and that bringing them forward via secondary legislation is the appropriate route provided for in law. The diversification of our high streets and town centres will help their recovery as the country starts to open. The mix of retail, leisure and residential uses will make them attractive places to visit, live and work. The legislation will enable a wider range of commercial and retail buildings to change use to residential through a simplified planning process while still providing important protections and allowing local consideration of a range of matters to protect local facilities and uses where appropriate, and allow local communities to have a say.
As I have set out, the legislation also provides important measures that support key public service infrastructure, such as schools, hospitals, ports and heritage. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, not to divide the House and to withdraw her Motion.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for his response. I am grateful for the very well-informed and passionate debate that we have had in this hour or so this afternoon.
Many Members have drawn attention to the value of engagement and decisions that are taken with a wider range of views. Unfortunately, this instrument is a continuation of the erosion of the rights of local people just to have their say on changes that affect them and their communities. There is no need for the extension of permitted development to achieve the Government’s aims. For instance, the Minister has just talked about the need to enable the expansion of schools without going through a full planning application. A response to a full planning application can be achieved within eight weeks if the right information is provided to the planning authorities. That is a drop in the ocean compared to the time it takes to organise a development or extension of a school on that scale, and it is worth doing because it engages everybody in what is happening and what the consequences will be, for good and for ill.
It is a sad day for democracy and good governance when the Government believe that this approach is acceptable. It is such an assault on democratic decision-making at a local level. I do not take these matters lightly: I have never before in my time in your Lordships’ House proposed a fatal Motion and I have done so not necessarily on the content of the statutory instrument, but on its principle, which is the erosion of local democratic rights and good governance. We cannot allow this to continue—this steady drip, drip, drip of democratic rights disappearing. It is not right, and it has to be stopped. That is why I maintain that a fatal Motion is appropriate in this case and, as such, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We have been unable to resolve the technical problem but we have worked out how to resolve the situation. I call the Government Chief Whip.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, with the agreement of the usual channels, we are going to defer both votes until tomorrow, so they will be on tomorrow’s Order Paper. After this, to give everyone time to move over to the next business, we will have a short adjournment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I thank the Government Chief Whip. I would have been very happy for my vote to be agreed by the collecting of voices, but the Government did not take me up on that offer. Obviously, I fully understand about these technical issues and we are happy for the votes to take place tomorrow.
Finance Bill
Tuesday 8th June 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2021 View all Finance Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 May 2021 - large print - (24 May 2021)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, we are here to debate the annual Finance Bill, introduced in the other place following the Budget on 3 March. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined a Budget with three key objectives: first, to protect jobs and livelihoods and provide additional support to get the British people and British businesses through the pandemic; secondly, to be clear about the need to fix the public finances once we are on the way to recovery and to start that work; thirdly, as we emerge from the pandemic, to lay the groundwork for a robust and resilient future economy. This Finance Bill enacts changes to taxation that support all those objectives.
The House will of course be aware of the severe public health and economic shock caused by the pandemic; at its peak, the economy shrank by 10%, the largest fall in more than 300 years. The Government have responded with an extraordinary package of support for the economy which, taking into account measures introduced in the 2020 Budget, is now estimated at £407 billion for this year and last year. This has been essential. Thanks to it and the rapid rollout of vaccinations, the Office for Budget Responsibility and other independent authorities now expect a swifter recovery than had previously been forecast. Indeed, the OBR expects the UK economy to recover to pre-crisis levels six months earlier than it did previously—in the second, rather than the fourth, quarter of 2022.
Our first objective is protecting jobs and livelihoods. There are positive signals that we are now on the right path, but it is crucial that we continue to support the economy over the coming months and deliver on the Budget’s first aim of protecting jobs and livelihoods. That is why the tax measures outlined in the Bill go further to support the economy. We are extending the 5% reduced VAT rate until 30 September to protect almost 150,000 hard-hit hospitality and tourism businesses which employ over 2.4 million people. To help those businesses manage the transition back to the standard rate, VAT will then increase to an interim rate of 12.5% from October until the end of March.
The Bill ensures that any business that took advantage of the original VAT deferral new payment scheme will be able to pay that deferred VAT in up to 11 equal payments from March 2021, rather than by one larger payment due by 31 March 2021. For those businesses that have been pushed into losses, the trading loss carry-back rule is being extended from the existing one year to three years for losses of up to £2 million. This will deliver a significant cash-flow benefit for eligible businesses.
The Bill also puts into legislation the temporary cut in stamp duty land tax, with a residential stamp duty nil rate band remaining at £500,000 in England and Northern Ireland until the end of June. This will be followed by a phased transition back to the normal rate. From 1 July 2021, it will fall to £250,000 until the end of September, before returning to £125,000 on 1 October. This extension helps buyers and supports jobs which rely on the property industry.
As well as protecting jobs and livelihoods, the Bill takes important steps to deliver on the second of the Budget’s key objectives: to strengthen public finances as we emerge from the pandemic. The coronavirus response, as we all know, created unprecedented challenges for the Exchequer. The first outturn estimates from the Office for National Statistics show borrowing for last year is estimated to have totalled £300 billion, or 14.3% of GDP. As we continue our response to this crisis, borrowing is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to be £234 billion this year, which is 10.3% of GDP. This means we are forecast to borrow more this year than during the financial crisis, an amount so large it has only one rival in recent history—last year. The Government need to balance this enormous support provided to the economy in the short term with the need to start to fix the public finances in the longer term. The Bill takes forward a number of measures to do this responsibly.
First, the income tax personal allowance will rise with the consumer prices index, as planned, to £12,570 from this month. This level will then be maintained until April 2026. The higher rate threshold also rises to £50,270 from this month and will then be maintained at this level until April 2026. These changes are a fair and progressive way to meet the fiscal challenge presented by the pandemic. For example, it is worth noting that the 20% highest-income households will contribute 15 times that of the 20% lowest-income households.
Secondly, the inheritance tax thresholds, the pensions lifetime allowance and the annual exempt amount in capital gains tax will be maintained at their 2020-21 levels until April 2026. Maintaining the pensions lifetime allowance at current levels affects only those with the largest pensions—those worth more than £1 million.
Thirdly, the Bill legislates for the rate of corporation tax paid on company profits to increase to 25% from 2023. Businesses have been provided with over £100 billion of support to get through this pandemic, so it is only fair to ask them to contribute to the overall recovery. Of course, since corporation tax is charged only on company profits, businesses that may be struggling will, by definition, be unaffected. The increase will not take effect until two years’ time, well after the point when the OBR expects the economy to have recovered. This measure protects small businesses with profits of £50,000 or less by including a small profits rate, maintained at the current rate of 19%. The effect of this is that 70% of companies, or 1.4 million businesses, will not see an increase in their tax rate.
The third goal of the Budget was to lay the foundations of our future economy as we emerge from the pandemic. This requires that the Government encourage business investment now, to help spur growth and drive productivity in the coming years. That is why the Bill contains the innovative new super-deduction measure. In most cases, this measure will allow companies to reduce their taxable profits by 130% of the cost of investment they make, equivalent to a tax cut of up to 25p for every pound they invest. It is expected to lift the net present value of the UK’s plant and machinery allowances from 30th among the countries of the OECD to first. This will bring forward investment; the OBR has said that, at its peak in the financial year 2022-23, the super-deduction will incentivise an additional £20 billion of business investment.
The Bill also contains clauses that will enable the creation of free-port tax sites. In these sites, businesses will be able to benefit from a number of tax reliefs, including a stamp duty land tax relief, an enhanced structures and buildings allowance and an enhanced capital allowance for plant and machinery. This tax offer will be combined with simpler import procedures and duty benefits in customs sites to help businesses trade, along with planning changes to give a green light to much-needed development and spending to invest in infrastructure. This comprehensive package will allow free ports to play a significant role in boosting trade, attracting inward investment and driving productive activity.
I have talked about how this legislation delivers on the core objectives of the Chancellor’s Budget. However, as might be expected in the annual Finance Bill, it also takes forward a number of other measures to progress the Government’s long-term aims to ensure a flexible, resilient and fair tax system. As part of the United Kingdom’s commitment to be a global leader on tax transparency, the Bill allows for the implementation of OECD reporting rules for digital platforms. This will help taxpayers in the sharing and gig economies get their tax right and help HMRC detect and tackle non-compliance. It will enable the extension of Making Tax Digital requirements to smaller VAT businesses from April next year, building on the successful introduction of Making Tax Digital for VAT businesses.
It implements reforms to the penalty regime for VAT and income tax self-assessment to make it fairer and more consistent, and harmonises interest for VAT and income tax. It tackles promoters of tax avoidance through strengthening existing anti-avoidance regimes and tightening rules. Importantly, it introduces an exemption from income tax for financial support payments for potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking made by the UK Government and devolved Administrations.
I turn to how the Bill helps us deliver the important commitments the Government have made on the environment and carbon reduction. The new plastic packaging tax will encourage the use of recycled plastic instead of new plastic in packaging. For plastic packaging that contains less than 30% recycled plastic content, the rate of the tax will be £200 per tonne. This will transform the economics of sustainable packaging. To help tackle climate change and improve the UK’s air quality, the Bill reforms the entitlement to use red diesel from April next year. This will help ensure that the tax system incentivises users of polluting fuels such as diesel to invest in cleaner vehicles and machinery, or just to use less fuel.
To conclude, the coronavirus pandemic has presented an immense challenge to this country and delivered a dramatic shock to our economy. The Government have met that shock with a determined and sustained response, but the work is not yet done. This Finance Bill continues to support the lives and livelihoods of families and businesses. As we emerge from the pandemic, it will set the ground for an investment-led recovery and for strong public finances in the coming years. The Bill delivers a number of measures for a fairer and more sustainable tax system in support of the work needed to tackle climate change. For these reasons, I commend it to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, I remind all in the Chamber that we are expected to be masked when seated.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I have the honour of chairing the Finance Bill Sub-Committee and I start by thanking all its members, a number of whom I see here today; I look forward to hearing their remarks. I especially thank our excellent clerk and superb special advisers for all their hard work, energy and commitment.
Last December we published a report which scrutinised a range of new powers sought by HMRC and called it New Powers for HMRC: Fair and Proportionate?, with a question mark—an all-important question mark. To answer that question, we identified a number of principles that we believe should apply to any new power given to HMRC. The power must have a clear policy objective and justification, and it must be simple, targeted, proportionate and have appropriate safeguards and sanctions. With those principles in mind, let me focus my remarks on the powers we examined included in this Finance Bill.
The first is the power to tackle promoters and enablers of tax avoidance, under Clauses 121 to 123. These clauses need to be seen against the backdrop of the loan charge, which has ensnared thousands of people—many on low incomes—who entered disguised remuneration schemes, often at the behest of their employers, only to find themselves clobbered years later with enormous tax bills that many now find difficult to pay. Now is not the time for me to go into the loan charge in detail, although our committee remains very focused on it.
Regarding these clauses, of course we support action to clamp down on the hard core of promoters of tax avoidance schemes. But the committee was unconvinced that these plans would be sufficient to tackle that hard core of promoters who continue to promote these schemes, and so the effectiveness of existing measures must be kept under review and all the weapons in HMRC’s arsenal should be brought to bear on them. For example, we reiterated our view, first expressed way back in 2018, that alerting taxpayers to these schemes via HMRC’s spotlights on GOV.UK is not enough. That is especially so given that promoters have been targeting medical professionals returning to the NHS during the pandemic. Given that, we recommended that HMRC focus its attention on employers, employment intermediaries and the umbrella companies using these schemes. Specifically, we said that a first step should be that no public sector bodies should contract with an employment intermediary that operates disguised remuneration schemes.
In light of all this, I have some questions for my noble friend the Minister. If he cannot answer when he winds up, perhaps he could answer in writing. First, could he tell us how many of these hardcore promoters still exist? Secondly, in 2019-20, HMRC doubled its resources in this area. What will be spent on this agenda in future—in this financial year? Thirdly, a new communications campaign targeted at contractors was launched in November 2020. How is that progressing and how is success being measured?
Finally, on umbrella companies, a recent “File on 4” BBC investigation revealed that around 48,000 mini umbrella companies have been formed in the last five years, fronted by 40,000 people in the Philippines to exploit the employment allowance scheme. Meanwhile, the implementation of IR35 and the impact of the pandemic has reportedly led to a surge in the use of such companies by contractors. One survey found that 71% of workers deemed inside IR35 were moved under an umbrella company ahead of the off-payroll working rules extension into the private sector in April. Given all that, can the Minister tell us whether there are any plans to regulate umbrella companies?
Let me move on to the second topic the committee focused on, which related to the civil information powers in Clause 126. These will allow HMRC to obtain information about taxpayers from financial institutions to charge the right amount of tax and enforce payment. There are two safeguards in HMRC’s current power: the need for tax tribunal approval before information can be required and a right of appeal for financial institutions where provision of information is unduly onerous. These have been discarded on the basis that the process takes too long which, according to the Government and HMRC, means delays in meeting information requests from other countries.
Our committee expressed concerns about the Government’s approach when it was first proposed back in 2018. In this recent inquiry, we concluded that the removal of safeguards was unjustified as cases involving international information requests were only a very small minority—less than 15% of the total—and the tribunal referral does not significantly add to the timescale. I will not ask my noble friend the Minister any questions on this, but simply note that the committee recommended that the safeguards be restored as their removal is wrong in principle and not supported by the evidence in practice.
The third topic our committee looked at was the
“New tax checks on licence renewal applications”
in Clause 125. This measure will make the renewal of licenses for running taxi and private hire services and for scrap metal traders conditional on being tax compliant. It therefore introduces a new concept of conditionality into our system. Our committee questioned how effective this proposal was likely to be, since those non-compliant for tax might also be non-compliant for licensing and tax checks might drive more to be non-compliant for licensing. The result could be mainly to impose additional burdens on the already compliant rather than to tackle non-compliance. The Government have failed to produce evidence to support applying conditionality in these instances. Furthermore, the condition is to apply to all applications for licenses, not just those applying for the first time as was proposed in the original consultation.
Taking a step back, these three measures are at best, in my mind, a mixed bag. One can draw from them some general lessons, which our report highlighted. Existing powers should be used properly before new ones are requested. Focus should be put on non-legislative action. The tax policy consultation framework should be observed. There should be clear evidence to support the need for a new power. Powers must be proportionate and targeted, with adequate safeguards. Those are all principles that should always be abided by.
