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, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
We have set a national ambition to recycle 65% of municipal waste by 2035. Councils will have a crucial role in meeting that target, and my Department will continue to work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and local authorities across the country to improve recycling rates, reduce emissions and reduce the amount of waste ultimately sent to landfill.
Greg Clark
Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to our bin men and women, who worked magnificently throughout the covid crisis, even at the risk of contracting covid during the worst times of the pandemic, to keep us safe, actually collecting a bigger volume than usual? Is he aware that in Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge and Malling, there are growing concerns about the management of the waste contract by the company Urbaser, with collections missed and roadside litter uncollected? What can he do to put pressure on that company to meet the performance standards that it has agreed with the local authorities?
Luke Hall
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for the opportunity to pay tribute to our waste collectors and the work that they have done right across the country throughout the pandemic, keeping our communities clean and helping to keep them safe, too. Of course, it is for councils themselves to decide how best to meet their commitments and how to manage the performance of their contractors, but my right hon. Friend’s voice carries significant weight. I am sure that his point has been heard loud and clear. I hope that it is resolved as quickly as possible. I know that these are extremely important issues for his constituents and for residents across the country, and of course I am happy to meet him to discuss the matter in more detail.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Like many MPs, I pass the memorial wall daily when I am in Parliament, and I am moved when I see family and friends either laying floral tributes or making an inscription on the wall to commemorate loved ones they have lost. The Department keenly understands that communities across the country will want to find ways to commemorate our collective experience. Therefore, it is critical that all those we have lost are commemorated and that families receive, as the Prime Minister himself has stated, a fitting and permanent memorial. As the Prime Minister announced on 12 May, the Government will establish a UK commission on covid commemoration. We will set out the commission’s membership and terms of reference in due course.
Dawn Butler [V]
I thank the Minister for that thoughtful response. The covid memorial wall is an iconic, organic work of art created by bereaved families, and it should not be removed or painted over. I hope that the Minister agrees that it should be a permanent memorial and that MPs should visit. I met Fran, whose husband died three weeks after they were married. She lovingly drew 2,000 hearts, and I dedicated one of those hearts to my uncle Buck, who died. I am, however, disappointed that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has yet to visit. I hope that the Minister will encourage all MPs to visit like he has done, and ensure that the memorial wall is permanent and that MPs speak to bereaved families.
Eddie Hughes
I believe that the memorial wall is owned by St Thomas’ Hospital. I am not sure what decision it has come to with regard to its permanency. However, as I said, having seen friends and family visiting, I would keenly encourage MPs from across the House to do that. We need to consider the most impactful and enduring way to remember those we have lost and to commemorate the service of everyone involved in this unprecedented response to the pandemic. As I say, the commission has been set up and we will report on its terms of reference and membership in due course.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
Although the ban on bailiff enforcement has ended, the measures that the Government have introduced mean that fewer cases are progressing to eviction. Landlord possession claims were down by 74% in quarter 1 of this year compared with the same period in 2020, and the number of families in temporary accommodation is at its lowest since 2016. For those who need more support, we are providing councils with £310 million through the homelessness prevention grant—that is an uplift of £47 million on last year—which can be used for financial support for people to find a new home, to work with landlords to prevent evictions, or to provide temporary accommodation and ensure that families have a roof over their head.
Ms Buck
Even before the effect of the end of the evictions ban, a quarter of all homeless households in London were being accommodated away from their home areas—away from their schools, their caring responsibilities, their jobs and their support networks. Previous Ministers have condemned that but done nothing to stop it. Will the Minister condemn it and state that homeless households should be accommodated near their support networks? What will he do to ensure that that happens?
Eddie Hughes
It is important that these matters are handled by the councils themselves, because they are much closer to the problem than the Government; that is not something that we should or could legislate for centrally. With regard to the hon. Lady’s own council, we have allocated £5.2 million from the rough sleeping initiative and £6.8 million of homelessness prevention grant funding. The contribution that the Government are making to support local councils is very significant.
Florence Eshalomi [V]
I thank the Minister for his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), but one of the key ways to prevent homelessness is to ensure that people are not being evicted. As a result of the end of the evictions ban, many Vauxhall residents now face eviction, with no need for justification and no requirement for adjudication. The Government said in 2019 that they wanted to bring an end to section 21 no-fault evictions, yet two years down the line, tenants in my constituency still face the constant threat of eviction. Will the Minister please tell the House when we can expect to see the long-awaited renters reform Bill?
Eddie Hughes
We remain committed to delivering a better deal for renters, including repealing section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. We will legislate, but it is only right that that legislation considers the impact of the pandemic and is a balanced set of reforms that improves the private rented market. A White Paper detailing our package of reforms to the private rented sector will be brought forward in the autumn.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Today marks four years since the tragedy of Grenfell, where 72 people lost their lives. Recent research published by Shelter shows that 3.2 million private renters are fearful of complaining about unsafe and unhealthy properties for fear of being evicted, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reports that nearly a million tenants now fear eviction due to the ending of the evictions ban. The Secretary of State promised that no one would lose their home as a result of the covid crisis. How will he honour that promise, and when will no-fault section 21 evictions come to an end?
Eddie Hughes
It is important to acknowledge the amount of funds that this Government have committed to ensuring that renters are supported—over £200 billion through the furlough scheme, for example. If hon. Members want evidence of whether that has been successful, let me point out that over nine out of 10 people are not in rent arrears at all, so that has been of significant help to people. With regard to the Bill that I referred to in my previous answer, I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman, with whom I get on very well, in the coming months to ensure that we deliver renters reform that is appropriate and helpful to all parts of the sector.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
The pandemic has shown how vital our green spaces are for the wellbeing of the nation, from sharing our national parks together to inviting loved ones over to our gardens. That is why it was a priority for me and my Department to reopen our parks at the start of the pandemic—something that has offered a lifeline to many people and families over the past year. As we build back better and greener in our recovery, we will enhance our environment and provide more green spaces through our forthcoming planning reforms. They will build on and embed our already extensive protections for the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty and our ancient woodlands.
Claire Coutinho
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to protecting our green spaces and the broader Government investment in our nature recovery programme. Will he consider looking at a new “wild belt” designation as part of the planning proposals to ensure that we protect those hard-won gains for generations to come?
Robert Jenrick
I would like our planning reforms to create a legacy of enhancing our environment and leaving the natural world in a better state for future generations. We are continuing to consider how best to achieve that through the ongoing detailed design of these reforms, but I am interested in wild belts, as I know my hon. Friend is. We are already bringing forward a raft of changes to support nature’s recovery, including introducing mandatory net gain for biodiversity through the Environment Bill and requiring tree-lined streets in all new developments—something that we are increasingly seeing in new housing across the country.
Nicola Richards
In Greets Green and Lyng, communities have long been promised a facelift, with quality new housing developments by Sandwell Council, but very little has yet been delivered. Residents in Newhall Street are regularly blighted by crime and antisocial behaviour and have been calling out for help and investment for years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while these areas go undeveloped, it makes no sense for green spaces in other parts of West Bromwich East, such as Peak House farm, to be at risk of development?
Robert Jenrick
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that we need local areas to make the most of existing developable land—repurpose it, revitalise unused sites and build the most beautiful homes our communities need. The west midlands, which she represents a part of, is one of the best examples of a place in the country that is meeting housing need and building homes, but is doing so with a very strong emphasis on brownfield sites. The Government are backing that with, for example, a £100 million land fund and £108 million that we provided through our brownfield fund.
Karl MᶜCartney [V]
There is clearly demand for more housing in the central Lincolnshire local plan area and across communities in my constituency of Lincoln, the east midlands and the country at large, but we are continually seeing local green belt being built on by large developers, and land banking is still rife on the edge of urban areas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must balance housing developments by big developers with the need to ensure that communities of all shapes and sizes still have the opportunity for smaller and individual housing within the curtilage of those settlements of the type and style that buyers wish to purchase and, crucially, live in?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes a number of important points. First, we have been clear that the manifesto commitment that the Government were elected upon was to protect and enhance the green belt, and that is exactly what we intend to do. Secondly, we want a planning system that is based on local plans, where local people and their communities democratically choose sites, and they will be, and should be, a mix of not only larger ones but smaller sites, particularly brownfield sites, which can be developed at pace by small and medium-sized developers. One of the litmus tests for the planning reforms that we intend to bring forward later in the year will be whether they shift the balance from the large developers who can navigate the current convoluted and complex system in favour of small and medium-sized builders, such as the local entrepreneurs that my hon. Friend represents in Lincoln, and ensure that they, too, can prosper and build more homes.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
We meet on a sombre day—the fourth anniversary of the Grenfell tragedy, when 72 people lost their lives—and across the entire House, I am sure that, whatever one’s political view or stripe, our hearts go out to all those people, their families and their friends who lost so much on that night four years ago.
We continue to see progress with the remediation of unsafe cladding systems. We project that 84% of high-rise residential buildings with unsafe ACM—aluminium composite material—cladding will be completed by the end of 2021. We continue to drive toward 100% and we expect those who have made a full application to the building safety fund to be on-site by the end of September 2021. The building safety Bill will bring about a fundamental change in both the regulatory framework for building safety and the construction industry culture, ensuring that those responsible for buildings make sure that fire and structural safety risks are properly managed.
James Murray
Four years after the Grenfell Tower fire, survivors and the local community are still waiting for justice, and across the country people are still waiting for an end to unsafe buildings. We know from the Government’s published data that of the 469 buildings over 18 metres identified with aluminium composite material cladding, 107 still have it. However, there is no data on remediation of non-ACM cladding or on buildings below 18 metres. Will the Minister commit to publishing data next month on how many of the 1,890 buildings over 18 metres that are progressing bids with the building safety fund for non-ACM cladding have been remediated, and on how many of the 77,500 blocks between 11 and 18 metres may be unsafe?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I said, and as he knows, we have made significant progress in the remediation of ACM-clad buildings: 95% have either been made safe or had remediation begun on them. With respect to buildings that have had non-ACM but dangerous cladding put on, I can tell him that some 685 buildings have now been registered for the building safety fund, with £359 million of public funds allotted for their remediation. We are determined to go further and faster to make sure that people’s homes are safe and that this issue is finally and completely put to bed.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
Local plans create the local community’s vision for where essential development such as housing should go. Our planning reforms will give communities the chance to be involved meaningfully at the start when local plans are prepared and will make it easier for local people to understand proposals and express their views. This will bring certainty that housing will come forward in areas best identified for growth by the community, while ensuring that valued countryside remains protected.
Chris Green
Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about the Greater Manchester spatial framework, which has twice been vetoed and has not gone ahead? The absence of that plan causes a great deal of problems with uncontrolled building in the whole of Greater Manchester, but particularly for my constituents in Bolton West. Will he do all he can to support Bolton Council in adopting and implementing its plan if the GMSF’s faults cannot be rectified soon?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is a doughty champion of his constituents in Bolton West. He will know that rather than allowing suffering from speculative development, local plans give certainty both to developers and to communities in providing the homes that the country needs, and where agreed. It is essential that we get local plans in place to help to put our economy back on track; I am pleased that he recognises that. As he says, Bolton Council, along with eight other Greater Manchester councils, is committed to taking forward the Places for Everyone joint local plan. I will continue to monitor and support the progress of plan making across Greater Manchester to ensure that plan coverage is achieved by the end of 2023 and that my hon. Friend’s constituents in Bolton are best protected.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
One year ago, the Secretary of State took an unlawful decision in the Westferry case to help a billionaire Conservative party donor to dodge a £40 million tax bill. Now it seems that they are at it again: The Sunday Times reports that John Bloor, a billionaire property tycoon, gave £150,000 to the Conservative party barely 48 hours after the Housing Minister had overruled the local council to approve a controversial planning application on rural land, raising fresh questions about unlawful lobbying. Will the Minister commit right now to releasing all unpublished documentation relating to the case, so the public can see whether this is indeed yet another case of cash for favours?
Christopher Pincher
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman likes to cast himself at the court of Keir as something of a witchfinder general—a sort of weird amalgam of Lavrentiy Beria and Mary Whitehouse—but I can tell him that there are no witches to be found here today. With respect to the Sandleford Park application, that was recovered by officials, as many applications are, without recourse to Ministers; we have yet to see any advice from officials on that application.
With respect to the Ledbury application, that was a recommendation to proceed made by the independent planning inspector, not least because at the hearing the local authority reversed its position and took the view that the application should go ahead. I took the advice of the planning inspector; I accepted the planning inspector’s recommendation. Process and procedure were followed punctiliously. The hon. Gentleman has to find other witches to burn.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to the Chair of the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
I am sure the Minister has had a busy weekend reading the Select Committee report on the planning system. In it, he will have seen that the Committee was supportive of the Government’s proposals to improve and enhance the local plan system, particularly through getting more public involvement by making the plans digital. That is to be welcomed. However, many people in our evidence-taking were concerned that once a local plan has been agreed, local people will lose their right to have any meaningful say in individual planning applications. That was a real concern that was expressed to us, so when the Government respond to the report and to its wider consultation, will they look again at how they can ensure that local people have a meaningful voice on individual applications, particularly those in the renewal areas, which are often very contentious?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for his report. We will consider it carefully, as we always do, and I am pleased that he has, with some caveats, been so very supportive of our proposals. He asks about the way in which we can better democratise our planning system. The fact is that 3% of all planning applications are engaged with by the local community, yet 90% of planning applications go through, so only a small number of people are engaging with the planning process and the overwhelming number of plans go through anyway. I do not think that that is particularly engaged or democratic, and we are seeking to bring forward the democratic element of plan making so that local people can have a real and meaningful place and decision-making role in what happens in their communities.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
The planning for the future consultation closed in October 2020, and it generated an enormous amount of interest, with 44,000 responses. We are analysing those responses and will respond to the consultation in due course. We are committed to planning reforms that are intended to provide better protection for environmental assets. I have worked closely with my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary as well as with my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) on the measures in the Environment Bill, and the planning reforms complement and reflect these.
Gareth Bacon
The Government will shortly be bringing forward their planning Bill, which I recognise is needed to bring forward much needed new housing and infrastructure. My Orpington constituency is two-thirds rural, so what guarantees can my right hon. Friend give me and my constituents that green-belt and greenfield land will be protected from inappropriate development?
Christopher Pincher
We are committed not only to protecting the green belt but to enhancing it, and those protections will remain in force when we bring in planning reforms. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that we will not be taking the advice of the Select Committee, which suggested that we should undertake a wholesale reform of the green belt. We have committed to protect it, and so we shall, because only in exceptional circumstances may a local authority alter a green-belt boundary, using its local plan and consulting local people on where essential new housing should go, and it needs to show real evidence that it has examined all other reasonable options before proposing to release the green belt. We are committed to the green belt, and we will fight for it.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The planning system is integral to addressing the climate crisis and to protecting and enhancing our environment. However, many people rightly questioned the Government’s green credentials when the Secretary of State refused to block the proposed coalmine in Cumbria. Will the Minister therefore take the opportunity to show that the Government take our environment and the climate crisis seriously, and commit to the full suite of clear and measurable environmental targets in the forthcoming planning Bill?
Christopher Pincher
First, may I welcome the hon. Lady to her place as the shadow planning Minister? I think we all share a commitment to protect the environment, which is why this Government were the first Government to commit to net zero. It is why, as housing and planning Minister, I am committed to the future homes standard, to ensure that we decarbonise future homes by at least 75%, and it is why the Environment Bill will ensure a biodiversity net gain of 10%. We will bake those environmental proposals into our planning reforms to make sure that we have a planning Bill to be proud of and that we protect our environment.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
Through the levelling-up fund and community renewal fund, we are investing more than £5 billion in people, infrastructure, the regeneration of town centres and high streets, upgrading local transport, and investing in cultural and heritage assets. These funds will include high-quality evaluation, which is crucial to understanding the types of intervention that best support places to level up, right across the country.
Chris Elmore
I have tabled written parliamentary questions on this, which the Minister is yet to answer, but he also knows that I support the levelling-up fund, in that it is the only available funding on the table. Therefore, I want to work with the two local authorities in my constituency to ensure that we put forward the best bids for Ogmore constituents. Will he set out when the second and third funding round deadlines will be announced by him, or by the Secretary of State, so that local authorities can plan and ensure that they put the best possible bids forward for communities, because for many local authorities the 18 June deadline is simply too tight? I want to work with the Minister, and I would really welcome some constructive engagement to ensure that we get the very best for my constituents.
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has asked his question. There will be further opportunities for local authorities to submit bids into the fund through subsequent rounds, and we are publishing more details about how the levelling-up fund will operate from next year later in this year. I was pleased to understand that his local authority, which I believe is in category 1, will be submitting a bid by 18 June. I hope it will be making good use of the £125,000 capacity funding that we are providing it with, which I know will help it to work closely with us and build that strong relationship with the UK Government. I look forward to receiving its bid, and I am always happy to meet him to discuss it in more detail.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is now nearly two years since the Prime Minister announced the towns fund, yet 30 towns have only just received confirmation of what funding they will receive, 26 towns still have not received any response to their bid, and precious few projects that have been bid for have been completed. So will the Minister commit to publishing a report on which areas are receiving funding from the towns fund, the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund, which have missed out, and the impact of any projects that have actually been delivered?
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and welcome him to his place; representing local government on these Benches is the greatest privilege that any of us could ask for, and I look forward to working with him constructively. On the towns fund, the details are already in the public domain on all the towns we have supported and announced town deals for. He rightly says that a number are still awaiting the outcome of their deal, and their details are also in the public domain. We are still in the application process for the levelling-up fund and for the community renewal fund, so we have not got a definitive list of bids that are in, but I very much look forward to working with him. The levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund are important opportunities for our constituencies, right across the country, to invest in upgrading the critical infrastructure that is so important to our constituents.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
This Government are making the dream of home ownership a reality for people across England, taking generation rent and turning it into generation buy. I am delighted that earlier this month we launched our First Homes scheme, with the first properties ready for sale in Bolsover, providing homes discounted by at least 30% for first-time buyers, priority local people and key workers. Our new 95% mortgage guarantee has already given lenders the confidence to help families and young people get on to the property ladder, without the burden of a large deposit.
Mr Holden [V]
I am in my first home—I moved in only in May—and I want to see more of my constituents in exactly the same position. Will the Secretary of State outline what support North West Durham constituents in particular can access through the new schemes—particularly the First Homes scheme, in which so many of my constituents are interested in getting involved—and when they will be fully available and rolled out throughout the country?
Robert Jenrick
I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to making sure that young people have the opportunities that they need to live and work in their local community, both in North West Durham and right throughout the country. I encourage my hon. Friend’s constituents to go to the Government’s ownyourhome.gov.uk website to check out the brilliant schemes that are available. I am also glad to let him know that later this month we will launch the first set of first homes in County Durham.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Today, on the fourth anniversary of the terrible fire at Grenfell, we first and foremost remember the 72 people who lost their lives. Our thoughts are with the bereaved, as well as the survivors of that terrible night.
The Grenfell community has steadfastly campaigned for justice and for change, but it has come too slowly. Hundreds of thousands of people are living in buildings that we now know to be unsafe, with some even still wrapped in the same flammable cladding as Grenfell. Many of those people are first-time buyers who have watched their dream of home ownership become a living nightmare, in unsellable, worthless homes.
I welcome the building safety fund, but funds alone are not enough, not least because of the extremely slow progress in allocating them. We need active intervention and leadership, so will the Secretary of State commit that all buildings will be made safe—and not just in respect of aluminium composite material cladding—or at least be in the process of being made so, by this time next year? Will he free homeowners from the burden of the costs and anxieties of being trapped in unmortgageable, unsafe homes?
Robert Jenrick
I join the hon. Lady in giving my sympathies, thoughts and prayers to the survivors, the bereaved and the community of north Kensington. We all want to support them to ensure that their quest for justice continues and reaches its conclusion, as a result of the public inquiry and the police investigations. Of course, we will do everything in our power to ensure that it never happens again.
Earlier this year, I set out the next steps in our plan to ensure that homes in this country are safe. We are providing £5.1 billion to ensure that unsafe materials, such as cladding, are removed from people’s homes as quickly as possible. Some 95% of those high-rise flats that have the same ACM cladding as was on Grenfell Tower have either now been remediated or have workers on site as we speak, and the work on 65% of them has been completed. I want to see that work finished by the end of this year and we will do everything we can to ensure that that happens.
We are also working with lenders, insurers and surveyors to ensure that they also play their part and we have a proportionate, sensible approach to risk, so that those who do not need to be trapped because of this issue are not unduly trapped and those who created this situation in the first place—the builders and the developers—pay their fair share. We are currently consulting on an industry levy and we will encourage, as we have done throughout this process, those developers that have not already stepped up to do so, because it is unconscionable that leaseholders are having to pay for the faults of an industry that has profited at their expense.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
The levelling-up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund are core parts of our levelling-up agenda. I regularly speak to my ministerial colleagues about both funds, and those discussions will inform our levelling-up White Paper and the UK shared prosperity fund investment framework, which we plan to publish later this year.
Martin Docherty-Hughes [V]
I thank the Minister for that answer. Like many other Members, I have been involved in discussions with my local authority regarding the levelling-up fund; however, it occurred to me last week that there was something of a democratic deficit in the process. Given that the fund can be used in a number of policy areas that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, why is there no mechanism for councils to formally consult their Scottish Parliament representatives on the issues? Will the Minister advise what his Government are doing to ensure that projects associated with the fund are realised with as much collaboration as possible with the democratically elected Government of the people of Scotland?
Luke Hall
The hon. Gentleman is clearly working hard on his bid for the levelling-up fund. There is absolutely nothing at all to stop his council consulting with or speaking to the Scottish Government before it submits its bid; it is absolutely welcome to do that. At the heart of these funds is localism. It is about local authorities and communities working directly with the UK Government and building that strong relationship with communities in Scotland, which we think is a key part of this process. We are investing billions of pounds and want to work closely with his community. I absolutely encourage his council to engage with the relevant Government.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
While the Minister claps himself on the back at the munificence of these various funds that he is talking about, he may wish to reflect on the fact that there is not one new penny of money available, so let us not pretend.
The EU structural funding allocations in the devolved nations and the spending in the areas covered by the levelling-up funding and the strategic priorities fund previously had the direct involvement of Ministers from the devolved nations. How can the Minister now justify cynically insisting on a centralised Whitehall-led approach, cutting out the directly elected Governments of the devolved nations from spending decisions in their own countries in devolved areas of responsibility?
Luke Hall
I must point out this continued factual inaccuracy. There is new money going in this year through the UK community renewal fund. Some £220 million is being invested to trial new priorities and projects ahead of the introduction of the UKSPF. As I just said to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), the local authorities in Scotland are absolutely able to consult with the devolved Administrations. We will be speaking to the devolved Administrations at the shortlisting stage of the bids to seek their advice and to see whether the bids conflict with anything that they are delivering, or with any of their policies. We are investing billions of pounds in these projects: in infrastructure; in community renewal; in transport; in regeneration; and in high-street refurbishments. This is something that the nationalists should be welcoming, rather than trying to find unfair grievances.
Patricia Gibson
The Public Accounts Committee delivered a damning verdict on the towns fund, saying that the Minister’s Department had
“not been open about the process it followed and would not disclose the reasoning for selecting or excluding towns”—
for funding. In view of that, what specific measures will the Minister announce today to ensure that the distribution of the levelling-up fund and shared prosperity fund will be both transparent and free from political bias, unlike the towns fund?
Luke Hall
The answer to that is that it is all published on gov.uk and it has been for months now. Clearly, the nationalists cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that this Conservative Government are supporting communities in Scotland that they have let down for so many years. We are investing billions of pounds in people, infrastructure, regeneration, transport, and high street refurbishments. We are delivering on the ground, building new relationships and binding together our precious Union.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
As we embark on what we all hope will be a great British summer, this Government have announced a vital package of support for our high streets, from planning easements to funding support. Taken together, we are seeing more than £385 billion of support for our businesses and high streets. With our planning reforms, we will allow our high streets to adapt and thrive, see outdoor markets spring up, and al fresco dining flourish. I am confident that, despite all the challenges, people across this country will rediscover the delights of their local high street this summer.
Esther McVey
Cheshire East Council continues to keep unnecessary barriers in place on the high street in Knutsford, blocking off the car parking spaces and damaging local businesses. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Cheshire East Council should be helping local businesses and not literally putting barriers in their way?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that bringing back people to their towns and high streets is vital, including to the one that I know well in Knutsford. Local authorities should be doing everything they can to make those high streets as welcoming as possible. Covid-19 guidance and our al fresco dining revolution should not come at the cost of despoiling otherwise beautiful high streets such as that in Knutsford. With just a little imagination and creativity, it is perfectly possible for barriers to be made beautiful, even if they do need to be there. We want to see council officers apply thought and judgment, rather than being over-zealous. Put simply, if they will not take them down, they should build barriers better.
Sara Britcliffe
First, I thank the Secretary of State for recently visiting Accrington to discuss what a difference the levelling-up fund could make to my constituency. We know that it is important to build more houses, but on that visit we also spoke about our dilapidated housing stock both in the town centre and across Hyndburn and Haslingden. Will he agree to meet me to discuss the VAT placed on renovation and repairs for old housing stock and look at the potential for removing this as a trial in certain areas to encourage builders to rejuvenate old housing stock?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend will know that such decisions are for the Chancellor to make. We have in place a reduced rate of VAT at 5% for certain residential renovations to encourage development and incentivise regeneration. However, she makes an important point that of course I would be happy to discuss with her. I thank her for hosting me in April, when it was great to see the town back open for business and still producing some of the best pies in Lancashire. She will know that I got into some trouble for saying that a particular shop in her constituency produced the best pies in the county, so all I will say on this occasion is that they are all pie-oneers and there is a slice for everyone if they visit Accrington.
David Warburton
Our splendid market towns in fabulous Somerton and Frome are driven by their high streets. They are the engine room of the local economy and the hub of the community, as I am sure everybody saw at the fabulous eat:Castle Cary festival last month. However, the past year has obviously been extraordinarily difficult, so does my right hon. Friend agree that support for high street businesses is essential both to keep our communities strong and to achieve a swift economic recovery?
Robert Jenrick
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I urge all his constituents to get back to their local high streets to support the shops and hospitality businesses that he mentions and make the most of the sunshine in Somerset. We have seen some positive signs, with Springboard data reporting an increase of over 17% in people shopping on their high streets in the recent half-term break. He mentions the eat:Castle Cary festival. That is exactly the kind of thing we want to see across the country this summer. Outdoors is safer than indoor venues. My Department, for its part, is ensuring that through planning easement it is much easier and simpler for local communities to hold outdoor events such as markets without needing to obtain planning permission.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
One of the greatest divides in our country, and one that has been thrown into sharp relief by the pandemic, is between those who own a home of their own and those who do not. That is why I was delighted to be in Bolsover earlier this month to see the very first site of our new First Homes scheme, which will provide new homes, for the first time, at a 30% discount. I was also delighted to announce sites in a further 30 towns last week, worth over £700 million in total. On Friday, I saw the real difference that this is making to local people in Doncaster, Redcar, Bishop Auckland and Hartlepool, to name a few.
Today marks the fourth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire. I visited the site yesterday. I am sure the whole House will once again join me in paying our respects to the 72 victims, their families, their friends and the wider community in north Kensington who suffered as a result of the tragedy. It exposed serious and systemic failings that we are determined to address through our new building safety Bill, which we will bring forward shortly.
Nickie Aiken
May I also offer my condolences to those involved in Grenfell four years ago—an event that we will never forget?
I welcome the incredible work that this Government have done throughout the pandemic to support more rough sleepers, with a staggering £700 million in extra funding for local authorities. I pay tribute to the local authorities and charities involved in helping rough sleepers off the streets, day in, day out. Now we must learn from the Government’s brilliant Everyone In strategy, which saw an incredible 90% of rough sleepers taken off the streets and offered accommodation. As my right hon. Friend knows, I am campaigning to have the Vagrancy Act 1824 repealed. Does he agree that it is now time to learn from what we did with the Everyone In strategy, especially in terms of the reasons people find themselves on the streets in the first place, which are particularly around mental health and addiction issues? Does he agree that we need to learn those lessons and replace the Vagrancy Act?
Robert Jenrick
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to councils and communities across the country, including her own council in Westminster, led very ably by Rachael Robathan. Rachael and I have walked the streets of the west end on many occasions over the past year and seen a tremendous reduction in the number of people sleeping rough. We must build on that and ensure that the progress we have made in the past year is not allowed to slip through our fingers. We will be working across Government to do that because, as my hon. Friend says, homelessness is a housing issue and a health issue. It is about mental health and it is about drug and alcohol addiction, and we need a cross-Government approach to the challenge.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]
Last week, we witnessed a tragic Islamophobic attack in Ontario, Canada, which sadly killed three generations of a single family. The attack reminded us all of the dangers of allowing Islamophobia to seep into society and the impact it can have on people’s lives and communities. The Conservative Government announced in July 2019 that they would appoint two independent advisers on Islamophobia. Almost two years on, can the Secretary of State even tell us who both those independent advisers are and publish their terms of reference as well as the work they have carried out, or is this Conservative Government remorselessly neglecting to tackle Islamophobia across the UK?
Robert Jenrick
This Government have a zero-tolerance approach to racism and discrimination of any kind. We commissioned Professor Swaran Singh to undertake an independent review of the Conservative party. On the day of its publication, the Prime Minister unilaterally and in full accepted all the recommendations, and we will publish a plan as to how to implement them very soon.
I do think it is wrong of the Labour party to raise this issue quite in the way that the hon. Lady does. It was, after all, the Labour party that was investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It was the Labour party that was found to have breached the Equality Act 2010, and it is those on the Labour party’s Front Bench who almost to a man and a woman who were named in that report and criticised for their conduct. It is also wrong of the Labour party to publish leaflets during the Batley and Spen by-election campaign that suggest that the Conservative party does not take anti-Muslim hatred seriously.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the tremendous vision of Cornwall that has been seen by billions of people around the world in the past few days. The beauty of Cornwall was clear for everyone to see, but I appreciate that it is the very beauty of the place that creates problems for her local people and constituents. That is one of the reasons we have created the First Homes scheme, which offers 30% discounts for local residents, and I encourage her constituents to look on ownyourhome.gov.uk to see the schemes we have available.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Robert Jenrick
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady, as would my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. We have brought forward the community ownership fund, and we will publish details on that very soon. It will allow community groups to bid in for match funding to buy a village shop, a pub or a sports field—much-valued community assets. We have also announced the right to regenerate, which will enable people to bid in for public sector assets that are currently being neglected and bring them into better use.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We want to see cities such as Nottingham have the investment they deserve to build more homes and to tackle the issues they face. We see having good-quality housing stock in cities such as Nottingham as a crucial part of levelling up and spreading prosperity. That is one of the reasons why we changed the local housing need formula to place a much greater emphasis on smaller cities such as Nottingham.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Robert Jenrick
As a matter of fact, for ACM buildings within Greenwich and Woolwich, of the 23 that have registered, 21 have completed remediation, one building has been removed and one building has started work. For buildings with applications to the building safety fund, of the 94 registrations made, 31 have been confirmed as eligible, 27 have been assessed and 12 have been withdrawn. So great progress is being made. I am working with the insurance industry, and we should ensure that it brings forward market proposals, not simply have the Exchequer step in and subsidise it.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that there are occasions when a local authority may need to apply for permission to build on council-owned land—for example, a new school—but he is right that there needs to be a robust set of safeguards in place, because these applications do generate a great deal of interest and an appearance, on occasion, of unfairness. The applications must be transparently publicised, consulted on and determined in a way that is fair and open.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Robert Jenrick
We have made good progress on the plan that we announced earlier this year. The extra funding is now available through the building safety fund, and we are working through the applications. For lower-rise buildings, we have said that we will bring forward a financing scheme in which no leaseholder will ever need to pay more than £50 a month. There will be long-term low-interest loans for cladding removal and remediation and associated works, and we have said that we will bring forward the details of that shortly.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
As a parent of three young children, I spend a long time in playgrounds and appreciate their importance to everybody in society. I think it is really important that councils take parks and playgrounds seriously. They may be a non-statutory duty, but they are a very important one to members of the public. We have now had two years of increases in council funding, which were voted on and supported by both sides of this House, so local councils have the resources, and they should prioritise open spaces as we come out of the pandemic.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
Robert Jenrick
I disagree with the hon. Lady, because a number of businesses have already brought forward market solutions—Aviva, for example, and I believe that E.ON is also doing so. It is extremely important that we in this House are united in putting pressure on the insurance companies, not simply asking the Exchequer to step in and bail out some of the most affluent and successful companies in the country. That is what we are trying to do, and we are seeing signs of progress.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is extremely important that developers, large and small, make good on their promises to local councils and local communities. There are already relevant powers in the planning system, but we are considering how to beef them up as part of our planning reforms, so that where homes have been permissioned, the builder gets on and finishes the job. We will also be legislating for our new homes ombudsman, so that where the standard of those homes falls below what people expect, a route to recourse is available to everyone.
Personal Statement
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement to the House. The matter I am referring to occurred on 27 April 2020. I had been trying to get online to an important Committee meeting. After many attempts throughout the day, I was still not connected and had to leave the meeting. I did not swear or raise my voice, but my behaviour led to two complaints. I have reflected on my behaviour. I accept that it constituted bullying and, as such, was entirely inexcusable. The circumstances were stressful for the staff assisting the Committee and for me. I apologised to them before, and I apologise to them again, and to the House, unreservedly. I will never repeat such behaviour.
Points of Order
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you received notice from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that he intends to make a statement on the covid-19 regulations earlier than advertised? I ask this because it is a long-standing principle of this House that major changes in Government policy are to be announced to Parliament first, and I can think of no more important policy announcement than changes to regulations that restrict the freedom of the British people. It appears that the Government are planning to hold a major news conference on the covid regulations at 6 pm, but the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is not making his statement to the House until 8.30 pm. That is not only a clear breach of parliamentary convention; it is also a breach of the ministerial code. The code states:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”
What makes the matter even more concerning is that about 30 minutes ago the media were given an embargoed copy of the statement. So the media have the statement in advance, there will be a public press conference at 6 pm, and then the last people to know about the changes to the regulations will be Members of Parliament. That is clearly very disrespectful to Parliament, and probably a contempt of Parliament.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you heard from the Prime Minister this afternoon, because I am astonished that he is not coming to the House to make this statement? I entirely join my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in what he has said. It would have been perfectly possible for the Prime Minister to come to this Chamber at 3.30 and inform Parliament of what is going on. I quite understand that it is much easier for the Prime Minister to have a few patsy questions from Laura Kuenssberg and her colleagues than to sit here for a whole hour and be grilled by MPs, but are we a presidential system or are we the House of Commons? Who runs this country? Is it the media or is it the House of Commons? I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said: in future, we must make it clear that if there are any Government announcements, they are made here first, to the elected representatives of the people.
Mr Speaker
First, may I say that I am grateful to both gentlemen for giving notice of the point of order? I have repeatedly made it clear how important it is that announcements should be made in this Chamber first. As you are both aware, the Secretary of State will be making a statement at 8.30 pm on covid. That will give Members of the House an opportunity to question him on the Government’s policy. However, it is not what I would have expected, which is a statement to the House before an announcement to the press. It is not acceptable. The Government determine when Ministers make statements, but in doing so they must show respect to this House.
May I just say that we were not going to get a statement until I got involved with Downing Street? The fact is that this has been forced— to actually get a statement today; it was going to be left till tomorrow, which would have been totally unacceptable. The fact is that I understand that the Prime Minister, at the moment, is at NATO—there is a big conference going on—and he is not here. That is why I insisted that somebody come to make this statement. The timing of it is 8.30 pm. I thought that was better than waiting for the Prime Minister to make a statement tomorrow.
This House needs to know; it needs to know first. I find it totally unacceptable that, once again, we see Downing Street running roughshod over Members of Parliament. We are not accepting it, and I am at the stage where I am beginning to look for other avenues if they are not going to treat this House seriously. What I would say is that I think it is time for me to have a meeting with the Prime Minister to put on the record—here and now, but with him—that this House matters.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Just in case there was any lack of clarity from your statement, may I ask whether it is at all feasible that, should the Government now have recognised the power and force of your statement and of the objections of the House, they could come to you and say that they are prepared to bring their statement forward to 6 o’clock? Would the House be able to find time for that?
Mr Speaker
If somebody is willing to do that from Downing Street, I will always ensure that this House will hear it. I was told that no decisions had been taken. That is why I am more shocked to know that there is an embargoed copy of what is going to happen to this country, without this House knowing. I was told no decisions had been taken—that no decisions will be taken until the Cabinet meets. The fact is I am being misled—this House is being misled. It is not acceptable, and I would welcome them coming here before they make the press statement, as the press have already got an embargoed copy. I am sure that the Whip is now texting the Chief Whip to let him know exactly what is being said, because this is disappointing to all of us.
I am now suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
3.37 pm
Sitting suspended.
Uyghur Tribunal: London
(3 years, 5 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
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the treatment by the Chinese Government of witnesses giving evidence to the Uyghur Tribunal in London.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
We are disturbed by reports of attempts to intimidate those appearing at the recent hearing of the Uyghur Tribunal. We have previously made it clear that any attempt by China to silence its critics is unwarranted and unacceptable. The United Kingdom supports freedom of expression both as a human right in and of itself and as an essential element for the enjoyment of a full range of other rights. The freedom to speak out in opposition to human rights violations is fundamental.
The Government have repeatedly expressed our serious concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, and the United Kingdom has led international efforts to hold China to account for its human rights violations in the region. Yesterday’s G7 leaders’ communiqué called on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially in relation to Xinjiang. In March, the Foreign Secretary announced sanctions against four Chinese officials and one entity responsible for those violations, alongside the European Union, the United States and Canada. In January, we launched a package of measures to help ensure UK businesses and the public sector are not complicit in human rights violations or abuses in Xinjiang. The Foreign Secretary has consistently raised the UK’s serious concerns directly with the Chinese Foreign Minister, State Councillor Wang Yi, most recently in a phone call on 27 May.
Rather than continuing to issue denials in the face of overwhelming evidence and seeking to silence their critics, we call on the Chinese Government to address the breadth of concerns being raised internationally about Xinjiang. As a matter of urgency, China must grant the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights or another independent fact-finding expert unfettered access to Xinjiang to verify the facts on the ground.
I reiterate that the Government welcome any rigorous and balanced initiative that raises awareness of the situation faced by Uyghurs and other minorities in China. I met Sir Geoffrey Nice in April to discuss the Uyghur tribunal, and we are following its work. My officials will study any resulting report very carefully indeed.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The Uyghur tribunal is an independent investigation of alleged genocide and crimes against humanity in the Uyghur region, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice. It started its hearings between 4 and 7 June in London and will reconvene later in the year. It was set up because the Chinese Government have reservations on the genocide convention and a veto at the UN Security Council, which prevents investigation by the International Court of Justice, and China is not party to the International Criminal Court.
It is a disgrace that, on Wednesday 9 June, the Government of the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region held a press conference featuring relatives of Uyghur exiles abroad, who were coerced to give statements that claimed to falsify the testimony of those who had given evidence to the Uyghur tribunal. We know already that the Chinese Government monitor, intimidate and harass Uyghurs living abroad, including UK citizens. We have also seen attempts to intimidate Members of this House. An Amnesty International report collated evidence from more than 400 Uyghurs in 22 countries, including the UK, who live in daily fear of the Chinese authorities. The harassment included aggressive messages and threats.
The first question is whether the Government will give evidence to the tribunal. If not, perhaps the Minister could explain why.
Rodney Dixon, QC, has alleged that Uyghurs are deported from third countries to China, where they go on to face genocidal atrocities. What assessment have the Government made of the credibility of the harrowing evidence provided by the Uyghur tribunal, and how will they act on its findings?
Do the Government support the involvement in the UK economy of firms that are complicit in the surveillance and monitoring of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, including surveillance firms such as Hikvision and telecommunications firms such as Huawei? Why have the Government rejected the recommendation of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee to require companies operating in Beijing to provide convincing evidence that their supply chains are not tainted by forced labour? Where are the provisions in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to give force to those concerns?
As I said, China exerts pressure on foreign states to deport Uyghurs who have fled the country back to China—states including Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Will the Government immediately commit to complaining formally and publicly to those countries, and tell them to stop that process at all costs?
Nigel Adams
I thank my right hon. Friend yet again for his work in this area and for bringing this important issue to the House’s attention. As I said in my opening remarks, we welcome any rigorous and balanced initiative that raises awareness of the situation faced by Uyghurs and other minorities in China. We will follow the tribunal closely and study any resulting report carefully.
Of course, my right hon. Friend knows that it is the policy of successive UK Governments that any determination of genocide or crimes against humanity is a matter for a competent court. We are therefore not in a position to provide evidence, testimony or other official support to the tribunal.
My right hon. Friend is right to mention the press conference held by Chinese authorities. We are disturbed by reports of attempts to intimidate those appearing at the hearing. We have previously made it clear that any attempt by China to silence its critics is unwarranted and completely unacceptable. As I have said, we have engaged with Sir Geoffrey Nice. We have pointed him to some open-source information to be of assistance, which is some of the most compelling evidence on what is going on in Xinjiang.
With regard to the Select Committee report that my right hon. Friend referenced, we announced on 12 January that we will work with the Cabinet Office to provide guidance and support to UK public bodies to exclude suppliers where there is evidence of human rights abuses in any of their supply chains. That work is continuing. As he will appreciate, that is a BEIS-led approach.
All our policy towards China is agreed by the National Security Council, and detailed implementation is co-ordinated by the National Strategy Implementation Group for China. These are senior officials across Whitehall. These governance structures are kept under review to ensure that effective co-ordination at all levels is always upheld.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I have lost count of the number of times that I have stood at this Dispatch Box and urged the Government to take stronger and more robust action against the atrocities of the Chinese state as it relentlessly persecutes the Uyghur people. I have also lost count of the number of times that the Government’s response has been woefully inadequate. From the blocking of the genocide amendment, to the failure to sanction Chen Quanguo, to last week’s rejection of many of the recommendations in the BEIS Select Committee’s report on forced labour, the reality is that the Government’s response to the genocide that is taking place in Xinjiang has fallen miserably short of befitting any credible definition of global Britain, so far amounting only to sanctions on a few lower-level Chinese officials.
Five days ago in Xinjiang, we had the chilling spectacle of relatives and friends of witnesses who have so bravely testified to the Uyghur tribunal being paraded in front of Chinese TV cameras, clearly under duress, and made to discredit the evidence that their family members had presented. Having attended the tribunal myself, I can tell the House that the evidence is truly harrowing. I therefore ask the Minister: what assessment have the Government made of the credibility of the evidence presented to the tribunal? Will the Government be testifying at the tribunal and will the Minister himself be attending the tribunal? When will we see the changes to the Modern Slavery Act promised by the Foreign Secretary in his statement to the House on 12 January? How is, in the Foreign Secretary’s word, the “urgent” export control review progressing, which also began on 12 January? Do the Government support the opening of an ICC investigation into the international crimes of the Chinese officials who are orchestrating these abuses? Why are the Government not doing more in the UN to get independent human rights observers into Xinjiang? What steps are the Government taking to protect Uyghurs living in the UK from harassment and intimidation by the Chinese authorities?
The witnesses who have testified at the tribunal have shown huge courage and leadership. Let us hope that the Government will at some point start to follow in their footsteps.
Nigel Adams
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I disagree on a large part of his thesis that this Government have taken no action. This Government led the first two statements on Xinjiang at the UN. We have used our diplomatic network to raise the issue up the international agenda. We will continue to work with our partners across the world to build an international caucus of those willing to speak out against these human rights violations, and we have seen that caucus raised from 23 countries to 39. We will increase the pressure on China to change its behaviour.
We have backed up our international action with robust domestic measures: on 22 March, under the UK’s global human rights sanctions regime, we imposed asset freezes and travel bans on four senior Chinese Government officials and an asset freeze on one entity. On 12 January, the Foreign Secretary announced measures to help to ensure that businesses are not complicit in violations or abuses in Xinjiang. Of course, we are continuously keeping our sanctions regime under review.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the intimidation of the Uyghur diaspora. We are absolutely aware of this. We are very concerned about members of the Uyghur diaspora, including in the UK, being harassed by the Chinese authorities. This is an effort to intimidate them into silence, force them to return to China or co-opt them into providing information on other Uyghurs. This activity is unacceptable. We have raised our concerns directly with the Chinese embassy in London.
In my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I mentioned that we are not in a position to provide evidence, testimony or official support to the tribunal, but we have engaged: I have engaged personally with Sir Geoffrey Nice on this measure, and I understand that my noble Friend the Minister for human rights in the other place has spoken with him on no fewer than four occasions. We are following the tribunal’s work closely, and clearly we will be studying any resulting report.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome the urgent question; my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is absolutely right to ask it and to focus on the Uyghur community who have been so brutally injured, tortured and, indeed, sterilised by the Chinese state.
What has my hon. Friend the Minister done to work with partners around the world, from China to Canada, the United States and indeed New Zealand, to stand together against the united front that is not just torturing and seeking to exploit the weakness of the Uyghur peoples as they seek refuge and peace, but actually seeking to undermine the freedom of the British people and other people around the world by trying to shape our universities, silence our free speech and intimidate our citizens? Is he standing up for Britain?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The short answer is yes, we are standing up for Britain. He is right to raise the question whether we are working with international partners on the issue. It is absolutely correct to do so; it sends the clearest possible signal of the international community’s serious concern and our collective willingness to act.
Our announcement on 22 March of sanctions against the perpetrators of gross human rights violations against Uyghurs and other minorities was made alongside the United States, Canada and the European Union. I can give the Chairman of the Select Committee some other examples in which we have worked together with partners and it has delivered: the Hong Kong visa offer, work with Canada, Australia and the EU on scholarships, export controls and extradition suspension in Hong Kong, parallel sanctions announcements on Xinjiang, and forced labour measures with Canada. We will continue to work with our international partners. He will have noticed the communiqué yesterday from the G7; we are very pleased to be able to lead that charge.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I, too, commend the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important question. The Uyghur tribunal is an important event and a moment of clarity for a lot of us. I express our solidarity with the brave organisers of the event and with the witnesses and their relatives.
I have a couple of concrete questions for the Minister. If we all agree that the tribunal deserves our support, will he detail what practical measures the Government are bringing forward to support the people giving evidence and their relatives? Will he at least commit to a future statement in the House and a debate on the tribunal’s recommendations when they come forward, so that we can all consider its very serious testimony properly?
Nigel Adams
We absolutely welcome any initiative that is balanced, rigorous and raises awareness of the situation that Uyghurs and other minorities in China face. Sir Geoffrey Nice and those involved in the tribunal are distinguished figures. We will continue to engage with Sir Geoffrey and with those involved in the tribunal. We are more than happy to follow up on his work and we will study incredibly carefully the reports and any conclusions that the tribunal brings forward. As I said in my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, we pointed Sir Geoffrey, prior to the tribunal starting, to some compelling evidence via open source information as to what is going on in Xinjiang.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I suspect that the Chinese Government do not care a damn what we say in this Chamber, but they do care about what British business is doing and if it withdraws business as a result of human rights violations. There are plenty of other friendly countries such as India that can do anything China can do, so what has the Minister done to summon in businesses, name and shame them and say that they should move their imports and exports from China? These people are no better than Bristol slave traders of the 18th century, building their businesses on the backs of misery.
Nigel Adams
We are providing businesses with the guidance that they need to understand the moral, reputational, legal and economic risks of conducting business in Xinjiang. It is for businesses to reassure themselves and their customers that their activities in no way contribute to human rights violations taking place in Xinjiang. We also know that many businesses take the egregious violations of human rights in Xinjiang as seriously as we do. Many have already acknowledged the risks and have taken action. Our guidance is clear on the risks that they face when operating in Xinjiang, and we expect all businesses to take appropriate action in response.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
Listening to these reports—the latest in a series of accounts of disappearances, deportations and detentions of Uyghurs outside China—it is clear that the Chinese Communist party has no problem with coercion outside its borders. The eyes of the world will be on the Chinese Government at next year’s Beijing Winter Olympics. A diplomatic boycott by the UK would send a clear signal that this sort of transnational repression is totally unacceptable. Does the Minister agree that this boycott is necessary, as without taking meaningful action, we can expect only more of the same from the Chinese state?
Nigel Adams
No decisions have been made with regard to diplomatic attendance at the Winter Olympics.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I attended the tribunal and I saw images of mass crematoriums and a young mum who was incarcerated for a couple of years. Her triplets were returned with marks around their necks, and one was returned as a frozen corpse. For her bravery to give evidence to the inquiry, she had her family paraded on TV by the Chinese authorities. The right thing for the Minister to do would be to support the tribunal publicly. Otherwise, as the United Nations, we end up as a broken flush when it comes to holding China to account.
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend, again, for her dogged determination on this subject and many others surrounding human rights. I have said before during this session and during the four or five previous urgent questions on this issue that we will continue to hold China to account on its human rights abuses. With regard to the tribunal, we welcome any initiative that is thorough and balanced, and that raises awareness and provides us with detailed information of the situation that is faced by Uyghurs and other minorities in China.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
China appears to want only to crush dissent and to suppress expression of freedom. How are the Government going to hold China to account? Will the Minister spell out the key measures that he is going to take to do so?
Nigel Adams
It is as clear as the nose on your face that China is an authoritarian state. It has different values from our own and we are holding it to account. As I said in a previous answer, we led the first two statements on Xinjiang at the UN. We have led on this. We ensured that, in the communiqué yesterday, there was reference to what is going on specifically in Xinjiang. We will continue to work with our partners across the world. We have built the international caucus of countries prepared to call China out on what is going on in Xinjiang. We will continue to do that work. We will take all evidence that is presented before us, such as what will come out following the conclusions of the tribunal, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that we will continue to lead international efforts to hold China to account for its human rights violations.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the G7 communiqué and our previous sanctions announcement represent a great example of the UK working with international allies to combat the Chinese rights abuses in Xinjiang and Hong Kong? They are an important step forward but do not go far enough, so will the Minister advise us of what further practical actions can be taken to bring the atrocities to an end?
Nigel Adams
Not only did the G7 communiqué call on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially in relation to Xinjiang, but I direct my hon. Friend to the global human rights sanctions that we announced, alongside 29 other countries, in March. That demonstrated our international leadership on this issue. We are committed to working with others to hold China to account for the human rights commitments that it has freely assumed under international law and its own constitution.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
At the UN, China was urged to allow unfettered access to Xinjiang, where the recent Uyghur tribunal reaffirmed that Chinese authorities are committing grave human rights violations. [Inaudible]—testimony of the horrors taking place, which include three crimes against humanity: detention, persecution and torture. As international courts cannot deal with the Chinese Government over allegations of genocide, and China holds a veto on the UN Security Council, will the Government commit to co-operating with and examining and acting on the findings of the Uyghur tribunal?
Nigel Adams
I struggled to hear all of that question, but I can pick up on a key point to which the hon. Gentleman referred: the inability of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to access the region. If China really wants to dispute the compelling evidence of systematic violations in Xinjiang, all it has to do is, as the hon. Gentleman said, allow the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights or another independent credible body urgent and unfettered access. That will allow such a body to investigate and verify the truth.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Human rights violations should always be condemned wherever they take place. The world knows that such violations are happening in Xinjiang—we know they are happening—but they are not prevalent in the public eye and so are not as effective in terms of making action take place. What steps is the Minister taking to rally further international support for action on Xinjiang?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend makes a good point and is right to highlight that. We will continue to work with our international partners to build that international caucus of those who are prepared to speak out—sadly, there are plenty of countries that are not prepared to speak out on this issue—and increase the pressure on China to change its behaviour. We have gone from a situation in which China was denying what was going on—denying the very existence of these o camps—to a situation in which it now at least has to acknowledge the existence of the treatment. We have led joint statements and UN human rights bodies, and most recently we were joined by 38 countries at the UN General Assembly third committee in October. We will continue to work alongside our international partners to keep the pressure on China.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
At the tribunal, we heard the evidence of Tursunay Ziyadin about how beatings and internal torture in the camps had left her sterile—we in the Jewish community are all too familiar with such evidence from events 80 years ago. In China, a woman whom Tursunay did not know was presented as a good friend and claimed that infertility was why Tursunay’s husband left her, but he actually died in a car crash. How will the Minister ensure protection for those who give evidence, many of whom have sought political asylum in our country? In response to the direct witness evidence we heard, what is he going to do to ensure that fake testimony and false news are not spread in the UK or internationally?
Nigel Adams
We are disturbed by the reports of attempts to intimidate those who have been appearing at the recent hearing. Any attempt by China to silence its critics is unwarranted—it is completely unacceptable, as we saw at the press conference held in China most recently. We are aware of reports of members of the Uyghur diaspora being harassed by the Chinese authorities in an effort to intimidate them into silence. Again, we have called out that behaviour and raised our concerns directly with the Chinese embassy in London.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
In order to combat the human rights abuses heaped upon the Uyghur Muslims by China, it is obviously vital that we build the broadest possible coalition of support across the world. In particular, what is my hon. Friend doing about building a coalition of Muslim-majority countries, which seem to be silent on supporting their brothers and sisters in Xinjiang, so that we can ensure that China gets the message that its human rights abuses are unacceptable to the entire world?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is spot on, yet again; we wish to see a broad international caucus of countries, including Muslim-majority countries, speaking out about the widespread human rights violations in Xinjiang. He is absolutely right to point out that not enough of those countries are speaking out on this issue. I can reassure him that this has been a particular focus of our diplomatic efforts. Through our diplomatic network, and with my ministerial colleagues, we engage our counterparts regularly to set out our concern about the situation in Xinjiang, and we make sure that they are aware of the measures the UK is taking in response. We will continue our focus on building as much support as possible.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
We have all been appalled at the evidence now being given to the tribunal of the experience of the Uyghur people and, specifically, of the experiences of Uyghur women, including forced sterilisation, forced abortions and repeated sexual violence. So what are the Government doing to tackle this specific issue of gender-based violence against Uyghur women?
Nigel Adams
Obviously, gender-based violence, wherever it takes place, is unacceptable. We continue to work very hard on this area internationally and commit a significant amount of our support in this regard in countries where it is an issue. We will, of course, continue to look at all options available to us for further action to address the human rights violations that are going on in Xinjiang.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It is clear from the testimonies given at the Uyghur tribunal that there are major threats to minority communities within China’s borders and, given what we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), threats to the Uyghurs in this country, too. For that reason, does my hon. Friend agree that the UK must uphold a clear, principles-led foreign policy, acting in line with the Government’s integrated review, which yielded its clear-eyed assessment of China as a “systemic challenge” to the UK?
Nigel Adams
Yes, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The integrated review makes it clear that UK policy towards China is defined by our national interests, and the Prime Minister has said that we need to be “clear-eyed” about the challenges posed by China, but we must take an overarching, balanced approach that also seeks to manage disagreements, capitalise on the opportunity and co-operate on shared interests.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In light of the harrowing evidence presented to the UK Uyghur tribunal, what discussions took place at the G7 summit, and what discussions is the Minister having with other global leaders, to establish a special session of the UN Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution to provide for an independent international mechanism to investigate crimes under international law and other human rights violations in Xinjiang currently being blocked by China?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady will have seen the G7 leaders coming together yesterday. Having the presidency is a great opportunity for us to be able to put this issue forward. As I have said previously, we have led international efforts to hold China to account and yesterday’s G7 communiqué specifically called on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially in relation to Xinjiang.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
It has been reported in the past 24 hours that the EU was reluctant to specifically cite the camps in Xinjiang as part of the forced labour statement. Whether or not that is true, does my hon. Friend think that our closest allies will be united both in being disturbed by the testimony that we are seeing, and in condemning the coercion of the witnesses’ families?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right to bring that up. Of course, we condemn any intimidation of witnesses to this tribunal or to any other forums where people are giving similar such evidence. As he will have seen, yesterday’s communiqué called on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, specifically in relation to Xinjiang. Additionally, in the recent communiqué of the Foreign and Development Ministers of the G7, the G7 expressed deep concern about human rights violations in Xinjiang and reiterated our call for independent experts to be given unfettered access to Xinjiang. We will continue to work with our partners to build a caucus of those willing to speak out against China’s human rights violations.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
Arriving at the NATO summit in Brussels today, the Prime Minister said that nobody wants to
“descend into a…cold war with China”
and that, when people see challenges, they are things that we have to manage together with China. Can the Minister assure us that the Prime Minister will highlight the grotesque human rights abuses committed against the Uyghurs and that he recognises the importance of this matter in any dialogue with China?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady makes a good point. Of course, the Prime Minister is raising those issues. Let us be clear: our relationship with China remains clear-eyed. It is rooted in our values and is driven by our national interest. China is the world’s second largest economy. It is a member of the G20 and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. We have a policy of engagement with China and our approach towards China will remain consistent.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this urgent question and on his continued work in highlighting the appalling treatment of the Uyghur people by the Beijing regime. With that in mind, can the Minister outline to the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure that no UK businesses are complicit in human rights abuses in Xinjiang?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for that very good question. We have been engaging with businesses on these issues for some time. On 12 January, we launched a Minister-led campaign to reinforce the need for business to take action in line with our advice and also to encourage them to act to address the risk. We are also providing support and advice to public bodies, and these build on the existing measures that we have taken to respond to Xinjiang, including research funded by the UK to help build the evidence base. There are a number of additional reports that have recently been published that the United Kingdom Government have helped to finance.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for a few minutes in order for the necessary arrangements to be made.
Ethiopia
(3 years, 5 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 Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the deteriorating situation in Ethiopia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this urgent question, and I thank him for his work not only on Ethiopia, but on Zambia and Angola, where he serves as a trade envoy, and for the excellent work he does on the Business Council for Africa.
The Government are deeply concerned about the situation in Ethiopia. Our greatest concern is the rapidly growing human rights and humanitarian crisis in Tigray. We are now more than seven months into the conflict in Tigray, and there is no sight of an end. It has taken a terrible toll on the people of Tigray. More than 350,000 people are assessed to be in famine-like conditions in total—more than anywhere else in the world—and, sadly, this is expected to rise. A region-wide famine in Tigray is now likely if conflict intensifies and impediments to the delivery of humanitarian aid continue. This crisis has been caused by insecurity, an ongoing lack of humanitarian access and the deliberate destruction of agricultural equipment and medical facilities. It is a man-made crisis.
Officials from our embassy in Addis Ababa have visited Tigray five times to assess the situation and guide our humanitarian response. The UK’s special envoy for famine prevention and humanitarian affairs, Nick Dyer, visited Tigray last month. Our ambassador is due to visit this week. During these visits, we have heard many harrowing reports of atrocities committed by all parties to the conflict. This includes extrajudicial killings, and widespread sexual and gender-based violence. It is simply unacceptable, it must stop and the perpetrators must be held to account.
The head of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Mark Lowcock, has said the humanitarian disaster is in part due to the presence of the Eritrean troops in Tigray. He says they are using hunger as a weapon of war, and we therefore need to see the immediate withdrawal of Eritrean forces from Tigray and Ethiopian soil now. The Government of Ethiopia have said this will happen, but it has not yet happened. I am particularly shocked about reports that Eritreans are dressing up in Ethiopian uniforms and committing atrocities.
The concern of the G7 nations about the situation was set out in yesterday’s communiqué, following the leaders’ summit this weekend. The G7 leaders called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and unimpeded humanitarian access to the area. I am pleased that all G7 nations in the EU, along with a growing number of other nations, including Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Belgium and Poland, have joined the UK’s call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. His Holiness the Pope expressed his concerns and also called for an end to fighting this weekend. It is vital that that happens to allow life-saving aid to reach the hundreds of thousands in need.
The international community response to this crisis needs to be scaled up urgently. That will involve co-ordination to ensure aid gets in.
James Duddridge
I am glad my right hon. Friend agrees with me on that issue. I am conscious that there will be a number of questions, so I will cease my comments there.
Mr Robertson
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank everyone who supported me in the application.
The Minister knows that the UK’s ties with Ethiopia are very close and historical. Ethiopia is the second largest recipient of UK aid—it receives about £300 million a year from the UK. As chairman of the all-party group on Ethiopia and Djibouti, I wish to see that relationship and that level of aid continue.
Since the end of the Derg in 1991, Ethiopia has been a peaceful and safe country, holding together very many groups and religions and enjoying impressive economic growth. That is why it is so sad to see the current conflict in Tigray. Is the Minister satisfied with the current level of engagement of the United Nations and the African Union, in terms of negotiations and peacekeeping?
The World Food Programme has said that 350,000 people are suffering from catastrophic levels of hunger, categorised as integrated food security phase classification 5—the highest level. That is the highest number of people classified in that way in a single country in the past decade, and it is projected to increase. The World Food Programme says that it needs an extra $203 million to scale up its response in Tigray, and that,
“unless food and livelihood assistance is scaled up”,
famine is a risk, so what else can we do to help?
More generally, is the Minister satisfied that aid is reaching people in Tigray? Have the non-governmental organisations had their access restricted? What protection is being provided to aid workers following the reported deaths of nine aid workers?
On aid, does the Minister agree that often the people in most need in the world are those living in war-torn countries? Is it therefore right for any country to be suspending any direct aid to Ethiopia at the moment? In such situations, surely the trick is to get under the radar and deliver aid to the people who need it most.
Has the Minister been able to assess whether hospitals and their equipment are being adequately protected? Has he been able to assess the living conditions of the 1.6 million people who have been displaced throughout the conflict?
We have heard about the involvement of the Eritreans in Ethiopia. That was originally denied by the Ethiopian Government. Does the Minister feel that some of the worst atrocities are being committed from that route?
Finally, what assessment has the Minister made of the likelihood of the conflict spreading to other parts of Ethiopia and the wider region? I know the Foreign Secretary has a focus on east Africa, which demonstrates that we are all concerned about that situation.
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend. This is indeed one of our largest aid programmes. He asked whether the UN and the AU could do more. Yes, always, but we are working with our UN partners very carefully. I have spoken extensively to the new political affairs, peace and security commissioner, Bankole Adeoye, about this issue. Sadly, I can confirm the World Food Programme’s analysis of famine-like conditions—IPC5. Clearly, we need to do more. My hon. Friend asked whether we could do more, and I can announce this afternoon that the UK Government will provide a further £16.7 million of aid from our regular programme elsewhere in Ethiopia and divert it towards the conflict in Tigray. He mentioned NGO access. That has improved since the early days of the conflict, but NGOs still do not have full access, and the land in Tigray is controlled by different combatants, which makes it even more difficult. He talked of hospitals. Hospital supplies were virtually at zero at one point, and from what we have seen from our five visits from the embassy and Her Majesty’s Government, only around 74 of the 264 hospitals are operating in any way, shape or form.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the Eritrean troops. They have no place in the Ethiopian conflict, and they have been asked to leave. They should leave, and we will work with all partners to ensure that that happens. Rather chillingly, he also asked whether the conflict could spread. We are concerned, with the election coming up and with the pre-existing instabilities in the Oromo region and the Amhara region on the Sudanese border, not to mention the issue of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance dam, that there are a number of flashpoints, so it is important that we deal with this conflict as it stands at the moment and ensure that it does not spread further into the region and Ethiopia more generally.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) for his strong words, and the Minister for his frank response. We have also repeatedly raised this horrendous situation. Indeed, I raised it with the Prime Minister in this House eight months ago, but tragically since then we have seen a worsening and deepening of the crisis. As has been said, Ethiopia has made huge strides forward on poverty, and our aid, trade and friendly partnership has been hugely important. We all want to see a prosperous and democratic Ethiopia, but the war and famine of the 1980s are seared into the memories of the British people and the world, so it is especially heartbreaking to see the current famine and to see civilians being hacked to death, rape, the destruction of food and health capacity, tens of thousands displaced and hundreds of thousands cut off from assistance. We must now speak forcefully and frankly, and most crucially take action in the face of the growing and incontrovertible evidence. We have a clear responsibility to act and to protect and assist Ethiopian civilians.
The UN human rights chief has spoken of potential war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the G7 spoke this weekend of a humanitarian tragedy, with potentially hundreds of thousands living in famine conditions, so has the Prime Minister spoken to Prime Minister Abiy or any of the other key players, not least following the G7 this weekend? If not, when will he do so? What action are we taking at the Security Council and the Human Rights Council with the AU to bring about an end to the conflict, full humanitarian access and a full independent investigation into the allegations of human rights abuses?
There is clear evidence of a serious food crisis, as the UK envoy and the UN have said, with huge numbers of people at risk of famine and food emergency, so this is the wrong time for us to be slashing humanitarian aid, as the House has made repeatedly clear. The Minister mentioned £16.7 million being diverted. However, the UN humanitarian chief pointed out last week that the UK had provided $108 million to Ethiopia last year, but that this year we have reported only $6 million. Can the Minister clarify that, and tell us when we will be urgently increasing our total assistance? I share his concerns about Eritrean troops. Have any actually left, or are they still there? It has been claimed that they have left, but I have yet to see any evidence of that. Will he also consider targeted sanctions and measures against any individual, from whatever side, who is found to have committed human rights abuses, war crimes or other atrocities?
James Duddridge
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his long-standing interest in this issue, through oral questions in the House and through parliamentary questions as well. We share the desire for a return to a democratic and prosperous Ethiopia. That was at the centre of the east African strategy, and we will work more closely with the United Nations in particular, and with UN organisations and local organisations, to ensure that all perpetrators are brought to account. The primary relationship with Prime Minister Abiy is with the Foreign Secretary, who met him on an east African trip and who I know retains that dialogue. I do not know specifically when the Prime Minister last spoke to Prime Minister Abiy, but I will certainly let the hon. Gentleman know.
On the aid level, I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the small redirection of aid moneys. I do not recognise the numbers that he talked about, but I am more than happy to have a dialogue with him around that. Obviously, multilateral spending in addition to bilateral spending makes the situation slightly more complicated, particularly as we are diverting more money into the region. I think those are the main issues that he raised. If I have missed any, I will pick them up during other answers.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
I welcome the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), which could not be more important given the tragic scenes we are seeing in Tigray at the moment. May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister what work he has been doing with our American friends—notably, of course, Senator Coons, who is the representative of President Biden in the region—and what co-ordination he is doing with UN agencies, including the Nobel prize-winning World Food Programme? Is extra support going to those organisations, and are they able to raise money through the open, charitable arms of the United Kingdom? So many people in this country are looking to help, and I am sure they would give very generously.
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this issue and on the Foreign Affairs Committee. We are very engaged with our American partners. I attended a meeting last week with Samantha Power and international organisations, discussing this issue. When I was last in Ethiopia, I met the incoming ambassador, and there has been a regional envoy travelling in the area, whom I also met last week. I have had several meetings with David Beasley of the World Food Programme, which we try to work with as closely as possible, although at key points of this conflict, access to the area, rather than actually delivering the aid, was the main problem.
Ultimately, there is no solution without political dialogue. Although the issues that my hon. Friend raises are important, several other actions need to take place as a precursor before we get that food to the people who are starving. It is particularly concerning that people are destroying hoes and farming equipment so that people cannot plant. It is a narrow point; if they do not plant in the next few weeks or months, there will be no crop at the end of the cycle.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
May I first put on the record my heartfelt sympathy and condolences to the families of those murdered by terrorists last week in Afghanistan while in their line of work with the HALO Trust? The attacks were atrocious and cowardly, and the perpetrators must be held to account. These men and women bravely put their lives on the line every day by clearing landmines all over the world.
Most of the 5.5 million people living in Tigray are desperately hungry, and more than 300,000 people are suffering from famine. Starvation causes someone’s body literally to consume itself; their organs shrink, their hair falls out, they convulse and they hallucinate before death. Children are even more at risk; it is reported that 300,000 children are expected to die. Even if aid deliveries were stepped up immediately, the situation will only worsen by September, so how are the UK Government using their relationship with Ethiopia to allow aid organisations access and to alleviate this impending catastrophic crisis?
This catastrophe is unfolding as we speak, and we know the devastation it will cause if we do nothing, yet the UK Government are ignoring both UK law and their own manifesto pledge by cutting aid—including that to Africa by 66%. Will the Government reverse those life-threatening cuts and, at the very least, immediately mobilise sufficient emergency funds to get life-saving aid to the Tigray region?
James Duddridge
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I would like to be associated with his comments on the HALO Trust, which does excellent work in Africa and elsewhere around the world.
Sadly, the numbers are even worse than those the hon Gentleman cites. Nearly 23 million people across Ethiopia will require assistance in 2021. The vast majority of those, and the vast majority of the increase on the normal assistance, are in Tigray, with 6.2 million of the population requiring assistance.
The hon. Gentleman asks about aid getting through. The process for humanitarian assistance getting through was very convoluted. It has improved, but it is still not sufficient to get the materials through, even if we did have them to distribute. However, that is something we are working on very closely; the famine prevention and humanitarian affairs envoy talked about it, and the ambassador will talk about it when he visits Tigray this week. One of the first people to visit Tigray was our development director, looking at these very issues of gaining access.
Crucial to all this is ensuring that the Eritreans get out of Tigray, to create a situation of stability. I very much hope that the turning point of the elections will be a pivot, where the Ethiopian Government will look again at some of these issues.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on securing this urgent question, and I echo the comments of the Foreign Affairs Committee Chair that many responsible people throughout our country are worrying about a return to 1984 famine conditions. I urge my hon. Friend, who is a decent and humane Minister, to take two key things away from the House. The first is that 2 million people have been driven from their homes—many across the border into Sudan—and 350,000 people, according to the UN, are now in IPC phase 5, which means they are quite literally starving to death. Secondly, in 2020, the UK recorded $108 million in humanitarian money for Ethiopia; so far this year, with the cuts resulting from our broken promise on the 0.7%, the UN tracking system says that Britain has provided only $6 million—that is the figure scored against ODA so far. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind those two facts in his discussions with his Treasury colleagues?
James Duddridge
I thank my right hon. Friend for his long-standing interest. Like him, I do not want to go back to 1984, although there are chilling similarities. He talks of the number of individuals who have gone across the border to Sudan. We have provided £5 million to refugees coming over. We also recognise the number of 350,000.
I think my right hon. Friend explained the source of another hon. Member’s figure of $6 million. I will have to check it, because that is a gross distortion. This is one of our biggest aid programmes. We are the second or third largest aid donor, so that must be a snapshot of a single programme or a very small period of time, because our programmes are many multiples of that.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
Tragedy has hit many people in the region, and sadly much of the world’s media seems to be ignoring it. Children are ultimately the most horrendous victims of this kind of war, and sexual violence has been perpetrated against many women in Tigray. Two million people, as others have pointed out, are now homeless or have been driven from their homes, and 350,000 people face imminent hunger. There has to be a political solution to this situation, and there has to be a humanitarian response to it.