That brings me to an issue that our committee has not yet focused on: Clause 129, which covers reporting rules for digital platforms. What I am about to say is my view and not that of the committee. I am sure we would all agree that our tax system, rooted in the analogue age, needs a reboot to meet the challenges of the digital era. Digital platforms must pay the taxes they owe in the countries where they operate. Likewise, sellers of goods and services on those platforms should also pay the taxes they owe. Clause 129 will give HMRC the power to require certain UK digital platforms to report information to HMRC about the income of sellers of services on those platforms. The platforms in questions are taxi and private hire services, food delivery services, freelance work—a very broad term—and the letting of short-term accommodation. We may all agree with the objective of ensuring that businesses pay the tax they owe on services they sell online, but I draw your Lordships’ attention to this, because Parliament is going to give the Treasury power to make these regulations, despite the fact there has been no consultation at all. It has yet to begin, despite the fact that, according to the Government, this power could affect up to 5 million businesses which provide their services via digital platforms. We are giving this power, despite the fact that the cost of the regulations is unknown. Although the impact for each seller is expected to be small, the Government states that it
“is expected to have a significant combined impact.”
Here is why:
“Data, including bank account information if the platform holds that information, will be collected and provided to HMRC, and exchanged with other tax authorities when appropriate. This information will be used to identify and risk assess the individual or company.”
The policy paper also states:
“This measure is likely to significantly increase customer costs for some of the businesses affected.”
Note this: it says that sellers of goods
“may be affected at a later stage, subject to consultation.”
Digitising our tax system is laudable. It is a necessity, but this is no way to proceed. It is the way mistakes are made, and the Government would do well, I suggest, to heed the words of the playwright Sheridan, who wrote over 200 years ago:
“First there comes the act imposing the tax; next comes an act to amend the act for imposing the tax; then comes an act to explain the act that amended the act, and next an act to remedy the defects of the act for explaining the act that amended the act.”
This is a horrible, familiar process that we are all too well aware of in this House. I would just gently say to my noble friend the Minister that he needs to justify why HMRC is being given this power without proper consultation. How can he justify taking a power, the cost and impact of which is unknown? Once again, HMRC’s remit appears to be growing, without consultation, without evidence, without real scrutiny. Is it fair? Is it proportionate? We do not know.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who chaired our sub-committee with great competence, and I shall have a word to say about that later. I start in the general area about which he was speaking. As we debate the Finance Bill today, I warmly welcome last week’s agreement by G7 Finance Ministers to work together, to ensure that all countries get their fair share of revenue from multinational corporations. I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on presiding over this achievement. However, while I do not want to rain on his parade, I cannot agree with him that this shows what the UK can do post Brexit, as he claimed.
To my mind, it shows two different things. The first, somewhat contrary to what the Chancellor claimed, is that international problems, such as the taxation of multinational corporations, can be addressed only by countries working together and by pooling part of their sovereignty. They cannot be solved by individual countries acting independently. The second lesson of the G7 Ministers’ agreement is that nothing happens until the United States decides that it should. This first step could not have been achieved without the United States giving a lead.
I turn now to the report of the Finance Bill Sub-Committee on the new powers of HMRC in the Finance Bill that we are debating today. I comment first on a quirk of our curious constitutional procedures. I joined this sub-committee at a late stage of its work. It seems to me that the report is a useful commentary on the powers in the Finance Bill, but our constitutional procedures prevent your Lordships’ House turning the committee’s conclusion into amendments to the Bill. There really is no reason of Commons financial privilege why the Lords should not be able to pass amendments relating to the fairness and proportionality of HMRC’s administration of the tax system. The only reason is that they happen to be contained in the Finance Bill. As a result, this sub-committee’s report turns into a mere commentary, which may influence the House of Commons if anyone there bothers to read it, but otherwise it is simply the basis of a conversation between the committee and the Government. That can be quite a useful conversation, since the main means by which your Lordships’ House can influence events is by persuading the Government. The committee has persuaded the Government on some of the issues in the report, but it is frustrating that, having debated this report, your Lordships’ House has no option other than to nod the Finance Bill through in the form in which it has reached us.
It was a privilege to serve on this sub-committee, which was superbly chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and benefited from the participation of the chairman of the main Economic Affairs Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has said, the committee was very well served by the excellence of its clerks. We also had good co-operation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Jesse Norman MP, senior members of HMRC, and representatives of professional associations affected by the Bill’s provisions.
On rereading the report, I feel that it perhaps comes across entirely as an indictment of HMRC. That may be inevitable, because the report concentrates on those powers in the Finance Bill that seem to the sub-committee excessive or not fully thought through. Speaking for myself—I speak with a Treasury background—I have considerable sympathy with HMRC, particularly in its task of dealing with schemes of tax avoidance and evasion, which are like a many-headed Hydra—as soon as HMRC hits one of the heads another pops up. Yet it is not difficult to feel that HMRC has been more zealous and effective in pursuing often innocent taxpayers, rather than those who have made a fortune from promoting avoidance schemes.
There have also been ongoing deficiencies in HMRC’s dealings with taxpayers, some of which HMRC acknowledges. The sub-committee received distressing evidence from victims of the loan charge to which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred, not least about delays or failures in getting a response from HMRC when taxpayers have sought to achieve a settlement of their affairs.
A compelling account of the distress caused by HMRC’s handling of the loan charge was given in the BBC Radio 4 programme “File on 4”, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred, and which I commend on its investigations into these issues. A recent edition of the programme dealt with a further scheme with some similarities to the loan charge, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, also referred: the recruitment of staff through umbrella companies, which offer to save employers overheads in the form of national insurance contributions, holiday pay and employment regulations by offering recruitment in penny numbers, each too small to incur those overheads.
I know that IR35 has recently come into effect as a means of distinguishing between general and useful recruitment agencies and those set up for avoidance, but I echo the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in asking the Minister whether there are signs that it is preventing the offering of services for avoidance purposes by umbrella companies with overseas directors who are difficult to pursue. It would be a tragedy if another version of the loan charge were to become established, which could cause distress for its victims for many years to come.
I end by commending HMRC and the Government on the detailed response the sub-committee received to the report we are debating. The Government’s response is that out of 24 main recommendations in the report, nine were accepted, six were partially accepted and nine were rejected—you might call it a score draw. A sceptic might say that it was the recommendations of general principle that tended to be accepted by the Government and the specific recommendations that were rejected. Nevertheless, there is evidence that the report served a useful purpose in challenging HMRC, and it was an honour to take part in preparing it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I begin by expressing complete agreement with everything the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has just said, in particular what he said about the officials who supported the sub-committee and about the chairman, my noble friend Lord Bridges. When I asked him to take on the chairmanship of the sub-committee so that I did not have to chair both, I thought it was something of a hospital pass—but he did it absolutely brilliantly and with great distinction in what is a very complex area. We were very grateful to him for the leadership he gave in his indefatigable way. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, we should be grateful that some of the recommendations have been accepted. I am probably the cynic: they were the ones of general principle, rather than the specifics.
I want to focus on this doorstep of a Bill. The papers I am holding are the Finance Bill and the papers that enable us to understand what is in it. I cannot help but ask my friend on the Front Bench: whatever happened to tax simplification? Whatever became of the Government’s declared policy of lower, flatter, fairer, simpler taxes? That policy was grounded in the belief that individuals, families and companies will make better investment decisions than Governments and that wealth creation is essential to the support of key public services such as health, education and social care. We wait with bated breath for the Government’s response to the Economic Affairs Committee on social care and on higher and further education.
We face the biggest financial crisis of our lifetimes—even our lifetimes in this House. It is an enormous challenge facing the Government, but the Covid measures continue to destroy our productive economy. Like a scorpion, the virus leaves behind its sting in the huge backlog of patients requiring serious procedures; the damage done to our young people’s education and career prospects; the impending crisis in housing caused by rent arrears; and the unemployment currently disguised by the furlough scheme continuing. Major industries have haemorrhaged cash on an enormous scale. Substantial debt provided by the Treasury has been taken on and, frankly, will never be repaid. Are we seriously going to take £20 a week from some of the poorest people in the land, just as electricity and food costs are rising? That decision alone is some £6 billion.
What is the Government’s strategy for facing this challenge? Tax and spend is not the answer. Nor can we continue selling IOUs to ourselves, which is given the name “quantitative easing”—a subject the main committee is about to report on. Inflation is already coming down the track, with the costs of raw materials soaring and pressure on wages rising because of labour shortages at a time when the Government are maintaining employment for many people through the taxpayer.
The Bank of England’s reassuring messages that there is nothing to see here and nothing to worry about, and that it will delay interest rates as soon as there is inflation—which will be a short-term effect—worry me. I remember, when I was a young man first engaging in politics, how quickly inflation got out of control, as people started pricing for anticipated rates of inflation. It ended in inflation of over 20%, interest rates of 15% and a lot of pain faced by the Conservative Party in government and the country as a whole. Inflation may be convenient for Governments with big debts but, as Jim Callaghan put it, inflation is the father and mother of unemployment.
The only way we can get through this crisis is by getting our economy growing again. That means recognising that the current long-term growth projections of just under 2% from the Government’s own statisticians are wholly inadequate and not acceptable. We need to change our strategy.
Increasing corporation tax—here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler—is the opposite of what is needed if we want to see more investment, growth and employment. Entering a cartel to set a minimum level of corporation tax may be good news for the United States, with revenues from its increasingly overmighty tech companies, but what happened to that vision of global Britain—the place to invest and create jobs and prosperity? The thinking embodied in the Chancellor’s welcome vision for free ports needs to be applied to the nation as a whole. If we believe in competition as the way to secure innovation and prosperity, why are we suddenly abandoning competition in taxation? “Take back control” was as much about setting our own taxes and laws as about regulation. It should be for the other place to decide tax matters and tax policy, not the President of the United States, and not by international treaty. It is the other place’s duty to vote means of supply, and it is wrong for the Executive to circumvent that in this way.
I fear that, as the President of the United States now appears to want to opine on the Northern Ireland protocol, it may be time for Boris Johnson to have his “Love Actually” moment and not just make the speech but unleash the talents of the British people. That means supporting the self-employed and encouraging outsourcing. While it is commendable that HMRC tackles tax dodgers and abusers, this should not be at the expense of struggling self-employed businesses by imposing additional costs. The self-employed are not the same as those on PAYE. There is no statutory sick pay for them and no holiday entitlement, and the next penny depends on identifying the next job. IR35 is having a severe impact and will discourage others to set up on their own. I talked to someone in exactly that position just over the weekend. These small and medium-sized businesses are the seed corn of our future growth, and the Government should honour their long-standing promise to bring forward a new status for self-employment following the Taylor report, as my noble friend Lord Bridges indicated in his excellent speech a few minutes ago. This was also a manifesto commitment; I cannot remember how many manifestos ago it was, but it was certainly a clear commitment from this Government.
It now seems every Finance Bill brings forward new powers for HMRC, even before the review of the use of existing powers is completed. This Bill is no exception, taking away the right of appeal to a tribunal for financial institutions to provide specific information about a taxpayer. The disgraceful and effectively retrospective treatment of loan charge victims, such as local authority and health service workers placed in schemes by their employers without full understanding of what they meant, has not been matched with the same zeal in pursuing those responsible for marketing those schemes, now languishing on their superyachts with their ill-gotten gains. I am disappointed that the Government have refused to apply measures retrospectively to these promoters, as recommended by the Finance Bill Sub-Committee, but I welcome the proposals for tougher action that are currently subject to consultation. It is beyond belief that these schemes are still being promoted, and some are targeting workers returning to the NHS. HMRC itself has been using firms that use these schemes.
To conclude, we need a clear vision from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and a strategy to get our economy going again if we are to meet our duty to secure a safety net for those most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our country. Higher taxes, more bureaucracy and continuing uncertainty are anathema to achieving that, for, as the Book of Proverbs reminds us,
“Where there is no vision, the people perish.”
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, we understand the difficult job the Chancellor has had of bringing forward this year’s Budget in the unprecedented circumstances in which this nation finds itself. The immediate priority, looking at the economy, must be ensuring that we come out of this pandemic with as many safeguarded jobs and livelihoods as possible. The economic packages, especially the furlough scheme and the help for the self-employed, have been incredible interventions, which have helped stave off the worst ravages of economic depression that may otherwise have occurred. I congratulate the Government, as we all do, on the incredible investment in the vaccine rollout, which has produced stupendous results.
Once again, the benefits of being part of one of the biggest economies in the world has been illustrated for all our citizens through all parts of the United Kingdom. I have to say that I have been reassured somewhat in recent weeks by the feedback from people normally critical of the United Kingdom—even of being part of the United Kingdom—about the way in which this country has responded, with the vaccine rollout in particular but also throughout this pandemic with the economic interventions.
The Chancellor is having to balance the need for immediate actions to counter imminent economic shocks against long-term economic recovery and mounting levels of eye-watering debt. So far, I believe that, generally speaking, the Government’s approach has been the correct one. Some of the measures, which normally no one would ever contemplate, have been necessary to avoid far worse problems. That is not to say that there are not issues that need to be addressed and addressed quickly, and I want to refer to a number of general points before making a specific reference to a particular, discrete issue affecting electricity generation in Northern Ireland.
The hospitality and tourism industries, which the Minister referred to in terms of the VAT relief, have been decimated by the pandemic and the lockdowns. I welcome what the Government have announced in relation to VAT for these sectors—the extension of rate cuts until September and tapering measures until March next year—but it is vital that these sectors are allowed to get back to full working capacity as quickly as possible. They can survive only by full reopening and full working, and I hope that that will happen as quickly as possible—if not on 21 June then as quickly as possible thereafter, conscious of the need to take all necessary health precautions.
I also want to mention the issue of air passenger duty. We have some of the highest rates anywhere in the world. Peripheral parts of the United Kingdom are very dependent on air connectivity. Rail options do not exist for places such as Northern Ireland to reach other places in the United Kingdom. I ask the Government to keep under review measures that will alleviate the burden on businesses and families of air passenger duty on internal United Kingdom flights.
It would be impossible to participate in a debate like this and not make reference to the burdens that are being placed on the Northern Ireland economy and Northern Ireland businesses, and our communities more generally, by the Northern Ireland protocol. I am disappointed that there is little, apart from provisions in relation to the steel industry, that will alleviate those burdens, particularly in relation to customs requirements.
However, I do look forward to the Government introducing two new measures—in the near future, I hope—that will address the underlying problems of the protocol and do away with the incredible situation whereby, if the grace periods that are currently in force are not extended or a permanent solution not found, as many if not more checks will be done on foodstuffs and other materials coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland as are done on those entering the entirety of the European Union from the rest of the world. That is an amazing, incredible and scandalous situation which must be remedied by the Government. I hope that those measures will be comprehensive and far-reaching.
I want to turn to the aspect of the Bill I mentioned and explore it in more detail. I believe it is something that perhaps is an unintended consequence of what is otherwise a reasonable provision: it is do with the prohibition on power plants putting rebated fuel—red diesel—through electricity generators after 1 April 2022. I fully understand, and electricity generators also appreciate, the policy objective of helping meet climate change and air quality targets by removing the tax advantage of red diesel, thus encouraging end-users to use more expensive white diesel, which is taxed at a rate that reflects the impact of the emissions that they produce.