Is the Minister confident that the Ethiopian Government will allow unfettered access to United Nations human rights inspectors to look at the human rights situation? Is he confident that we will make sure that no further arms are supplied to Ethiopia and, indeed, that there is an arms embargo on the whole region to try to force the pace on bringing about peace for the future? Have he or the Government had any contact with the African Union on this issue, and what role is the African Union playing in trying to bring about a political settlement and a political solution so that another conflict does not break out and the many refugees who have gone to Sudan and other places are able to return home in safety?
James Duddridge
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He is absolutely right that this requires a political solution; without a political solution, all the other actions that take place will not work. That is not to say that we should not do other things, but we need to look at the backbone of the long-term political situation. This conflict has been going on too long—over eight months. During that period, we have called for “unfettered”—in the right hon. Gentleman’s words—humanitarian access. I would not describe the access we have now as unfettered; I would describe it as better than when we started early on in the conflict. We are working very closely with the UN in this regard.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the issues around arms embargoes, which I will consider carefully. As he will appreciate, though, arms come in over many borders—porous borders—and the situation is quite complex, with regional influence well beyond just the African continent. The African Union should be, will be and is part of the solution, and we will work with it. I have spoken a number of times to my opposite number, Commissioner Bankole, and I even spoke a few weeks ago with the President of Ethiopia and briefly with the head of the African Union, Moussa Faki, about the African Union. The African Union will be part of the solution. In the 54 states of Africa, there is a diminishing conflict, but there are significant problems, and the African Union is well placed to solve them, rather than their being solved from London or New York.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on securing this urgent question, and thank Mr Speaker for granting it, shining a spotlight on this absolutely appalling humanitarian situation. It is particularly tragic, given how much progress Ethiopia had been making on development. The Minister said that quite clearly it is a man-made crisis. In that light, would he consider writing to the Nobel peace prize awarding committee to ask it to revoke the peace prize it awarded to Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed?
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for her service as my predecessor in this role. She will appreciate that the awarding of a Nobel peace prize is not for the United Kingdom to determine. At the moment, our relationship with Prime Minister Abiy is one of trying to have a strong dialogue. The Foreign Secretary has a very good, honest relationship with Prime Minister Abiy. At the moment, we are better having a continued and quiet dialogue and diplomacy, rather than leaping to some of the solutions that my hon. Friend is pointing to—legitimate solutions elsewhere that might be right at a different time, but I do not think they would be constructive at this juncture.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
“Never again”—that is what the international community said after the famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s. In fact, I lived there between the ages of five and eight, and I will never forget the looks in the eyes of starving children my own age: scared, desperate or, worst of all, hollow. So it is utterly horrifying to hear that history is repeating itself. In the face of this Government’s decision to abandon the 0.7% target on aid, it would be an act of extreme callousness to cut what we give to the people of Ethiopia at this time. The Minister said that he does not recognise the £6 million figure, so can he clarify how much less this country will be spending on aid to Ethiopia as a result of the aid cuts, compared with last year? He also said that the money promised today is a diversion from elsewhere, so what programmes are being cancelled or delayed as a result?
James Duddridge
I would not want the House to get the wrong idea. Internationally we said, “Never again,” but actually things are improving across the African continent. There are still problems, but things are moving in the right direction and have been since 1984. In Ethiopia specifically, prior to this conflict, the Ethiopian Government were much more able to find their own solutions, alongside us, but aid remains part of the process. The hon. Lady pushes me to provide statistics that I do not have available, but they will be reported to the House in the normal course of business.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]
Does the Minister share my concerns about credible reports of child soldiers being deployed in the conflict? The UK is supporting the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in investigating human rights violations in the conflict. Does that include looking into the involvement of child soldiers, and what more can the UK do to help prevent this abuse of vulnerable young lives in the region?
James Duddridge
Sadly, a high level of sexual violence is being directed at children—children are being forced to commit sexual acts—and I think it is likely that people under the age of 18 are being conscripted. I will be interested to hear from non-governmental organisations with more evidence, and that should be brought before the African Union, the UN and local authorities to ensure that perpetrators are held to account, because clearly it is unacceptable.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The humanitarian crisis unfolding in Ethiopia is saddening, and we in the UK must urgently step up to help civilians via aid as well as demanding an immediate end to the violence in Tigray. What assessment have the Government made of reports of aid being cut off, health facilities being vandalised and aid workers being harassed by troops on all sides of the conflict? What about the horrific allegations of sexual torture and rape? What action is being taken against them?
James Duddridge
Sadly, all those things are happening, it is true. To put some numbers on the sexual violence, it is over 1,000, and we fear that probably at least 26,000 people are likely to require support in the coming months. That is based on UN estimates. It is very difficult to give more precise figures on the types of atrocities and the perpetrators, given that we do not have full access. As I say, there is very strong evidence that Eritrean soldiers are dressing up in Ethiopian uniforms, and there are counter-accusations of similar behaviour from other combatants.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The vast majority of my constituents support the Government’s decision to reduce international aid, but they rightly expect us to provide funding and support to relieve the situation in Ethiopia. Does the Minister agree that moving away from the 0.7% target in no way stops us providing vital support in circumstances such as these?
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. Of course we are still contributing £10 billion of aid. That is an enormous sum of money in absolute terms. It is also enormous relative to the actual size of our economy—it is much larger than other members of the G7 and our international partners, such as the Americans, for example. Not only that, but it is not a permanent change; we are going to get back to 0.7% when the economic conditions allow. I know that there are other hon. Members in the House who want that to happen very quickly, but we will keep that situation under review and try to get it back. It certainly does not stop us helping more in situations such as that in Ethiopia.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
Gang rape and brutal sexual violence against women and little girls are being used as weapons of war in Tigray. This fear of sexual violence means that women and girls are in hiding, too terrified to travel to food distribution centres. Children are literally starving because of fear of rape. What work are the Government doing internationally to remove the stigma of rape in conflict? What steps are being taken to bring perpetrators of sexual violence in conflict to justice?
James Duddridge
This is an incredibly important issue, which was given a higher profile when Lord Hague was Foreign Secretary. It was raised up the international agenda. In fact, I was alongside him in a number of UN meetings when I was Minister for Africa under David Cameron, raising these issues. It does appear that sexual violence is being used more, not less. Some of that might be our awareness and our willingness to talk about it, rather than brushing it under the carpet, but it is really important that we flag that it is one of the worst areas of behaviour. We need to get away from it. I note that the House is discussing the issue in more detail—perhaps I will be able to provide more detail—on Thursday this week.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
This urgent question underlines exactly why we should not be reducing our aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5%, but this war in Tigray is a test for the west. The conflict has resulted in widespread starvation, as the Minister points out, but a state of famine has not yet been declared. The recent G7 summit called for an immediate ceasefire, but how likely is it that either Ethiopia or Eritrea will heed those words? What is clear is that if the international community stands back and does nothing, the war, the scale of the famine and the number of civilian deaths will continue to increase.
As the UN Security Council penholder for peacekeeping and the protection of civilians in armed conflict, will the UK be calling for an emergency session of the UN Security Council, and will we be offering to send independent observers, so that we can better understand the situation, given the conflicting reports and statements made by the Ethiopian Government on the one hand and NGOs on the other?
James Duddridge
My right hon. Friend makes very strong points, and I am reminded that if the famine-like conditions were more concentrated—were in a more defined area—they would indeed be defined as famine; this is so widespread that it is defined as famine-like conditions. We are already working with our colleagues and international observers to understand. Unfortunately, if we only do what we are doing now the situation will get worse; we must do something different. At the heart of that is finding a political solution and, hopefully, moving away from the election will be a pivot point. I am not demeaning any of the other calls for action, but without a political solution things will get worse.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his clear commitment to the job in hand. Like all the other hon. Members here today, I am deeply concerned about reports of multiple massacres in Ethiopia’s Tigray region, including the killing of up to 800 people in and around the sacred refuge of the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion in Axum.
I am also greatly concerned about the food situation in the region. Even before the conflict over 1 million people in Tigray needed daily food assistance, including 40,000 Eritrean refugees, so will the Minister outline what discussions he has had with African counterparts about this terrible conflict and what he is doing to support those at risk of famine, in particular Christians and ethnic groups who are often at the end of the queue when it comes to getting help?
James Duddridge
I am concerned about all the people, whether they are Christians, Ethiopians or Eritreans, as I know the hon. Gentleman is. I continue a dialogue—in fact I think this issue comes up in every single meeting I have across the continent. It is a blight on the continent; it is a problem for the continent and the world, not just for Ethiopia. So we will continue raising those issues; the Minister of State Lord Ahmad has, as Minister on freedom of religion, particularly emphasised them, and we also heard from the Prime Minister’s envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), in this Chamber just a few moments ago.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Eritrea is effectively a dictatorship with one of the worst human rights records in the world. What pressure can my hon. Friend put on the Government of Eritrea to remove their troops from this conflict and to make sure that they abide by the human rights records we want to see right across the world?
James Duddridge
At various points in the conflict there has been denial that troops are there, denial that they were there and committing atrocities, and so on and so on; it has been very unclear. I share my hon. Friend’s analysis of the situation. Guy Warrington, a senior member of the Foreign Office, will soon be visiting the area and taking up the post of ambassador there to work on this issue and a number of others. As I have said, my hon. Friend’s analysis, while uncomfortable, is correct.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) [V]
The UN Secretary-General’s special representative on the elimination of sexual violence, Pramila Patten, said last week that 22,500 women in Tigray need access to services as a result of conflict-related sexual violence. This coming Saturday is the UN International Day for the Elimination of Sexual Violence in Conflict. Will the Minister support Tigrayan women around the world who are calling for justice for their sisters by using the UK’s position on the UN Security Council to press for urgent and immediate action to stop this violence and ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice?
James Duddridge
I thank the hon. Lady for the way in which she has addressed this and a number of other issues on Ethiopia behind the scenes as well as in public; that has been very helpful. I am very keen to support raising the issue, whether on the UN day or in debate. Anything we can do to call out sexual violence against women makes it harder for the perpetrator to commit the crime and easier for us to rally support for people to be prosecuted and to put others off in the future.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
Reports of new atrocities in Tigray continue to emerge almost daily. Does the Minister agree that UN investigators need to be given urgent and full access to the region so that they can investigate, and will he consider further joint action with our international partners if that access is not forthcoming?
James Duddridge
It is important that we look at the situation as an international community rather than acting on a bilateral basis. I am hopeful that the end of the elections will be a pivot point; it is difficult to see big changes happening before that, but we should call for greater humanitarian access and we must do so as a collective region or an international community. Clearly, given the deteriorating situation, we cannot just call for these things not to happen and then rest on our laurels. We will have to look again at these issues.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
The Minister will have seen reports that Vodafone is paying the Ethiopian Government £850 million for a telecoms licence, as the first stage of a deal that Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed described as
“the single largest foreign direct investment into Ethiopia”.
There is widespread concern that that funding will be used to support the war in Tigray. Will the Minister therefore explain what advice the Government are giving British business on investment in the country at this time?
James Duddridge
This is not a Government investment, but a CDC investment, although we are dancing on the head of a pin in the sense that the CDC itself is a UK Government-supported institution. We supported the bid to be a telecoms supplier; that bid precedes the Tigrayan conflict, and its successes in bringing greater mobile telephony across the area will help to transform Ethiopia. If there were any question of the money being used to support the conflict in Tigray, we would not be involved; if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of that, he should come forward. We see this as something that will open out Ethiopia, not shut it down.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Government have rightly identified the scale of this crisis. Will they therefore detail how the reduction from 0.7% will cut the ability for us to fund projects in Ethiopia?
May I also ask the Minister whether the preventing sexual violence in conflict team is ready to deploy into Ethiopia? It was suggested on 24 May by the special representative in the House of Lords that the team would be deploying. I would like the Minister to come to the House and tell us when they will deploy, when they will be able to provide assistance to victims of sexual violence in conflict, whether documentation of these crimes is taking place and whether we will be able to lead any prosecutions for what are the most atrocious crimes.
James Duddridge
I cannot give my hon. Friend the detailed breakdown that he is looking for. I do recall signing off, in the past week or so, an answer to a parliamentary question about specific support in Ethiopia; I will not quote it from memory, because I do not want to introduce errors into Hansard, but when I get back to the office I will be more than happy to point him in the direction of that PQ. I point out again that the ambassador is travelling to the region this week. We will work with our UN partners to work out what specialist support, what physical kit and which individuals across the region are needed. The answer is not always sending people from London; it is about sending people regionally to support exactly the same work. I am conscious that we will have more time to discuss the matter on Thursday, and I will make sure that I can give my hon. Friend an even better answer then.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
May I follow up on the question asked by the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall)? Because of the widespread reports of sexual violence in Tigray, can the Minister confirm whether he is expecting that the UK’s preventing sexual violence in conflict teams will be travelling to the area and working with and supporting survivors, or not? I was not clear from his last answer whether he is expecting that to happen.
James Duddridge
I am afraid that I cannot provide the right hon. Lady with that clarity. I will do so later today in writing and address that issue in the House on Thursday. I do not want to inadvertently mislead the House with the wrong statistics, but we are very aware of the problem and very aware of the need to take action.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question. I will suspend the House for three minutes to make arrangements for the next business.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Monday 14th June 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions Act 2022 View all National Insurance Contributions Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill before the House today is a short one, with just four measures: an employer’s national insurance contributions relief for employees in freeports; an employer’s NICs relief for employers of veterans; an exemption for Test and Trace support payments from self-employed NICs; and changes to the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes legislation with regard to national insurance contributions. The measures are all important, and I shall explain each of them in more detail.
I shall start with the employer’s NICs relief for employees in freeports. At the Budget, the Chancellor announced the locations of the first eight freeports. These sites, which range from Teesside to Tilbury, will become hubs for trade, innovation and commerce. They will attract new businesses and they will regenerate communities by creating jobs, boosting investment and spreading prosperity. Overall, freeports present an extraordinary opportunity to drive regional economic growth, and the Government want as many areas as possible to benefit.
An important part of the appeal of freeports for employers is undoubtedly the wide range and variety of tax reliefs that they provide. These include an enhanced 10% rate of structures and buildings allowance, an increased 100% capital allowance for companies investing in plant and machinery, and full relief from stamp duty on land or property purchases.
The employer’s NICs relief for workers in freeports contained in the Bill encourages employment while supporting regional growth. Under this measure, employers with premises in a freeport in Great Britain will be exempt from employer’s NICs on up to £25,000 of a new worker’s wages. This legislation applies to all new workers who spend 60% of their working time at a freeport tax site in the first three years of employment.
The relief will be available from April next year until at least April 2026. At that point, a sunset clause will require the Government to lay secondary legislation to extend the relief, if they wish, for up to a further five years to April 2031. Any decision to extend will only be taken upon review of the relief’s impact. However, even if the Government decided not to extend the relief, employers will be able to claim it for the full three years on new hires taken on before April 2026. While these measures relate to Great Britain, let me assure the House that it is the Government’s intention to legislate for this relief in Northern Ireland as soon as is practicable. Indeed, the Bill provides the Government with the power to set out the detail of employer NICs relief in Northern Ireland in secondary legislation once engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive is complete.
The second of our measures concerns NICs relief for employers of veterans. As colleagues will recall, this policy was announced at spring Budget 2020. It also fulfils a manifesto commitment to reduce employer NICs for a full year for every new employee who has left the armed forces. The House will know well that I am very closely connected to the astonishing work of special forces in Hereford, but the veterans of our armed forces across the United Kingdom give extraordinary service to this nation. We know that some face great challenges in obtaining secure and fulfilling employment, so it is only right that we should do all we can to change this situation. Under the Bill, employers will not pay employer NICs on earnings worth up to £50,270 in a veteran’s first full year of civilian employment. This amounts to a saving of up to £5,500 per hired veteran. I am sure that colleagues across the House will agree that this measure should give a real boost to veterans’ employment prospects, and should mean that many more businesses benefit from their often extraordinary skills and personal experience.
I now turn to the exemption of Test and Trace support payments from self-employed NICs. Last September, the Government announced the launch of a £500 support payment in England for low-income individuals who had been told to self-isolate but who could not work from home and would lose income as a result. Shortly afterwards, the Scottish and Welsh Governments announced similar schemes. These payments, which were provided by local authorities, would be subject to employee and employer class 1 and 1A and self-employed class 2 and class 4 NICs under long-standing legislation. Last year, however, the Government introduced secondary legislation to exempt payments under the support schemes from employee and employer class 1 and 1A NICs. The measure contained in the Bill will extend this exemption to the self-employed. It will ensure that these workers are treated consistently with their employed counterparts and do not have to pay NICs on support payments. The legislation will therefore retrospectively exempt Test and Trace support payments from class 2 and class 4 NICs for the 2020-21 tax year. It will also ensure that in future Test and Trace support payments will not be included in profit liable to class 2 and class 4 NICs.
The final measure in the Bill relates to changes in the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—DOTAS—regime in relation to NICs. As colleagues will recall, the DOTAS legislation was introduced in 2004. It seeks to provide Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs with early information about new tax avoidance schemes—information on how they work and about those who use them. The provisions in the Finance Act 2021 enhanced the operation of the DOTAS regime, and the Bill includes changes to an existing regulation-making power in the Social Security Administration Act 1992. This will ensure that HMRC can act decisively over a wider range of promoters and their supply chains if they fail to provide information on suspected avoidance schemes. It will also ensure that HMRC can warn taxpayers about suspected avoidance schemes at an earlier stage than at present. In addition, the Bill places responsibility for the obligations within DOTAS and for any failure to comply with them both on promoters of these schemes and their suppliers. I am sure all colleagues across the House will welcome these measures.
The Bill supports regional growth and, with it, the Government’s levelling-up agenda; boosts employment while helping to protect those on low incomes from the financial impacts of covid-19; and strengthens the Government’s powers to tackle promoters of avoidance schemes. For all those reasons, I commend it to the House.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak about this Bill on behalf of the Opposition. We will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading. Indeed, we support the intention behind many of its measures. However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise important questions with Ministers about some of the approaches they have decided to take.
As we know, clauses 1 to 5 would introduce a new zero rate of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions for employers taking on employees in a freeport. The zero rate would apply from April 2022, and it would allow employers to claim relief on the earnings of eligible employees up to £25,000 per year for three years. As the House will recall from the Report stage of the recent Finance Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) made it clear that we want every region and nation of the UK to succeed whether or not it has a freeport. We want secure new jobs with better pay to be created right across the country, and we want to support and protect British businesses and industries. Freeports may be part of the solution to increasing trade and investment across the UK, but we note that the International Trade Committee concluded in its recent report on UK freeports, published on 20 April, that
“it remains to be seen how successful freeports will be at achieving this objective.”
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Just to clarify, the hon. Member says that freeports might be part of the solution—to levelling up, I guess—but does he therefore support freeports or does he agree with his colleague in the shadow Treasury team, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), who has said that they are “economically illiterate”?
James Murray
I was awaiting the hon. Gentleman’s intervention—I was definitely expecting it given the recent debates we have had in this place—and if he will wait just one moment, I will get on to setting out our position on freeports in more detail.
We were concerned at the recent Report stage of the Finance Bill that the Government themselves seemed to show a lack of certainty by voting against our simple amendment to the Finance Bill that would have seen the success of each individual freeport transparently evaluated. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will remember, we wanted each freeport to be judged against the key tests of whether, across the country, they lead to any net increase in jobs, deliver improvements in training and skills for local residents, produce tangible transport and infrastructure improvements beyond the port itself and will be adequately protected against the risks of tax evasion, smuggling and criminal activity. It is disappointing that the Government voted against the transparent evaluation of their proposed freeports. Not only would this have enabled us to judge their success, but some of the factors we highlighted in our tests would in fact make investment in freeports more attractive to businesses.
Indeed, in response to the Government’s own consultation on freeports last year, many respondents argued that
“although tax incentives can be a significant driver behind businesses investing within an area, they were not usually the sole determinant.”
The Government’s summary of responses went on to explain:
“Some respondents also indicated the success of tax incentives was partially dependent on local factors, especially the quality of transport infrastructure and the skills and availability of local labour.”
As we consider the tax relief before us today, it is therefore important to remind the Government not to ignore the other aspects of the operation of freeports that may be key to their success.
On this tax relief, I would like to ask Ministers to address three specific points that arise from the Bill. First, while relief to employer’s national insurance contributions may be a reasonable part of a tax incentive package along with other tax incentive measures, it is hard to understand why this relief is conditional on employment not commencing until 6 April 2022. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation has pointed out, with freeports expected to start operating in 2021, that would surely hamper freeport employers this year and perhaps create perverse incentives about delaying the start of an employee’s work. I would be grateful if the Exchequer Secretary set out in her response the Government’s reasoning behind this condition on accessing the relief.
Secondly, clause 8 of the Bill enables the Government to set an upper secondary threshold for employer class 1 national insurance contributions specifically in relation to freeport employees—and, indeed, for armed forces veterans, which I will turn to shortly. In practice, this means that employers do not need to pay NICs until an employee’s earnings pass that threshold. We note that the upper secondary threshold for freeport employees will, according to a policy paper published by the Government on 12 May, be set at £25,000 for 2022-23. That is substantially less than the equivalent thresholds for employers’ relief for under-21s and apprentices, which is £50,270 in 2021-22. Just to be clear, this means that employers do not need to pay any NICs for under-21s and apprentices earning up to just over £50,000 a year, but they will have to pay contributions for freeport employees next year if they earn more than £25,000. It would be helpful to understand the Government’s rationale for picking this figure. According to the Office for National Statistics, the median income in all those local authority areas where the eight freeport sites are located is greater than £25,000, with the figures ranging from £25,200 in Kingston upon Hull, within the Humber freeport, to £33,200 in Thurrock, within the Thames freeport. I therefore ask the Exchequer Secretary to explain why the relief for freeport employers is set below median pay in all freeport areas and why this rate is half of that for those employing under-21s and apprentices.
Thirdly, as the plans for freeports stand, businesses taking advantage of their tax incentives will still pay corporation tax. British businesses that pay their fair share of tax will find it very hard to understand why the Chancellor has been for so long so lukewarm about a new, global minimum corporate tax rate to stop large multinationals undercutting them by exploiting tax havens around the world. The Chancellor welcomed the rate being cut from the original 21% proposed by President Biden down to 15%, even though that would cost Britain £131 million a week and leave British businesses being undercut. When I have asked the Financial Secretary before about the Government’s position, he said he did not think
“it is appropriate for Ministers to comment on tax policy in flight”.—[Official Report, 28 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 418.]
Now, however, the outcomes of the G7 Finance Ministers’ meeting and the Carbis Bay summit are public, so perhaps his colleague, the Exchequer Secretary, could explain why the UK Government’s position has been to back a rate of 15%.
Let me move on to other measures in the Bill. As we have heard, an important relief, covered by clauses 6 and 7—
Jesse Norman
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman some satisfaction on that question. What is extraordinary is how the Labour party has continuously sought to pretend that things are other than they actually are in relation to this deal. Let us just talk about that for a second. In the first case, the G7 is a package—it is a process. Were we, as Labour would have had us do, to ignore the pillar 1 aspects, there would then have been no argument, no debate and no proper taxation of platforms in the areas where the new taxing rights will reside. That would have been a serious, serious deficit. The whole point of the package is to see it as a package, and it predated the Biden Administration. We have greatly benefited as a world from their additional support, but it is by no means up to them; it is an OECD process, of which they have been an important recent supporter.
James Murray
I thank the Minister for engaging on what has happened in the negotiations about the new global deal, but I notice that he did not address the issue about the headline rate. I have asked him on several occasions, perhaps three or four times in recent months in this place, to explain why the Government have been so lukewarm about an ambitious rate of 21%, as proposed by President Biden, and instead favoured its being cut to 15%, which is indeed what has happened. I note that when the right hon. Gentleman got to his feet a few moments ago, he did not address the headline rate. Labour Members continue to worry that we are missing out on a once-in-a-generation opportunity to strike a truly ambitious global deal to stop a few large multinationals avoiding paying their fair share of tax.
James Murray
I tell you what, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman addresses the specific point about 15% and 21%.
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is completely inappropriate for a Minister to comment on confidential negotiations with allies and other nations around the world. He is ignoring that this is a package and the package involves two pillars, the second of which is a 15% rate, globally agreed, one that reconciles and acknowledges different countries around the world which have different tax regimes and different supports. The Government have been in no way lukewarm on pillar 2. What the Government have insisted on, in contradiction to the Labour party and against the ill-fated and ill-advised suggestions that it has made, is pillar 1, which is the crucial component of this that allows us to tax platforms. It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman refuses to acknowledge that under a Labour party Administration, there would have been no taxation of these platforms. What on earth does he say to that?
James Murray
As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, I have set out many times that we believe that there should be a deal on both pillar 1 and pillar 2. However, pillar 2 stands to generate a huge amount of revenue for British public services and to stop a few large multinationals avoiding paying their fair share of tax and thereby undercutting British businesses that are paying their fair share of tax.
The Minister keeps referring to the idea that it is inappropriate for him to comment on the British Government’s position. The position is there in public, following the G7 Finance Ministers’ meeting and the G7 summit over the weekend. People have a right to know what our Government were arguing for and we can arrive at no conclusion other than that the British Government were at least lukewarm and perhaps even against the tax rate being set at 21% because it has fallen to 15%, thereby losing out on £131 million a week, meaning that we are potentially missing a once-in-a-generation opportunity for a truly ambitious global tax deal.
James Murray
Certainly. I am conscious, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is not all entirely within the frame of the Bill, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman does keep mentioning it. Just on the point about corporation tax, he seems to imply that somehow we are in favour of lower corporation tax, but he is aware that the Government are increasing corporation tax from 19% to 25%. On pillar 2 and pillar 1, I have heard him at the Dispatch Box on numerous occasions urging the Government to sign up to a deal that was only on pillar 2. It did not involve pillar 1, so how can he say now that he was in favour of a wider negotiated agreement? That is not what he was saying at all.
James Murray
I am surprised—because the hon. Gentleman always seems to be here when I am speaking at the Dispatch Box—that he does not seem to remember me advocating for a deal on pillar 1 and pillar 2. I will happily send him the reference in Hansard after this meeting so he can refresh his memory. The point here is that we have President Biden suggesting 21% in pillar 2 as an ambitious global deal. We had the British Government being at least lukewarm and potentially anti the proposal of 21%. We have now settled on a position where it has dropped to 15%, and we will not cease pushing the Government to be more ambitious in what they seek to achieve, because this will mean that Britain will lose out on £131 million a week that could be invested in our public services and British businesses will continue to be undercut by a few large multinationals that do not pay their fair share of tax.
I will move on to other measures in the Bill. As I was saying, there is an important relief, covered by clauses 6 and 7, that sets out to help service personnel leaving the armed forces back into work. This is a vital issue. Veterans deserve the full support of the Government as they seek civilian employment after their service to our country. It is crucial to make sure that all veterans get the support they need. I noted that the Government’s consultation document for this measure refers to an existing career transition package to service personnel leaving the armed forces and explains how 6% of veterans accessing the service remain unemployed for up to a year after leaving the armed forces. We believe that this relief on employers’ national insurance contributions is a positive step, and we hope it will particularly help the 6% of veterans who the Government acknowledge are not benefiting from the current service on offer.
We recognise that this measure may not, on its own, be enough to get everyone into work, so I would like to ask the Exchequer Secretary to set out what further help the Government are offering the 6% of veterans, in particular, who need greater support. We also want to make sure that the employers’ relief is as effective as possible, so I ask why the employers’ relief for veterans is 12 months, which is much less than the relief for employers in freeports, which is 36 months. Perhaps the Exchequer Secretary could explain the Government’s thinking in setting the relief for just one year rather than three years, in line with the approach taken for employers in freeports.
Moving on to further measures in the Bill, clause 10 provides a national insurance contributions exemption for payments made under a self-isolation support scheme. Ministers will know that we in the Opposition have been calling on the Government to expand eligibility for this scheme for some time. It is crucial that people who need support to self-isolate receive it, so we welcome any steps that make the system of self-isolation payments more effective and subject to less administrative burden.
We note that the Government introduced secondary legislation to exempt self-isolation support scheme payments from class 1 and 1A national insurance contributions in October 2020 for England and January 2021 for Scotland and Wales. We recognise that the measure in front of us, which exempts self-isolation support scheme payments from class 2 and class 4 national insurance contributions, will bring the treatment of the self-employed in line with the employed. We also recognise that it will be retrospective for the year 2020-21, and so can be reflected in the relevant tax returns.
Can the Minister explain, however, why the exemption for class 2 and class 4 contributions was not implemented earlier, in line with the exemption for class 1 contributions? If the class 2 and class 4 exemptions had been announced earlier, that could have given much-needed certainty to self-employed people at an earlier point in the outbreak. I would be grateful if the Exchequer Secretary explained why that did not happen.
Finally, clause 11 widens existing regulation-making powers so that regulations can be made for national insurance to mirror the amendments to the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes procedures in the Finance Act 2021. Under DOTAS, introduced by the Government in 2004, promoters of tax avoidance schemes are required to notify the tax authorities of any new scheme they are planning to offer taxpayers. The measure in clause 11 and its counterpart in the recent Finance Act aim to help HMRC obtain details earlier than it can now where promoters fail to provide information about their avoidance under DOTAS.
We welcome any measures that help HMRC track tax avoidance schemes, and we believe it is crucial that it targets the promoters of such schemes. I therefore want to use this opportunity to ask Ministers how effective they think the measures that flow from clause 11 will be. As they may know, the Chartered Institute of Taxation believes that there is a hard core of between 20 and 30 promoters, identified by HMRC, who clearly do not play by the rules. Do Ministers recognise that number? If so, I would be grateful if the Exchequer Secretary set out what goals HMRC has to clamp down on those 20 to 30 hard-core promoters. Are there any targets, and are there dates by which Ministers expect the number of hard-core promoters at large to fall substantially?
As I set out at the beginning of my remarks, we will not oppose this Bill today. Indeed, we support the intention behind many of its measures. As I have explained, however, we have a number of questions about the design of the measures in it, and I look forward to the Exchequer Secretary addressing them directly in her reply. We want to see effective measures in place to support British businesses, jobs in every part of this country and veterans seeking work. On this Second Reading and in later stages of the Bill, we will be pushing the Government to make sure that is the case.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I am not used to being called so early in the batting order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful.
I made my maiden speech on a small but mighty Bill, and this is another. I very much welcome the contents of the Bill. These small but meaningful changes will make a real difference to many of my constituents.
There are two elements of the Bill on which I would like to focus. The first is what it would do for freeports. I was elected in 2019 on a manifesto that promised to create up to 10 freeports around the UK. They are a cornerstone of the Government’s levelling-up agenda, which recognises that talent is spread evenly across the country but opportunity is not. As someone who represents an often-forgotten part of the world, I am determined to see that agenda through.
We know that a freeport is an area within a country’s geographic border but outside its customs area, but there is no one model for freeports. That is their strength: they can be implemented in a number of ways.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Lady share my interest in and my demand for having a freeport in Northern Ireland too? I understand that this legislation does not necessarily help that happen, but does she support us in our calls to have a freeport in Northern Ireland?
Fay Jones
As a Member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I certainly welcome that suggestion. I was greatly reassured by the Minister’s reference to that in his opening speech, and I hope that further details will come forward as soon as possible.
Freeports can be implemented in a number of ways. For example, manufacturing businesses operating in a freeport can benefit from tariff inversion, whereby tariffs from a finished products are lower than those on its component parts. Further tax and non-tax incentives, such as lower rates for corporation or even employment tax, which we are discussing this afternoon, as well as simplified customs processes can also be offered.
Although a freeport is a fairly new buzzword in our political discourse, it is important to remember that this is not a new idea. The UK used to operate a number of freeports. In fact, prior to the creation of the Welsh Assembly, now the Senedd, a freeport even operated in Cardiff.
Back in 2016, the then up-and-coming Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), now my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, argued that freeports could turbocharge the UK’s post-Brexit economy. Free of the customs union and state aid rules, he argued that tens of thousands of jobs could be created with a successful freeports programme. He was right then, and he is right now.
In 2018, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) highlighted in a Westminster Hall debate just how positive a freeport in the UK could be. He cited the example of the Jebel Ali Free Zone in the United Arab Emirates and explained how it has transformed Dubai. It now hosts 7,000 global companies, employs 145,000 people and accounts for around 40% of the UAE’s total direct foreign investment. That is a dramatic example, but there is no reason to believe that freeports in the UK cannot be just as successful as those around the world, perhaps even more so given our strong links with the United States, Europe and the Commonwealth.
I warmly welcome clause 1 of the Bill, which introduces a new zero-rate national insurance contribution for employers taking on employees in a freeport. The Government have already outlined the 10 areas of the UK where freeports will be created. Eight sites in England have been successful, and the Government have committed to creating one in Wales. I understand that the First Minister of Wales has expressed reservations and an unwillingness to work with the UK Government on a Welsh freeport, so may I urge the Minister, my close neighbour and friend across the border, who knows Wales extremely well, to press full steam ahead and work with his colleague the Secretary of State for Wales in setting up a Welsh freeport.
A rising tide lifts all boats—to continue with the maritime theme—and a freeport in Wales will create jobs and growth in all parts of Wales. That is especially important for me in mid-Wales, because, throughout the recent Senedd election, constituents told me that all they want is for their kids to have a future in Brecon and Radnorshire. They want them not to leave at 18 to go to university, only to come back 30 years later when they can afford to buy a home. They want them to have good jobs when they leave education. This is not part of the Welsh Government’s current plan for Mid Wales. We are forgotten about, but I am determined that that will not be the case. My constituents are determined that we will not be ignored and will not stand still.
The other clause that I want to focus on is clause 6, which makes a small but important change for our military community—employers who hire an armed forces veteran immediately after they leave the forces will be able to claim a new zero-rate national insurance contribution. Employers will be able to claim the relief from April ‘22, and transitional arrangements will allow a retrospective claim for the 2021-22 tax year. This is extremely close to my heart, and I declare an interest in that my partner is a serving member of the armed forces.
Brecon is a proud garrison town and, like the Minister, we have a number of military sites and personnel of whom we are very proud. The barracks and the infantry battle school, Sennybridge training area, are important military assets and I am fiercely proud of them. Although my campaign to save Brecon barracks from closure is a persistent thorn in the side of the Ministry of Defence, our support for veterans must go beyond maintaining high-quality sites and shiny silverware in the mess. We must look at a suite of policy instruments and make swift but sweeping changes to improve things for veterans once they leave active service.
The changes outlined in the Bill could save an employer, who employs a veteran, up to £5,500. This makes a veteran even more attractive to an employer, and the Minister should be commended for pursuing this, especially as we remember that our veterans are getting younger. The House of Commons Library estimates that the percentage of veterans of working age is projected to increase from 37% at the moment to 44% in 2028.
I am particularly pleased that the Bill covers veterans right across the United Kingdom equally. All four nations need to be comprehensive in the way that we look after our veterans. Wales is currently the only part of the United Kingdom not to have a dedicated veterans commissioner—someone on the side of veterans who can challenge local authorities and health boards to ensure that veterans can access the services that they need. Earlier this year, I called on the UK Government to address this imbalance and create a veterans commissioner for Wales, and I am extremely grateful to both the Secretary of State for Wales and the former Minister for veterans’ affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), for the work that led to the announcement on St David’s Day that they were actively considering creating such a post, but this needs to be done in co-operation with the Welsh Government, so that the postholder has oversight to challenge Welsh health and education services. May I take this opportunity to urge both sides to come together and create this role so that Welsh veterans can benefit from the protection that their colleagues have in England?
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this small, but important Bill and wish it swift passage through the House.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
The Bill makes provision for NI exemptions in what we believe are a number of important and necessary areas. We are generally supportive on such matters, but there are issues in each area—both within and outwith the scope of the Bill—that require some attention and that we will likely seek to address or draw attention to as the Bill proceeds. For the moment, however, I shall confine my remarks to the general principles and the remedies offered in the Bill.
First, I made clear the SNP’s support for freeports during the debates on the Finance Bill. We feel strongly that, given the scale of financial support on offer in the Bill, in terms of the customs exemptions and NICs, it is important to make sure that other wider policy objectives —such as environmental obligations, the commitment to net zero and fair pay for those employed in freeports—are met. That is what the Scottish Government’s greenports aim to do, by marrying up all the incentives of a freeport with wider obligations to ensure the payment of the real living wage, the implementation of the Scottish business pledge and the making of contributions towards net zero emissions. All those objectives must be met before companies are able to benefit from the substantial tax status benefits that freeports offer. The fair and sustainable greenport model can be an exemplar of those values while adding value to goods, services and the country’s brand.
If the UK Government wish to take a more laissez-faire approach to the securing of such outcomes, that is a matter of choice as much as it is a matter of regret. However, it should not be allowed to become a matter that contributes to any further delay in allowing the Scottish Government to take their approach or in allowing those who wish to invest in Scotland under the conditions I have set out to do so. I urge the Minister to ensure that the UK Government move quickly to allow the model to proceed so that the bidding process can begin.
Let me turn to veterans. Those with experience of serving in our armed forces bring valuable life skills and experience to the workplace. The NICs exemptions are therefore a positive step, making it even more attractive to employers to hire ex-service personnel and bring their skills and experience into the workforce. We very much welcome that step on its own terms. It is important to provide every support possible to former service personnel as they transition to civilian life.
Anyone who is in contact with the veterans community will be all too aware of the gaps in the support available. The Scottish Government have sought to fill those gaps by funding the translation of military qualifications so that they can be fully recognised by civilian employers—another key step that can help to incentivise the employment of ex-service personnel; setting up the national veterans care network to ensure parity of access to specialist services; actively supporting attempts to improve access to employment for the spouses and partners of those serving in the military, through Can Do hubs and the Forces Families Jobs website; and setting up, in conjunction with the Welsh Government, the Capitalising on Military Family Talent initiative. All those things are key elements in making sure that we deliver the best for our service personnel, and they sit well beside the NICs exemptions.
However important the NICs step will be, it cannot and must not be seen as any kind of substitute or sticking plaster for what we believe is a planned 40% reduction in the budget of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. That cut stands in stark contrast to the support that we should be offering and my party will continue to oppose it.
Let me turn to the treatment of self-isolation payments—another measure that we are happy to support fully. The purpose of the payments was clearly to incentivise people on low incomes who needed to self-isolate to do so, to help to prevent the spread of the virus without their having to suffer any adverse financial consequences. The intention was only ever to help people to make the right choices for the benefit of themselves and others, with the NICs consequences quite understandably something of an afterthought. The move to exempt the payments from NICs, thereby removing the administrative and cost burdens on local authorities and employers, is therefore a positive step. If the payments can be made exempt from NICs, it makes it harder to justify the continuation—apparently at UK ministerial insistence—of the situation whereby any past or future thank you payments made to NHS and care workers in Scotland remain liable to income tax.
Finally, we welcome the move to allow changes to the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime as it applies to NICs avoidance schemes. That may be a small step towards closing another area of potential abuse in the tax code, but it is necessary. However, what is really needed is a workable set of general anti-avoidance rules that tackle tax avoidance in all its forms; do not exempt existing and established abuse from action; include in their scope international tax abuse; give a tax authority the right to take action against tax avoidance, which it defines, in an objective fashion capable of being numerically assessed, without the consent of any unelected authority; and place the burden of proof on this issue on the taxpayer.
We are happy to see the Bill progress, and to address it in greater detail and attempt to improve it as it continues its passage through the House.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. When we talk about levelling up, we tend to think about things such as new railways or roads, or the dualling of carriageways such as the A64 in my constituency, which is long overdue, of course. It is absolutely right that we should think about those things—they are important—but they are just part of the picture.
Really, levelling up is about one very important thing: prosperity. We cannot achieve prosperity in some of the places that fall well behind the average income in this country without a combination of private sector and public sector investment. That is what the Bill is about—incentives for the private sector to invest.
Those are much needed, particularly in areas such as the north-east, which borders my constituency. In relative terms, the gap in productivity and economic output per person between London and the south-east, and the north-east, is as large as the gap between East Germany and West Germany prior to reunification. It took three decades and $2 trillion to narrow that gap, and it is still not fully narrowed, so this is a huge undertaking. To achieve what it has achieved so far, Germany required not just public sector investment—the roads and railways—but incentives for businesses to start up and scale up in East Germany.
Mark Littlewood, chief executive of the Institute of Economic Affairs, pointed that out in an interesting article in The Times a few months ago. He asked why, if prosperity is all about connectivity—roads and railways—Doncaster is not more prosperous. Doncaster, which you are obviously well aware of, Madam Deputy Speaker, is very well connected in terms of transport links, but in terms of prosperity it leaves much to be desired. That is what this is all about: freeports will create incentives for businesses, small and large, to relocate to those areas, or to start in those areas and grow.
That is why I am a little confused by some aspects of the Opposition’s approach. One of their shadow Treasury Ministers said that freeports are “economically illiterate”. Tell that to Teesside, which expects to create 18,000 jobs due to its freeport status. That is far from illiterate. The incentives are not just the waiving of national insurance contributions for employers, but things such as buildings allowances, capital allowances and stamp duty exemptions.
Of course, it required our leaving the EU to bring about this legislation, because the freeports that we are contemplating are far more comprehensive than the ones that could be delivered in the EU, particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) said, with things such as inverted tariffs, which are not an issue for us with freeports, and the very restrictive state aid regime in the EU.
Teesside freeport, my nearest, will be 4,500 acres. Ben Houchen, the very good Mayor of the Tees Valley, has established the South Tees Development Corporation. We heard the interesting news today that Northumberland Estates may be interested in bringing forward a bid for much of the Teesside freeport region on the back of these incentives. That is proof, if it were needed, that private sector capital will come in and invest in those regions. Of course, public sector capital is important, but Governments do not always have a great track record of allocating capital in the most efficient way, whereas those in the private sector are much more likely, because it is their money they are putting down, to allocate that capital reasonably. So I very much support the measures to exempt employers from paying national insurance contributions up to £25,000.
The other thing I would like to talk briefly about is in part 3 of the Bill. It covers the disclosure of issues around national insurance in relation to the arrangements for contribution avoidance for promoters of tax avoidance schemes. The Government have done much to clamp down on tax avoidance, with the digital services tax, the diverted profits tax and the recent negotiations at the G7 on minimum corporation tax, as well as a number of measures in the Finance Bill to clamp down on these tax avoidance promoters, which are absolutely key.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In my own business background, the only time a tax avoidance scheme was ever discussed in our businesses was when our own advisers—our own accountants—came to us with a tax avoidance scheme. It looked pretty contrived, in our view, and it was not something for us at all. We were very clear about that. It is clear, I feel, that these advisers—these promoters—are the ones who are principally responsible for the number of schemes that are being used to avoid tax in the UK.
I know that the Government have done much on this, including in the Finance Bill, and that they are consulting on further changes. However, I am also an officer and vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, along with the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), and the Minister will have heard us talk a number of times about a double reasonable test for tax promoters and the schemes that they are promoting. Indeed, he was kind enough to attend a roundtable on the issue. It would work very simply, and I often use the loan charge as an example. At the moment, the requirement, as I understand it, is that a promoter considers a scheme reasonable. I could argue that I thought a scheme was reasonable, and someone else could do the same, and a court could decide whether it was reasonable or not, but if it was not reasonable, I could still argue that, in my judgment, I thought it was reasonable.
We are seeking to bring forward a change in the form of a double reasonable test: would a reasonable person have considered that scheme reasonable? A promoter might offer a highly contrived underlying scheme behind a loan charge, in which someone would move their money into an offshore jurisdiction and bring it back as a loan, on which they would pay no tax. That is a highly contrived scheme. I could argue that I thought it was reasonable, but a court could not possibly decide that a reasonable person would describe that scheme as reasonable. In that way, it would be far easier for HMRC to take forward prosecutions against promoters to stop this stuff happening in the first place. So I ask the Minister to consider that proposal again; I know that he is fully aware of it. On that note, I wish the Bill a quick and easy passage through the House.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I want to focus my remarks on the parts of the Bill that relate to freeports, as others have done. During the debate on the Finance Bill, I highlighted the corporate tax reliefs available and the lack of any projections of the impact on the Exchequer, or of any impact assessments on the areas where freeports will be located and on their neighbouring areas. I might be a bit old-fashioned, but I still believe in evidence-based policy making. Ministers seem to have come to Parliament asking MPs to sign a blank cheque and—apologies for the mixed metaphor—to take a leap in the dark on a policy that, in my experience, failed to deliver in the 1980s, when I was in local government, and in the 2010s, when I was an MP in Parliament.
I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), what estimate the Government had made of the cost to the Exchequer. The Minister could not answer, but insisted:
“The National Insurance contribution relief will be important in supporting the Government’s objectives for the Freeports programme, which includes regeneration through job creation.”
Given that the Government’s objective, as stated by the Financial Secretary, is job creation, I then asked him how many jobs would be created as a result of the national insurance contributions relief contained in this Bill. I received the answer to my written parliamentary question today, and it is a classic—worth framing. It states:
“The National Insurance contribution relief will be key in supporting the Government’s objectives for the Freeports programme, which includes regeneration through job creation. The Freeports tax sites have not yet been confirmed and so the Government is currently unable to give an accurate estimate of the number of employees that benefit in 2022-23 as this will depend on how many employers use the relief and will vary depending on a number of circumstances, including the location of the Freeport tax site.
The Government will publish an updated Tax Information and Impact Note (TIIN), when further information is available following confirmation of the tax sites.”
Can the Minister estimate when that will be published? Can he commit to publishing it during the passage of this Bill? I do believe in evidence-based policy making, and in recent months I have seen not just evidence-light policy making; we are now in a bizarre situation of non-existent-evidence-based policy making.
I just hope that the Government have learnt something from the failure of this policy under George Osborne. I remind the Minister that in May 2014 the Public Accounts Committee described the impact of George Osborne’s enterprise zones as “particularly underwhelming” and criticised the Government for “over optimistic” claims about job creation. The job numbers failed to materialise. The Centre for Cities, the think-tank, found that the jobs created were “overwhelmingly low skilled” and therefore low paid.
Despite their refusal to countenance in the Finance Bill the proposals that I put forward, just to get the information, I hope that the Government have reflected and will commit to publishing data annually on the impact of freeports on local and regional job creation; on tax revenues, locally and nationally; and on neighbouring economies. They failed to countenance that in the Finance Bill, but they could in this Bill.
This Bill is also a missed opportunity. The Government could have made provision for increasing the national insurance contributions paid by the highest earners. Currently, higher earners pay only 2% above the upper earnings limit. Raising that by just a small percentage would raise billions from those with the broadest shoulders. Instead, the Government are imposing a huge stealth tax on millions of low-income workers by freezing tax thresholds. They have imposed a pay cap or pay freeze on millions of public sector workers. In just a few months, shamefully, the Government are proposing to cut the incomes of some of the poorest families in the country by £20 a week. I have heard a lot of the Government’s claims to be levelling up. Instead, they seem to be keeping people down.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Bill seeks to achieve a range of aims, but like most things that the Government are currently attempting, it misses the opportunity to achieve a great deal more.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the provisions that will enable a 0% rate of national insurance contributions to be paid by employers of former members of the armed forces. Glass Door, a charity in my constituency that provides shelters and outreach for homeless people and rough sleepers, has described to me how past trauma is a key risk factor in becoming homeless and how the two groups most at risk are survivors of childhood sexual abuse and armed forces veterans. Like many Members across the House, I am deeply concerned about how we care for our servicemen and women, and I support all measures to assist them in their post-service life. The Liberal Democrats unequivocally welcome an incentive for businesses to bring them into new employment.
We also welcome the straightening out of any unintended tax consequences that have arisen from covid payments in the past 18 months. The British public have been extraordinary in their response to the crisis and have willingly played their part in staying at home to protect the NHS and save lives. For many individuals, that will have had a direct financial consequence, and it is absolutely right that any payments made to mitigate such financial consequences should be free from tax and national insurance. There is no doubt that people would willingly have gone out and earned national insurance contribution income if the Government had not asked them not to. It is only fitting that their financial sacrifices be properly recognised in our tax and benefits system.
I support the comments made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) about tax avoidance schemes and the extent to which they are being promoted. I support measures to clamp down on such schemes, particularly where vulnerable taxpayers are being targeted and potentially lured, dare I say it, into investing in schemes that would bring them into default in their tax affairs; we have seen that happening in relation to the loan charge, as he mentioned. I would like to see the Government doing more to clamp down on these schemes, and I welcome any measures to do so.
The Bill also makes provision for 0% national insurance contributions for employers in freeports. The Government have made a great deal of their plans for freeports; they appear to have great hopes for their abilities to bring economic revival to our country following Brexit and the pandemic. The extent to which that looks likely to be achieved remains uncertain. The Government have not yet published an assessment of the likely impact of this national insurance reduction, which leads me to believe that that uncertainty is continuing. If the Government are unable to say how much the Treasury will lose from the cut in national insurance, one can conclude only that they do not yet have any confidence in how much they expect freeports to boost employment.
What is certain is that the Government have not yet brought forward any other plans to boost economic growth following Brexit and the pandemic. I regret that they are missing the opportunity to boost growth in other sectors and in regions that are not lucky enough to benefit from a freeport.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
The hon. Lady says that the Government do not have any additional plans for growth. We launched a plan for growth in the Budget with three pillars—infrastructure, innovation and skills—to tackle net zero post covid and take our opportunities for global Britain on leaving the EU, so she is quite wrong to say that we have not done anything to plan for growth.
Sarah Olney
I very much welcome the Exchequer Secretary’s intervention. I am happy to stand corrected, and I very much look forward to seeing the impacts of those plans right across the nation, because as far as I am concerned, the significant weakness of the plan for freeports is that it cherry-picks areas for investment while ignoring the needs of many other communities across the country. That is why I say that the Bill is a missed opportunity: because to target the national insurance cut just at areas that will have a freeport is to ignore the impact that such a cut could have across many sectors that could provide fantastic opportunities for employment as we come out of the pandemic. There is a very real danger that freeports will divert business activity from areas outside freeports, and that this measure will hit the public finances without any subsequent increase in economic activity.
I believe that the Government would make much better use of the national insurance contributions scheme by stimulating economic growth in ways proven to be effective. For example, an increase in the annual employment allowance to £16,000 could benefit every small and medium-sized enterprise. It would allow employers to take on up to five workers each without making contributions, which would be a substantial boost to communities across the country and would do much more to boost employment across the nation than these hand-picked benefits whose impact cannot be measured.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As the next speaker has withdrawn, we will go straight to Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. When you are in the Chair, I always seem to get called earlier. I am not sure why that is, but thank you very much.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I add my support for the Government proposals. A lot of hours have gone into them, so I will make some comments about them.
Broadly, the national insurance contributions that are raised in a year look after the benefits that are used in that year. They are therefore very important. We deal with an enormous number of people every day in our offices who have benefits issues, and we know that our contributions and everybody’s contributions make a difference. I have stated numerous times in this House over recent months that now is the time to ensure that the investments we have made through the furlough scheme and the coronavirus grants system to secure business pays off by having businesses repay their debt through tax and national insurance over many years of success.
The end must be clear: sustainable and expanding small and medium businesses. In my constituency and, I believe, in many other constituencies, small and medium businesses contribute to everyday life through employment and by creating the prosperity we wish to see. I want to see them encouraged on every possible occasion.
The Bill is one cog in that mechanism of growth, regrowth and enhanced growth. I welcome that the Government are completely committed to that. My attention was immediately drawn to a few components of the Bill. Of course, time prevents me from delving into them all, but I first highlight the proposed new zero rate of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions for employers who hire an armed forces veteran during their first year of civilian employment after leaving the armed forces. Employers will be able to claim relief on the earnings of an eligible employee up to the NICs upper secondary threshold from April 2022, and transitional arrangements will allow retrospective claims for the 2021-22 tax year. Like everyone, I really welcome that. I am pleased as punch to see it in the Bill. There is a clear commitment to our veterans, and here is one way of showing it.
I say gently to the Minister that many veterans are missed by the charities. I know some of them in Northern Ireland, and I deal with them regularly in my constituency. They seem to fall under the radar of the charitable organisations. I want to ensure that when the Treasury works to make the proposal happen, there is clear help, co-operation and co-ordination with the veterans’ charities, because they identify the people and then this system can help those people get the jobs. It is therefore logical to me that they work together. If they work together closely, they can bring the real benefit that I wish to see.
This is a fantastic step, and I thank the Minister and the Government for it. It is welcome that we will remember veterans in actions, not simply in prose. I congratulate the Government on proposing these steps to make it more attractive for a business to put its faith in a serving soldier, who may well be acclimatising to civilian life and the different burdens it entails. I have regularly met soldiers who come out of the forces after 20 or 25 years, or even fewer, and who find civilian life extremely difficult. Two weeks ago, I went to a horse charity, People for Horses, where June Burgess helps people who have served in the military or in the police or prison service in Northern Ireland to deal with their post-traumatic stress disorder through contact with horses. I believe that we can do the same thing here in a really important way.
The point that this provision flags up for this humble man is the fact that the Government have managed to extend it to the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and rightly so. I am truly grateful for that, because every regiment in our armed forces is made up of men and women from every corner of this great United Kingdom. That is right and proper, yet it does highlight that other armed forces promises do not similarly extend to each part of the UK. The ungenerous might highlight that such failings have perhaps made President Macron think it acceptable to comment that Northern Ireland is not part of this great nation; wow, does he need a lesson in geography. A mixed message may be seen by those who wish to push their own narrative, but I commend the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for making it clear to President Macron that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For that reason, I again wish my Government to make abundantly clear the absolutely bedrock foundation that, in every aspect of life, without a successful border poll the six counties of Northern Ireland were, are and will be British.
This legislation regarding troops is for every serviceman and woman, regardless of their accent. Whether we have my very broad Northern Ireland accent, the Scots accent of my colleague on my right, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), or a Welsh accent, we are all going to qualify for this, which is good.
We also welcome the Minister’s commitment to freeports. From reading the Library notes and listening to the Minister beforehand, it is clear that the commitment is not only to freeports here in the mainland but to freeports in Northern Ireland as well. That is really good news and I welcome it. There is some work for the Northern Ireland Assembly to do; there seems to be work for the Northern Ireland Assembly to do every day, and that is the way it should be. In this case it has clear job to do, and I want to make sure that that happens and that we all gain advantage.
I also noted that some of the correspondence on freeports in the notes referred to ensuring the incentives are not exploited for tax avoidance purposes. The Government have taken on the task of making those who pay tax accountable in their own country, as they should be, and I want to make sure of that and therefore ask the Minister to comment on it in summing up. Some correspondents pointed out that freeports had gained a negative reputation for enabling tax evasion through the storage of high-value goods, but the Government have proposed the creation of a tax site within any UK freeport to support and facilitate a robust system of monitoring and ensure that the available reliefs are claimed legitimately. I therefore think the Government have addressed this, but want to make sure that it is on the record. I also ask the Minister to indicate what discussions the Government have had with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that the freeports issue continues to move forward for Northern Ireland.
I welcome as well the move to address tax avoidance in the form of a provision to allow changes to the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime as it applies to national insurance contribution avoidance schemes. I am informed that these changes also mirror amendments to the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime as it applies to other tax avoidance schemes made by provisions included in the Finance Act 2021.
When I speak to the ordinary businessman in the street—the self-employed trader, or the employer of five members of staff in a small shop—they talk about the fact that they cannot afford to hire a high-flying accountant who can find and use loopholes, and they watch on with increasing frustration as the big companies that could afford to pay any contributions get away with not paying. I believe that the Government are again setting the marker for those companies by ensuring they are accountable; they should pay tax in their own country and make sure that they pay the right amount as well.
Our businesses need a level playing field and help, and it is my hope that this Bill will enable those avoiding and evading tax to be brought into line. It is my hope that this Bill helps to ensure that those who can pay should pay and do pay. If we make that happen, we will be going in the right direction. If we all do the right thing—us here and those outside—we will all benefit.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak today and to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I take this opportunity to reiterate his unequivocal statement that Northern Ireland is indeed part of the United Kingdom.
I welcome this opportunity to make a few brief remarks in support of the Bill’s provisions on freeports and the benefits that it will represent for one in north Wales, in particular. But before I do, I note that the Bill demonstrates once again the Government’s commitment to levelling up. It is also set to reduce the tax avoidance that disadvantages our small and medium businesses, which cannot afford access to the specialist experience available on avoidance, as has been referred to. In addition, it seeks to offer the dignity of decent employment to our veterans, which, again, I welcome.
Freeports are a common feature of the world’s most ambitious free-trading nations and are used by many of our closest allies. They have propelled many previously impoverished nations to prosperity and have proved a valuable means of ensuring structured investment in export-led industry. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked for evidence, and he might consider the words of the directors of the World Customs Organisation and the former director of the Swedish customs body, who noted that freeports create local supply chains beyond the facility, so long as firms have ease of access. In that way, freeports have the potential to boost investment and trade in the surrounding region. For an island nation such as Britain, with a rich history of trade across the globe trade—trade that, despite criticisms of it, has driven developments, innovations and improvements—investment in freeports is a signal to the world of the Government’s commitment to secure the UK’s place at the heart of global trade.
There has been speculation in the media in recent months as to what levelling up means. I speak as a representative of the region—north Wales—in which I grew up, and I have seen it change over the five decades I have known it. Indeed, I have spoken in this place before about how residents of north Wales have grown used under devolution to being overlooked and underfunded for much of the past two decades. However, I am also a Conservative, and it is a hallmark of conservatism to see constituencies such as mine not only in terms of handouts but in terms of their potential—to treat them according to their distinctiveness and not to mistake equal treatment as sameness. That is why I describe Aberconwy not solely in terms of needs or deprivation, for there are both, but also in terms of its potential, and that potential will be different for every other constituency across the UK—a point the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) might consider.
The practical provisions set out in the Bill will help to realise that potential. Despite north Wales being one of the UK’s most under-invested regions, the British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association notes that it is also one of the fastest growing parts of Wales. North Wales is part of an expanding advanced manufacturing cluster worth more than £30 billion a year to the UK economy. We have world-beating green energy research in Ynys Môn and an industry-leading centre for 5G telecoms innovation at the University College of North Wales. Our Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has a vision for a best-in-class medical school and primary care underpinned by technology.
We also occupy a significant strategic location. The Romans may have built the first version of the A55 on ancient paths across our hills, Thomas Telford may have developed it, and Irish MPs may have driven the development of our road and rail links to ensure their smooth transport to this place, but today north Wales finds itself astride a trade route stretching from Dublin to Moscow. In its day, the tunnel carrying the A55 underneath the Conwy estuary was the largest construction project in Europe. Today, fully four fifths of our UK trade to Ireland passes through Wales, with most of it going through our Holyhead port in Ynys Môn.
That is potential, and it needs unlocking. A freeport offers a remarkable opportunity to build on those natural advantages and offer a site of structured relief for international investors. The practical provisions in this modest Bill will help to secure that; they are practical incentives for investors and employees, and I suggest that that that is at the heart of levelling up.
This Bill demonstrates how, beyond the provision of a simple designation as a freeport, supporting legislation and incentives such as those before us, can create an exciting opportunity for investors and an opportunity for co-operation with other parts of Government—even the Welsh Government in Cardiff. Indeed, I urge all parties to do what can be done to bring this opportunity to north Wales. Given the strategic importance of Holyhead to trade with Northern Ireland, such co-operation would also be an investment in our Union.
To conclude, it has been said that ports are the power cables to the UK economy. A Bill such as this, creating incentives by removing national insurance on workers, will help flick the switch, so I will be supporting the Bill.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I know that the public like it when different political parties work together for the common good, and I notice that the National Insurance Contributions Bill, which we have been discussing this evening, has been subject to absolutely glutinous harmony. I have counted five different political parties expressing support for it, which means it must be doing something good, and I fully support the measures in it.
I am particularly keen on the freeports, which have been widely discussed, but I will keep my very brief comments to the national insurance contributions deductions for veterans. We all know, as various other Members have said, that veterans have amazing skills and great strengths, which they bring to many different jobs, including in this House. We have many Officers who are veterans and, indeed, Members of Parliament who are veterans, but we also know that veterans suffer from a veteran employment gap. They suffer higher unemployment than the national average. That is not just a UK thing; it applies to other countries and is a very big issue in the United States.
One thing we can do with national insurance is tilt the employment market in veterans’ favour. I say this from an economics background, but there is a market failure occasionally in the employment market, where the interests of wider society, employers and the state in terms of the Treasury are not always aligned. Making small adjustments to incentives through the national insurance system or otherwise can actually help align those incentives for the benefit of employees, employers and the Government.
I fully support the veterans measure, but the principle of it could be extended to other areas where there are structural issues around different groups and unemployment, particularly the long-term unemployed and the disabled. There is a particular issue. If someone has been unemployed for a year, they lose motivation and lose contacts. Employers start looking askance at them and do not want to take them on. If someone has been unemployed for two years, they are more likely to retire, never having worked again, than to ever find a job. There is a reason for that.
Say an employer has two candidates who are equally good in front of them. One is already working and one has been unemployed for two years. The employer will take the risk-averse approach and think, “There might be something about that long-term unemployed person. I will stick with the employed one.” That might be a rational decision for the employer—one might argue that it is not, but most employers would behave that way. It means that the Government will carry on paying the welfare bills of the long-term unemployed person. It means that the long-term unemployed person finds it even more difficult in future to find a job, and it is not good for society to have a cohort of people who are so detached from the labour market.
There is therefore a big economic rational argument for the Government to tilt the labour market in favour of long-term unemployed people. They could do that through national insurance—there are other ways of doing it—by having deductions for people who have been unemployed for a year or two years.
The second group I will mention is the disabled, and the same issues apply there. Somebody who is blind or severely visually impaired may be very good at a job, but a lot of employers would be worried about the adjustment costs, for example, or other things—they may just be nervous and have not had experience of it before. There is a huge societal and Treasury incentive to help disabled people to get into work rather than languishing in long-term unemployment. Again, there is a rational economic argument to create an incentive to align the interests of employers, the Government and the long-term unemployed to get the disabled or others into work.
I fully support this national insurance deduction for veterans precisely for that reason: it will be good for veterans, good for employers, good for society at large and good for the Treasury. I wish this Bill the swiftest and smoothest passage through this House.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of the official Opposition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) said earlier, we will not be opposing this Bill today. We support the intention behind it and many measures within it.
I thank all hon. Members from across the House for their contributions to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke about his concerns about how freeports will operate, which were shared by the hon. Members for Gordon (Richard Thomson) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney).
I will now make a few brief points about the different elements of the Bill and echo the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North in the hope that we can get some clear answers from the Minister. On freeports, which we debated at length over the course of the passage of the Finance Act 2021, we have consistently said that we support and protect British businesses and want every region in the nation of the UK to thrive. We have asked important questions about exactly how freeports will operate. On my hon. Friend’s specific questions about the national insurance relief being introduced for freeports, we need clarity on why the relief is conditional on employment beginning after April 2022 given that freeports are expected to begin operating in 2021, and why the level of the relief is set at £25,000, which is below both median pay in the freeport areas and the rate for those employing under-21s and apprentices.
My hon. Friend asked the Minister for some transparency about the Government’s approach to the global minimum corporation tax rate. Specifically, why did the Chancellor support the weakening of the proposals and the reduction from the 21% rate to the 15% rate? The Government must be ambitious and argue for a higher rate in order to level the playing field for British businesses and build a strong economic recovery.
I turn now to the measures related to veterans. I pay tribute to all those who have served in our armed forces and all those who currently do so. They make great sacrifices on behalf of this country and they deserve nothing but the best from this Government. Clearly, an important part of this is supporting veterans as they transition into civilian employment. We therefore welcome the new relief on employers’ national insurance contributions for veterans. I hope the Minister can answer my hon. Friend’s specific points about the length of the relief and why it is shorter than the freeport relief, and on what the upper secondary threshold for the veterans’ relief will be.
The second part of the Bill exempts self-isolation payments for national insurance contributions for the self-employed. Again, we welcome this measure. We have consistently called for the Government to do more to ensure that people do not have to choose between self-isolating and paying the bills. Recent figures show that still only about half the people who should be self-isolating are doing so. Clearly, this will not be about the financial element alone, but there is clear evidence that the system is not working as it should. First, only about one in eight of the workforce are eligible for the £500 payment. Of those who apply, only 30% succeed, and of those who apply for the discretionary scheme, only about 20% succeed. We urgently need some action from the Government to improve this. Although we welcome the small step in the Bill to reduce the administrative burden associated with self-isolation payments, will the Minister set out what more the Government intend to do to support people to self-isolate in the coming months?
We welcome the anti-tax avoidance measure in clause 11. My hon. Friend asked what action the Government will take to clamp down on the most active promoters of tax avoidance schemes, and I hope the Minister will address this.
We will not oppose the Bill today. We support the measures to boost jobs across the country, to help veterans to find employment, to ensure that people can self-isolate, and to tackle tax avoidance. We will of course use further stages of the Bill to seek to improve it. I hope the Minister can respond to the specific questions that I and other hon. Members have asked.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
I would like to thank Members for their well-considered contributions to what has been a very productive debate, and I am very grateful for the support across the House on Second Reading. A range of perspectives has been presented here today, but I think we are all agreed that this is an important piece of legislation, which assists this country’s recovery from covid-19 and helps us prepare for a better future.
Before I address some of the specific points raised by Members today, I will briefly reiterate the Bill’s main measures and outline what they seek to achieve. First, this Bill supports the delivery of the Government’s freeports programme and boosts regional growth. It achieves this through the introduction of an employer national insurance contributions relief for businesses based in freeports that take on workers. This measure will play a major part in helping these new economic zones to create jobs, drive growth and revitalise local communities.
Secondly, this Bill delivers on a Conservative party manifesto commitment by introducing an employer national insurance contributions relief for organisations that recruit armed forces veterans. This will encourage firms to take on former services personnel, as so eloquently put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), boosting veterans’ employment prospects. On this point, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised an excellent point about working better with veterans charities, and I agree that this is something that employers and Government should do more of. In turn, this measure will allow even more businesses to benefit from veterans’ abilities, skills and experience, and I am sure Members would agree that this represents a valuable opportunity for firms up and down the country.
Thirdly, this Bill provides an exemption from self-employed national insurance contributions for test and trace support payments, which will apply retrospectively. This measure will ensure self-employed workers benefit from parity with their employed counterparts and are not penalised if they need to self-isolate and therefore submit a claim.
As I have outlined, the Bill supports workers and the wider economy, but it also contains measures targeted at those who threaten our country’s financial wellbeing. The final measure is the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime introduced by this Bill, which boosts HMRC’s powers to deal with the promoters of such unscrupulous arrangements. In addition, it will help ensure that taxpayers are better informed about the risks posed by avoidance schemes. This measure will deter the operators of such schemes and better protect consumers.
I will now move to the specific questions raised by Members. There were several questions from the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) asked why the self-employed national insurance contribution exemption was not legislated earlier. The answer is that class 1 NICs exemptions were made in regulations. However, the self-employed exemption requires primary legislation, and therefore is included in this Bill, as this is the earliest opportunity to legislate.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the upper secondary threshold for freeports and why, at £25,000, this is lower than for other reliefs and what the rationale was. The answer is that, unlike other NICs reliefs that are available to employers nationally and generally are targeted at specific groups of employees with particular characteristics, businesses operating in a freeport are likely to be able to claim the relief on almost all of their new hires. To balance generosity of support with the need to consider the public finances, this broader eligibility has been balanced by limiting the amount of salary that can be relieved. We have chosen to set this limit at £25,000 per annum, which is approximately the average salary in the UK. Employees with earnings at or below this limit will be eligible for full employer NICs relief, and employers will still be able to claim up to approximately £6,500 of relief on the salaries of employees earning more than this.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the relief was not starting until April 2022. The Government have been clear that this relief is only available on new hires from April 2022, and set this out in the “Freeports Bidding Prospectus” published in autumn 2020. The reason why is that having a clear start date is a simple approach that will support the freeport businesses. Further, a freeport tax site needs to be designated so that the location requirements can be met, otherwise there would be no reference in legislation for what geographical area constitutes a freeport tax site.
On the veterans scheme, I believe the hon. Gentleman asked why the relief was just for a year compared with that for freeports, and he said that it needed to be longer. The answer is that the relief provides employers with up to £5,500 in savings per veteran that they employ. The aim of that policy is to support veterans’ transition into civilian life through encouraging employers to hire veterans.
Finally, on corporation tax, the hon. Gentleman asked a question about the 15% rate. The reason the global rate of 15% was settled on is that, at that value, it 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.
I now turn to some of the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who asked why we are having freeports now, after they have not necessarily worked in the past. He has forgotten one thing: we have left the European Union. Leaving the EU means that we have an opportunity to do things differently. We have developed an ambitious new freeport model to ensure that towns and cities across the UK can benefit from fantastic new international trade opportunities. Freeports can attract new investment and employment in left-behind communities across the UK, and the further benefits include a simplified customs process. Our freeports will offer tax measures to incentivise private business investment, carefully considered planning reforms to facilitate much needed construction, and additional targeted funding for infrastructure improvements in freeport areas to level up communities and increase employment opportunities. This is therefore a much more ambitious policy than the previous freeports that the right hon. Gentleman referenced.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about evidence-based policy and the wider impact of freeports, we believe that the relief will significantly reduce the cost of taking on new employees and doing business in the freeport. That, along with other tax reliefs being offered as part of the wider package, will support businesses, but the Government have not yet agreed and finalised successful bidders’ tax site proposals. Any modelling that we have done to support the process remains sensitive to the locations chosen, and we will be in a better place to conduct more detailed modelling once tax sites have been agreed with the Government. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether that would be completed before the end of the passage of the Bill. That will not be done before we finish this Bill. However, the Government will outline the process for confirming tax sites in due course.
There were several questions about the Union. Freeports in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), the hon. Members for Gordon (Richard Thomson) and for Strangford, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). I say to all of them that we want to ensure that the whole of the UK can benefit. We are thrilled that there is demand for freeports across the United Kingdom, and we remain committed to establishing at least one freeport in Wales as soon as possible. Discussions about the best way to establish a freeport in countries outside England, such as Scotland, are complex. It would not be appropriate for me to elaborate on those private discussions. However, those are things that the Treasury is considering in detail.
On the point that the hon. Member for Strangford made about Northern Ireland, we are working with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that a suitable model for an NI freeport is developed. We will ensure that we meet our international legal obligations in Northern Ireland. It is appropriate that we take our time to ensure that the freeports model for Northern Ireland meets these obligations while delivering a competitive offer for the ports, businesses and communities in that country.
There was a question about displacement of economic activity from other local areas—I believe it was from the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. That is something that we have considered. We still believe that this proposal will encourage new investment and create jobs in deprived communities, and will not cause harmful displacement.
I am very grateful for the opportunity to explain this Bill’s measures and the context behind them. To sum up, this Bill supports the regional growth that is integral to furthering our levelling-up agenda, and is part of our plan for growth, as I said to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). It plays a part in shielding self-employed people from the full financial impact of covid-19, while boosting our veterans’ employment prospects. It strengthens HMRC’s powers to tackle the organisers of tax avoidance schemes. There are clearly a number of points that we can expect to discuss at greater length when this legislation moves to Committee stage, but for the purposes of this debate I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
National Insurance Contributions Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the National Insurance Contributions Bill:
Committal
(1) 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 Tuesday 22 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.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to earlier points of order, as matters seem to have moved on, I seek urgent clarification on the process that we are in the middle of, given that Mr Speaker appeared to be deeply unhappy earlier and that we are now facing a wait of possibly up to two hours to hear from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on a matter that the Prime Minister has already addressed the press about.
We understand that the Prime Minister was not available at 3.30; we know that and that is reasonable. Since then, though, the Prime Minister has addressed the press. His comments are causing concern and confusion, but the House has to wait two hours more. This is treating the House with disdain. Parliament is sovereign. What is more, the Prime Minister himself ran on a campaign of Parliament being sovereign—sovereign, Madam Deputy Speaker. Our constituents deserve better.
I wonder whether those on the Treasury Bench have had time to reflect on the matter since the earlier points of order. Can you tell me, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you or the House have had any word from No. 10 about coming here now to clear up the confusion and whether the Prime Minister is willing to face questions from Members of Parliament on behalf of our constituents? I seek your urgent clarification, because we feel that the Prime Minister is treating this House with contempt.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order, and realise that she has set out the fact that the Prime Minister has made a statement to the press, not to the House. However, the best thing I can do is repeat what Mr Speaker said earlier:
“I have repeatedly made it clear how important it is that announcements should be made in this Chamber.”
He went on to say:
“The Secretary of State will be making a statement at 8.30 pm on covid. That will give Members of the House an opportunity to question him on the Government’s policy.”
He then went on to say:
“However, it is not what I would have expected, which is a statement to the House before an announcement to the press. It is not acceptable. The Government determine when Ministers make statements, but, in doing so, they must show respect to this House.”
That is what Mr Speaker said earlier, and I do not think that there is much more that I can add to that, but the hon. Lady wants to follow that up.
Thangam Debbonaire
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can we be absolutely clear that the Prime Minister has not made any attempt to contact Mr Speaker about making a statement and that there is literally nothing else to add at all? Given that Mr Speaker made it very clear in his ruling earlier that he was deeply unhappy, may I just check that there has been no response from those on the Treasury Bench or from No.10 about the Prime Minister coming to this House so that he, having made a speech to the press, can face questions from this House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
As I have said, the hon. Lady can rest assured that Mr Speaker will have made his views very clear. I am not aware of any discussions that have taken place, but I think we would know if the Prime Minister were shortly to arrive here. Instead, I suspect that the Secretary of State will make a statement at 8.30.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is somewhat different. It relates to the fact that if the Government are extending the provisions in England in relation to the restrictions on people’s freedom because of covid beyond 21 June, that is also the date when matters change as to how we do our business here in Parliament.
It is actually quite difficult to get a rail ticket from Wales to London because of covid restrictions on trains. People have to book some time in advance. I just wonder when there will be a busines statement that will lay out exactly how we will be doing our business in a week’s time. There are perfectly sensible measures that could be put in place very quickly; I am sure that we would all want to assist in that, but it is important to get these things right. Sometimes, when the Government rush them or do not consult on them, we end up having to tidy them up afterwards.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I suspect that the shadow Leader of the House will be having discussions with the Leader of House about that issue, and it may be something that comes forward in a business statement at some point.
I am suspending the House until 8.30 pm.
Speaker’s Statement
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Health Secretary to make his statement, I want to repeat the point I made earlier. It is entirely unacceptable that the Government did not make today’s announcement to the House first. It was disrespectful to the House and to our constituents. The Government clearly planned that the media would be told information today not far from this Chamber, and that this House would have to wait until tomorrow. I want to say very clearly to the Government that this is not how this House should be treated.
The Government’s own ministerial code says:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”
The Prime Minister polices the ministerial code. He wrote the foreword to it. He must now lead from the top and follow the guidance in it. The House can be assured that I will be pursuing this matter with him.
I do not find it acceptable at all. Members of this House are elected to serve their constituents here, not via Sky or the BBC. Questions should be answered here. The Prime Minister should be here. I am sorry if his dinner would have been affected. I was told that he would be in Brussels—I think the nearest Brussels tonight were the sprouts in the dinner being served. I say now, Prime Minister, you are on my watch, and I want you to treat this House correctly.
I now call the unfortunate person who has had the pick up the pieces, the Secretary of State, Matt Hancock, to make the statement.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
Mr Speaker, these past six months, we have all been involved in a race between the vaccine and the virus. Our vaccination programme has been delivered at incredible pace: we have delivered 71 million doses into 41 million arms; and over 93% of people aged 40 and over have now received at least one dose. Because of this pace, we are able to open up vaccinations to those aged 23 and 24 tomorrow.
It is this protection that has allowed us to take the first three steps of our road map, meaning that right now we have one of the most open economies and societies in Europe. We have been able to remove the most burdensome of the restrictions and restore so many of the freedoms that we hold dear. At every stage, we have looked at the data, set against the four tests that the Prime Minister set out to this House in February. The fourth of those tests is that our assessment of the risk is not fundamentally changed by new variants of concern.
The delta variant now accounts for over 90% of cases across the country. We know that the delta variant spreads more easily and there is evidence that the risk of hospitalisation is higher than for the previously dominant alpha variant. Case numbers are rising, up 64% on last week in England, but the whole purpose of vaccination is to break the link between cases and hospitalisations and deaths. That link is clearly weaker than it once was. However, over the past week, we have seen hospitalisations start to rise; up by 50%. Thankfully, the number of deaths has not risen and remains very low.
Sadly, before the vaccine, we saw that a rise in hospitalisations inevitably led to a rise in deaths a couple of weeks later. The vaccine in changing that, but it is simply too early to know how effectively the link to deaths has been broken. We do know that, after a single dose of the vaccine, the effectiveness is lower against the delta variant, at around 33% reduction in symptomatic disease. However, the good news, confirmed with new data published today, is that two doses of the vaccine are just as effective against hospital admission with the delta variant compared with the alpha variant. In fact, once you have had two doses, the vaccines may be even slightly more effective against hospitalisation if you have caught the new delta variant. This gives me confidence that, while the protection comes more from the second dose, and so takes longer to reach, the protection we will get after that second jab is highly effective—and, if anything, slightly better—against the delta variant. So, for the purpose of the restrictions, while it will take us a little longer to build the full protection we need through the vaccine, all the science is telling us that we will get there. Of course, all this says that it is so important that everyone gets both doses when the call comes. Even today, I have had messages from people who have had their jab, and I am so grateful to each and every person for making our country safer. At every stage of the road map, we have taken the time to check it is safe to take the next step. Our task is to make sure the vaccine can get ahead in the race between the vaccine and the virus.
I know that so many people have been working so hard, making sacrifices, being cautious and careful, and doing their bit to help this country down the road map. I know that people have been planning and arranging important moments and that businesses have been gearing up to reopen. So it is with a heavy heart, and faced with this reality, that we have made the difficult decision not to move ahead with step 4 next week. Instead, we will pause for up to four weeks until 19 July, with a review of the data after two weeks. During this crucial time, we will be drawing on everything we know works when fighting this virus and will use the extra time to deliver the extra protection we need.
Despite the incredible uptake we have seen in this country, there are still people we need to protect: 1.3 million people who are over 50 and 4.5 million over-40s have had a first jab but not yet a second. The pause will save thousands of lives by allowing us to get the majority of these second jabs done before restrictions are eased further. We are today reducing the time from first to second jab for all people aged 40 and over from 12 weeks to eight weeks to accelerate the programme. If, like me, you are in your 40s and you have a second jab booked 12 weeks after your first, the NHS will be in touch to bring it forward, or you can rebook on the national booking service. Our aim is that around two thirds of all adults will have had both doses by 19 July. I can tell the House that we have been able to deliver the vaccine programme faster than planned, so we can bring forward the moment when we will have offered every adult a first dose of the vaccine to 19 July, too. In this race between the vaccine and the virus, we are giving the vaccine all the support we can.
We have always said that we will ease restrictions as soon as we are able safely to do so. Even though we cannot take step 4 on Monday, I am pleased that we are able carefully to ease restrictions in some areas. We are removing the 30-person gathering limit for weddings, receptions and commemorative events—subject, of course, to social distancing guidelines. I am very grateful for the work of the weddings taskforce on this relaxation. We will be running another phase of our pilots for large events at higher capacities, including some at full capacity, like the Wimbledon finals. We are easing rules in care homes, including removing the requirement for residents to isolate for 14 days after visits out, and we are allowing out-of-school settings to organise residential visits in bubbles of up to 30 children, in line with the current position for schools. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) for his work in this area.
Even though we have not been able to take the full step as we wanted, I know that these cautious changes will mean a lot to many people and move us a little bit closer to normal life. As we do this, we will keep giving people the support they need. We are extending our asymptomatic testing offer until the end of July. We have put in place one of the most extensive financial support packages in the world, and we will continue to deliver enhanced support for the worst-affected areas.
We have seen how this approach can work—for example, in Bolton. Cases in Bolton have fallen by almost a third over the past three weeks. Even as hospitalisations have risen across the north-west, in Bolton, they have fallen by more than half. Last week, we introduced enhanced support in Greater Manchester and Lancashire, and I can now tell the House that we are extending these extra measures—surge testing, cautious guidance and extra resources for vaccination—to Birmingham, Blackpool, Cheshire, including Warrington, and the Liverpool city region. We know from experience that this approach can work, but we need everyone to play their part, so I urge everyone in these areas to get tested and to come forward for the support that is on offer. When you get the call, get the jab and help keep us on the road to recovery.
Finally, none of this would be possible without our vaccine programme. Without the vaccine, faced with these rising cases and hospitalisations, the clinical recommendation would have been to go back towards lockdown. The Vaccines Taskforce is critical to the work to deliver supplies, the work on booster jabs and ensuring we are protected for the future. Dame Kate Bingham did a formidable job in melding the best possible team, and I would like to congratulate her and everyone else who was recognised in Her Majesty’s birthday honours this weekend. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that Sir Richard Sykes, one of Britain’s most acknowledged biochemists and industry leaders, has agreed to take up the position of chair of the VTF. Sir Richard brings to bear experience from leadership positions in both the public and the private sectors, and I am delighted to have him on board to lead the team in the next stage of this mission.
This race between the vaccines and the virus is not over yet. These difficult restrictions challenge our lives in so many ways, but they play a vital role in holding the virus back and protecting people while we get these jabs done. So let us all play our part to keep us safe from this dreadful disease. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Before I call Jonathan Ashworth, who has five minutes, I remind the public that this statement is being interpreted by the British sign language interpreter.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I congratulate Sir Richard Sykes on his new role and I thank Dame Kate Bingham.
Tonight’s announcement was both predictable and, sadly, predicted. Many of our constituents and local businesses will be deeply disappointed. Our constituents did what was asked of them. They queued up for vaccination. We praised them in this House. The Secretary of State shed tears on the news and boasted, “Cry freedom,” on the pages of The Spectator. Yet we are now in the grip of a delta wave that is spreading with speed, and our constituents face further restrictions.
The Prime Minister’s complacency allowed this variant to reach our shores. On 25 March, there were warnings of a new variant in India. It is reported that Ministers first learned that the delta variant was in the UK on 1 April. The Government red-listed Pakistan and Bangladesh on 9 April, but did not red-list India until 23 April, by which point 20,000 people had arrived from India. Our borders were as secure as a sieve, and all because the Prime Minister wanted a photo call with Prime Minister Modi. It is astonishing that these Ministers promised to take control of our borders and conspicuously failed to control our borders at the very moment it mattered most.
Not only did the Prime Minister open the back door to this variant; he failed to take measures to suppress it when he could. It has been growing in prevalence among school-age children, yet mandatory mask wearing has been abandoned in secondary schools, and the Secretary of State has never explained why, despite being repeatedly asked. We know that isolation is key to breaking transmission, yet, 16 months on, people are still not paid adequate financial recompense to isolate themselves. When asked at the Select Committee last week, he claimed that people would game the system. The only ones who gamed the system are the mates of Ministers, Tory donors, spivs and speculators who made a fortune supplying duff PPE.
The Secretary of State seeks support for extending restrictions by pointing to plans to go further on vaccination. We will support extending restrictions in the Lobby, but even after extending the doses that he has outlined, there will still be large proportions of the population left unprotected, having had one dose or none—exposed to a variant that, if left unchecked, could accelerate and double every week, putting us on track for tens of thousands of infections per day by the end of this period. That will mean more hospitalisations, more long covid, more disruption to schools and more opportunities for variants to emerge. Will the Prime Minister lift restrictions in those circumstances, as he appeared to promise tonight, or will infection rates and hospitalisations have to fall before he does so?
Vaccination will get us through this in the end, so what is the Secretary of State’s plan to bring down infections and to extend vaccination rates in hotspot areas? We have learned that in Leicester surge vaccination has been abandoned. In parts of the north-west—in Chorley, Mr Speaker, in Tameside, in Salford and in Wigan—the dose numbers have gone down. Has vaccination surging been abandoned in those hotspot areas?
Finally, we are likely to see more infections in the coming days, and we are likely to see more contacts of infected cases in the coming days. Will the Secretary of State finally give those people isolation support so that they can isolate and quarantine themselves from the rest of society?
The chief medical officer said tonight that we would be lifting restrictions if it were not for the delta variant. The Prime Minister should have moved at lightning speed to prevent the delta variant reaching our shores. Instead he dithered, and tonight he is responsible for this delay.
Matt Hancock
I think that in that response, we saw a lifting of the veil on the Opposition’s position. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he has supported the Government’s position for a very large part of the crisis. We will be grateful for their support in the Lobbies, and quite rightly, because the Labour party has clearly accepted the logic of the position.
However, the logic of the questions the right hon. Gentleman just raised moved towards a position of never escaping from restrictions. I want us to escape from restrictions, and the vaccine is the way for us to escape from restrictions. The truth is—it is not the easy thing to say, but it is the right thing to say—that in this country and around the world, covid-19 will be with us and we will have to learn to live with it in the same way that we have learned to live with other deadly diseases like flu. The vaccine will help us get to a state in this country in which we can manage it and live our normal lives. The logic that the right hon. Gentleman set out is one in which we never escape.
It was a logic based on flawed thinking about how things work in practice, because the right hon. Gentleman’s other argument was that this is all due to the Government not taking decisions on India, based on information that we did not have at the time. His argument is that he has now seen in the published data that there was a problem in India—too right! And as soon as we saw the data, we acted on it. The whole case that he set up was that on 2 April we should have acted, but on 2 April neither the original B1617 Indian variant strain, nor the B1617.2 delta strain, had yet been designated a variant under investigation or a variant of concern.
Captain Hindsight over there is arguing, “Never escape from restrictions, and base your logic and evidence on things that haven’t been recorded yet.” That is no way to run a pandemic. Instead, we will put the interests of the British public first. We will take a cautious and irreversible approach. We will take difficult decisions if they are necessary, but we will get this country back on the road to recovery.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
May I start by saying that I totally agree with your expression of disappointment, Mr Speaker, that in a parliamentary democracy Parliament heard about this news after the media, and much as I respect my right hon. Friend it should be the Prime Minister who is here this evening?
I happen to support these measures and the caution the Government are showing, but may I suggest to my right hon. Friend that one of the reasons for the disappointment many people feel is the use of words like “irreversible”? Tonight, Sir Patrick Vallance said that we will be living with covid for the rest of our lives. If there is a vaccine-busting variant that threatens another 100,000 lives, these measures will not be irreversible, and we have a duty to be completely honest with people about the bumpiness of the road ahead. So may I urge the Health Secretary to be as cautious with the language we use as he rightly is with NHS bed capacity?
Matt Hancock
The goal is that the steps in the road map are irreversible; that is the goal, and I am sure it is a goal that my right hon. Friend agrees with. We have demonstrated repeatedly during this crisis our willingness to take difficult decisions if they are necessary and if they are needed by the data, but it is also important to try to take steps when we can have a good degree of confidence that we will then be able to deliver that irreversible route, as opposed to moving faster than that, which might lead to a reversal. I hope that that explanation is one with which my right hon. Friend and indeed the House can concur in terms of what we mean when we say that we seek an irreversible approach to the road map.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
While hospitalisations and ICU admissions are, thankfully, not increasing as fast as covid cases, they are both rising significantly, so this delay was inevitable. According to Public Health England, the delta variant appears to be about 50% more infectious and reduces the protection against infection from one vaccine dose to just 33%. As a single dose is therefore less effective, by what date does the Secretary of State expect all adults to be fully vaccinated with both doses and would that not be a more appropriate time for the removal of all restrictions, rather than setting another arbitrary date when younger adults will not be fully protected?
So how did we end up here? Having ignored the Scottish Government policy of all arrivals undergoing hotel quarantine, the Secretary of State then delayed adding India to the UK’s red list at the same time as Pakistan and Bangladesh. He previously claimed it was because of greater positivity rates among travellers from Bangladesh and Pakistan but that is not borne out by the published data. Between 25 March and 7 April the test positivity of arrivals from India was 5.1%, lower than Pakistan at 6.2% but significantly higher than Bangladesh at 3.7%. Was the delay not just because the Prime Minister was still clinging to his plan for a trade visit to India? The whole point of border quarantine is to protect the UK from variants that might be more infectious or show resistance to vaccine-induced immunity, so having allowed the delta variant to enter and become the dominant strain in the UK, does the Secretary of State not recognise that the Government’s border strategy has failed?
Matt Hancock
I thought that the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) on the Opposition Front Bench was Captain Hindsight, but, seriously, this argument is completely divorced from reality. The data that the hon. Lady has just recommended to the House is data about what happened between 25 March and 7 April, and she complains about a decision the Government took on 2 April because we did not know of the data up to 7 April; so she brings to this House information from after a decision was taken and asks why it was not taken into account for that decision, and the answer is because it had not happened yet.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Virtually everybody in the most vulnerable category, which made up 95% of hospitalisations and deaths, is protected by both jabs, the vaccines work against all variants thus far, and the latest Office for National Statistics data estimate that eight in 10 of us have antibodies. So will my right hon. Friend tell the House precisely how much better these metrics need to be in order for full freedom to be restored?
Matt Hancock
Our goal is that, by 19 July, two thirds of adults—around two thirds—will be double vaccinated. The data published today shows that the protection from transmission of this disease from a single jab is quite a lot lower for the delta variant, but the protection from hospitalisation from both jabs is that bit higher. That means that we do have to take a bit more time to get the protection from the double dose, whereas previously the single dose got a very significant proportion of the protection, but it does mean that once we get there, we have confidence in the effectiveness of the jab at keeping this virus at bay.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Professor Chris Whitty’s slide earlier this evening was very clear: we were on track to ease all restrictions next week until the delta variant hit our shores and took off in the UK. Apart from the late decision to red list India, could the Secretary of State explain why it was that, on 19 April, he told this House that the delta variant was a variant of concern and there would be surge testing, yet it was not officially designated a variant of concern until 6 May? This is important because that is what unlocked the surge testing. Why was there a delay of 17 days, and what impact does he think this delay has had on the spread and therefore on today’s announcement?
Matt Hancock
I took action to tackle this variant before it was designated even as a variant under investigation, because I was worried about what was happening in India, so in a way the hon. Lady makes my point for me. On the delta variant, we acted before it was recommended as a variant of concern by the scientific process. In fact, I have kicked off a review of that process, because I think it is the process and the scientific advice that should advise me that a variant is of concern. But having looked at and seen the data in India, we took action even before it was recommended.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]
The tremendous effort by the Secretary of State and his colleagues in delivering 71 million doses has clearly made a difference, and it is why we are not going backwards today. I have previously raised the cause of the wedding industry in Arundel and South Downs, so will he accept my thanks for saving summer for this vital sector, but would he kindly support the Culture Secretary to ensure a successful summer of motorsport?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I work very closely with the Culture Secretary on making sure that these events pilots can go ahead. We are working very closely with F1. I am delighted that we will be able to see the Wimbledon finals go ahead, on a pilot basis, with 100% capacity. It is fantastic to see the crowds at Wembley. We are making progress, and these freedoms have returned. We are not yet able to make the full step 4, but we are making the progress that we can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We can all understand the difficulties that have been presented for those who are waiting to get married, have put off their weddings and have lost deposits, and who have been holding on and hoping against hope that their special day will come. Does the Secretary of State not agree that the importance of a wedding celebration is equal at least to the importance of a football match or a summit, and that if there is to be a delay, consideration must be given to those getting married in July and August? Will the Secretary of State task a working group of experts to outline the safest way to allow these family events to take place, and then ensure that those decisions will be discussed with and conveyed to the Northern Ireland Health Minister?
Matt Hancock
Yes. The weddings taskforce has worked very hard on ensuring that there are covid-secure ways of progressing, including opening up weddings, removing the cap on numbers and doing this with social distancing. I hope that that will allow lots of the thousands of weddings planned over the coming weeks to happen in a way that is consistent with social distancing. I am very happy to talk to my opposite number in Northern Ireland, Robin Swann, who does an exemplary job. I know that he looks at these things very carefully, and I have no doubt we can have a conversation about that.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Before I ask the Secretary of State my question, I should just say—as a former Government Chief Whip, it does not give me any great pleasure to do so—that I wholly associate myself with your remarks earlier, Mr Speaker. This statement should have been made to this House by the Prime Minister before it was made to the media. I hope that we do not see a recurrence of it and I wish you well in your meeting with him.
The Secretary of State has set out that it is not the Government’s policy to get to zero covid—indeed, that is not possible. Can he say whether it is the Government’s policy to maintain a low prevalence of this virus? If it is not, can he confirm the Prime Minister’s sentiments today that 19 July is a terminus date, and can he rule out bringing back restrictions in the autumn and winter when we see an inevitable rise in what is a respiratory virus?
Matt Hancock
Well, it is not inevitable—I do not think it is inevitable. It may happen, but it is not inevitable because we also have the planned booster programme to strengthen further the vaccination response. But it is absolutely clear, based on all the clinical advice that I have seen, that a goal of eradication of this virus is impossible. Indeed, there is one part of this country that tried it for a bit in the summer and found it to be impossible. Therefore, we must learn to live with this virus and we must learn how we can live our normal lives with this virus, so I reflect the Prime Minister’s words, which, of course, I concur with entirely, on 19 July. Our goal is to make sure that we get as much vaccination done between now and then—especially those second doses—to make sure that we can open up safely, even if there is a rise in cases, by protecting people from hospitalisation and especially from dying of this awful disease.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
This is a hammer blow to hospitality businesses, many of which are trading currently at a loss, and to the night-time economy, which has been preparing to reopen and now faces more uncertainty. Many of the financial support packages that the Secretary of State referred to—the furlough, the rent moratorium, the VAT and business rates support—are due either to end or to be reduced, and businesses are still racking up debts for which they need a solution. If businesses are going to stay closed, support has to continue for as long as the restrictions last, so what are the Government going to do to give extra support to businesses, many of which are in real danger of collapse?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course I understand the impact of this decision on the businesses that are affected—both those that were hoping to open but will stay required to be closed by law, like nightclubs, and those that can open but will find it harder to trade than they would otherwise. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put in one of the most extensive sets of financial support in the world. Of course, the more affected a business is, the more it is able to draw down on that support—on things like furlough. Furlough continues until September, but there needs to be a step towards the restoration of normal economic life. Nevertheless, we are determined to support businesses, hence the degree of support that has been put in place—that was put in place at the Budget—not just to cover the period of the road map based on the “not before” dates, but to run further than that, in case there needed to be a delay of one of those “not before” dates, because the whole principle was that we take these steps based on data, not dates.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that many of those who are going to hospital now with covid are staying in hospital for a far shorter period than was the case earlier in the pandemic? Will he break down those figures for us? Will he also publish figures showing the breakdown between those who present in hospital for other reasons but subsequently test positive and those presenting with covid?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I am very happy to seek to publish all those data. The latter data, I think, are published already. On the former data, the best estimate I have is that the average length of stay for somebody in hospital owing to covid has fallen from 10 days to eight days, so it has fallen to a degree, but not a huge degree. That is partly because of treatments, but it is also partly because some of the people in hospital have had at least one dose of the vaccine, which is highly likely to have reduced the severity of the disease. In the 10 most affected hospital trusts, on average, the number of people going to hospital who have had both doses is under 20%. A further approximately 20% of people have had one dose. The remainder—the majority—are people who have not been vaccinated at all.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
May I first associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, about the Government’s behaviour and their complete contempt for this House—for both sides of the Chamber?
On current rates, I understand that we are looking at something like 40,000 cases by the first week of July, according to the Secretary of State’s own Department’s data. That is on trend. What does that say about the Prime Minister’s decision not to put India on the red list when it clearly had twice the infection rate of Pakistan and Bangladesh? Was that not simply a very expensive photo opportunity that is going to cost Warwick and Leamington businesses and those across the country dear?
Matt Hancock
No, because any businessman or woman in Warwick or, indeed, Leamington will understand that it is literally impossible to take decisions on data that has not yet occurred. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) had it right when she pointed out that we did not know this data at the time.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend will be well aware, people in Keighley and Ilkley have never come out of some form of restrictions; in fact, in July last year, we went into some of the toughest local restrictions. Going forward, will he rule out using a regional approach, so that communities such as mine can come back out of this pandemic and recover as normal?
Matt Hancock
We have in the last month or so surged in testing and changed recommended advice, but we have not taken a regional approach to the legal restrictions. Frankly, I think that has been a better way of doing things. I know that that is what the people of Keighley would prefer, and they are very wise folk.
Mr Speaker
May I congratulate Tony Lloyd on his knighthood? I call Sir Tony Lloyd.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
Thank you for your remarks, Mr Speaker, both at the beginning of this session and to me personally. I am grateful.
It is axiomatic that the higher the rate of infection, the higher the rate of transmission. In this battle between the virus and the vaccine, the virus wins, with those high rates. The only antidote to that is, as we saw in Bolton, surge vaccination. Bolton now has the second highest rate of the Greater Manchester boroughs; we have been overtaken, alas, by Salford. That is why people across Greater Manchester do not understand why we do not have surge vaccination. Yes, it would be good for Greater Manchester, but it would be good for the whole country. Can the Secretary of State explain?
Matt Hancock
I would love to surge vaccinate the whole country. Supply is the rate-limiting factor; it has been from the start. To surge the whole country would be to go as fast as we can, which is what we are doing already. Yes, we can surge in relatively small areas. In the areas that need extra support, which now constitute about 10% of England, we are increasing testing where we have the spare capacity, especially of the lateral flow kits; we are putting in place the guidance to be more cautious; and we are putting in place the extra support we can give to get the vaccines out, especially to groups who are harder to reach. But we need to bring the whole country forward with the vaccination programme. That is why we are going as fast as we can, and I am delighted that we are able to bring forward the date by which we will have been able to offer all adults a dose from the end of July to 19 July as part of what we are able to announce today.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has taken the wedding industry up to the top of the hill and told them they can open up without restrictions, but marched them down again and said, “Only if you can socially distance.” Many wedding venues do not have huge rooms, so that is going to be very difficult. I am very concerned that the wedding industry, and the couples who want to get married are going to be incredibly disappointed by the announcement today. Is there no way that the Secretary of State can overrule that and allow them—with care, obviously—to go ahead with no restrictions so long as they are sensible, but without the fear of social distancing?
Matt Hancock
I of course understand why many in the wedding industry and many who are planning to get married in the next month would prefer to be able to do so without any of these rules at all. I do not want these rules either, but, unfortunately, we have a virus that is growing again. We have to take the extra time to allow the vaccines to come through, so the social distancing rules are staying in place right across the board. Carving them out for one very specific activity is something that we looked at, but that we found a very, very difficult decision to take for all sorts of reasons, legal and practical, and in terms of fairness to everybody right across the board in different circumstances.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
I wish to return to the question of surge vaccinations. Case rates in Salford are higher than they have been since mid-January. They are five times higher than the national average and they are doubling around every seven days. We need to get vaccines into arms as quickly as possible, but this week we only have 3,500 doses of Pfizer, and that is falling to 2,200 doses next week. Despite promises from the Secretary of State of enhanced support and some talk of surge vaccinations in hotspots such as Salford, that lack of doses of the Pfizer vaccine is the major barrier to getting everyone in Salford jabbed. Will the Secretary of State remove that barrier? Will he make sure that we get the supply of Pfizer and the flexibility to vaccinate all our over-18-year-olds?
Matt Hancock
I am afraid that my reply is the same as it was to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir Tony Lloyd), which is that supply is the rate-limiting factor.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady shakes her head, but it is a matter of fact that supply has been the rate-limiting factor throughout. We will do everything we can to support vaccination using the doses that we have. As she well knows, the UK, thankfully, is right at the front of the global race to get vaccinated, and that is because we bought early in very large bulk. Of course, we have worked to make that supply as big as possible as fast as possible. We go as fast as we can, but we cannot go faster than we can.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker, and for what you have said tonight as well.
Has my right hon. Friend not recognised that just a few weeks—or “a little longer” in the Prime Minister’s parlance—make the difference between survival or closure for some businesses? Will he recognise therefore that forcing businesses to remain closed for a further period without financial support being extended for the same period is unjust, unconscionable and unsupportable? Will he take that back to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, please?
Matt Hancock
I happily will, but I urge my hon. Friend to see the financial support that is in place and continues to be in place, most of it through to September. It was extended over that period in case we had to make an extension to the road map, and while I fully understand the impact on business—of course I do—I also can see the impact on saving lives. The advice is that this change will save thousands of lives because the protection of the vaccine, especially against dying of covid, is very, very strong, but the vaccine coverage is not yet comprehensive, especially with those second doses, so we need to get that done.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker. There are now huge differences in the vaccination rate between Britain’s poorest wards and Britain’s richest wards. In Heartlands ward in my constituency, we have sky-high infection rates but rock bottom vaccination rates, yet, as the Secretary of State knows, the ward is the home to Heartlands Hospital. Down the road, GPs told me this afternoon that there is no Pfizer left in their fridges. There is no certainty about when it is going to arrive, and they do not know how much they will get when it does come. We know that when we open mobile units there is a five-hour queue. We know that pharmacies are successful, but in Birmingham tonight, there are, at best, vaccines for just 10% of the population of 18 to 29-year-olds. Over the next 34 days, how many Pfizer doses will arrive in Britain’s second city? We cannot unlock until we unblock this pipeline.
Matt Hancock
Before making an intervention like that, the right hon. Gentleman should first thank the teams who have supplied so much vaccination to this country, acknowledge that we have gone faster than almost anywhere in the world and work with us—work with the West Midlands Mayor and work across Birmingham—to make sure that we get the testing done as well and that we get vaccination done wherever possible. The fact that the fridges ran out of Pfizer demonstrates that we are getting through this as fast as we can, but supply is the rate-limiting factor on vaccination—it always has been—and on that the team have done a pretty amazing job, and I support them to go as fast as they possibly can over the weeks to come. That is what we will get done.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Across our country, alarming numbers of people not only forecast that this extension would happen, but increasingly believe that they are never going to see true freedom again—freedom from these restrictions, which the Secretary of State has promised us. What more can he say about the conditions under which we will get to step 4, to reassure those people that this Government will actually set them free and indeed in due course set them free from all the paraphernalia of the management of this pandemic?
Matt Hancock
I want to get rid of all the restrictions that have been put in place to manage this pandemic, and we will get there. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the link we have explicitly made is to the rate of vaccination and getting the vaccines done over these four weeks to come. Of course it is my duty to recommend to the Prime Minister the actions I think are necessary to keep people safe—as a Health Secretary, that is my duty—but I am also a parliamentarian who represents constituents who want these restrictions removed as soon as safely possible. That is our goal, and this is a difficult balance. I think we have got the balance right, unfortunately, today—I say “unfortunately” because I wish it was easier. It is not, but we are able to make some progress and I very much hope we can make the full degree of progress that my hon. Friend wants to see in the not-too-distant future.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I want to ask about the Test and Trace app, because this relates to freedom as well. As I understand it, the Government intend to keep the legislation in place on Test and Trace all the way through until next March. At the moment, tens of thousands of people every day are pinged by the app. The app does not tell them when the infection might possibly have taken place. I know of schools where four whole classes were sent home because a single teacher had been pinged over the weekend. I have known of construction businesses where every single person has had to be sent home. If we keep on doing this, particularly in some parts of the country where there are high levels of infection, we are going to have large parts of the economy constantly being closed down. I know that there are some measures in place, but the financial problems are still very difficult, especially for middle-class families. They may have the financial freedom but they still find it very difficult to stay in work and be able to do their work when the rules are all changing. If we really want freedom, we are going to have to turn this blunderbuss into something more precise, are we not?
Matt Hancock
Of course the purpose of the app is to identify people who have been in close contact with somebody who has tested positive and let them know that, and therefore ask them to self-isolate—that is what it is there for. The hon. Gentleman asks me to get more data so that it can be more targeted. He will know from last summer’s debate that the restrictions on the amount of data we can gather through that app are put in place by the companies rather than by us, so we cannot be more targeted. I am very happy to arrange a briefing for him on the details of that. But the goal is to ensure, in time, especially for those who have been vaccinated, that we follow through on the pilots we have done under which people who are contacts—not the “cases” themselves—are able to go into a testing regime, rather than having to isolate. There are pilots under way to check clinically that that works, and I look forward to seeing their results.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend advise us about the demographics of those he believes are likely to be hospitalised? Today, Public Health England said that both the Pfizer and the AstraZeneca vaccines can cope as well with the India variant as the Kent variant. The Pfizer vaccine is 94% effective against hospital admission after one dose and 96% effective after two, while the AstraZeneca vaccine is 71% effective against hospitalisation with one dose and 92% effective after two. Who would be hospitalised to the extent that the NHS would be swamped? Will he promise us that our country will not be locked down because some individuals who could be immunised choose not to be?
Matt Hancock
Yes. Thankfully, the take-up rates are very high, so only a very small proportion of people have chosen not to come forward to get the jab when offered. My right hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that the state’s obligation to get the country out of this situation falls more heavily on ensuring that vaccinations are offered than that they are taken up. Our goal is to ensure that take-up is as high as possible but, given that we are not going for mandatory vaccination across the board, the commitment that we make is to offer, and there is an important distinction between the two, as my right hon. Friend draws out.
On the make-up of those hospitalised, the average age has fallen considerably since the vaccination programme started, which is probably in large part due to the fact that, of course, the older cohorts were vaccinated first. That also, on average, reduces the acuity of those in hospital and therefore helps to break the link between hospitalisations and deaths yet further. I hope that answers my right hon. Friend’s first point.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Secretary of State will be aware of the evidence that women who contract covid during their pregnancies are twice as likely to experience a stillbirth or a premature birth. He will also know that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation decided in May that it was not worth prioritising such patients for the vaccine because the “low infection rates” made the “absolute risk” to pregnant women “very small”. Given the data that has been presented today and the evidence of the high risk of infection rising throughout the country, will the Secretary of State now rethink that decision and ensure that all pregnant women, at any age, and especially those in their third trimester, are fast-tracked to have both doses of the vaccine, so that we can protect not just them but their unborn children from harm?
Matt Hancock
This is an issue I have discussed with my clinical advisers, because it is very sensitive. I am sure that the hon. Lady would join me in urging all pregnant women to come forward and discuss vaccination with their clinician, because that is important, and she set out some of the reasons why. Of course, we have opened up, from tomorrow, vaccination to all those aged 23 and over, so vaccination will soon be available to every adult, which means that questions of prioritisation will be for the past—other than the question of the vaccination of children, which is separate in many ways and an important question that we will address in the coming weeks.
To anybody who is pregnant, I say: as soon as you are eligible for a vaccine, please discuss it with your doctor, because for the vast majority of people who are pregnant the right thing to do is to get the jab as soon as possible and get both jabs as soon as is practicable. I think that is something on which the hon. Lady and I would agree.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Last week, the Secretary of State told me:
“Our goal…is not a covid-free world…the goal is to live with covid”.—[Official Report, 7 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 678.]
Well, you could have fooled me, and many of our constituents. There is dismay out there tonight. The reopening of the wedding industry is not a meaningful reopening and I think it is cruel the way some are being misled. The Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend have been very clear today that 19 July is not a new “not before” date but an end to all this, so will the Secretary of State tell the country his assessment of risk and personal responsibility and whether he feels that as a country we remotely have that right at this time?
Matt Hancock
In a pandemic, the balance between risk and personal responsibility is different, because someone can affect somebody else in a life-threatening manner even without knowing it. If we go to the philosophy of this, the first duty—in fact, the legitimate duty—of the state for any liberal is to prevent harm by individuals to others. Unfortunately, in a pandemic that is what people do if they have the disease, especially asymptomatically—they could be harming others without even knowing it.
Once we have the offer of a vaccine to everybody, and once we have protected and mitigated the large part of that risk, we do need to move back to a world based on personal responsibility. That is right, and that is where we intend to go. I think that we have made steps already in that direction in steps 1, 2 and 3. This country is freer than almost any other in Europe in terms of our economy and of our society. That is partly because of the very rapid vaccination effort here, but I hope that my hon. Friend can take from that the direction we intend to go.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
We are in this position because of the delta variant, the spread of which the Government could have slowed by putting India on the red list earlier instead of waiting while the Prime Minister faffed around over his trade trip. By late March, Canada was warning of high levels of covid cases arriving from India. By early April, similar warnings were coming out of Hong Kong. By 7 April, hundreds of people were arriving here from India with covid, and half of them had new variants. Yet even when the Minister finally announced India was on the red list, he inexplicably waited another four days while many more people with the delta variant returned. So can he tell me why he is still refusing to publish the analysis and advice provided on India by the Joint Biosecurity Centre that the Select Committee has asked for? Please will he publish it now?
Matt Hancock
We published the data for the number of imported cases of B1617 and other variants at the time the decision was taken. That data was the data—including up to 7 April—on which we took the decision, which was announced on 19 April, but it does take that time to see the sequencing, because it operationally takes time. Since we have published that data, I have heard endless calls from those on the Opposition Benches, including from the right hon. Lady, that I should have acted on data that we could not see and that had not been gathered, and that is only a way to make a point if you do not care about the truth of what actually happened.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
As the evictions ban comes to an end and rate relief ends, what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give businesses such as Fitskool in my constituency, which is still operating under restrictions, that this delay to full step 4 really is the last delay?
Matt Hancock
I understand entirely the point that my right hon. Friend is making in terms of these restrictions and the impact on businesses and, in particular, the link to those in rent arrears. That is something I have been discussing with the Communities Secretary, and I am very happy to meet her to discuss how in the short term we can ensure that businesses, such as the one in her constituency that she mentions, get the support they need.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State refers to Captain Hindsight as cheap political point scoring to deflect from the seriousness of the debate. May I suggest that he refers to the cartoon character—much suited to his own Government—of Danger Mouse? Can the Secretary of State explain why India was included on the travel red list a full two weeks after countries with much lower rates of infection? This decision came almost immediately after the planned visit by the Prime Minister to India was cancelled. In my constituency of Birmingham, Hall Green, many residents believe that the decision to include Pakistan and Bangladesh as red list countries was politically motivated. To restore public confidence, can the Secretary of State indicate when countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh will be removed from the red list and put on the amber list?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman refers to political point scoring, and then makes points that he knows are not supported by the facts. As I have said to this House before, when the decision was taken on the 2 April change to put Pakistan and Bangladesh on the red list, test positivity of travellers returning from Pakistan was 4.6%—three times the 1.6% positivity of returning travellers from India. Those are the facts—the basis on which the decision was taken. I am not quite sure, but I think the hon. Gentleman asked at the end of his question whether we can now take those countries off the red list and put them on to the amber list. I do not support that approach, because it is important to keep this country safe.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will understand my dismay because, as we have discussed between ourselves, economic harm and the sustainability of businesses is a real concern of mine. I worry about the distress that this announcement has caused. Let me take one particular sector of international travel businesses: cruises. The cruise industry has been closed for international sailing for more than 15 months, and there really needs to be clarity if we are going to save the sector, which supports 90,000 jobs and is worth £10 billion a year to the British economy. I ask my right hon. Friend to really make it clear to the chief medical officer that the cruise industry needs its own road map to be able to embark on international travel again.
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend makes a strong and important point. I get the impact on business—of course I do—and especially on international cruises. I am glad we were able to work with the cruise industry to get some domestic cruise trips going again, admittedly in a small way, essentially to pilot it. It is more difficult on an international front. I am very happy to work with her and my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary on what more we can do.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
Does the Secretary of State feel any shame that the reason we need to delay the easing of restrictions is entirely down to the incompetence of his Government—not only the three-week delay in putting India on the red list, but the utter failure to supress the virus through basic infection control, tracing and effective isolation? This is the fourth time the Government have let the virus spread. That might be great news for Serco, whose profits are up today, but it is a disaster for everyone else.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that, to protect people at home, we also have to do much more to vaccinate people in poorer countries, both because it is a moral imperative but also so that we reduce the chance of new variants being imported here? Will he therefore adopt a jab-matching policy so that, for every single dose administered in the UK from now on, we donate another dose to COVAX, as well as scaling up the UK’s vaccine production? The UK’s pledge of 100 million doses includes only 5 million by the end of September, and that is too little, too late.
Matt Hancock
No, I do not agree with most of that. In particular, I think the hon. Lady and the whole House should welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that we will be ensuring that when we have excess supplies —I stress when we have excess supplies—we will donate 100 million doses around the world. I am not going to do that before we have excess supplies because we want to make sure people are vaccinated here at home.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady shakes her head, but my first duty is to protect people here in this country, while at the same time making sure that people get access around the world, as we have done, for instance, with the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab—half a billion jabs have been done around the world. That is my order of priorities; I am very, very clear about it. We will help the rest of the world to get vaccinated, but we also need to look out for and vaccinate the British population. As for the first half of the hon. Lady’s statement, it was completely wrong.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
My constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme have done everything we have asked of them during this pandemic. They have stayed at home and protected the NHS, and then they went out and got vaccinated in huge numbers, so any sense that these restrictions are to protect those who chose not to get vaccinated will be seen by them and me as deeply unfair. Will the Secretary of State set out what assessment he or his scientific advisers have made of the extent to which these restrictions are required to protect those who chose not to get protected?
Matt Hancock
This change is emphatically not for the purpose of protecting those who have chosen not to get vaccinated. It is emphatically to ensure that we have the time to offer the jab—both first jabs to all adults and second jabs for those who have had their first. To go through the data on that, currently, 93% of over-40s have had their first jab, but there are still 4.5 million who have not yet had the second jab. We can get through the majority of those over the next four weeks. Then, of course, we have been able to bring forward the date by which we will have offered a first jab to everybody. This is about the ability of the people who want to come forward to get jabbed to do so, and that is what we will achieve by 19 July to that degree. I hope that we end up with an uptake of almost 100% by the end of this; the uptake figures have been absolutely astonishing, so we will keep offering, we will keep encouraging people to come forward and we will keep trying to make the system and the vaccines as accessible as possible, but the thing that is in the direct control of the Government—subject to supply, of course—is the offering of the jab, and that is the commitment that we have made by 19 July.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Secretary of State will know that the hospitality and tourism industry has probably been hit more than any other part of our economy throughout this period. One of the challenges at the moment is that the ongoing restrictions mean that hospitality and tourism businesses need more staff than normal in order to cater for fewer customers than normal. Is he aware that the biggest single issue raised with me by hospitality and tourism industry bosses in the lakes and the dales is a lack of staff? This lack of staff is largely caused by the Government’s new visa rules. Would he agree to get his Immigration Minister friend to sit down with me and, more importantly, hospitality and tourism leaders from Cumbria and other rural areas—and other parts of the country involved in tourism—to discuss an emergency way of getting that vital boost to our hospitality and tourism industry just now?
Matt Hancock
I am happy to raise that for the hon. Gentleman. I almost thought he was going to say, at the end of that, that he was glad that Britain now controls its own borders.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
Young people have made big sacrifices during the pandemic and seen two years of their lives disrupted. Many students and school leavers will be leaving school and university between now and 19 July, so will the Secretary of State confirm that what he said in his statement about removing the 30-person limit on commemorative events will include graduation ceremonies and school-leaving parties in commercial venues? After all, school students in particular have been educated in bubbles with each other for months now, and it would add insult to injury if they were to be denied an opportunity to say farewell to each other.
Matt Hancock
I will ensure that the precise Cabinet Office guidance reaches my right hon. Friend’s mobile phone as soon as possible. I am now an hour and five minutes into this, and I am afraid I am going to have to get back to him on that one.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am sure, Mr Speaker, that the Secretary of State for Health heard what you said at the beginning of this statement. May I ask the Secretary of State how we got ourselves into this position? He has been very good at coming to the House and making statements on covid, but on the biggest, most important day, the press were given an embargoed statement at 3 o’clock and the Prime Minister had a big showy press conference at 6, yet he could not be bothered to turn up until 8.30. This is a clear breach of the ministerial code. How did it happen? Who thought it was a good idea, and who actually broke the ministerial code?
Matt Hancock
All I can say, Mr Speaker, is that I am here now answering questions and I am happy to stay for as long as you need me.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Mr Speaker, this is an unexpected surprise, and I am sure it is for the Secretary of State as well. I am sure that he will be interested in my question. Ultimately, these decisions are a matter of judgment. Can he publish that data on the risk to the health service and the risk to individuals of death, as opposed to those on the social harm and the harm to businesses? Can he therefore tell us why this judgment has been made?
Matt Hancock
The best thing that I can point my hon. Friend to is the slides that were presented by the chief medical officer today. I will see whether there is anything further that we can publish, but as a general rule, we publish all the data on which these judgments are made. Central to the judgment today is the fact that we are seeing a rise in hospitalisations, especially over the past week, and especially among those who are unvaccinated or have just had a single jab. Those people are not largely those who are unvaccinated out of choice; it is those who are unvaccinated because they have not yet had the opportunity because they are younger.
Until about a week ago, hospitalisations were basically flat. We thought that the link might have been completely broken between cases and hospitalisations or that it might be a lag. Sadly, hospitalisations then started to rise. For deaths, we have not yet seen that rise, which I am very pleased about; hopefully they will never rise, in which case the future will be much easier. It may still be that there is an element of it that is a lag, and we will be looking out for that very carefully over the couple of weeks ahead, but nevertheless our goal is to get those vaccines done in the five weeks between now and 19 July in order to make sure that this country is safe. I will commit to publishing anything further that we can that underpinned the decision, but I can honestly say to my hon. Friend that most of it is already in the public domain.
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I completely agree with every single word of your statement earlier, as I guess you knew I would. I want to ask, however, about the provisions for our business from next week. As you know, these things were all timed to change at the same time as the national situation, which has now been changed.
I presume that there will be a knock-on effect on parliamentary business: whether Select Committees will meet in hybrid form or virtually, how we will conduct our parliamentary business in the Chamber and the Division Lobbies, and so on. I know that some of that is your responsibility solely, Mr Speaker, but some of it is the responsibility of the Government and might need changes to the Standing Orders. I wonder whether you have had any notification from the Government that they intend to bring such changes forward or of when we will debate them, when we will ensure we get them right, whether there will be proper debate and whether there will be a business statement to tell us when all that will happen.
Mr Harper
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Listening to the Secretary of State, I was struck by what he said about the need to get people vaccinated and about the very important difference that that makes to the level of risk. In the House’s decision making about how we conduct our affairs, would it be relevant to look at the proportion of Members who have been single or double-vaccinated? My judgment would be that if the vast majority of us have been vaccinated, this level of social distancing is simply not necessary and the House could get back to what I know you want, Mr Speaker: much more effective holding of the Government to account.
Mr Speaker
I have a lot of sympathy with getting this Chamber absolutely back to normality. What I would say is that it is not just about Members having double doses; it is also about the staff, to whom we have a duty of care. That is why I said, quite a long time ago, “Let’s see if we can’t get our staff and Members inoculated more quickly than we are doing at the moment.”
On the other point of order, we have an important Opposition day tomorrow. Let us see whether the Government bring forward proposals on Wednesday for the House to decide on its own procedures from Monday up to the summer recess. I expect the Leader of the House to consult other parties in the House before the Government bring forward those proposals; I hope and am sure that those conversations will take place, and take place quickly, in order for the House to know where we are going. Because the date is so close to the summer recess, my suggestion is that it would be easier to take it through to then, for the sake of three days, if this House agrees to what is being proposed.
Business without Debate
Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)
Delegated Legislation
Antisocial Behaviour (Vehicles)
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I begin by thanking the Speaker’s Office for granting me this Adjournment debate. This will be a difficult speech to make tonight, because I, like 50,000 other couples, have today found out that—cruelly, in my opinion—their wedding is unlikely to go ahead in the next four weeks. But I will soldier on regardless.
Carshalton and Wallington is lucky to be statistically one of the lowest crime areas in London, thanks to the efforts of our fantastic Metropolitan police officers, but it still suffers at the hands of criminals. Today I want to touch on a couple of the most challenging and worrying problems facing my residents when it comes to crime: antisocial behaviour, particular that which involves the use of, or targeting of, a vehicle.
The pandemic has led to a sharp decline in crime overall in the London borough of Sutton, but this type of crime and antisocial behaviour have seen a worrying increase. Indeed, there was an increase in antisocial behaviour of over 230% last April, when we first went into lockdown. I have been in regular contact with our excellent local borough commander, and it is clear that the police are doing what they can, but the police need to be supported, either through partner organisations that need to do their part, or by new rules of powers to make their job easier.
There are two forms that I want to raise today. The first is the theft of catalytic converters, which are located on the underside of cars and remove harmful pollutant gases. However, the precious metals that enable them to do that are very valuable—some are three times the price of gold. A thief can take a catalytic converter from a car in a matter of minutes, or even as quickly as 30 seconds in some cases, often using a pipe cutter or similar tool simply to cut the converter from the exhaust pipe. Last year saw a rise of nearly 50% of catalytic converter theft in London alone. This has been for two primary reasons: the ease with which these crimes can take place; and the huge financial potential for those who are successful. the perpetrators have become more and more violent in their desperation to commit these crimes, with many stories being reported to me of residents being barred into their own homes, chased or even attacked with blunt implements, such as my constituent Saffron in Beddington.
There has been some good news in relation to tackling these crimes. I pay tribute to the Metropolitan police and the British Transport Police for their efforts to try to tackle this issue. The police set up Operation Basswood to tackle the rise in catalytic converter thefts. Collating evidence from thefts across London and parts of the home counties such as Essex, the police were able to deduce that the overwhelming majority of the crimes being committed came from one group of people based in Hackney.
On Tuesday 23 March this year, hundreds of officers were deployed to execute simultaneous warrants in Hackney and in Essex. On the day itself, there were four arrests and seven subsequent arrests have been made. Over £60,000 was seized, while multiple vehicles that were stolen or had false plates, various quantities of drugs, tools used to commit these thefts and 33 converters were recovered. This was the very first police raid of its kind and I am pleased to report that it has been successful, with a 66% reduction since 23 March, including in Carshalton and Wallington.
This hit day was followed by a further catalytic converter week of action by the British Transport Police in mid-April, which saw 244 offences identified, 664 vehicles stopped, 926 sites visited, 1,610 vehicles forensically marked, 1,037 stolen catalytic converters recovered and 56 arrests made.
However, while these operations have thankfully been successful, the fact remains that without changes this crime is still very easy to commit and the police are in a really difficult situation in tracking down the perpetrators or returning stolen parts. The difficulty in policing this comes down to the basic fact that catalytic converters are easy to steal and almost impossible to trace back to their owners. That is why I am joining local police in calling for changes to help them to tackle this crime. First, we need to look as far back as vehicle production, ensuring that catalytic converters cannot be so easily accessed by potential thieves, but also including identifiable markings on each catalytic converter, so that a recovered catalytic converter can be traced back to the vehicle it was stolen from, thereby allowing for more successful convictions in individual cases.
We must also do more to tackle the dodgy scrap metal dealers that these thieves rely on not to ask any questions when selling on the metals. In fact, this goes for all types of crime that seek to make money in this way. I would agree with the police that these dealers must keep a register of their customers, or even that we should go as far as asking a regulator, perhaps the Environment Agency, to license or certify who can handle these precious metals, again making it easier to trace criminals or to shut down dodgy scrap metal operations covering up for the criminals who use them. Although police operations have led to a reduction in catalytic converter thefts for now, they are likely to rise again unless we get on the front foot and make life more difficult for these criminals.
I want to move on to the antisocial use of vehicles more widely. We have seen scenes from across the country, particularly London—sadly, they have also manifested themselves in Carshalton and Wallington—of people using vehicles, particularly motorbikes, mopeds and quad bikes, to ride antisocially in parks and open spaces, on pavements and high streets, and much more. In my constituency, the residents of Roundshaw and South Beddington have been particularly impacted by this.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Back in my constituency of Strangford, one of the issues has been the advertising of these events on social media. There is a role for the police in relation to that. Does the hon. Member agree that it is imperative that communities are able to have a source of redress against those who sit in public car parks near to housing developments in the early hours of the morning with their altered vehicles, whatever they may be, waking children with every acceleration and leaving people at their wits’ end? It is time that there was legislation to stop it.
Elliot Colburn
It is an honour to be intervened on by the hon. Gentleman. He was not here during my first Adjournment debate and I felt at a loss, so I am happy that he is here now. I completely agree with everything he said about these perpetrators. Although the crime or the antisocial behaviour itself might seem minuscule to some, constant abuse of vehicles in this way can cause absolute misery for local communities.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I am really sorry to hear about the delay to the hon. Gentleman’s wedding. He is raising a number of issues that my constituents in Pontypridd and Caerphilly are faced with on a daily basis. The key issue that I hear about is that they are harassed and intimidated by these car modifications—the cars backfire with loud bangs that literally sound like a shotgun going off and can be utterly terrifying—but because it is essentially antisocial behaviour they feel unable to report it to the police. Does he agree that central to tackling these issues is improving how police support services are communicated to residents across the UK, so that they feel confident to report such incidents?
Elliot Colburn
I completely agree with the hon. Lady’s point about reporting. I will come on to that later in my speech, but something the Metropolitan police have in place, which I find very helpful, is an online reporting system that does not require residents to phone 999 or even 101 to report a crime. I have found it much easier to persuade residents to report more regularly through that online system, because they do not feel like they are harassing the police, taking up too much of their time or being a burden by reporting something that they think is small, but that is causing them grief. Perhaps the Minister will address in her closing remarks whether we can use that example from the Metropolitan police across other police forces, because it has been a useful tool. Of course, there is always more to do.
I was talking about the impact on residents who live near Roundshaw Downs. It has had an impact on me, because I regularly use the downs to walk my two dogs, Willow and Lola, but have become more and more apprehensive about doing so. That concern is shared by Sutton Rovers football club, which is based at the site. This is not a new issue—residents tell me that it has been going on since before I was elected—but lockdown has exacerbated the problem incredibly. It has clearly gone way beyond a small band of young people looking for a quick thrill and become something more organised.
Perhaps this will explain why. Roundshaw Downs is a 52.7 hectare site of metropolitan importance for nature conservation and nature reserve, based on the site of the old Croydon airport. Some of the old airport remains there today. It is the largest area of unimproved chalk grassland in the borough and, as such, it provides an extremely valuable nature conservation resource for insects, birds and wild flowers—my partner Jed and I particularly enjoy the cows at the southern end of the downs. However, that also makes it very attractive for those who want to use vehicles in an antisocial way.
I will talk through some of the reports I have received from residents about the impact this issue has had on them. Residents have said to me that they are too frightened to walk in the area. The noise has led some to say that it feels like they are living next to a racetrack. They speak of the destruction of the local environment and habitats, including those of breeding pheasants and skylarks—which, by the way, are a red list species for protection—in the area where the activity has been occurring, as well as other illicit activities such as littering and drug use. There have been serious safety concerns about use of the downs as well. One resident tells me that they have experienced verbal abuse and threats simply for walking on the public pathway. There has sadly been at least one appalling incident of violence against a dog walker, when they were physically assaulted by someone riding a motorcycle.
The Metropolitan police, to their credit, have stepped up patrols where possible, and have even conducted helicopter flyovers. They have managed to stop some people, remind them of the law and seize vehicles, and so on. However, these are expensive and temporary measures, at best. Antisocial behaviour is not reduced solely by reactive police activity; it needs to be tackled by working together with local authorities and communities to introduce preventive measures to stop it happening in the first place.
That has proven difficult because Roundshaw Downs straddles the boundary of the London boroughs of Croydon and Sutton. For well over a year, I have attempted to get both councils in a room with the police to thrash out a solution. Sadly, neither council has been forthcoming.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s wedding. I am a former police officer and I know the damage that antisocial behaviour does, but I want to press him on his point about Sutton Council. I know that my Liberal Democrat colleagues on Sutton Council are working hard to stop the offenders. My understanding is that the hon. Gentleman refused a briefing from the ward councillor leading on the issue. If he is as passionate about solving it as he seems to be tonight, would he not better serve his constituents by working with local councillors?
Elliot Colburn
I am happy to correct the hon. Lady. I asked for the meeting to take place, and it was actually the Liberal Democrat ward councillor who blocked me from attending, so I am afraid she has been given incorrect information. But that proves the point I was going on to: only the police have bothered to engage with me properly on this issue; the councils have been engaged in politicking and game playing, and residents are suffering as a result, because the Lib Dem council is unwilling to work with the Conservative MP.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Under Standing Orders, we have to adjourn the House again. Then you can resume from where you left off. I promise you do not have to start again.
Elliot Colburn
The police have told me that about 90% of the solution to this problem is about how the vehicles get on to the downs in the first place. The two councils need to secure all entrances to the downs to prevent vehicles from accessing them in that way. The answer is not, as I understand the Lib Dem councillor has suggested to the police, that they act as a permanent bodyguard, stationed there 24/7. Obviously, that is not feasible. The issue is easily prevented, so could the Government look at what more we could do to give the police powers of compulsion when partner organisations such as councils are being slow or intransigent in doing something that will help the police to do their jobs or reduce crime.
That is important, because the downs are not the only place this antisocial behaviour is occurring; it is also prevalent in other parts of my constituency, such as St Helier, Hackbridge, the Wandle trail, central Wallington and Wallington Square, Beddington, Carshalton Beeches, Clockhouse and others. Can the Government assure me that we are providing the police with the tools and powers necessary to deal with these criminals, who are intimidating and sometimes even harming others by using a vehicle?
It is not always possible to prevent a crime from happening, but we do not have to make it easier for the criminals. Where there are solutions available, such as markings on catalytic converters or vehicle barriers on Roundshaw Downs, we should be backing our police by helping to get those in place, not asking the police to continue on an incredibly difficult venture unnecessarily, unable to bring justice or give residents peace of mind.
I would like to end with a plea to my constituents to please keep reporting. I understand that it can be frustrating if they feel they have done it before and not much has happened, but each report does add to the body of evidence and will make it harder for those in authority to continue turning a blind eye to the issue. I would also like to thank the Metropolitan police for their engagement with me on these issues and for the action they have been taking where they can. The brave men and women who serve in our police deserve nothing but praise for their work, so I hope the Government will join me in giving the police our backing, and help the police and residents in Carshalton and Wallington to tackle these issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this important debate. I was sorry to hear of the adjournment of his wedding to his beloved Jed, and I hope that, the next time I respond to one of his debates, I am able to congratulate him and Jed on their nuptials.
I very much sympathise with the problems that my hon. Friend has raised extremely eloquently and powerfully, if I may say so, on behalf of his constituents. The sort of behaviour that he describes, and indeed that we have heard about on both sides of the House, has a huge impact on the residents who are troubled by it. We are absolutely committed as a Government to tackling this problem in all its forms and wherever it surfaces. The antisocial use of vehicles by a few people causes alarm and distress and can have a disproportionate and corrosive impact on local communities. Beauty spots such as the Roundshaw Downs and South Beddington are to be enjoyed and cherished, not blighted by the dangerous, noisy and illegal use of motorbikes and other forms of motor vehicle. The Government are also aware of increasing concerns regarding the theft of catalytic converters. We very much recognise the negative impact that that can have on members of the public and on the car industry, which is why we are tackling vehicle crime as a priority.
Let me talk my hon. Friend through some of the measures that we are taking to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Government have provided the police, local authorities and other local agencies, including councils and the various agencies, with a range of tools and powers that they can use to respond quickly and effectively to incidents of antisocial behaviour through the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which includes nuisance involving vehicles. The police also have powers under the Police Reform Act 2002 to seize a vehicle used in a careless and inconsiderate manner on or off-road. It is an operational matter for the chief constable and for the locally elected police and crime commissioner as to how this power is used. I have listened carefully to his very positive observations regarding the online reporting mechanism that the Metropolitan police use. I encourage other police forces that do not yet have that power to look carefully at this, because enabling the public to record these incidents in the way that he has described, particularly in giving them confidence that, in so doing, they are not wasting police time or getting in the way of more urgent business, will be a critical part of drawing the public’s trust in how we tackle these crimes, but also in helping the police to tackle these crimes in local areas where appropriate.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful to hear of the robust action that the Minister’s Department is taking to tackle the antisocial behaviour relating to vehicles. Part of the problem, according to my local police force, is that these unnecessary modifications to vehicles that make these loud noises are currently not illegal. Will the Minister consider introducing legislation to make these unnecessary modifications that cause antisocial behaviour illegal?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. I have to confess that I am not an expert in the mechanics of cars and other vehicles, so I am very much feeling my way in answering this. She will know that, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we are looking at measures in the criminal justice system, and while I do not for a moment pretend that I am creating Government policy at the Dispatch Box, I would certainly welcome an opportunity to discuss with her, perhaps outside the Chamber, the sorts of measures that she raises. It would have to be a matter on which the car industry and others have the chance to contribute, but certainly let us discuss it to see whether there are ways that we can tackle those particular problems.
The pandemic has brought into sharp focus just how important shared spaces and, indeed, nature are to community life. Local agencies can use their powers to tackle irresponsible use of these spaces, such as the Roundshaw Downs, as this kind of behaviour is both a nuisance and can present a very real danger to the public. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to advise his constituents to report these incidents to the neighbourhood policing team and to the local authority responsible for the public land so that they understand where the problems are happening and the volume of those problems. However, as he says, we must, as communities, report these incidents so that the authorities can begin to use the powers that they have under existing legislation.
When the problem is entrenched, it is for the local authority and community safety partnership to set a strategy and response that go beyond reactive policing of this kind of repeat behaviour. Local agencies should know how best to approach this matter and how to deploy their powers depending on the circumstances. Home Office statutory guidance was created for local areas in order to support them to make effective use of the powers given to them. I cannot stress enough how important it is for local areas to encourage multi-agency approaches to this kind of issue to prevent it as well as to deal with it as and when it surfaces. The reason these powers apply not simply to the police, but to local councils, is that we understand and recognise that there has to be a whole-systems approach to tackling this sort of behaviour, which is why I was disappointed to hear of the experiences that he has had with his local council, Sutton Council. His constituents will expect, as indeed all of our constituents expect, that their elected representatives will work together to tackle antisocial behaviour.
The Home Office continues to fund projects that will increase the safety of local communities. As well as increasing police funding and the recruitment of more officers, a third round of the safer streets fund was launched on Thursday 3 June, which brings the total amount invested in the fund to £70 million over two years. I am going to take the opportunity to emphasise to colleagues across the House that the third phase of the safer streets fund has a particular emphasis on tackling violence against women and girls, so I encourage hon. Members and my hon. Friends to look at that fund with their local partners—councils, police and so on—to see whether there are projects that they can put forward in their local area to tackle that and many other forms of criminal behaviour.
Overall, police funding available to police and crime commissioners has increased by up to £668 million in 2021-22, and on 4 February this year, the Government published a total police funding settlement of up to £15.8 billion in this financial year, an increase of up to £600 million compared with the previous year. We are also committed to giving the police the resources they need to tackle crime through increasing the number of police officers by 20,000 by March 2023. I am delighted to say that, as of the end of March this year, 8,771 additional officers had been recruited across England and Wales. That is ahead of schedule, but we will continue to recruit in order to meet our target of 20,000.
In its area, the Metropolitan police had recruited an additional 1,369 officers, and a further 1,344 officers have been allocated for the coming financial year. The deployment of those officers is, of course, an operational matter for chief constables and their team of senior officers, but I am really pleased to hear of the admiration and thanks that my hon. Friend has for his local policing team.
On policing the roads, we are committed to tackling vehicle crime as a priority. We are working in the Home Office with the Department for Transport and the National Police Chiefs’ Council on the first roads policing review, which is a thorough examination of roads policing in England and Wales. Responses to last year’s roads policing review call for evidence are helping to shape the development of the action plan by the roads policing review governance board. The Government plan to publish the call for evidence response this summer.
My hon. Friend raised some really important points on the theft of catalytic converters. We continue to work closely with the police and motor manufacturers through the national vehicle crime working group established by the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for vehicle crime. We are working together to understand what more can be done to tackle the theft of catalytic converters, and that work is overseen by the Government’s crime and justice taskforce. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating our officers on tackling this type of crime; indeed, he set out the successful Operation Basswood in March and the British Transport police’s operation in April this year.
On the use of those catalytic converters that are stolen, of course that sits side by side with the recent rise in metal theft. The Government have funded, therefore, the setting up of the national infrastructure crime reduction partnership, ensuring national co-ordination of policing and partner agencies to tackle metal theft.
The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 continues to be a powerful tool in the fight against this form of criminality. Supporting enforcement initiatives is key to the effective operation of the Act. Since the introduction of the Act, there has been a steady downward trend in metal-related thefts, with recorded offences of metal theft having decreased by 74% from the year ending March 2013 to the year ending March 2020. We carried out a review of the Act in 2017 and found that it had been effective in addressing metal theft and should be retained. It remains a powerful tool to combat these thefts, but, of course, it requires consistent and effective enforcement. Some excellent nationally co-ordinated efforts have recently been made to encourage local authorities, law enforcement and other agencies to carry out such activities, but we must work together to ensure that all possible actions are taken to combat this crime.
We are acutely aware of the damage and distress that antisocial behaviour causes to law-abiding citizens. I very much hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that the Government take this problem very seriously, including when it involves vehicles, and that we are committed to giving the police the power and resources they need to tackle this type of offending. I very much join him in thanking the police for the efforts they go to, not just in his constituency, but across the country, to tackle these dreadful crimes and to try to ensure that all our constituents can enjoy their homes and their neighbourhoods in the peace and safety that we should all deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I would like to remind Members about the social distancing regulations. Seats available to Members are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee when not speaking. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if you send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2021.
It is a pleasure to be here today, Mr Mundell. The draft order was laid before the House on 13 May. This Government are committed to being a world leader in climate action and to decarbonising the UK economy while driving economic growth, meeting our ambitious targets for net zero emissions by 2050.
While the current pandemic is rightly at the forefront of our work as we rebuild, we must build back better, greener and faster. That means supporting green jobs, levelling up, accelerating our path to meeting net zero, and creating a long-term advantage for the UK in low-carbon sectors. We have shown that rapid progress on decarbonisation is possible alongside a thriving economy. Our emissions have gone down almost 44% over the last 30 years, and our economy has grown by 78% in the same period. We are also in the process of reaching a significant milestone in approving legislation to enshrine in law the UK’s sixth carbon budget, proposing a target that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 78% by 2035, compared with 1990 levels. That is a huge commitment and the Government are working flat out to achieve it.
As part of the Climate Change Act 2008, the Government must set a limit on the number of international carbon credits that can be credited to the UK carbon account for each budgetary period. These carbon credits represent the reduction or removal of greenhouse gas emissions overseas. The draft order sets a limit on the net number of international carbon credits that may be used to meet the fourth carbon budget, which runs from 2023 to 2027.
The Climate Change Act, which was passed with near unanimous support, allows for the flexibility of using carbon credits to meet a carbon budget if necessary. Our intention is to meet our nationally determined contribution and net zero commitment through domestic action, but having that flexibility helps to ensure that even if unforeseen circumstances affect how we might most effectively deliver against our carbon budgets for the taxpayer, the UK is better able to meet our legally binding emissions target under the Act.
The draft order will set the credit limit of the fourth carbon budget at 55 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, which is only 2.8% of the total carbon budget. That 55 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent is the same amount of flexibility as the House agreed for the credit limit orders for the second and third carbon budgets. I must also highlight that this draft order does not commit the UK Government to buying international credits. As we have witnessed with previous carbon budgets, this Government have an impressive track record of delivering clean growth and have not used any allowances set for the previous carbon budgets. This Government will continue to put forward ambitious plans to meet carbon budgets through domestic action and are committed to meeting our world-leading target.
It is at this point that I should reassure colleagues that the limit set by the draft order excludes any net use of credits that result from the operation of the European Union emissions trading system. The exclusion is required because, while the UK emissions trading scheme replaced UK participation in the EU ETS on 1 January 2021, Northern Ireland electricity generators continue participate in the EU ETS, and so will receive EU ETS allowances within the fourth budgetary period.
In determining the appropriate fourth carbon budget credit limit, subject to the present discussion, the Government have considered the advice of the Climate Change Committee and the views of the devolved Administrations, as well as the range of factors required by the Act, including the economic, fiscal, social, scientific and international circumstances. All the parties agree that the purchase of international credits should not replace domestic action on emissions when delivering our net zero target. Although the Climate Change Committee and the devolved Administrations recommended a zero credit limit, the Government have concluded that it is best to maintain a small amount of flexibility during the fourth carbon budget period. That builds resilience into our projections and allows us flexibility to respond to future uncertainties—a consideration that any responsible Government should factor in.
We are extremely grateful to the Climate Change Committee for its expert analysis and advice, and look forward to working closely with it on the fundamental decisions we will need to take over the coming years to drive forward our progress. As hon. Members know, we accepted its advice and aligned our positions on the sixth carbon budget targets and nationally determined contribution. However, we have not always agreed on points of detail—for example, the balance of emissions reductions between sectors, or exact policy interventions—and we undertake our own robust analysis alongside it.
This ambitious Government are taking decisive action to ensure that we deliver the fourth carbon budget domestically, but it is prudent to allow ourselves flexibility in the future to manage the uncertainty of emissions projections. We are dedicated to tackling climate change throughout our commitments and action. On 21 May, through our G7 presidency, we reaffirmed our strong and steadfast commitment to strengthening implementation of the Paris agreement and to unleashing its full potential. Building on that, we fully intend to use our vital role hosting the COP26 negotiations in November to catalyse ambitious global action to cut emissions. Ahead of COP26, we will set out our ambitious plans across key sectors of the economy to meet our climate commitments. That will include a comprehensive net zero strategy, which will set out a vision for transitioning to a net zero economy and raise ambition as we outline our path to meet net zero by 2050.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. In her opening remarks, the Minister presented the draft statutory instrument as almost a purely technical matter, and the Government’s decision to set a positive limit on the quantity of international carbon credits that can be used to meet the fourth carbon budget as a simple precautionary measure against future uncertainty in relation to accounting for that budget. To the extent that the Government have been clear, and the Minister has been clear again today, that it is not their intention ever to use the international credits for which this order provides, that may well be true, but the Opposition believe that the order is nevertheless problematic.