However, the Bill will have a particular, unique and unintended detrimental consequence for electricity generators in Northern Ireland. Kilroot and Ballylumford power stations in Northern Ireland have a historical licence obligation to maintain stocks of red diesel as part of the Northern Ireland Fuel Security Code obligations. The licensing obligation for Northern Ireland electricity generators requires back-up fuel—red diesel—to be held for security of power supply purposes in the event of gas supply interruption. The Bill requires the disposal of all existing red diesel stocks before 1 April 2022. There is in fact major uncertainty about whether that timetable could be met. There will be significant additional costs of doing this to both Ballylumford and Kilroot, estimated at £14 million for one and £1.6 million for the other. That includes all the logistical problems as well as the replacement of the fuel itself.
There is, however, a major competitive commercial disadvantage for Northern Ireland power generators vis-à-vis others within the competitive integrated single market and vis-à-vis the Great Britain market. There is no equivalent requirement to hold reserves of what the Irish equivalent of red diesel is in the Irish Republic, and the requirement to hold back-up fuel is applicable only to Northern Ireland power generators and does not apply to gas-fired power generators in Great Britain. One of the perverse impacts of the requirement of the provision in the legislation, if it is not remedied, is that it will lead to additional and higher CO2 emissions in Northern Ireland that would otherwise be avoided: having to use up the fuel in generating electricity will cause much greater emissions. It will be costly for the consumer; the extra cost is estimated at £60 million based on commodity prices, as of 1 May 2021. Then there is the risk of security of supply for Northern Ireland in the period between getting rid of one fuel and replacing it.
I welcome discussions which have taken place between power generators, Ministers and officials in Her Majesty’s Treasury. It is vital that the Bill’s unintended consequences are addressed. I understand that progress has been made, but I would like the Minister, in responding to the debate, to put on the record how he understands the way forward. Will he confirm that HM Treasury is looking at fixing this problem, that guidance will be issued relating to the Bill or that there will be secondary legislation to address the issue? Could he confirm that there will not be a requirement placed on Northern Ireland power generators to rid themselves of existing stocks of reserved fuels by the prescribed date, with all the detrimental impacts that I have outlined? I hope the Minister will be in a position to respond positively, because this would be good news for the plants themselves, for consumers and for the environment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I join the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Bridges—under the excellent mentoring of my noble friend Lord Forsyth—and his committee on the report, which is most welcome. Of course, I first refer your Lordships to my register of interests.
This is an important debate, as the Finance Bill and the powers of HMRC affect us all. I am therefore somewhat surprised to see how few Peers have put their name down for this debate. While I am delighted to see so many here physically—I think all but one are speaking in the Chamber—I am perplexed by why so few are speaking on this matter today. Of course, we do not have the power to amend the Bill, but this sort of Second Reading is exactly the place where we can interrogate government and, I hope, come up with some ideas which would be of assistance based on our expertise and experience. It also does not help those who argue for a smaller House if we cannot attract a strong number for such an important debate, and it means that people with knowledge and awareness of finance, tax and business should be recruited into the House. The Government do listen to these debates and to Peers’ comments on taxation, as I will elaborate later.
I start my comments on the Bill by congratulating my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues on the 132 clauses originally tabled, as physically displayed by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. They address so much that affects our daily life, from the rates of tax payable to capital incentives—which I believe will encourage greater investment in industrial plants and machinery—some nudging behaviour away from plastic packaging, and even encouraging cycling to work, with cycle equipment being written off. There really is much in here to be commended. I thought I would focus most of my remarks on what is not in the Bill, sometimes with good reason, and some matters which might be considered for future Budgets.
The first, which is not in the Bill, is an increase in the capital gains tax rate. Before the Budget there was a somewhat rogue report from the aforementioned Office of Tax Simplification. It is normally a sensible office producing sensible ideas, but on this occasion it proposed that it would be simpler to equalise income tax and capital gains tax—a somewhat unsophisticated thought, as it does not allow for the essential difference between income or salary and capital gain, which is a return on risk taken. Fortunately, after somewhat of a campaign—in which I confess I played a part—the Chancellor agreed that CGT rates should stay as they are. This Finance Bill does not change them, which is an eminently sensible and pragmatic decision.
My first question to my noble friend is, given all this wasted noise, effort and focus against raising CGT and that the Chancellor has clearly researched the subject and reached a conclusion, can we avoid all this palaver at every future Budget of this Government by announcing that the rate will stay fixed, as has been done for other taxes in the Conservative Party manifesto? This will provide much greater certainty to entrepreneurs, investors and businesspeople for the next few years. The cynic might argue that the Chancellor likes the uncertainty as it encourages people to realise assets when they would not otherwise do so, and thus send money to the Exchequer ahead of the anticipated date. However, we all know on this side of the House that the Chancellor is not that type of politician and is instead focused on making life easier and more predictable for taxpayers. By the way, the retention of the current rates proves my earlier point that the Government listen to people in this House and elsewhere and consider their arguments carefully.
In the debate on the Motion to Take Note of the Budget Statement in this Chamber, I asked my noble friend the following:
“I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us to what extent this Budget complies with pillar 1, and in particular pillar 2. What steps will HM Treasury be taking to ensure that we fully comply with pillar 2?”—[Official Report, 12/3/21; col. 1919.]
There were many speakers on that occasion, so I assumed that I did not get an answer because of other priorities. It turns out that the reason I did not get an answer was because the Government were busy hatching a plan with world leaders to do just that. This is another matter not in the Finance Bill, but I hope the Minister will allow me to comment on the historic announcement as it will fundamentally affect corporate taxation and is thus very germane to this Bill.
The Red Book estimates that only £40 billion will come from corporation tax this year but that the new rates proposed in the Bill will increase that by £2.3 billion in 2022-23, £11.9 billion the following year and £16 billion the year after that—those are just the increases—so a lot is riding on corporation tax yield increasing as the rates move up. Accordingly, it is very important that corporations pay their fair share. I have tracked the OECD proposals on base erosion and profit shifting for some time. Indeed, it was the subject of my maiden speech in 2013. I hope the Minister will allow this as an acceptable forum to raise this related issue, not least as no other forum other than today’s PNQ has been offered to Peers to discuss the OECD announcements —although, of course, he may want to answer some of my questions in writing at a later date. The UK really needs a deal on pillar 1, as much as we are seeing progress on pillar 2. At the moment, the details are somewhat vague. It is all very well for profits which are diverted into tax havens to be transferred into the HQ country, but the minimum rate of tax—be it 15% or 21%—does not of itself affect the amount of tax the FAANG or others will pay in the UK.
DST—digital services tax, which I will come on to again in a minute—was put in place to ensure that profits generated from UK customers were taxed here. Clearly, future tax should be based on user bases rather than sales made—not just customers, but user bases. As we know, sales to UK customers are currently often based in places such as Ireland, but the goods are delivered here. DST seeks to achieve proper taxation on this, but we need to know how pillar 1 will do so likewise, as the expectation is that DST will be dropped at some point. Perhaps the Minister can assure us on that point.
Meanwhile, the pillar 2 proposals are encouraging, but I urge some caution. The IPPR issued a report estimating that with a global minimum rate of 21%, our take could be £14.7 billion. That would be nice, but at a global rate of 15% now being suggested, our share would be much lower. Let us not forget that we already have controlled foreign corporation legislation in place—I think it may have been introduced by my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke, but it may have been before his time—and that this legislation seeks to equalise UK-headquartered corporations’ tax take. I am indebted to Glyn Fullelove, formerly president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, for sharing with me his calculations, which suggest that a figure nearer to £2 billion or £3 billion could be the amount raised by the pillar 1 and 2 proposals. Perhaps HM Treasury could share its estimates with us at some point.
We introduced the digital services tax so that companies such as Amazon would pay their fair share. Unfortunately, it is not working as well as it should. First, Amazon, which clearly has monopoly-type power, has simply told its suppliers to pay. Secondly, it applies only to marketplace fees, not to direct sales. This is a very important difference. It is another area I was disappointed not to see mentioned in the Finance Bill, as we now have the situation where DST has made it harder for SME retailers to compete with Amazon.
The current DST legislation is defective in not taxing the user-created value arising from sales made by marketplace providers on their own account. Additionally, the application of DST to marketplace fees and commissions charged to third parties, without a corresponding charge arising on the value created when the provider uses the platform to make sales on its own account, is a distortion to competition. I and a number of others have proposed that the scope of DST be extended, so that when a marketplace provider uses the marketplace for its own sales—or uses a similar platform alongside the marketplace—an amount of digital services revenue, which can be taxed, arises.
As the Minister might be aware, I have discussed these ideas with the Financial Secretary, who is resistant to changing DST at this point. As a result, there is nothing in the Bill on this issue. I hope, however, that the Government will reconsider this matter, as we are quite a way from a final deal on a pillar 1 and 2 agreement and, in the interim, we are losing a very large amount of revenue.
Finally, on the enterprise initiative scheme, or EIS, Brexit gives us a chance to look again at restrictions placed on HM Treasury to avoid accusations of state aid. EU laws restrict the ability of the SEIS and EIS to provide entrepreneurs’ start-up capital quite dramatically. Will my noble friend the Minister agree to revisit this area?
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
Before our UK Budget of 3 March, in February, I attended a virtual meeting with the senior civil servant in India in charge of the budget there, along with the director-general of the Confederation of Indian Industry, the sister organisation of the CBI, of which I am president. They both said categorically that India’s budget did not increase any taxes for two reasons. First, businesses had suffered so much already and, secondly, they did not want to stifle the recovery after the pandemic. After that, I implored our Indian-origin Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, to follow India’s lead and not increase any taxes in our Budget on 3 March. He listened and, on the whole, taxes were not increased. However, he announced that corporation tax would increase from 19% to 25% in 2023. Our businesses drew a huge gasp of breath at taxes going up by almost one-third in one go. With Ireland next door to us with a rate of 12.5%, this was a concern. Of course, in November 2019, we had heard Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, announce at the CBI annual conference that a reduction in corporation tax in the UK, to 17% from 19%, would no longer go ahead. Inward investment is really important, so this is a worry: will it affect inward investment?
Fortunately, the Government seem to have resisted the suggestion by the Office of Tax Simplification to equate capital gains tax with income taxes. To do this would be suicide. It would deter investment, entrepreneurship and risk-taking. We need to encourage wealth creation. The UK is the second or third-largest recipient of inward investment in the world. We have a Minister responsible for inward investment at the DIT—our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone. We need to be a magnet for inward investment, as we have been. We have left the EU but, of course, as I always say, we will never leave Europe. When we were in the EU, we were seen as a gateway for investment into the EU. Today we should be seen as a gateway to Europe for investment. So we must resist equating CGT with income tax. That will deter inward investment and domestic investment, there would be capital flight, and it would deter entrepreneurship and risk-taking, as I said earlier. It would be hugely damaging to listen to the OTS regarding CGT. Does the Minister agree?
The Chancellor listened and has not done this so far. Entrepreneurs’ relief has been cut by the Government, which was not a good step if it was meant to encourage entrepreneurship. On the other hand, the super deduction was a masterstroke by the Chancellor and the Treasury: to encourage investment by giving relief of 130% instead of 18%, to have 25% off your tax bill, and to encourage investment—wow! The Government are doing the right thing, but they have announced that this will be taken away in two years’ time, just at the time when corporation tax will go up. Should not the Government consider continuing with the super deduction? Will the Minister give us his opinion?
At the CBI, of which I am president, we welcome measures such as the super deduction, supporting business investment, the extended loss reliefs and supporting business cash flow. We hope that the current cap on carried-forward losses can be temporarily lifted to allow the many viable and vibrant businesses in the UK even greater flexibility in how they use their exceptional Covid-related losses, along with other policy measures already in place. This will help to support businesses of all sizes to recover and grow after the pandemic.
The CBI is also calling for a tax road map. We were disappointed, as was the Treasury Committee, that the Government have not yet consulted on producing this. We believe that the relative success of, for example, the corporation tax road map, demonstrates the value to businesses and people alike of laying out the direction of travel of the tax system and how the Government will use taxes to achieve their manifesto policy goals.
On green taxes, there is very little in the Budget about net zero and tax. We would like to see much more leadership on this from the Government, particularly leading up to COP 26. The CBI has produced a paper on greening the tax system that aims to start a discussion between the Government and business about how tax can best support net zero. This is a once-in-a-generation platform to boost climate-progressive industries, associated skills and innovation, to show that the UK can lead the world in the technologies of the future and accelerate our response to climate change. Devising suitable regulatory frameworks will be key, given the pressures on public finances, but fiscal measures, including environmental taxes and tax incentives, will also be an important lever in driving change. Does the Minister agree?
The £400 billion invested by the Government in supporting our economy and our businesses has been phenomenal. Whether in absolute terms or in per capita terms, it is one of the highest sums in the world. I was privileged to chair the B7 last month, which fed into the G7 this week. Dr Gita Gopinath, chief economist of the IMF, spoke to us, saying that in the global economy there will be a two-track recovery. Some economies, such as ours, have been fantastic with their vaccination programmes. Full credit goes to Nadhim Zahawi, our Vaccinations Minister, who has achieved a vaccination rate of 75%, with double doses at 50%. This is tremendous. Likewise, America is doing very well. With our huge £400 billion of support, we will be able to bounce back very quickly. Andy Haldane, chief economist of the Bank of England, has likened our economy to a coiled spring. On the other hand, sadly, many economies in the world have hardly vaccinated their citizens and have hardly been able to provide any support to them.
How will we pay for this £400 billion? How will we pay for the nearly 10% drop in our GDP, the worst performance in 300 years? I get asked this question a lot, and I believe that the way we pay for it is by generating growth and with the support the Government have given—for example, the furlough scheme, which has saved millions of jobs and businesses, and the 100% guaranteed loans. The British Business Bank, which had a loan book of £8 billion in February last year, today has a loan book of £80 billion. Hats off to it for giving these loans, which have saved so many businesses.
What about unemployment? In February last year, it was at 3.5%, one of its lowest levels; it is now at 4.8% because of all the measures that have been taken. We have to prevent unemployment, and youth unemployment in particular. Young people have suffered so much during this crisis. Some 50% of jobs lost, sadly, were among young people. If this coiled spring is to work, the supply side measures which encourage economic growth must be there. It means creating jobs. This will be the best way to pay for the £400 billion. It means not increasing taxes. We need to encourage inward investment as well as domestic investment. We need to create growth. This will create jobs which, in turn, will create the PAYE and the NI that make up the biggest proportion of taxes. The people who get those jobs will spend and that will generate VAT—which will be far more than the relatively small proportion generated by corporation tax. I give full credit to the Chancellor for leading the agreement by the G7 for the 15% minimum global tax rate. We have always said that, if there is to be a minimum tax rate, it must be agreed globally. Let us see what happens at the G20. However, we still need to encourage businesses to locate in the UK. We need to get the Amazons and the Googles to come here to create the thousands of jobs that will create the taxes.