As the Minister said in her remarks, when placing a limit on the quantity of international credits that can be used to meet any given carbon budget, the Government, under section 9 of the 2008 Act, must take into account advice from the Climate Change Committee and must also consult the devolved Administrations. The CCC’s advice on this matter could not have been clearer. It recommended that international emissions credits should not be allowed to contribute to meeting the fourth carbon budget—that is, that a limit of zero should be set instead of the 55 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent provided for by this instrument. In their response to the consultation, the Scottish Government made it clear that they would support the adoption of a zero limit. Similarly, the Welsh Government stated that they would support a zero limit in principle. The UK Government have determined that they will ignore those views and dismiss the very clear recommendation of the CCC. In doing so, the Government essentially make two arguments in support of setting a positive limit.
The primary argument is that the headroom provided by up to 55 megatonnes-worth of international credits is required to provide—I quote from the impact assessment—
“sufficient flexibility to manage uncertainty in emissions projections”.
The secondary argument is that the purchase of international credits could also enable the UK to support climate mitigation action in developing countries via the carbon budgets framework, and contribute to the development of a global carbon market, thereby reducing the cost of global climate action over the long term.
The second argument can be dealt with very quickly. At any point in the future, should they wish to do so, the Government can purchase international emissions credits to augment the delivery of their own carbon budgets through domestic action. There would be nothing to prevent the Government from bolstering global climate action efforts by means of the purchase of international credits if the limit on use of those credits to meet the fourth carbon budget were set at zero today.
The first argument is, on the face of it, the stronger one. After all, it is surely only sensible, as the Minister has said, for any Government to plan for contingencies and to build in some flexibility to mitigate unforeseen circumstances. The problem with that argument is that the benefit of building in wiggle room of a mere 2.8% to account for potential changes in the methodology underpinning the emissions inventory, or the risk of high emissions relative to current projections, is, we believe, outweighed by the damage that it causes. I do not dismiss it entirely, but I am not primarily referring here to the negative impact of setting a positive limit on investor confidence, which I believe the Government are right to argue is likely to be relatively small. I am thinking more of the harm that setting a positive limit is likely to cause in terms of the signal it sends about the Government’s perception of the degree of flexibility involved in the carbon budget framework, their commitment to achieve the net zero target through domestic action and—as a country that, as the Minister rightly said, has a relatively strong record of domestic emissions reductions—the example it conveys to other countries about the approach they can follow when it comes to their own pathways.
The Minister knows full well that the 2030 NDC that the UK formally submitted at the UNFCCC in December last year under the Paris agreement, and the sixth carbon budget announced in April, will require a far more ambitious pace and scale of emissions reductions over the coming years. If, as a country, we finally begin to do what is necessary to put ourselves decisively on track to achieve net zero, there should be no question that the fourth carbon budget, which—according to the CCC—remains at the right level even accounting for inventory changes, will be met without the use of international credits. Taken together with the fact that the Government’s central projections make it clear that they are unlikely to use the credits provided for by this order, and the likelihood that the cost of those credits will rise significantly in the years ahead, the Opposition believe that the case made by the Government for a positive limit does not outweigh the damage it might cause and is not strong enough to justify ignoring the CCC’s advice.
The Government should have the confidence to set a zero limit and thereby clearly indicate that they will do whatever it takes to comfortably meet, and hopefully outperform—given the more stringent targets that are coming forward—the fourth carbon budget through domestic action alone. For that reason, we intend to divide the Committee this afternoon. While I can see from the numbers here that the order will be approved, I hope the Minister will take on board our very real concerns about the detrimental impacts of legislating for the use of international credits and recommit the Government to doing whatever is necessary to achieve net zero over the coming years through planned government policy.
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for his contribution to the debate.
It is because of the Government’s ambitious proposal and actions that the UK finds itself at the forefront of climate action and a world leader in reducing emissions, as highlighted through our presidency of this year’s COP26 summit. As I said, the UK has seen the sharpest reduction in emissions of any G7 country since 1990. We also have the highest emissions reduction target for 2030 of any G7 country. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we have been in consultation with the devolved Administrations and did recommend a zero credit limit. However, the Government have concluded that it is best to maintain a small amount of flexibility over the fourth carbon budget period, as it builds resilience into our projections and allows us the flexibility to respond to future uncertainties, which are a consideration that any Government should factor in.
The Government intend to continue with our ambitious proposals and our position remains that we intend to meet all our targets through domestic abatement, as we have in the past. Nonetheless, international credits could offer a contingency for delivering our legally binding targets, and so the elimination of their potential use, as allowed under the Climate Change Act 2008, would not be prudent in our view. It is also important to reiterate that this legislation does not commit the UK to buying international credits and, as we have witnessed from previous carbon budgets, the Government have not used any international credits to date, even with a 55 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent limit. I can confirm that the current legislation is only concerned with the fourth carbon budget. We will consider the limit for the fifth and sixth carbon budgets at the appropriate time.
As I mentioned in my opening speech, despite the considerable challenges we are facing on the other side of the pandemic, we can leverage our strength to deliver a better and greener economy and go further and faster to accelerate the transition to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. I commend the draft regulation to the Committee.
Question put.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Other Provisions) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Other Provisions) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 585).
It is a pleasure, Sir Edward, to serve under your chairmanship. On 17 May this year, we moved to step 3 of the Government’s road map, with a clear set of stages helping us cautiously to navigate a route out of lockdown. This was hugely welcomed, both in the House and across the country. It is not hard to see why. More businesses have reopened, travel is cautiously reopening, and people can meet more family and friends. Importantly, we can gather in groups of up to 30 at weddings, wedding receptions and other commemorative events, and we have removed the attendee limits at funerals, where the number of attendees now depends on how many people the venue can accommodate safely with social distancing. Those examples show steady work in the progress that we are making on the journey out of the pandemic, and learning how to live with covid-19. The regulations made other important changes on face covering and table spacing. We listened to the expertise of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and made minor technical changes to clarify drafting.
We appreciate very much the value of Parliament’s scrutiny role and we regret that we are only now debating these amendments. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will remind me that some time has elapsed. Indeed, he will probably say that some considerable time has elapsed since the amendments were introduced, and I understand his concern. We have tried hard to strike a balance that accommodates the dynamic nature of the pandemic and other business. I know that he understands that is crucial that we understand the very latest data and information before we open up and move towards the next step of the road map. It is therefore with regret that we cannot always have more warning, but we are continually working closely with scientists and others to monitor the latest data and advice as we progress through the road map.
When we were considering whether we could move safely to step 3, the situation with the Delta variant was changing rapidly. As with each step on the road map, it is only right that we assess carefully the latest scientific information and the risk before making decisions of such magnitude. The road map is about more than sticking to a direction of travel. It is also about finding the balance between priorities—the need to save lives; avoid the surges in infection that put unsustainable pressure on the NHS; the reopening of our economy; and the restoration of vital social contact between family and friends, which is important for the nation’s physical, emotional and mental health.
The past 15 months have presented unprecedented challenges for all of us, and I recognise how difficult the past year has been. I reiterate my thanks to everybody—every individual, community and organisation—for the way in which they have rallied to support the fight against coronavirus. The vast majority have continued to follow restrictions, observe the guidance and play their part fully in keeping themselves and those around them safe and well protected.
Thanks to that collective resolve, there has been significant progress on the road to regaining our freedoms. With that in mind, the regulations that we are debating underpin the important move to step 3 of the road map. As ever, the decision to make that move was informed, as I said, by the latest scientific data, including the passing of all four tests set out in the road map. The first—vaccine deployment—continues successfully, and as of yesterday, over 41.7 million individuals had received their first vaccine dose, and 29.8 million people had received their second vaccine dose. That means that more than 79% of all adults in the UK have now received their first dose of the vaccine and nearly 57% have had their second. That is a quite outstanding achievement—one that we will build on as more of the cohort are invited to be vaccinated.
The deployment of vaccines is helping to reduce the effects of covid-19. To that end, those aged 25 and over are now being invited for their first jab, and we expect in fairly short order to invite those between 18 and 24. Surge vaccinations are taking place in areas where the Delta variant is spreading fastest. I am sure that I speak for everybody in the House when I say that we encourage people to take up the offer of a vaccine as soon as they can.
The second test requires a positive assessment of the vaccine’s continued efficacy in reducing hospitalisations and deaths. Data available at step 3 suggested that two doses of the Pfizer vaccine reduced overall symptomatic disease by 80% to 90%, hospitalisations by 90% to 95%, and deaths by 95% to 99%. A similar effect has been reported for the AstraZeneca vaccine against symptomatic disease. The latest analysis indicates that the Pfizer vaccine is 88% effective against symptomatic disease from the Delta variant two weeks after the second dose, and two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine are determined to be 60% effective—clear evidence that vaccines work. Public Health England estimates that the covid-19 vaccination programme has so far prevented at least 14,000 deaths among those aged 60 and above.
However, we cannot afford to be complacent. We have to continue to collect data on the vaccines’ effectiveness in reducing hospitalisations and death, which brings us to the third test: the assessment that infection rates do not risk a surge in hospital admissions that would put undue pressure on the NHS. The risk is greatly mitigated by the progress of the vaccination programme across the UK, and daily hospital admissions continued to fall throughout March, April and early May, so we were content that rises in infection rates did not risk a surge in hospitalisations, putting unsustainable pressure on the service. That said, since we moved into step 3, the number of infections has been increasing, although that was anticipated when some restrictions on social contact were lifted.
Naturally, we continue to monitor data on infection rates and hospital admissions, and are taking action to support local areas where it is needed, including through surge testing, vaccination and additional support on the ground. It remains as crucial as ever that we all maintain our caution and do our bit to help to keep everybody safe.
That brings me to the fourth test: that our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new or existing variants of concern. Informed by the most recent data at the time, we judged that the test was met and we continued to monitor those variants closely, including the B1617.2 Delta variant. Guidance has been updated on those areas of the country where that variant is spreading fastest. The evidence gathered so far suggests that it spreads more easily from person to person. We have deployed a strengthened support package across the areas most affected by the Delta variant, including test and trace measures.
As ever, the Government will not hesitate to take further firm action if necessary to protect lives and livelihoods. We know that the combination of personal social responsibility with the advice on hands, face, space and ventilation, combined with swift action in virus hotspots, has a positive effect against transmission. The continued acceleration and expansion of the vaccination programme will deliver us, in time, to a safer and happier future.
Finally, I would like to take the time to thank the public for continuing to play their part in the fight against coronavirus; the medical profession and more broadly the volunteers and individuals who are supporting not only the vaccine programme, but efforts in their community to support people; and colleagues for their contribution to today’s debate, but mostly for their support in making sure that people are kept safe. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Sir Edward. I thank the Minister for her introduction to the statutory instrument, which, as she pointed out, came into force on 17 May. I will return to that point in a little while. May I first repeat my thanks and gratitude to everyone who has played their part in fighting the spread of coronavirus, in the many different forms that that has taken over the past 12 to 15 months? We would have been in a much worse situation had we not all pulled together collectively in the way in which the Minister outlined.
As the Minister set out, these regulations amend the steps regulations to implement the easing of lockdown in line with the Government road map, moving all of England from step 2 to step 3, meaning that the restrictions set out in schedule 3 to the steps regulations now apply. For example, six people or two households can gather indoors, and up to 30 people outdoors, weddings and funerals are now permitted with up to 30 people in attendance, all remaining outdoor entertainment and indoor hospitality can now reopen, and the number of people who may attend support groups has been increased to 30. Significantly, regulation 8 revokes the prohibition on international travel and the requirement for individuals to declare their reason for travelling abroad. The Minister did not go into that point in any detail, but I will return to it a little later.
Finally, the instrument amends the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Local Authority Enforcement Powers and Amendment) (England) Regulations 2021, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020 and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020. In particular, the regulations extend the expiry date of the face coverings on public transport regulations and the LAEP regulations to 20 June, which is this Sunday.
The regulations provide an exemption for wearing a face covering in community premises where the gathering is reasonably necessary for specified education and training purposes; provide that groups are permitted to gather; and increase the limit for the offence of organising or facilitating a gathering from 30 to 50 people. They also allow students undertaking a higher education course to form a vacation household, increase limits on the numbers permitted to attend parent and child groups from 15 to 30, remove the provision that support groups should only take place in person where it is reasonably necessary, and, importantly, remove the limits on the number of people who can attend a funeral.
We are not going to oppose the regulations because, like everyone, we want to see a return to some form of normality as quickly and safely as possible, but there are various areas where I would be grateful for some additional clarity from the Minister. Of course we want to see society open up and we welcome the steps that have been taken so far, but as we take further steps down the road—or not, as the case may be—the priority must be doing all we can to keep case numbers low and prevent further transmission, ensuring that we learn the lessons from the past year. Sadly, I do not think those lessons are being learned, as the same mistakes are being made time and again.
The Prime Minister promised us an “irreversible road map” to normality, but I am afraid to say that the rate at which the number of Indian or Delta variant cases is increasing puts that in some doubt. The Minister said that these regulations anticipated a rise in cases from the opening up of society, but I do not think for a minute that the rises we have seen in recent weeks can all be attributed to that—and I am sure that it is not what the Minister was anticipating. Cases have doubled in about 10 days, and although that has not yet led to an increase in hospitalisations, there has certainly been an increase in some parts of the country; I understand that hospitalisations in the north-west have increased by a third in the past week. It has to be hoped that the age profile of those catching the virus means that there will not be as many deaths as we have seen, because it is now mainly younger people who are catching the virus. However, people who are unfortunate enough to catch the virus may have long covid, which can have devastating consequences
While cases are on the rise, we need a national response to deal with the hotspots, particularly with surge vaccinations where cases are rising most steeply. We need to put retrospective and forward contact tracing in place. Critically, we need pay proper sick pay and provide financial support for those who have to self-isolate. At this critical stage, where it is really in the balance as to whether we can get back to some kind of normality this summer, it is important that we ensure that the steps the Government are taking are the right ones, which is why scrutiny and debating these regulations matter.
The Minister was gracious enough to acknowledge this point in her opening remarks; she will not be surprised to hear me say yet again that I have serious concerns about the way in which we are approving legislation retrospectively. I have debated many sets of these regulations with her, and she knows as well as I do that these rules have a profound impact on individuals’ liberty. Of course, there is also a huge economic impact that follows on from that. It is simply not good enough that we are once again debating these regulations well after the event. How can it be acceptable that the Government laid them through emergency procedures at 11 am on 17 May, the day they became law, when they had known for almost three months, by my count, that step 3 would be reached on that date?
Of course, we accept that in some instances emergency legislation has been needed, but it cannot be justified for each occasion, and certainly not for any legislation that I have seen come forward recently. The Prime Minister’s road map has been in place since February, so why are we debating step 3 only now, particularly given that the main topic across the country since we reached step 2 has been what would happen with step 3? It should not have come as a surprise to the Government that regulations would need to be laid and approved by 17 May if the road map were going to plan, as until very recently there was every indication that it was. The decision to proceed with step 3 was made only a week before entering that step, but there is absolutely no reason why the regulations could not have been published on that day and debated before they came into force, because their substance was set out well in advance back in February when the Government first highlighted the road map.
The fact that we are considering the regulations today of all days, when the eyes of the entire nation are fixed on a press conference that the Prime Minister will give in a couple of hours, makes a mockery of the role of parliamentary scrutiny. As colleagues across the House have said for the past year, the Government’s rationale for urgency just does not hold water any longer. The regulations once again contain a statement that
“by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by…Parliament.”
I wish to put it on the record that we do not accept that. Using urgency powers when they are not necessary has become a bad habit, and it is more than time that this contempt for parliamentary scrutiny came to an end.
Those comments apply not just to the road-map elements of the regulations, but to other changes such as the extension of the face-mask regulations. Again, that is not an urgent matter that can be dealt with only under emergency powers. The Government have known about the expiry of those regulations since they were introduced a year ago, so why are we dealing with it only now—is it arrogance, laziness, contempt or all those things? I know that the Minister is not personally responsible for the timetabling of our debates, but unfortunately she has to come here and defend this pattern of behaviour from the Government that has become all too familiar. The saying is that familiarity breeds contempt; the familiarity of this disregard for parliamentary scrutiny is beginning to feel like contempt.
Although we do not know the precise details of the Prime Minister’s announcement today regarding the next steps, it has been widely trailed that we will see a delay in the next stage, so will the Minister commit to ensuring that this House is provided the opportunity to see and debate any regulations that accompany whatever comes next, before they come into force? If, as anticipated, there will be a four-week delay, surely that is enough time to schedule proper parliamentary scrutiny.
What of the references to dates in the regulations? A number of measures are due to expire on 20 June. Will the Minister confirm whether, in the light of what we will hear later today, those dates still stand—or have they effectively been superseded? It is ludicrous that we are today debating the extension of the face-mask regulations for just six days, but it is even more absurd that it is likely that another set of regulations to extend them will be coming down the line in the next three or four weeks.
While we are talking about the lack of proper accountability in how the regulations have been introduced, I put on the record my concerns about the utter shambles of the contradictory Government guidance that was issued just after they came into force. As reported by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, that guidance, which was published on 21 May,
“said that to combat ‘the Indian variant’ people living in Bedford, Blackburn with Darwen, Bolton, Burnley, Kirklees, Leicester, Hounslow and North Tyneside should meet outside wherever possible and travel in and out of those areas should be avoided.”
The Committee rightly points out what should have been obvious to the Government: that sneaking guidance out without publicising it
“caused considerable confusion.”
It further points out:
“All eight local health directors have since issued a joint statement contradicting it”—
the guidance—
“saying that there are no restrictions on travel in or out of their areas”.
Every affected local authority and its corresponding Members knew nothing about the new guidance until the evening of Monday 23 May. Although that may be the inadequate level of openness and transparency that we have come to expect from the Government, it runs completely contrary to the entire strategy that has been adopted throughout most of the pandemic in using law, not guidance, and crucially, ensuring that the public have clear messaging on what is expected of them.
As we have heard this afternoon, similar guidance will be issued in other areas including my own area of Cheshire West and Chester, alongside Cheshire East and Merseyside, which raises questions about what additional resources and messaging will be put out to public health teams in the affected areas. What is the plan to increase the vaccination rate in those areas? What support will be made available to businesses? How do the Government plan to communicate the guidance effectively?
I have not heard in Government announcements on additional measures for those areas a plan on surge vaccination. Last month, SPI-M-O said that surge vaccination could be successful in preventing an increase in cases in areas where there was a steep rise. It said:
“The extent to which surge vaccination would curb outbreaks of”—
the Delta variant—
“is unknown until evidence for the effectiveness of existing vaccines against it has been established. That does not preclude there being a strong case for prioritising delivering doses in areas where the variant is widespread.”
My question to the Minister is therefore what plan do the Government have to increase the supply of vaccines to affected areas? So far, I have not heard anything that gives me confidence that we will see such an increase. It is all well and good giving the first jab to people in lower age groups in areas of the country that do not have a rise in cases, but the advice is that we need to focus our efforts on those areas that have had the biggest increases in cases of the Delta variant.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded that the situation for those nine areas that were subject to enhanced measures last month was in part caused by continuing confusion over the status of Government guidance and in part by failures in how the advice was communicated. That sums up perfectly the shambles that we got ourselves into last month. The blurring of lines between guidance and law is at best unhelpful and at worst totally undermines confidence in public health messaging. The Government must be much clearer and must do better on this. If measures are necessary to restrict the transmission of the virus, they should not mess about with poorly publicised guidance. If measures are necessary, there should be laws, and they should be put into regulations. That way, everyone knows where they stand and adherence will be better. Parliament can then play its role in ensuring that those measures are necessary and proportionate. Critically, the Government have to articulate why such measures are necessary and what support they intend to put in place to ensure that businesses in the areas affected do not suffer any more from a loss of business due to covid.
Guidance means none of those things happen, and it may be the case that Ministers say that on balance they do not think introducing new laws is necessary, as guidance will do the job. I suspect that that last issue is the reason why we are lapsing back into guidance, rather than law. The Government do not feel they have to provide additional business support if they do not introduce formal restrictions. That is a cop-out, and businesses and individuals who will see a drop in trade as a result of new guidance deserve better support and clarity from Government.
Moving on to another area where a shift from regulation to guidance has caused absolute chaos, and which is also covered by the statutory instrument, I turn to what one of my colleagues in the other place recently referred to as the
“confused mess that is international travel”.
As we know, the regulations have removed the prohibition on international travel and the requirement for individuals to declare their reasons for travelling abroad. Of course, we are all keen to see international travel return as soon as possible, but safety must come first, which is why a strategic approach and clarity from Government are vital. Unfortunately, once again, that is not what we are seeing. There is mass confusion and chaos, with Ministers yet again giving wildly conflicting travel advice about what constitutes the amber list.
Following the announcement on international travel that accompanied the regulations last month, in just one day the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that people could fly to amber-list countries if they wanted to visit family or friends; the Health and Social Care Minister in the other place said that nobody should travel outside Britain this year at all; and the Welsh Secretary said that some people might consider holidays abroad as essential. Three Ministers, three different interpretations in just one day. The following day, the Prime Minister came up with a fourth definition that people could travel in “extreme” circumstances. That in itself is open to interpretation, but it does at least set the bar a little higher, until we remember that the new rules make it easier for people to travel to amber-list countries.
I find it mind-boggling that, having spent the past year painstakingly legislating for every facet of our daily lives in order to suppress transmission of the virus, we find ourselves in a situation whereby one of the biggest threats to our future prosperity—variants—is subject to the Government inexplicably and recklessly letting people interpret the rules for themselves, having demonstrated through their Ministers that there are as many interpretations of the rules as there are people. The confusion over the amber list has led to reports of over 50,000 people travelling to the UK daily, with only a tiny percentage going into hotel quarantine, and a stream of flights entering the UK from amber-list countries. Moving Portugal on to the amber list last week was not the answer. The amber list should be scrapped, and Ministers should introduce a clear plan to manage the confusion that has led to people in Portugal not knowing whether they were coming or going. Does the Minister accept that the way this has been handled so far is gravely damaging for both consumer and business confidence? Does she accept that the system is leaving the door wide open to new strains of the virus and risks undermining the whole purpose of the regulations that we have been debating over the past 12 months?
At the moment, the situation is at risk of delivering the worst of both worlds. International travel is reduced, so the aviation sector and tourism industry are at dire risk without additional Government support, yet lax border controls and Government confusion mean that we are not successfully protecting our borders from emerging variants, as we have discussed with regards to the emergence of the Delta variant. The Government continue to make decisions that are detrimental to public health, with weak and dangerous border protections against covid that put our desire for freedom at risk. We know that the emergence of new variants of concern is the biggest single risk to the road map, so it is beyond frustrating that the Government do not seem to have learned from their previous mishandling of travel restrictions.
We have heard various efforts from Ministers to deny it, but the fact is that it took the Government eight days after banning travel from Bangladesh and Pakistan to introduce a similar restriction on flights from India to come into effect. During that time, travellers from India continued to enter the UK without the need to quarantine in a hotel, with the result that there were dozens of outbreaks around the country. The suggestion that the Prime Minister delayed adding India to the red list until he decided to cancel a scheduled trade visit to India means that his negligence has led to the announcement that he will be making today. There is now a terrible sense of déjà vu, as more variants enter the UK from Thailand, Brazil, South Africa and India.
The confusion around the ambiguity of the amber list must come to an end. We urgently need a comprehensive hotel quarantine system. In the meantime, Ministers should not turn their back on the aviation and travel sectors. As we have been calling for, they should bring forward a sectoral deal that supports the whole aviation industry, including securing jobs in the supply chain.
Last but not least, I will move on to a final element of the regulations in the SI. As we know, it amends the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020 to provide an exemption for gatherings for specified educational and training purposes in community premises, which brings the rules into line with those applied in schools. However, given that cases in many hotspot areas are now concentrated among school-age children and young adults who have not yet had the opportunity to receive either dose of their vaccine, and that a number of local public health authorities in the north-west have issued recommendations to secondary schools about using facemasks again owing to the rising covid transmission rates, mainly due to the Delta variant, is the Minister confident that the relaxation of the rules in this area is wise? Is she able to share with us the advice that informed the decision? Given the surge in infections since the SI was published, are there any plans to revisit the regulations on face coverings in educational settings? What is the most up-to-date advice on the risk of increased transmission as a result of the relaxation? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to those points.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for his contribution. I can begin by saying I agree that his focus needs to be on keeping people safe. However, we are here to discuss the regulations that were put through on the 17th, and once again we had quite a meander around the regulations that might underpin any future decisions. I will focus on the things that I believe I can inform him about, and I have noted and listened to the others, but I do not find them particularly relevant to what we are agreeing here today.
There is a need to take account of the latest data before we make the regulations. We said that the earliest date was going to be the 17th, but no earlier, and the same is true for the recommendations at each level of the road map. There was no promise that the date would be the 17th, and therefore the data that we look at and evaluate is very close to that point in time.
That leads me on to the question of why the statutory instrument is necessary. The Opposition cannot constantly ask for the data to be the most up-to-the-minute data, then not allow us to collect up-to-the-minute data, and refer back to the fact that it is problematic to make the timings fit. That is why we have ended up in this situation. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern that we are always discussing these things after the event, but we need to make sure that we are discussing what is relevant and what is there at the time, to make sure the decisions are as close to the data and as relevant to all of us as they can be.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I think she has misunderstood the point I was making. I am not suggesting for a minute that these decisions should be made earlier: I absolutely agree that the most up-to-date data should be used. What I was saying was that we know what measures were envisaged on that date, because they were set out back in February, so it would have been perfectly possible to put those in regulations at the right time.
Jo Churchill
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that was the indication of the road map, but there is always a need to look at whether we should flex all, some, or none of those things that were outlined in the road map. However, I put on record once again the fact that we appreciate and value the scrutiny role that Parliament plays, and we have tried to balance it with the dynamic nature of the pandemic. That is why we find ourselves on the Floor of the House, in Committee and so on going over these things, which are important.
I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that at all stages, I have tried very hard to be as open and transparent as I can. He has asked me to confirm points about the surge testing and things that are happening in parts of the country today, including his own, but I will gently say that we had a briefing on this earlier, and I do not feel it is relevant to these regulations that came into force on the 17th. As he knows, we had a full discussion with members of the medical profession, Public Health England and so on on that call. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that surge testing includes on-the-ground support from two local authorities; the use of the Army and mobile testing; surge testing and vaccination; supporting schools with their testing programme; and, as he said, PHE working with local schools and college leaders so that they can make the most appropriate decision for themselves and their environment, with reference to local data, rather than applying a blanket proposal.
On vaccination, as has always been the case, we are focusing on those in groups one to nine, making sure that we vaccinate the most vulnerable in a way that is based on age profiles. Our vaccination programme has followed the advice of the relevant committees and so on, and it has proven to be very successful: the way in which we have delivered it is now estimated to have saved some thousands of lives. We also, on any tests of positivity, have full genomic sequencing similar to that for water testing and so on, so I very much refute the idea that we are not making strong progress. Many other countries look towards us.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about travel, the Government’s priority is still protecting public health. At the time that he alluded to, around the beginning of the Delta variant, positive rates were three times higher from Bangladesh than from India, but if the pandemic effort has shown us anything, it is that we are in an incredibly dynamic situation and that things can change very quickly. We cannot just ask for everything to be open; it has to be a steady progression towards opening up—hence the road map.
Step 4 is a cautious plan to ease restrictions. It sets out a “no earlier than” approach, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to be aware that there will be further statements later today; I, too, will be listening attentively when that information comes forward. However, the progress to step 3 of the road map, which we are considering today, represented a considerable achievement. It started a cautious approach to easing lockdown, guided by the data, with the specific aim of avoiding a surge in cases that would have put unsustainable pressure on the NHS and claimed more lives. Data from the Joint Biosecurity Centre, the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling, and Public Health England informed the assessment that all steps at that point were met. We continued to monitor the situation closely, informed by all current data and scientific evidence, and we will continue to work alongside experts to make sure that at each stage of the pandemic we are taking decisions driven by the evidence.
I recognise the impact that the restrictions have had, and their easing is hugely welcome, but there is not one of us in the House who has not been affected, with constituents, local businesses and members of our own family who have struggled over the past 15 months. Making sure that we can progress in a methodical way that does not allow us to slip back is of huge importance. We must all continue to be cautious, follow the rules and take up offers of vaccination as soon as they are made. I thank the hon. Member and take on board his comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Other Provisions) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 585).
Draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations, Tariff Quotas and Wine) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind Members to observe social distancing and sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard colleagues will be most grateful if Members send their speaking notes to hochansardnotes@parliament.uk. I call the Minister to move the motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations, Tariff Quotas and Wine) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The regulations were laid before the House on 13 May 2021. The technical amendments made by the instrument cover three different policy areas: the fruit and vegetables aid scheme, tariff rate quotas, and wine.
First, our amendments will ensure that producer organisations recognised in the fruit and vegetables aid scheme can continue to receive aid for the actions they carry out in any new operational programmes that they implement once they have completed their existing one. The instrument remakes amendments to European Union regulations relating to the fruit and vegetable sectors and the fruit and vegetable producer organisation aid scheme. It includes, for example, activities that can be funded under the scheme, the amount of aid that can be claimed and the requirements that the producer organisation must meet in order to be eligible for funding. The amendments minimise any ambiguity in the rules that will apply to the legacy scheme in the UK until the scheme is switched off in England. The instrument will also make operability amendments to ensure that transnational producer organisations can receive funding in respect of all of their members for the remainder of the current operational programmes once we switch over to retained EU law.
The instrument also remakes amendments to EU regulation 2017/1185 to ensure that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the devolved Administrations can continue to obtain certain production price data from economic operators. The information itself is used for market management purposes, and DEFRA and the devolved Administrations intend to maintain the collection and use of that information in the UK.
In technical terms, the instrument will correct an error relating to the commencement of part 4 of a previous statutory instrument, the Agricultural (Payments) (Amendment, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The amendments in that statutory instrument relating to fruit and vegetable producer groups, fruit and vegetable producer organisations and notifications of agricultural market information to domestic authorities may not come into force as intended at the end of the transition period. The instrument addresses that problem. The instrument also revokes and remakes some provisions made by the Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 concerning fruit and vegetable producer organisations that might not have taken effect for the same reasons.
Secondly, the EU law in question sets out broad provisions on the administration of export tariff quotas that result from international agreements. The amendments we seek to make will ensure that the UK is able to administer export tariff rate quotas. The amendments will allow us to make detailed provisions in a future instrument on the administration of export licences for UK goods that are imported into third countries under tariff rate quotas—for example, UK cheese imported into the United States. Although that will allow UK exporters to continue to benefit from preferential market access, other powers will be needed to ensure that traders in the Crown dependencies can also access any new quotas.
The amendments replace references to the EU with the UK and remove references to the administration of import tariff rate quotas. Those are covered by regulations made under the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Act 2018. Tariff rate quota legislation affects the whole of the UK, as trade is reserved. No policy changes are made by these provisions.
Finally, the provisions on wine include a minor change to entry 1 of the table at annex 9A of retained regulation 1308/13. This change will make it clear that the established wines referred to are those recognised as established protected designation of origins and established protected GIs, or geographical indications, of the type referred to in article 1072 of retained regulation 1308.
This instrument, which is predominantly technical in nature, provides clarity in the context of continuity. I urge Members to agree to the amendments proposed in the regulations.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone.
When this statutory instrument came up, I immediately thought that there was something familiar about it. Not only were the words in a slightly different order, but it struck me that we have discussed much of this before—and of course, we did, with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, back on 2 November 2020. That led me to search my office to find my notes and accompanying speech from that time. I was delighted to find that the previous debate was largely about the errors that were being corrected in the measure that we were debating then. So we are now correcting the errors that were made in correcting the original errors. On one level, that is slightly amusing, but of course it is serious as well.
I noted that in the Minister’s typically very clear account, her speechwriter delicately suggested that there was an ambiguity. Actually, the person who wrote the explanatory memorandum was slightly less generous, because that says:
“this instrument fixes an error”.
It does not just correct but “fixes an error”.
In the debate in November, I remember gently teasing the Minister because it seemed to me that there were layers and layers of meaning being uncovered; I even suggested that it was a bit like a detective novel, although it was not clear who the villain was. Well, this time it is all too clear, and the Minister is named in the explanatory memorandum. Paragraph 3.1 clearly details the previous instrument, which the Minister agreed, but goes on to say:
“Due to an error in the commencement provision relating to Part 4 of the Agriculture (Payments) (Amendment, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, there is doubt as to whether Part 4 of that instrument, purporting”—
“purporting” indeed—
“to amend retained EU legislation, took effect.”
Quite clearly, something went badly wrong and we are here today to correct it.
You will be delighted to know, Mr Hollobone, that we will not oppose this correction, because we want things to work, but there are some questions to ask. It would appear that since our discussion last year, there has been a fault in the legislation, so it is not unreasonable to ask what have the Government been unable to do between now and then as a consequence of that fault? I ask because these instruments give the Government powers to do things, so what has been the impact of the fault?
I have never got the sense that the Government are particularly keen on many of these programmes anyway, but have fruit and vegetable organisations been disadvantaged? Have checks been carried out to ensure that the payments have been made correctly? If they have been, without the correct legal basis, what is the consequence? I recall the discussion last time. I think that the Minister told us that there are 33 such schemes. I assume that the problem would really have come out if there were new schemes to be established. I suspect that that probably has not been the case; otherwise, we might have heard complaints.
Given that this does seem to be a slightly hypothetical legal argument, I wonder why we get to spend time on this measure, which does not appear to have much real-world impact, but—I think the Minister knows where I am going—we have spent more than a year trying to get a satisfactory answer about how things such as suspending and restoring competition law in the food chain came and went. I imagine that, in the end, it is because the Government do not really want us to talk about it and the Government have control of the procedures.
As the Minister said, and as is explained in paragraph 2.9 of the explanatory memorandum, this SI also allows export tariff quotas to be opened up and administered. The Minister gave some extra detail—I was listening closely—but what has been happening in the first six months of this year? Have we had that ability, or have we not? What have been the consequences?
I have to reflect, perhaps slightly cheekily on the cusp of a rumoured Australian trade agreement, on what has been given away in return; perhaps we will come back to that later in the week. Finally, in paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum, there is talk of transnational producer organisations. Last time in discussion, we established that there might be four of them. Do we know the impact of the changes on them?
In conclusion, I do not think that we need to take the full hour and a half to discuss the draft regulations. We agree that these are sensible changes, but I will be grateful for the ministerial response to the few questions I have asked.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those points. I reassure him and the Committee that we take the way in which SIs are drafted very seriously. It is an important task, just as the work the Committee is doing this afternoon is important, and I do not want to minimise that at all by saying that many of the fixes are to do with dates.
The hon. Gentleman will remember well the context in which we were working in November—we had no idea at that point whether there would be a trade and co-operation agreement. I am glad that one has come into effect. We are also dealing with 40 years of EU legislation and how we can best use it to do the right thing for producer organisations in this country. He is right to say that there is layer on layer of meaning. I am a great lover of detective fiction. In particular, I enjoy the complexities in “golden age” detective fiction. I am extremely keen to ensure that we get our new legislative programme right in as transparent a way as possible. I am always happy to take up details with the hon. Gentleman, whether outside or inside our debates on SIs.
As for the ambiguity, it is ambiguous—I am frank about that. We do not know that we will need this draft SI, but we think it is better to get the legislation absolutely clear, so that the people using it are aware of the position. We do not feel that POs have been disadvantaged in the early part of this year, but we want to get it right now.
I am extremely happy to talk about suspending competition law with the hon. Gentleman at any point. I do not know that this Committee is the place to do that, but I will say that those suspensions were done in the context of the early stages of the pandemic, when we were extremely concerned about getting food on to the shelves. I am very proud of the work that was done to assist our retailers in making sure that our population was fed. With that in mind, I hope the Committee will agree to the amendments in the draft regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Gambling regulation
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
Israel and Palestine
(3 years, 5 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
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal 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 also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate.
I remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members who are attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address, westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. Members who are attending physically should clean their spaces before using them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall. Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should use the Public Gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats become available. Members can speak from the horseshoe only where there are microphones.
Before I move on, we will have a formal time limit of three minutes, given the amount of interest and the number of people speaking. After Catherine McKinnell, there will be a limit of three minutes, and I exhort Members to stick to it, or we will have to drop it down a little.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 585313 and 585314, relating to Israel and Palestine.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to lead this incredibly important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. As hon. Members will be aware, the Committee decided to schedule a single debate on both petitions related to this topic.
Before I begin, I draw hon. Members’ attention to something that will be depressingly familiar from previous conflicts in the middle east. According to the Community Security Trust, there has been a sharp rise in antisemitic incidents in the UK in the past month, since the violence began. That is totally unacceptable and should serve as a reminder to everyone in public life that words have consequences and that we must always avoid the kind of inflammatory language that fans the flames of hate and racism, and puts the security and safety of Jewish communities at risk.
We were all shocked and horrified to see the tragic and heartbreaking violence in Gaza and Israel last month. I know this issue provokes strong emotions, both in the country and in the House, and the roots of that conflict are deep, complex and highly contested. I hope, however, that we can begin this debate with a point of agreement among all Members: the latest round of violence has improved conditions for no-one, be they Palestinian or Israeli. The loss of life, including so many children, is heartbreaking and my thoughts are with all those who have lost loved ones. I am sure hon. Members will have shared the horror at the indiscriminate firing of thousands of rockets by Hamas from Gaza into Israel, and the Israeli actions that have killed Palestinian civilians.
More than half a million people have signed the two petitions. One petition calls on the Government to recognise Palestine as a state, while the other advocates the blocking of all trade between the UK and Israel. As vice-chair of Labour Friends of Israel and a parliamentary supporter of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East, I share the deeply held concerns for the plight of the Palestinian people. Colleagues who have visited the region will know that the desire of the Palestinians to live in dignity and peace in a state of their own is unmistakable. Their aspiration for self-determination is one that we should wholeheartedly support; it is right for the Palestinian people, and it is right for the Israeli people.
I do not believe, however, that sweeping sanctions of the kind proposed by the second petition would bring the prospect of a two-state solution any closer. As the Government’s written response says, we should
“not hesitate to express disagreement with Israel whenever …necessary,”
but sanctions threaten to drive the two sides further apart, increase polarisation and extremism, and weaken the voices of Israeli and Palestinian peacemakers. Blocking all trade between the UK and Israel would destroy our relations with Israel and reduce our influence in the middle east. The only long-term sustainable solution to the conflict, and the only way that we can end the sporadic and sickening outbursts of violence, is for the two peoples of that beautiful land to have states of their own, with Israel safe, secure, and recognised within its borders, living alongside an independent Palestinian state.
Former Israeli President and Prime Minister Shimon Peres famously remarked that the tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that
“there is light at the end of the tunnel. The bad news is there is no tunnel”.
He meant that most fair-minded observers know what a peaceful resolution to this long-running conflict would look like: a gradual sequence of confidence-building measures, eventually culminating in a two-state solution. The lack of a process and a foundation to get to that point is the key problem.
It is an immense reliefthat the ceasefire in Gaza is holding up, but if we want to look back on this as the point at which a peace process became possible, there must be meaningful dialogue between Israel and Palestinians. For too long it felt as though Palestinian groups did not really want a peace process, while the Netanyahu Government felt that they did not need a peace process. The latest eruption of violence shows how unsustainable such notions are.
The approval of a new coalition Government in Israel offers an opportunity to kickstart the process towards a peaceful two-state solution, but peace is not within the gift of one side alone. It will require painful compromises and concessions by both sides and the kind of leadership, imagination and generosity that has rarely been evident on the part of the Netanyahu Government or Palestinian representatives in past negotiations. A two-state solution can be brought about only by bringing Israelis and Palestinians closer together, but as we all know too well, the response of the international community has too often been marked by a combination of frenzied activity followed by long periods of inaction that are interrupted only by the occasional futile gesture. It is time for a new approach—one that does not ignore the necessity and centrality of the political process, but that is not held hostage by its ups and downs. It involves a massive programme of international investment in peacebuilding in Israel and Palestine—one that can begin to construct the civic society foundations upon which any lasting peace deal will have to rest.
Earlier this month, I was pleased to join 64 parliamentary colleagues in support of the establishment of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Such strong cross-party backing was also evident in the Westminster Hall debate that I led on this topic last November, and in the widespread support for the Bill that was introduced by the former Member for Enfield North in January 2017. Designed by the Alliance for Middle East Peace, such an international fund would invest $200 million annually in grassroots people-to-people projects. Some might question whether sports and summer clubs, tech training and environmental projects can really help to bring 70 years of pain and suffering to an end, but I believe they can, because we have seen such an approach work in the recent past.
The example of the International Fund for Ireland shows the transformative impact that civic society peacebuilding work can play in helping to end seemingly intractable conflicts. Established in 1985, a dark time when the Troubles seemed as intractable as the conflict in the middle east does today, the IFI eventually grew to encompass more than 6,000 people-to-people projects. The fund opened new space for politicians and helped to bring about a reservoir of public support in both the Unionist and nationalist communities, which has sustained peace in Northern Ireland, through multiple ups and downs, over the past two decades. Not for nothing did Britain’s chief negotiator, Jonathan Powell, later hail the International Fund for Ireland as “the great unsung hero” of the peace process.
The middle east need be no different. Indeed, there is now a robust body of academic research and evidence to suggest that the peacebuilding projects already operating on the ground significantly improve Israeli and Palestinian participants’ attitudes to one other and lead to higher levels of trust and co-operation, more conflict resolution values, and less aggression and loneliness. The problem is that such projects have not received the attention, focus and money that they need and deserve to really have an impact. Although the International Fund for Ireland has invested $44 per person per year in peacebuilding work, only around $2 per person is invested every year in Israel and Palestine. That could all be about to change, however. In December, the US Congress passed the Middle East Partnership for Peace Act with strong bipartisan support. It will invest $250 million over the next five years in peacebuilding work—the largest such investment ever—and the legislation is designed to evolve in a multinational direction if other countries wish to participate. Indeed, it specifically creates seats on its board that are reserved for foreign Governments or other international actors.
In the Westminster Hall debate that I secured last November, Ministers promised to examine the feasibility of British participation in the new US initiative, as a step towards its development of a truly international institution. Sadly, despite endorsing the concept of an international fund in 2018, thus far the Government have dragged their feet. Last year, they even eliminated funding for the People for Peaceful Change programme, the UK’s own small-scale investment in peace-building work.
Despite the Prime Minister’s talk of a global Britain, last week he failed to seize the opportunity of the G7 summit to work with President Biden to galvanise international support for the fund. With or without Britain, this is a project whose time has come. It reflects the reality that no successful peace process happens without the will and the engagement of the people, as they come together and demand a better future for their children.
I will close today with the words of Mahmoud Darwish, the Palestinian poet:
“‘Me’ or ‘Him’—
Thus begins the war. But it
Ends with an awkward encounter:
‘Me and him.’”
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I begin by congratulating the new Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, and Yair Lapid on forming a new Government in Israel. This is the first time in half a century that an Israeli Arab party has sat in a coalition Government, and it is a very welcome development. It is a clear demonstration of Israel’s vibrant democracy, and I wish the new Government every success.
It is regrettable that the petitions being debated today do not reflect the reality that Israel is a beacon of hope in a region of instability, and an important ally of the United Kingdom. I have been involved in Israeli-Palestinian affairs for almost 15 years now—that is, for a little longer than Benjamin Netanyahu was Prime Minister. People may judge which of us is the genuine survivor in all of this.
It is a simple fact that boycotts of Israel harm Palestinians, tens of thousands of whom work for Israeli companies on higher wages than they could earn elsewhere. The implications of blocking all trade and sanctioning Israel, as the petitions call for, are grave, not only for Israelis and Palestinians but for the British people. More than 500 Israeli companies operate in the UK, employing thousands of British workers. Before covid, UK-Israel trade reached more than £5 billion a year, and it continued to grow despite the pandemic.
Generic medicines produced by the Israeli company Teva save the NHS billions of pounds every year, and I expect that at one point or another many of us have benefited from these treatments, as no one provides more medicines to the NHS than Teva. British scientists work with Israeli scientists on groundbreaking medical research, and our two countries are working closely in the fight against covid-19.
I welcome the Government’s firm opposition to Israeli boycotts, and I hope that the Minister will reiterate how harmful and divisive they are. The petitions were signed during the latest violence between Israel and Hamas, when Hamas targeted Israeli civilians and put Palestinians in harm’s way. Israel’s strikes in response to those indiscriminate attacks were, by contrast, precise, targeting only militants and terrorist infrastructure. Every civilian casualty is regrettable—a view also held, incidentally, by the Israel defence forces, but not, it would seem, by Hamas. The crucial context is often neglected by those who call for arms embargoes and say that Israel’s response was disproportionate. On that, I shall leave the matter in abeyance.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
Like many thousands of my constituents, I watched in absolute horror a few weeks ago when violence was used against worshippers gathering during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan at the al-Aqsa mosque. The scenes were truly shocking. They were deeply painful to watch and they motivated many thousands of my constituents to write to me. Like me, so many of them were thinking, “There but for the grace of God go I”.
The ceasefire is, of course, welcome. We all pray that it holds and is strengthened, and that a path forward can be charted, but it is essential that all holy sites in that holiest of cities—holy to so many people of many different faiths—are protected and respected. I press the Minister to do whatever he can to ensure that there is no repeat of the scenes we saw just a few short weeks ago.
The history of Palestine and Israel is in so many ways a perpetual cycle of loss, sorrow and conflict, pierced only occasionally by moments of hope and fleeting opportunities for positive and lasting change. Even those moments have become ever rarer in recent years, with a cycle of violence that has decimated entire communities, led to the loss of countless lives, and laid bare the shaky foundations on which any aspirations of a negotiated, diplomatic settlement have been built. The goal of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel remains the shared objective of so many in this House and all over the world, but in truth, it has rarely seemed further away. The end of Benjamin Netanyahu’s 12 years as Prime Minister of Israel at least suggests that a path towards a settlement, political and practical, could be charted. Indeed, the high-wire balancing act that led to his removal points to a long-missing political tenacity that could bode well.
However, among those who have removed an indisputable roadblock to peace are some with still greater belligerence, with opinions more extreme and entrenched even than Benjamin Netanyahu’s. The fact that they will serve alongside those with an unequivocal commitment to a viable two-state solution is welcome, and it is perhaps to them that we must reiterate that the illegal occupation and proposed annexation of the west bank is violating international law. Only when they accept that can we make progress in the field of peace. Any and every road towards a just and lasting peace requires that the occupation is brought to a permanent end, with both Palestinians and Israelis enjoying true and meaningful security, dignity and human rights.
Some may try to argue that formal annexation has been stopped—that we no longer need be concerned. It is impossible to articulate adequately how dangerous and misguided such counsel is. The truth is that illegal settlement expansion has continued, and Palestinians are still being evicted from their homes. I cannot condone these violations of international law, nor should anyone in this House or in the international community. The Labour party has repeatedly called on the UK Government to object to the expansion of settlements in the strongest possible terms, and we have raised this issue in Parliament, in public, and directly with the Israeli ambassador to the UK. I urge the Minister today to change the dial on the facts on the ground by recognising the state of Palestine.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
If colleagues wish to remove their jackets in the light of the heat, they should feel free to do so.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Dowd. Today’s debate on recognising the state of Palestine and holding Israel accountable for its complete contempt for international law and human rights is not timely, because it should have happened a long time ago. I find it heartbreaking that after decades of violence, illegal occupation, the demolition of Palestinians’ homes and complete disregard for their lives, we are still debating the very basics. This Government have a policy of a two-state solution, but paradoxically they are yet to even recognise the state of Palestine. This lip service has cost lives and entrenched the de facto annexation of Palestinian land, and it sends a loud and clear message that Palestine is not equal.
Of the 193 member states of the United Nations, 138 have recognised the state of Palestine. The UK is not one of them. I recently received a response from the Minister stating that the UK would recognise a Palestinian state at the time when it best served the objectives of peace. If we truly believe that the time is not now—frankly, it is already too late—we must deeply rethink our religious, moral and political philosophy.
A two-state solution and equality cannot be discussed without talking about the occupation, which is the root cause of so many of the issues at hand, from evictions to inequality. Such acts only entrench divisions and make peace harder to achieve. Will the Minister openly condemn illegal annexations and evictions, and urge the Israeli authorities to end their impunity? These shocking scenes during the holy month of Ramadan—far-right Israeli groups chanting “Death to Arabs”, the storming of the holy al-Aqsa mosque and the bombing of the media building in Gaza—are beyond contemptible, and yet there is zero accountability for Israeli actions.
The reality is that the Minister already knows all this. We must move away from a debate on Hamas versus Israel’s right to defence, and tangibly work towards a peace process that respects and demands human rights, equality, international law, accountability and the recognition of Palestine. If the Minister is serious about a genuine two-state solution, will he commit to ending the arms trade with Israel? The UK has a moral obligation to uphold international law.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I begin by saying that I made a serious mistake, though I was not alone in making it: in the period when hostilities were diminished, I deprioritised the issue of Israel and Palestine, prioritising instead the things that seemed most pressing. The problem, of course, is that the conflict has not gone away; it has returned with a dreadful ferocity, only made worse by the intervening events. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I will not do it again; I will come back to him again and again and ask what the Government are doing to further the cause of a two-state solution. I voted to recognise the state of Palestine. If we are serious about a two-state solution, it is important that this Parliament, and Parliaments and Governments elsewhere, recognise the state of Palestine.
There is enormous passion on the issue in Wycombe. About 17% of my electors in the last census are British Asians. I think overwhelmingly that means that they are British Muslims, they are Kashmiris. I say to my right hon. Friend as gently as I can that there is a real problem that on the issues of Kashmir and Palestine British Muslims feel that people are being persecuted, and that that persecution is being neglected—a blind eye is being turned—because they are Muslims. However true or untrue that may be, it is incumbent on me, as their Member of Parliament, to call it out and to say that of course that would not be acceptable if that is what is happening. The very thought that it might be happening would tend to radicalise opinion. We cannot have that—not one bit of it. We must act, and we must be seen to act.
I wish to say a huge thank you to community leaders in Wycombe, in particular the imams. Having seen some conduct elsewhere in the UK on this issue, when a protest was held in Wycombe I feared what might take place, but I could not be more pleased or more proud of what our imams said. One speech in particular was brought to my attention that I think anyone of good faith, in particular any of the three Abrahamic faiths, could get behind as a speech of humanity and dignity.
Finally, there is a book that it has been suggested that I read over the summer that I recommend others reflect on. It is a book called “I Shall Not Hate” by a doctor called Izzeldin Abuelaish. In 2009, his three daughters were killed by Israeli shells. What a terrible thing, but if he shall not hate then I recommend that approach to everyone.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]
As a new Administration takes over in Israel, we debate the Palestinian question in the mother of Parliaments. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has previously stated:
“I will do everything in my power, forever, to fight against a Palestinian state”.
My welcome message to Mr Bennett, and those who support him in the Knesset, is that the mood music is changing. The world is waking up to Israel’s actions, and all those who want to see lasting peace in the region know that to achieve such peace we must end the occupation, injustice and oppression, and that starts with recognising a viable Palestinian state.
In the past, Prime Minister Bennett has ruled out the transfer of even a centimetre of land to the Arabs and boasted:
“I’ve killed lots of Arabs in my life—and there’s no problem with that.”
The unwelcome news to him is that those of us around the world who condemn the killing of all civilians, be they Israeli or Palestinian, will not remain silent if even a centimetre more of Palestinian land is illegally annexed, and we will not be silent in pushing for Israel to be tried in the International Criminal Court for war crimes if any more Palestinian blood is unjustly spilled under a perverted interpretation of a right to self-defence, while completely ignoring the crucial principles of distinction, precaution and proportionality.
For five decades, the Palestinian territories of East Jerusalem, the west bank and Gaza have been under occupation—the longest lasting occupation in the world today. If Palestinian children in Gaza make it to the age of 21, they will have witnessed five brutal wars, 14 years of which they have spent in one of the largest open-air prisons on the world, under a land, air and sea blockade. Human Rights Watch has declared the situation in Israel as “apartheid”. Amnesty International has stated that Israel’s
“systematic discrimination, dispossession and displacement”
of Palestinians is
“at the root of the ongoing violence we see today.”
War on Want declared:
“The UK government regularly approves military technology and arms exports to Israel, including for weapons of the type used in clear violation of international law. This means that the UK is providing material support for Israel’s illegal use of force, and an infrastructure to sustain that force through the ongoing trade in arms.”
Our Government have an immediate moral and political duty to act on Palestine. The Government cannot meet their word about a two-state solution while they recognise only a single state—it will not work. Let me be clear: the only party stopping the UK from recognising the state of Palestine is the Conservative Government. While they send empty words, the only thing stopping the UK supporting, rather than blocking, a United Nations inquiry to investigate the underlying root causes of the conflict in the region is the Conservative Government.
In the recent siege, for every Israeli killed, more than 21 Palestinians were killed. For every Israeli child killed, 33 Palestinian children were killed. While all the parties condemn aggression and illegality on either side, the only party that turns a blind eye to Israel’s actions and questions of violation of international law is the Conservative Government. The blinkers have been taken off the eyes of the world. The reality of Israel’s actions is clear. The Palestinians have suffered for too long. The time for empty words is over. The Government must act or the electorate will.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
The desire of Jewish people to have their own homeland existed for a long time before the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. I want to see Israel exist as a secure state, at peace with all its neighbours and free from the appalling rocket attacks that its people suffered recently at the hands of Hamas terrorists. It is vital that Jewish people all over the world can live in safety and complete security, and free from fear. I have been struck by the heightened sense of fear that my Jewish constituents have expressed to me in recent days. Our commitment to the safety, security and wellbeing of Jewish people in this country must be complete and absolute.
Palestinians on the west bank and in Gaza and the occupied territories all share that same desire for self-determination and a state of their own. The British Government are committed to the creation of a Palestinian state, and said in February that they will recognise the Palestinian state at the time of their choosing and
“when it best serves the objective of peace”.
That has been the position the British Government for many years. I want to probe the Government further on when the time of their choosing will be. My particular concern is that the increase in the building of illegal settlements in the occupied territories may mean that any recognition comes too late, because the land will simply not be there to create a viable Palestinian state.
I was struck by the words of Yossi Mekelberg, a professor of international relations and associate fellow of Chatham House. He said:
“For too long, the issue of recognition has been framed as a prize waiting for the Palestinians at the end of negotiations. This has always put Palestinian negotiators in an inferior position around the negotiation table vis-a-vis Israel, which is not only a superior military and economic force that is occupying its land, but one that is formally a state. Laying to rest the question…of Palestinian self-determination would accelerate the peace negotiations and give them a better chance of succeeding.”
Is that not the central point? A peaceful and viable Palestinian state would also be in Israel’s best interests, and profoundly in its long-term security interests as well. The dividend to Israel of having a generation of young Palestinians growing up next to it who no longer hated Israel would be immense. Recognition could be a spur to achieving peace. Many of us are left thinking, “If not now, when?”
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I declare a non-pecuniary interest as the chair of Labour Friends of Israel, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for the reasonable and conciliatory tone with which she introduced the debate. Like her, I am committed to a two-state solution as the only way that the Palestinian and Israeli people can hope to live in peace and security.
It is my view that, following the recent conflict, we cannot just settle for a ceasefire and another stalemate. We should take advantage of events such as the formation of the new Government in Israel, the Abraham accords and President Biden’s support for an international peace and reconciliation fund as an opportunity to push for fresh peace negotiations. It would be really heartening to hear from the Minister that, following the G7, the UK will commit to playing our full part as a member of the international peace and reconciliation fund.
I say to colleagues who disagree with me that, like them, I want a viable and democratic Palestinian state, but I doubt the wisdom of willing it as a unilateralist gesture. I remind those who are keen to use international law in such debates that conditions for statehood in international law include an independent Government who exercise control over a defined territory. Those conditions are not met. The reality is that there are now two Palestines—one under weak Palestinian Authority control, and the other under Hamas military occupation.
What exactly are we being asked to recognise? Hamas has already taken advantage of the weakness of Abbas. What is the incentive for a negotiated outcome, if we capitulate to them now? Are those who push for sanctions saying that they oppose Israel’s right to defend itself? Is it okay to live each day with the threat of an air raid siren? How would we feel if a bomb shelter was part of everyday planning requirements for a new home? How would we feel about going to bed with the threat of a tunnel attack occurring in the night?
Those who deny the threat from Hamas and the existence of its propaganda, and who fail to acknowledge the actions that it engages in, are making excuses for it. They are too willing to condemn Israel, and too ready to turn a blind eye to Hamas atrocities. We need a better approach to this. We need an approach that is diligent, serious and designed to bring about proper and lasting peace.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I find myself agreeing with virtually every word that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) just said, and I concur with his viewpoint on this issue. Clearly this debate is very timely, with the formation of the new Government in Israel. I am sure we all wish them well, as they have managed to bring together different partners in the new Government. Many people’s hopes for reconciliation and peace rest on them.
I long for us to be able to recognise the state of Palestine, as one of the petitions calls for, but we have to be absolutely clear about the main roadblock to being able to achieve that: Hamas. For as long as the Palestinian territories are in the grip of a proscribed terrorist organisation whose the stated aim is to wipe Israel and the Jewish people off the face of the earth, Hamas is the biggest roadblock to our being able to recognise the state of Palestine and move forward with a peace process. I am convinced, as I know the vast majority of people in the House are, that the only answer to peace in the region is a two-state solution, but that cannot be achieved while we have one party in that process in the grip of a terror organisation. I often think how we in the UK would react if camped on our doorstep was a terrorist organisation the stated aim of which was to wipe us off the earth and drive us into the sea. We would not welcome other parties recognising that state officially, and we have to be realistic about the real roadblock.
I do not believe that Hamas are friends to the genuine, decent people of Palestine. Let us remember that in the recent attacks, one in seven rockets launched by Hamas were actually misfired or landed on Palestinian territory. In that conflict, more Palestinians were killed by Hamas rockets than by any action by the Israelis. I do not say that the Israelis are blameless; sometimes what they do is provocative and disproportionate, and they do have to take some responsibility, but I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself against those terrorist attacks, which are the key block to peace.
I am privileged to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Christianity in the holy land. The APPG works to promote the rights of Christians and other religious minorities in the middle east. I know that the Minister is aware of the work that we have done, and I have invited him to meet Christian leaders there. Israel is a beacon of democracy and freedom in the middle east, and we should stand up for the rights of all religious minorities in that place. No one other than Israel in the middle east is doing that, so I believe that we need to stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and be clear about what the main roadblock to peace is.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The decades of conflict and violence between Israelis and Palestinians have been a source of unimaginable horrors and of pain and suffering for generations with little hope of peace. What we saw in the attacks on the al-Aqsa mosque, and in the cycle of violence between the Israeli military and Hamas, is the reality of civilian suffering in the latest escalation of the violence.
Although the ceasefire is welcome, let us ensure that our Government take the necessary steps to make sure it is maintained. Let us take stock and remember how many people have sadly lost their lives: a total of 256 Palestinians, including 66 children and six people with disabilities, were killed during the 11-day military assault on Gaza, while nearly 2,000 were injured between 10 May and the ceasefire announcement on 21 May. Since 7 May, 35 Palestinians have been killed in the west bank and occupied East Jerusalem, and, according to the Palestine Red Crescent Society, 7,056 have been injured. In Israel, 13 people were killed by rockets fired by Palestinian armed factions.
We need to ensure that the international community, led by the US with our Government and others, works together to ensure a negotiated settlement to secure peace in that region, otherwise the cycle of conflict and violence will continue. That is why it is so important that our Government listens to the many, in Parliament and across the country, who have campaigned for the recognition of Palestinian statehood. Some of us were in Parliament when campaigning for statehood came up previously. We need our Government to work with our international partners to ensure that the Israeli Government, as well as Hamas, are held to account for the atrocities that they have committed. We need to ensure that civilians are not caught in the crossfire and that they are protected against the conflict.
Ultimately, the only way we can prevent the cycle of violence is through a negotiated settlement. That is why it is vital that our Government play their part and, frankly, their actions have been found wanting.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in congratulating the new Israeli Government, and Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, on gaining a majority in the Knesset yesterday. I say to him, mazel tov and good luck.
I am deeply concerned by the substance of the petitions. I consider myself a friend of both Israel and the Palestinian people, and I do not believe that these petitions will result in any positive outcome for either. The language that these petitions employ is clearly inflammatory, breeds misunderstanding and foments hatred and hostility.
As we have seen in recent weeks, divisive language has directly fuelled antisemitism in the UK, leading to attacks on our Jewish communities, including in my constituency, in Prestwich and in Whitefield. The Community Security Trust recorded more antisemitic incidents in May than in any month since records began. I pay tribute to CST for its important and fantastic work in protecting the community, but it should not be necessary. We should not need security guards at our schools and places of worship. In my very first meeting with its staff, I told them that it is my duty to make sure that guards are no longer needed, and I will continue to do that work.
We have seen vehicle convoys intimidate Jewish people and mezuzahs removed from Jewish homes and desecrated. In my constituency, Jewish people have told me that they were afraid to even walk to synagogue. This is a truly terrible state of affairs. Openly antisemitic banners were held at last weekend’s rally in central London, with Israel described as a Nazi state. It is shameful that British politicians were present and did not condemn the overt antisemitism on display.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is deeply complex, and it is reckless to make over-simplifications by suggesting that Israeli actions are disproportionate or that Israel is persecuting Palestinians, as these petitions do. We are talking about a liberal democracy, the world’s only Jewish state, being attacked by an internationally proscribed terror group committed to its destruction. There cannot be any justification for these attacks, which have targeted communities, homes, schools and even nurseries.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to ban boycotts against Israel, which divide our communities, and I hope this legislation is brought forward soon so that we can provide the peace of mind that my constituents seek.
The overdue EU study of the Palestinian Authority’s school curriculum has reportedly found evidence of antisemitism and incitement to violence. Will the Minister ensure that that report is published as a matter of urgency? It is a troubling prospect that teachers supported by UK taxpayers’ money use textbooks that normalise violence. Just as we rightly call out antisemitism in the UK, we must call it out abroad, in the west bank and Gaza.
It is only through direct peace talks that a two-state solution will be achieved. Although I will not start my own petition on this subject, I hope that such a petition will gain far more support than those we are debating today.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. It is a real honour to speak on such a critical issue. I also wish to declare a non-pecuniary interest as chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East.
We recently passed the 54th anniversary of the occupation of the Palestinian territory, one of the longest occupations in history. The daily lives of Palestinians are worse than ever. This is a disgrace, and the British Government, who have an historic responsibility in this area, should work with the international community to take action now to end the deterioration of the situation and improve the lives of Palestinian people as well as of Israeli citizens.
I condemn violence whoever perpetrates it, and I feel strongly that those perpetrating violence should be held accountable. The reality of the recent violence is that since 7 May, during the 10-day military assault on Gaza, 256 Palestinian people have been killed, including 66 children and six people with disabilities, with almost 2,000 injured. In Israel, 13 people were killed by rockets. This is the disproportionate nature of the violence. This is not self-defence by Israel—this is aggression. I defend Israel’s right to self-defence, but this is not that. Every one of those deaths and injuries is wrong, a tragedy and should not happen. Accountability, whether for the Israeli Government or Hamas, should follow. The Government have a responsibility to try to make that happen through the international courts.
The situation post ceasefire is not the status quo, which in itself is not good enough. Only this morning in occupied East Jerusalem, municipal inspectors in the Al-Bustan area of Silwan were handing out demolition notices. The situation in Gaza is deteriorating, not de-escalating, not improving. The medical situation in Gaza is desperate. During the assault, two prominent Palestinian doctors were killed and nine hospitals were damaged, as were 19 clinics, including a covid-19 testing centre and Gaza’s only covid-19 laboratory. In East Jerusalem, 48 attacks happened, damaging 16 ambulances, and there were 18 incidents of denying medical access. These latest attacks are examples of decades-long violence against healthcare.
The violence may have stopped but the situation on the ground has not improved. The Government should ban goods from illegal settlements and recognise the state of Palestine now. They should take action with the international community to ensure that international law is upheld.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, and thank you for squeezing me into the debate.
All of us will have been appalled at the loss of life in the conflict in Gaza and in Israel last month, particularly the loss of life of non-combatants and many children, who we saw on our television screens. The real tragedy is not that, but rather that this will happen again—next week, next month, next year—and it will keep happening until the root cause of the conflict is tackled. As the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) has just said, the root cause of the conflict is the fact that Israel is in military occupation of the Palestinian territories that were designated for a future state of Palestine.
From an Israeli point of view, it makes sense to continue that occupation. Not only do the Israeli Government not set any policy to end that occupation, but with every day and week that passes, through the process of settlement building, evictions and other measures, that occupation is entrenched, to the point where, in the words of B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organisation, there is now a “one-state reality”.
Within that one-state reality, people’s life chances and how they are treated are fundamentally different depending on whether they are Palestinian or Israeli. For more than 50 years, Israel has maintained this policy almost consequence free. Of course, there have been many UN resolutions and people have wrung their hands and said, “It’s not right,” but Israel has been able to maintain this military occupation pretty much unrestricted.
The petitions before us today are from people who are clearly concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people. I ask colleagues, particularly those on the other side of the argument, to see things through their eyes for a moment. If we do not take action to persuade Israel to end the occupation and bring about a two-state reality, we are breeding further despair among Palestinian communities and galvanising the extreme right wing of Israeli politics, resulting in a situation where groups such as Hamas fill the political void. That is why we need to take action.
The new Israeli and American Governments provide a moment for this country to step up to the mark and do something. If people say that a boycott of Israel will not work, the question that the Government have to answer is, “What sanctions should be applied to try to make the Israeli Government behave in a manner consistent with international law?” Surely this must be the time to recognise Palestine. If we are sincere about a two-state solution, we cannot say that on the one hand and refuse to recognise one of those states on the other.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I remind the House of my interim entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and that I serve as a director of the advisory board of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding.
The two petitions address probably two of the most substantial issues that we could have hoped to have before us. I thank the Petitions Committee for allowing this debate, but I am afraid that the belief that any meaningful analysis of the issues at hand can be achieved in a three-minute speech represents optimism beyond even that which I possess.
Picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), I have visited Palestine twice and have seen what he refers to as the “one-state reality”. I know exactly what he means. However, the point about the one-state reality, as he describes it, is that it is no solution. The only solution is a two-state solution, and if it is a solution that does not involve two states in a meaningful way, it is no solution.
The yardstick by which the Minister and British foreign policy should be guided is always to ask one simple question: will this make the achievement of a two-state solution more or less likely? Looking around Palestine, we see that the settlement-building programme on the west bank makes the achievement of a two-state solution manifestly less likely, and it should be condemned by our Government accordingly. It is also beyond peradventure that Britain should recognise Palestine as a state. To those who have suggested that that is not possible because it is not quite the right time, I gently say that the reason that Palestine does not control her own territory goes back to the circumstances that pertained in 1967 and subsequently. There is now no good reason for that not to be the case.
In the context of the recent conflict in Palestine, I hope that the Minister and our Government will look very closely at the deployment of arms that would have come from this country. Like others, I bow to no one in my acceptance of Israel’s right to defend herself, but we all know that self-defence in law, wherever we find it, must always be commensurate, appropriate and proportionate, and what we saw was none of those things. The idea that these events were contributed to by arms sold from this country is something that many people, wherever they stand on the debate, find disturbing.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing this important debate at a crucial fork in the road for Israel’s Government, following Naftali Bennett’s replacing Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister yesterday. I hope that the new Administration will listen to the voices of Governments around the world on the issue of justice in Palestine and urgently change direction, because for too long peace and the hope of peace has been crushed by military might. I know that a large number of my Labour colleagues wish to speak in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), whose constituency had the highest number of signatories, alongside mine, to the petition that urges the UK Government to recognise the state of Palestine.
In recent weeks, we have witnessed millions of people marching in almost every major city in the world. Israel’s illegal occupations, annexations and bombardment of the Palestinian people and those trying simply to exist in Gaza can no longer be ignored. Indeed, there is an enormous sense of anger and injustice in my constituency of Ilford South, which has the highest number of signatories to the petition, at around 6,000. Individually, 5,000 people in my constituency have written to me. This has happened during the covid pandemic, which shows that people care deeply about what is happening around the world. My constituents rightly feel that human rights abuses should be challenged, be they in Kashmir, Myanmar, Yemen or, indeed, in Gaza.
Although people are rightly concerned about events in the middle east, I want to be clear that it is never acceptable for members of the Jewish community, both in my Ilford South constituency and across the UK, to be subject to criticism, abuse and attacks because of the actions of the Israeli Government. It is clear that there is a huge groundswell of support for justice as the escalation of this conflict has continued, with the needless deaths of civilians on both sides, the recent illegal seizure of land and the incendiary storming of the al-Aqsa mosque. The proliferation of evictions, demolitions and new settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories not only runs counter to international humanitarian law, including the fourth Geneva convention; it also serves to make a viable two-state solution ever more distant.
The Labour party has long urged both sides to come together to ensure a just two-state solution that enables Palestinians and Israelis to peacefully co-exist. I have travelled to Israel and Palestine extensively, on more than half a dozen occasions, and I have seen at first hand the conditions in which Palestinians are forced to live. However, I have also met many progressive activists and politicians in Israel, and I encourage Members from both sides of the House to forge links with those groups and with partners for peace on both sides of the divide. As we have seen in recent weeks, they were highly effective in helping to bring the latest conflict to an end. The many powerful protests in the likes of Lod, Ramla and Umm al-Fahm show that hundreds of thousands of Israelis are united with the Palestinian people in their condemnation of the events in Palestine and Gaza.
The UK Government should therefore consider every possible avenue to put pressure on the Israeli Government. That includes reviewing the £360 million-worth of arms that they sell to Israel, and challenging—
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. We are discussing two very important petitions: the first is a call to recognise Palestine as a state, and the second a call to implement sanctions on Israel for continued breaches of international law. Scottish National party foreign policy is based on principles. It is human-centred, feminist, egalitarian, ecological, multilateral and, above all, about the promotion of international law. We are not an aspiring international rights non-governmental organisation; we are an aspiring state, from my party’s perspective. Small countries need international law in a way that big countries do not, so international law is at the heart of everything that we do. We view Israel and Palestine, and everything else, through those prisms.
I am a friend of Palestine. I am also a friend of Israel. It is worth making a few things clear for the record. We condemn all violence, whoever it is perpetrated by and whoever is a victim of it. We utterly reject false equivalence. There is hurt and heartbreak on all sides of this dispute, and it is not just between two sides; it is far more complex than that. Israel has a right to exist and to security within its borders, and the Palestinians have a right to live in dignity and peace in a state of their own. We do not view those statements as exclusive. We view them as quite compatible, but how can there be a two-state solution, which we all say that we are in favour of, when there is not a two-state reality?
We believe that we should indeed recognise Palestine. We recognise the flaws, which we have heard about, in the Palestinian Authority, and that Palestinian unity is not where it needs to be, but we believe that recognition would level the discussion and give it an impetus that is, sadly, sorely lacking. It is not an outlandish position; we are actually in the majority, as 139 of 193 United Nations members already recognise Palestine as a state. The UK should do the same.
On sanctions, we have a rather more delicate call to make, because we need to consider the effect of any policy change on the ground. I said that Israel has a right to exist and to security, and I will defend that. It does not have a right to annex other people’s land and then to claim victimhood when there are consequences to that illegality. Settlements are, on a daily basis and in fundamental ways, making a viable, just peace less achievable. They are illegal. Their products are illegal. We should not deal in them. The UN agrees. UN Security Council resolution 2334 is clear on their legal status; we should not deal in settler goods, but ban them. At the very least, we should ensure that they are properly labelled.
On the petition’s call to implement wider sanctions on the state of Israel itself, however, we disagree for the moment. We do not think that that would help the situation. We think that it would do more harm than good—just. However, I urge our Israeli friends, who I know are paying attention to the debate, to pay attention to where that call is coming from. We cannot simply say that there must be consequences to the illegality but then not implement any of them. We must do better than we have done to date. We respect individual organisations that feel a need to implement such a policy themselves, though we would stop short of sanctions as a party.
It is not good enough to say that we are in favour of a two-state solution but to do nothing to bring about a two-state reality. We will continue to be part of the problem unless we give impetus to the discussion, and we can do that from here because we are bound to the people of Palestine and Israel by empire and by international law and trade. We have influence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) says, perhaps there is a moment for new momentum with the new Israeli Government and the new US Administration. Colleagues, let us seize that moment and build a just peace, which we all want to see.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Dowd. I am pleased that this debate is taking place today, because there is tremendous public concern about this issue: witness the fact that two very significant petitions have been submitted to the House, and I am pleased that the Petitions Committee has brought them forward for a debate. Let me say at the outset that there can be no justification whatever for antisemitism in any shape or form, whatever people’s views are on the Israel-Palestinian issue: let us be clear about that.
Just a few weeks ago, nearly 300 people, Israelis and Palestinians, lost their lives in a violent conflict between Hamas and the state of Israel. The Labour party strongly condemns the firing of rockets by Hamas, and we strongly condemn the air attacks by Israel that led to such a large loss of life. Labour called for an immediate ceasefire, and we were pleased that international mediation led to a ceasefire. The immediate issue that led to the conflict was the appalling violation and desecration of the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. That was disgraceful, and the international community must do all it can to ensure that such scenes never happen again. Religious sects must be respected at all times.
The second immediate reason for the conflict was the prospect of the forced eviction of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, and in particular from the community of Sheikh Jarrah. Labour believes that the occupation of East Jerusalem by Israel is completely wrong, and we do not recognise the annexation of East Jerusalem by the state of Israel. The city of Jerusalem must be shared by Palestinians and Israelis. It is totally unacceptable that illegal Israeli settlers are trying to displace Palestinians from their homes—homes that their families have lived in for generations.
There are also longer term issues at the root of the conflict, which must be addressed. They stem from the Israeli occupation of 1967. Since then, and especially over the past few years, we have seen an increase in the size and number of illegal Israeli settlements. International law states clearly that those settlements are illegal, and we stand four-square behind international law—no ifs or buts. We have also seen a dramatic increase in the number of demolitions of Palestinian structures on the west bank by Israeli authorities, which again contravene international humanitarian law via the fourth Geneva convention and the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court.
At the same time, we have seen the totally unacceptable treatment of Palestinians throughout the occupied territories. As a former youth worker, I have long taken a keen interest in the treatment of children by the Israeli authorities in the occupied territories. The military court system operates in a cruel and unacceptable way: young people are denied basic rights, frequently denied contact with their parents, and incarcerated in a way that inevitably leads them to be psychologically scarred for the rest of their lives.
If we are talking about injustices, we have to focus on Gaza, too. Before the recent conflict in Gaza, the situation was bad: now, it is much worse. Whatever the profound disagreements that the Israeli Government have with Hamas, there is no justification for the present blockade, which exacerbates the humanitarian suffering of the people of Gaza. Those injustices cannot be resolved through conflict. They can be addressed and resolved only though meaningful negotiations, which must lead to a two-state solution: a viable Palestine alongside a secure Israel. In 2014, this Parliament called on the UK Government to recognise the state of Palestine. The Government say that they are committed to such a recognition, but as the Leader of the Opposition made clear last week, it is high time for that recognition to happen.
Christian Wakeford
While it is certainly politically expedient to call for the recognition of Palestine right now, given certain by-elections, does the hon. Gentleman not agree with his own colleague: how can we recognise something when we cannot define it? What borders would it have, and without any real borders, is it really a state?
Wayne David
With all due respect, what I am saying is what I believe to be right, and what the Labour party deems to be right. There is no expediency about it—it is a long-standing commitment that we have, and we stick to it. Of course, there are issues to be worked out, but it sends an important signal that we believe that there should be an active Palestinian state and that we recognise it as a matter of principle.
I am sure that the Government would wish to see a peace process recommence as soon as practicable, but if the goal of negotiations is a two-state solution, it would seem sensible for the UK to join 139 other countries across the world to recognise the state of Palestine now. With regard to sanctions, particularly on arms, it is important that we take stock of the changing situation. Some Members will recall that Labour called on the Government to implement a ban on goods from the illegal settlements and any annexed territories. I am pleased that the Trump-Netanyahu plans for annexation were not implemented, and President Biden has called for all new settlements to be stopped.
We have a newly elected Government in Israel, and I for one am pleased to see the back of Netanyahu. It is sensible to wait a little to see how the Israeli Government respond to the situation. The British Government must assess, in line with all our obligations, the use of exported arms and equipment in the recent conflict. We need a report to Parliament setting out whether any licences for exports could be used to commit acts of internal repression, external aggression or violations of international law.
The reality is that a peace process will not be established overnight, let alone a lasting peace. What is the case, however, is that for peace to be negotiated, achieved and maintained, we need an ongoing process of reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), I very much hope that the Government will make real their commitment to a peace fund, and join President Biden to ensure that it is established as quickly as humanly possible. I genuinely believe that the overwhelming majority of Palestinian and Israeli people want to live in peace. It is our responsibility in Parliament to make sure that we do everything we can to make their dream a reality.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to the work that she has done on the issue. I am grateful, too, for the thoughtful contributions made by Members on both sides of the House on this delicate issue.
We welcomed the announcement of a ceasefire in Israel and Gaza on 20 May. It is an important step towards ending the cycle of violence and the loss of civilian life. The UK offers its deepest condolences to the families of all those who have lost their lives. We echo the condemnation of the antisemitic actions that, unfortunately, we saw on the streets of the United Kingdom, and I am pleased that Members across the House have condemned those actions.
Christian Wakeford
The tone of the debate has been incredibly helpful in condemning the antisemitism on our streets. Does the Minister agree that every single Member in the House has a duty to do so, and when we see banners calling for Palestine to be free from the river to the sea—which is actively calling for the ethnic cleansing of Israel—we need to condemn that wholeheartedly? Will he make a statement in the House doing so?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for the question he has asked. As we have seen today, there is widespread condemnation of those acts and where there are small pockets of resistance against condemning those actions, I think that those individuals stand outwith the mass of the viewpoint in the House. This is an issue that I do not doubt will come up in departmental questions tomorrow.
While the ceasefire holds, we must make sure that every effort focuses on making it not just durable but permanent. The Foreign Secretary travelled to the region on 26 May and met with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. As he made clear on that visit, the recent escalation demonstrates the urgent need to make progress towards a more positive future and address the long-standing drivers of the conflict in the region. We have worked actively during this crisis to urge all parties to work with mediators towards a ceasefire. We fully support the Egyptian, Qatari and United Nations actions to that end, and we work closely, of course, with our friends and partners in the United States of America.
It is important now for Israel to facilitate rapid humanitarian access to Gaza, and we urge the continued opening of all crossings. The UK will provide £3.2 million of new aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, responding to its emergency flash appeal, launched on 19 May. The funding will help to provide food, water and emergency shelter to Palestinians affected by the recent escalation of violence in Gaza.
James Cleverly
Let me make a little more progress; I am conscious that we are a little tight on time.
We thank UNRWA for its support for Gazans displaced during the conflict and for its continued courage and dedication. The UK continues its diplomatic efforts to build confidence between the parties and to find a political way forward. We welcome and echo calls for equality of safety, security, freedom, peace and dignity, both for Palestinians and for Israelis. I have spoken regularly with a number of ambassadors from the Arab states to reiterate the need for progress towards our shared goals—to reiterate the need for a peaceful two-state solution. We also play a leading role in this on the United Nations Security Council.
Let me address the subjects specific to the petitions. There have, of course, been many calls over the years for recognition of Palestinian statehood. The UK Government position is clear: the UK will recognise a Palestinian state at a time when it best serves the object of peace. Bilateral recognition in itself cannot, and will not, end the occupation. The UK Government continue to believe that without a negotiated peace agreement, the occupation, and the problems that come with it, will continue. We are committed to the objective of a sovereign, prosperous and peaceful Palestinian state, living side by side with a safe and secure Israel. That is why we are a leading donor in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and why we have set so much store by strengthening Palestinian institutions, fostering private sector-led sustainable economic growth in the west bank.
Economic progress can never be a substitute for a political settlement, but it is vital in the interim that Palestinians see tangible improvements in their daily lives. We call on the Palestinian Authority and Israel to resume dialogue on economic issues, to reconvene the Joint Economic Committee and to address the financial and covid crisis together. The UK enjoys strong relations with the Palestinian Authority, and they have made important progress on state building, which has been recognised by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. It is so important now that the PA return to Gaza to ensure that good governance is extended throughout the territories that will make up a future Palestinian state.
It has been said by Members representing parties across the House, and I echo it from the UK Government’s position: we condemn in the strongest terms the firing of rockets at Jerusalem and other locations in Israel by Hamas and other terrorist groups. All countries, including Israel of course, have a legitimate right to self-defence and a right to defend their citizens from attack. In doing so, it is vital that all actions are proportionate, in line with international humanitarian law and calibrated to avoid civilian casualties.
On the second petition, the Government have made their position on sanctions clear. Although we do not hesitate to express disagreement with Israel whenever we feel it necessary, we are firmly opposed to boycotts or sanctions against Israel. We believe that open and honest discussions, rather than imposing sanctions or supporting anti-Israel boycotts, best support our efforts to progress the peace process and to achieve a negotiated two-state solution. The Government take their export control responsibilities very seriously, and operate one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world. We consider all export applications thoroughly against a strict risk assessment framework. We continue to monitor the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories to keep all licences under careful and continual review as standard. We continue to urge all parties to work together to reduce the tensions in the west bank, including East Jerusalem, so that, hopefully, we will not see images as we saw during May.
Several Members stated their desire for the UK to oppose evictions and demolitions. Let me assure them that the UK position on evictions, demolitions and settlements is long-standing, public and has been communicated directly to the Government of Israel. That position is that we oppose those activities. In all but the most exceptional circumstances, evictions are contrary to international humanitarian law. The practice causes unnecessary suffering for the Palestinians and is detrimental to efforts to promote a peaceful two-state solution. We urge the Government of Israel to cease their policies related to settlement expansion and, instead, work towards that two-state solution.
The Foreign Secretary and I have made the UK view clear in meetings with Israeli leaders. Most recently, the Foreign Secretary did so on his visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories on 26 May. We continue to call on all parties to show real leadership, including the willingness to make tough compromises and to refrain from unilateral steps that move us further from our shared goal of sustainable peace. We will continue our intense diplomatic efforts in the region, focused on creating the conditions for a sustainable peace, and we will work with our international partners towards that goal.
Catherine McKinnell [V]
I thank all the contributors to this debate. It is clearly a highly complex situation and will require a range of measures, actions and compromises to resolve it. But I share the hope of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) that the Government, alongside the Biden Administration, will take the opportunity of the formation of the new Israeli Government to push for renewed negotiations based on a safe and secure Israel, alongside a viable sovereign and recognised Palestinian state. The current lack of a peace process has created a vacuum, and we have seen too often around the world that vacuums are filled by violence.
The Government should examine what more they can do to disrupt the flow of rockets into Gaza, while ensuring the delivery of urgent humanitarian assistance, vital medical support and fuel. I hope the Minister will take away what I said in my opening comments about encouraging and supporting the creation of a new climate in Israel and Palestine by backing projects that promote peaceful co-existence in the long term, such as the creation of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Those are not warm words; they need to be met with real, tangible action and funding to make them a reality.
Political negotiations will always have their ups and downs and false starts, particularly in such a complex conflict, but there is no reason why efforts to build understanding and trust between Palestinians and Israelis on the ground should be held hostage to what the politicians are doing. I hope the Minister will take that away to the Prime Minister, and urge him not to row back from our international commitments. I truly believe that the new US legislation, and President Biden’s own strong commitment to multilateralism, could provide a platform to galvanise support for an international fund at this most pressing of times. It is something practical that we can all do to create a more secure future for both Palestinians and Israelis.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 585313 and 585314, relating to Israel and Palestine.
Football Governance
(3 years, 5 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
Julie Elliott (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate.
I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive at the start of debates in Westminster Hall, and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible 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, whose email address is westminsterhallclerks @parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move into the horseshoe when seats become available. Members can only speak from the horseshoe, where there are microphones.
I must also say that, because of the weather today, I am very happy if gentlemen wish to remove their jackets. To try to get everybody in, at this point I will impose an informal three-minute time limit.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 583310 and 584632, relating to football governance.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott, for this hugely important debate, and it is great to see so many Members in attendance and on the call list, even more so after a thumping 1-0 victory for England against Croatia. I am sure that Members from Wales and Scotland may not be feeling as perky, but obviously I look forward to the big game on Friday, when I expect England to give Scotland a sound thumping.
In this place, we often split along party lines in our debates, but I am confident that there will be an unusual level of consensus here today, because I think we all recognise the vital role that football plays in the communities that we have the privilege to represent. Before I get started properly, I must thank all those who took the time to share their views with me before this debate. I heard a wide range of opinions on this issue, but across the board—from club owners and ex-players to the fans who are the lifeblood of the game—it is fair to say that there is now widespread acceptance that change is needed.
I also thank Our Beautiful Game, the campaign group that includes senior figures from the game, such as David Bernstein, a former Football Association chairman, and Gary Neville, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who really got this debate rolling with her private Member’s Bill earlier this year. I thank Our Beautiful Game for lending its time and expertise to help me to prepare for today. I will give a special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who is leading the fan-led review of football for the Minister’s Department. I thank her for that and for the time that she has shared with me.
The recent debacle of the European super league, which for football was the equivalent of the 2008 banking crisis, shocked everyone involved in the game. It showed why there is a real need to shake things up. Let us be clear: had the so-called big six succeeded with their breakaway attempt, football as we know it in our country would have died. Our premier league, the most watched and indeed the best league in the world, would have been split apart, and the pyramid of English football would have crumbled.
It was quite right that the ESL was met with disgust and ridicule across the board, and I am very pleased that for now it has been seen off. However, we know that football is now big business and the ESL is not the only reason why change is needed. Fans already had long-standing concerns.
There have been many examples of the identity of football clubs, which are essential to the identity of so many communities, being changed, with fans unable to resist that change. A couple of glaring examples spring to mind: the relocation of Wimbledon from is traditional home in London to Milton Keynes; and the decision by the owner of Cardiff City to change the club’s colours from the traditional blue to red.
Inappropriate owners may come in and run clubs in an unsustainable way, with devastating impacts on their local communities. Two examples of this came recently, with the sad demise of Bury in August 2019 and Wigan entering administration in July 2020. Unless we change the way football is run and ensure that clubs are treated not only as businesses but as community assets and heritage brands, these events will be repeated.
That brings me on to the first of our petitions, on the 50+1 model, submitted by Angus Yule. Angus launched the petition because he feels that this model of ownership would ensure that the decisions of our clubs fall into the hands of a collective of people who care about the good of the game, instead of just one owner. In Angus’s opinion, elite clubs especially are now run as businesses, with profit appearing to come before anything else and with fans’ loyalty exploited through expensive tickets and merchandise.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have been a supporter of Leicester City since I was a wee boy of 16 years old—52 years. I say that because it does not have to be a big team for people to support it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that fans care about the nature of the team? They care about more than the price of a ticket. They care about the integrity and history of their club. They care about team pride. That is what it is all about, and that is what fans want. They do not want a super league; they just want to support their club.
Jonathan Gullis
In advance of the debate, I spoke to members of the Foxes Trust, who were very complimentary about the dialogue they have with Leicester City’s owners. I know the hon. Gentleman was buzzing from Leicester City’s recent FA cup victory, and I am sure he will be cheering on Blighty in the upcoming game against Scotland; I will not put him on the spot with that one, but I am sure he will, secretly.
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Football clubs are massively important to the history and identity of their communities. In fact, communities were built around such clubs, as we saw in Bury. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) has banged on relentlessly about that; I do not think there is any doughtier a champion for Bury football club’s return to its proper ways. In Burslem, the mother town of Stoke-on-Trent, is Port Vale, surrounded by the terraced houses of the old potbank workers. It very much is the beating heart of the community, as the Minister saw at first hand when he recently came to visit.
As Angus says about the 50+1 model, having fans in charge of key voting rights around the club would help to stop the clear greed of some owners and would allow clubs to be run in a way that benefits the fans, local communities and the good of the game. Clearly, there are some good owners who run their clubs sustainably and allow fans a good level of access to the behind-the-scenes running of the club. My bias will be obvious, but I will mention the Wembley of the north, Port Vale football club’s Vale Park, and Stoke-on-Trent’s second team, Stoke City; obviously I was being sarcastic there, before I get a deluge of abuse on Facebook. I am very lucky to have Port Vale in my constituency and Stoke City FC within the community. Both are run in a truly sustainable and fan-friendly way. To give just a few examples, Stoke City offer free travel for their fans and have frozen their season ticket prices for 14 successive years. Port Vale recently became the English football league community club of the year, having distributed more than 300,000 meals to local people in need during the pandemic. It also has the Port Vale Foundation; with the Hubb Foundation, it was one of the early pioneers in the holiday activities programme, which started in 2017 with the Ay Up Duck programme.
A small club, Milton United football club, raised £1,000 for a local lad, Ashton Hulme, who is getting a top-quality prosthetic leg. Sadly, due to a rare type of bone cancer, he lost his leg, and the academy at Crewe Alexandra have been doing fantastic work to support Ashton and his family at this difficult time, with more than £110,000 raised by local givers. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, there are great clubs in the Premier League, such as Leicester City football club. The Foxes Trust tell me that it is broadly happy with how the club’s owners operate and the access it gets to the inner running of its club.
There are many more examples of owners who do not operate in this way, so I agree that there needs to be some reform, giving fans greater input into their clubs. There must surely be a way to protect key aspects of clubs, which are so much more than just businesses, so that their identities are not changed unrecognisably and they are run sustainably. However, the 50+1 model is not realistic for English football. It is hard to see how this kind of ownership structure could be brought in. I also have concerns about the impact it could have on our game. A range of voices, unsurprisingly including club owners but also fan groups, have said that the 50+1 model could seriously discourage investment.
In Germany, which made the 50+1 model famous, Bayern Munich has now won the Bundesliga nine years in a row. There is no significant investment into other clubs in the German league—unless we look at RB Leipzig, for example, where the fans and supporters are all Red Bull employees. One could say that that brings the beautiful game in Germany into disrepute. I do not think that anyone wants to see such things in our country. The 50+1 model is not the only reason, but it does seem to prevent ambitious owners coming forward. Frankly, owners will not want to invest in a club without being able to control its direction. If the 50+1 model is not the answer, what is?
One way to safeguard clubs for fans was suggested by Gary Neville. We could look at the 50+1 model as a veto or a voting structure rather than an ownership structure. Something along the lines of a golden vote on key decisions could be viable. To make changes to the club on heritage issues such as the name and location of the stadium, owners would need to seek the approval of supporters. Another option, as suggested by the Football Supporters’ Association, would be to let supporters buy equity in their club up to a certain percentage—10% or 15%, say—to give them a real say in how the club is run.
As well as giving fans more say in how their clubs are run, wider issues in football need addressing. That is really the crux of the debate and brings me to the second petition, which calls for the introduction of a new, independent football regulator. The petition, which was started by Alex Rolfe, calls for the Government to use the fan-led review of football’s governance to establish an independent regulator. Alex says:
“Like a referee, an independent regulator would safeguard our beautiful game impartially.”
He says that a regulator
“could protect the game against another attempt at a super league or other efforts to put money ahead of fans.”
Gary Neville and Alex agree that, like water companies, energy providers, financial services and the media:
“Football matters to millions and should also have a regulator of its own.”
It does seem that without an independent regulator, the glaring issues in English football will not be resolved. There is no overall leadership, so vested interests continue to prevail. The financial disparity between rich and poor has become obscene, frankly. The game is devoid of agreed priorities. The high-ups in football all know what the problems are, but to date there has been no collective will or incentive for the decision makers to get on with sorting it out.
As many of the people I have spoken to before today have spelled out, the issues are financial disparity and unsustainability, owner suitability rules, a power structure that is fundamentally out of balance, societal issues such as racism and homophobia in the game, and the exploitation of clubs and fans. Gary Neville put it well when he said that the banking crisis was the moment an independent regulator was needed. The European super league is the equivalent crisis in football, and if we are to ensure that the game remains something that we can enjoy as fans, as well as export around the world, the crunch time has arrived.
I will give a few examples to illustrate the scale of the problems. The team placed 20th in the premier league—thankfully, it is not my team, Fulham, which my grandmother indoctrinated me into supporting at the age of five—gets £100 million, whereas the winner of the championship gets just £6 million. Financial sustainability is in real danger, with clubs in the championship spending £837 million on wages despite receiving only £785 million of income in 2018-19.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
My hon. Friend has just made the key point. The fixed costs and wage structure of 99% of teams involved in English football are completely unsustainable. The wages paid out currently are simply unaffordable. My team, Bury, had 3,000 or 4,000 people watching every two weeks, and players were paid thousands upon thousands. How do we address that problem?
Jonathan Gullis
I know that Gary Neville is actually working on the salary cap committee that the EFL has set up to have a look at that very thing. My hon. Friend is right. Although Gary Neville used the term “redistribution of wealth”—as a Conservative, that made me shudder at the idea of socialism coming down the line—he meant that, at the end of the day, the Premier League holds all the wealth.
The Minister spent what probably felt like a long 10 months locked in a room with the head of the Premier League and the head of the EFL to come to some sort of consensus on bailing out clubs such as my beloved Port Vale in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. It should not have taken 10 months to come to that conclusion. Ultimately, football is for the fans, and in that moment, the fans were almost forgotten. I am very grateful to the Minister, who spoke regularly with me and other Members from across the House to keep us informed about what was going on in the negotiations. I am very grateful that he was able to bang heads together and get that important deal over the line.
Stoke City football club is owned by those who run Bet365, and although it would openly submit that it is not in need of financial support, it is very aware of clubs around it and below it that are, including Port Vale, which gets similar crowds to Bury. We need to see a fair share of the money in football trickling down, particularly to the grassroots, where the future generations will be coming through.
Those in the premier league have so much power that they can set their own punishment. The big six premier league clubs have been able to decide their own punishment for trying to break away and join the ESL, paying just £3.6 million each as a gesture of good will. Let us put that into context. These clubs spent more than £150 million over the last year on agents’ fees alone, and they seem to think that offering £3.6 million each is a suitable punishment for trying to destroy our beautiful game. Football has proven itself incapable of sorting itself out, and there is now a widespread consensus that an independent regulator is needed.
What would that independent regulator look like? We all agree that for a regulator to have real bite, it must be independent of current structures such as the premier league clubs and the FA. It must sit above the existing bodies and be able to enforce targets and judgments without the game structures. As voices such as the former Governor of the Bank of England Lord King have emphasised, the regulator will need an emphasis on financial as well as legal knowledge, to enable it to decide on new ways of distributing funds to the wider game, based on a funding formula to spread funding more fairly throughout the English football pyramid. This will also be important in introducing a new, proper, robust process to check owners before they take on a club. Indeed, it is not just the fans I spoke to who agreed on the need for a proper test of an owner’s suitability; that opinion was also shared by the owners I spoke to.
Supporters’ groups and those with experience of the game at the highest level agree that the regulator must not have any role in how the game is played. For example, it must not have a role in deciding on the place of VAR—the video assistant referee—in football, but must be limited to governance issues. There is also the question of how long a regulator would need to operate for. There seems to be a consensus among a cross-section of people involved in football that the FA should really be the regulator. However, it is a commercial organisation, as well as having some regulatory functions, so it does not really work. It is also reliant on the Premier League for its income, so is not independent in any meaningful way. An independent regulator could be set up, lead change in the game for a few years and then hand over to the FA once it has been made fit for purpose.
On the societal problems in football such as racism and homophobia, as well as representation of different groups, there are already targets in place. However, a regulator could enforce those targets and punish those who continue to pay only lip service to them. As David Davies—former executive director of the FA and member of the Our Beautiful Game campaign group—has said, football has the power to be a fantastic force for good. How to enable it to be a power for good is the question.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is always a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Ms Elliott. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for his excellent introductory remarks and my Neath constituents for signing the petitions, and I congratulate Wales on securing a draw in their first Euro match last Saturday, despite not playing their best.
The anger and furore over the recent efforts of six English premier league clubs to a form a breakaway European super league sparked universal condemnation from fans, yet it demonstrated the importance of football to the sporting community and wider society, and was evidence of a deep disconnect between football clubs and the communities they once represented. Many clubs are now global business, far removed from the supporters and communities from which they were established.
At the heart of the problem is ownership. The defining feature was once supporters and their interests, but now the footballing model pushes clubs into greater financial insecurity at the hands of unscrupulous owners with scant regard for fans and communities. Fans are taken for granted, and it is taken for granted that they will always support their club, irrespective of their having no say in how it is operated. The UK Government’s fan-led review is welcome, but wholescale reform is needed, putting ownership at the forefront.
Fan ownership has been part of a campaign that the Co-operative party has been conducting for the past 20 years. In 2007, the Labour party and the Co-operative party founded the fan ownership organisation Supporters Direct and campaigned for funding and resources to enable supporters to start fan-owned trusts and then progress to take over their clubs. We fought for supporters to have a place on club boards, so that fans could have a voice. We campaigned for the community shares model often used in supporters’ trusts and to strengthen community asset legislation to prevent the sale of football grounds.
The Football Association and governing authorities should welcome community ownership as a necessary means to safeguard clubs and ensure their survival. Football clubs are too precious to their communities and supporters to be at the mercy of unregulated, unscrupulous owners, and suffer weak governance from the Football Association, which is unwilling to take on those with vested interests in the game. A robust, effective, independent regulatory framework, with statutory backing, is vital to safeguard football.
Unless supporters can influence or have ownership of clubs or assets, we will continue to be second-class spectators. The 50+1 rule is the ownership model in the majority of German football clubs; commercial investors are unable to gain a majority share and supporters retain a majority of voting rights. The rule would not be suitable for shared ownership of the top English premier league clubs that have invested millions of pounds, but would be suitable as a voting structure. The five parts of the game should work together for the benefit of football.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. Football governance has been debated in Parliament and has been the subject of Parliamentary and Government reports over the last 10 years. What all those reports have in common is a consensus that there needs to be more independent regulation and supervision of what happens within football, to stop bad things happening.
Many financial failures could have been resolved before they happened if there had been proper independent scrutiny of the finances of the clubs. Issues around ownership could be resolved if there were a fit-and-proper person test that could be administered against people when they buy clubs or during their management of those clubs. Time and again, we have seen that no such effective operation exists and that the football leagues simply do not have the resources to enforce that. Too often, when a club gets into difficulties, fans speak up, but find the football authorities can do nothing to help and, when they turn to Parliament, we do not have any legislative power to intervene.
If the fan-led review, the latest football governance review, is to be meaningful in its outcome, it needs to recommend an independent regulatory body that can oversee the financial management of clubs, have the power to intervene when things go wrong, see accounts to ensure clubs are spending within the limits of their rules and not overspending, and ensure that clubs are being run in a sustainable way, so that they are there for the future. These are the basic common failings. Why do they exist? Because football does not have an effective governing body in this country. It is run by a combination of vested interests that do not always agree with each other and at league level it is run by a rule book that is set and voted on by the chairs of the clubs themselves. Historically, they have not been interested in independent scrutiny of what they do.
Football clubs are unlike any other business. They deserve to be run in a sustainable way. The community should expect that they will be there for future generations to enjoy. They are cultural assets, really. Yes, they can be run in a commercial way and they can be competitive, but they have to be run in a sustainable way as well.
In other industries, such as broadcasting, we have regulators in place with certain special powers that mean they can intervene and even withdraw the licence to broadcast, should they need to. Such a regulator in this country for football would similarly need a golden share. I believe it should be independent of all the existing football bodies, including the FA, have a strict and limited remit regarding the financial performance and governance of clubs, and have very clear powers to intervene and even to put clubs into a form of sporting administration if things go wrong.
The review should also consider other aspects of commercial pressure in football that can have a detrimental impact, particularly the relationship between agents, clubs and players, where agents can end up representing all three parties in a transaction. It is difficult to break that model when clubs want to sign players. These are other financial issues that a regulator could look at. This is a reform that has been long needed to make football sustainable.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The state of our national game has been a story of rich man, poor man, with the very rich clubs with billionaire owners seeking to make themselves even more revenue. We have seen that with Project Big Picture and the European super league. At the same time, much-valued and cherished local clubs such as Bury, Bolton and Wigan have not survived, or are struggling to survive. The major organisations in England—the Premier League, the Football Association, and the English Football League—are becoming both unable and unwilling to act responsibly in the interests of the wider game of football, and of supporters and their communities. It is therefore important to review the ownership structures and mechanisms of football clubs in this country so that they can be made to act responsibly, and to look at the governance of football clubs going forward so that they can be obliged to behave responsibly and conduct themselves in a manner that satisfies all the stakeholders in the game.
There are also a wide variety of levels of effective engagement and communication between clubs and their supporters throughout the various leagues in England. This can be improved in a number of ways, such as by allowing fans on to club boards and examining new methods of allowing fans to take some ownership of the club they support. In addition, carrying out comparisons between the organisation of leagues in other countries and those in this country could yield some answers. The often-cited 50+1 model in the German Bundesliga may not be implementable in England—although the Prime Minister has threatened that—but there may well be other ways of increasing fan influence over club decision making that fall short of that model. There is also some discussion about the ownership of golden shares, which could give some special ownership rights or privileges to fans, enabling them to bring additional influence to bear on decision making.
There is a view that foreign owners should be treated differently for a variety of reasons, some relating to human rights and some political. Those views could be put under the remit of the football regulator and taken into consideration when the licensing process takes effect. However, in my view, where clubs have been shown to have conducted themselves responsibly over the years, there should be no attempt to not grant a licence when the owners of the club are not responsible for the behaviour of the Government or regime of the country in which they reside, or from which they come. The review should not be an excuse to bash foreign owners who have made investments in, and brought tremendous footballing talent to, this country.
There is no doubt in my mind about the need for a regulator who can exercise his or her powers through such a licensing system. Too often, clubs have not taken their responsibilities seriously, or indeed have not accepted that they have them. Their financial responsibilities have been made clear, but clubs should have additional responsibilities in how they engage with fans, and social responsibilities to ensure that players and fans do not engage in behaviour that would bring the game into disrepute. By that, I do not just mean violence or hooliganism: I believe in taking a firm stance on issues such as racism and homophobia. In my view, the regulator should have the power to do what individual football clubs, the Premier League, the FA and the English Football League have failed to do over the years, which is to properly regulate and police the game so that clubs have responsibilities as well as rights. That approach is far preferable to commentators, fans, and even Government Ministers giving their views from the sidelines, and nothing changing in the process.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) [V]
The governance of English football is broken; our national game, the beautiful game, is certainly in crisis; and now is the time for fundamental reform, reform that can only be achieved through the creation of an independent football regulator. This was the central recommendation of “Saving Our Beautiful Game—Manifesto for Change”, a report co-authored last year by a group of which I was a member. These experienced individuals, with a deep interest in football, brought everything together and produced a document that has proposed the creation of an independent football regulator. That regulator would be absolutely independent; would be funded from within football, not by public money; and would not require Government to run the game, which is extremely important.
The impact of an independent regulator would be more far-reaching than any of the specific responsibilities it would have, because an independent regulator would change the culture of the business of football in our country. Such a step would be a crucial milestone in the long-overdue process of rebalancing our national game, to make it a game that works just as much for the grassroots, the community, and the lower-league clubs as it does for the big six in the premier league. An independent football regulator would be an affirmation from this place that football is part of our history, our culture and our communities, and deserves protection.
I pay tribute to the Minister for the leadership he has already shown on this issue in recent months. I am also delighted that the concept of an independent regulator is to be considered by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She is well suited to the task, and I know she will carry out a review that is both broad and forensic, and that places the opinions of the fans at its very heart. We know that an independent football regulator would enjoy enormous support from the footballing public across the country. The fact that the petition reached 100,000 signatures in less than 12 hours speaks for itself.
Association football is the most popular sport in the entire world and is played by more than 250 million people in over 200 countries. It was born in England over 150 years ago, and it has a huge connection with communities across the length and breadth of our country, but if we want to protect and preserve that fabulous heritage for generations into the future, our football governance needs emergency surgery, and it needs that surgery now. Let us drive through the radical change required, let us create an independent football regulator, and let us make the governance of this beautiful game, which we all know and love, fit for the 21st century.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott, and I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for leading this important debate.
I want to begin by mentioning the league two club in my constituency, Tranmere Rovers. Tranmere were unfairly relegated during the first lockdown because the season ended. Behind the English Football League’s decision to end the season for league one and two clubs lay one thing, and one thing alone, and that was money. Maintaining the prize of entry into the premier league for three lucky championship clubs meant that Tranmere and others were relegated without a ball being kicked. That is one example of why I firmly believe that the fan-led review of football governance must result in the establishment of an independent regulator for football in this country. It is a burning necessity in the light of the scandal of the recently proposed, and thankfully abandoned, European super league.
However, my fear is that, like the Terminator, the ESL will be back unless action is taken now to reform the governance of the entire sport. Compare and contrast the fabulous wealth of the premier league with the tragic scuppering of clubs such as Bury. Compare and contrast the attempt to set up a selfish and permanent closed circle with the work that Tranmere Rovers do in their local community. During the lockdown, the club invested £60,000 in an abandoned recreation facility in one of my town’s most deprived estates, the Beechwood. They have installed a gym and transformed it into a community asset that is giving youngsters an alternative to the lure of county lines drug dealers, and Tranmere fans have supplied 50,000 meals to vulnerable people, more than 1,000 shopping and medication drop-offs, and hundreds of toys to those in need at Christmas. That highlights the reality that most football clubs are community assets. They are there for the local people and the fans, and the best of them work with their fans for the common good of the club and community. I know that many hon. Members have local clubs that do similar activities, but we need to go beyond simply applauding the good work of some and address the key issues that could so easily undermine the game in a way that the threat of the ESL almost did.
There are two issues that I believe an independent regulator can and should tackle. First, we need to reform the distribution of money in the game. The Independent reported the following comment from an official of one of the premier league’s top six:
“We don’t want too many Leicester Citys.”
That outrageous comment comes from a representative of a monopoly—not just in this country, but across European football. The financial giant Deloitte estimated that football clubs require a minimum of £400 million a year to compete at the top level. That needs reform, because it creates a scramble for money, instead of a scramble for sporting glory. The No. 1 priority on the independent regulator’s list must be to devise a genuinely fair and equitable distribution of wealth throughout the football pyramid. Otherwise, there will be a lot more Burys and Boltons.
The No. 2 priority on the list must be to tackle the fractured nature of football governance. We now have the Premier League, the FA and the EFL all pushing different agendas and looking after different aspects of the game, without checks or balances. I believe that the regulator we need is one that represents the whole of the game and ensures that, rather than sacrifice the long-term interests of the game for short-term financial gain, the entire football pyramid works as one. That way, we can put paid to the ESL Terminator ever coming back.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for securing this extremely important debate, and for the way he introduced it.
In the brief time I have, I want to highlight two key issues. First, I remind colleagues that although it is the English Football League pyramid, four Welsh teams are part of that: Swansea, Cardiff, Wrexham and Newport. We are always aware of the Union of the United Kingdom, and we share our passion for football and sport in the same way. Therefore, although Welsh teams share the privileges of the English Football League structure, we are also subject to the same risks as all the other clubs. We must remember that fans come from all over the United Kingdom and beyond. Whatever actions come out of the petition and review, they will be relevant to fans wherever they are in the UK or around the world.
The second issue I want to highlight is that the presence of four clubs in the English pyramid system does not detract from the importance of the Welsh pyramid structure. I refer to an experience that is relevant to the English structure: Barry Town football club, which is now known as Barry Town United. I declare an interest as the honorary president. It was a highly successful club over many years, with a long history that included European success. It has passionate fans, just like every other football club, but it also has the most professional coaching structure. I pay tribute to Gavin Chesterfield and his wife Hannah Chesterfield, and the whole structure behind him, for what they have achieved. I hope hon. Members will indulge me for a moment to highlight that.
In 2013, we ended up with a disgruntled owner who had lost interest in the club and initially allowed the supporters to run the club for most of the season. He then decided, for whatever reason—we can all make judgments on that—to withdraw the club from the league with two games left in the season, in spite of having an extremely successful season. Of course, we wanted to qualify as a phoenix club, but the regulatory challenges meant that we, a local club, ended up in the High Court, costing us tens of thousands of pounds to get reinstated. We eventually won, but that was purely because of the passion of the supporters, the coaching structure and the supporters committee that ran it.
In the 15 seconds I have remaining, I must say that much of the attention of this debate has understandably focused on wealth and the exploitation of fans through overcharging, merchandising and drawing them to a super league. But there are local clubs with owners that are disgruntled for whatever reason, and the structures and laws as they stand do not lend themselves to the fans taking control, unless they are as determined as the fans and supporters of Barry Town United.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I begin by proudly declaring my interest as an AFC Wimbledon season ticket holder—a club with historically symbolic roots in this debate. We all know that football clubs have meaning far deeper than any result on a Saturday afternoon. I have cherished childhood memories of Wimbledon match days with my dad, and particularly his joy at receiving tickets to the famous 1988 club final against Liverpool, to see the Crazy Gang beat the Culture Club. I will never forget him racing down to the King’s Head from the post-match reception to show off his autograph book bursting with his heroes’ signatures. But just three years later, his joy turned sour: our club left its home on Plough Lane in 1991, being stolen 60 miles up the M1 to Milton Keynes—an event that shook sport and, just like the super league, exposed the hyper-commercial world of football.
So began one of English football’s greatest stories: the birth of fan-owned AFC Wimbledon—according to the FA commission, a club that was not in the wider interests of football. How wrong they were. A democratic supporters organisation, the Dons Trust, owns AFC, giving fans control of the future of our club. After six promotions in 13 seasons, we soared our way to league one, coming an awful long way from the open trials on Wimbledon Common, where a team was cobbled together to face Sutton United just a few weeks later. The result that day did not matter; our dream was now real. Anybody who wants a little light summer reading might want to read the book by our former chief executive Erik Samuelson, “All Together Now: How a Group of Football Fans Righted a Wrong and Brought Their Football Club Home.”
When a club is truly fan-led, the results for the community can be remarkable. Throughout the pandemic, the Dons Local Action Group, a 2,000-strong volunteer group of AFC fans, expertly led by Xavier Wiggins, honoured in the Queen’s birthday list, Cormac van der Hoeven, and Craig Wellstead, has distributed hundreds of thousands of food boxes, tablets and laptops across south London—a club that gives heart and soul back to the community to which it belongs.
Dad would have been so proud to see our team back at Plough Lane next season. Margaret, my sister, and I hope to sponsor a match in his memory in his birthday month of February. I assure all Members that people will be able to hear us shout as far away as Milton Keynes: “Come on you Dons!”
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott, and, as ever, to take part in any debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) is involved in. What we have just heard is what football is about. I am fed up to the back teeth of football being talked about through the prism of only five or six clubs in the premier league who think that they have a God-given right to dominate football and to decide what happens to other clubs in their vicinity. I would not have believed the lack of care within English football from those major clubs, the EFL and the FA regarding Bury until I became an MP and found out the complete negligence of the history, hope and passion that has just been displayed.
Every single person in Bury was let down and nobody cared, and still nobody cares. I support the call for an independent regulatory body. Bury football club is not very important to the football pyramid—two times FA cup winners. Gigg Lane was built in 1885, and is one of the oldest football stadiums in the world. Along with Ashington and Greenwich in London, we produce more English footballers than any other town. Stewart Day took over the club in 2013. Four years later, wages had jumped threefold to £4.5 million. This was the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. During the same period, the club’s revenues grew by less than 50% to £3.2 million. That meant that Bury was spending 140% of its entire turnover on wages. The club was persistently late paying other clubs and making loan payments. The EFL and the football regulatory bodies did nothing. When Mr Day’s property business collapsed, the club was effectively insolvent. The EFL and the FA knew that and did nothing. What they did was allow the club to be taken over by a man called Steve Dale.
I would need hours to talk about Steve Dale. He took over the club for £1 with no way of funding it. That situation was a scandal, and it led to my town’s club being kicked out of the league. This does not just involve Parliament; it involves passion. I have seen personally how people in Bury have been affected by the loss of something that for 70 or 80 years people have been going to watch. It is part of their lives, their heritage, and what makes them proud of the town of Bury. The big premier league clubs around us did nothing. Manchester United and Manchester City did not come knocking on the door, saying, “What can we do to help?” There was nothing, and no local authority. The fans of Bury have been left to themselves.
The recent debate regarding the EFL super league was very nice. It suited certain people on TV to be outraged by that, but those same people never defended Bury or AFC Wimbledon because they do not care. Once we have, hopefully, a regulator that can at least give some responsibility to the football league pyramid that we have, perhaps that care will be back in the system.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for introducing this really important debate.
Many football clubs were created by workers at the heart of their communities. Luton Town, the club that I am so proud to have in my constituency of Luton South, was founded democratically when John Charles Lomax and George Deacon arranged a public meeting at the town hall on 11 April 1885 to form a town club. Lutonians opposed another group’s secretive plans to create a club and instead supported the transparent, democratic creation of the club that we are so proud of now.
As industry grew in Luton, so did the club, and that cuts to the heart of what football represents for so many. Sports clubs are not a business like any other; they are intrinsically linked to the communities they represent. Having met Luton Town Supporters’ Trust and Loyal Luton Supporters Club, what stands out to me most is how much they care about the club as a central feature of our town’s identity that should be celebrated.
The driving force of football is the comradeship among fans and communities, and at the weekend we saw an overwhelming display of heartfelt solidarity in response to Christian Eriksson’s collapse, and I wish him a speedy recovery. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] The principal—indeed, the only—concern of all fans across the world was Christian’s health, and to see the Danish and Finnish fans united in showing their support when the match restarted was truly moving.
Football transcends borders and communities, and fans come together through our shared love of the sport. I have experienced that first hand with the passionate Scandinavian Hatters from Norway and Sweden, who are an excellent part of Luton Town’s fan base, and I call many of them friends.
Measures must be put in place to protect and extend fans’ influence in their clubs.
The Labour party has called for reform of the governance of football for more than a decade. We need the Government’s review to be truly fan-led, in order to make this a watershed moment that reforms our game’s dysfunctional governance. We must put an end to the billionaire owners of the biggest clubs running our sport purely for profit—they clearly cannot be trusted to regulate themselves—and strict measures must be put in place to prevent any further attempts to create a European super league and to stop clubs such as Bury suffering the awful situations they have experienced.
As one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for football supporters, I support the Football Supporters’ Association’s “Sustain The Game!” campaign, which outlines a plan: to protect our clubs as community assets; to improve transparency, to ensure that everyone knows who owns their club and how they operate; to impose financial controls with teeth, to ensure that clubs and leagues are regulated; to strengthen the football pyramid, in order to safeguard its long-term sustainability; and to ensure that supporters’ voices are at the heart of their clubs.
The fan-led review needs to bring about lasting change through the introduction of legislation to create a thoroughly independent regulator. As Saving Our Beautiful Game has put it:
“This is an unprecedented opportunity to reboot the game and side with millions of fans during a summer of football.”
I hope to read an interim report from the fan-led review in July that lays the ground for systemic change in our game.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott.
I first thank the 412 people in my constituency who have signed these petitions. Football is deeply rooted in the fabric of our society, particularly in Loughborough, the national centre of sport. Football unites local communities and brings together people from all backgrounds and all walks of life. As one of my constituents said:
“Football is a living, breathing part of British culture, which must be protected from the heights of European football all the way down to the Sunday league.”
As we know, there has been a huge backlash against plans for a European Super League. I very much welcome the Government’s fan-led review of football governance. Loughborough University has offered to assist in that review, and I would be grateful if its offer and its expertise were taken up.
I also hope that examples of good ownership shine through in the review and serve as reminders of how football clubs can do right by their fans and support their local communities. For example, Leicester City football club not only delivers football and other physical activity sessions for local people, but supports refugees to rebuild their lives in the area and has facilitated donations from fans to refurbish a hospital unit at the Leicester Royal Infirmary. The groundsman at the club’s training ground has even shared his expertise with the bowls club in Sileby in my constituency, to help to improve its bowling green to Commonwealth games standard. That is a fantastic example of what club owners’ priorities should be and the contribution they can make to the area in which their club is based.
Ahead of today’s debate, I met the Foxes Trust, a non-profit supporters’ trust for fans of Leicester City football club, to discuss the Government’s review and to hear its thoughts on the petitions. The trust stressed that its relationship with the owners of Leicester City works very well, because the owners fully understand the community aspect of the club, and that understanding is backed up by prudent financial management. However, given recent incidents throughout football—including many that we have heard about today—the trust believes that meaningful dialogue with properly constituted supporter groups needs to be legislated for.
The trust feels that the 50+1 share model will be difficult to instigate in the UK. Furthermore, while fans should not have the ability to veto all decisions made by the board, the trust has said that it should absolutely have more say over the club’s finances and business plans, and be able to veto certain decisions to protect a club’s heritage, location and playing facilities. For example, that could be through a golden share, which would be administered via an elected fan to the club’s board and an independent executive director with responsibility for club heritage who is elected by fans’ groups via a vote of key stakeholders, such as season ticket holders.
With regards to the independent regulation of football, a local resident has contacted me to say that an independent regulator is needed to
“preserve the integrity of the English football pyramid and prevent its destruction by overseas owners and investors who do not understand its importance to the people of this country and wish to impose their own vision purely for profit purposes without understanding its place in the community.”
I would be grateful if the Minister could take those comments into account as part of the discussions.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing this hugely important debate.
Like football fans up and down the country, I strongly opposed the European super league proposition—not only because it contravened basic sporting principles of integrity and competition, but because it was driven entirely by the greed of a few wealthy clubs. Ultimately, sport and culture should be for everyone, not just for millionaire owners and investors to make a profit. I congratulate all football fans who made their voices heard and forced the big six into an embarrassing U-turn. That showed how sport can bring our communities together, and it was a reminder that the ultra-rich owners are merely temporary custodians of the teams that were created by working people.
Despite the increasing commercialisation of the game, football clubs—nearly all of which were forged from working-class communities—continue to provide a strong sense of belonging and civic pride to so many people in Leicester and across the UK. I support all proposals to increase fan ownership of clubs, including the 50+1 model that is successfully used in Germany to ensure that fans have majority voting rights. That can shift the balance of power away from rampant profit-seeking and back towards fan accessibility and affordability, and help to ensure that nothing like the ESL fiasco ever happens again. To that end, I fully support introducing an independent football regulator to prevent the ultra-rich owners of elite clubs from using our game as their plaything.
I am a Leicester lass, and winning the FA cup for the first time in our 137-year history was a fantastic achievement that speaks to the excellent work done by everyone associated with Leicester City football club. This sustained success provides the perfect antidote to the greed and unfairness that define the recent European super league proposals. Leicester City provides the best example of why that is an unjust model, and is an excellent case study of the need to reform the game in favour of fans and communities.
Football can of course be an immense force for good, yet the sport has a deeply unhealthy side that is in need of regulation. The appalling racist abuse of footballers online and in stadiums remains endemic. It is shameful that the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet did not forcefully condemn the booing of England players by a small minority of so-called supporters. The Government’s tacit endorsement of such hatred gives oxygen to the far right. We must reform football in favour of the fans and the working-class communities that created the beautiful game. While we do so, we must eradicate all forms of hatred from the sport.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott.
I want to begin by congratulating England on their win against Croatia. This group of players showcase the very best of a multicultural, socially conscious country. Sunday’s goal was assisted by a player of Jamaican and Irish descent, and finished by a striker who was born in Jamaica and raised in a diverse borough in north-west London. However, what is special about this team goes beyond the pitch—from Raheem Sterling, who was recognised this week for his anti-racist work in sport, to Marcus Rashford, who has ensured that millions of working-class kids have been fed during the holidays.
It is not just the players. In response to boos by supposed fans and to Conservative MPs who said that they would boycott the team, the manager has been clear that we have a duty to stand up for our values, so I would like to commend Gareth Southgate, the players and the vast majority of the fans, who backed the decision to take the knee.
Our clubs are not just businesses; they are part of our communities and the social fabric that binds us together. The European super league debacle showed once and for all that clubs should not be the playthings of billionaires, but that was not the beginning of the problem. Football has been going down this trajectory for a number of years, as can be seen in the ever widening gap between the clubs at the top and the rest of the pack. In a single season, the premier league clubs made combined operating profits of £900 million, compared with the combined losses of more than £400 million for the 72 clubs in the championship, league one and league two. Financial unsustainability for these clubs is now an ever present danger. We know this also from Coventry, where financial challenges prevented the Sky Blues from owning the stadium that they had helped to build, repeatedly forcing the team to play home games outside the city. I am pleased to say that next year they are returning to Coventry, but the underlying problems remain.
The European super league plans might be gone, but billionaire owners will continue to put their greed before our clubs and our communities. Instead of tinkering around the edges, we need to address the problem at its root. That means taking ownership out of the hands of the out-of-touch elites and giving it back to the fans, and that is what the 50+1 rule would do, as it does in Germany, where no teams were part of the super league plans and where ticket prices are significantly lower. Football was created by the working class, but it has been stolen by the rich. It is time that we took it back.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
Diolch, Ms Elliott; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing this vital debate. It is also an honour to follow my good and hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana). Like her, I am a proud Liverpool fan. Football, and specifically the huge range of issues that the game has faced in recent years, is a topic that I know is particularly close to all our hearts. It is a privilege to speak in today’s debate.
Football is clearly beloved by many, yet far too often it finds itself in a huge mess. Widespread and meaningful reform is urgently needed. The structures in place at the moment are failing at all levels. Currently, clubs, including my beloved LFC, have a huge amount of power if they are in the premier league, yet shockingly it is absolutely clear that at that level no one is truly accountable to the supporters and their interests. And make no mistake, it is the fans—the ones who turn up come rain or shine, and win or lose, and who pour their hearts, and often their earnings, into the game—who should be at the very centre of the game’s governance.
I was pleased to see that some clubs, including Manchester United, have finally decided to engage with fans through a fans forum, but clearly, given everything that we have witnessed over the last few months, those forums should have been in place decades ago. The Government’s fan-led review of football is thankfully in the safe hands of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), but we also must remember that sports clubs are not just a business, as other Members have said. These clubs are at the very heart of our communities. My area has a number of thriving local teams, including Tonyrefail AFC, Pontyclun FC, Ponty Town FC, Treforest FC and Church Village FC, among many others. They have all helped our local area through the pandemic and will be central to the recovery, too.
Alongside the big premier league teams, these much-loved clubs at grassroots level desperately need support. Indeed, we need only look at the situation that Wigan Athletic found themselves in last year for a stark reminder of how urgently widespread reform is needed. It really does not have to be this way. It will come as no surprise when I, as a proud Welsh Member of Parliament, invite colleagues to look across the border at the success that national league side Wrexham have seen in recent years. The takeover of the club was fairly unique, given the new owners’ links to Hollywood, but it is a model that others across the UK could do well to take note of. Soon after the deal was announced, the new owners launched their mission statement, which had transparency at its root. Met with overwhelming support from fans, Rob McElhenney and Ryan Reynolds do not describe themselves as owners, but rather as custodians of the historic football club that they have the privilege and honour of guarding.
In short—as I realise time is short—it is absolutely vital that the Government use this opportunity and their fan-led review of football to make lasting, impactful change for a sector that for too long has remained unregulated. On a personal level, I will always stand ready to work with colleagues across the political divide for the good of the beautiful game. Diolch, Ms Elliott.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
Ms Elliott, you have a succession of Liverpool supporters, I am afraid. I am a member of the Spirit of Shankly supporters club. We are currently in discussions with the club about the role that supporters will play. I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) that I was at Wembley when the Crazy Gang beat us—I am still trying to work out how, to be honest. I am also a season ticket holder at my local club, Hayes & Yeading United. We are the club that discovered Les Ferdinand, Cyrille Regis and Jason Roberts. It is the sort of club that contributes so much, even though it is not in the league itself.
Fans have now made it absolutely clear that they want immediate safeguards for supporters to be able to protect the best interests of their clubs. That is why I support the idea of legislation that requires every English club to secure the support of a 51% majority of its registered season ticket holders for any major decision that fundamentally affects its identity or future—for instance, the competitions in which it plays or any change of home ground, name, club colours or badge.
Fans also need longer-term control, and we need to adopt the German 50+1 rule on supporter ownership of clubs. How do we get there? It is simple: where club shares are being sold, either by shareholders or through new share issues, legislation should require vendors to make shares available on a first-refusal basis to recognised, democratically controlled supporters clubs. This rule would apply until the trust owned 51% of the club shares.
While we are talking about football, let me throw in one other issue. I make a plea to include in legislation control of the sporting “crown jewels”, so that at least 20 Premier League games a season, equally split among the clubs, are shown on free-to-view channels, allowing fans to enjoy at least 2 of their club’s matches every season. That would give a fairer distribution of access to football on television.
I support the overall campaign for a new regulator. The regulator could be responsible for the approval of takeovers, the application of a strengthened fit-and-proper person test process, the oversight of a club licensing scheme to ensure high standards of governance, and the management of a system of redistribution of club revenues to ensure the health of football at every level of the pyramid. Most of those policy proposals were developed by us and were in Labour’s 2019 manifesto, but it would be gloating to refer to that.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank all those who have signed the petitions and the 9,000-plus people who responded to the Committee’s survey.
More than 10 million people sat down yesterday to watch England play Croatia. Football is our national sport, and football clubs stand as historic institutions in our communities across the UK. Although I acknowledge that a move towards a 50+1 ownership model for clubs in England cannot be achieved overnight, the forthcoming review must be used as an opportunity to rebalance the current ownership structure in favour of match- going supporters.
In April, I co-ordinated a letter from more than 60 MPs and peers, cross-party, calling for a simple change in the law to force Premier League and English Football League clubs to give their long-standing season ticket holders a 51% voting majority on any decision affecting a club’s identity or future. The ESL debacle highlighted why it is essential that supporters are given the majority vote in their clubs. It underlines a growing sense that our clubs are all too often run in the interest of remote and unaccountable owners.
The Glazer family takeover of Manchester United is a prime example. Before the Glazers took over in 2005, Manchester United had no debts. Today, the club’s net debt stands at around £455.5 million, yet the Glazer family continue to pocket huge dividends. The forthcoming review must recommend additional criteria to prevent rogue owners from buying clubs solely for their own gain.
I represent thousands of Newcastle United fans in my Jarrow constituency. Their club has stagnated under Mike Ashley, who applies to his football club the same business model as that used by his Sports Direct empire—minimalism, low spending and little or no regard to decent, hard-working people. It would be remiss of me not to mention that I also have a few thousand Sunderland fans in my constituency.
There is no doubt that the football pyramid needs reform and improvement. It must ensure that a proportion of money from Premier League clubs trickles down to teams below them and to grassroots football, in turn securing the future of the game. It goes without saying how much grassroots clubs matter to our communities. Earlier this year, Hebburn Town won the FA vase, which got the town noticed and had a massive impact on Hebburn’s civic pride. However, a huge number of our grassroots teams are on the brink. If they go, it will not just hit the football pyramid, but tear the heart out of many post-industrial communities that are already struggling. That is why it is essential that the forthcoming review recommends an independent financial regulator to represent the interests of supporters, protect against bad practices and generally seek to prioritise the wider good of the game rather than allowing clubs to act solely in their self-interest.
Football must act as an equaliser. Clubs must do all they can to ensure social justice in their own communities and in the wider football community. We cannot allow further disconnection between fans and their teams while a wealthy few line their pockets, because, ultimately, football is nothing without its fans.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliot, particularly in the light of your expertise in this subject. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing the debate and on leading it ably. We have had many such debates in my time as a Member of Parliament, and yet again, the subscription to the debate shows what an important issue this is to us all.
I congratulate in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on her excellent contribution—her dad would be so proud—even though she reminded me of the 1988 FA cup final, which sends a shiver down my spine even to this day.
I do not know what is going on in Kent, but we had brilliant contributions from the hon. Members for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), and everybody wishes the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) the very best in her endeavours, so thanks to Kent for sending us MPs who are doing such great work on football reform. I think it is fair to say that many of the points they made are supported not just by those Members who have spoken but by others right across the House.
We want to see change happen. I will make three very brief points on what I think that change should look like. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, previous Labour party manifestos—in 2019, 2017, 2015 and 2010 —called for reform of football governance, so this will come as a surprise to nobody. Indeed, I apologise to the Minister because he will have heard me say much of this before, but my hope is that the repetition affirms our cross-party position that we want to see that change and we will make it happen. If anybody in the world of football is in doubt about that, they should read the contributions made to this debate, because we have made our intentions clear.
First, on football finances, I support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, as well as all the contributions that she and her expert group have made about the need for an independent regulator. If we are to have an independent regulator, many people will rightly ask, “To what end?” The answer has to be finances. As the ESL debacle made abundantly clear, if we believe in competition, we cannot let the finances of football undermine that principle. We need competition not in name only, but in reality. At the moment, what we call the football pyramid has very significant financial cliff edges—to get into the Championship and to get out of League Two. Those are significant problems in our football pyramid. We need an independent regulator to change how the football finance system works, so that we have a real pyramid and real competition again.
To anybody who thinks that that is too hard, I say that, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North pointed out, we did it in banking even though people said that that was too complicated and difficult. We in this country are good at creating regulators, and we need to do that for football so that there is an independent voice to speak up for the fans, not least to protect the existence of clubs. We heard from the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) just how horrendous it is for people when the existence of their club is threatened. They must have protection so that their clubs cannot be ripped away from them because of someone else’s poor financial management. It is not just league clubs that need genuine redistribution; it is the grassroots as well.
My second point is about fans. We as football supporters need to ask ourselves what we want our role in this to be. That is why I am pleased that the review is fan-led, and I know that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford is talking to lots of fans. Do we want this veto that many have talked about, and if so, how do we get it? I ask the Minister what legislation is being prepared to look at that. What constraints do want on the behaviour of owners? We know that the test for owners and directors is good for nothing, so what kind of test do we really want? We need not a snapshot but an ongoing check on behaviour. As many Members have said, the development of different ownership models requires support, similar to that provided in the past by Supporters Direct, so what preparation work is the Department doing?
My third and final point is about inclusion. Let us be honest with ourselves: we are not in a good moment when it comes to the fight against racism in the beautiful game. We have to be really frank and honest about this. Proper football fans do not boo their team. One of the things that I remember most about first going to Anfield is being told, “We never boo our players. If they are wearing our shirt, those are our people and we do not boo them.” That, for me, is the end of it, so I suggest we all get behind our team, not least because there are significant challenges that we need to fight together, including racism and misogyny.
The fact is that in UK sport, approximately 96% of broadcast time is for men playing football, which leads to a 99% pay gap between women and men. We now have the example of Lauren James and Reece James, who are equal in talent but, because of their gender, face widely disparate prospects for income from football. I ask the Minister: how can we make progress on that and—I know that this will receive support from across this House—on disability football, which is also very important? We need to get it on the agenda.
We have a lot to do. I hope that we will do it together and make progress quickly, because we have had many debates of this type, and now is the time for action.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. You must have been biting at the bit to contribute directly to today’s debate, because I know how knowledgeable and passionate you are about this topic.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) from the Petitions Committee for having brought forward this debate on reform of the structure of football in this country, and to all colleagues from across the House and from various nations who have made constructive contributions. Again, their knowledge, insight, passion, experience and expertise has been incredible, and I am sure that many stakeholders in football have been listening.
I also thank Aston Villa fan Angus Yule, who started the petition on the 50+1 rule, and the Blackpool Supporters Trust, which started the petition for an independent regulator for football, as well as the tens of thousands of people who took the time to sign those petitions. We are having this debate because football fans want changes to be made to the structure of football in this country, and I thank them for their passion and their commitment to improving our national game. Both petitions received well over 100,000 signatures, which clearly signals the level of interest in this subject.
I also note the responses of fans to the Petitions Committee’s survey, which the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) mentioned and which asked the original petitioners for their views on the most important issues facing football governance in England today. They have highlighted areas of concern, including the need to protect the football pyramid, how revenue is distributed, club ownership, and the ability of fans to influence decisions. The Government’s independent fan-led review will look at those issues closely, as well as fans’ views and suggestions for how we can change the structure of our game for the better.
Fans have a crucial part to play in the reform of our national game. They bear the brunt and fallout of bad ownership decisions; they see where the structures are not working for the good of the game; and they can articulate most clearly how important local clubs and grounds are to the local community, and how club badges and names give a sense of heritage, belonging and place. Our independent review has already started its work at pace and is hearing from fans, football authorities and experts from the worlds of finance, governance and regulation to build the framework for the future of football in England. The review’s chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who quite clearly commands the respect of many who have spoken today, has already met many fan groups. I have regular meetings with the chair, but I also meet fan groups myself, most recently in Manchester, and I look forward to meeting more fans over the coming weeks and months.
In addition, the review team will shortly launch a survey to allow all fans to contribute their views. I will ensure that Members are notified when that survey is launched. That is quite important, because we have a lot of football fans in the country, and some of them are not necessarily specifically fans of an individual club, so it is important that their views are heard as well.
Alun Cairns
I pay tribute to the Minister for his work and the way he is following this issue. Will he consider engaging with fans outside England? The point has been made that across the United Kingdom, there are fans of clubs that may predominantly be in England.
Nigel Huddleston
I am confident that we will be able to do that, in electronic form, through surveys and through other mechanisms, for the very reasons he expressed. I had the pleasure of visiting Wrexham last year, and it has interesting new owners; that shows commitment and shows that it is possible to invest appropriately if international owners have the right attitude. That is important, because we should not taint all potential investors, including overseas investors, with the same brush.
The first petition calls for the enforcement of the 50+1 rule for professional football club ownership, in reaction to the—thankfully unsuccessful—move to create a European super league. The House’s opposition to that showed that football can unite us in opposition to certain things, as well for things that we want. On that point, the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) mentioned the incident that occurred this weekend, which we were all very alarmed by. I wish Christian Eriksen a speedy and full recovery.
As Members will be aware, the 50+1 rule has been used in German football, during which time English football has pursued a very different model. There are clearly pros and cons to both approaches, and the terms of reference of our fan-led review include the consideration of models from other countries, so we are looking at that model. Members will be aware of the complexities of retrofitting the German model into the English system and of the benefits that some—though by no means all—wealthy individual owners have brought to our clubs. The review will consider whether any aspects of these alternative ownership models could be beneficially translated into the English league system. At this stage, it is for the chair and panel to consider all the options available. I would not want to prejudge their recommendations, but work is under way and the review’s interim report is due next month.
The review is also looking at other options that fans are keen to explore, such as voting rights, with fans having a greater say in how their clubs are run, and whether that would mean direct engagement and involvement with the club’s board and executives. The review will also consider giving fans some form of voting rights or golden share on key issues affecting the club. The Football Supporters’ Association supports that option, and it was supported by hon. Members today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) and others.
What the panel, the Government and, most importantly, fans seek from the final recommendations is a stable and sustainable framework for our national game for the future and beyond. Key to that sustainability is responsible club ownership; integrity in club governance; recognition of the proud footballing history and heritage of our national game, as mentioned by many hon. Members; recognition of and understanding the value that football clubs bring to their local communities; and most importantly, recognition of the value and expertise that fans can contribute to their clubs.
We do not want to see again the destruction of clubs like Bury. Neither do we want to see clubs seeking to break the framework of English football simply to become wealthier at the expense of other clubs. We do not want our cherished and historic football grounds to be taken away from their communities. We do want stable and responsible ownership of our football clubs. We want fans to be involved in the crucial decisions affecting their clubs, and we want to maintain the thrill, excitement, uncertainty and competitiveness that give English leagues their status and make them the envy of the world.
I turn to the second petition, which calls for the introduction of an independent regulator for football in England by December this year. The strength of feeling on this issue among hon. Members was fairly clear. Again, I cannot pre-empt or prejudge the chair’s recommendations or the Government’s response, but there has been a clear message in this debate and many others that I have attended with the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). I fully understand the weight of feeling behind the huge amount of support for the petition, which has had more than 140,500 signatures. It clearly demonstrates fans’ appetite for better regulation of the structures in football.
Alison McGovern
Has the Minister seen the open letter on the issue of regulation, whose lead signatories are Gary Lineker, Rio Ferdinand and Jamie Carragher? We are all aware of their work in this area. The letter suggests that regulation should not be diluted by Premier League representatives or anyone else employed by, taking fees from or on the board of professional football clubs or football authorities. Will the Minister confirm that he has seen that letter, it is being taken account of and it will be covered by the review?
Nigel Huddleston
Yes, I have seen that letter. I have seen many submissions, and a lot of genuinely good ideas are being suggested for the review. Many hon. Members who have spoken have great expertise. The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has done a huge amount of work in this area, and we have heard from people who have been involved in various proposals over the years. It is important that we respect and accept the views of people who have been absolutely pivotal in football, and who have led and played football over the years, but the voice that we most want to hear in the review is that of the fans. It is fair and reasonable to say that those who lead football, and who have great expertise in senior leadership positions, are also fans and they genuinely speak for fans, but the most important thing is to listen to fans. We will take on board the many contributions that have come in over the years, in many formats. The fan-led review is genuinely open to all possibilities when it comes to changing the structure of football governance, and we should not prejudge its outcome.
Football governance has had some very public failures, many of which have been referenced today, and it is fans who have borne the brunt of those failures. Again, fans cannot simply move on to a new club, and that is what makes football and sport different from standard businesses. The review is working quickly and will deliver an interim report in July. From the interim report, we will have a clearer view of how any new structure would work and the preferred options for creating a new, more responsible governance model for football, before the final report in October. As has rightly been said by the hon. Member for Wirral South and nearly everybody else in the debate, it is not just a matter of having a regulator, if we should go down that route; it is about what the role, responsibilities and remit of the regulator will be. We need to think very carefully about that.
The Government have been clear that we will move quickly to assess the review’s recommendations and implement any that we agree are in the interests of fans and the game. That includes any recommendations that may require legislation, for which parliamentary time would be found. The tone of the debate suggests that we can probably expect cross-party agreement on implementing the recommendations if they do require legislation.
Football fans in this country have never been simply a backdrop to the game. They are the energy and the commitment that keep clubs alive. They keep the historical traditions of football alive, and they create the new traditions. Fans support their clubs, their communities and each other. Our national game cannot survive without their involvement. I thank all the fans who have made their views known in the two petitions that we have debated.
This is only the start of fan involvement in shaping the next steps in the future of English football. I am confident that together we can look to a brighter future for our national game, in which all voices are heard.
Jonathan Gullis
Today has shown the very best of this place: the graft that goes on here every single day—even if it might not be sexy enough to merit a 30-second tweet—as we work in consensus to find a way forward.
I want to mention the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), who gave two extremely powerful speeches from personal experience. If anyone is any doubt about why the beautiful game is so important to fans, I urge them to watch or read those two speeches in order to understand. I love the fact that the hon. Lady is wearing her shirt with pride, and I hope that image goes out across the world.
Ultimately, a statement has been made today by this House: change is coming. I say with all good nature that when the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I agree that governance change is needed, that is the moment that the penny should drop for the FA and others. The right hon. Gentleman and I might not necessarily agree fully on how it should change, but when two such Members in this place agree, it makes a powerful statement.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) pointed out, Wales plays an important part in the English game. Hearing the story of the people of Barry and their fight was very important. There were so many speeches but, sadly, time does not allow me to rattle through how brilliant they all were. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) talked about Tranmere Rovers and its £60,000 investment in helping the community with fitness and in tackling county lines—also a scourge of the city of Stoke-on-Trent and the towns of Kidsgrove and Talke. There will be similar issues in many of our areas.
A message has been sent that change is needed. Personally, I certainly favour the idea of change in football governance. As the Minister said, how that is done, the remit of powers and the implementation need to be very carefully thought through. It is easy to rush into such things in order to look popular, but, ultimately, we must ensure that it is something that will last. One day, I hope, that will be transferred to the FA, which should have those responsibilities. Once we have public trust in the Football Association of England, perhaps it can take on those responsibilities.
All of us—except perhaps those who are not English Members of Parliament—can agree on one thing, which is that football is coming home this summer. As I always like to say when I finish such speeches as this: “Up the Vale!”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 583310 and 584632, relating to football governance.
Written Statements
The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
At Spring Statement 2019, the Government commissioned an independent, global review on the economics of biodiversity. “The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review” was published on 2 February [HCWS752].
Having examined its findings, I have today laid before Parliament the Government response to the Dasgupta review (CP 466).
In response to the review, the Government commits to: delivering a “nature positive” future, in which we leave the environment in a better state than we found it, and reverse biodiversity loss globally by 2030; and ensuring that economic and financial decision making, and the systems and institutions that underpin it, supports the delivery of a nature positive future.
The response sets out the ways in which the Government are already making significant progress towards delivering that future, for example, in England, re-orienting agricultural support to improve the environment, animal health and welfare, and reduce carbon emissions. The Government have also committed to spend at least £3 billion of the UK’s international climate finance on nature and biodiversity over five years, and have set out a 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution which will mobilise £12 billion of Government investment to create and support up to 250,000 highly skilled green jobs across the UK.