At the CBI, we have a new director-general, Tony Danker. Six months into his role, we published Seize the Moment, our economic strategy for the United Kingdom during the next decade to 2030. It contains six pillars: a decarbonised and an innovative economy; science and technology; research, development and innovation; universities and businesses working together, and a globalised economy with the UK as a trading powerhouse. It encourages levelling up around the country in clusters such as between Cambridge University and AstraZeneca. We have also launched An Inclusive Economy to change the race ratio and promote ethnic minority diversity and inclusion across all businesses. McKinsey has shown that companies which embrace diversity and inclusion are more profitable; Deloitte has shown that they are more innovative.
Finally, we are promoting a healthier nation, including mental health and well-being, within an action plan that includes a long-term tax road map for the United Kingdom. To enable all this and for Andy Haldane’s coiled spring to happen, we need the supply side to be there. The United Kingdom needs a competitive tax system that will encourage investment and job creation—one which is globally competitive and super-effective.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I am an unpaid adviser to Tax Justice Network. Tax justice is the theme of my remarks today.
A key requirement for building a just and sustainable society is for people to have good purchasing power with which to buy goods and services and to stimulate the economy. This simple truth is neglected not just in this Finance Bill but in many previous Bills. The Bill depresses people’s purchasing power. The current tax-free personal allowance of £12,570 has been frozen until 2026, as have income tax thresholds. The net effect is that one in 10 adults will pay a higher rate of income tax, with the poorest ending up paying a higher proportion of their income in tax. This measure alone removes some £19 billion of spending power from households. It will condemn many to a great deal of insecurity and difficulty.
Regressive taxation has been normalised in each year’s Finance Bill. The TaxPayers’ Alliance estimates that the poorest 10% of UK households now pay 47.6% of their income in direct and indirect taxes. This compares with 33.5% by the richest 10% of households. Because of wage and benefit freezes, zero hours contracts and job insecurity, this gap is now much bigger than in 2010. The Government need to examine why their policies continue to hurt the poorest in our society. They increased VAT to 20%; this is a regressive tax which hits the poorest hardest. There is no proposal for reform in the Finance Bill.
Council tax is regressive. This year, it has increased in the range 3% to 5%. Virtually the same council tax is paid on a property worth £3 million as on one worth £350,000, without any regard for any ability to pay. The poorest tenth of our population pays 80% of their income in council tax, while the next 50% pay 4% to 5% and the richest 40% only pay 2% to 3%.
There is no reform of national insurance contributions —another regressive tax. Employees generally pay 12% of their monthly incomes between £797 and £4,189 in contributions. Above that, the rate is an additional 2%. Inevitably, the rich pay a lower proportion of their total income in national insurance, compared to the poor.
Unlike the noble Lords, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Bilimoria, I cannot support the capital gains tax regime. Why on earth do the rich need a special tax regime? Capital gains are taxed at marginal rates of between 10% and 28%, whereas earned income is taxed at marginal rates of between 20% and 45%. Both increase somebody’s welfare and purchasing power. I can see no rationale whatever for taxing capital gains at a lower rate than earned income.
The Government’s policies on capital gains are also a bonanza for the tax avoidance industry. Armies of accountants and lawyers are busy converting income to capital gains so that their clients end up paying lower taxes. By taxing capital gains in the same way as earned income, the Government could raise around £14 billion a year. This could help the less well off by making the £20 a week universal credit permanent; the Government could also easily double it by this one simple reform.
There is tax relief of around £40 billion a year on contributions to pension schemes. Just 10% of high earners receive 50% of tax relief. There are 1.3 million individuals who pay into pension schemes but receive no tax relief and zero government support. This is because their income is less than the tax-free personal allowance. Again, the poor are being punished, for putting a little away for their retirement income.
I hope the Minister will explain why the Government insist on hurting the poorest with regressive tax policies. Just in case he is tempted to defend government policies by claiming that, in recent years, they have increased tax-free personal allowances, I remind the House that this has not changed the burden of tax on the poorest. Increasing the personal allowance has done nothing for 18.4 million individuals whose annual income is less than the personal allowance. We need a rethink if we want a just society.
The report, New Powers for HMRC: Fair and Proportionate? is very impressive, but I cannot help wondering whether the committee has not been hoodwinked by the Government and the tax avoidance industry. On page 3, the report states:
“On the proposals for tackling promoters of mass-marketed tax avoidance schemes, we welcome the Government’s intention to take further tough action against the known ‘hard core’ of promoters, but urge it to redouble its efforts in this respect, and to take further measures to combat the continued proliferation of new schemes.”
Where exactly is the evidence for tough action? There is an enormous difference between the law on the books and the law in practice. The Government have been soft on the tax avoidance industry. Big accounting firms have long raided the public purse through complex tax avoidance schemes. Occasionally HMRC goes to court, but the Government do not take any action against the firms.
Let me give some examples. The UK Supreme Court heard the case of HMRC v Pendragon plc and others. The case related to a VAT avoidance scheme marketed by KPMG, which would have enabled car retailing companies to recover VAT input tax paid while avoiding the payment of output tax. The court declared the scheme to be unlawful and the judge said:
“In my opinion the KPMG scheme was an abuse of law.”
That is a very strong conclusion. To this day, no action has been taken by any regulator or accountancy trade association against KPMG.
The court judgment in Development Securities plc and others v HMRC threw out a complex PwC scheme designed to shift apparent management control of some UK entities to Jersey to gain tax advantages by claiming that the entities were not liable to the UK taxes. The scheme was declared to be unlawful by the courts, but no action was taken against PwC.
An Ernst & Young scheme involved loans between companies in the same group, and the ultimate aim was to enable a company making the interest payment to claim tax relief on the expense while enabling the company receiving the interest to avoid tax. That scheme was sold to Greene King. After a prolonged legal battle, the scheme was declared to be unlawful. No action was taken against Ernst & Young.
Deloitte promoted a scheme to enable companies to generate deductible tax losses through complex financial transactions. The scheme was sold to Ladbrokes, but it gambled incorrectly and the court said that the scheme was unlawful. No action of any kind whatever was taken against Deloitte.
Big accounting firms have been peddling unlawful tax avoidance schemes and are not investigated, fined or disciplined but are given government contracts and seats on HMRC’s boards. The advisory panel on the general anti-abuse rule, GARR, is also dominated by the same people. Amazingly, none of the GARR panel’s rulings relate to any of its clients.
In sum, I question the claim that tough action against accounting firms for selling tax avoidance schemes has been taken. I invite the Minister to explain why big accounting firms peddling unlawful tax avoidance schemes have not so far been investigated, fined disciplined or prosecuted.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Forsyth referred to simplification. A 417-page Bill and 349 pages of Explanatory Notes to explain it—I know that most noble Lords will have read both from cover to cover—illustrates that we are not moving in the direction of simplification.
We now have a situation in this country where, because of our devolved settlements, significant economic barriers are being exercised in the devolved areas—particularly in Scotland, where taxation powers are broader than in the other devolved Administrations. But there is one thing that we are not doing: we are not explaining to the people in those regions where the money that the devolved Administrations spend comes from.
I have said before in this House that the devolved Administrations are a bit like giant ATM machines; when the cash stops coming out of the machine, those in the devolved areas simply say, “Well, Westminster didn’t give us enough”. We do not explain the arithmetic to the people in the devolved regions. That would not be a difficult exercise; all it would require would be for the Treasury, perhaps on an annual basis, to produce a short leaflet, or put it online, to show people where the money actually comes from. Local authorities often send out leaflets telling people how their taxes are spent but that does not happen nationally. There is a total absence of accountability to this Parliament for the funds given to the devolved Administrations. Vast sums of money are given over but there is absolutely no feedback or requirement to account for it. That is a perverse principle.
We talk about the pandemic and the rollout of the vaccines bringing our nation together, which I support and which is an excellent selling point. But when the biggest single element that affects the devolved Administrations is the money that they receive from the Treasury through block grants and Barnett consequentials, why do we not tell citizens in the devolved areas what the arithmetic is? It would not be a huge undertaking and it could be done on an annual basis. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that the Chancellor might look at this. It is a simple exercise, but it would put in context what is actually going on in this country.
I want to refer to a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised on Clause 102, which deals with restrictions on the use of rebated diesel and biofuels. I mentioned the Explanatory Notes, at least some of which I have looked at. The background note at paragraph 33 states:
“This measure introduces changes that will remove the entitlement to use red diesel and rebated biodiesel from most sectors from April 2022 as part of the government’s strategy to meet the UK’s target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050.”
That is a laudable aim but, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned, there is a perverse effect relating to our power suppliers in Northern Ireland. They are legally and contractually required to have distillate back-up in the event of a crash of the gas supply, because there is a single source of supply, called SNIP, which comes from Scotland to Larne, in County Antrim. If anything were to go wrong with that pipeline—which, thankfully, has not happened in all the years it has been operating—it is perfectly legitimate to require the people who generate our electricity to have that back-up. It is the only power supplier in these islands that has that legal requirement placed on it.
Distillate means red diesel, so the effect of the measure in the Bill would be that 12,000 tonnes of red diesel which does not need to be burned would have to be burned by April 2022 and replaced with another 12,000 tonnes of white diesel, simply because one has dye in it and the other has not. There is no technical difference between the two fuels—they are just the same, but one has red dye in it and one does not. The systems would have to be purged and because the number of tankers allowed to bring fuel in per day is limited to eight for environmental reasons, it would take between three and four months to purge and then replace. I am no climate expert, but we will produce an additional 23,000 tonnes of carbon that could be left sitting there because that fuel supply is only for an emergency and, fortunately, has not had to be used.
I appeal to the Minister to take this matter back to his colleagues. I have no doubt that the legal obligation for our power suppliers to have this back-up is one of those things that people had not realised—both the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and I were Energy Ministers in Northern Ireland, and I do not know whether I enforced it or if it is his fault—but it was the right thing to do. It might even have been the Deputy Speaker’s fault, because he was there before I was.
So I think it is just one of those things that had not been picked up, but its effects would be negative and perverse. It would mean extra costs for the consumer and have significant implications for our power suppliers because we are in an all-island market now; there is no similar requirement for power suppliers in the Republic of Ireland to have such a back-up, so they will automatically be more competitive when they are bidding to generate electricity to go into the grid. I appeal to the Minister to be kind enough to take this matter back to his colleagues and explain the difficulties. I am sure they can be dealt with and overcome.
I support the general principle, although there is no question that red diesel is abused. I also make the point that paramilitaries have been smuggling such products for 20 years—reasonably successfully so far, from their point of view—so to penalise the electricity consumer through no fault of their own would be perverse in the extreme.
By the way, it would be interesting to know—the Minister may not know this or he may not have the information at his disposal today, but he can let me know—if in fact he received any representations from the relevant department in the Northern Ireland Executive and, if so, when.
On a broader, general point, very few people in any of our lifetimes have seen anything like the last 18 months. There is no doubt that the Chancellor has been very vigorous in his attempts to ensure that our industries do not collapse, but I have to say to him that one industry that is in severe trouble, as the Minister will know, is the aviation and aerospace sector. I am a member of the APPG on Aerospace, and we had a well-attended meeting with the Minister, Robert Courts, just before I came into the Chamber. The sector is in despair because of the chopping and changing.
Aerospace is one of the key providers of high-quality jobs in the UK—over 100,000 of them, highly skilled and highly paid. It also provides apprenticeships, which are vital for the future. The uncertainties and the on/off process that is unfolding before us make it very difficult. Orders for aircraft have, naturally, gone down dramatically. We need more investment in reducing fuels, developing alternative means of propulsion and so on, but at present that whole supply chain is in dire straits. It is propped up by the furlough scheme, but that will not last for ever.
I appeal to the Government to get their house in order with regard to the aviation sector, and that means deciding when people can move around. I know these issues are difficult, but I have to say that a lot of the very good work that has been done is at serious risk of leading to high job losses. It is an area where this country in particular already has great leadership potential. In aerospace we are number two in the world, and there are not too many sectors of our economy about which we can say that. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that we protect this sector, which is so vital to the UK’s economy.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the perceptive remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I thank my noble friend Lord Agnew for his crisp summary of the financial situation and of the Finance Bill. I have also benefited from reading the explanation given at Second Reading by the Financial Secretary, Mr Jesse Norman, who has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Butler.
So we are well informed, but, unfortunately, the picture painted is a grim one. Pleased though we all are by our success on vaccination, I do not believe that the country has yet taken on board the full gravity of the financial situation that we face. The level of the national debt and the deficits that we continue to add to it are of a staggering dimension. It will be the work of many years to right the ship.
In case there are some who might want to claim that reducing the debt from its present size is unnecessary or can be put off to the Greek calends, I point out that the only reason why our financial response to Covid—with vast government grants and loans, furlough and all the rest of it—was feasible was because we had reduced debt as a proportion of GDP greatly since World War Two. The markets would not have accepted the levels of unfinanced expenditure that we have adopted in the last 15 months or so to deal with Covid if we had started with our present level of national debt. Everything that I say today is subject to the overriding necessity of improving the national finances. I am not sure that we, or indeed most other countries, are focusing enough on this issue.
That said, I thank the Treasury, where I served as a Minister, for the speed and creativity with which it provided support for the Covid crisis. I particularly commend the furlough scheme, although I think the rate was set too high, which will cause difficulties as it is phased out. However, the idea of using the PAYE system backwards is an excellent example of simplicity, a theme that I want to emphasise today. The aid to business, especially the simple suspension of VAT and the rates, has also shown bravery and flexibility. I hope that such imagination will now be applied to the long overdue review of rates.
The Treasury and HMRC have done well during Covid as they have been allowed to take risks and innovate. That reminds me of the wartime example of rationing. I know about this from my mother, who served on the Board of Trade in the rationing team in World War Two. In the dark days of 1941, with shipping disrupted, they were asked to extend rationing to textiles. Luckily, my mother’s boss was a clever academic from Cambridge. His idea was not to start again but to make the back pages of the food ration book into clothing coupons. Rationing came in overnight. This was an example of speed and simplicity similar to the furlough scheme.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley and his committee for a clear and compelling report on the Finance Bill, and for his new point about powers in relation to digital platforms, which might impose new burdens or costs on millions of businesses without proper scrutiny. I think that is in paragraph 125 in our fat book of Explanatory Notes.
I particularly agree with the concern that the committee expressed about the new tax checks linked to licence renewal applications for taxi drivers. This could even have the perverse effect of reducing compliance by taxi drivers nervous of the taxman. Like my noble friend, I also dislike the proposed removal of the important taxpayer safeguards in pursuing information requests. I believe the Government should think again on both points.