Building on our nature agenda, the response also sets out the ways in which the Government will go further in light of many of the review’s conclusions, including by:
legislating in England for a binding target for species abundance to be achieved by 2030, aiming to halt the decline of nature;
legislating in England for “biodiversity net gain” for nationally significant infrastructure projects through a new amendment to the Environment Bill which will be tabled shortly;
ensuring all new UK bilateral aid spending does no harm to nature;
committing up to £3 million additional support to the development of the taskforce on nature-related financial disclosures framework, which will support financial institutions and companies to report and act on nature-related risks.
working with the Office for National Statistics to improve the way nature is incorporated into our national accounts and maximise their use in policy-making; and
incorporating biodiversity into the UK Government green financing framework, which will determine which projects are eligible for financing under the UK Government’s green gilt programme.
The Government’s response to the review is published at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review-government-response
Copies of the paper are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
[HCWS87]
Tourism Recovery Plan
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
The Government have published a tourism recovery plan which sets out a framework for the tourism sector’s recovery from covid-19. This is a cross-Government plan which recognises that tourism supports, or is supported by, the work of nearly every Government Department. This plan brings together recent, existing and planned support for the sector by the UK Government into one framework.
In November 2020, as part of the first global travel taskforce report, the UK Government made a commitment to bring forward a tourism recovery plan in 2021 which was reiterated in the Prime Minister’s spring reopening road map published in February. The commitment to produce a recovery plan arose from the simple fact that tourism has been one of the hardest hit sectors of the UK economy by covid-19.
The UK Government want to see a growing, dynamic, sustainable and world-leading tourism sector reaching its full potential and driving growth across all parts of the UK. Specifically, we are aiming to:
Recover domestic overnight trip volume and spend to 2019 levels by the end of 2022, as well as inbound visitor numbers and spend by the end of 2023: both targets are a year faster than independent forecasts predict;
Ensure that the tourism sector’s recovery benefits every nation and region in the UK, with growing accommodation occupancy rates in the off-season, visitors staying longer and world-class levels of investment in tourism products and transport;
Build back better with a more innovative and resilient tourism industry, maximising the potential for technology and data to enhance the visitor experience and employ more UK nationals in year-round quality jobs;
Ensure the tourism sector contributes to the enhancement and conservation of our cultural, natural and historic heritage, minimises damage to the environment and is inclusive and accessible to all; and
Return the UK swiftly to its pre-pandemic position as a leading European destination nation for hosting business events such as trade fairs, conferences and exhibitions.
A short term focus of the plan is to provide businesses with the support they need to return back to profit. For example, over £25 billion has already been provided to the tourism, leisure and hospitality sectors in the form of grants, loans and tax breaks, and tourism has been one of the most reliant economic sectors on measures such as the furlough scheme. The Government have allocated at least £19 million to domestic and international marketing activity to help with the recovery, with a £5.5 million domestic campaign led by VisitEngland already under way. Measures such as the VAT cut for tourism and hospitality, and a continuation of business rates relief for eligible properties will continue supporting businesses, and new proposals such as the introduction of a domestic tourism rail product and the National Lottery days out scheme will help stimulate demand. There is a particular focus in the plan on maximising the set piece events scheduled for 2022: Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee, the Festival UK* 2022 and the Commonwealth Games, which will all act as major domestic and international tourist draws.
Once restrictions are lifted, the Government will focus on building back better. For example, the plan lays out significant levels of UK-wide investment already under way in tourism product and infrastructure, as well as new support due to come in over subsequent years, such as the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund. We will also bring forward a consultation on the introduction of a tourism accommodation registration scheme in England.
A root and branch independent review of destination management organisations (DMOs) in England, led by Nick de Bois, is already under way. This review was launched in March 2021 and is assessing how best to structure and support tourism at a regional level. Other measures, such as an expanded ministerial advocacy and industry ambassadorial programme for business events, will help cement the UK’s position as a leading European destination nation for hosting business events.
To ensure the success of the plan, a new quarterly inter-ministerial group for tourism, chaired by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, will be set up to deliver and update this plan as necessary. The tourism recovery plan will be revisited at regular intervals to ensure the right policy interventions are in place. The Government will work collaboratively with the Tourism Industry Council and other key stakeholders from across the tourism sector in order to get it done.
A copy of this document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS88]
Teacher Training Application System
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
The teacher recruitment and retention strategy, published in January 2019, committed to helping people become teachers by introducing a new streamlined application system for postgraduate initial teacher training. This application system, known as the Apply for Teacher Training service (Apply), is easy to use and designed to better meet the needs of potential trainees. The new service also ensures teacher training providers can make accurate decisions on whether their applicants are right for the courses they are offering.
During the October 2019 admissions cycle, this digital service was piloted by a number of school-centred initial teacher training providers and schools across England. In October 2020, the pilot was extended to 11 universities offering initial teacher training courses. The service has been designed and developed based on ongoing feedback from candidates, universities, and schools to ensure it is as efficient and easy to use as possible.
The new Apply service will fully replace the existing UCAS teacher training service from the October 2021 admissions cycle. I have instructed UCAS to decommission its teacher training service and all applications to postgraduate initial teacher training courses in England will be processed through the Department’s new Apply service from October.
[HCWS89]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, good afternoon. The hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering, except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk chair and any other touchpoints before and after use. 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.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including those in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk using the Grand Committee address if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in the order of request. The groups are binding. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not Content”, an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content” a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]
Monday 14th June 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 View all Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-III Provisional third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (11 Jun 2021)
Baroness Grender
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would raise the minimum financial penalty under the Bill from £500 to £5,000.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments is an attempt to ensure that enforcement bodies have sufficient financial long-term sustainability. It also ensures that there are appropriate deterrents in the Bill to incentivise freehold landlords to understand just how serious a breach will be and the impact it will have on their current portfolio of properties. The additional aim is to create an incentive for local authorities to pursue financial penalties.
Today, of course, is the fourth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire where 72 people lost their lives, and I am sure that we are all thinking of those bereaved families, survivors and residents as they remember their loved ones. That tragedy underlines just how important it is that homes are safe and secure, and one of the first lines of defence is the enforcement authorities.
In addition to moving Amendment 14, I will speak to Amendment 15. While we appreciate that the Minister stressed at Second Reading that the fines would be for each individual lease, the danger remains that an enforcement authority will receive only £5,000. Indeed, Clause 9(3) states:
“Where the same landlord has committed more than one breach of section 3(1) in relation to the same lease, only one financial penalty may be imposed on the landlord in respect of all of those breaches committed in the period”.
Several noble Lords at Second Reading raised the issue of enforcement and resources to enforce. Local authorities’ trading standards departments have experienced staff cuts of at least 50% since 2010. It is not unusual for skilled and experienced—and therefore more expensive—staff to have been replaced with less skilled and lower-salaried staff. Sometimes trading standards has been contracted out to third parties completely. Local authority trading standards departments need greater sustainable long-term resource and that means generating greater levels of income.
Therefore, there should be a wider range for the fines and a higher start point for the penalty. The amount should be consistent with the Tenant Fees Act 2019 where landlords breach Sections 1 and 2 of the Act on more than one occasion. If you are a leaseholder, you are not a home owner, and therefore the levels of potential fines should surely be similar to those for rogue landlords in the Tenant Fees Act. The Bill relies on local weights and measures authorities—namely, trading standards departments—to oversee this new law. The Government will already be well aware of the sluggish approach to fining and banning rogue landlords under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. When originally launched, the Government predicted that there were 10,500 rogue landlords; so far, only 43 have been registered. Speak to many local authorities and they will report that an operation of this nature requires early up-front investment, but other priorities such as social care with chronic records of poor funding will inevitably come first. As Liam Spender, a trustee of the Leaseholder Knowledge Partnership, points out:
“It is likely most local authorities will decline to get involved, as they do in most private sector housing disputes now, on the grounds that leaseholders have civil claims they can use to recover any prohibited ground rent.”
Waiting for the next local government settlement is a short-term solution and, frankly, unlikely to solve this problem given other competing demands on local authorities. Now the Government are adding another task with too limited financial reward: as the fines currently stand in the Bill, the incentive to take the necessary action to fine a freeholder will not be worth the effort.
Amendments 14 and 15 would raise the minimum financial penalty from £500 to £5,000 and the maximum financial penalty from £5,000 to £30,000. The potential of greater fines would give local authorities an opportunity to invest in this operation, charge rogue landlords and freeholders and therefore sustain a longer-term, fully budgeted operation. If the Government are opposed to this increase, perhaps the Minister could share what level of financial penalty would make it worth while for a local authority to pursue a freeholder. If the argument is that this will have an impact if it is a penalty on a developer across several leases, what level of fine do the Government anticipate?
On Amendment 16, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell, the arguments are similar. It contains a new clause that would be inserted after Clause 12 that would extend the banning order regime under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, with an exception for rent recovery orders. It would ban landlords who received three or more penalties in any six-year period from collecting some or all of the monetary ground rents arising under pre-commencement leases. That should be a clear signal to persistent offenders that, under Clause 9 of the Bill, if the maximum penalty has been charged three or more times against the same landlord or a person acting on their behalf, there will be restrictions and penalties.
We recognise how significant the failure is of this part of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. On 9 January 2018 the then MHCLG Minister, Jake Berry MP, said the Government’s estimate was that
“about 600 banning orders per year will be made”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee , 9/1/18; col. 12.]
In April, the Housing Minister, Christopher Pincher MP, confirmed that just seven landlords had so far been issued with a banning order. As the National Residential Landlords Association says of this failure:
“The Government needs to work with local authorities to understand the true extent of the pressures faced by environmental health departments responsible for enforcing many regulations”
affecting this sector.
“Too often, government has introduced initiatives to crackdown on”,
for instance,
“criminal landlords without properly understanding whether councils have the resources and staff to properly enforce them. In short, regulations and laws to protect tenants”—
and to protect leaseholders from bad practice—
“mean nothing without them being properly enforced.”
When we look at the level of these fines, we must remember that this industry is vast. The MHCLG’s own estimate is that, of the 4.5 million leasehold properties in the UK, approximately 2.5 million are owner-occupied. All these people are likely to be paying some level of ground rent. The companies behind the freehold interests receiving these ground rents are huge undertakings. They are more than a match for any local authority seeking a £5,000 fine. For example, Proxima GR, a key company in the Vincent Tchenguiz freehold portfolio, reports in its most recent accounts that it expects to receive £2.4 billion in ground rent between 2019 and 2080. It is believed to control a portfolio consisting of freehold interests over hundreds of thousands of leasehold properties. The same accounts report cash income of £24 million in the same year. A fine of £500 or £5,000 for multiple breaches is no disincentive to any organisation of that scale. Information on other ground rent investors is hard to come by but, from the limited information available, there are many other substantial operators out there. For example, in 2016, leasehold properties worth £64.8 billion were sold. Of these, new-build properties were worth £13.7 billion, leasehold house numbers doubled, and developers made £300 million to £500 million a year from ground rent sales. Looked at from that perspective, £5,000 seems a very small sum to put as a maximum. Has the Minister considered an industry-funded redress scheme to support enforcement?
To conclude, there should be greater detail in the Bill about how to resource penalties and sanctions to sustain longer-term planning and funding. These are large industries with significant levels of income and profit: they need to be aware that their days of exploiting leaseholders are over and failure to recognise that will cost them dearly. I beg to move.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Baroness on Amendments 14 and 15. I was just reflecting on how important this issue is: hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of families are affected. The problem probably goes back over half a century. It is to the great credit of my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Bill is before the Committee now, and I say to him “Well done.” In 1968—I see my noble friend Lord Young sitting opposite me—I had the privilege of being elected, somewhat against the odds, as the potential leader of the London Borough of Islington. We won 57 out of 60 seats; we did a deal with the other three, because they were a local community group. I was then elected to be leader and chairman of the housing committee. Sitting here this afternoon, I still remember working really closely with the officers of that authority, from the town clerk down. It was not entirely to do with leaseholds, but it was to do with property and rogue landlords. Two in particular come to mind: a local one called De Lusignan and the one whom we all remember, Rachman. Those rogues and their successors have not gone away—the noble Baroness is absolutely right; they may well have multiplied for all I know. They were a huge problem even in those days.
There is another element, which I can talk about, though some noble Lords might have more difficulty. I have lived and worked in Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka. I have the greatest respect for those countries. I would go as far as to say that I love them dearly; I know them extremely well. As far as I can see, there is a rogue element, particularly in the poorer parts of our country, which exploits vulnerable migrants. That is wrong, and we know that it is wrong, but some local authorities appear to be slow, resistant, unwilling or too conscious of the social situation. In my view, as someone who has taken a deep interest in housing all my political life, that rogue element has to be addressed—it does not matter who they are.
The noble Baroness is right about the figures that are in the Bill. In today’s world, £500 is absolutely no deterrent to anybody: you only have to see what is happening out there in the market. She is right that £5,000 is the beginning of a reasonable deterrent. Personally, I would do a multiplier by five, because £25,000 somehow—perhaps it is the advertising man in me—sings out as even stronger than £30,000. I do not know why that is, but I thought about this when I was working on it over the weekend. I agree with the noble Baroness that £5,000 is the beginning of a proper deterrent, and I think that £25,000 should be the maximum.
Of course, it is for my noble friend on the Front Bench to decide what Her Majesty’s Government believe is appropriate, but all I say to him is that this area needs dealing with, and here is an opportunity to do it. I again congratulate my noble friend and his colleagues on bringing this Bill forward. Let us make a really good job of it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on her clear exposition of her very sensible amendments. It is obvious to everybody that rogue landlords have an easy ride in this country. It is far too easy for such unscrupulous landlords to get away with far too much, and that extends to freeholders abusing leaseholders with exploitative ground rents. In shorthold tenancies, a lot of wrongdoing occurs unintentionally by uninformed or incompetent landlords, but that is not the case in freeholder-leaseholder relationships, where the freeholder is usually a big corporate entity that is professionally managed and legally advised. For that reason, any breach of this Bill is likely to be wilful, intentionally exploitative and involve large sums of money.
It is obvious, then, that the penalties currently contained in the Bill are paltry and unsuitable to deter or to punish the criminal behaviour. As a proportion of these massive landowners’ revenues and profits, a minimum penalty of £500 is irrelevant. I would much rather see financial sanctions on companies being similar to those under the data protection laws, which specify penalties as a percentage of a company’s global turnover. That is how you get companies to sit up and pay attention. At the very least, these penalties should be much higher than they are in the Bill. I am sure that the Government know that, so I have no idea why they chose this figure of £500, which is absolutely ludicrous.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Grender has clearly set out, the current provisions in the Bill to enforce compliance by those who are determined to do wrong will not work, and that view has been strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The three reasons for that are quite clear: the penalties themselves are trivial; the enforcement system will be ineffective; and rogue landlords will prosper.
First, the penalties themselves are trivial. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has made the point perhaps better than I can, but in many cases £500 will be less than the current annual leaseholder charge. Indeed, with escalation clauses in place, over the lifetime of the lease £500 might be seen as very small change indeed. The case for making these penalties bite is overwhelming, simply because the unscrupulous who carry on as though the law has not changed will readily write off these penalties as essentially meaningless. I shall not engage in a bidding war with the noble Lord as to how high we should go, but each of us in our different ways would make the point that £500 is nowhere near enough to be effective as a deterrent.
It is not just nowhere near enough to be effective as a deterrent; it is not anywhere near enough to pay for a sound enforcement policy. The enforcement system will be ineffective. It is supposed to be paid for by the pitifully small fines, which will be paid not by all those who offend but all those who are successfully prosecuted—only those fines will contribute to the funding of the trading standards department. It will therefore be the case that the trading standards department exercises passive power only, exercised, if at all, only when a big fuss is made about a particular case, perhaps by a local councillor or an MP.
It is extremely doubtful that any responsible financial officer of a local authority, when building a budget for the next year, would authorise the recruitment of staff to enforce legislation on the basis that it would be funded by £500 for each case that is won. Of course, it would need recruitment of staff because, as my noble friend Lady Grender pointed out, there has been a 50% reduction in staff in trading standards over the past decade and a loss of skills to go along with that. This new burden, to be dealt with effectively, would have to have additional resources. I am sure that the Minister is not content simply to put in place a deliberate paper tiger of enforcement—unless that does in fact suit the Government’s purpose: something that looks okay in the Bill but about which their landlord friends can be told, “Don’t worry, just keep your head down and carry on.”
That brings me to Amendment 16, to which I have added my name. We have to stop rogue landlords prospering. Of course, they already do prosper, and that is what the Bill is all about: stopping abuses or restricting behaviour which, though lawful, ought not to be. Those with a great deal of power in a contractual relationship, the landlords, are imposing oppressive terms on those with very little power, the leaseholders. And those who impose the most care the least. Rogue landlords will weigh up the risks and rewards and reach a commercial judgment. They can easily afford to treat the penalty system as a small marginal cost as it stands; they know it will not even cost them £500 per breach but only £500 per breach which leads to a successful prosecution—that is quite a different thing.
That successful prosecution will be rare without Amendments 14 and 15, which seek to generate the money for there to be a team of people who can enforce it. That is where the importance of Amendment 16 lies, in introducing an effective banning order regime. Only with a clear process for banning repeat offenders, driving them out of the market, can the stakes be raised sufficiently high to deter rogue landlords and, in the most egregious cases, drive them out of business.
I want to hear the Minister say to your Lordships that he genuinely wants this Bill to deliver an effective regime of penalties and punishments that will safeguard the good intentions of this legislation against the small minority of unscrupulous landlords who seek to bypass it and who continue to exploit leaseholders regardless. One way the Minister can do that is by accepting these three amendments. The Bill as drafted certainly does not give us those assurances. If he does not accept the amendments, he surely has a duty to your Lordships, and to leaseholders themselves, to explain what alternative mechanisms he proposes to put in their place instead.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendments 14 and 15 refer to the penalties contained in the Bill, whereas Amendment 16, as we have heard, refers to the banning orders regime. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, has introduced these, so that the Committee can consider whether these current penalties are appropriate and whether the banning orders should be extended.
First, on the issue of financial penalties, as we have heard, the amendments would increase the minimum financial penalty from £500 to £5,000, and increase the maximum penalty from £5,000 to £30,000. Given the sums of money which are involved in leasehold arrangements and the costs associated with ground rent, the current penalties seem lower than would be expected. If the Minister is not able to accept the noble Baroness’s amendment, I hope he will explain and justify how the Government arrived at those figures.
On the banning order regime, the noble Baroness brings forward the question of whether the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act should be strengthened. The amendment proposes the banning of landlords from collecting ground rents if they receive multiple penalties. On the same issue, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether consideration has been given to banning landlords from renting properties at all when they receive financial multiple penalties. Tenants must be protected from rogue landlords who break legislation over and over again. I hope that the Government will detail what steps they are taking to hold these repeat offenders to account.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I also join the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in recognising that today marks the fourth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, which was the largest loss of life seen in a residential fire since the Second World War. My thoughts are with the survivors and the bereaved.
I thank noble Lords present and those participating virtually for all their time and effort in scrutinising the Bill so far. We have had very good discussions in this Committee and through our engagement meetings. I am grateful for the commitment from all noble Lords to improve the Bill and to reform leasehold more generally.
I have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords that the penalties set out in the Bill are not high enough and that there should be more significant consequences for those who breach the provisions of the Bill multiple times. It is vital that the Bill contains enforcement measures that offer a strong deterrent to any freeholders and their managing agents who try to get around its provisions, and in so doing protects leaseholders. Amendments 14 and 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, would raise the penalties that can be imposed per breach from a minimum of £500 and a maximum of £5,000 to a minimum of £5,000 and a maximum of £30,000 pounds —and my noble friend Lord Naseby would seek to quintuple it to a maximum of £25,000 pounds.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, penalties in the Bill have been set with reference to the typical ground rent collected currently by landlords. I believe that the penalties have been set at an appropriate level to act as an effective deterrent without resulting in a disproportionate enforcement regime. I point out that £500 is a minimum only and that freeholders could easily be liable for multiple fines for the same building; a flat containing 40 leases could leave a freeholder exposed to a maximum fine of £200,000, which is a significant penalty. I ask noble Lords to also note that, through the Bill, we are introducing a minimum penalty amount. I believe this is the first time that this has happened in leasehold law—we have not seen this in other leasehold legislation. This will act as a strong deterrent to any landlord who considers breaching the provisions of the Bill. In addition, the penalty applies per lease, so freeholders of multiple properties could receive higher penalties if they breach the legislation multiple times.
In addition to any financial penalties, enforcement authorities and the tribunal can order the freeholder or their agent to refund any prohibited rent within 28 days, including interest. As I said, the enforcement regime in the Bill is the first time that a penalty regime has been applied to ground rent. This landmark change will ensure a strong deterrent in the protection of leaseholders.
Amendment 16 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, seeks to allow a housing authority in England to apply a banning order under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 against landlords who receive three or more maximum penalties from an enforcement authority under the Bill. Banning orders under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 are intended for the most serious rogue private sector landlords and are not intended for leasehold housing. I note again that the penalties in the Bill apply per lease, so enforcement authorities can impose multiple penalties on freeholders who commit multiple breaches. Enforcement authorities and the tribunal can also order a refund of any prohibited rent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked what incentives there are for local authorities to carry out enforcement penalties set at this level. They retain proceeds and, as I have pointed out, multiple breaches incur multiple penalties. There is also a point of principle here: that local authorities should not consider the potential financial windfall when deciding to take enforcement action; they should seek to set fines relating to the breach, and therefore they should be proportionate.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response. I am very interested in his response about redress schemes—that is something that we could possibly explore at Report. Just to put things in perspective, the Government have recently published a draft online safety Bill which would enable a new online regulator to fine companies up to £18 million or 10% of their annual global turnover, whichever is higher. We are looking at those kinds of equivalents here.
The point about local authorities contemplating a possible windfall is the very opposite of the current scenario, where a local authority will look at a potential freeholder and ask whether, if it goes down the route of attempting to fine for breach of lease, three days’ work alone by somebody with no legal skills will use up the £500 that it would get from the fine. While I appreciate that, as I said in my opening remarks, fines would be across all leases, there is a problem when, if there are multiple breaches for one lease, that is not recognised in the legislation as drafted.
The most important issue is that we need to understand that the penalties and punishments will actually work. We know that there are significant challenges for local authorities to enforce the current systems and that these new systems will seriously struggle and be seriously challenged.
I thank all noble Lords who have expressed their support for these arguments and amendments. Obviously, we will want to revisit this. We will look at the Official Report and see what can be done to continue to pursue this issue, which is all-important because, without enforcement, the Bill is simply not going to work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lennie
“Assessment of financial impact for tenants in long leases of dwellings
(1) Within 30 days of the day on which section 3 comes into force (for any kind of lease), the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the financial impact of this Act for tenants in long leases of dwellings.(2) The assessment must consider whether further legislation is necessary to address the financial consequences of this Act for tenants in long leases of dwellings, including but not limited to in relation to—(a) lease forfeiture;(b) transfer fees;(c) redress schemes;(d) enfranchisement.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the assessment before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the Government must publish an assessment considering the financial impact of this Act for leaseholders, and whether further legislation is required.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this Bill has the support of these Benches because it begins to address the myriad problems facing leaseholders across the UK, but unfortunately it barely scratches the surface. That is why Amendment 19 would require the Government to
“consider whether further legislation is necessary”
in four areas: lease forfeiture, transfer fees, redress schemes and enfranchisement.
On lease forfeiture—the concept of a freeholder taking possession of a property over a debt of a few thousand pounds—there is a clear need for reform. The Law Commission has already consulted on this. Transfer fees—where freeholders place a charge on the sale of a property, often of around 0.25% of the sale price—are preventing home owners selling their homes. There seems no justification for the continued existence of these fees. Meanwhile, the potential for redress schemes should be evaluated to consider the most serious of leasehold abuses. On enfranchisement—the process of extending a leasehold or purchasing a share of the freehold—the Government must look at some of the obstacles currently in place. All in all, as I said earlier, the Bill barely scratches the surface of the issues facing leaseholders. Further legislation in this area is clearly required.
I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has tabled Amendment 20, which raises the question of
“whether a further extension of the ground rents ban could benefit existing leaseholders, especially those facing bills for fire remediation work.”
The issue of remedial costs was brought up in my earlier Amendment 9, and I hope that, this time, the Minister will give a cast-iron date for when the Government will bring forward legislation to properly protect leaseholders.
In Amendment 21A, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, probes the application of ground rents charged by the Crown, including the Duchy of Cornwall. The noble Lord is right to probe the issue and to draw attention to the Law Commission’s work in this area. I look forward to clarification from the Minister. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister can confirm how many Crown properties this relates to and whether the Government intend to engage the residents of these homes.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 20 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Grender. I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to my relevant interests, recorded in the register, as a member of Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Today marks four years since the Grenfell tragedy, which cost the lives of 72 people. It took away from many others their homes and their livelihoods. Those who survived will for ever have the dreadful memory of that night, leaving a dark mark on the rest of their lives. That tragedy has rightly cast a long shadow over the construction industry. Questions asked immediately following Grenfell are still failing to be adequately answered.
The Government know that the Grenfell fire was accelerated by the use of flammable cladding. They know that hundreds of other buildings have the same or similar cladding, with the same fire risk. They also know that post-Grenfell investigations of these self-same buildings have uncovered further fire safety defects, such as the lack of building regulation-required fire breaks. The Government’s response to this life-threatening catalogue of errors is half-hearted at best. Leaseholders are being forced by the Government to carry the financial and emotional burden of the total inadequacy of the Government’s response.
The reform of leaseholders’ obligations is of course a central purpose of this Bill. I understand that the Bill seeks to prevent future unwarranted financial burdens being placed on leaseholders through ground rent demands. The purpose of Amendment 20, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Grender, is for the Government to assess the financial impact on leaseholders of this Bill after six months. It is a perfectly reasonable and sensible amendment that I hope the Government will be minded to accept.
The cladding scandal has revealed the enormous financial impact on leaseholders. In a housing association block of flats in the Manchester area, leaseholders have been sent bills for £95,000, when those very flats were built to enable people on lower incomes to buy their own homes. Given that the value of their asset is now zero, paying any bill of that size is simply impossible for the leaseholders.
Those leaseholders who have, often unknowingly, signed up to escalating ground rent penalties are also omitted from the Government’s thinking. For instance, one leaseholder found that his annual ground rent for a one-bed flat in London was to double every five years on a flat that was purchased for £170,000 in 2018. In 20 years’ time, the ground rent will have risen from an affordable £1,050 per annum to a completely unaffordable £16,800 per annum. As with the innocent victims of the cladding scandal, these leaseholders need help from the Government, hence subsection (2) of my amendment.
There is an accumulation of evidence that leaseholders are not getting fair treatment as malpractices are uncovered. Those leaseholders facing massive bills for putting right fire safety defects have done everything right and nothing wrong. Those leaseholders who face increasingly large bills, having unwittingly signed up to ground rent clauses, are also victims of a housing scandal.
Amendment 20 is the opportunity for the Government to turn their attention to righting failures in the housing system for leaseholders, current and past. On the day when we remember Grenfell, let this also be the day when the Government finally agree to find financial solutions for leaseholders who have been left to pay the enormous price of the wrongs of the housing industry. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 21A is grouped with Amendments 19 and 20, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. They have one thing in common, in seeking further information and reports from the Government to clarify and provide more information to help us debate not only this Bill but subsequent ones. I will confine my remarks to the Crown issues listed in Clause 23(2), which comprise the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall and government departments in summary, and in particular the definitions and scope of excepted areas.
It is interesting to refer to paragraphs 7.149 and following in the Law Commission’s report. These basically suggest that the Crown, in its totality, is happy to comply with whatever legislation the Government put forward on these issues, except in relation to what are called “excepted areas”, which are listed in paragraph 7.151. To summarise, those are:
“(1) where the relevant property stands on land which is held inalienably; (2) where particular security considerations apply”—
which is fair enough—
“(3) where the property is in”
or closely connected to
“historic Royal Parks and Palaces; and … (4) where the property … has a long historic or particular association with the Crown”.
When it comes to the Duchy of Cornwall, which of course claims to be part of the Crown, the report goes on to say that the Duchy of Cornwall estates
“are specifically stated to fall within the fourth category”.
I would challenge that; I think that it is specifically stated by the Duchy, and I will come on to why.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 19, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Lennie, and Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the 72 people who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy some four years ago. There have been many lessons from that tragedy for housing management purposes, and I hope that the Government and housing organisations learn much from them.
As it currently stands, this legislation will undoubtedly have a potential long-term financial impact for existing long-term leaseholders, as they will be excluded from it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, who said that, while the legislation is welcome—I definitely welcome it, and the Northern Ireland devolved authorities introduced similar legislation—it barely scratches the surface. There is no doubt that existing leaseholders will have to pay onerous ground rents with no sense of freehold. Amendment 18, which the noble Lord did not move, referred specifically to the need to remove ground rent for all leaseholders.
This legislation is quite limited and the Government have promised other legislation. When will that be brought forward? Can the Minister give us a revised timeframe with exact dates therein? The delay in bringing forward this limited legislation and the need for other aspects in relation to enfranchisement were raised at Second Reading and again today. I welcome the Bill’s proposals, but I feel that enacting the amendments would ensure that the Government could bring forward legislation at a later stage and provide the important financial assessment on the holders of long leases that is urgently required.
To introduce fairness and equity into the property market, the new clause introduced by Amendment 19 should be accepted by the Government to ensure that an assessment takes place of the financial impact for tenants in long leases of dwellings that examines lease forfeiture, transfer fees, redress schemes and enfranchisement. The Law Commission report made recommendations in respect of enfranchisement following promises by Theresa May’s Government in 2017 to tackle unfair and unreasonable abuses of leasehold, particularly the sale of new leasehold houses and onerous ground rents. With the legislation applying only to new leases, why are the Government allowing developers to exploit home owners through exorbitant ground rents? Why the piecemeal approach to this legislation? Why did the Government not bring forward more comprehensive legislation?
I believe the Government should accept Amendment 19. If enacted, it would enable the Government to have an assessment of the current housing situation to indicate whether further legislation to ameliorate the situation is required. I fully agree with Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which tries to help those facing fire remediation work. Again, I think of the whole area of Grenfell.
There is also a view in some quarters, particularly in the management of the property sector, that the government impact assessment accompanying this Bill demonstrates the negative impact of this legislation on the housing market: increasing house prices and creating more barriers to entry for consumers trying to get on to the property ladder. It has been suggested that, without proper and careful consideration of the detail and, in particular, the effects of these changes on apartment buildings, this legislation could have far-reaching implications across a range of issues, including building management, accountability and, crucially, the safety of apartment buildings. This is on top of the immediate impacts on the price of flats and the ability of prospective owners to buy new builds, which have been revealed in the impact assessment. Would it be possible for the Minister to comment on these observations in relation to the management of the property sector? Do the Government have any solutions in mind?
I look forward to the Minister’s answers to all these questions. I support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Lennie and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I regret to say that I found the Minister’s rejection of the previous group of amendments extremely thin. I have always been puzzled why, when we have so many experts in your Lordships’ House—I do not include myself in that number—the Government would not listen to common sense and accept amendments that would have an impact and massively improve the legislation. I very much hope that we will bring these amendments back on Report and win a majority of the House round, so that the Government have to listen and improve the legislation, which is extremely thin.
When I was on the London Assembly, I was chair of the housing committee at one time. Just a few years before Grenfell we had a very similar incident in the area I lived in. Because it was so close to me, I was able to visit the block and see the problems. The housing committee wrote a short report and, although very short, the things we found wrong with the building—Lakanal, down in Camberwell—were almost exactly the same things that went wrong at Grenfell. We could have learned from Lakanal; we could learn from Grenfell and the awful death toll experienced there. We have to say that we cannot let people get away with making the same mistakes again and again.
It is welcome that the Bill bans exploitative ground rents in new leases, but it offers absolutely nothing to the thousands of leaseholders already trapped in exploitative ground rent arrangements. I think in particular of the dreadful time that the thousands of residents in hundreds of flammable apartment blocks are currently experiencing. Again, I do not live in such a block and do not have a vested interest. There is sheer chaos and uncertainty, particularly in blocks recently deemed safe but which have since been re-categorised as dangerous and needing expensive remedial work. Many of these blocks now need waking watches to patrol 24 hours a day—a little bit like in your Lordships’ House—and ensure that the building is evacuated in the event of fire. Fire systems that were previously deemed state of the art are now considered woefully inadequate and have to be totally replaced, so that every single apartment unit is individually alarmed.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I think most legislators would agree that there should always be a review of legislation. Unfortunately, that has not always happened in the past, and I have put down a number of amendments to certain Bills to say that there should be a review. But quite frankly, to have a review within 30 days is totally unrealistic; it is far too fast. Given that we have Christmas holidays, Easter holidays and bank holidays—and even the occasional pandemic, with people working at home—I am sorry to say that proposed subsection (1) in Amendment 19 is not the least bit viable.
However, when we move on to Amendment 20, we come to a more realistic basis: that within six months of the Act being passed a review of its financial impact on leaseholders must be carried out. That is eminently sensible and a reasonable length of time. The Minister may have a different view, but looking at it from the outside—again, I speak as someone who has been involved in housing matters—I would have thought that it was a reasonable length of time.
Whether proposed subsection (2) in Amendment 20 is correct, I am not sure. It says:
“The review must make a recommendation”.
I do not think it is the point of a review that it “must” do something. The whole point of a review is that it should look at all aspects of whatever it is reviewing and then make recommendations. That is a technicality, but it seems a more sensitive way of doing it.
I make one further point on the fire remediation work. I think Her Majesty’s Government, and this Government in particular, have tried very hard to get a grip on this very difficult area. One sees daily the outbreak of fire because of cladding, and each one seems to be different. I do not have the experience or the wisdom to know whether Her Majesty’s Government are doing enough in this area. I would appreciate from my noble friend, as would Parliament, a regular update on exactly what is happening on cladding. There is a great deal of confusion out there and clarity would help us all.
I was fascinated by Amendment 21A from my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I am conscious of having visited the model village that was formed in the Duchy of Cornwall—I cannot remember its name but I think it is in Dorset.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Yes, thank you so much.
I declare an interest in that I happen to own 40 acres around my home. Somebody suggested the other week that maybe a small bit of this—say five acres—might be a help to the housing market. I certainly would not think of having it on a leasehold basis. If I am going to build houses in the interests of the community in Bedfordshire, they will be sold, because if something is sold the family involved have real ownership. When they own their home it is not a disincentive but an incentive to do something good for their home; it is in their interests. I suspect that it is a disincentive to do so for most leaseholders.
I think the noble Lord is right to ask the question. I think he said that he sent three letters to the Duchy. The least that the Duchy should do is come back to the questions he asked. I hope that will go on the record. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that none of these are black and white, other than the fact that there should be a review within the six-month period.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. Everybody has spoken with a sense of understanding and concern, remembering that today is four years since the Grenfell tragedy. It should be a matter of particular regret in the kind of debate that we are having that, four years on, so few of the deep issues that have been revealed subsequent to that fire have yet been fully dealt with or accounted for. It is a matter of regret to me that the building safety Bill is still somewhat on the distant horizon, and that we have not yet solved at all the question of who will pay for the costs of this tragedy, since it affects households right across the country.
Noble Lords would expect me to focus particularly on Amendment 20 in the rest of my remarks. Before I do, I will comment briefly on Amendment 19 from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Lennie, which calls for a review. I will skip the number of days and focus on the four issues that they have said need urgent reform and which every speaker in this debate and anybody who has considered the issue would agree on: lease forfeiture, transfer fees, redress schemes and enfranchisement. The Bill does not deal with those four issues. It is time that the Government face up to that and present to Parliament—preferably in the form of legislation, but if not a published report—precisely what their view is on those issues.
The move of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to clarify where Crown exemptions come into play for leaseholders raises an issue that he has brought to your Lordships on a number of occasions. I would be very interested indeed to hear whether the Minister is brave enough to accept his challenge to write to the Duchy of Cornwall and get it to answer the noble Lord’s letter. Your Lordships certainly deserve to hear from the Duchy precisely how it intends to proceed. If the legislation needs change and reform to take account of that, we need to hear the Minister say that he is ready to do that and to make sure that Crown exemptions are used with appropriate discretion and not in any way at all to put residential leaseholders of Crown land in a more disadvantageous place than those holding leases where the freeholder is a private body.
On Amendment 20, my noble friend Lady Pinnock set out, as she has done many times before to your Lordships, the grievous burdens placed on leaseholders across the country as a consequence of the remediation made necessary following property inspections post Grenfell. Before I go on, I remind noble Lords that I served as a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government, as it then was, with responsibilities for building regulations between 2010 and 2012.
The Grenfell inquiry has been hearing evidence of failures at many levels: building owners, building managers, designers, materials suppliers, on-site contractors, inspection teams and enforcement bodies. No one has escaped damning evidence of their failures. What there has not been is any evidence at all of failure by residents or leaseholders. On the contrary, it was the residents of Grenfell Tower who repeatedly warned of the dangers that other people chose to ignore. That led to the terrible tragedy, the deaths and the unmeasurable impact on so many lives of families in and around Grenfell Tower who survived that night.
It also led to the discovery that this was not an isolated case of many unfortunate things coming together in a sequence of horrible coincidences to make a one-off dangerous, combustible building. We now know that more than 400 other residential blocks have been found to have similar dangerous cladding, and the enforced inspection of those blocks has brought to light many other fire safety defects, costing billions of pounds in total. Many of those blocks are occupied by blameless leaseholders who find that they now live in a dangerous and unsaleable home and are being presented with enormous bills for remediation under the terms of their leases.
The Minister will say that this is not the place to insert a proper compensation scheme—nor does Amendment 20 do that—but he needs literally to take stock. That is what Amendment 20 tabled by my noble friend Lady Pinnock does. It asks for a taking stock of the impact of this Bill on leaseholders who live in those defective properties.
Time after time your Lordships have pressed the Government to come forward with a proper scheme of compensation for leaseholders all over the country who have been unwittingly caught up in the Grenfell scandal. Every time your Lordships have pressed Ministers—this Minister in particular—we are told, “Not here and not now”. Meanwhile, as my noble friend Lady Pinnock spelt out, leaseholders are being sent five-figure bills with 28 days to settle or face the forfeiture of their lease. They cannot raise finance on their now-worthless properties, and the Government still have not issued the vital information on how they can even access the loan scheme the Government announced months ago.
Will the Minister tell your Lordships today when those missing loan scheme criteria will be published and what the distribution system of those loans will be? Please can he assure us that it will not be administered via an outsourcing company such as that in Virginia, USA, which earlier this year was the nemesis of the green homes grant fiasco? Let this piece of work be started soon, carried out efficiently and delivered to the benefit of leaseholders as quickly as possible.
Secondly, will he urgently bring forward a proper compensation scheme and lift the threat of forfeiture and bankruptcy from innocent leaseholders trapped in these blocks? Will he, as an earnest of good intent, accept my noble friend Lady Pinnock’s amendment today so as, at the very least, to commit to take stock of the impact that a ground rent ban could have on those affected leaseholders and tenants?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I turn to Amendments 19 and 20 from the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Lennie, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Grender.
Under Amendment 19 the Government would be required to carry out a financial assessment of the Bill within 30 days of Clause 3 coming into force. The Government would also be required to consider whether further legislation would be necessary to address any financial consequences related to the Bill
“for tenants in long leases of dwellings, including but not limited to in relation to … lease forfeiture … transfer fees … redress schemes”
and
“enfranchisement.”
The effect of Amendment 20 would be to require the Secretary of State to complete a financial assessment of the impact of the Bill on leaseholders, specifically with regards to building remediation costs.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. The Minister’s response seemed to be that the amendments are unacceptable to the Government, either because they deal with future leaseholders or because they would delay the Bill being enacted. I find that quite astonishing. As a number of noble Lords have said, this is the fourth anniversary of Grenfell. The Minister’s suggestion that we are waiting for the building safety Bill—still to be proposed—to help deal with some of the issues of Grenfell is quite shocking. It will be even more shockingly felt by the families who suffered loss there. The Government were given the opportunity to build a better Bill, get a grip on the situation and give this rather timid legislation some proper teeth and real purpose, but that does not seem to be their will. We will wait for Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes whether the Government can improve the definition of “rent” for the purposes of the Bill. It is derived from definitions in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It is extended to include fixed service charges and index-linked service charges akin to monetary ground rents.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, one of the themes in our debate on Second Reading was the need for a clear definition of what exactly a ground rent is. In addition to those who have taken part in Committee, I recall the contribution of my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede, who drew on his experience in this area to outline some issues about definition. The helpful briefing that we have all had from the Law Society has as its first priority the need to amend the definition of rent in the Bill. It says:
“The main issue with the Bill at present is the failure to distinguish between different types of rent. Although the Government’s clear intention is to tackle ground rents alone, the Bill does not make this focus clear.”
During the proceedings this afternoon, I have had a further email from Mr Hugo Forshaw of the Law Society saying that he is supportive of the spirit of my amendment; he has offered support for a tweaked amendment on Report because, apparently, mine is not absolutely perfect, in his view.
Amendment 21 deals with this important issue. We need an effective and clear definition if the legislation is to work in practice. There is no current clear definition. Clause 22(2) says:
“‘rent’ includes anything in the nature of rent, whatever it is called”.
If I may say so, that is reminiscent of the controversy about self-identification and the context of gender identification—that if you say something is the case, then it is. The Government’s current approach will, I fear, result in litigation to determine the scope of what counts as ground rent. While such litigation is ongoing, leaseholders will have to continue to pay ground rents in all but name to avoid forfeiture. It is therefore essential that there is a workable definition from the day this legislation is commenced, without leaseholders needing to engage in litigation with landlords to establish that definition.
I listened to my noble friend the Minister’s point at Second Reading that the drafting of “rent” had been left deliberately wide so as to avoid providing a target for landlords to work around, but I am not sure this is wise. The drafters of our tax legislation face similar challenges, for example, yet manage to achieve a greater degree of precision than has been achieved here. There is value in ensuring that future leaseholders and their advisers can determine with certainty what is and what is not ground rent. That way, they can at least seek amendments to a proposed lease to avoid ever agreeing to pay a disguised ground rent. This broad definition risks capturing sums often reserved in the lease as rent, and therefore called rent, which may be perfectly legitimate service charges or insurance contributions. As my noble friend Lord Hammond said at Second Reading, they risk capturing market rents granted under a long lease, which is not the Government’s intention.
Leading law firms have echoed the Law Society and my noble friend Lord Hammond in requesting a clear definition of ground rent, lest there be serious unintended consequences. For example, Herbert Smith Freehills says:
“As currently drafted, the form of the legislation does not differentiate between ground rent and any other kind of rent: in short, anything reserved as rent (eg service charge, insurance rent) would be cancelled and unenforceable. Similarly, there is no reference to the rent being of the nature of a ground rent, so if the lease exceeds 21 years, there would, as the Bill currently is drafted, be no way of granting a long residential lease without a premium and at a market rent. We expect these points are likely to be addressed as the Bill proceeds through Parliamentary readings.”
The definition I offer is based on that found in Section 4 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which is also the definition recommended by the Law Society. But I have added to that definition words that relate to any fixed charge, or a charge which varies or may vary by reference to an amount of money, a fixed measure—for example, RPI inflation—or a period of time: for example, a charge which doubles every 10 years. The aim of this drafting is to include within the definition of ground rent any charge that does not vary in accordance with the cost of providing a service or an item. This is done using the well-known and well-understood definition of “relevant costs” in Section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, for which there is already much case law.
The wording of Amendment 21 is deliberately extended to include fixed service charges, for which currently leaseholders have no means of redress. At least one set of barristers’ chambers—Landmark Chambers—has already identified this as a potential weak point in the legislation, allowing ground rents to continue in a different guise. The aim of this drafting is to ensure that charges made in exchange for a tangible service, which may vary in accordance with the cost of a tangible service, are not within the definition of ground rent. That reflects the Government’s policy, as set out in the Explanatory Notes. This strikes a necessary balance between bona fide service charges reserved as rent and any attempt to circumvent the ban on monetary ground rents by adding fixed service charges or index-linked service charges, or escalating fixed service charges which function as ground rents but which are not given that label.
My noble friend may say that, as the Bill applies only to future leases, some of these uncertainties can be resolved by drafting new standard leases for future use. But if either this Bill is amended or a future Bill implements government policy to enable existing leaseholders to buy out their ground rents, this definition may well be used to cover existing leases, so the need for clarity is even greater.
Paradoxically, the existing definition may catch items that are not ground rents— the case mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hammond—but may not capture fixed service charges that should be caught. On that basis, I beg to move my amendment.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, the definition of rent is an area that requires detailed scrutiny when looking at loopholes during the passage of the Bill. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, at present, as drafted in Clause 22(2),
“‘rent’ includes anything in the nature of rent, whatever it is called.”
This wide definition has set alarm bells ringing. We therefore strongly support this probing amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Young.
As I described in the debate on the first group of amendments today, this is a billion-pound industry which will not let its grip on the market go lightly. It relies heavily on borrowed money to acquire freeholds, all secured on the basis of future ground rents. With the potential of a “rent” unpaid and forfeiture as the pot at the end of the rainbow, we need to make sure that there is some very specific detail in the Bill as to what “rent” means.
The danger is clear, especially on forfeiture, as defining any service charge as “rent” means it must be paid to avoid that forfeiture before a leaseholder can even protest or start to take legal action against the amount charged. The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership has warned that “rent” or a contractual arrangement, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young, could take the form of a fixed payment for arranging buildings insurance or for appointing and supervising the managing agent. Can the Minister say whether, for instance, it is possible to include in a future lease a payment of, say, £200 per year rising in line with CPI inflation as a payment for the landlord’s expenses in arranging buildings insurance if that exists as a fixed service charge rather than a prohibited ground rent caught by the new law? Does he accept or recognise that it would not be possible for leaseholders to challenge that payment as the law stands or is proposed in the Bill? What measures has the Minister’s department taken to ameliorate this all-important issue?
The Bill says that no rent under a lease other than a peppercorn is permitted unless the lease is one of the types of lease excepted from the Bill. But in the Explanatory Notes we are told that the Act is intended to capture any payment under a lease that does not impose an obligation on the landlord to provide a service. LKP trustee Liam Spender put it this way:
“In modern leases, and modern case law, ‘rent’ often has a broader meaning. Many modern leases will define ‘rent’ as including both ground rent and service charges. Some modern leases also specify separate ‘insurance rents’ to cover the costs of buildings insurance arranged by the landlord. It is uncertain if the bill intends to force future leases to be redrafted so that these provisions are no longer described as part of the ‘rent’, or if the bill is not intended to capture these provisions because they are payments for tangible services.”
I look forward to the Minister clarifying some of those points.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we also strongly support Amendment 21. It rightly asks whether the Government can improve the definition of “rent”. Unfortunately—we heard much of this from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender—there is a litany of housing legislation that is in desperate need of modernisation. I hope the Minister will use today’s debate to explain what further legislation is planned to bring the provisions up to date.
On the specific issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, can the Minister confirm what engagement the Government have had with NGOs and representatives of tenants on the issue thus far? Can he confirm whether the Government have any plans, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, to update the definitions available in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, this amendment from my noble friend Lord Young seeks to capture within the definition of rent other charges, such as fixed service charges, if they are reserved as rent in leases. It also seeks to exclude from the definition of rent variable charges or insurance if they are reserved or form part of the rent. The comments on a proposal regarding the definition of rent received from my noble friend Lord Young and other noble Lords continue to be carefully considered. I am very grateful to all those who have given it such close examination and look forward to hearing the further deliberations from the Law Society.
This is an important point to discuss today, as the treatment of what is meant by a ground rent and a rent lies at the heart of what the Government wish to convey through the Bill. It sets the tone for leasehold reform legislation to follow. On the specific meaning of rent, I am not unsympathetic to my noble friend Lord Young’s intention in his amendment. Since the very outset, this Government have been alert to defining what is meant by a ground rent in such a way as to discourage avoidance activity by sectors of the property market which make a habit of such activity. I believe we are all agreed that preventing such activity is of the utmost importance.
To give noble Lords some more of the context behind our reasoning for this definition, we started from a similar position to many of the Committee when approaching this issue by seeking to define closely what is meant by a ground rent. It is a logical approach; tightly drawn definitions are often meat and drink to a strong legislating body such as this House. However, I ask your Lordships to reflect on the seeming ease with which some parts of the leasehold sector have found ways around generation after generation of leasehold legislation, drafted with the greatest care and scrutinised in both this House and the other place, as my noble friend Lord Young knows well.
After very extensive consideration, we have concluded that we would need to take a different approach to the definition of rent for the leasehold sector. We therefore purposely defined rent widely to prevent landlords avoiding the restrictions in the Bill by including spurious periodic changes under any other name. As stated at Second Reading, the Bill intentionally uses a wide definition so that it includes anything in the nature of rent, whatever it is called. For example, we are mindful of not wanting to allow for a new garden rent or parking space rent replacing ground rent after the Bill is passed. That is why the meaning of rent in the Bill is drafted in such broad terms.
Any change faced by leaseholders that looks and sounds like a rent, whatever it is called, will therefore be open to challenge through trading standards and the First-tier Tribunal. Freeholders, landlords and even managing agents acting on behalf of a landlord will be able to refund this rental charge, whatever it is called, and may face a penalty fine. This imposes a potential liability on managing agents and ensures that they will scrutinise future contracts with great care.
We agree that it is not necessary for a lease to reserve charges, such as service charges and insurance, as rent. Under the Bill’s definition of rent, landlords will need to consider whether to itemise other charges separately in the lease. I point out that fixed service charges are a valid way for freeholders to charge for services where leaseholders and freeholders enter into a lease agreement. We are aware of criticism of the misuse of fixed service charges on occasion; these charges are generally in payment for a tangible service and differ from ground rent. Under the Bill, landlords will need to consider whether to itemise these in the lease agreement, and to be clear what the charge is and what a leaseholder receives in return.
I thank my noble friend Lord Young for raising the points made previously by my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede. He raised two specific points, one on the definition of a ground rent for long leases over 21 years where a rack market rent is charged. I welcomed my noble friend Lord Hammond’s thoughts on this and am happy to undertake today that my officials and I will continue to engage with him and others as we look further into this matter. My noble friend Lord Hammond also raised a point on intermediate leases where there is a head lease or multiple properties. I point out that there are a number of potential options to address the complexities in this scenario. Once again, I am grateful to him for raising this issue and will continue to explore the matter further before Report.
Above all, I welcome the efforts of my noble friend Lord Young to achieve our shared objective of a clear definition of rent. However, I fear that my noble friend’s amendment would add complexity and provide opportunities for landlords to find workarounds to a Bill otherwise closed off by the simple definition it currently contains. I am interested to see what the Law Society comes up with and to see the revised drafting.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, we have engaged with a number of NGOs and stakeholders in preparation for the Bill and I am happy to provide details of that in writing. While I appreciate the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment and I am happy to continue discussions with him, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part, as this is a modest Back-Bench amendment which has generated three Front-Bench responses. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, reminded us that there is a lot of money riding on the definition of ground rent; there are huge financial instruments at stake. We do not want a shaky foundation for that market.
I listened to the Minister’s reply. I will say only that he has so far failed to convince the Law Society or the lawyers I referred to, who do not believe that the broad definition adopted by his department is the right way to proceed. I am not sure that I was reassured by the Minister saying that, if there was any doubt, tenants could go to tribunals. The whole point of the amendment is to try to avoid doubt and grey areas and reduce the need for litigation.
At the beginning of his response, my noble friend said that his department continues to carefully consider the issue of the definition and that he was not unsympathetic to what I was trying to do. I am grateful for those responses. On the basis that discussions will continue between the noble Lord, Lord Hammond, and the department, the Law Society and the department, and indeed, those solicitors who have expressed serious doubts about the current definition, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lennie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the Bill comes into force within 6 months of the day on which it is passed, if regulations are not introduced by then.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this final group of amendments is in relation to commencement. The Minister will be aware that different clauses of the Bill are intended to come into force on different dates and the Minister has the power to determine when certain parts are introduced. This is not a rare practice for primary legislation, but the Government should explain when they intend to reserve the power of commencement and whether there are any circumstances whereby the commencement could be postponed indefinitely.
Amendment 24 places a six-month limit, whereby the provisions will come into force if the Government have not already introduced them. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Government intend for the provisions to come into force within six months and, if so, whether they would be minded to accept this amendment by way of a guarantee. As I have said during previous groupings, the provisions of the Bill are welcome, and I am sure that the whole Committee will want to see their introduction without delay. I am sure that the Government are determined to commence the provisions as soon as suitable but I am concerned that unforeseen events could lead to unnecessary postponement.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare a personal interest as someone who pays ground rent on my London flat. I am coming at this from a slightly different angle from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie.
My noble friend the Minister is an honourable man, and I therefore believe him when he says that the Government want this Bill to come into force as soon as possible; he has urged us not to push any amendments which might delay its passage. I am therefore mystified at Clause 25 and the very bitty commencement dates. As the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, said, Bills often have different commencement dates, but the only things coming into effect on Royal Assent are the regulation-making powers and the usual consequentials at the end of the Bill, which we have just voted through on the nod. If the Bill is as urgent as the Government and we on this Committee say it is, why have we no date for the commencement of the only thing which really matters—the abolition of new ground rents and their replacement by the new peppercorn regime? Every week which goes by allows more iniquitous leases to be created.
I understand that the residential homes sector has been granted more time to adjust. I am sure that Messrs McCarthy and Stone and others will put that time to good use, adjusting their service charges to take account of any future ground rent losses. But as we consider what to do about the commencement dates at Report, we really need to know, very firmly on the record, when we will see the second and third legs of this three-legged stool. When will the Government introduce a fully-fledged leasehold reform and abolition Bill, and when will they introduce provisions like those advocated by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern to have a proper ground rent buyout system?
I know that my noble friend the Minister will say that it is up to the usual channels and that he cannot make promises on when other Bills will be introduced, but we need to stress to him, and to the rest of the Government, that we will be very impatient unless we hear a firm commitment that this will be as soon as possible—ideally, in the next Session of Parliament and not sometime in this whole parliamentary period.
We have all said that this Bill is a good first start—a very good one leg of the stool—but we must see firm promises on the introduction of the next two legs or I, at any rate, will not be content to agree the commencement mishmash in Clause 25 when we come to Report.
Lord Stunell (LD) [V]
My Lords, I address my remarks to Amendment 26, just spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I strongly support what he said and the arguments that he put forward in support of his amendment.
One key risk of separating out the legislation for all new domestic leases from those of the 4.5 million existing domestic leases is that a gap will open up in the market between homes traded under existing leases and those traded under the new regime. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has just said, the existing leases are very disadvantageous compared to those that will be formed under the new Bill. In many respects, existing leaseholders will be under a double disadvantage. They will have a home that may be identical in every respect to one that is subject to the new Bill, with a lease signed a week after Royal Assent—or maybe in two years, when it is finally implemented. The existing leaseholder will be at a permanent long-term disadvantage up to the point when stage 2 of this reform comes into force.
This amendment would bring the Bill into force immediately. It would mean that the long tail behind the existing leaseholder system would be cut off. There would be no new leaseholders stuck with the old system, with a Bill that has had Royal Assent but not been brought into effect. It would, as quickly as possible, create a bigger market of those with new leases rather than old leases.
In its turn, that will throw up disparities between the two categories of leaseholder resident. Those who have an existing lease—particularly those with an informal lease extension, which might have huge escalating charges written into it—will find that the gap between them and their near neighbours under the new system widens and widens. Inevitably, that will lead to a two-tier market; perhaps at first only at the margins but, over time, as the number and proportion of new leases on the market increase in relation to the number of existing leases, that gap will widen. The disadvantage suffered by those holding existing leaseholders will also widen and will be twofold: first, they will find it harder to sell their leases on, because they will be less attractive to purchasers than those leases available under this Bill; and, secondly, in the meantime, they will be stuck with paying through the nose the exorbitant terms of their existing lease.
Amendment 26 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is a good step forward in the absence of any real commitment by the Government to bring much closer together this Bill, stage 1 of reform, and the next Bill, stage 2 of reform. The noble Lord is absolutely right to press the Government and to express his concern that that announcement has not yet been forthcoming. Indeed, Ministers have been very reluctant to make it. We need to know when stage 2 will be before your Lordships’ House. We need to know how soon it will be that the follies, injustices and oppressions of the current system will be stopped. We need to make sure that as few people as possible find themselves in the unenviable position of hearing, “Take it on these terms or take it on no terms.”
In an earlier debate we debated the four things that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, thought should be reviewed. The Government did not accept that. In our first day’s work we tried to make sure that there was some definite timetable for future reform. The Government were not willing to accept that. Today’s amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would, unfortunately, still not achieve it, but it might be a powerful lever to force the Government toward bringing these two stages of reform closer together, cutting off the tail of existing leases being signed as quickly as possible, and, as soon as possible, reforming the whole system.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to be repetitive because much has been said by those who have taken a particular interest in the Bill—and indeed the market, which is why we are taking an interest in the Bill. I have little to add, but if I was sitting in my noble friend’s position, as the Minister responsible, I would see merit in the timeframe of six months from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. That would be the maximum break.
I declare an interest in that I share an office with my noble friend Lord Blencathra. He is very clear on his views in life and he is more often right than wrong. My noble friend on the Front Bench needs to reflect on this.
We know that this has been a very difficult area and I have sympathy with my noble friend on the Front Bench. But we cannot have a situation where phase 1 happens—I think we all have confidence that it will, whether immediately, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra says, or along the lines of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—but the second half is to happen only sometime in the distant future. I again reflect on the period when I was chairman of the housing committee in Islington. You could not have had a situation where people in one section of society had their problems sorted out but those in another section—almost identical, except that they are a bit earlier in life—did not, and their problems were kicked into the long grass. My dear friend on the Front Bench has to come back, maybe not today but on subsequent sittings on this Bill, with a firm commitment that the second stage will happen and with a timeframe for it to happen.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, before I speak in strong support of Amendment 26, I raise an issue on commencement, which I think I raised at Second Reading—namely, whether it is possible to have different commencement dates in England and Wales. It is not entirely clear from Clause 25, as I read it, whether one could specify different dates and whether the possibility exists, for example, for the Welsh Assembly to come to the Minister and say, “We would very much like this Bill to be enacted in Wales way ahead of what you are minded to do in England.”
I turn to Amendment 26. During our first Sitting, my noble friend said:
“In order to move on to further legislative action on leasehold reform, we need to get this Bill through as speedily as possible.”—[Official Report, 9/6/21; col. GC 283.]
When he replied to Amendments 19 and 20 this afternoon he repeated that imperative for speed. This need for a swift passage has been behind the resistance to amendments even when, as we discovered last week, it was an amendment that delivered government policy.
As my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, the force of the Government’s argument is weakened if they will not give a firm date for implementation. All we know is that retirement homes will not be affected for another two years. It seems entirely reasonable for my noble friend Lord Blencathra to argue, as in Amendment 26, for a quid pro quo: swift passage in return for swift implementation.
The other leg of the Government’s argument has been, “Don’t worry if this Bill doesn’t do everything. Another one is right behind.” I expressed some scepticism about this last week; we are still waiting for stage 2 of Lords reform promised in 1997. I know my noble friend’s heart is in the right place but all he has been able to say is that stage 2 will be later in this Parliament, which is scheduled to last until December 2024. That legislation could then have a later enactment date, as this Bill does, so I think it fair to press the Government for clarity. Why not publish a draft Bill later in this Session and introduce it in the next one?
I end with a comment that adds weight to this need for clarity. This Bill was introduced in your Lordships’ House and has had a relatively easy ride, but the other place is full of MPs under pressure from leaseholders in their constituencies. Even the at times assertive language of my noble friend Lord Blencathra will pale in comparison with what Ministers will hear in the Commons, so I strongly urge my noble friend to develop what is known in the trade as a concession strategy on dates if the Government really do want to see the Bill proceed to the statute book without delay.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I am really confused by the Government’s approach on this. It seems to be summarised as follows: “Give us this Bill as quickly as possible so that we can take as long as we can and as long as we like to implement it.” The problem is that there is a whole load of future leaseholders out there—and more importantly the marketplace, which believes that this lacks clarity.
Please do not take my word for it. I was reading a blog by Gary Murphy, an auctioneer on behalf of Allsop, which at the moment sells almost half of all London ground rents traded at auction. He notes the intention for this to change over a very long period of time, in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. He goes on to say:
“Before freeholders panic, and new investors smell blood, we have to remember that reforms in this area have been on the cards since 2017. Recent announcements have amounted to little more than a press release. Whilst effective in courting headlines, they have changed nothing for the immediate future.”
The critical issue is that the marketplace, which needs to be convinced the most that this change is imminent and about to happen, is even less convinced than the noble Lords from whom the Committee has heard this afternoon. Until it is this market will continue, even if it is traded at slightly lower reserves.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, these amendments seek to set a fixed date or timescale for the commencement of the provisions of the Bill. I sympathise with that and thank noble Lords for raising this issue. The Government also wish to bring an end to the unjustified charging of ground rents as soon as it is feasible. Clause 25 provides that the Bill’s substantive provisions will come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State by regulations. Noble Lords can rest assured that we do not intend to have an unnecessary delay in implementation.
Although I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his enthusiasm to see the Government’s legislation come into force, commencing all the Bill’s clauses immediately on Royal Assent is simply not workable. This would leave no time for the laying of regulations and other important matters relating to the implementation process. While most of the delegated powers in the Bill are intended for later use should the need arise—such as to close a loophole—some will be beneficial when the rest of the clauses are commenced and will need to be prepared prior to this. For example, regulations under Clause 2, specifying the form and content of notices to be exchanged by landlords and leaseholders in respect of a business lease, will aid transparency and understanding of the obligations of both parties under this legislation—an outcome which I am sure noble Lords would welcome. I am sure that noble Lords will want the Government to get such regulations right. I am also sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that, with the unpredictability of the parliamentary timetable, I cannot give a guarantee that the Act can come into force on the day it is passed.
Amendment 24, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, recognises that time is needed before the Act can come into force. Again, I appreciate the sentiment of wanting to see the Act brought into force as quickly as it can be. However, it is not appropriate at this point to set a hard deadline for commencement, as proposed in the amendment. The Government are mindful of the necessity of ensuring careful implementation of this new legislation and to allow for a planned transition to a leasehold sector without financial ground rents. As noble Lords would expect, we will work closely with the sector, enforcement bodies and others to ensure that the Bill is implemented as smoothly and speedily as possible. I again assure noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to bringing the Bill’s provisions into force without delay.
My eagle-eyed noble friend Lord Young has spotted that the Bill applies to England and Wales and that, as currently drafted, there could be different commencement dates. Conversations with the Welsh Government continue to ensure that we meet the needs of leaseholders in England and Wales and address any commencement concerns.
I state again that I have listened carefully to noble Lords’ concerns and will look at whether we can be more specific about commencement dates as we move to Report. I look forward to further discussions with noble Lords on this issue. Once again, the intention is to get the second stage of leasehold reform through in this Parliament, ideally in the third Session. However, I cannot make any hard and fast commitment to that, so I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I thought I had a request from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, to speak after the Minister. Does she now not want to do so?
Baroness Grender (LD)
I will take the opportunity, since I have created so much confusion. I thank the Minister for saying that he will go back and see whether it is at least possible to specify some kind of commencement date. I would very much like to say to him that I think all sides of this House will happily work with him and his department and take recommendations if it is at all possible to specify a date in order to counter the market scepticism that I described to him. If it is at all possible to put a date by the end of this process, we would be very grateful for that move.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
Of course, as a Minister I would like to have stronger lines at this stage but it is important to recognise that we need to lay the regulations and ensure that the enforcement of this works, and there are communications challenges. However, taking that all into account, I am sure that we can reach a situation where we provide much greater clarity and we can be more specific around commencement dates. We can work towards that as the Bill moves through this House and on to the next stage.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister seems to be trying to take three positions at the same time in response to this amendment: no unnecessary delay; to get the regulation right; and either not to have a date or to have a date depending on whether he can go away and get the stronger line from the ministry. I wish him well with that, because we are all saying that either a date needs to be hard, fast and managed or stage two must be timetabled into the legislative process. We welcome the review that will take place between now and Report and we look forward to something concrete coming back from the Minister in advance of Report. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
That concludes the Committee’s proceedings on the Bill. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
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.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Covid-19: Proof of Vaccination
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blunkett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what facility they will make available as proof of vaccination for those wishing to travel who do not have a smart phone and access to the verification app.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, since May, individuals in England who have had two doses of an approved Covid-19 vaccine have been able to demonstrate their vaccine status for international travel. The services can be accessed through digital and non-digital routes, via the NHS app and the NHS website or by calling 111 to request a letter. The devolved Administrations are making available similar letters for use in travelling overseas. Over 63,000 people have requested a letter since the service was launched.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
I am very grateful to the Minister for his positive answer. Can he tell the House exactly how long it takes to get a printed letter as opposed to downloading the app, and how this will relate to the new electronic travel authorisation, which hopefully will coincide with lifting restrictions on British travellers here and abroad?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, 57,000 people have received their letters so far. I am not aware of any delays. Those who wish to can use a pharmacy for the delivery of their letters. It is encouraging news and we have gone to considerable lengths to meet the suggestions of charities which we engaged with on the letters. They are available in different languages and in Braille.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. It sounds as though what you really need is a secure card that proves your identity and has important information uploaded to it, such as your vaccination status—something my noble friend was introducing, only to have it scrapped by an incoming Conservative Government. We have had 10 wasted years. If there is to be a vaccination app or some other certification, can we be assured that it will not contain data that purports to show that holders are safe to travel because they have had a negative test under the absurd test and trace scheme? The BMJ has reported that the level of false negatives is of the order of 30%. Such negative tests have no probative value, despite the Government, according to the Public Accounts Committee, wasting £37 billion on them.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, that is not our approach. Our approach is to try to use whatever technologies work in order to open up our borders. The idea that 30% of tests are not correct is an unhelpful suggestion by the noble Lord. We will be using testing in the validation app.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society. My noble friend will be only too well aware that many on the autism spectrum are very IT-savvy. However, can he help those who would find it quite a challenge to phone 111? Is there any way the Government can communicate with the autism community, perhaps through the charitable sector and others, to make alternative arrangements other than just a phone call?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we have engaged considerably with the sector on exactly these kinds of matters. GPs and pharmacies are briefed to help those with difficulties get this material. We are also conscious that some with autism may struggle to take a test and find the process of swabbing intimidating, so we are looking into workarounds for that.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, regardless of whether you hold a paper or digital record, personal health and data will be held on a central database. Can the Minister therefore inform us which government departments and private sector organisations will have access to the data on the central database?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, vaccine data is held in the vaccine database and in the patient’s record. We abide by the principle that the data is owned by the patient.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has really answered this question already, but may I add that it surely would be possible for vaccination units to have supplies of certificates that they could issue to people when they come to get their first or second vaccination?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend alludes to having pre-printed certificates. In fact, each vaccine certificate has a tailored two-dimensional QR code that is designed for each person. Therefore, it is necessary to print the certificate for the person because it has their specific details on it.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I am a little confused by what the Minister is saying. Is he saying that we are not going to get a proper Covid passport, as the EU will be offering from 1 July and Ireland from 19 July in both digital and physical options? Could he answer that in detail?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not being clearer; I will be crystal clear right now. Today, you can have a digital certificate on your iPhone, you can have a digital certificate that is printed out from your computer or you can call a number and have a paper certificate sent to you in the post immediately. All of those options are live today.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Disability campaigners are deeply concerned about the integration of health data into cultural participation and worry that the Government’s plans to set up the vaccine passport scheme could undermine the rights of disabled workers and audiences who cannot have the vaccine because of a health condition. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that any scheme that is introduced obeys the seven key inclusive principles, including complying with the Equality Act in making reasonable adjustments to ensure that disabled people do not face discrimination?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am very alive to the concerns of the disabled. We have to balance the need to limit the spread of this virus to save lives, but in a way that is fair and just to all people. We are very much engaged with disability and other charities to ensure that that works. The noble Baroness is right that there will be some people for whom the vaccine does not work and who could yet catch the disease. We need to make provision for those people, and we are working on that.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am concerned for the significant numbers of people with existing mental health problems who often do not feel comfortable with smartphone devices, as the information overload such phones can provide can exacerbate their feelings of stress and anxiety. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that other channels will be available to these people, but what arrangements are the Government putting in place to ensure that they are aware that options other than smartphones exist that they will be able to use?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, all the promotions for vaccine certificates through travel agents and GPs make very substantial reference to the availability of paper letters and the channel of being able to call 119 to receive them. I completely sympathise with those who do not want to use their mobile phones for everything, and some will prefer a letter in the pocket to an app on their phone.
Baroness Rawlings [V] (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clarity, but proof of vaccination is irrelevant if we are prohibited from travelling. The Prime Minister is rumoured to have discussed travel to and from the United States with President Biden at the G7, but what are the predictions regarding UK citizens travelling to Europe, apart from Albania, which seems to be okay?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I do not know about Albania specifically, but the freedom to travel in Europe is, of course, in part defined by Europeans themselves. We are in conversation with all European countries at the moment as to how our vaccine certificate scheme can be aligned with theirs. Indications from Europe are that they are interested in having a two-vaccination programme for entry as well, but we are trying to understand that more thoroughly.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the choice that people are being given in how to prove that they have been vaccinated. However, as the Government further the digital economy, will they make it clear that no one will be left behind, so that those who do not wish to go online and to always communicate in that way will never be prevented from using the telephone or corresponding by letter to access any government service?
Lord Bethell (Con)
Yes, I completely endorse that sentiment. I pay tribute to 111 and 119, two facilities that have been used to an incredible extent during this pandemic. A lot of people would much prefer to hear someone at the end of a telephone, to have that reassurance and that personal touch. That is why we have substantially invested in both those resources and will continue to do so.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I love the NHS app—in fact, I used it yesterday to gain entry to Wembley stadium to watch England’s great victory over Croatia. Will the Minister consider making sure that additional vaccinations can be loaded on to it, such as the flu vaccination, and starting a major advertising campaign to increase the numbers from 6 million to who knows what?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the England football team, who did extremely well; I am glad that my noble friend was able to attend. He is entirely right: this is an incredibly valuable resource. We have a very strong preventive agenda in our healthcare strategy. The vaccine has demonstrated how we can use modern medical technology to prevent the spread of disease, and it is by using thoughtful technology like this app that we can popularise and make useful a vaccine approach that could reach out to other diseases.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.