Ministers and civil servants do not understand how frightened people and businesses are of HMRC, how its powers to fine summarily are resented and how the complex web it spins confuses people. The lack of simple advice at the end of a phone is a real problem to the honest citizen and to the smaller enterprises that are the lifeblood of our economy. We are constantly told that stakeholders are involved in compiling the rules. Over the years, I have found this assurance less and less comforting, as most of the bodies being consulted are too similar in their thinking to that of the Treasury and HMRC.
Moreover, I was concerned to see the briefing from the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which suggested problems with the penalty provisions—see the notes on Clauses 112 and 113. These include a risk of disproportionately high penalties—so more reasons for people to be fearful. My noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean is right to argue for a look at the Bill and, perhaps more importantly, the whole tax code in the spirit of simplification and, I suggest, with an eye to encouraging enterprise and SMEs.
There is a wider point that is relevant here. A book that I have been reading from our wonderful Lords Library, by Eric L Jones, suggests that the rate of economic growth back to the Middle Ages reflects, in part, the removal of institutional and environmental barriers. Examples would be the ending of tithes and the lifting of rationing. The very process of opening up fuels growth and productivity, which generates a greater tax base in turn. So I say no to licences, where they can be avoided, and to new cross-compliance, as proposed in this Bill. I add a no to the continuation of needless or new EU-based rules. On the same principles, I say yes to free ports, to the two-year super-deduction for plant and machinery investment proposed in the Bill and to the right kind of planning reform.
Probably the biggest example of new burdens on business in the Bill is the new tax on plastic packaging. I am as keen on reducing plastic packaging as anyone in this House, as my contributions in many debates have shown. However, I wonder whether all this is worth the candle, given the detail and scale of intervention involved. I doubt whether it is the best way to reduce use and encourage recycling. I recommend massive simplification. Plastics are oil-based and there may instead be a case for a simple duty like that on petrol or alcohol, albeit at a much lower level.
As my final contribution to this debate, I will mention skills, especially technical and vocational skills, which are essential for improved productivity and levelling up. We are at last making some progress in technical education, and youngsters can see that practical skills are vital and that university is not always a wise aspiration. However, from day one, the apprenticeship levy scheme has been complex and unimaginative. I know from direct experience that some businesses and organisations are not even spending their levy pot, because of these complexities.
I am glad to see the attention that the Chancellor gives to vocational skills, with well-publicised visits to talk to apprentices and online seminars. Could my noble friend, who I know is expert and sympathetic to this issue of skills, explain how the Government will improve outcomes in this vital area?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise with the unusual luxury of 10 minutes’ speaking time, given because we have only a dozen Back-Bench speeches on this crucial taxation issue. I hope that some Peers in your Lordships’ House who specialise on issues of poverty and inequality—indeed, on any issues at all—will join these debates in future. Taxation, or the lack of it, shapes our societies. As the richly informative and powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, outlined, decades of decisions about taxation have helped to give us our deeply unequal, poverty-stricken society. We have been taxing the poor and allowing large companies and rich individuals to get away without paying.
The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, suggested that your Lordships’ House may need more experts in tax, finance and business, but this is a far broader issue that needs a far broader input. I quote the American historian Albert Bushnell Hart:
“Taxation is the price which civilized communities pay for the opportunity of remaining civilized.”
It is clear now, on the streets of London, that there are strong and rich debates about how the people who benefit from the investments of this and previous generations—in roads, public buildings, electricity supplies, and the services that we all pay for such as schools, hospitals and policing—make a fair contribution to the maintenance and restoration of our degraded physical and social infrastructure, and the impacts of austerity that we see in potholed roads, closed libraries and inadequate social care provision. These are not technical issues, but are at the very foundation of our society.
Noble Lords might worry about where they get sources of information. I thank Tax Justice UK for an excellent briefing and for drawing attention to the work of the Women’s Budget Group, which has identified how women, people on low incomes and BAME communities will benefit least from the tax breaks in the Bill and bear the chief brunt of the scheduled spending cuts.
It is interesting that, in the debates so far, the failures of regulation and of culture in our financial sector have come up again and again. Noble Lords who took part on the then Financial Services Bill might reflect on this. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, talked about umbrella companies, which is an area where the UK is world-leading in entirely the wrong direction. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, talked about the “many-headed Hydra” of tax-dodging schemes, as did the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, in great detail. The fact is that we have too large a financial sector, which is milking not just the UK but the entire world and particularly the global south. The centre of global corruption is on our doorstep.
It has been suggested that we all live in social media bubbles these days, but in your Lordships’ House I feel like I am in the vigorous Atlantic surf of strong disagreement on economic issues. I particularly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about their entire economic commentary. The ways and means mechanism and its implementation have existed for many years and show how the rules of the game have changed and that the old economic approaches failed disastrously and gave us the global financial crash. We are finally looking differently at how the economy works and what it is for. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and many others said that we need to get the economy going again and focusing on growth. I remind your Lordships’ House, in the country that is the chair of COP 26, that we cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. That is not politics; it is physics.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, recommended some reading to us. I have some alternative reading to suggest, a book I reviewed this week in the House magazine by Professor Tim Jackson. He is quite a mainstream economist and his book Post Growth is well worth a read. I also pick up on the points of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, which focused on the importance, as he sees it, of giant multinational companies. I stress that 61% of employment in the UK is in small and medium enterprises. The Government talk of levelling up, but I would rather talk about spreading out prosperity. The foundation of prosperity for every community in this land needs to be built on strong local economies of small independent enterprises and co-operatives—a different and stable kind of economic model.
Having set the scene, I turn to some details in the Bill. I take the point made by several noble Lords about the thickness of the paperwork but, when you look at the measures, you see that it is actually a modest Bill. It talks about tidying up some Northern Ireland and VAT Brexit issues—another reminder that Brexit is by no means done. There are some modest measures that noble Lords have referred to about plastics, red diesel and cycling—very modest again for the chair of COP 26, when you think about the need to act on the climate emergency. We also have an increase in stamp duty land tax for overseas purchases of residential property in England and Northern Ireland which, should your Lordships take an imaginary scan of the boroughs around where we sit today, might be best described as shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
The headline measure is a super deduction for the largest companies, many of which have done very well out of the great tragedy and suffering of the global pandemic. This is estimated to be going to cost the Treasury £25 billion. That would be a lot of social care or a large injection that our education sector so desperately needs. The Office for Budget Responsibility said that £5 billion of the spending that would be covered by this will be spent on previously planned investments. The Times reported that tax advisers specialising in capital allowances have pointed out that jacuzzies are listed as one investment that could receive a 130% rebate.
Perhaps we also need to think about what is not in this Bill. It is interesting that, despite widespread debate in society now, both in the Bill and in the debate around it in the other place, no amendment was put down about a wealth tax. There was no real discussion of it in the other place despite that now being a major topic of discussion among even some quite mainstream economists and certainly among the public.
Of course, there is a lot of discussion about the levels of corporate taxation, led not by the UK but by Joe Biden’s America. When I asked the Minister on 14 April about the US President’s plans, he effectively gave me a “no comment” response when I asked what the UK stance would be. I am pleased to see that we have now signed up to the US initiative. The noble Lord in his answer to my supplementary question then said something very interesting. He said the Government had always been one that wanted to reduce taxation wherever possible. Perhaps he might like to consider the words of the Chancellor in deciding to end the race to the bottom in corporation tax by increasing the headline rate to 25% in 2023 after Her Majesty’s Treasury found that the cut in the headline rate since 2010 did not drive inward investment. To quote the Chancellor, it
“might not be the most effective way to drive capital investment up”.
I also refer to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, about those statistics. He referred to inward investment. I would say that that inward investment very often has been the selling off of the family silver, whether that is our water companies, publicly held land or, indeed, the family beds when it comes to selling off our care homes to the hedge fund industry.
If we did have, let us say, a wealth tax, where might it go? Despite the Government’s talk of an end to austerity, a £15 billion cut in annual government departmental spending is planned. These budgets are already cut to the bone and, of course, are being hit by the huge and continuing impacts of the pandemic.
There is some very useful information about who is paying and who is not. I have referred noble Lords to a report from the CAGE institute at the University of Warwick. In 2015-16, a quarter of people who had more than £1 million in taxable income paid less than 30% tax, while one in 10 paid just 11%—the same as a person earning £15,000 a year. This is a key issue.
I come back to the inequality and the poverty in our society, issues so well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. We are talking about capital gains tax and inequality in the way income is taxed. These issues are all missing from this Bill. They will need to be confronted soon.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, have withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I pick up the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, that there has been a relatively small number of speakers in this debate but my goodness they have been powerful speeches, and across a very wide range of issues. I hope the Government will take notice of the quality of this debate and the range of points made.
I start with a couple of general comments. I want to pick up the point made just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that this Finance Bill is a very modest Bill. I think that we all know that, but it leads into the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and others that we are in a very precarious economic period. I suspect that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, or the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in fact many people, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would not agree on the same solutions to the problem, but we can at least agree that there really is a problem and bottom out the extent of it and look for the Government to come forward with a strategy. Can I impress upon the Minister the importance of a government strategy that is realistic and faces up to the grim realities—to use the phrase from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe? We have to have that to be able to go forward effectively and successfully. I do not think that we should pretend that that role is picked up in this Bill. Please can the Minister make sure that it is picked up—and soon, quite frankly?
I want also to pick up the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on the G7 and the global tax and to echo something that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. I am glad to see that the G7 is coming together to tackle this issue. To me, it is a real illustration of the might of the United States and the flexing of its muscles. Almost every country will take some benefit from the changes in the way that a global corporate tax will be raised as a consequence but, in fact, it will be quite modest for most countries. The United States Treasury is the very big winner, and it is a reminder that when you delve into the world of economics and power politics you have to recognise size and power. I continue to be worried that for the UK this means being essentially a stone that is grated between big regional economies and power bases. If ever it needed to be illustrated, I think it has been the quick acceptance of the US proposals by the British Government because, frankly, they absolutely had no choice.
We have discussed a lot of the Bill in various Budget speeches so I am not going to labour those points, but I have some real pleas to put before the Minister. I am very concerned that the VAT relief rate should not rise to 12.5% in September. When we look at the hospitality industry and the pressures that it is facing, we now recognise that there may even be delays to full opening on 21 June. We know that new variants can come through. Keeping this at 5% to the end of the fiscal year surely would be sensible and would reassure the industry at this moment in time.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raised the issue of individuals facing rent arrears, which will now come tumbling in on them. So many of our small business, again probably especially in the hospitality industry, are facing in excess of £3 billion in unsettled rent levies. I think the Government are going to have to step in on this and I hope they will look at providing some support specifically on rent issues. Small businesses and self-employed people are very far from being out of the woods. Again, that argues for flexibility on the furlough scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, talked about it in the context of aerospace but, really, so many industries are going to need some ongoing support, or they will end up in a dire crisis. Looking at continuing furlough into the future, for at least some period, may be essential.
According to the Federation of Small Businesses, about 40% of small businesses are finding their debt levels completely unmanageable. We do not have a mechanism at the moment to convert that into a capital base. We need to be able to enable them and support them in converting debt. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has talked in previous speeches about a sort of variation on 3i, but there has to be some mechanism or else many of our small businesses are never going to be in a position to begin to grow; they will be overwhelmed by a debt burden that continues to drain them for a series of years to come.
I make one final plea again on behalf of the 3 million excluded, mainly contractors and freelancers. The Government could, at this very last minute, step in to support that group, and I ask them once again to do so. The noble Lords, Lord Bridges and Lord Forsyth, talked about wrapping this in with following through on the recommendations of the Taylor report. The environment for those businesses—and they are our future—has to be shaped by recognising the risks they face, looking at the rights and the benefits that they do without, and helping to structure the tax environment that they sit in within that overall context. The Taylor report should not be left on the shelf any longer.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, that we have a problem with freezes on income tax thresholds. It really is a mechanism to raise income tax, which is slightly ironic when the Government have basically decided not to raise capital gains tax. Some of the poorest people will now be stepping in to fill that gap. It is also ironic given that the increases in corporation tax are delayed to 2023, so income tax rises will, in effect, hit first.
While I tend not to spend a lot of my time thinking about the best paid, can I get some assurance from the Minister on the freezing of the pensions lifetime allowance? Last time, this created a real crisis for us in the NHS, with consultants realising that one hour of additional work meant that they would get a tax bill that was larger than the associated income. In fact, they could not even ask not to be paid and do the work voluntarily because of the way the system works. A large number of our senior military just got up and left because they were caught in the same conundrum—people who did additional hours on the battlefield were whacked then by the tax system. Can the Minister give me assurances that the way this is designed now will not repeat that particular set of problems? Again, with the super-deduction, I have never understood why it is analogue and not digital. Surely we want people to be investing in the technologies of the future and not just in plant and machinery. That one is completely beyond me.
I was privileged to be a member of the Finance Bill Sub-Committee, chaired brilliantly by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, also there. I am quite humble when I speak about this report, because it was driven by people of extraordinary capability—it was a very powerful sub-committee. I just want to make some quick remarks, and I will try not to be repetitive, on the three key sections that the report addressed.
I am very worried that powers are being extended before a proper evaluation of how HMRC uses its existing powers. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, made most of the comments that are relevant in this area, but it struck me—and I am making a personal comment here—that when we heard the Treasury, whether it was officials or the Minister, talk about the review of powers, it seemed more about identifying where powers could be increased and not about looking at how existing powers could be used far more effectively. We seem to have complete miscommunication around that issue.
As I remember it, that recommendation was embedded in real concerns about the loan charge and IR35—others have mentioned this—particularly because of the focus on the little people who got caught up in all kinds of schemes that they were completely unaware of and suffered very significantly as a consequence. Like others, I am delighted if HMRC is now determined to use powers, and extended powers are fine, to deal with promoters. But I am very frustrated that the retro-effective philosophy which is being used against individuals caught up in the loan charge, going back as far as 2010, is not being applied to the promoters who have accumulated huge profits in giving advice which, frankly, was from day one exceedingly questionable.
I join others in being worried about HMRC’s increasing instinct to outsource its compliance responsibilities. We are not talking about IR35 today, but the extension of the use of private companies to make the call on whether contractors they hire are caught by IR35 or not struck me as an overreach. We know that those companies, anxious not to have a fight with the tax authorities, are using quasi blanket determinations. Although an individual company can challenge a determination, it knows that at that point it gets labelled as a troublemaker and probably blacklisted for any future business. These are real problems we have with outsourcing, and they carry on into the issue of licensing taxi drivers and scrap metal dealers. At the moment, it is just an information exchange, but we can all be concerned that it is potentially the thin end of the wedge.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in being very afraid—I think the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said the same thing—that individuals will simply disappear from the system altogether. That could mean unsafe vehicles on the road because we have lost people from the licensing system, or real abuse of scrap metal arrangements, which can descend into the criminal underworld. I do not want to put a bad label on scrap metal merchants, who are decent, honourable people, but we can see where the pressures will come. I am desperately concerned about the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, on the use of digital platforms as essentially HMRC’s information-gathering mechanism, because it takes us even further into that area, which is one we absolutely must examine.