Constitution Inquiry
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the suggestion by the former prime minister Rt Hon Gordon Brown of establishing an inquiry on the constitution.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True)
My Lords, the UK Government believe strongly in upholding the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is the most successful political and economic union in history. Together we are safer, stronger and more prosperous. The Government have no plans to establish an inquiry into the constitution.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, that is a typically complacent Whitehall response. Surely the Minister, who is more politically astute than people in Whitehall, must realise that there is a growing demand for decentralisation in England as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is not just Gordon Brown asking for a comprehensive review; people on the Minister’s own side, notably Lord Salisbury, and many others want such a review. Does he not realise that the future of the union is in peril if Government Ministers keep burying their heads in the sand like ostriches?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I try to avoid sand, whether putting my head in it or not. I do not think this Government are complacent. I think there are difficulties with the kind of federal approach that the noble Lord describes because of the nature of the United Kingdom, but I assure him that the Government listen with respect to all those who express views, including former Prime Ministers.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I am not sure whether I heard reference to federalism there. Does the Minister agree that, because of the nature of the debate and the threats to the union, we need to get ahead of the game in relation to the union and its associated constitutional arrangements, and that this is urgent? Will the Government ensure that such discussions are cross-party and cross-society when they do take place?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, all those kinds of discussions certainly benefit from the widest range of opinions. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, did raise the issue of a federal approach, and I responded to that. I assure the right reverend Prelate that the Government’s ears are always open.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I fully understand that the idea of a single constitutional commission or inquiry has now been abandoned and replaced by a number of inquiries that are taking place or have taken place into different aspects and branches of our constitutional arrangements, which always need attention. But if we are to offer a better union, could my noble friend explain which body will look into the obvious and fundamental incompatibility between the evident wish of Scotland’s ruling party not just for improved devolution but for the actual sharing or taking of sovereignty and the central constitutional tenet, which we all hold, of the absolute sovereignty of our union Parliament here at Westminster? There is a problem, is there not?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, many bodies make an input into this debate—I would single out the great work of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, among others—but I repeat that the Government believe in a strong UK Parliament for a strong United Kingdom. The UK Parliament, which represents the whole of the United Kingdom, is sovereign, and the sharing of sovereignty would run counter to this core element of the UK constitution. The Government are committed to strengthening the union, and there is an earnest of that in the recent summit summoned by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
[Inaudible]—arrogant patriotism was an infantile disease like measles. In its new virulent form, it has led to Brexit and now threatens the union with Scotland. Does the Minister agree that former Prime Minister Gordon Brown is right when he says that we should drop divisive talk of “us and them” and look to commonalities of interest to make for a more equal and stronger union?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I certainly agree that striving for commonalities is wise advice to us all.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, on constitutional reform, can the Minister confirm that, following the retirement of the Countess of Mar, all Peers among the 92 places reserved for hereditaries are men; that all 21 candidates in today’s by-election for three Conservative hereditaries are men; and that all 10 candidates for the Cross-Bench vacancy are men? Is this not utterly unacceptable? What are the Government going to do about it?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government will continue to apply the law of the land until the law of the land is changed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the commitment to constitutional integrity and the absolute sovereignty of the UK Parliament comprise a piece of legal purism which I think the Government would criticise if the European Commission displayed such a tendency. Does the Minister recognise that the commitment to absolute UK sovereignty was what led to the division of Ireland? Does he not accept that insistence on it with regard to Northern Ireland and Scotland now is likely to lead to further division?
Lord True (Con)
No, my Lords, I do not agree. We currently have a constitutional settlement in which there are reserved and devolved matters. I think we all believe that devolution has benefited the United Kingdom, and the Government’s priority—as the priority of all of us should be—is to make that work in amity and with commonality, as we were reminded earlier.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
As my noble friend Lord Howell just reminded us, the Government have abandoned their manifesto commitment to set up a constitution, democracy and rights commission in the first year of this Parliament. They have instead announced that they are going to have a range of independent workstreams, to be announced in due course. Can my noble friend shed any light on what these workstreams might comprise, and whether any might involve the working of your Lordships’ House?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will not anticipate the answer that may or may not come to that question. Given the broad nature of the constitution, we are taking forward the work via a range of workstreams, as my noble friend said. So far as your Lordships’ House is concerned, I have the greatest reverence for this House, and I believe that any institution that does its work well and sticks to its last will gain respect.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I do not know whether the Minister has read the Haggard and Kaufman book, Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary World, but I wonder whether he shares its concern that without care and protection, our democratic strengths and constitution can be undermined by the lack of parliamentary, legal and press scrutiny. If he agrees, does he therefore think that a serious look at how government decisions are taken, in order to increase transparency and accountability, is now well overdue?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, within that question there are absolutes and particulars. Having had the honour to be elected by my fellow citizens many times in elections, my own view is that accountability to the people is fundamental, and I also believe that transparency and openness are extraordinarily important. In that respect, I agree with the noble Baroness.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]
Given the disparate and major changes to the constitution that have taken place in recent decades, does my noble friend agree that were any body set up to examine the constitution, it should engage in a take-stock exercise, making sense of where we are now rather than embarking on proposals for further change? Furthermore, does he agree that we should look at the union within the context of the constitution as a whole?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there is an element of taking stock as well as of seeking change. The glory of our constitution is that it is flexible and has evolved, and I am sure it will continue with that strength in the future.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
My Lords, the pandemic has shown us how we need one another; different countries all depend on each other. So, any future discussion or referendum should not be about just separation, division or—often reluctant—centralisation; there is a federal solution that should certainly be top of the agenda when people come to discuss future constitutional arrangements.
Lord True (Con)
I am not sure whether the noble Lord has finished; I hope he has. I made some comments on the federal approach. My view, and the Government’s view, is that we should bend every sinew to make the constitutional arrangements that we have now work; that is what this Government have sought to demonstrate.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend share my scepticism at the idea that the union will be saved by the kind of constitutional upheaval and tinkering currently put forward by Gordon Brown and others, which many people in this country will see as a huge distraction from the priorities of the British people? Rather, what is needed is a relentless focus from the Government on sharing prosperity, opportunity and security throughout this United Kingdom, as well as a constructive and positive unionist narrative that puts at its heart our common values and shared future as one nation.
Lord True (Con)
I agree with my noble friend. The Government have ensured that citizens and businesses across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland benefit from a £350 billion package of UK-wide support during the pandemic, protecting 1.7 million jobs in those countries and providing access to tests, key medicines and vaccines. The recent Budget further demonstrated our commitment to strengthening the union, with UK-wide policies including the extension of furlough and the self-employed scheme.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now move to the next Question.
Covid-19: Vaccines and Pregnancy
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cumberlege
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will (1) analyse, and (2) regularly share, data relating to the safety of the use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women with the Royal Colleges and other relevant parties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, it is vital that we know what treatment is appropriate and safe for pregnant women, so it is imperative that clinical trials are inclusive of this group where possible. The current advice to vaccinate pregnant women is based on a US real-world study of more than 125,000 people. Recruitment to the first Covid vaccine study in the UK involving pregnant women was launched on 17 May. In addition, adverse reaction reports on Covid-19 vaccines in pregnant women are collected by the MHRA, carefully assessed and reviewed.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I must say, though, that there is a lot of concern among the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives that the take-up of the vaccination among pregnant women is not routinely published. I would like to know from my noble friend what the real commitment to doing this is, what proportion of pregnant women have been offered a vaccine, what proportion of those women have accepted it and what proportion of them have had two doses. What is the mechanism for linking this data with follow-up in relation to the outcomes for women and their babies?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend made a clear case for the importance of improving the way in which patient data is collected and analysed in this country. It is something that we are working on at the moment. She highlights a very difficult situation. A third of women do not know that they are pregnant, of course, and, when they are pregnant, their data is first caught at the hospital where they decide to have their birth. Those databases are not easily linked. We do not have a countersignal for pregnancy at the moment; it is therefore not an acute priority. However, I take my noble friend’s point and will look into it further.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the trustees of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The RCOG survey found that more than half of those who declined the vaccine did so because they were waiting for more information about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Will the Government, as a matter of urgency, issue guidance to all pregnant mothers explaining that the vaccination will not harm their unborn babies? Will they also provide facilities for pregnant women to be vaccinated at antenatal clinics as a mechanism to increase the take-up of vaccinations by pregnant women?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am extremely grateful for those constructive suggestions from the noble Baroness. We have a very large amount of materials specifically for pregnant women, including guidance for pregnant women and a guide for women who are of childbearing age, pregnant or breastfeeding; those are widely distributed by GPs. However, as I said, a lot of pregnant women do not know that they are pregnant, so it is not possible to reach all of them all the time. At the moment, our priority is to ensure that those aged over 50 take their second jab. We will sweep up other demographics, and we will make that a priority when we reach it.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
A close family member rang her surgery to ask for advice about being called for vaccination while breastfeeding. They said that it was nothing to do with them and told her to ring the main vaccine booking line. That person said, “Just ask the person who vaccinates you”, who said, “Oh, I don’t know. I’ll have to check”. Last week, Channel 4 reported that this is a widespread problem for pregnant and breastfeeding mums. It is evident that there is no clear guidance for front-line staff on what to tell mums. Can this be remedied as a matter of urgency?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness alluded to a problem that is, I am afraid, commonplace in the healthcare system: an acute sensitivity about giving advice to those who are pregnant because people are very concerned about giving the wrong advice, which sometimes leads to no advice being given. We are aware of this problem but I assure the noble Baroness that material is given to those on the front line—I have mentioned some of the materials that we have published—and GPs have all that material at their disposal. We have recognised this problem, we have moved on it and we are making as much material as possible available to the right people.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords can see me because I do not seem to be being picked up very well. Can the Minister comment on what additional steps are being taken to publicise the up-to-date position to women who are either trying for a baby or are pregnant? Is this information being shared with the organisations in this field, such as the National Childbirth Trust and Mumsnet, to share with their communities?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the up-to-date advice is this: get the vaccine. That is absolutely being promoted very widely.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, if the up-to-date advice is “Get the vaccine”, which is exactly what it should be, what work is being done to assess the effect on women of having Covid during their pregnancy? What is the effect on the child? Is there any research on that?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness points to one of the challenges of longitudinal research: the babies have not been born for very long, of course. We need to do long-term studies to understand the effect. There is no evidence at all of a negative outcome but we will need to monitor that; research resources will be dedicated to looking at it.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
To tackle the risk of stillbirths and emergency Caesareans among mothers who are giving birth and have contracted Covid-19, as we see the vaccination programme extend further—particularly into the younger age groups—will the Minister look at prioritising pregnant women for vaccinations? I refer particularly to women in the later stages of pregnancy.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the JCVI has a clear set of prioritisation protocols, which we are sticking to. The fact of being pregnant does not seem to have a direct impact in terms of severe disease or death, so there is no clear evidence at the moment for putting in or changing the prioritisation of pregnant women. However, we constantly review that and we are naturally concerned to protect both the mother and the child.
Baroness Barker (LD)
The Minister referred to women who do not know that they are pregnant. The place where women go to find out whether they might be is a pharmacy. What are the Government doing to make sure that pharmacies are places where women can access accurate information and guidance?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right. Pharmacies have played an absolutely critical role in the vaccine rollout, and we owe them huge thanks for their contribution. Pharmacists have undertaken a huge amount of training in both the delivery and explanation of the vaccine. I attribute some of the success of the vaccine programme to the extremely effective communication from pharmacists on all aspects of the vaccine, including relating to pregnancy.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, would it not be a good idea if the Chief Nursing Officer and the Chief Midwifery Officer gave a conference from Downing Street to reinforce the message that the Minister has given today about the safety of the vaccine? Can he tell me what the Government are doing specifically about the conspiracy theories going round in relation to safety risks to mothers and babies?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, when it comes to conspiracy theories, we have found that the best people to communicate on that are those who women and mothers trust and are dealing with during their pregnancy, typically their nurses and doctors. We have ensured that all the right materials are there, so that difficult questions can be answered in a collaborative dialogue. That is the most effective way of dealing with this.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister comment on or indicate the extent of the level of co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations regarding vaccination take-up and pregnant women?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the vaccine programme has worked extremely well across all the nations of the UK, and there is a huge amount of collaboration, particularly between the CMOs. Material is routinely shared between all the countries, and I am not aware of any differential outcomes in any particular part of the UK.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Libel and Defamation Cases: Cost to Public Funds
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the estimated cost to public funds of people based outside the United Kingdom using UK courts to mount libel and defamation cases against (1) people, and (2) publications, based in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, court fees are set to achieve full cost recovery, and thus the cost to public funds of libel claims brought by people from outside the United Kingdom in England and Wales is negligible.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that five Russian billionaires are involved in a strategic lawsuit in London against the journalist Catherine Belton as a result of her book, Putin’s People? Why should Igor Sechin, Roman Abramovich, Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven and Shalva Chigirinsky be using London lawyers Carter-Ruck, CMS, Harbottle and Lewis and Taylor Wessing to silence a journalist? These grubby law firms should be struck off and the barristers whom they are paying to do this work should be disbarred. Our courts are being abused by these people, and as Nick Cohen said in the Observer, they are making London
“the censorship capital of the world.”
What are the Government doing about the co-ordinated, shameful abuse of our courts, which must have started life in the Kremlin?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it is not what the Government are doing but what the Government have done. Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides that if a defendant is domiciled out of the jurisdiction then London can hear the case only if the judge is clear that this is the appropriate forum. That Act also contains defences of truth, honest opinion and public interest.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, strategic lawsuits against public participation—SLAPPs—are lawsuits brought by powerful individuals or bodies to silence anyone who investigates or criticises them. Before her assassination, the late Daphne Anne Caruana Galizia faced 47 different legal actions trying to prevent her reporting on corruption, and countless legal threats, including some launched by English lawyers with the threat of action in English courts. Other countries, such as Australia, parts of the US and Canada, have passed legislation to prevent SLAPPs, including mechanisms to quickly dismiss them, and sanctions for those who abuse the courts in this way. Can Her Majesty’s Government follow suit?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the Government always take action to protect freedom of expression to safeguard the work of journalists. The forthcoming online safety legislation will enshrine in law protections for journalistic content and free debate. We will, however. also keep a very close eye on what is called the SLAPP jurisdiction. My noble friend mentions Australia and Canada; she may also wish to read a recent judgment from the Western Cape High Court, the case of Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd, in which Deputy Judge President Patricia Goliath set out in very clear terms the advantages of a SLAPP jurisdiction. This may be the first occasion of a David praising the work of a Goliath.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Written Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, focused on the cost to public funds, which the Minister fully answered. The Oral Question contains an attack on barristers and solicitors for representing clients. Does the Minister agree that any litigant, whoever they may be and wherever they may come from, is entitled to legal advice and representation, and that it is the job of the judge to decide what the legal rights and wrongs are?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, that is absolutely right. With respect to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, from a sedentary position, it is not a vested interest point, it is a fundamental principle of the rule of law. A lawyer should not be identified with their client, and perhaps I may say that I would not want to be identified with all my former clients. But they are all entitled to representation in free and fair courts, which is what this country provides.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as well as concern that English law is still being abused by threats and court action from powerful individuals against journalists and authors reporting on financial crime and corruption, there is credible evidence of women who have alleged abuse facing libel threats and actions from wealthy men as it has proved an effective way to shut women up. Does not the defence of legitimate debate, freedom of expression, safety of journalists, exposure of corruption and encouragement of women to report violence and abuse demand at least a review and reassessment of the measures that can be taken to prevent such actions by corrupt, violent and wealthy figures?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. There are, of course, the defences of truth and, in relation to what is said in court, there is of course absolute privilege. As the Minister who played a significant part in taking the Domestic Abuse Act through this House, I will certainly want to ensure that the protections it gave to women are not undermined by people exploiting the law of defamation.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the Defamation Act 2013 was an important coalition achievement. The pre-legislative committee on which I served was unanimous, so we now have the serious harm threshold, the serious financial loss requirement for companies and the defences of honest opinion and publication in the public interest. To curb libel tourism, as the Minister has just said, Section 9 requires any claimant outside the UK to show that
“England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place”
for defamation action. It was a test applied strictly by the Court of Appeal last year in Wright v Ver. While we should certainly keep the Act under review, is not the law now restrictive enough?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the law is well balanced. We think that the Defamation Act 2013 is working well. I thought I heard the noble Lord say that Section 9 applies where a claimant is domiciled outside the UK, but I think that it is actually where the defendant is so domiciled. With that small correction, I agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, in October 2019, the MoJ published its post-legislative memorandum regarding the operation of the Defamation Act 2013 since it came into force. It concluded:
“There has not been any body of opinion calling for a review … of the Act. That may be because … it is still too early to feel their full impact—
that is, of its provisions—
“given the length of civil litigation.”
Following the concerns raised in November last year in an article in the Guardian, we have now heard further concerns from my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lord Browne, who mentioned how women who allege abuse may face libel threats from wealthy former partners. In the Minister’s view, does this not all add up to a re-review of the operation of the 2013 Act?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, the 2013 Act is regarded as working well and there are no current plans to reform or revise it. However, we will always consider a review if significant problems are demonstrated. Indeed, the 2013 Act itself was a response to such concerns and problems. Obviously, it is inevitable that libel cases will still be brought, but we consider that the Act gives the courts a proper basis on which to determine them by setting out the correct legal framework. The decisions of the courts in interpreting the 2013 Act have helped to reinforce the intention and policy underlying that Act.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in answer to a Written Question that I received two weeks ago, the Foreign Office stated:
“Persons or entities designated under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 are not banned from initiating action in UK courts.”
Does that incidentally mean that if costs were awarded against such people or entities, they would be forbidden to reimburse them? Does the Minister not regard this as a fundamental abuse of British sovereignty?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the response from the Foreign Office was absolutely right. Legislation imposes proportionate sanctions where warranted, but restricting access to justice is something else. When it comes to payment of costs awarded against such people, I can say to the noble Lord from experience that there are ways in which such costs can be ordered and paid, but one has to be very careful in such circumstances not inadvertently to breach the sanctions regime.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the problem raised by this Question is the absence of an appropriate, independent alternative dispute resolution mechanism for those unfairly treated by the press? Do the Government have any plans to consider this?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the short answer is yes. I would disagree with noble Lord in only one respect; that is, when he calls it alternative dispute resolution. We should not see these forms of dispute resolution as being alternative in the sense of being somewhat outré or unusual. They should be absolutely at the forefront of our civil justice system, and indeed, we are making changes throughout our civil justice system to make sure that only cases that really cannot be resolved outside of court end up in court.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now come to two First Readings.
Cigarette Stick Health Warnings Bill [HL]
Monday 14th June 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Cigarette Stick Health Warnings Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Cigarette Stick Health Warnings Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Office for Demographic Change Bill [HL]
Monday 14th June 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Office for Demographic Change Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Office for Demographic Change Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Hillsborough: Collapse of Trials
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, following the collapse of the trials relating to the Hillsborough disaster, on 10 June in response to the UQ in the Commons the Lord Chancellor said that he would very carefully consider
“the points made by the … Bishop of Liverpool …. in his 2017 report”
and the conclusion of the trials, and publish an
“overarching response … having further consulted … the families.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/21; cols. 1128-29.]
In addition to this, the Government have undertaken to respond to the Justice Committee’s report on the coroners service by the end of July this year, specifically to its recommendation that bereaved families should be legally aided at inquests where public authorities are legally represented. Does the Minister accept that, in these two responses, the overriding concern should be that bereaved families and victims feel that their interests come first, and that no public authority or individual working for that public authority is above the law?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, on a personal note, I was still living in Liverpool at the time of the Hillsborough disaster. I remember listening to Radio Merseyside that fateful Saturday evening as the news of the deaths came in and the figure mounted higher and higher. I have nothing but admiration for the families and their supporters who sought justice for the 96 over so many years and in the face of so many obstacles. In response directly to the noble Lord’s question: yes, the overriding concern must be that bereaved victims and families feel their interests come first. We want to place them at the centre of our response to the inquiry under the former Bishop of Liverpool. Certainly, I agree that no public authority or individual working for that public authority is above the law.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, Mr Justice Davis held that the offence of perverting the course of justice did not apply to a public inquiry, because it is an administrative function of the Government rather than a process of public justice. If that is the current state of the law, even given the specific offence under the 2005 Act mentioned by the Lord Chancellor, will that not undermine the whole point of public inquiries and destroy public confidence in them? Will the Government urgently amend the Inquiries Act to reverse this decision, particularly in view of the impending inquiry into the handling of the pandemic, where we know there will be significant conflicts of evidence?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, we will of course keep this point of law under consideration but not for the reasons the noble Lord gives, if I may say so respectfully. The Prime Minister has already confirmed that the Covid inquiry—if I can call it that—will be established on a statutory basis with full formal powers. That means that Section 35 of the Inquiries Act 2005 will apply. That makes it an offence to commit acts that tend
“to have the effect of … distorting … altering … or preventing … evidence”
from being given to a statutory inquiry.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]
Will the Minister confirm that the DPP himself advised on charges brought in the trial and on the surprising decision not to appeal the trial judge’s terminating ruling? Will the DPP follow the practice of publishing his advice in important cases? Will the Minister explain why alternative charges of misconduct in public office were not brought against all three defendants, as they could have been?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the CPS sought advice from senior Treasury counsel pre-charge. Decisions on appropriate charges were made after consideration of that advice. Those decisions were taken in 2017, predating the current director’s term of office. As far as misconduct in public office is concerned, that charge was not available for Mr Metcalf, the solicitor for South Yorkshire Police’s insurers. The allegations against the two officers were related closely to his conduct. Therefore, it was considered that the same charge against each was appropriate. The CPS did not appeal the decision because, having carefully considered it, it concluded there was not a proper basis to appeal to the Court of Appeal. As for the point about the director publishing advice, he does not sit under the Ministry of Justice, as the noble Lord will be aware, but I will pass that point on to the director, whom I note is appearing before the Justice Select Committee tomorrow.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, having flown up to the ground on the day of the tragedy as Minister for Sport, I spent time in the gymnasium that was divided into three: principally, an area for the dead; an area for families and friends to identify their lost ones through photographs; and an area for counselling and statements. I have rarely spoken about the appalling tragedy and the lasting effect it had on all of us involved, but does my noble friend the Minister agree that for all the criticisms levelled and questions about the decisions made by those in charge, the support given in tragic times to the bereaved, and the respect for those who had died—lying there in the gymnasium—has rarely been recognised? Does he accept that everyone I met that day, many in a state of profound shock, including many young police officers, did their level best to assist in harrowing circumstances?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, in cases like this, it is important to distinguish between the institutional response—which in many cases was either lacking or appalling—and the individual response of individual police officers, emergency service workers and others who went out of their way to assist in the most distressing of circumstances.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, what have the Government learned about the process of justice and public confidence in law, when a trial can collapse one day and a defence counsel stands in the street outside the court and maintains unequivocally that this proves that there has not been a cover-up, yet almost the next day the police admit such cover-ups and compensation is duly paid?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as Prime Minister David Cameron said when he made the apology in the other place, the families
“suffered a double injustice: the injustice of the … events”
themselves,
“the failure of the state to protect”
them
“and the indefensible wait to get to the truth;”
and also the offence of
“the denigration of the deceased.”—[Official Report, Commons, 12/9/12; cols. 285-86.]
When I was at the Bar, it was generally regarded as unwise or sometimes improper to comment publicly about your cases. I certainly commend that approach to anybody who says anything about the acts of the Liverpool fans. The Sun itself had to provide a full apology. It well behoves everybody else to read the Bishop Jones inquiry if they want to find out what the truth actually is.
Lord Wills (Lab) [V]
My Lords, those of us who have been campaigning in support of the Hillsborough families for many years welcomed the positive and sympathetic response of the Lord Chancellor in the other place, and it has been echoed today by the Minister. Does he agree that it is time to meet the demand of the Hillsborough families—that no one similarly bereaved in a public disaster in the future will have to suffer what they suffered for so long? Does he also agree that the Public Advocate Bill, as first set out in the 2017 Queen’s Speech, will meet that demand by giving the bereaved real agency in the aftermath of such disasters and the ability to set up a Hillsborough-type panel to ensure that the truth is never again covered up?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the Government fundamentally recognise the importance of placing the bereaved at the heart of any investigation that follows a public disaster. The noble Lord has worked in this area for a number of years and a Bill on this has been proposed. There was a government consultation in 2018, the responses to which were somewhat varied. As the Lord Chancellor confirmed in the other place last week, we will work at pace to ensure that we have a proper, full consultation on this important topic. He also reiterated that we will work on this on a cross-party basis. It is important that the independent public advocate does three things: first, it has to be independent; secondly, it must have the confidence of those who use it; and thirdly, and most importantly, it has to make a practical difference.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, even before the Hillsborough disaster of 15 April 1989, I had written to the Government questioning the safety of the ground. With the deaths of Liverpool constituents, including a child, and permanent brain damage to another constituent, I have waited patiently, along with the families, to see justice. This is justice delayed and justice denied. Reverting to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Carlile, presumably the Director of Public Prosecutions thought the perverting charge sustainable in law. Did he review the case himself, given its huge public importance, and will the CPS now consider prosecution for misconduct in public office for at least some of the three acquitted men? Does the Minister agree that the possibility of a private prosecution for other offences remains?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, at the time of these events, I was living in the constituency next door to the noble Lord’s and I remember his significant leadership in the city then. Respectfully, I shall pass the question on the director to the director for him to respond to the noble Lord. CPS charging decisions must be a responsibility of the CPS and totally independent of government. It would be unwise for a government Minister to provide legal advice from the Dispatch Box on the sensitive topic of private prosecutions.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Napier Barracks Asylum Accommodation
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The judgment found that the Napier Covid arrangements were
“contrary to the advice of PHE”,
with precautions being
“completely inadequate to prevent the spread of Covid-19”,
with people in dormitory blocks having shared facilities for up to 28 people. PHE advice was that
“dormitories are not suitable”
but that, if the Home Office proceeded, the number of beds should be limited to six with people kept in bubbles. Even that did not apply at Napier, where 200 people got Covid.
The Home Secretary told the Commons Home Affairs Committee in February that
“the use of the accommodation was all based on Public Health England advice”
and that
“we have been following guidance in every single way.”
That claim was demolished by the judgment and by the Commons Minister last Thursday, who said that
“Where possible we have followed”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/21; col. 1118.]
PHE guidelines, with “where possible” determined by the Home Secretary. Why did the Home Secretary tell the Home Affairs Committee that PHE guidance had been followed “in every single way”, when that was not the case?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, we believed we were taking reasonable steps to give effect to the PHE advice on the steps to be taken to make dormitory accommodation as safe as possible. It was on that basis that the Home Secretary and the Permanent Secretary appeared before the committee. We acknowledge the court’s findings that the measures were not adequate and are considering our next steps. Throughout the set-up and operation of the site, the Home Office has engaged with health officials in various organisations to ensure that it is aware of up-to-date advice. While the advice to officials from PHE was that dormitory-style accommodation was not suitable, it also set out how congregate residential settings should be used if other accommodation was not available. We have been working very constructively with PHE for more than a year now.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister just said “we believed we were taking reasonable steps”, but the Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee, in answer to question 120, that
“we have been following guidance in every single way.”
Does the Minister agree that there is a significant difference between what she has just said and what the Home Secretary said to the Select Committee? Who is telling the truth?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, we believed that we were taking reasonable steps to give effect to the PHE advice on the steps to make accommodation as safe as possible. The advice that PHE set out was that self-contained accommodation should be used where available but, if not, how non-self-contained accommodation should be used. I have to say that we acted in an unprecedented health pandemic to ensure that asylum seekers were not left destitute. We took steps, in response to advice from health authorities, and have continued to make improvements throughout. In its letter to the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, the PHE set out that we have been working with it on Covid matters since spring last year.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we have heard that the High Court found in the Home Office’s favour in a number of areas, not least in rejecting the claim that conditions at Napier amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. Surely Napier barracks is nothing less than a distraction from the real issue of the French authorities failing dismally in their duty to protect seaborne migrants by preventing them leaving the safety of French shores. Given the enormous contribution that the British taxpayer is making towards this effort in France, can the Minister give an explanation that I can take back to the many people who are, frankly, baffled by the inadequacies of French law enforcement in preventing migrants crossing the channel?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I fully concur with my noble friend that any journey across the channel is perilous and, as we have seen on many occasions, leads to people who take those journeys dying or ending up in the sea. The only people who benefit from those journeys are the criminals who facilitate them. We continue to work with the French to ensure that people do not take those journeys from the French coast. To that extent, we hope that things will improve.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
I declare my interest as a trustee of the Refugee Council. Asylum seekers in Napier barracks, who came via continental Europe, are now being told by the Home Office that before their cases can even be considered, they must spend six months in limbo—six months before they join the queue, lengthening steadily since 2015 and, by March, a record and scandalous 40,000 strong, of those awaiting an initial decision on their claim, not allowed to work and subsisting on £5 a day. Will the Minister answer two questions? First, will she explain how the new limbo is consistent with our refugee convention obligations, given that there is no convention rule requiring applications in a safe transit country? Secondly, will she tell us how sending these people back to continental Europe could be contrived, given that we have left the Dublin convention and have no replacement bilateral agreements in place?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The key phrase used by the noble Lord is “continental Europe”. These people are coming from safe countries; Europe is a safe set of states. We believe that the inadmissibility rules are consistent with the refugee convention. They have not been dreamt up by us recently, but are long standing. We are currently in discussions with other countries on sending people back who should not have applied for asylum, coming from a safe country.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a sorry tale, which, more than anything else, has exposed that the Government either did not know or were avoiding telling Parliament what was happening. Part of the next phase is the opening of a detention centre—I think that is what it is being called—in Medomsley, County Durham. The site is beautiful, but has a very sorry history from when it was a detention centre and then the Hassockfield youth offending facility. There are still outstanding cases of alleged abuse relating to Medomsley. It is a very strange place to put people from very different cultures with probably very different language needs from those in the local community. How will the Government ensure that the system, which already looks fairly broken, does not become even more broken by there being insufficient people with language or cultural knowledge to work there, and ensure that we fulfil our international obligations, as we ought to?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, any accommodation, be it detention or reception accommodation, will be scoped and checked to make sure that it meets service standards. I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes about that particular detention centre because the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham brought it to my attention. We are currently scoping through various options for detention, but if someone has no legal right to be here and we cannot effect their removal, we unfortunately have to place them in detention, but the detention estate has declined somewhat over the last few years.
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, if the High Court considers that Napier barracks cannot provide acceptable accommodation for asylum seekers under current conditions, does my noble friend agree that the court’s judgment is considered extraordinary and absurd by a large majority of the public? Does she not further agree that the judgment strengthens the case to identify suitable offshore centres to house asylum seekers, which might eventually damage the illusion of nirvana—as the people smugglers portray life after illegal entry into the UK?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The judgment found explicitly that the conditions of the barracks were not inhumane or degrading, as has been reported, but I concur with my noble friend that anyone who has no right to be here, whether through criminality or a failed asylum judgment, should be removed from this country. The Government are looking at various ways in which that can be effected.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Environment Bill
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Environment Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 21, Schedule 1, Clauses 22 to 47, Schedule 2, Clause 48, Schedule 3, Clause 49, Schedule 4, Clause 50, Schedule 5, Clause 51, Schedule 6, Clause 52, Schedule 7, Clause 53, Schedule 8, Clause 54, Schedule 9, Clauses 55 to 65, Schedule 10, Clauses 66 to 71, Schedule 11, Clause 72, Schedule 12, Clauses 73 to 80, Schedule 13, Clauses 81 to 92, Schedule 14, Clauses 93 to 107, Schedule 15, Clauses 108 and 109, Schedule 16, Clauses 110 to 123, Schedule 17, Clauses 124 to 130, Schedule 18, Clauses 131 and 132, Schedule 19, Clause 133, Schedule 20, Clauses 134 to 141, Title.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]
Monday 14th June 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Professional Qualifications Act 2022 View all Professional Qualifications Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-II Corrected second marshalled list for Committee - (9 Jun 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Clause 3: Implementation of international recognition agreements
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I rise to oppose Clause 3 standing part of the Bill. Judging from the range of people who have co-signed this amendment and those who would have signed it had there been space, this issue is not confined to one set of Benches. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for signing it. I also acknowledge the craft of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in drafting Amendment 56; I will obviously allow him to speak for himself, but it may well be another way of thinking about the clause. We have already heard about some of the issues in Clause 3, as your Lordships have sought to make amendments. Of course, we are in Henry VIII territory again, but there are particular concerns about this clause, which I will highlight.
The Minister told us at Second Reading:
“Clause 3 will enable UK Ministers and devolved Administrations to implement the recognition of professional qualifications elements of international agreements.”
He said:
“To be frank, we acknowledge that these powers are broad”.—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 910.]
Broad is a good word. In one of his many letters—for which I thank the Minister, as they arrived at five o’clock yesterday evening—he again confirms the importance of the autonomy of regulators, which he has returned to on many occasions.
However, this clause essentially gives the Government of the day the ability to make whatever provision is required to implement any international recognition agreement to which the UK becomes a party. It includes the power to amend primary legislation and retained EU legislation. If regulators were indeed autonomous, what exactly would this clause be implementing? To date, I am aware of no indications from the Minister or his department as to the nature of what changes might be necessary to implement such international agreements. Perhaps he can give us some examples but, in the meantime, we have to assume that nothing is off the table and that the autonomy of the regulators would not be protected in any way if this Bill were passed with this clause in it.
When I first read the Bill, I was already more than somewhat disquieted by this clause but when I read the Delegated Powers Committee report my fears were amplified. I cannot match its authority, but its damning condemnation of the scale of the powers in this clause are really quite important and should be taken into consideration. As the committee said:
“Implementation of such agreements in UK domestic law could raise matters of considerable public interest (for example, were such agreements to give preference to professional qualifications issued in particular countries—perhaps linked to trade deals).”
In the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the Minister confirms that the clause will ensure that the Government can meet their international commitments. Would I be right in assuming that this would include mobility frameworks in free trade agreements?
The DPRRC report goes on to highlight the lack of clarity in changes that secondary legislation would make in domestic law, or the scale of change this law might exert on the 160 or so professions in question by international regulation agreements that the committee implicitly linked to trade deals. It then explains that the justification for this delegation is the fact that the nature of future international agreements cannot be known, which we will come back to. Additionally, the DPRRC notes that the Government fail to try to explain why these
“‘necessary changes’ should …be made by Ministerial regulations rather than by Act of Parliament.”
I expect the Minister to respond to this debate by saying that this clause is vital to Her Majesty’s Government’s plans to implement international trade agreements. But this is true only if the Government refuse to bring these agreements to Parliament for approval. How does he justify the taking of power for the Minister and not leaving it to a future Act of Parliament? How does he respond to the DPRRC’s telling conclusion that
“clause 3 represents an inappropriate delegation of power and should be removed from the Bill”?
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Like him, I was moved to draft Amendment 56 not least by the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which at the end of its consideration of Clause 3 said that it
“represents an inappropriate delegation of power and should be removed from the Bill.”
The noble Lord was not proceeding entirely on his own initiative, and I entirely recognise where he is coming from.
I am coming from this as a Member of the International Agreements Committee. We are looking at many of the negotiations taking place between ourselves—now as an independent trading state—and other countries in creating international agreements. I do not personally see the world as divided into trade agreements and other agreements. We are increasingly entering into economic partnership agreements where, to be frank, the issue of services and the mobility of professionals should rightly play an increasing part in the economic partnerships that we forge with other countries. I want to see us enter into frameworks with other countries whereby our professionals can work there, and their professionals can work here. That will be, as trade often is, to the benefit of all parties.
On that basis, I considered whether this may be like the Trade Bill, in which we effectively gave Ministers the regulatory power to amend legislation and bring it in line with the continuity agreements we enter into. The conclusion I reached is that it is not like that; these are new agreements, not continuations of old ones. From our point of view, as a committee charged under CRaG with the scrutiny of new agreements, we are only too aware that this House has no capacity to block such a treaty, and no capacity to amend it.
Where secondary legislation is concerned, the House may have the power to stop statutory instruments, but in this territory, frankly, we would enter very difficult terrain. We would end up with our Government having signed an agreement with another country, intending to be bound by it under international law—indeed, it may have come into force—and, at that point, this House would have to consider its implementation in legislation. It seems to me, therefore, that the remedy of deleting Clause 3—and so requiring that every time Ministers want to implement an international recognition agreement in legislation, they have to do it in new primary legislation—is asking too much. As time goes on, there will clearly be framework international recognition agreements under which Ministers will regularly, or maybe frequently, need to change the secondary legislation affecting a range of professions and regulators.
My thinking was that we should—as we often do—allow Ministers the power to change the statutory instruments and secondary legislation relating to new international recognition agreements, but not the power to change primary legislation. That is why, instead of changing Clause 3 itself, Amendment 56 amends the regulation clause at the end, Clause 13, and would provide that the power in Clause 3 to implement international recognition agreements is a power to modify subordinate legislation but not primary legislation; that would be the effect of Amendment 56. Noble Lords may support the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and others in opposing Clause 3, but—if they share my belief that we will often be in this this territory, with Ministers having to change secondary legislation and much less frequently primary legislation, and that, when they do, they should secure the consent of the House, with our ability, as ever, to insert amendments, conditions and caveats, as well as sunshine clauses and so on—then they should in due course consider an amendment on the lines of Amendment 56 to strike a better balance, giving Ministers power but not a Henry VIII power.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, to start, I do not agree with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I clearly understand the point that he is trying to make; in fact, I have my name down with others to strike Clause 13 from the Bill, but we will come to that.
I will say in a minute why I do not agree with the noble Lord’s proposition but I do agree with that of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and, absolutely, with his argument. It was clear from the comments of the Delegated Powers Committee that it considered this clause unnecessary. I personally think this is the key clause of the whole Bill; all the other clauses revolve around it.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of a professional organisation. We have before us the international agreements clause, as we could call it. In their response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government said:
“Clause 3 is necessary to ensure that the provisions of international agreements can be implemented domestically and be given effect to by particular regulators.”
I am not sure about the use of “necessary” but that is how they have chosen to phrase it and, taken at face value, it is all well and good. It is established practice for trade agreements to cover a range of issues, including the recognition of professional qualifications—or rather, it would be acceptable if we could trust the Government. The problem, of course, is that we cannot trust this Government, particularly when they seek to assume such wide-ranging powers.
There are two levels of concern. First, and crucially, the driving principle should be the maintenance of the quality of professional standards and the service provided, not any wider considerations of economic benefit. For example, as stated by the General Medical Council:
“Patient safety is, and must remain, the principle consideration when considering whether to facilitate access to the medical register as part of an economic trade agreement.”
In other words, there must be no room for any trade-off of potential broader economic advantages at the price of weakening professional standards. One way of ensuring that the correct professional standards are maintained is the fullest, earliest possible involvement of the relevant UK regulators in the discussions that take place on the trade agreement; that is, before and during the trade discussions. The Minister has protested that it is no part of the Government’s trade policy to compromise our professional standards. It is possible that I have—again, in the Minister’s words—“a suspicious mind”, but the Government’s record suggests otherwise. This is a general issue where some reassurance would be appropriate, whoever is in government.
The second level of concern is that this is not a normal Government. The evidence we have so far is that this Government are desperate and will do almost anything to justify their decision to change our international trade arrangements to get Brexit done. More store is being placed on obtaining trading agreements for their own sake, however bad or vague they might be. The Government are desperate to present the public with so-called achievements of favourable trade agreements.
For example, we are led to believe that a trade deal with Australia will shortly be announced. It will be the first big post-Brexit trade deal that is not simply a rollover of arrangements that the UK enjoyed as an EU member. In practice, Australia is a relatively small export destination for UK goods and services, but that does not matter because it is all about the politics. There is also an ambitious Secretary of State.
How can our professional services depend on their interests being defended in any future trade deal under the terms of this legislation, any more than, for example, the hill farmers of Wales will be defended under the putative agreement with Australia? It is obvious that, whatever the terms, getting the deal is the only thing that matters to the Government.
In addressing this issue, the Government have to be honest that trade agreements are almost invariably about more than trade. It is innocent to believe otherwise. For example, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is much more about achieving the UK’s Indo-Pacific tilt for foreign policy than an economic project. However, the UK has to accept all the CPTPP rules to become a member if it wants to achieve that strategy.
There are real concerns, which I hope the Minister will address, that professional standards risk being the sacrificial lamb, slaughtered on the altar of political ambition.
Lord Trees (CB) [V]
My Lords, since this is my first contribution to this Committee stage, I thank the Minister for his personal letter to me after Second Reading addressing my concerns about the Bill. He is always courteous and meticulous in responding and I sincerely appreciate that.
However, I still have certain concerns. At Second Reading, I asked two main questions. One was whether the Bill would debar relevant regulators from requiring certain applicants—where no regulator recognition agreement has been set—to sit the UK regulators’ own examination or assessment procedures. I commend the Government and thank the Minister that the Government’s own amendments, brought in with regard to Clause 1, have made it clear that this is not the case.
However, the other question and my concern relating to Clause 3 remain. Why is there a need for a clause in the Bill connecting professional recognition to trade agreements? It leads to a genuine concern that Clause 3 will pressurise regulators into relaxing standards. That concern remains, so I will consider it in some detail
A major purpose of the Bill is to give regulators powers to reach mutual recognition agreements or other methods to enable overseas professionals to register and practise in the UK. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons—and I declare my interest as a fellow and former president—and the healthcare professions, particularly the General Medical Council, as my noble friend Lord Patel has mentioned, already have these powers, and one wonders how many of the 50 or so other regulators in the UK do not have them. A question I raised at Second Reading still stands: why not give such regulators the powers they currently lack and leave it at that? Why link regulatory recognition to international agreements?
If we look at the precise wording of Clause 3—and I have not added any words, just subtracted some—Clause 3(1) states:
“The appropriate national authority may by regulations make … provision … for … implementing any international recognition agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party.”
Clause 3(4) continues:
“An ‘international recognition agreement’ means so much of any international agreement … for … the recognition of overseas qualifications or overseas experience for … determining whether individuals are entitled to practise in the United Kingdom”.
I am not a lawyer, but this translates to me as meaning that the Government can implement an agreement to recognise whether individuals can practise in the UK. There is no mention in Clause 3 of involvement or consultation, let alone agreement, with the relevant regulatory authority in the UK. That is my amateur interpretation but the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—I hope I am not pre-empting her—put it more bluntly at Second Reading:
“The dodgy bit of the Bill is Clause 3, which allows the Government to override existing approaches and procedures for the recognition of non-UK qualifications if they have been covered in a trade treaty.”—[Official Report, 25/5/21; col. 931.]
However, as we have heard already from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and others, that is not all. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its report on the Bill, had plenty to say about Clause 3. The committee’s concerns are different from mine but are none the less serious and pertinent. Its report notes that Clause 3 gives Ministers broad powers by regulations, including Henry VIII powers to amend primary legislation, without conditions. The report considers and rejects the justifications for this in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill and concludes that
“clause 3 represents an inappropriate delegation of power and should be removed from the Bill.”
It seems to me that Clause 3 adds nothing to the reasonable and positive elements of the Bill to enable regulators to have greater ability to recognise, by the means they so determine, overseas applicants for registration to practise in the UK or to ensure that the regulators have such processes and that they communicate them publicly to facilitate overseas applications.
There are serious concerns about the potential that Clause 3 gives the Government to determine or influence the process of professional recognition in the UK and serious concerns from the DPRR Committee about the powers this clause gives the Government to amend primary legislation. I argue that, collectively, these facts support the view that Clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill, which I support.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I want to put myself on the record as one of those who would have signed the noble Lord’s amendment, had there been space. I again draw attention to the way in which our systems, with the limit of four signatures, no longer allow a full representation of the range of views in your Lordships’ House. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that should we get to a vote at a later stage, he has the support of the Green group in this matter of Clause 3.
This morning, in my continuing efforts to spread news about what happens in your Lordships’ House to the general public, I wrote what I believe is the first non-specialist press article on the Professional Qualifications Bill, in the Yorkshire Bylines. In it, I described the Bill collectively as a “massive power grab” by the Government, and I believe that Clause 3 is the key part of that power grab, as a number of noble Lords have already indicated.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, in last week’s Committee, we emphasised the need for the Bill, and not just the Government’s fine words, to recognise the autonomy of the regulated professions. If the Government really do intend to respect the independence of the regulated professions, it is quite difficult to see why Clause 3 is required.
If the Government sign a trade treaty that includes the recognition of qualifications, and if they do respect the autonomy of the professions, it is difficult to see why we need Clause 3 in addition to Clause 4. Many regulators already have powers to enter into recognition agreements for overseas regulated professions, and if they do not have them, Clause 4 is there to empower them to do so. As such, they either have the powers already or can acquire them by using an order under Clause 4, which seems to me to make Clause 3 redundant if—and only if—the Government do actually mean what they have been trying to tell us: that they respect the autonomy of the professions.
Put another way, there is no evidence before the House that Clause 3 is needed. When faced with an unnecessary clause, the right thing to do is remove it. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which other noble Lords have referred to, was highly critical of the Government’s taking of Henry VIII powers in the Bill, particularly in relation to Clause 3. There is very good reason for the Committee to agree with the DPRRC that Clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill.
I looked very carefully at my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 56 in this group, but I am not convinced that the existing distinction between what is in primary and what is in secondary legislation is sound. It means accepting that the EU’s use of regulations versus directives, and the use of statutory instruments to implement the EU law coming into our law as we left the EU, is a good basis going forward for determining the degree of parliamentary scrutiny that is required for any changes. Because of this, I cannot support my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
As we are starting the second day of Committee, I declare my interest again as a member of the GMC board, although clearly, I am not speaking on its behalf.
I put my name to the noble Lord’s clause stand part Motion, and I was happy to do so, although I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has given a different and interesting perspective. Equally, I remind noble Lords that I have a sunset clause that we will debate next week. All of us are trying to get to grips with the same problem. The Minister brought some very welcome amendments last week and made some very welcome remarks about the Government’s wish to protect the autonomy of regulators. The issue is that, on any reading of the Bill, Clause 3 would seem to be able to override those protections. This is where we get to the heart of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Davies was absolutely right: we have seen how the farmers are being dealt with over trade agreements, and it is pretty clear that the Government are willing to ditch a great deal in order to get a trade agreement. That is why it is no good having legislation that does not protect the professional autonomy of regulators. Does the Minister accept that, notwithstanding the warm words he has used, in the event of a trade agreement it will be perfectly possible to use this clause to override any of the protections in Clause 1?
If, as I think the Minister has to say, it will be possible, the question posed by noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, then comes back: why do we have to have this clause at all? If we do have to have it, why is there not some protection within it that says that, notwithstanding the trade agreement, it cannot override the protection given in Clause 1? One way or another, before the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House, we have to tackle this head on.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I come to this with a slightly different perspective. Many Members of this House have contributed to the Committee stage of the debate from a ministerial, government or legislative perspective, but I would like to look at it from what my noble friend Lady Noakes might say is the consumer or regulator perspective.
In the debates on the Bill, many noble Lords have acknowledged that we are dealing with a particularly complex landscape. We have had contributions from specialist clinicians, accountants and others, but we have not heard from airline pilots, driving instructors, slaughterers or pig farmers, who are included in this legislation. The list of professions is a given. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, acknowledged, Clause 3 deals with hypotheticals—with future agreements about which we do not yet know, and on the terms of which we can only hypothesise. My noble friend Lord Lansley pointed out how important the mobility of professionals is and will increasingly become in this complex landscape. Many of the regulators of these numerous and diverse professions are governed by pre-existing legislative frameworks. I cannot see how it would be possible to deliver in the Bill the necessary future changes which all these individual professions might desire.
At every opportunity, my noble friend the Minister has rightly stressed the autonomy and independence of the regulators. Indeed, he has described this as running,
“like a golden thread throughout the whole Bill.”—[Official Report, 9/6/21; col. 1453.]
I do not believe that Clause 3 alters this in any way. Many regulators already have robust processes for overseas applicants who wish to join the UK register. They are able to judge the equivalence of qualifications and have already built up considerable experience and relationships with overseas regulators. These regulators would be in an excellent position to advise the Government if and when they felt it necessary to bring forward further secondary legislation. I have spoken to the Health and Care Professions Council, which feels that it is one that could help the Government to shape and hone this secondary legislation to ensure that it met its intended purpose and did not conflict with existing standards, but enhanced, protected and maintained patient safety priorities. It would be reassuring if the Minister could set out how he envisages that a formal process of consultation and engagement would work.
Last week, when he was talking about powers under Clause 3, the Minister referenced European trade forums and ad hoc consultations with interested parties. BEIS also organises regulator forums which provide updates on the negotiations and terms of trade deals. Some regulators—the Health and Care Professions Council is one, and there may be others; I am afraid that I do not know—are not members of either the ETAG or the BEIS regulator forum. There may be others of which I am not aware. Can the Minister give regulators such as these some confidence as to how these powers could be used in future by successive Governments?
Specifically, I understand that the power in Clause 3 is limited to the professional qualification elements of international agreements. In his response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s third report, the Minister gave the example of the UK’s original offer to the EU as the furthest the Government would or could go to require regulators
“to put in place processes to consider applications … from professionals in the EU.”
This is key. Clause 3 ensures that processes are put in place. There should be a clearly outlined route to registration. I cannot find any obligation for a regulator to recognise overseas professionals if they are not satisfied that all their own independently set and required standards have been met. However, as I have already said, experts and regulators are keen to help and work with the Government to provide the necessary expertise and to advise on all aspects of professional regulation equivalence of overseas qualifications which may be required in preparation for and during trade negotiations.
Some have therefore expressed concerns—which have been shared by other Members of this House—that Clause 3 could lead to a situation in which this expertise would be bypassed. Can the Minister enable us to understand further the impact which the provisions in Clause 3 are likely to have? Can he offer any further reassurances as to the context in which these Clause 3 provisions would be used and how the Government intend to work with regulators to inform these trade negotiations on recognition of qualifications?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on securing this Clause 3 stand part debate. I associate myself with everything that he, my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Hunt, said.
I repeat that I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates, and I should probably state that I am an associate fellow of the British Veterinary Association.
Many believe that, while Clause 3 is useful, it is limited to international agreements—treaties to which the UK state is a party. If this is the case, when he sums up the debate, can my noble friend confirm that the power would not be available to make or amend legislation to give effect to a mutual recognition agreement negotiated autonomously at the level of professional regulators? In the view of the British Bar Council, this is a deficiency in the Bill and another reason why Clause 3 might not fit in here.
I particularly associate myself with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others, about farmers. As my noble friend will be only too aware, I have mentioned this just about every time we have debated either the Trade Act—as it now is—or individual trade agreements: there is no parity of approach between, for example, our farmers and what they might expect to get from the Australian deal, and the Australian farmers and wine producers and what they might expect. I should be delighted if the doors to Scotch whisky were to be opened in a reciprocal arrangement, but I will not hold my breath.
Where is the symmetry in the approach adopted under Clause 3? In our approach to regulations under this recognition of professional qualifications and in individual trade deals to which I have just referred, we seem to be rushing to accommodate members of those professions who wish to come here. As others, notably the Bar Council and the Law Society of England and Wales and the Law Society of Scotland have pointed out, there does not seem to be any support for our professionals who go over there. My noble friend was very clear that there was no reciprocity of agreement with the European Union. Am I being completely ignorant? Does the agreement with the EU also cover the agreement with the EEA and Switzerland? I am at a loss to understand why we are not seeking to reach an agreement on the basis of reciprocity of professional qualifications, not just with the EU but with the EEA and Switzerland.
I would like to press my noble friend the Minister further, and more specifically for a response to the amendments I tabled on day one of this Bill. I asked specifically for provision for consultation with the devolved Administrations and the individual regulators in them. My noble friend said—I am paraphrasing—“There will be many consultations”, so what form will those consultations take? What is the specific mechanism and at what stage will they take place? I do not think it is fair that the devolved Administrations should be presented with a fait accompli; they should be consulted at the earliest possible stage. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, tabled an amendment that went further, saying that the consent of the devolved Administrations should be sought. That is a moot point, to which I am sure we can return at later stages.
I conclude by saying that my greatest difficulty with Clause 3 is understanding the policy that lies behind it. Doing my homework, preparing for the Bill this afternoon, I found that, for once, the Government have produced an impact assessment. I know that will please my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, who is not here today, as we always look to the impact assessment. That is commendable. It is something to which we should refer frequently and in great depth.
In paragraph 36, on page 11, the impact assessment refers to:
“The preferred option, ‘Provide powers in the Bill to enable the government to implement the RPQ provisions of international agreements and support regulators in making agreements with their international counterparts on the recognition of professional qualifications,’ … These powers will enable the UK government to make regulations to achieve its policy aims, including the amendment of primary legislation where necessary.”
Slightly before that, on page 8, the policy objectives are set out. I will not read them all out, but one is to
“end the interim system which gives preference to EEA and Swiss professional qualifications.”
I hope my noble friend will put my mind at rest, but in the following policy objectives, I do not see anything about what the benefits to our professionals will be, whether they are pig farmers or advocates, when trying to ply their profession or establish their professional service in another jurisdiction. That is another reason it is extremely difficult to understand what the policy is behind Clause 3 and what reciprocal arrangements the Government are seeking. I hope my noble friend will set these out when he sums up this little debate.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fox for bringing this debate forward in such a cross-party manner. I was struck by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who has been consistent in this area. Her argument and that of my noble friend Lord Fox has been supported by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report. In paragraph 32, the committee cites the Constitution Committee, saying that both are of the view that the Government’s previous attempt at legislation in the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill,
“which allowed Ministers to implement a category of international agreements by way of statutory instrument, represented an inappropriate delegation of power.”
I agree. In that Bill, we attempted to make the Government see sense. To some extent, they did, because the powers under it, which are drafted almost exactly like those in this Bill, had an additional clause, with a sunset. The powers under that Bill for international agreements can last for only five years after their signing. Perhaps this is the point the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made: in recognition of that, if changes mean that agreements need to be updated or go beyond the scope of that Bill, new legislation should be brought forward. I would be interested to know from the Minister why the previous mechanisms for implementing a trade agreement on certain aspects include a sunset clause and this one does not.
Fundamentally, this is about trust. Because of the concerns of other committees and the debates we had on the Trade Bill, we consistently and repeatedly raised concerns about the use of Henry VIII powers especially but also about secondary legislation for implementing trade agreements or parts of them. The Minister and his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, tried to reassure us by repeating the statement that Liam Fox, when he was the Secretary of State for International Trade, gave in the House of Commons on 16 July 2018. When it came to scrutiny of trade agreements, he said that
“the Government will bring forward a bespoke piece of primary legislation when required for each new future trade agreement that requires changes to legislation and where there are no existing powers.”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/18; col. 42.]
Clause 3 and the Henry VIII powers in Clause 15 are a direct contradiction of that. This Bill seeks to use broad Henry VIII powers where regulations
“contain provision amending, repealing or revoking primary legislation”
when it comes to implementing a trade agreement. I think I can say collectively that we respect the Minister and take his word at the Dispatch Box, but why are the Government now contradicting the commitment that Dr Fox gave as Secretary of State in 2018?
I share some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about Clause 3. It provides even broader powers than those in Clause 1. Clause 3 does not limit itself to Henry VIII powers in legislation connected with regulators. It relates to any regulations under the Henry VIII power concerning individuals
“entitled to practise a regulated profession.”
These regulations are not limited to the regulators themselves. The breadth of the powers in Clause 3 is breathtaking. In the letter the Minister sent to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, he simply said that he would consider the need for impact assessment on regulatory independence when implementing an international recognition agreement. That is not good enough. This should be the default, and it should be the default that if there are requirements to revoke, amend or repeal legislation, it should be done in primary legislation.
I was grateful for the Minister’s letter and, like my noble friend Lord Fox, grateful for the letters he sent to us yesterday. I was grateful to the Minister for confirming what I said in the previous day of Committee—that CRaG would not necessarily be a default process for these agreements. Given that the implementing of what could be sub-agreements would not go through CRaG, this is of even more concern. The Minister said in his letter—and mentioned briefly at Second Reading—that if a mutual recognition agreement was not a treaty in its own right and did not amend the original treaty, there would be no need to go through the CRaG process. He said that this was the appropriate result, because Parliament would have had the opportunity to scrutinise the original treaty and the regulations made to implement the MRA.
The point is that these new aspects are potentially extremely wide and could impact massively on who is fit to practise in the UK. If Parliament would have no ability to extend scrutiny of the Henry VIII powers, even under the affirmative aspect—on which the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, said it was not the Government’s intention to bring forward consultation, when she spoke to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—or have the same level of scrutiny on either an affirmative or a negative instrument, as it would under CRaG, this would not be sufficient.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, Clause 3 gives powers to Ministers to do all sorts of things, but particularly over professional regulators to implement what the Government have negotiated with a third country as part of a trade deal. We are not talking about participation in negotiations on a trade deal, but when a trade deal is done, Clause 3 would give Ministers powers to make such provision as they think necessary to implement any international recognition agreement.
Basically, it states that, where the Government have agreed that opening up a particular UK profession to people qualified in that third country, Ministers can tell a supposedly independent regulator—if I understood what the Minister said earlier—simply to put in place a process for assessing any applicants. However, it goes much further than that, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others have said. It could even be to accept such applications, not simply to have process by which they would consider applications. Why is this power needed? Either the regulator already has the power to have such a process to consider applications so that it can judge the qualifications, experience, fitness to practice and general bone fides of applicants, in which case this power is not needed, or it lacks the power and does not want it because if it wanted such a process, it would have put it in place.
Not everyone opened their emails at 5 pm yesterday, but I did, and I had a letter from the Minister. One of the questions we have been asking—and which he helpfully promised to answer—was how many regulators are we discussing anyway, under the 60 regulators who do not already have the powers to accept or consider applicants from third countries to practice here. He named three, meaning that we may be doing this for just three regulators. One is the Health and Safety Executive, another the Teaching Regulation Authority, and the third is the Security Industry Authority, which I think regulates bouncers. Someone who knows about this can tell me if I got that right—I see that the Minister confirms it. So this Bill will enable a regulator which regulates our bouncers to take applicants from third countries with which we have done a trade deal, so that their bouncers can come and operate at our nightclubs, which are closed at the moment because of Covid. I thought I should share with colleagues that we are possibly talking about three regulators who do not have the power, and that one probably does not want it anyway. If they can already consider applicants, then this seems to go further than saying that you need a process in place, and seems possibly to say, “You will accept these applicants,” whom I am sure were already regulated in their own countries. Nevertheless, it seems to require regulators to accept them, not just to put a process in place.
My noble friend Lord Hunt asked why should a Minister be able to override what a statutory regulator—a supposedly autonomous regulator set up in law to protect the public and maintain standards—and establish a new route against its wishes? If the regulator is happy, everything is hunky-dory, and we do not need this power anyway. The Government have said that Clause 3 is a more proportionate method to implement mutual recognition agreements, but they have failed to tell us which trade deals being considered will have a mutual recognition agreement and why regulator-to-regulator side agreements are not satisfactory. The Minister’s letter—for those of your Lordships who did not open their emails at 5 pm yesterday, and incidentally I am impressed that the Minister was there to press send at that time—to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, says that if an MRA is agreed and approved by the trade agreement,
“it may need to be implemented in law”.
However, the Minister in that letter gave no example of why it would need to be implemented in law, or what type of MRA that is. Perhaps he can now spell out the circumstances in which an MRA would need to be implemented in law in the way envisaged in Clause 3.
I am anyway still bemused about why—given that the Government have said that, in their negotiations with other countries, it is for the autonomous regulator to determine who practises a profession—a Minister might need to instruct a regulator in law to set up a route for negotiations and recognition.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and others said, and as the Delegated Powers Committee wrote, the Government have failed to satisfy us that Clause 3 is needed at all, and—as Amendment 56 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, emphasises—have failed to explain why, should something along these lines even be needed, it should enable primary legislation to be implemented by statutory instrument. Clause 3 states that the Government—or any of the devolved Governments—can use regulations to implement any international recognition agreement, which means that they could use it, as others have said, to authorise Brazilian vets, Japanese bouncers or Australian teachers to work here without our regulators being the ones to decide that. It certainly seems to go beyond simply having a process in place, which is the point on which I wish to press the Minister. Earlier he said that it was all about making sure there is a process in place. If I have not understood correctly, I am looking forward to the Minister’s explanation of why this is needed.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his amendment to Clause 13, which limits the regulation-making power of Clause 3, and I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, intends to oppose Clause 13 standing part of the Bill and that the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Trees and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and my noble friend Lady Noakes intend to oppose that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. I hope to provide noble Lords with the assurances they are seeking, but I have listened carefully to the points made during the debate and know that I may have an uphill task ahead of me on some of these matters. I will of course be reflecting on that after this debate.
Before I turn to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments to Clause 13, it would be helpful to consider them in the context of Clause 3. I will therefore outline the rationale for Clause 3. Before I do that, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, if letters to him have been misdirected—although he may be grateful not to have received them at 5 o’clock yesterday afternoon—and I will of course ensure that that does not happen again. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, I will of course research what previous Trade Secretaries have said on matters germane to the Bill.
Let me again outline the rationale for Clause 3. I think it is common ground that international agreements on professional qualifications can be beneficial in reducing non-tariff barriers to trade by supporting UK trade in services and helping professionals to provide services abroad. I still believe that Clause 3 is important to ensure that the UK can meet its international obligations by allowing national authorities to implement those parts of international agreements that relate to professional qualifications.
As I have described before, what is implemented under this power will be subject to the outcome of negotiations. It is the case that for many trade partners, we are likely to agree the standard model of recognition of professional qualifications: a mutual recognition agreement framework. Perhaps in answer to my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s fears about reciprocity, I think the clue is in the name: these are mutual recognition agreements. Under these frameworks, the parties to the deal encourage their regulators to negotiate and agree recognition arrangements, but—and this is the key point—with no obligation that they do. It is up to the regulators to decide whether to agree a recognition agreement and to propose its terms. This takes time. Sometimes, once a mutual recognition agreement is agreed and approved under the FTA’s governance processes, it can be annexed to the FTA itself, and then it may require implementation by the Government, often—this is the reality—years after the FTA was actually agreed. That is one of the answers to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, as to why sunset clauses do not really work in those circumstances.
With other select trade partners, the Government may look to agree more ambitious provisions for the recognition of professional qualifications. An example of this is the excellent deal recently agreed with the EEA EFTA states, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, and I am happy to use it as an example, as requested the noble Lord, Lord Fox. This agreement includes a framework that ensures that there will be a route to recognition for UK professional qualifications in the EEA EFTA states and vice versa, but, as I have stressed previously, this is a route to recognition, it is not an obligation to recognise and it does not affect the ability of national authorities or regulators to set and maintain professional standards.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Lansley.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I will raise just two topics. The first is trust; the Minister regretted that the Committee did not trust the Government on this. We have to remember that when very wide legislation is placed on the statute book, it can be used by a later Government to its full extent, whatever the current Government intend—in this instance, in relation to regulator autonomy. We have plenty of examples of that; the most glaring at the moment is the legislation being used to cover the hundreds of statutory instruments on coronavirus restrictions. Very clear statements were made to both Houses of Parliament when that legislation went through about the circumstances in which it would be used. That has been completely ignored to cover the biggest deprivation of civil liberties in peacetime, for circumstances that the legislation was never intended to be used. The Committee is entitled to be entirely sceptical about very broad expressions in statute.
My second point relates to letters. I received one letter, yesterday at 5 pm, so I have not seen many of the letters which have been referred to. It is extremely difficult, when letters come out at 5 pm on a Sunday and we start the next Committee day the following working day, to have any chance of tracking down whether any letters have been issued. As far as I understand it, the Library does not operate in real time and there is no real-time way to interrogate how things are laid there—even if these letters were laid in the Library, which I have no idea about.
The reason Ministers write letters in Committee is that they have failed adequately to deal with an issue at that stage. When the Minister handled the last group of amendments last Wednesday, he said that he would answer it very briefly, as it was getting late, and would write. Whomever he addresses the letter to, when he writes, he is writing to the whole Committee, and it is only right and proper—and this always used to be the case—that all other Members taking part in the Committee get a copy of it. It is additionally laid in the Library so that the rest of the House has access to it.
We have lost sight of how to conduct our business properly—partly because hybrid proceedings make it more difficult for us to run things down completely in Committee, but there are always cases where you cannot run things down in Committee and have to rely on subsequent correspondence. The way the Minister’s civil servants are operating this letter-writing procedure is depriving the Committee of its ability to operate effectively.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for those two comments and the spirit in which they are offered. I realise that my point about trust is not a personal matter in relation to me but the more general point my noble friend makes. On letters—I will not dwell on this too long—I think the short gap between the two stages of this Committee, and this Committee being on a Monday, was a particularly difficult practical point. The officials have literally been working day and night on this; that is why not all the letters were available until the end of Sunday. We copied all of them to Front-Bench spokesmen, but I take my noble friend’s point that in future, as well as putting them in the Library, it would be convenient for noble Lords if letters were copied to them—albeit sometimes, when there is such a restricted period between the two days of Committee, they may arrive later than any of us would wish.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He said he would consider this between now and Report, which I am very grateful for. He then referred to Clause 4, making the point that it will be useful in encouraging regulators to make mutual recognition agreements, but that there will be no obligation and it will be up to the regulators to agree. However, we are debating Clause 3, and our problem is its open-ended nature, which on my reading means that Ministers can simply, through regulations, tell regulators what to do. I will not go into the issue of trust again, but does the Minister recognise that there is a problem with Clause 3? Is he prepared to look at its wording to make it clear that it cannot be used to override the protections he has already put into the Bill through Clause 1?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that point. Of course, anyone who listened to this debate could not but hear what noble Lords have said on this. As I said, I will reflect on this matter.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which I will come to in a moment. He was extremely dismissive of legislative powers to implement international trade agreements having sunset clauses. He has just taken through the Trade Act, which has exactly those clauses in it. The power there is a five-year sunset, and a regulation can extend it to no more than a further five years. This is to protect exactly that kind of scrutiny of these changing agreements, so that Parliament, if there are changes in that period, has an opportunity to scrutinise them again. All I was asking for was some form of comparable treatment in this Bill, which he is taking through, to the one he has just taken through on the rollover agreements. I cannot for the life of me think why he championed them in the latter and now dismisses them in the former.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that comment. My belief is that this Bill applies only to our famous 50 regulators and the 160 professions, and that it is those regulators that are governed by law, but I will write to the noble Lord and send a copy to all Members of the Committee to confirm this.
On the point about sunset clauses, the trade agreements covered in the Trade Act were all rollover agreements, many of which will be replaced in due course by other agreements. The noble Lord will know that some of that process has started already and that what we are talking about here is mutual recognition agreements rather than rollover agreements in their entirety.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his response to my Amendment 56. If I understand it correctly, he attributes to the professions legislation considerable complexity; for example, the supplementary delegated powers memorandum that the department submitted referenced the Dentists Act—a mix of primary legislation and secondary legislation. If this House accepted that there are practical reasons for providing a power of this kind to enable the amendment of both primary and secondary legislation, will my noble friend say that the Government will not use it as a precedent in relation to future legislation or future arrangements for the approval of trade agreements and other international agreements? There is a principle here: in future, as these trade agreements come through, where they impact on primary legislation, they should be implemented through primary legislation. Does my noble friend accept that this will not be cited as a precedent?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
That is certainly a helpful suggestion put forward by my noble friend. I will reflect on it.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very good debate—the Minister has clearly listened and responded strongly. We have certainly listened to his response.
First, I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who appears to have redefined the phrase “being bounced by the Government”. She was looking at me when she referred to door security, at which I take umbrage.
On the subject of letters—we already have more in the post—I point out that the timetable is the Government’s timetable. If it is short, it is clearly the Whips with whom the Minister needs to have a word rather than us suffering. I support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about making this available to all of us.
The notion that we all want to see people able to work in different territories as a result of this is absolutely true. The Minister will know that I have spent a great deal of my time proposing amendments to various Bills in order to put back mobility frameworks that were being removed in another way, so my support is there. What we have heard in this debate is a compelling argument about Clause 3. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, was right that this is the key clause of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked the right question: why is there a need for Clause 3? The Minister attempted to answer that and, in doing so, used the example of the EFTA agreement. In that agreement, as he said, it is agreed to have a route to recognition. This confirms the suspicion of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, whom I congratulate on making the only case for supporting the Government that we have heard so far—although even that contained some pretty hard questions, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer, probably in another letter.
The point is that the powers in Clause 3 are constrained by the wording of the FTA. We do not know what the next FTA or the FTA after that will say, but the only constraint comes from the words in that FTA. The powers in the clause are in effect unlimited, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out. That is the concern. Before we talk about Amendment 56 and the like, we must establish the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Trees: why do we need this clause. What is it that we need? Frankly, it is a nice-to-have power for this Government but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out, it could very well become a nasty-to-have power in future when other people may take it and use it in different ways.
The Minister is right to identify that there is more work to be done. He reflected that it is an uphill task. Well, there is often more than one way to get to the summit. Straight up, rather than taking a more considered and circuitous path, may be the best way to get the elements of Clause 3 that the Minister considers essential there. At the moment, the sledgehammer of this clause, as we have seen, will not be acceptable.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 30. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 30
Baroness Noakes
“(1A) Regulations made under subsection (1) may not require a regulator of a regulated profession to enter into a regulator recognition agreement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment in connection with the extent of the rule making power.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 30 is a probing amendment on the abiding theme in our debates on this Bill, namely regulator autonomy.
Clause 4(1) says that regulations can be made
“for the purpose of, or in connection with, authorising a regulator … to enter into regulator recognition agreements.”
That seems pretty straightforward. Authorising a regulator to enter into a recognition agreement should not involve any element of compulsion, but I have learned to be wary of wide regulation-making powers.
My Amendment 30 seeks to make it clear that Clause 4 cannot be used to compel regulators to enter into recognition agreements. With this probing amendment, I am asking one simple question: are there any circumstances in which the power in Clause 4 could be used to force a regulator to enter into any recognition agreements?
Since tabling my amendment, I have seen the Government’s response of 3 June to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, where they state that the power cannot
“be used to provide regulators with the ability to enter into regulator recognition agreements where they lack sufficient abilities”.
If my noble friend the Minister confirms today from the Dispatch Box that nothing in Clause 4 could compel a regulator to do anything it does not want to do, we will be able to dispense with my amendment fairly straightforwardly.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in support of this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. This issue is the crux of the independence of regulators. The situation is that not all regulators are equal: they do not all have the same legal powers; they do not all have the same clout; they do not all have the same capacity. For example, in the years between 2007 and 2016, the Nursing and Midwifery Council issued 46,257 decisions on international regulation, whereas the General Chiropractic Council issued 29. We are obviously not talking about a group of organisations that are equal in terms of their ability to withstand not just the letter of the law, but the thrust of government policy. Pressure from the Government can be a very powerful thing for an organisation. We also have to take into account the fact that some of the countries with which these international trade agreements will be signed will have regulators that are only now properly developing. Not only are all our regulators not equal, but in other countries, not all regulators are equal.