I shall make just one last remark—I realise the time is going fast and I should stop, but this is something we should draw to the attention of the House. The third area of concern that the report raises is the oversight and scrutiny of HMRC and the powers to circumvent the safeguards of the tax tribunal. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, discussed that in some detail. The House may not recognise how necessary it is always to have such outside scrutiny.
Many of us received a copy of an email that the Loan Charge Action Group accessed through a freedom of information request. It dates to 31 January 2019, and is from Jim Harra, who is chief executive of HMRC, to a staff member. It follows a witness evidence session to a Treasury Select Committee, and refers to those to the House of Lords. It is about the loan charge. One must understand that the treatment of loan contractors depends entirely on a case brought before the tax tribunal called the Rangers case, which concerns Rangers Football Club. A decision came in 2017 which, I think, everybody who read it thought would be the weapon to use to go after companies that hire contractors and use disguised remuneration, but nobody was under the impression this could be used as the legal basis to go after individual contractors. The chief executive of HMRC wrote:
“In recent months I have repeatedly tried to obtain legal analysis to understand the strength of our claim”—
that is, the claim that there is a legal basis for going after individual contractors—“with very little success.”
I challenge anyone to show me where, in any of its evidence given to the Treasury Select Committee or the Finance Bill Sub-Committee, HMRC reflected that level of uncertainty. It demonstrates that the temptation to be parsimonious with the truth, to press on to achieve the target of maximum revenue-gathering, means that HMRC, like every other organisation, needs outside scrutiny. The importance of tax tribunals is paramount, and we must stop the constant whittling away of that power.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
It is nice to rise to a few cheers. I am almost the penultimate speaker and there must be a sense of relief.
Let me begin by thanking the sub-committee of the Economic Affairs Committee on its report on new powers for HMRC. I must say that there was little surprise when the committee identified a number of shortcomings in how the Government had gone about their work in recent years. The report raises concerns that will sound familiar to many: the questionable timing of announcements, somewhat odd prioritisation of workloads and the often relaxed attitude towards best practice and evidenced-based policy-making. Given both the economic and moral case for cracking down on tax avoidance and other forms of non-compliance, the findings of the report are of concern.
We have taken note of the Government’s response and acknowledge that some of the recommendations expressed in the report are being or have been enacted. However, it is clear that there is more for both HMRC and Ministers to do if we are to close the loopholes and promote better behaviour. As always, we are confident that officials are doing everything they can to meet the targets set for them from above. It is a case of ensuring that departments are properly resourced and appropriately directed. When the Financial Secretary introduced the Bill in the House of Commons, he paid tribute to the work of officials in the Treasury and HMRC throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. He was right to praise them for the dedication and creativity that they have shown by turning new concepts into reality and putting money into people’s pockets in record time.
As the Opposition, we have not shied away from challenging the shortcomings of the various coronavirus support schemes or the Government’s wider handling of different aspects of the pandemic. However, as with the report on the powers of HMRC, any shortcomings rest ultimately with the politicians in charge. With a certain amount of bullying from within and without, some of the issues of Covid-19 support were addressed, but sadly some problems have still not been acknowledged and the patchwork of support has left many people in similar situations facing very different financial circumstances.
As we progress along the Covid road map, the Government will need to think carefully about when and how support is withdrawn from businesses and workers. It is also vital that lessons are learned to start closing the gaping holes that have been exposed in this country’s social security safety net.
The Financial Secretary referred to what he identified as three objectives underlying the Budget in March, all of which focused on defeating Covid-19 and rebuilding after it. We disagree fundamentally with his claim that his Bill will enact changes in taxation that will support all those objectives. Neither the Budget nor this Bill is sufficient to address the long-standing challenges to the British economy and to put us on a path to sustainable growth that would benefit all communities across the UK. Such challenges contributed to the UK having the worst downturn of any major economy at the height of the pandemic.
Despite our recent return to growth, which we welcome, and the continuing hard work of the British people, I worry that the Government’s lack of ambition on economic reform will hold us back vis-à-vis our international friends and competitors. The Chancellor’s last-minute decision to sign up to President Biden’s corporate tax proposals through the G7 communiqué is a clear example of his lack of ambition. The UK initially resisted the proposal, the only G7 member to do so, and while we witnessed a U-turn over the weekend, experts in the field have already identified potential loopholes.
Returning to the Budget and the Finance Bill, it is a shame that, rather than supporting front-line workers, the Government have essentially snubbed their heroic efforts in the past year and a half. We are all familiar with the paltry pay rise for NHS nurses, but other public sector workers have received poor pay settlements too. Rather than embracing opportunities around corporate tax, such as levelling the playing field for online and so-called bricks and mortar businesses, this Finance Bill enables a corporate super-deduction while freezing the income tax allowance. The latter will hit low-paid households that have been lifted out of income tax only in recent years. Rather than present proposals for welfare reform to put more money into government to ensure adequate funding for pupils to catch up with the education they lost during the multiple lockdowns, the Budget instead laid out plans to cut certain welfare benefits and slash departmental budgets. In sum, rather than delivering on warm words and promises on job creation, addressing the climate crisis or levelling up, the Finance Bill is merely a continuation of the political decision-making that has left so many feeling that the Government are not on their side.
The past year and a half has been tough for us all. We have had to make sacrifices and do things differently but Covid-19 has also exposed the very best of many: NHS staff, other key workers and those who played an active role in their local communities. However, there is also a need to help the unemployed back into work, address the ever-growing debt burden faced by many businesses and provide meaningful investments to put our economy and public services on a surer footing. This Bill and the Government’s broader economic policy do not meet those tests.
In the House of Commons, the Labour Party proposed several sensible amendments to make the legislation fairer. Rather than engage, the Government opposed measures to ensure that large multinationals pay their fair share, to increase transparency around the actual economic impacts of free ports, and to review the effectiveness of plans to prevent overseas entities funnelling dirty money through UK property. Think tanks and commentators of all political persuasions have been unimpressed by the lack of urgency on important issues such as these.
All that said, any noble Lord who has had the pleasure of participating in debates on Treasury statutory instruments will know that I am no fan of constitutional crises. It is not for the House of Lords to oppose the Finance Bill, and we have no intention of breaking that convention today. However, I was seized by the debate that broke out earlier about what we cover and the extent to which the Finance Bill creates cover for issues that arguably should be properly debated in legislation.
It is very interesting to sit back and see what the House of Lords does best. I think that the House of Lords, in a sense, divides its attention between the political and better legislation. I have been involved, over the past 11 years, with every bit of finance legislation that has gone through this House, usually at the junior level with stars helping me. What has emerged from that is the improvement that legislation has enjoyed in this House. It has been a really powerful step forward. It happens because thoughtful people bring up poor areas of legislation and, combined with the fact that the Opposition takes a political interest in it, focus is brought to bear on those areas and small changes and nuances are achieved. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, was in a sense referring to that, that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was particularly referring to it, and that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, indicated some sympathy with it. I hope he and his committee might consider the extent to which the Government are starting to smuggle legislation that really should come to this House through the political process by hiding it in money Bills.
I also thought there were some interesting concerns about HMRC and the level of scrutiny. I headed a pretty large organisation; one of the problems with large organisations is the attractiveness of using your power to do things to people who are less powerful. Of course, you do it because it is good for you, but we need processes that test whether it really is. One of the worst problems in any complex society is that large organisations emerge because they are efficient but, because they are large, they have unreasonable power. We need proper, better processes—there was reasonable consensus on this during the Financial Services Bill we have just done—in the FCA, for political scrutiny, and better processes in the PRA.
On a more political point, I also felt that the concept from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, of the need for a more strategic approach from the Government was important. There have been lots of initiatives from this Government; we have disagreed with some and have supported others, but at no time have they seemed strategic. Two particular areas interested me. First, there is the failure to pick out sectoral initiatives; there are areas—I think the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, brought this out—in aerospace, for instance, where if we lose where we are now, no amount of money will get us back to the same place. There should be a stronger strategy for looking at where the weaknesses are. Secondly, there is this whole problem of debt; if debt is to be repaid—will it be?—it could become a millstone on the companies that should be bounding ahead. We need the best minds thinking about whether there is some way of turning that into equity, and so on.
There is much more to ponder. I hope that processes can be found for that pondering to be done in this House, and that we can be part of the legislative process. If anything makes the Government think, it is the fear of a vote going against them. I do not know whether anyone records this, but we do not actually like winning votes; we like persuading the Government to do good things because they are frightened of us winning votes. That is what happens—but anyway, I have something else to say.
It seems the Economic Affairs Committee’s conclusion that Ministers must do better applies more broadly than to tax avoidance policy. This Bill is yet another missed opportunity to grapple with the challenges our economy faces. Sadly, as is so often the case under this Administration, working families will pay the price for the Government’s lack of ambition.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, and I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I will round up by addressing some of the issues raised by your Lordships, starting with comments on the Economic Affairs Committee and HMRC’s powers.
I take this opportunity to thank noble Lords for their contributions on the new report from the Economic Affairs Committee, which focused on HMRC powers to combat tax avoidance and promote compliance. The Government have carefully examined the issues raised by the committee and given it a comprehensive response. I am pleased to say that nine of the committee’s recommendations were accepted and six were partially accepted.
Since the publication of the committee’s report, HMRC has published its evaluation of the implementation of powers, obligations and safeguards introduced since 2012. Working closely with representatives of taxpayers and agents, the evaluation has highlighted a number of new opportunities for HMRC to improve public trust in the tax system. It is crucial that HMRC has the powers necessary to identify the minority of people and businesses who seek to avoid or evade tax, while ensuring an appropriate balance of safeguards for taxpayers.
My noble friends Lord Bridges and Lady Neville-Rolfe raised the loss of safeguards, but this new measure does have important safeguards. For example, the notice may be issued only where the information is “reasonably required” to check a known person’s tax position or in connection with the recovery of a tax debt. An authorised officer must approve all notices and must pass a test every three years to retain their status. The financial institution can appeal against any penalties charged for failure to comply with the notice, and HMRC is required to make an annual report to Parliament on the use of the financial institution notice.
My noble friend Lord Bridges asked about umbrella companies and mini umbrella companies. The Government agree on the importance of regulating umbrella companies properly and have already committed to regulating them by extending the remit of the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate to include these. An employment Bill will be brought forward as parliamentary time allows. The mini umbrella company model is fraudulent and presents an organised crime threat to the UK Exchequer. HMRC works closely with trade bodies and other government departments to raise awareness of the mini umbrella company fraud.
My noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Bridges asked about Clause 125 on licensing authorities. The check has been designed to be minimal in scope and will only test compliance with the most basic obligation to be appropriately registered for tax. It does not create new tax obligations but simply ensures that these existing rules are complied with, promoting fairness for everyone in the sector. For most users it will take minutes to do and is needed only when licences are renewed—typically every three years.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth asked about corporation tax rates. At 25%, the rate is still highly competitive relative to our international peers, with the lowest headline rate in the G7. Alongside this tax increase, the Chancellor announced in the Budget a super-deduction, as we referred to earlier, from April of this year until April 2023. My noble friend is particularly concerned about the loan charge. I am sure that there is nothing I can say today that will completely allay his concerns, but I want to try because I appreciate his passion on this subject.
Promoters of tax avoidance schemes are already subject to significant penalties if they fail to meet their obligations. Since its formation in 2016, HMRC’s fraud investigation service has regularly secured convictions relating to arrangements that have been promoted and marketed as tax avoidance. Most of these people were involved in promoting tax avoidance schemes. However, we know that more can be done, and we are committed to ensuring that they face significant financial consequences for promoting these schemes.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth asked about the impact of IR35 on the self-employed. It is important to note that the reform does not apply to those who are self-employed according to the existing employment status tests. A worker’s employment status for tax purposes is not a matter of choice but is determined by the terms and conditions under which they work. This is determined by a number of factors which are set out in case law, such as whether they can send a substitute to do the work on their behalf, and the control that the client has over the work that that person does.
In terms of reforms to employment status, as laid out in our manifesto, the Government will bring forward measures to establish an employment framework which is fit for purpose and keeps pace with the needs of modern workplaces. These include measures that will encourage flexible working, protect vulnerable workers, take a smarter approach to enforcement of employment law, and build on the strengths of our flexible labour market to support jobs. The Government recognise concerns about employment status and are considering options to improve clarity in the system, making it easier for individuals and businesses to understand which rights and obligations apply to them.
The noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Empey, are concerned about the red diesel issue for power generation in Northern Ireland. In response to concerns raised by red diesel users in this context during last year’s consultation about their ability to run down fuel stocks, the Government have decided to give HMRC officers the ability to disapply the liability to seizure where the user can provide evidence to satisfy officers that they have not built up their stocks or taken red diesel into the fuel system after the rules change. The Government recognise that for some users, such as those who need red diesel for back-up power generation in case of emergencies but may use it only for a few hours a year, their last purchase of red diesel may be some time before the tax change.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked about air passenger duty. We are currently consulting on the Government’s initial policy position, but the effective rate of air passenger duty on domestic flights should be reduced to support the union and regional connectivity. The consultation closes in a few days, on 15 June.
My noble friend Lord Leigh asked about capital gains tax reform. The Government are committed to a fair and simple CGT system which strikes the right balance between raising revenue and supporting the UK’s economic recovery and long-term growth. Last year, the Chancellor commissioned the Office of Tax Simplification to examine areas where the present rules on CGT can distort behaviour or do not meet their policy intent. The OTS provides independent advice. It is the role of the Government to make tax policy decisions. The Government keep all taxes under review and will respond to the OTS in due course.
My noble friend also asked about the digital services tax and pillar 1. The UK digital services tax is an interim solution to the widely held concerns with international corporate tax, and the Government’s strong preference is to secure a comprehensive global solution on digital tax and remove the DST once this is in place. We are pleased at the progress that has been made in recent days towards securing that solution but recognise that there is still work to do in reaching wider agreement among the OECD key 20 countries ahead of July. The Government’s efforts will be focused on that objective.
It is premature to set out revenue estimates—the final design details and parameters of the rules will need to be worked though—but a key condition for the UK is that pillar 1 appropriately addresses our concern and ensures that the amount of tax that multinational groups pay in the UK is commensurate with their economic activities here. My noble friend also asked whether we are no longer committed to a competitive tax regime. We are absolutely committed to one, and as I mentioned, our headline corporate tax rate of 25% is competitive among our international peers.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, made important points. I passionately agree with his point about leading the recovery from this crisis through job creation. Employment gives people dignity and a sense of purpose. We are pleased with the results so far. The OBR now expects unemployment to peak at 6.5% in the fourth quarter of this year, as the CJRS is scheduled to end, falling gradually to 4.4% by the end of 2025. The estimated unemployment rate is 1% lower than its November forecast. This is equivalent to 340,000 fewer people in unemployment, partly thanks to the extension of the furlough scheme. The noble Lord will, be aware of other initiatives, such as our dramatic increase in the number of jobcentres.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asks about tax avoidance, particularly of the large accountancy firms. Rigorous anti-avoidance activity by HMRC has seen a significant proportion of those promoting schemes, including the large accountancy firms, being driven out of this market. It is now only a hard core of unscrupulous promoters, largely based offshore, who continue to promote tax avoidance schemes. The Government recognise that more could be done to raise standards more widely across the market for tax advice and ran a call for evidence on this last summer. The summary of responses and next steps was published in November. As part of this, the Government are consulting on introducing a potential requirement for tax advisers to hold professional indemnity insurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the IT and PA threshold, the freeze depressing people’s purchasing power. This policy will not come into effect until April 2022, when the economy will be on a stronger footing. We are asking people to make only a relatively modest contribution, to help fund good public services and to rebuild public finances. This is a universal and progressive policy, with those more able to pay contributing more. An average basic taxpayer will be only about £40 per year worse off in 2022-23. These are responsible decisions that will help to ensure the post-crisis task of putting the public finances back on a sustainable path.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe asked about Clauses 112 and 113 on the penalty systems that are being introduced. The current penalties and interest levied on taxpayers when they miss a submission deadline or pay their tax late are inconsistent across different taxes. The changes in this Bill bring consistency. The new approach to late submissions means that an automatic financial penalty will no longer be applied. Instead, the taxpayer will accrue points, much like driving licence points, with a financial penalty being applied only after repeated non-compliance. This means that taxpayers will incur penalties proportionate to the amount of tax they owe and how long payment is outstanding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is concerned that we cannot aim for continuous growth because of its damage to the environment. I would respectfully disagree with her and refer her to a book called More from Less by Andrew McAfee. A couple of simple statistics on the US Geological Survey, which has been running for over 100 years, has tracked 72 resources from A, aluminium, to Z, zinc, and only six are not yet past their peak. Energy use in the UK in 2017 was 2% below what it was in 2008, even though GDP had increased by 15%. An aluminium can built in 1959 weighed 85 grams, whereas one built in 2011 only weighs 13 grams. It is extraordinary the innovation that is occurring in our society.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about a pre-emptive rise in VAT rates. The Government appreciate that the expiry of any temporary cut will need to be carefully timed so that it does not impede progress as the economy recovers. That is why we are announcing this six-month extension followed by six months of the 12.5% rate, which will help businesses to manage the return to a standard rate. As the Chancellor made clear in his Budget speech, it is important for the Government to be honest about the need to keep the public finances on a sustainable footing. The Government will of course keep the situation under review. The reduced rate is expensive and is expected to cost over £7 billion in tax forgone. Applying a permanently reduced rate would further increase the cost to taxpayers.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the G7 agreement on tax reform. We are delighted that the G7 has come together to back these proposals. It represents a major reform to the international tax framework. The UK has been at the forefront of OECD discussions to address tax challenges of digitisation. The Chancellor has made it a priority of the UK’s G7 presidency to support progress towards an agreement. Our consistent position has been that it matters where tax is paid, as well as the rate at which it is paid. So we are delighted that we have G7 backing for both pillars of the OECD proposals on reallocating taxing rights as well as the global minimum taxation.
On the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about multinationals, the Government have taken significant steps, both domestically and internationally, to ensure that companies pay the right amount. The corporate interest restriction rules prevent multinationals from avoiding tax using funding arrangements. This has raised £1 billion a year since its introduction in 2017. The diverted profit tax has led to £5 billion in additional revenue by countering aggressive tax planning techniques used by multinationals to divert profits away from the UK. The tax charge on offshore receipts, in respect of intangible property, is forecast to raise £1.1 billion from companies that put valuable intangible assets in low-tax jurisdictions. The UK has also been at the forefront of the OECD discussions on this, and the Chancellor has made it a priority of the G7 presidency to support progress towards an agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about freeports and economic transparency. We have a firm commitment to ensure that the transparency extends to the freeports programme. That is why we published a decision-making note that clearly sets out how sustainable economic growth and regeneration were prioritised in the assessment process. This built on a robust bid assessment, where the eight successful English freeports demonstrated a strong economic rationale for their proposed tax sites. The Government have already taken action to address the concerns that any additional reporting requirements are seeking to resolve. We will be publishing costings of the freeports programme at the next fiscal event, in line with conventional practice.
Let me wind up by saying that I hope I have succeeded in addressing noble Lords’ questions. I will of course review the record of this debate and follow up in the usual way, and write where I have not been able to provide detailed answers.
HMRC: New Powers (Economic Affairs Committee Report)
Lord Bridges of Headley
That this House takes note of the Report from the Economic Affairs Committee New powers for HMRC: fair and proportionate? (4th Report, Session 2019–21, HL Paper 198).
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I have been told that, thanks to the intriguing procedure we have in this House, I am not entitled to give a full 10-minute speech, which no doubt noble Lords will greet with a great sense of relief at not having to sit through 10 minutes of me wittering on. I would just ask noble Lords to indulge me for a few moments.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for what he has just said, but ask him to write to me on the points I raised and the specific questions I asked, in particular as regards Clause 129, which I see as an enormous—I would use the words “power grab”. In my view, it is certainly an unwarranted clause, given that we have not even had the consultation which this policy clearly demands. We do not know the costs or the impact. I would therefore very much like to hear more from him on that.
I was relieved to hear that action will be taken on umbrella companies. That is clearly needed, although there is a crying need for action on the mini umbrella companies. We absolutely need to focus on that, and I am sure that our committee will do so.
I was also grateful that the Minister mentioned that the Government are still committed to their manifesto commitment at least to look at the measures in the Taylor review. This is long overdue, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said. It is absolutely critical. We need to address the impact which the digital revolution is having on our tax and employment systems. Until we do that, I fear that all the other tinkering that we do will be nothing but sticking plasters. We absolutely need a radical review, and this cannot happen soon enough.
As I said on the gracious Speech, it is greatly disappointing that this Government have not so far used the opportunity presented by having a majority of over 80 to start thinking in these ways and looking at taking some decisions that may be unpopular and tough but are needed.
I thank the members of the committee for their speeches and their very kind words about me. As noble Lords will no doubt have recognised and acknowledged in their speeches, it is their contribution that makes our committee pack its punch. In my opening speech I failed to mention my thanks to the Financial Secretary, Jesse Norman, and HMRC for co-operating with our committee’s inquiry. Clearly, we did not agree—it says so in the report—but as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, rightly said, we got to a score draw. I think that shows that I and we could do more next time, but at least that is better than nothing. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, it is a pity that the Government seem to agree more with the principles and the theory that we came up with than the practical next steps that we would like them to take. Better luck next time.
This has been a short debate, but it has been a double espresso sort of a debate; I feel we have packed an enormous punch into it and covered a wide range of issues. We have had very good contributions on the digital revolution, the enormous debt crisis I fear we are facing, climate change—the pressing issue of our time alongside the digital revolution—and inequality. I found the contributions challenging, and they have all been very interesting.
I have two points. First, it is somewhat depressing that there have not been more Members of this House contributing on what I see as the defining issues of our time. We can all think why that may be; one reason is that we are sitting in this Chamber as it is. The sooner we can get this House and the other place back to operating as close to normal as possible, the better. That will make sure we can debate these issues and challenge properly and effectively, as we are here to do. Until that happens, I fear we are going to go on having these kinds of debates; where we feel like we are talking to ourselves and not actually able to hold the Government to account—which is what we are here to do. That absolutely needs to happen.
Secondly, on the point that the noble Lords, Lord Butler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also made in winding up, I completely agree; it is very odd that we spend hours debating in committee, then coming up with committee reports outlining practical measures that can and should be taken by the Government on the Finance Bill. And what happens? In the space of an hour and a half, the entire Bill has gone through and it has gone through all those processes in the space of under a minute.
I recognise that how we do this means looking long and hard at our role with the other place on how we can make amendments to the Finance Bill that do not tread on their toes. I seriously think that, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, we need to look at this because there are some powers in this Bill that have not had anything like the amount of scrutiny they demand. Clause 129 is a good case in point. That really should change. It has been a very good debate, but noble Lords can sense my frustration that we have not been able to go on further. I beg to move.
Education Recovery
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am afraid there is simply no disguising the fact that the resignation of Sir Kevan Collins as Education Recovery Commissioner is a huge blow to the Secretary of State’s hopes of delivering on support for school pupils. I have to say that the Secretary of State’s response to the shadow Secretary of State yesterday was inept. He seems to regard all scrutiny and questioning as opposition, ignoring that all Governments need scrutiny to improve policies and their delivery.
At this time, young people and their families are looking to the Government for urgently needed help; a siege mentality will do very little to meet those needs. The mean-spirited plan outlined in the Statement is the one brought forward after the Prime Minister rejected Sir Kevan Collins’s own proposals to provide pupils with extra time and teaching to catch up on lost education over the next three years. The commissioner used his years of experience to produce plans that were simply cast aside by the Treasury. It is probably stretching things to imagine that the Prime Minister even cast his eye over them. The paltry scheme the Government are willing to fund was described by Sir Kevan as “a half-hearted approach” that
“does not come close to meeting the scale of the challenge”
and
“risks failing hundreds of thousands of pupils.”
It is no wonder he resigned.
Sir Kevan’s proposals were costed at £15 billion over the next three years. Last month, the Education Policy Institute published a full set of proposals for education recovery—a package of £13.5 billion over three years, required to reverse learning loss and support pupil well-being. Last week, Labour published our children’s recovery plan; it was costed in detail and totalled £14.7 billion over the next three years. So, in the past month, there have been three proposals, all within the same ballpark in their costings. Yet the Government reckon they have a monopoly on wisdom and believe that around 10% of that amount will get the job done. I know the Minister will say that some support for the recovery has already been committed and more will follow in the spending review, but the Government are so far short of what the experts—and I am not placing the Labour Party in that category—think is required that they effectively inhabit a different world.
It is not simply academic recovery we should be concerned about. Cases of probable mental health disorders have increased from about one in every nine young people to one in every six because of the pandemic, and we are only now beginning to understand how their well-being has suffered as a result of isolation and anxiety. Yet, there was not a single mention of “well-being” or “children’s mental health” in the Secretary of State’s Statement. Even when asked directly yesterday by the shadow Secretary of State, Kate Green MP, he had nothing to say on those areas, which are vital to children’s recovery.
The Statement does mention the national tutoring programme, and that has failed even to meet the target set by the Secretary of State. He promised that a minimum of 65% of tutoring provision would reach pupil premium children, but the National Audit Office recently found that only 44% of those accessing tutoring could be classified as disadvantaged.
I want to ask the Minister questions that may be familiar to her. They were put to the Secretary of State yesterday by Kate Green, but did not receive answers. I am confident that the Minister can do rather better than her boss. Where is the bold action needed to boost children’s well-being and social development, which parents and teachers say is their top priority and is essential to support learning? Where is the increased expert support to tackle the rise in mental health conditions among young people? Where is the targeted investment for those children who missed most time in class, struggled most to learn at home and were left for months without access to remote learning? Where is the funding needed for the pupil premium to replace the stealth cut to school budgets that the Government imposed when they changed the date of the census recently?
As she left office in February, Children’s Commissioner Anne Longfield revealed that she had encountered what she termed “institutional bias against children” in this Government, especially in the Treasury. That was an astonishing claim, yet the parsimony of the education recovery package announced certainly reinforces that view. It is one that the Government will need to work hard—much harder, I suggest, than they have done in the past week—to overcome. In this, their hour of real and urgent need, our young people are being failed by this Government.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I agree with so much of what the noble Lord, Lord Watson, just said. I thank the Minister for the Statement, but I do not think there is much we have not heard before. She often tells us with pride about the £1 million here, the £200 million there, even £14.4 billion—how have I forgotten that, when it is so close to Sir Kevan Collins’s ask? This all begins to add up to real money, but where is the overview, the strategy, the cohesion? I suspect we might have found it in Sir Kevan’s review, had we had the chance to study it before the Government trashed it. I am sure he appreciated being thanked before resigning because of the decimation of his proposals, but then, he consulted real experts and, as I pointed out in my question yesterday, which the Minister wisely ignored, this is not a Government who respect experts, to their shame and to the loss of the rest of us.
I do not suppose that even the Education Secretary’s best friends suggest he is an education expert, so how good it would have been for him and the Government to have taken heed of real education specialists. If the Government genuinely thank Sir Kevan for his efforts, his thoughts and his input, why on earth are they not implementing his well-researched proposals? Of course, tutoring is most welcome. The children who will have lost out most are those from families without the time, technology or education to help them with home lessons and learning. The Minister has told us about the thousands of computers and iPads given to the deserving poor but, for many of them, these will have been useless without tuition. We heard of many families having to share a single piece of kit between numerous students, but without any person to talk them through.
On the tutoring scheme, where are these tutors coming from? Will they be the hard-pressed teachers being asked to do yet more? Or will they perhaps be university students, keen to earn some money while close enough in age but, we hope, superior in wisdom, for the youngsters to feel an affinity? What plans are there to make up all the social parts of school that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, referred to—mixing with others, learning teamwork and how to win, how to lose, how to make friends and how to befriend your enemies? Where are the proposals for the softer skills of school, so vital in life? Where is the careers information and guidance? I could find nothing in the Statement about that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, we know the detrimental impact the pandemic has had on the mental and emotional well-being of children and young people, so will the Government take action to evaluate mental health service provision in schools and allocate enough resources to bolster these services and address shortcomings in provision? Research by the Carers Trust shows there has been a worrying decline in the mental health of young carers during the pandemic. What are the Government planning to do to support the educational and emotional recovery of young carers? We hear that many children return to school having forgotten how to sit in a class for an hour, how to pay attention and even how to hold a knife and fork. How are the Government helping them?
How kind to offer more training for overworked teachers. Most teachers are pretty well trained already, and of course there is always room, if not time, for more training, but would our wonderful teachers, who have gone over and above in lockdown for their pupils, not perhaps appreciate some extra pay as a thank you? I declare an interest as the mother of a primary teacher who is working all the hours God gave to ensure that her little four year-olds continue to learn and, perhaps even more importantly, to enjoy learning. Because school should be fun: learning should be exciting and accessible and the youngest children need to find that that is the case so that they really catch the bug of lifelong learning. If the Government are so intent on investing in teachers, why not pay them more?
So, my verdict on the Government is: “Could do better”. Give us the holistic picture. We can see that vast sums have been spent, but could they not have been spent more cohesively, more helpfully and in a more targeted way? These are the next generations, the young people whose skills, knowledge and enthusiasm will be sorely needed to help us through the aftermath of the pandemic, not to mention Brexit. They will be needed to help revive the economy, take the jobs that are needed, not necessarily the ones they wanted, and to be adaptable. I see little in the Statement to show that the Government appreciate the size and breadth of the job that needs to be done.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, I repeat the thanks of the Government to Sir Kevan for his work. Actually, there is great scrutiny of this—this is the second opportunity that noble Lords have had to scrutinise it. I am so very grateful to the Private Notice Question procedure in this regard. In relation to his plan, tutoring and the teaching element were part of his recommendations, as part of an overall strategy. I assure the noble Baroness that the strategy is about evidence-based interventions, and it is clear from the information we have from Renaissance Learning that some students in autumn 2020 were, on average, behind by three months in maths and two months in reading. We know that months of catch-up can be done using tutoring as an intervention, whether that is one-on-one or small group. This is an evidence-based part of the strategy and has been part of the recovery package from the beginning, so it is important that it now has about £1 billion worth of funding and includes about 6 million interventions for children.
Noble Lords will have seen the Prime Minister’s comments that this will not be the last word. Obviously, recovery is for the lifetime of this Parliament and it will be part of the forthcoming spending review. Of course, there will be the analysis needed of any extension to the school day or timetable. At the moment, many schools have flexibility on the hours they have in the school day, but the impact on the workforce and all other details need to be taken into account. That is why there will be a consultation or review of that element of the package before any changes are made.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned targeting. Throughout the pandemic, vulnerable children were offered a school place, and I think that was unusual across most jurisdictions. We did keep and see, with the work of teachers and outreach, increasing numbers of vulnerable children taking up those school places during the pandemic.
Well-being is obviously a key part of the recovery for children and young people; the noble Baroness outlined the social skills they have missed. As noble Lords will be aware, transition points are particularly important and can be very challenging at the best of times. That is why there is the summer schools programme —a £200 million pot of money—which around 80% of secondary schools have bid into to provide not just education but wider activities, physical exercise and well-being. Over 80% of secondary schools have applied to that pot to provide this provision for their forthcoming year 7 pupils.
I cannot remember the precise amount offhand, but there has been a significant planned investment into CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services. There has been an investment of £17 million, announced during Mental Health Awareness Week, and one of £79 million, because we are of course aware of the rising demands on schools in relation to mental health, pastoral and bereavement issues at the moment. I spoke today to someone who had visited a large secondary school where, I think, 30 children had lost their parents. These are significant issues, and we are investing to enable over 7,800 schools to have a trained-up senior mental health lead within the school staff. We have been investing in that.
Of course, every year there is the pupil premium, and £2.5 billion has been put in through that this year. I do not think that one should underestimate the flexibility there has been. Although some of the money is targeted, we gave much of the £650 million universal catch-up premium to schools with flexibility so that they have been able to buy in extra pastoral support and do more enrichment activities. We are trying to get that balance between the targeted, and the £200 million that is for summer schools only, and the general school budget, as school leaders know more about the needs of their children.
On the NAO report, the pupil premium and children in tutoring, throughout the pandemic, because of its dynamic nature and employment issues, it was important that school leaders were allowed to classify children as vulnerable. That may be because they did not have the internet access that they should for remote learning, because of caring responsibilities or because of the situation at home. It is not possible to say that it was precisely 44% using the classic measures, but school leaders are using their best judgment. There can be all kinds of reasons why a child needs tutoring because of the totally unpredictable way that the pandemic has affected particular households, so we entrust school leaders to make those decisions. That is not to say that we do not analyse the statistics, but we are aware of the discretion that we must give school leaders.
Our focus in the department is on children. The raison d’être of what we are doing, day in, day out, is to try to enable children to catch up. It is a dynamic picture, as noble Lords are aware. We have now had three reports from Renaissance Learning. Noble Lords will have seen today the additional investment going into the north-west. It is only now, when the tsunami is, I hope, permanently retreating, that we will see the differential impact that the pandemic has had.
On the role of experts, the department is continually engaging with stakeholder groups and teachers, including the unions, school leaders, SEND experts and others, to get their views on what is needed to help children catch up.
On teacher training, there was in fact consideration of delaying the introduction of the early career framework in September, but there was a call from the teaching workforce that it should come in then. The early career framework is important, which is why we are investing in it and guaranteeing that, in the first two years, 10% of time is not in teaching and can be used for mentoring. In the first year, 5% of teaching time will not be in the classroom, so can be for mentoring. There was a desire for that to come in, as it is important.
With what has happened during the pandemic, the professional development of our teaching workforce may, in certain circumstances, have taken a back seat, with all the emergency provision that schools have had to make, such as standing up testing and so on. So it is time to invest in the workforce. The NPQs that we are suggesting are being seriously ramped up; the plan was 1,500 a year, but we are going to 30,000 next year and then to 60,000, so we are really investing in the workforce. In relation, for instance, to the demands made on designated safeguarding leads in our schools at the moment, the NPQ for middle and senior leaders is a very important part of supporting teachers. The evidence is there—it can make a difference of about half a grade at GCSE—that it is one of the single most important things that we can provide for high-quality teaching. Professional development generally, but not always, enhances the quality of teaching.
On pay, the noble Baroness is aware that, in September 2020, there was an average pay rise of 3.1% and a 5.5% uplift to the starting salary. We are still committed to introducing a starting salary of £30,000 but, as I said yesterday, we are in a fiscal situation that none of us would want, having had to borrow the amount that we did during the pandemic. Unfortunately, difficult decisions on funding have had to be made.
I am sure that this will not be the last time that I come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on recovery funding. I pay tribute to the schools, most of which have just gone back, and all that is going on to help children recover from the effects of the pandemic, not just educationally but socially, emotionally and psychologically.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers are brief, so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, as the Statement makes clear, the educational impact has been felt most keenly by pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and in areas hardest hit by Covid, further entrenching the attainment gap between private and state-educated students. I know that the Minister is engaging regularly with the Independent Schools Council about the role its members can play in supporting state sector students to catch up. However, does she agree that, while many excellent partnerships are in place between private schools and their local state school, the urgent need to address the geographical inequality we have heard about will not be resolved through partnerships based on colocation, given that state schools in the vicinity of fee-paying schools are often already among the better resourced? Will her department take the lead in brokering a strategic programme of digitally based partnerships between the independent and state sectors that would target support on those communities most in need and see the charitable status of independent schools put to good use?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
The noble Baroness is indeed correct that getting these partnerships right is important. We often see that the engagement is more strategic when it is between secondary independent schools and their local primary schools, where they can add enormous value. I am about to host a partnerships round table to see where they are successful and where we can spread that best practice. I am keen that we think outside the box. I thank her very much for that suggestion, because this is a time when there is such good will from the independent sector, but we have not managed to plug that into the right place, for various reasons. I will take back the suggestion to the round table.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State has laid great emphasis on a tutoring revolution. He seemed to link the review of school hours with the spending round, almost as though he was planning a battle with teachers instead of working with them. I hope the Minister can assure us that that is not the case. Surely it would be more productive to concentrate on core funding of a whole school environment, including exercise, extra tutoring and socialisation, instead of the current unhealthy relationship, where limited conditional funding is doled out as if in a master/servant relationship. How will we know what success looks like in the tutoring programme? What measure of independence will there be in that judgment?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that there is absolutely no intention to have a battle with teachers at all. It is children first and foremost who we all need to focus on at the moment, as well as the well-being of the workforce in schools. As I outlined, much of the money has been given to schools so that it is part of their core schools budget, such as the £650 million we have given and the second tranche of £302 million, which was recovery premium money. They have the flexibility to spend on the array of activities.
On the tutoring programme, through the Renaissance Learning work we are monitoring where students are at in their learning. The contract was properly procured, and it is a sign of good management that we put it out to the market and have saved substantial money on that section of the contract. As the noble Baroness will be aware, there will be no school performance data, but that data will be available to the department and to Ofsted. We will of course track very carefully what the outcome of the tutoring programme is in relation to how much schools buy and the impact it has. I will ensure that the noble Baroness is aware of any publicly distributed data in that regard.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
The tutoring programme is really important to the recovery programme. The best tutoring is where the pupil has a relationship with and an understanding of the tutor. In many cases that is not happening; it is a virtual stranger. Has the Minister thought about how we could improve the tutoring arrangements? I am fascinated by her comment in the Statement that we have the best tutoring system in the world. What empirical evidence do we have to make such a statement?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am pleased to assure the noble Lord that this third chunk of money for tutoring is being distributed in a different way. One reason is as he outlined. Some £579 million will go to schools for what we are now calling school-led provision. Schools may want to use their existing staff, make part-time staff such as TAs more full-time and use local tutoring, such as retired teachers and so on, in their workforce. The noble Lord is right to say, particularly in the case of many SEN students and vulnerable children, that the existing relationship with a TA, for example, might be the best provision for a student.
Therefore, this £579 million, which is separate from academic mentors and tuition partners through the NTP, will now go to schools. As I said to the noble Lord yesterday, that will provide even greater flexibility to schools that might want to fund other subjects that the tuition partners are not providing in support. More of the arts subjects, for example, could therefore be covered, so there will be flexibility. Around £1 billion is going into tutoring, which is a large sum. I would not want to say precisely in relation to each jurisdiction that it is the top amount, although we are spending a considerable amount on tutoring because the evidence tells us that it will help children to catch up.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I applaud the noble Baroness for her defence of a policy that I think she recognises is entirely indefensible. She calls for more evidence but have the Government thought of looking at the US, which is spending £1,600 per child, or the Netherlands, which is spending £2,500 per pupil? When she talks about fiscal consolidation, has she thought about the competing pressures on a global Britain, the future of work and the technological changes that will happen? They will require a little bit more spending than £50 per pupil per year.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
On technological advance, I will be in front of noble Lords next week talking about schools and post-16 education, which is part of the Government’s skills policy. As I previously outlined, I am nervous about international comparisons. It is appropriate in relation to some of the money distributed, such as the £650 million, which, from memory, is £80 per pupil, and £240 for SEND or AP pupils, because it relates to general schools money. However, one cannot look at the £200 million on a per-pupil basis because it is for summer schools and available only to year 7.
The £1 billion for tutoring is targeted at disadvantaged students and we do not know whether the figures that the noble Baroness outlined include the £400 million that has gone into technology and remote learning for the 1.3 million laptops. Per-pupil funding is not always comparing apples with apples. That is a key part of our strategy. I agree that the pandemic has affected all children and there is a case for amounts such as the £650 million to go to all schools but the evidence that we are getting from different areas of the country on disadvantaged students is why a huge proportion of the money is targeted at them through the tutoring programme.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said that the Government could do better. Speaking candidly, I think that they could hardly do worse. I was horrified by the derisory per-capita recovery funding that is to be spent on all children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, has just said, if they are to recover from the body blows to their education and future prospects. I have little doubt that that provoked the principled resignation of Sir Kevan. I imagine that that is also painful for the Minister, who is an honourable person. It is still worse in the aftermath of Marcus Rashford’s great campaign against childhood hunger, where the Government’s response was so poor.
It is true that the international comparisons stand up; it is fair to compare such things in these circumstances, and the facts cannot be obscured. The United States is going to spend 32 times as much on its recovery for kids as we are, while the Government here spend vast amounts on their friends and donors in this pandemic, rather than on the United Kingdom’s kids. The figures are well documented. What urgent plans does the Minister have in place to review and repair this miserly approach? She has mentioned a contingency plan that the Prime Minister may inaugurate. Is she committing to the money that that contingency plan may demand in the circumstances? Can she say more about the money for further education, where so many 16 to 18 year-olds are now educated?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
We will have to beg to differ on international comparisons; I believe I have comprehensively explained our view of those comparisons. As I said, there will be a review of the extension to the school day. In the forthcoming spending review, we will look at the ongoing need for recovery during this Parliament. We have been clear that recovery is for the length of this Parliament, and this will not be the last word on recovery, I am sure.
I turn to provision for 16 to 19 year-olds. Some 75% of colleges are reporting that their students are between one and five months behind. The tuition fund has been bolstered by a further £222 million, in addition to increased revenue funding, bringing the total over those three years to £324 million to enable these students to catch up. We have also made clear that, where appropriate, students in year 13 or the equivalent can repeat the school year, but that is up to school leaders to fund. Importantly, there has been an additional £8 million for vulnerable students who are transitioning to 16 to 19 from alternative provision, to make sure that they get to the right post-16 destination. We had very strong feedback from stakeholders that the first tranche of transition money was useful in being able to secure the correct 16 to 19 provision for those vulnerable young people.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
Can the Minister assure the House that early years recovery will be a specific focus and that the amount of pupil premium will be increased in the early years sector to reflect more accurately the influence on children’s lives during this critical stage? Furthermore, will the focus on learning through play, communication skills, literacy and numeracy, and the retention and professional development of early years teachers, be prioritised? Does the Minister also agree that early learning and valuing early education teachers is a much needed, necessary long-term investment and should not be seen as a short-term catch-up?
Baroness Berridge
The noble Baroness is correct. There is evidence of loss, particularly for reception and year 1 and in the early years before that. Within the teaching section of this education recovery package, there is £153 million of funding to provide the opportunity of professional development for early years practitioners. That is investment in the workforce. Previously, in the first recovery tranche, £18 million was invested in initiatives such as the Nuffield Early Language Intervention, colloquially known as NELI. We have seen other initiatives, including considerable use of Hungry Little Minds, the department’s campaign to help raise communication skills in that part of our population. There is also BBC Bitesize and other facilities for the early years. Those early years pupils in reception classes within the school system have been part of the main recovery package.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I speak as a former teacher with over 30 years’ front-line classroom experience. Kevan Collins’ resignation is a damning indictment of the Conservatives’ education catch-up plan. He is an expert who was brought in by the Prime Minister because of his experience and expertise, but the Government threw out his ideas as soon as they needed to stump up the money to deliver them.
Labour has a comprehensively detailed recovery plan for our children and young people. Our teachers have had one of the toughest years of their careers, and it is only by supporting them with training to stay on top of the latest knowledge and techniques that we can give children and young people a brilliant classroom experience in these most difficult times. So what more does the Minister plan to do to help teachers and their pupils?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support for the fact that the training of teachers is important. We have outlined in this package considerable support for them, and that will be over the next two to three years. Obviously we are aware of the situation. That is why the review of the school day needs to listen to the views not just of teachers but of the workforce generally. We should not underestimate the strain that has been felt by school business professionals running the money and often overseeing the building with additional demands, and all the administrative and teaching assistant staff who there are in our schools. We will be looking carefully at the extension of the school day.
Unfortunately there have been difficult decisions to make in relation to funding. As I have mentioned to noble Lords, the one-year spending review did not bring any money to the department for any new free schools, including SEND free schools, which is a big indication of where we are. We are hoping for a spending review that will be a multiyear settlement.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
All Back-Bench speakers have now been called.
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill
Tuesday 8th June 2021
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022 View all Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 June 2021 - (7 Jun 2021)