I draw the Minister’s attention to a set of statements in the impact assessment. He has often emphasised the independence of regulators, so can he therefore explain the contrast between two of its paragraphs? Paragraph 111 of the impact assessment says:
“The Bill contains a power to enable regulators to negotiate and agree Recognition Arrangements (RAs) with their overseas counterparts. The Bill does not require the negotiation of RAs”.
In paragraph 118, however, it says:
“The Bill contains a power to make regulations to implement the recognition of professional qualifications (RPQ) components of international agreements. These regulations could include the ability to bind regulators to implement the RPQ chapters of IAs as appropriate.”
Paragraph 111 says that they cannot be bound, whereas Paragraph 118 says, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested, that regulations might trespass on the independence of regulators. I simply ask the Minister for clarification.
In his letter to me this weekend which, in the spirit of proceedings here, I read just after midnight, the Minister said that MRAs
“would not place obligations on regulators and instead encourage them to develop MRAs.”
Which is it? Are regulators to be truly and, in a wholesale way, independent and not subject to pressure, either direct or indirect, or are they to have their wings clipped potentially by regulations?
This amendment clarifies beyond doubt what I believe, from the Minister’s previous statements, is his favoured interpretation: that regulators would always be independent.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House; I hide behind the excuse of being a beginner. I put my name down to this amendment because it is one of those probing amendments about which you think, “Why not? What is the possible objection?” I really have no more to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said in moving the amendment. There is a certain amount of pleasure in this: I suspect that I will rarely agree with the noble Baroness, but on this occasion I do, so I am more than happy to reinforce the points she made.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD) [V]
My Lords, in the Minister’s letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, yesterday—which I hope has been circulated to all those who have been participating in the Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated—the Minister cited the reason for moving away from what he termed the “prescriptive and unpopular” EU-derived system of mutual recognition across members. The next sentence says:
“But it did at least give all regulators [Inaudible] a means to establish international recognition routes with EU member states.”
The Government say that it was “prescriptive and unpopular”, so they want to do exactly the same. However, there is not the same kind of protections on the regulators at the moment for their operational independence if they decide not to enter into an agreement. There will be substantially good reasons why they may not want to, and they were outlined by the GMC on its response to the Government’s consultation on the CPTPP.
The GMC has indicated that the approach of the UK regulators in many areas has gone beyond simply looking at the areas listed by the Government in this Bill, which we debated at our first Committee sitting. The regulators on health and certain other areas look at the broad fitness to practise, the background education and the ability to verify the educational standards in country of that applicant. Unless they are satisfied with that broad range of all the other areas, they do not wish to have mutual recognition. However, this is where the problem arises: in the future, it might be desirable that we have mutual recognition in professions with applicants from a certain country, but not yet. It should be up to the regulator and there should be independence when making the decision that a country’s standards on the education and training route for that applicant were not sufficient to meet UK standards.
At the moment, there is insufficient protection in Clause 4, because, as the Minister keeps reminding us, it is purely enabling, and could be completely undermined by Clause 3. The powers in Clause 3 can, in effect, force the regulator to move. It is not simply the slightly benign word that the Minister used in his letter— to “encourage”. Perhaps I am alone in being slightly cynical, but whenever I hear the Government say that they want to encourage someone, then that someone should be worried. It is not simply about encouragement, however. Clause 3 allows for that regulator to move to start the process of a mutual recognition agreement.
There is another reason why I think this probing amendment is justified, and I hope that the Minister can offer the reassurance that the noble Baroness seeks. The Government do not seem to know what the problem is in regard to many of the regulators yet, but they want an answer to them all under this. This comes at a great cost, because this Bill, as the impact assessment indicated, may well cost up to £42 million. These costs are passed on to the applicants. The Alice in Wonderland nature of it is that the Bill’s stated purpose is to reduce the fees for those applicants. However, it is the regulators who want to avoid a situation where they are forced through an MRA agreement to have a fee system imposed on them by the Government. That is why the justification for the voluntary nature of it is very strong. If the Minister were able to say that he would consider adding to Clause 4, which offers the kind of reassurance in statute that would be required, we would be more amenable to be assuaged.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I seek the Committee’s indulgence—I did not want to keep popping up in the last group—because there were some unanswered questions which I had posed. I am sure that more letters will come, but I asked the Minister to make it absolutely clear that Clause 3 was talking about more than just a regulator setting up a process and possibly accepting applicants. Perhaps he could write about that, because he went on to say that nobody objected to the new EFTA agreement, but that is only about a process. There is a big difference between asking a regulator to put a process in place and telling them what the outcome has to be.
Regarding this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said on the last group, mutual recognition agreements between willing partners are to be welcomed. They work and we like them. It is about professional movement and all the things that we are in favour of. Clearly, if they require a legal basis, then it is helpful for that basis to exist. However, I need some examples, even if no one else does, of what legal basis would be needed for a mutual recognition agreement. I quoted in the earlier group the letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which said that an MRI may need to be implemented in law, yet we have had no examples of what type of issues would need to be so implemented; that is, going beyond what a regulator can do at the moment. Perhaps either now or in correspondence, we could have some examples of that.
Amendment 30 must be right, because surely it is not for a Minister to require in law—it goes much further than encouragement, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said—for a regulator to enter negotiations with another overseas regulator against its will. We are not talking about when it wants to do it. We are telling it when it does not want to do it that it must. This needs some justification by the Minister.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for this amendment to Clause 4. It is worth reminding ourselves of the essential difference between Clause 3 and Clause 4. Clause 3 provides a power for the Government to implement international agreements, including the professional qualification elements of free trade agreements and bespoke agreements on professional qualifications. These are agreed between the UK Government and international trade partners. Clause 4 provides a power for national authorities to authorise regulators to enter regulator recognition agreements. These are often bilateral agreements between UK regulators and their counterparts in other countries on professional qualifications that make it easier for professionals to obtain recognition in their respective jurisdictions. I think the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred mainly to Clause 3, when she looked at the impact assessment, rather than Clause 4, which of course is the subject of this amendment. Also, it is always a pleasure to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I welcome his comments.
I agree with the sentiment behind my noble friend’s amendment. Regulators must continue to have the ability to act in the best interests of their professions and the consumers of professional services. Clause 4 as introduced—I say this categorically—cannot be used to compel regulators to enter into reciprocal recognition agreements. It can only authorise them to do so, not oblige or compel. No circumstances can change this. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and others. It is not the Government’s policy to force regulators to enter into regulator recognition agreements. The decision to enter such an agreement must sit squarely with the regulators themselves. They are best placed to determine which recognition agreements would be most beneficial and to decide the terms of any agreements which they may enter.
I am sure that your Lordships recognise the value of recognition agreements and the importance of their creation being demand-led, regulator-led processes. Therefore, while I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, I believe that the clause as drafted meets the objectives of it. With this reassurance, I hope that my noble friend feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, say that not all regulators were equal. That clearly is true, particularly in relation to overseas regulators. She highlighted that some were less well developed. There are some which simply come nowhere close to the standard which would induce a UK regulator to enter a mutual recognition agreement, and that is what we really need to protect. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for his support on this occasion. I hope that we may find lots of other opportunities in future to agree.
I think that my noble friend the Minister has given an unequivocal statement that this clause cannot be used to compel a regulator. That is what I was seeking to establish. I thank him for that and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 31. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 31
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
31: Clause 4, page 3, line 36, after “qualifications” insert “approved by the regulator of the regulated profession”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 31 in a way continues what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and others, have just touched on. It seeks to answer a concern raised particularly by the British Dental Association and mentioned by others.
The amendment, along with Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Baroness, is to strengthen Clause 4 to make it absolutely certain that where a domestic—UK—regulator is looking to recognise professional qualifications, experience or whatever, this would apply only to qualifications which had been approved by the regulator of that third country. This is important because in some countries not all educational institutions or award-giving bodies may be fully accredited by the national regulator, although they may look good on paper. There may be institutions giving out qualifications, but those qualifications are not recognised by the national regulator. It is vital that qualifications issued by an unaccredited institution abroad are not expected to be accepted here.
Amendments 31 and 32 would ensure that a qualification which had been approved by the appropriate regulator in the other country, rather than just having been awarded within its territory, is what would be considered by our regulators here. Without this amendment, a qualification from an awarding organisation outwith the remit of the parity regulator might be thought acceptable in the mutual recognition agreement. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, introduce her amendment. We both tabled our amendments in light of the British Dental Association’s comments, but we ended up drafting them rather differently. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, was drafting hers so that it would have to be approved by the UK regulator, rather than by the overseas regulator. I think that we are on the same page, and that my drafting is probably slightly more accurate, but let us not go there. It so confused those in the Public Bill Office that they tried to claim that there was a conflict between our amendments, and that we had to invoke something in the Standing Orders. I said that no, they were not in conflict, and could exist side by side perfectly well, but I now see that they are trying to address exactly the same issue.
The noble Baroness is right that a number of countries have a multitude of individual qualifications, some of which are good for the purposes of the regulated profession, and some which are not. There is a good example in this country: lots of bodies recognise accountants, but not all of them can be recognised as registered auditors; and there will be lots of examples beyond that. It is that point which we are trying to ensure is properly identified when dealing with Clause 4 and the position of the overseas regulation in relation to particular qualifications, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look on one or both of these amendments favourably.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 32A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Garden, would require the appropriate national authority to consult with higher education institutions and other training providers before making regulations under this clause. I declare an interest as chancellor of Cardiff University.
I asked a Written Question, answered by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in which I asked Her Majesty’s Government
“why higher education institutions and other providers of training for professional qualifications are not listed as stakeholders affected in the impact assessment for the Professional Qualifications Bill; whether higher education institutions or others …were consulted on the proposals in that Bill, and … what plans they have to consult such providers in the future.”
The Answer stated:
“The proposals in the Bill do not affect the UK qualifications or experience required to practise a profession. The Government ran a Call for Evidence on the recognition of professional qualifications … between August 2020 and October 2020, which was open to anyone with an interest in professional qualifications”,
and that there were, among others,
“26 responses from educators who provide training and higher education institutions.”
The Answer continued:
“Officials have met representatives from Universities UK to discuss proposals in the Professional Qualifications Bill and will continue to pursue an active programme of stakeholder engagement.”
So, having told me in the Answer that this Bill has no impact on HEIs and other trainers, the Government went on to say that the HEIs and trainers identified themselves in the public consultation as being concerned by, or interested in, this Bill. Following that, the Government have been in discussion with Universities UK at least. Will the Minister clarify whether the Government have also spoken to other training providers, not just the representatives of universities?
I have had correspondence from Universities UK, which says that, although its contact with the Government has been fairly constructive so far, it would be helpful to require the Government to consult with higher education providers as they strike regulator recognition agreements, given the importance of these agreements to certain sections of higher education. The potential impact on onshore recruitment of EU students on relevant courses should be monitored. Clearly, that is of importance because if you are doing away with the EU-established system, there will be an impact on the number of EU students coming to this country, potentially some of them afresh as they will want to get their qualifications here, but also on the top-up courses that our HEIs provide. It also says that it would be helpful to have frequent consultation and analysis-sharing between the Government and higher education providers to help ensure that the Bill benefits the range of bilateral agreements that could increase recruitment to higher education, rather than have a detrimental effect.
It is not the case that this Bill does not affect HEIs. It affects the number of foreign students applying to the UK on top-up courses, and, crucially, what the HEIs and other training providers teach. Depending on what they teach, it affects who they employ and how many of them they employ, so this has a deep impact on them. I urge the Minister to consider this very reasonable amendment. The Government have recognised the legitimate role of higher education—I hope they have consulted other trainers as well—so what reason could they have for rejecting such a sensible and modest amendment?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 55A is in my name. There are many excellent provisions in the Bill requiring regulators to share information. They are required to share information with regulators at home and abroad, and with people who wish to be qualified to practise in this country. However, there is nothing in the Bill which requires the sharing of information with people who are already practising the profession in this country. Indeed, there is nothing in the amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which touches on my point, although it would expand the requirement for information sharing.
It might be thought otiose to have such a requirement where a regulator is also a membership body, as it could be assumed that naturally it would communicate with its members, but a regulator is not always a membership body. I remind noble Lords that I said at Second Reading that I was an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects, and I am grateful to RIBA for discussions about this topic. RIBA is a membership organisation representing its profession, but it does not regulate the architectural profession. As noble Lords will know from other parts of the Bill, that is a function reserved by statute to the Architects Registration Board. Experience is that stand-alone statutory regulators do what is required of them by statute, and very little else. That is why a nudge is needed, and this amendment would achieve that.
This clause would allow professional practitioners to know what agreements regulators were pursuing, what mutual recognition agreements were in the pipeline, what progress had been made and the timeline for the agreement. It would also provide a clear path for professional practitioners to have their views on how agreements should be prioritised made known to the regulator. Remarkably, without this amendment, there is no statutory obligation on a regulator to have any communication with regulated professionals at all.
Why does it matter? To take the example of architects, British architects are known to lead the world. They work on major projects throughout the world, and they often work with our world-beating civil engineers on transport, infrastructure and other major projects. They earn a great deal of export earnings for us as a country, too. When they are doing this, they need to be able to send architects to work in other parts of the world. On occasion, they also need to be able to employ in this country architects who are from countries where a pipeline of work might be developing and have specialist knowledge of regulations—be they on planning or whatever—that apply in the country where the project is being delivered. They are very commercial architects—they have to be, because they operate in a harsh commercial world—so they look ahead. They see a pipeline of activity in a particular country that might be coming forward with new projects—airports, infrastructure, or whatever it might be. They want to be able to have some influence on their regulator about how mutual recognition agreements might be prioritised to facilitate capturing that work.
I have used architects as an example, but there are other professions that might find themselves in a similar situation, which would want to have that two-way flow with their regulator and which, not being a membership organisation, would need, in my view, the help of statute to ensure that that communication took place. This is so modest and commonsensical a suggestion that I hope my noble friend will be able to rise and simply say that he accepts it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I speak particularly to Amendments 31 and 32, and I commend Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, to the House. I remind the Committee that the British Dental Association said:
“We would strongly advise that any body issuing qualifications which might be recognised in the UK must be a recognised body for the purpose of issuing professional qualifications by the regulator in a given country. This is crucial to avoid situations in which a UK regulator might be asked to enter into recognition agreements with another regulator in a country where not all educational institutions might be fully accredited by that regulator.”
Unfortunately, I was too late to add my name to Amendment 32. I strongly support it and hope that the Government will take it on board. I have wondered whether it would benefit from “relevant” being inserted before “overseas”, but that would come later on. We certainly need something of that nature in the Bill.
I also speak briefly to Amendment 32A because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, outlined, it is essential that there is a degree of stability in the higher education system and with training providers. In some subject areas, there is a need for simulation suites and quite complex teaching that requires long-term investment, and, as the noble Baroness said, staff may need to be taken on. You cannot just shed staff; you cannot ask staff to start teaching something they are unfamiliar with without due warning. I am concerned that there is a danger that the Bill could inadvertently destabilise some of our own systems.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I am also new to this House—in fact, I am even newer than the noble Lord. Like him, I support my noble friend Lady Noakes’ points on Amendment 32, but I actually wish to speak to Amendment 32A in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Garden.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I start by apologising to the Committee for the discourtesy of not being here last time for a later amendment. I spoke on the first two groups, and I completely failed to notice that I was down to speak on another one, so I went home. It was not until I got frantic texts and emails from my colleagues asking where the devil I was that I looked at the list again and realised, to my horror, that I was down. I am sorry; I have been in this House for 14 years and I really should know better. I apologise.
I have added my name to my noble friend Lady Randerson’s amendment, and she has explained coherently the reasons for it. The Bill seems to have ignored the very significant part played in professional qualifications by higher education training providers, awarding organisations and, indeed, many other bodies. I declare an interest in that for many years I worked for City & Guilds developing and promoting professional qualifications. Of course, many of the awarding organisations do much of their own regulation, sometimes through exchanges with other organisations to ensure that standards are being maintained. We all know that universities have a practice of having visiting academics to check their standards. Sometimes that is done with the support of expert committees; certainly, at City & Guilds we had tremendous expert committees to guide us and, of course, we were in constant dialogue with the recognised professional bodies.
Our universities tend to be their own hardest taskmasters because they are fully aware of their reputation if they are to attract students and to keep their place in whatever league table they deem appropriate. Universities, training providers and awarding organisations know that they stay in business because of the respect for, and quality and relevance of, their standards. I am as bemused as my noble friend about why these bodies do not appear to have been consulted in the drafting of the Bill given that so many of its clauses concern qualifications with no mention of who actually awards them. This amendment seeks to rectify the omission.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply and hope that he will see the sense of having something in the Bill that recognises the organisations which award the qualifications that we are all talking about.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Randerson, and my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Moylan for these amendments. I shall begin by addressing Amendments 31 and 32.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes would limit qualifications recognised in recognition agreements to qualifications approved by the overseas regulator, while the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, would limit the qualifications involved in recognition agreements to those approved by the UK regulator. On the face of it, these amendments seem reasonable. However, they would have no practical effect. Regulations under Clause 4 would authorise the regulator to enter into an agreement with an overseas regulator of a corresponding profession which carries out functions relating to regulating a profession. Logically, a regulator would enter into only an agreement which concerned those professionals whose qualifications and experience had been recognised by that overseas regulator. It is also true that the UK regulator would agree, as part of a recognition agreement, to recognise only those qualifications which meet UK standards. Given that, I humbly suggest that these amendments are unnecessary. They simply reflect what would happen in practice, and indeed what happens now, for regulators that can already enter into such agreements. I therefore ask the noble Baronesses to withdraw or not move their amendments.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, would require the Government and the devolved Administrations to consult higher education institutions, training providers and other bodies before regulations are laid under Clause 4. I have already spoken about engagement, including in response to previous amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, so I will not rehearse those points again in full. However, I reassure her that my officials are working closely with the Department for Education to engage with a range of training providers.
The key point in relation to this amendment is that the regulator recognition agreements envisaged by Clause 4 will be regulator-led. The decisions will be for them; Clause 4 merely authorises them to enter into agreements. Of course, in considering and progressing recognition agreements, regulators will naturally want to engage with education providers and many others. I think, therefore, that the answer to the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is that the Government do not need to get between the regulators and education providers in this matter. Indeed, if the Government did get between those two sides, they would risk being seen as seeking to limit regulators’ autonomy, to which I know we have all been paying so much attention.
Regulators will also want to work with national authorities, which themselves already work closely with a wide range of education and training providers, so I think that the amendment is unnecessary. Further, as my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie has helpfully confirmed, this engagement already happens naturally, as one would expect it to. I hope that this reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and I ask her not to move her amendment.
I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his support of Clause 4 at Second Reading and I appreciate his interest in regulator recognition agreements. His amendment seeks to require regulators to report annually on the status of recognition agreement negotiations, to publish criteria for the initiation of negotiations, and to establish a process to allow for consultation within their sector. I appreciate the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment and I too am keen to support the development of recognition arrangements wherever I can. However, I think that placing these legal obligations on regulators is unnecessary.
First, regulators are a varied group and not all of them may wish to enter into recognition agreements, so requiring them all to publish criteria for the initiation of negotiations and to establish a process to allow for consultation within their sector seems burdensome. Secondly, it is our experience that the regulators one might expect to be active in international discussions already provide updates on recognition agreements and consult routinely on opportunities with their professions and other interested parties. Legislation to enforce this seems unnecessary.
We have spoken at length about regulator autonomy. I hope I have been clear throughout that we must trust regulators to act in the interests of their profession and to determine which recognition agreements are beneficial. I therefore ask my noble friend not to move his amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton merely agrees with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but I am actually going to defer to her. It is clear that her amendment is superior to mine. I did not use the term “UK” in mine and I understand the implication of that. It was drafted slightly sloppily, and for that I apologise.
The Minister says that the amendment is not necessary because Clause 4(2) states that it is for regulators to regulate agreements between regulators, as well as dealing with the recognition of qualifications. In a sense, therefore, you have go in through one to get to the other. The issue raised in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, perhaps goes back more to Clause 3, which covered whether anything is ever going to be asked of a regulator, not just in a regulator-to-regulator agreement but when the Government ask it to do that as part of a trade deal, where we may still actually need it. I think that the implication—the real meat of it—is still needed. I know that her drafting is brilliant, but perhaps we need it in Clause 3. However, we can look at that.
I want to make one more comment arising out of the interesting issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser. She mentioned that some of the overseas training is valuable; one might say almost that it is too valuable to some of our education establishments because it is keeping them going. But what comes out at the end does not stay with us and is not filling the skills gap. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, who is not here, has told me that it is much the same for vets. We are training an awful lot of overseas vets, and I think he said that something like 40% of them then leave because they get very high-quality training, but unfortunately do not stay to be vets here. I know that that is more about the earlier issue on skills, but it is one to bear in mind.
For the moment, and again with apologies for my rather poor drafting, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the group consisting of the question of whether Clause 4 should stand part of the Bill. Anyone wishing to press this to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am saying that Clause 4 should not stand part of the Bill. We have now discussed Clause 4 extensively in the last three debates. I do not intend to go over the ground because that would be unnecessary. Coming to the crunch, the Minister has said that Clause 4 would be used by national authorities to encourage regulators to make mutual recognition agreements, but that they will be under no obligation to do so. Today, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said that he was not quite sure what “encourage” means. In a sense, one Government’s encouragement may become another’s diktat, particularly when Clause 3 is part of their armoury.
Something else the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, on the first day in Committee, was about the interrelationship between the Bill and what is happening with health regulators. At the moment, there is an extensive consultation on the use of Section 60 orders in relation to a whole host of health regulators. What is interesting is that in that consultation no reference is made by the Government to them upholding the independence of those regulators—something the GMC noted, I think, in its response. Put that alongside the Government’s intention to bring an NHS Bill to Parliament very shortly—it was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech, but has not yet been published, I suspect because extra clauses are being added day after day. Part of that intention is to add clauses on regulations that will give the Government the power to abolish a regulator through an order-making power and set up new regulators through an order-making power. Regrettably, that came out of a Law Commission recommendation quite some years ago. When you put this together, you have to worry about the future independence of the health regulators. It is pretty clear that, with the legislative changes, they would potentially come under more direct control from the Department of Health. One has to say, many of those regulators enjoy considerable oversight by the department already—hence, a little scepticism about the Minister saying that it is entirely up to the regulators what they do.
My principal reason for raising Clause 4 was to refer to the Delegated Powers Committee, which refers to this being a Henry VIII clause. It refers to the memorandum and accepts that it says that it is a narrow power and cannot be used to change regulators’ abilities to recognise overseas qualifications, but, as the committee says, the memorandum fails to explain this or say what effect regulations under Clause 4 should have. I wanted to raise this because the report of the Delegated Powers Committee is critical throughout of the Minister’s department, the Explanatory Memorandum it has produced and its failure to provide sufficient explanation. I put it to the Minister that when I was a Minister, we worried about the Delegated Powers Committee and, frankly, always accepted its recommendations. We seem to be developing a new convention, where Minister think this is just any old committee and can be ignored. It cannot be; it has to be taken seriously. I urge the Minister to recognise that when the Delegated Powers Committee says that there is not enough explanation, something needs to be done about it. When it says that Clause 3 will not do, it is not something you can simply ignore; you have to come back with some proposals to deal with it. That is how legislation works in your Lordships’ House. I do not really expect the Minister now to go through what Clause 4 says, because he has done it; I just wanted to draw attention to the Delegated Powers Committee’s report.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I have two brief points. I would like to speak in support of Clause 4 standing part of the Bill, but I welcome my noble friend explaining, in response to earlier amendments, that this will be regulator-led and is permissive, not prescriptive.
First, I am slightly concerned by subsection (1), as explained in paragraph 39 of the Explanatory Notes, which then go on to say that it seems quite prescriptive. I do not know if that takes away from the permissive nature of the rest of the clause.
Secondly—and, to be honest with my noble friend and the Committee, I could not think of where else to raise this—I accept that they are not regulated bodies, but I understand that the professional drivers and attendants of pig farmers, chicken producers and livestock transporters are covered by the remit of the Bill. It is interesting to see, but I cannot understand why beef and lamb producers are not covered, because it strikes me that they might like the opportunity to make common ground with countries with which we are seeking to do deals. It may be that they are allowed to do so, but if they are, I wonder why they are excluded from the remit of the Bill.
Finally, I assume that the costs will be minor. I would like to place on record the fact that most of the bodies that have contacted me welcome the powers set out in Clause 4. I do not know whether paragraph 66 on page 18 of the impact assessment is relevant here. That refers to frameworks but I presume that also covers regulator recognition agreements. It comes up with a figure, giving a mean of £350,000 as a best estimate. On what basis has that figure been reached?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for opposing that this clause stand part. The way in which he set out the issues around delegated powers was excellent. I have nothing to add, but I would like to associate myself with what he said. His point about the severity of the sanction of a DPRRC report is very well made. I have tried to make in different ways. I think we will all be waiting to see how the Government react in legislative terms.
The term “encouragement” has come up and, clearly, Clause 4 is the encouraging end of a continuum that goes through “recommendation” and ends up in “compulsion”. Here, I come back to the question that my noble friend Lord Purvis asked when we were debating Amendment 30. The Minister confirmed that Clause 4 is voluntary, which we were all grateful for, but omitted to respond to my noble friend’s question about whether Clause 3 has the power to override Clause 4 and move that encouragement further down the continuum towards compulsion. Rather than ask it that way around, let us ask it the other way around. Are there any circumstances in which Clause 3 can be used? In other words, would the Minister rule out that Clause 3 can ever be used to compel regulators to do things as a result of Clause 4?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the Government need to justify why this clause is in the Bill. What would happen if it were not? What would we lose? What is the worse that could happen if it were not in the Bill?
UK regulators are free to enter into negotiations with other national regulators at the moment, so why is this clause needed? Could the Minister just answer that, how it would be used and why we need to give Ministers this power? It does not use the words “encourage” or “encouragement”; it says that the Government can authorise a regulator to enter into negotiations, but it is hard to understand when that would ever be needed. Can the Minister answer the question: what would happen if this were not there and why, if a regulator did not do it of its own free will, the Government would need this power to authorise it to do it?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, set out his intention to oppose Clause 4 standing part of the Bill. I hope that the arguments I have previously set out in favour of Clause 4 have gone some way to assuaging the noble Lord’s concerns.
First, I will directly answer the question just posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. The fact is that there are regulators that would like to enter into regulator recognition agreements that do not have, or are not sure whether they have, the powers to do so. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering referred to regulators that have contacted her welcoming this clause. If regulators want this power in this Bill, and all of us are agreed that it is helpful for them to have it, even if the numbers are small, why would we not want to give it to them? Why are noble Lords saying that it is okay for regulators that already have this power to enter into recognition agreements but, for some reason that I find inexplicable—with due respect—regulators that do not have this power or are not sure whether their power is appropriate should not be allowed to have it? That seems to go against the spirit of regulatory autonomy and recognising that regulators know what they are talking about, in this area.
Before I start, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that of course I have taken the comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee seriously. I read its memorandum very carefully, and think that the supplementary memorandum that I submitted afterwards met some of its concerns. I will continue to reflect on its two responses to me, as we attempt to move this Bill forward.
In answer to what my noble friend Lady McIntosh said about the coverage of the Bill, it looks weird when noble Lords start quoting individual examples of regulators that are covered or not. It is simply because the class of regulators that are covered by the Bill is that class of regulators that are governed by law. Off the cuff, I could not answer why the regulators of people who deal with pigs can and the regulators of those who deal with another animal may not. One would have to go back to the original legislation to do that, but this Bill does not make a value judgment on these regulators; it merely uses the legal definition of which regulators are covered by law to be its class of regulators for the purpose of the Bill.
I take this opportunity to emphasise the importance of regulator recognition agreements for enabling professionals who have qualified in one jurisdiction to work in another. They are important for trade: they help sought-after UK professionals to provide services into overseas markets and help overseas-qualified professionals to have their qualifications recognised in the UK, where a regulator determines that they meet our rigorous standards.
In some territories, or for some professions, there can be barriers to UK professionals practising overseas. Reciprocal agreements put in place by regulators can reduce these barriers. I come back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter: why would we not want regulators to do this, if that is what they want to do? For example, regulator recognition agreements can set out streamlined processes for two regulators to recognise each other’s professionals on the basis of similar standards. They can also include provisions that set out how applications for recognition will be treated; for example, through agreement on standard application or evidence requirements.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The Minister has to understand that we are wholly supportive of regulator-to-regulator agreements; it is the best way, it is good for our professionals, very good for the City and for all sorts of things. The problem here is that the Minister does not even know how many regulators might need this. In his letter to me he named three: the Security Industry Authority, which I very much doubt wants an international agreement on this; a teaching register; and the Health and Safety Executive, which again is very unlikely to want this. He has now thrown into the mix the Intellectual Property Regulation Board, so we are possibly talking about having a whole Bill for four regulators. We would understand it if the Bill, in the case of statutory regulators which do not at the moment have the power to enter into a regulator recognition agreement, said that the Minister could by regulation make that happen. The problem is that it goes much further than that. We might have only three or four regulators but we have a whole clause which sounds more than the Minister suggests. Perhaps he could agree to a preamble to this clause that would spell out, where the regulator does not under its own statute have the necessary authority, that the Minister could do it. Is he willing to look at that?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
As always, I will consider carefully the suggestions made by the noble Baroness but, without wanting to repeat myself, I really do not understand this antipathy to giving power to those regulators that do not have this power.
Lord Fox (LD)
I assure the Minister that I have managed to work out that if two things are standing next to each other I can feel differently about one from the other. Everything that I have said has recognised the benign nature of Clause 4, but what I asked and did not hear an explicit answer to was whether that benign nature could be modified by the very close Clause 3—and never mind how close it is; it could be anywhere in the Bill. The Minister did not answer that question, and because of that I assume that I and my noble friend Lord Purvis, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others, are correct that Clause 3 can modify Clause 4, and benign, beneficial and voluntary elements of Clause 4 can be made compulsory by Clause 3. Unless the Minister is prepared to say that that is not and can never be the case, I am afraid I will leave this Chamber clear that what I have just said is correct.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
The noble Lord’s colleague the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, cautioned me on the previous day of Committee never to use “never” at the Dispatch Box, and I am trying to remember his strictures on that. The reason I did not answer the question directly is that I am not going to do so unless I am completely sure of my facts on this. I do not believe that it is possible for Clause 3 to creep its way into Clause 4 but, so that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Fox, a completely definitive answer, I will write to him, and I will copy that letter to all other noble Lords. Indeed, I will hand deliver it to noble Lords who wish to get it particularly expeditiously.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I suspect that we should be wary of what we wish for, and that the Minister is now going to take his revenge in the number of letters that we will receive over what I hope will be a very pleasant weekend. I do not think we can take this any further because he has said that he will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, whose question, alongside that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, seems to me the core of the argument. The only other question is about pig farmers as opposed to beef farmers; the Minister said that at some point pig farmers were covered by the legislation but beef farmers were not. I suggest to the noble Baroness that we leave as an eternal mystery why that should be.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 34. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 34
Baroness Blake of Leeds
“Recognition of foreign auditors and foreign audit qualifications
(1) Section 1221 of the Companies Act 2006 (approval of overseas qualifications) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1A)(a), for “covers all” substitute “sufficiently covers”.(3) In subsection (91A)(b), for “covers all” substitute “sufficiently covers”.(4) In subsection (1B), for “is” substitute “may be”.(5) In subsection (3), for “equivalent” substitute “sufficiently comparable”.(6) In subsection (5), after “qualifications” insert “or experience”.(7) In subsection (7A)(a)(ii), after “not” insert “sufficiently”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause amends the Companies Act 2006 such that the Financial Reporting Council, the statutory regulator for audit, would gain greater discretion over which foreign auditors and foreign audit qualifications could be accepted in the UK.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Amendment 34 is in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayter, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for signing it. The amendment would make changes to the Companies Act 2006 to allow the Financial Reporting Council—the current statutory regulator for audit—greater control and discretion over the acceptance of foreign auditors and foreign audit qualifications in the UK. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has said that these changes would fix a historic problem, as comparing and recognising qualifications between countries has been very difficult for the FRC. This is due to Section 1221 of the Companies Act 2006, which is highly prescriptive in terms of the degree of identity required between the UK standard and the foreign one. The ICAEW states that, in the last 30 years, the UK has recognised only two non-EU qualifications for audit and, post mergers in those countries, neither is the current version any more. Does the Minister think that this needs to change? Can she explain, without the amendment, exactly what changes the Government will propose?
Can the Minister also update the House on audit reform? In March the Government recommitted to a new authority and stated that
“legislation is needed in many areas to complete the task of remodelling the regulator and to establish the FRC’s successor body, the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority (ARGA).”
However, this legislation was not mentioned in the Queen’s Speech and we are wondering why. When will it be brought forward? Will the changes suggested in Amendment 34 form part of the new Bill? I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I support the thrust of Amendment 34 and it is good to see the Benches opposite getting involved in the exciting world of chartered accountancy and auditing. I remind the House that I am a member and former president of the ICAEW.
The wording of Section 1221 of the Companies Act 2006 is rather black and white. I understand that the Act is still the longest Bill that your Lordships’ House has ever considered, and I bear the scars of weeks and weeks in Grand Committee considering hundreds, if not thousands, of amendments. Despite all that effort, from memory I think that we did not focus on the wording of Section 1221, which is clearly a major failure of your Lordships’ legislative scrutiny.
I turn to the amendment. Section 1221 gives little scope for judgment where an overseas qualification is largely the same as a UK one for audit purposes but is not exactly the same. We heard that that has led to relatively few uses of that power. That contrasts with this Bill, where the formulation in relation to overseas qualification is “substantially the same”. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, who is not in her place, queried the use of “substantially” on our first Committee day, but it seems to me that it gives an important element of flexibility to the Bill. Something like that would probably give an element of flexibility in the context of Section 1221 of the Companies Act 2006; indeed, I wonder whether a better formulation for that would be to use “substantially”—that is, to mirror the kind of wording that is used in respect of recognition of overseas qualifications in this Bill. The noble Baroness may like to consider that if she chooses to bring forward this amendment again on Report.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I am a co-signatory to Amendment 34. In fact, I put the same one in because its source is the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I have been a fellow for 50-odd years. I view that as an interest, I suppose.
As has been stated by noble Lords, the amendment gives greater discretion over which foreign auditors and foreign audit qualifications are accepted in the UK. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, explained why this was and why it was needed. It allows the regulator to apply its professional judgment; this amendment states that clearly.
In 2020, the big four UK accountancy firms performed the audits of 96 of the 100 companies in the FTSE index—this is very much a closed shop. The dominance of the big four audit firms has long been a matter of concern, and their record on big company failures has not been impressive. Various professional bodies have been looking at this matter for some time in relation to companies such as Carillion, Thomas Cook and BHS—one could go on about this.
As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, in March this year the Business Secretary launched a major overhaul of audit. We did not hear too much about it after its launch. The amendment that we put forward today is to allow the regulator greater discretion, if it is needed, as a step to unleash competition in the audit market. As I said, when the big firms’ audits are controlled by the big four accountancy firms, something really needs to happen.
We are promised a new audit profession, overseen by a new regulator, with the aim of driving up standards and quality—this was referred to by previous speakers. This amendment will assist in the aim of requiring large companies to use smaller challenger firms to conduct part of the audit. In the debate on the previous amendment, the Minister spoke about giving empowerment to regulators. This amendment attempts to give those regulators that empowerment to do what they think is right rather than something that is written down in black and white.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, talked about flexibility, which is relevant to this very technical amendment—there was a laugh in relation to this being accountants talking about more accountants. But this is important, because the proper audits of companies are how this country runs, and it has not been running too well on the big companies side. I spent the first seven years of my career at a firm called Peat Marwick Mitchell, which is now KPMG, and audit has changed radically since then. There is too much looking at systems and not at whether those accounts and balance sheets—snapshots of a company’s position on a particular date—are true. Clearly, in companies such as the ones that I have mentioned, this is not the case.
This is a very technical amendment that had its genesis in the largest professional accountancy body in the UK. I hope the Minister will consider accepting it.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for participating in this short debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for the amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for presenting it so ably. I welcome the opportunity to consider the important issue of mutual recognition of statutory audit qualifications in the UK and the audit qualifications in other jurisdictions.
The Companies Act 2006 provides that these may be agreed on a reciprocal basis by the Financial Reporting Council—FRC—on behalf of the UK Secretary of State, with the competent authority of an overseas jurisdiction. Amendment 34 would give the FRC the discretion to relax the standards of compliance that overseas qualifications must meet before they can be recognised in the UK. It would not compel the FRC to relax those standards but would enable it to do so where it considers this appropriate as part of a reciprocal agreement.
The UK’s audit sector is highly respected and valued both domestically and across the world. The Government are currently consulting on the White Paper Restoring Trust in Audit and Corporate Governance. These reforms are needed because there have been a number of examples of poor practice and poor standards in UK corporate audit that have risked the UK’s reputation as a safe and trusted place to do business—a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, have just mentioned this. We therefore need to be careful when considering the framework to allow individuals to undertake statutory audit in the UK to ensure that it is robust and maintains the UK’s high standards and reputation.
While this amendment would only provide the ability for the regulator to apply looser requirements to recognising other nations’ qualifications, it would open the door to concerns of loosening standards and reduced oversight. It would also expose the regulator to pressures to use the flexibilities provided in cases where this might not be in the best interest of the UK profession or its clients. The statutory audit profession in the UK has a comparatively strong reputation internationally for the standards that it maintains. The Government are working hard to maintain this reputation, and we would not wish either the UK’s standards or its reputation to be devalued.
The Government acknowledge that an essential part of maintaining our standards and reputation internationally is to seek to influence developments in corporate reporting and audit by building links to other regulators that are prepared to uphold comparable standards. The ability for UK auditors and those with comparable qualifications overseas to exchange and transfer experience is an important part of this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, asked why the audit reform was not included in the Queen’s Speech. The reform of audit and corporate governance is a priority for Ministers. We have promised to legislate on an appropriate timetable, and the Government do not intend to add new requirements at a time when they would hold back businesses’ recovery from the pandemic. By the time of presenting proposals to Parliament, the Government want to be confident that they are effective and command broad support. Consultation on the Government’s White Paper is open until 8 July, and Ministers look forward to contributing to the BEIS Select Committee’s inquiry into the delivery of audit reform.
I believe that the regulator can already make agreements with international counterparts to this end, so I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I have received a message from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who wishes to speak.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Could my noble friend the Minister explain why, in Clause 1, which we know will be applied largely to the medical professions—we are therefore dealing with patient safety—it is adequate for medical professions if
“a specified regulator of the specified regulated profession has made a determination that the overseas qualifications … demonstrate substantially the same knowledge and skills”,
but, somehow, a different standard is implied when the much more mundane activity of auditing is involved? I do not quite understand how the Minister can have one view of the medical professions and another of what happens in the accounting profession. Can she explain that contradiction?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I do not agree that that is a contradiction. This would have the effect of weakening the standards in audit reform, which we are keen to prevent—so I do not agree with the premise of my noble friend’s question.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her full response. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for reminding me of the many hours of excitement that I have ahead of me in this place and thank her for her suggested wording. I also welcome the reminder from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, of the shortcomings in this particular area.
We keep mentioning the word “assuage”, which I do not think I have ever come across quite so much in my life before. I looked up “assuage” and it referred to the easing of grief. I am not sure that my particular grief in this area has been eased by this. There is a great deal in the answers that we will look at. I am sure we will revisit this very important, if technical, area in the meetings ahead, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 34A. Anybody wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 34A
Lord Lansley
“Indemnity and insurance
In exercising functions under section 1 or 4, or under any regulations made under section 3, a regulator of a regulated profession must ensure that an individual is properly indemnified or insured against liabilities that may be incurred in the course of practising the profession.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, this group has three amendments in it, two of which are in my name. The other amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, strictly speaking, is not really related. Her amendment makes a perfectly good point, it seems to me; I will not dwell on it, as I am sure she will introduce it very effectively. It simply asks for language requirements to be something that the assistance centre provides information and assistance on, so it sounds perfectly reasonable.
Amendment 34A in my name is somewhat prompted by the Government’s amendments to Clause 1 that we debated last Wednesday. If noble Lords will recall, those looked at the risk that the Government acknowledged in their supplementary memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In paragraph 6, they said their amendments were
“to avoid the risk that clause 1 could allow an overseas-qualified individual to circumvent additional requirements that other legislation imposes, or allows a regulator to impose, on overseas-qualified individuals.”
That is, indeed, exactly the risk that was referred to, quite properly, at Second Reading and to which the Government responded.
What was added into Clause 1 was “and any other specified condition”. In its response to the supplementary memorandum, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform said that, while it welcomed the amendment since it was intended to mitigate that risk, the appropriate conditions that were going to be added in were not specified. In part, Amendment 34A is part of a process of trying to tease out from my noble friend what is going to be in those conditions under Clause 1 that are in addition to the requirement for an overseas qualification or overseas experience to be substantially the same as UK qualifications and experience.
One of the things that I felt it was helpful to illustrate that is the question of indemnity insurance. That is what Amendment 34A relates to. For a number of regulators—especially of course, those that I am aware of, in the medical professions—there is a requirement on practitioners as part of their professional standards to have professional indemnity. Would this, for example, be one of the conditions that my noble friend would anticipate would be specified under Clause 1? That is by way of probing that situation.
Amendment 60A, however, is both to probe this issue rather more but also perhaps to make a suggestion to my noble friend when they are considering what might give further reassurance. Given the debates we have had last week and today, time and again noble Lords are saying that they remain concerned, notwithstanding the Government’s intentions and statements, that regulators will find that a consequence of the regulations under Clause 1 or as a consequence of Clause 3, which we have just been talking about, will be that they cannot impose or exercise the same control on overseas applicants to practise in the United Kingdom as would be the case for a UK applicant.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
Well, my Lords, we could all do with a little kindly looking on our amendments. I will speak to Amendment 42A in this group and, like the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I cannot quite see how it relates to his amendment. Nevertheless, I shall plough on.
This amendment seeks to clarify the language requirements for UK workers wishing to work in another country where English is not the main language and quite possibly not even spoken. We cannot assume that English will be understood by everyone, and those working abroad should have a working knowledge of the professional terms, as well as an ability to speak socially to those with whom they work. I have mentioned before the European Union project LangCred in which I was involved, where we were attempting to create a directory of all work-based qualifications so that people could move seamlessly across the EU. We kept coming against the fact that, however professionally or vocationally qualified they were, if they could not speak the language of the country, they were going to have problems. We can no longer assume that a bunch of Geordie construction workers could make a good living in Germany while speaking only Geordie. I was never sure in the days of “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet” whether that situation was entirely realistic, but I really do not think that it would work today. I rather suspect German law would not allow it.
Years ago, I got a job as a French and English teacher in a German gymnasium—a grammar school equivalent—while speaking only French and Spanish. Herr Direktor loved French and always spoke to me in French very happily, but after a few months he called me in to tell me that Düsseldorf had dictated that they could no longer employ me unless I spoke German. My RAF husband was too young to be officially married, and we were not allowed to live in married quarters, so were living in a German flat. I was surrounded by Germans and German shops, and as a linguist of course I had picked up quite a lot of German at that stage—none of which Herr Direktor had ever heard me speak, but he assured me, in French of course, that he had told them that I was fully competent in German, so I continued in my job. He quite liked me, but I rather suspect that he could not be bothered to recruit another teacher. But these days I certainly would not have been employed.
So it is important that those wishing to work abroad are fully informed that they need to speak Portuguese, Polish, Japanese or Mandarin before they embark on a job for which they may be fully professionally qualified in Portugal, Poland, Japan or China. Our teaching and learning of modern foreign languages have declined woefully in recent years; it really is a cultural deficit in this country that our language speaking is so very poor. Perhaps there might be more enthusiasm and incentive if young people were fully informed of their inability to work abroad unless they had mastery of more languages than English, and this amendment ensures that the advice includes a language component.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I will speak to two of the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. My understanding is that the first, Amendment 34A, is already covered by most of the professions, which require people to take out professional indemnity and insurance before allowing them to practise. So I wonder why this amendment is required—although I understand it is a probing amendment. But there we are—I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say.
I have some sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal. My understanding is that many practitioners, particularly legal practitioners, who work outside UK jurisdictions actually relate to English language clients, so the problem does not arise—but again, I look forward to hearing what my noble friend says in summing up.
My greatest concerns relate to Amendment 60A in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, and an incident which many in the Chamber may recall took place in the 1980s and 1990s, in which a gynaecologist, Richard Neale, was allowed to practise in this country, first in the Friarage Hospital, Northallerton, and then in other hospitals as well, even though he had been struck off the register in Canada, where his last known employment was. I took up the case with the GMC at the time and was assured that this would never happen again. But, as we have the Bill before us this afternoon, and as we have Amendment 60A as a probing amendment, I will ask the Minister: does he accept the assurance given by the GMC at that time? Can he put my mind at rest that this case could not happen again? I found it extraordinary that a gynaecologist—or indeed any medical professional—could be recruited without even a cursory phone call, ideally, or email to the last known place of work, which I think any diligent employer would undertake as minimum due diligence. Can my noble friend reassure me that there are provisions—if not in the Bill, then elsewhere—to ensure that this situation simply could not arise again?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansley has hit upon some important issues with his Amendments 34A and 60A. I am not 100% convinced by the drafting of either amendment, but the underlying issues are very important. On Amendment 34A, many regulated professions require indemnity insurance to be held by a professional, but I am not sure whether all regulated professions must have indemnity insurance. For example, I am not certain that farriers are required to have insurance. It is clearly sensible for any professional offering their services to have indemnity insurance, but it may not actually be required. My noble friend’s amendment rather implies that every single regulated professional has to have indemnity insurance.
Fitness to practise is rather different: it is a cornerstone of professions, in that only those of good standing are allowed to practise. Fitness to practise can be determined by a number of factors—some straightforwardly, such as criminal convictions, to which my noble friend referred in connection with the Disclosure and Barring Service. Others crucially depend on often quite subtle judgments within the context of particular professions: for example, whether an individual has the right degree of scepticism or can demonstrate that they exercise the right degree of professional care when undertaking their profession. These are really quite difficult areas of judgment. I could not see exactly how that fitted naturally into the scheme of this Bill. It would be difficult to say that there should be a condition relating to the judgment around fitness to practise. But I shall be interested in what the Minister has to say in response to these amendments.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall refer initially to insurance and then to the wider issue of fitness to practise. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I am slightly scratching my head about the overall requirement on indemnity, but I understand the point. I also understand that there is a mix among professions on the need for indemnity insurance. My grandfather, who was a farrier, had it; he would have been unlikely to have clients unless he was insured but it was not a requirement, and that is often the case for sole traders. There is a second category where you cannot be registered with a professional or trade body unless you are part of a wider indemnity programme or scheme. There will be others, such as social work, where indemnity is a requirement for practising.
Where this requirement exists, especially in medical professions and social work, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, may have a point but, more widely, it comes down to the Minister’s case that there is complexity all around. However, there are very good reasons why there are certain requirements in certain professions, some set out in regulations and others within the statutory provision. In one of his letters in response to questions that I raised as to why it seemed that health professions’ regulations were being contradicted here, the Minister said that the Government’s approach would be bespoke for the medical professions. That is our point: elements of this will require certain types of response in certain statutory provisions that are linked directly to the specific needs of the profession, or groups of professions, in that field—especially in the case of medical professions where public safety, not trade or economic benefit, is paramount. However, we know that the Government’s imperative in this Bill is an economic one—it is demand-led and shortage-led.
In his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and in his response, the Minister has been quite clear: if the Government consider that people are paying too much for UK professions, they want to obligate regulators to open the tap to new, foreign applicants. That is the intent and, therefore, the links with standards and public safety are tricky. The Minister knows me well enough not just to take my word for it, so let me quote from the Government’s document, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee memorandum. In paragraph 16 regarding the powers in Clause 1, the initial memorandum—not the second one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—says:
“Where the power is used in relation to a profession, the specified regulator will be obligated to consider applications for recognition from individuals with qualifications and experience, from every country in the world, and to provide a decision in line with the conditions set out in 001, and any other further requirements in the relevant regulations.”
The autonomy that we often hear about from the Minister is not apparent in the Government’s own document because the specified regulator will be “obligated to consider applications”.
When it comes to the application itself and the decision on it, the other provisions in Clause 1 could be forced on the regulator. This brings me to the wider point on which I agree with the noble Lord. There is no consideration of fitness to practise. It is essential that fitness to practise is consistent for the GMC, the medical professions and others that fall into the category where the Minister does not know if they are “in or oot” of the Bill, as we would say in the borders. If you are not in a statutory regulatory profession such as plumbing, and you wish to make sure that everybody’s gas boilers are safe in this country, which is essential, then you have to be registered with Gas Safe; it used to be the Corgi mechanism.
Qualifications are one thing, and fitness to practise is also considered there, but it is now a core element within the medical professions. On the first day in Committee, I asked a question of the Minister to which I have not yet had a reply, about where in the requirements on regulators the Government would insist that they have to take fitness to practise into consideration when it comes to criminal records. There are certain offences in the UK where, if someone has a conviction, they cannot apply for recognition of their qualification to practise; if they commit that offence while on the register, they are struck off it.
Nothing in the Bill would have UK regulators asking an equivalent requirement of a foreign applicant, so we would have a bizarre situation. We have left the EU, where this requirement was under the EU directive, and where we were able to seamlessly access the EU’s criminal data; this is now lost. We now have a very odd situation where the Government seem to suggest that, if there is a shortage of a profession, and there is demand, a UK applicant’s fitness to practise—including the requirement to look at a criminal record and judge them on that—stays, but for a foreign applicant, from any other country in the world, the regulator is obligated to consider their application without doing a fitness to practise check.
That is, I believe, untenable. The Government will have to reflect on this and bring forward their own amendments to ensure fitness to practise. Indemnity is not just for insurance but contributes to ensuring that those working for our medical professions and public services are safe to do so, for the sake of the public. I hope that the Government will consider this very carefully.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I too want to concentrate on Amendment 60A, the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has said, is absolutely crucial, particularly on fitness to practise.
We have in this country high standards not just of professional capability but of probity, which, indeed, go further and wider than the professions covered in this Bill. I well remember on almost my first day as a magistrate, many decades ago, seeing a man lose his licence to be a bus conductor in London because of a very minor and quite unrelated traffic offence; it was because of the standards we demand of those in public sector.
Our doctors, nurses, social workers, lawyers and teachers are not just good with their hands and brains; they are also not wife-beaters, drunken drivers, shoplifters or fraudsters. Fitness to practise means obedience to ethical codes, and never carrying out tasks outwith the abilities and competence of the particular profession. It includes in many professions the reporting of errors, maintaining skill levels, undertaking CPD and other aspects of what being a professional means. As the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, allows, it is important that if we are either to encourage—a word we have used—or even mandate regulators to have processes in place to recognise those qualified in other jurisdictions, then checking up on these wider aspects really must be permitted as part of the process. I hope that, in one way or another, the Minister will agree to bring something back in the Government’s own words on Report.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for tabling Amendments 34A and 60A, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, for tabling Amendment 42A.
Amendment 34A seeks to require that a regulator of a profession ensures that an individual is suitably indemnified or insured before they may practise a profession, if that regulator sets up recognition routes as a result of regulations made under Clauses 1, 3 or 4. Amendment 60A intends to ensure that the recognition of an individual with overseas professional qualifications or experience should not be sufficient in itself to confer an entitlement for that individual to practise that profession in the UK or a part of the UK. It seeks to ensure that the regulator can require that an individual has demonstrated their fitness to practise and produced evidence of their overseas experience.
I am in complete agreement with my noble friend’s intent in bringing forward these two new clauses. Under Clause 1, as amended in my name, regulations creating recognition routes can specify additional conditions which must be satisfied before a regulator makes a determination that recognition is given. This means that any other appropriate regulatory criteria, such as language proficiency, appropriate indemnity or insurance arrangements or criminal record checks, must also continue to be met before a regulator may give access to a profession. All these conditions could be imposed by a regulator under Clause 1, as amended. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, determining fitness to practise sits absolutely within the autonomy of the regulator. Nothing in the Bill disturbs that.
The amendments are also relevant to Clause 3, relating to the implementation of international agreements. As I set out earlier, Clause 3 does not affect the ability of national authorities or regulators to set and maintain professional standards. This includes the requirements to practise that profession, including being fit to practise and any requirements to have insurance.
Clause 4 allows the appropriate national authority to authorise a regulator to enter into regulator recognition agreements. The decision to enter into such an agreement and its terms are for the relevant regulator. This goes to the heart of the principle of regulator autonomy. It should be for the regulators concerned to decide whether to place requirements relating to professional indemnity insurance. It is highly unlikely that a regulator would agree terms which would provide access to a profession to individuals unfit to practise it. Language proficiency, indemnity arrangements and criminal record checks are prevalent examples of criteria that our professional regulators use now to assess and determine an individual’s fitness to practise. Nothing in the Bill disturbs this and, again, the regulator is free to determine how to go about it. I have been clear that we must protect regulators’ autonomy, including deciding who practises a profession and how to make assessments on issues such as information relating to overseas experience.
I have discussed this Bill with regulators such as the GMC, the GNC and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Let me be crystal clear, the amendments in my name allow them to determine who is fit to practise their profession here, beyond recognition alone. They have welcomed this. The amendments to Clauses 3 and 4 are unnecessary as they do not cut across regulators’ ability to set and maintain standards.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for their support for the purposes of Amendment 60A. If we all agree that, when the time comes, the Government will specify all the necessary conditions under Clause 1 to ensure that, under all circumstances, regulators can make whatever judgments, impose whatever requirements, and seek whatever evidence they require for a fitness to practise decision, then Amendment 60A is not required. The difficulty is that, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said, we do not know the appropriate conditions that will be specified in Clause 1. Clause 3 powers could technically override them. We just know it is not the Government’s intention to do so, and they have provided assurances.
After Second Reading, my noble friend acted swiftly to amend Clause 1. That has provided substantial reassurance, but not quite enough. One route we might look at on Report is to see whether “any other specified condition” referred to in Clause 1(1) as amended might be further defined to make it absolutely clear that everything that contributes to professional standards and fitness to practise determinations and judgments by professional regulators should be encompassed within those conditions. The question is how to draft it without having to reproduce everything. This is the territory we are in, otherwise that is not the assurance that is in the Bill. We are simply living with a statement that has no definition within it.
I hope to engage my noble friend and other noble Lords further in discussion about how we might achieve the purposes that I think we all seek. As my noble friend said, we are in agreement about the intent; the question is whether the Bill provides not only the powers but the assurances necessary for regulators in future and clarity within the Bill. Insurance is a similar argument. Pending further discussions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 37. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 37
“(3) Nothing in this section affects individuals whose qualifications were recognised by virtue of the European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015 before subsection (1) comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it explicit that qualifications recognised before the EU regulations were revoked are not affected.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, this provision is often described as a “grandfather” clause or policy, or “grandfathering”, although those words are not in the amendment. It is a provision by which an old rule continues to apply to certain existing situations, while a new rule will apply to all further cases. Those exempt from the new rules are said to have grandfather rights, or acquired rights, or to have been “grandfathered”—there is a big use of the word “grandfather”.
The virtue of the provision is that it keeps the expertise which exists in all these professions. Surely this must be very close to Members of your Lordships’ House; if we have any reason for existing, it is that one would not want to lose the expertise of this House. In very simple terms, that is what this amendment seeks to do.
The amendment is simple. It makes it explicit—the Minister may well say it is already there, but it is not explicit—that the qualifications recognised before the EU regulations were revoked are not affected. This simply makes it clear. I hope the Minister might accept it as a clarification in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I rather hope that the Minister will—to use the word of the Bill—assuage my fears that these amendments are not required. If noble Lords will bear with me, I must say I really struggled to understand, when reading these amendments and looking at the Bill, how it could possibly be that we would put any barriers, hurdles or anything in the way of people whose qualifications have been recognised under previous EU regulations. It is really concerning to me.
To turn to my regulator of choice, the Health and Care Professions Council registered 551 new registrants from the EEA and Switzerland last year—the year of Covid—and 951 the year before. That is around 22% and 26%, respectively, of the total number of new registrants each year. It would be a tragedy if there were any barriers to those who have been registered as fit to practice and they were not able to do so.
Let us not kid ourselves that it is a simple path to registration for professionals from the EEA and Switzerland even with the previous EU regulations in place. These professionals have already experienced uncertainty in their status due to the UK’s exit from the EU. Hopefully, most will have applied for settled status, but let us, as I say, not put any more barriers in their way. Even a whiff that their qualifications might no longer be recognised or that they may have to go through other processes could be enough to send these valued people back to their own countries.
I am also not clear whether it is proposed that there will be a transitional period between the existing and the proposed routes to registration for overseas registrants. If so, can further light be shone on this? I plead that any transition from one system to the other is as smooth and painless for professionals and regulators as possible. I look forward to being assuaged.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 60, to which my noble friend will refer in the wind-up, and will also speak in favour of Amendment 37.
Amendment 37, as we have heard, makes it explicit that qualifications recognised before the EU regulations were revoked are not affected. My noble friend Lady Blake’s Amendment 60 seeks to ensure that existing qualifications in the UK are not affected by the Bill. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, I assume that that is guaranteed or assuaged somewhere in the Bill, but it would be helpful to have the noble Lord’s reference point on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made some interesting points about grandparenting, which is obviously a long and sensible tradition when making changes to a regulatory body or regulating a profession for the first time which is already in some form of voluntary accreditation. I think the HCPC will be well used to doing that. Provided that we can be assured that the people being transferred over are, in the words of noble Lords, fit to practice, it should be a fairly straightforward process.
I was struck by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that we as Members of this House would be particularly favourable towards grandparenting—I suppose that means that in any reform of the second Chamber, existing Members would transfer over. It is probably about the only way to get this place to agree to reform—but in your dreams, my Lords.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, in moving his Amendment 37 and echo many of the remarks made previously on this.
My starting point is this: we now face a potential shortage in many professions, particularly among veterinary surgeons and many categories of medical staff, including doctors, nurses and other clinicians. It therefore seems odd that we have two amendments in this small group on the need for this to be in the Bill. Can my noble friend explain, as he has said many times during the passage of this Bill, at Second Reading and in earlier debates, that the Bill is deemed to be a tool to address potential shortages in the professions, such as veterinary surgeons and medical staff at every level? If that is the case, is it his view—bearing in mind the two probing amendments in this group—that it should perhaps be explicitly stated in the Bill, for the avoidance of doubt?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow all those who have spoken on the amendments in this group, because they are incredibly important. The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, spoke about the dangers of a “whiff” of doubt; I fear that whiff is becoming a smell out there among those whom we desperately need to retain in this country to do the work. I did a different type of straw poll, in west Wales; I just asked how many of the people were immigrants from Europe. We have over 270, and they are holding up the NHS. If they leave, I am afraid we will be in a real pickle. We have a real problem recruiting new people into jobs. We have vacancies not just among front-line clinicians but, as I spoke about on day one, among clinical scientists, where a terrible shortage is affecting our diagnostic processes.
The other problem is that those in Europe do not want to come at the moment because there is an element of doubt, and they feel that they will not be welcomed. Even those who have been well trained, who might come for one or two years and bring some skills over, are not doing that. They are staying away. Although it might sound a bit far-fetched, I think the unfortunate legacy of the Windrush scandal has tainted people’s minds a little bit and tipped them over towards mistrust.
The Minister used the word “trust” earlier today in relation to this Bill. I urge the Government to make it absolutely crystal clear that the qualifications that were previously recognised will remain recognised in perpetuity for the people who hold them unless there is a major change. Something like that might happen; for example, a profession might disappear completely or change so much that ongoing training would obviously be wanted. There is a real need to emphasise that these are valid qualifications and that they are of equal status—and that the people who hold them are viewed as being of equal status, that they are welcome here and that we appreciate the work that they do.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been a short but important debate. I expect the Minister to stand up and say that EEA professionals whose qualifications were recognised before the end of the transition period will continue to be recognised, but I warn him—again, in the spirit of helpfulness—to be careful what he promises because there is a problem: how do we know who has qualifications?
For the 5 million-plus EU nationals who have applied for settled status, the Home Office has only been checking the box that says “settled status”. It has not been verifying all withdrawal agreement rights, including professional qualifications. If these people remain in the job they are in now, so be it, but in the event that they move to another job with a new employer, I do not know how the process of them verifying their professional qualifications will happen. When the Minister answers this question, he needs also to answer the question of how this process will be effected for the millions of people, potentially, who came through the mutual recognition process, meaning that their names may not have been—indeed, probably were not—gathered with all the regulating bodies. How will it be managed? As previous speakers have emphasised, the role that these people already play in the United Kingdom is not just important but vital. It is also vital that the Government understand that these people’s qualifications need to work not just for their current job but for their next job and the one after that.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank everyone for their contributions in this really important area. I join noble Lords in raising concerns about the impact of the Bill on the qualifications of those who already live and work in the UK.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Hunt, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for signing my Amendment 60. Their expertise, especially in the medical and legal professions, has been incredibly helpful for this debate and for my first amendment to a Bill in this House. I could not be more appreciative of such cross-party support. I share the intention behind Amendment 37 and thank the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling it.
It is absolutely clear from the debate that we need to give those who already have their professional qualifications recognised in the UK certainty and confidence that this legislation will not affect them negatively, especially because, in many cases, the professionals and people working in these areas already live in our communities, have decided to call the UK their home and are people on whom all of us so often rely, particularly for our vital public services. This is especially true in the context of shortages, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, set out, picking up on the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fraser and Lady Finlay, about the whiff of doubt that exists at the moment.
We cannot repeat this frequently enough: last year, the number of non-British people here included 169,000 NHS staff in England, 122,000 staff on the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s register and 247,000 staff in social care. We are hugely grateful to all these key workers—especially for their efforts during the pandemic. As I said at Second Reading, we cannot clap for carers today then strip them of their qualifications tomorrow. We need to stand behind all these workers and want to do so side by side with Ministers.
In the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, the Government’s central promise was that
“nothing in the Bill prevents, qualifies or otherwise impacts the ability of those with existing recognised qualifications from continuing their areas of practice in the UK”,
but the Bill as drafted is currently silent on this. Therefore, Amendment 60 would write the Government’s own promise into the Bill. Surely the Minister will have no objection to accepting this simple but extremely important amendment. How can he guarantee protection of workers without it?
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for pointing out in conversation that many who have registration are not currently practising, and there needs to be reassurance for them as well. We have the opportunity to provide the certainty and confidence that all so richly deserve. Let us do what we can to provide the atmosphere of trust that we have mentioned today.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, for their amendments. I note that they are supported by several other noble Lords. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, have spoken previously about the importance of ensuring that professionals who have already had their qualifications recognised in the UK should be able to continue to rely on those recognition decisions. I completely agree with this. Those professions make an important contribution to the UK, the individuals concerned are very valuable to us and I am happy to put that firmly on the record. That is why this Bill, and any regulations made under it, will not affect the status of those with existing recognised professional qualifications. As I will explain, we are in complete assuagement territory here, without there being a whiff of a doubt, and I hope I can demonstrate that clearly to noble Lords.
To explain fully, the Government secured provisions to protect existing recognition decisions in each of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement, the UK-EEA EFTA separation agreement and the UK-Swiss citizens’ rights agreement. EU-qualified professionals living or frontier-working in the UK at the end of the transition period who had their qualifications recognised by the relevant UK regulator will continue to have their recognition protected under the terms of the withdrawal agreement. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, those individuals will be on the professional register of the professions with which they are registered. This is of course a separate matter from any question of settled status in an immigration context.
There are similar provisions for holders of Norwegian, Icelandic and Liechtenstein qualifications under the UK-EEA EFTA separation agreement and for holders of Swiss qualifications under the UK-Swiss citizens’ rights agreement. Indeed, under that last agreement, Swiss professionals can continue to apply for recognition of qualifications under the current terms up until the end of 2024. These provisions have been given effect in the 2019 recognition of professional qualifications regulations, as amended in 2020 using powers under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. Clause 5 does not amend or affect the legislation which upholds the UK’s obligations under these agreements, and the UK will continue to protect the rights of these citizens.
The regulations which commence Clause 5(1) will include saving and transitional provisions. These will ensure that professionals whose qualifications were recognised from the end of the transition period to the point when the 2015 regulations are revoked are unaffected. The Government will consider carefully when to implement commencement regulations to support a coherent legislative framework, while also ensuring that decisions are taken at the right time for professions affected. This will support a smooth transition to the new framework for recognising overseas qualifications. These regulations will be laid before Parliament at a suitable time and not without the appropriate prior engagement with devolved Administrations, regulators and other interested parties. This also allows regulators time to transition from operating under EU-derived obligations to the new system suited to the needs of the UK economy. I hope this answers the point made by my noble friend Lady Fraser.
Additionally, the Bill does not change the status of any recognition arrangements that regulators have with counterparts in other countries. They can continue, and the Government are conducting extensive engagement with regulators to ensure that they understand the measures in this Bill. The Government will make clear in those interactions that the Bill will not affect in any way the status of professionals already practising in the UK. I hope this provides reassurance that the Bill is fully consistent with the intent behind these amendments, and that noble Lords therefore feel able not to press them.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I have received requests to speak from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox, first.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his partial answer to my point, but he will find if he goes back to the department that proof of recognition will have to be re-presented if people are moving jobs. If that is not the case, I will be happy to accept it and we can have one of his famous letters on the subject. My understanding is that this is not his department’s doing but part of the hostile environment that the Home Office still pursues; the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made the point about the hangover from previous incidents. My understanding is clear on this, so I would be pleased if the Minister is able to disabuse me of it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, to add to that, I listened carefully to the Minister when he spoke about the person holding the qualification, but my concern relates to the qualification itself. If somebody holds a qualification that was mutually recognised in the EU, has not yet come to this country but wishes to in five years’ time, will that qualification remain recognised as it would have previously or is there a possibility of additional hurdles being put in place for that person coming in? I go back to the term “grandfathering” and whether the recognition that existed will continue, or whether it continues only up to date for those people who are currently on a register in this country and possibly have settled status. That was not clear, or perhaps I did not understand it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I invite the Minister to reply to both speakers.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, these are both important questions which affect the rights of individuals, and so I will write to noble Lords on these matters to be crystal clear with my answers.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which has been incredibly helpful. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, for introducing words like “whiff”, “processes” and “painless”. That is the whole point: this should be painless rather than putting things in people’s way. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who has noticed the similarity between expertise in the House of Lords and keeping the expertise in qualifications. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her comments about making people welcome, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for saying the same.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We come to the group beginning with the question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss more broadly the contents of Clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 relates to the revocation of the general EU system of recognition of overseas qualifications. It revokes the European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015 and provides regulation-making powers to the appropriate national authority—in this case the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor and the devolved Administrations—to modify any legislation that it considers necessary as a consequence of this provision. The fact that this is a broad regulation-making power underlines the need that I identified earlier to consult before the power is exercised, so I again press my noble friend on that point. Clause 6 looks at the revocation of other retained EU recognition law and provides the appropriate national authority with a regulation-making power to modify other legislation for professions that are outside the scope of these regulations but still part of the broader EU-derived recognition framework.
My first question to my noble friend relates to Clause 5(1), which represents basically a cliff-edge revocation of the whole of the EU MRPQ regime in UK domestic law. If we adopt such a one-size-fits-all measure, and given the constraint placed by Clause 2 on the gap-filling power in that clause, would it not be sensible for the Bill to include a power to save, in an appropriate case, the effect of specified elements of the EU-derived MRPQ rules in relation to a particular profession or professions?
This has been put forward by the Bar Council of England, which states:
“We doubt whether Clause 5(2), even read with Clause 13(1)(c)”—
which we will discuss separately—
“provides a power to save the effect of any part of the remaining EU-derived MRPQ regime.”
My concern is that there may be parts of that regime which, for an interim period or even longer, some of the regulators or professions would wish to keep. I understand that that would not be possible. Is that something my noble friend might review for the purposes of the debate today?
I understand that Clause 5(1)
“would come into force on a day specified by the secretary of state in regulations.”
A memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says:
“BEIS has said that it intends that commencement regulations would “include savings and transitional provisions relating both to qualifications that have already been recognised and to applications that are already in progress but not yet complete”.
Can my noble friend confirm how that will play in the different jurisdictions, particularly regarding the legal profession, which is dealt with separately in Scotland, England and Wales?
The Library briefing also states:
“Clause 6 would come into force on the day the bill was passed. In the context of clause 6, the Government has said not all pieces of relevant legislation will be revoked at the same time. Some arrangements may be kept for a longer period depending upon the needs of a given sector.”
My concern is that this may lead to some confusion and a lack of understanding of the legal status of the provisions. I refer again to BEIS and its memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on 12 May 2021. Paragraph 50 says:
“In particular, it is expected that the healthcare sector will need a longer period of time to transition to the new system to avoid recruitment and retention issues in those sectors”,
which we have just briefly debated. It continues:
“BEIS is of the view that it is appropriate to allow for Departments and devolved authorities to revoke these measures at an appropriate time, without fixing a particular date in the bill.”
Is my understanding correct that we could be faced with different situations in the different devolved nations? Are the Government mindful of what the implications might be?
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to discuss these concerns about Clause 5. Will my noble friend consider that there may be parts of the EU system we want to keep? I accept we have taken the decision to leave it, but, for an interim period, that may be the case. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Following the end of the transition period, this system had been retained in the interim to provide certainty to businesses and public services by offering preferential qualification recognition to holders of EEA and Swiss qualifications. The new recognition framework, as set out in Clause 1, will be implemented alongside revoking the 2015 Regulations.”
To sum up, there could be different regimes working at the same time under Clauses 5 and 6. How does my noble friend intend that his department will manage that to the best possible effect?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome these amendments. I will start with the points the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was dwelling on at the end—the impact assessment gives the impression that, when this Bill becomes law, it terminates the transitional arrangements which continue to recognise EU qualifications. Indeed, most of the Bill indicates that. Clause 6 undoubtedly muddies the water somewhat. There is a need for clarification from the Minister because there is scope for a great deal of confusion.
From previous comments made by the Minister, I gather that the UK wanted to agree mutual recognition of qualifications as part of the trade agreement with the EU but the EU was not prepared to accept that. I pointed out on the first day in Committee that this is not an agreement between equals; for example, there are 22,000 EU-qualified medics working in this country but only 2,000 UK-trained medics across the countries of the EEA plus Switzerland. In short, we depend a lot more on them than they do on us. The pattern is repeated across a large number of professions. It is not uniform, but it is repeated widely.
Therefore, the Government’s decision to throw their toys out of the pram and say, “If you won’t recognise ours, we won’t recognise yours”, is, I regret to say, simply self-defeating. It also displays a seriously worrying lack of awareness of how long it takes for a regulator to go through the approvals process for each new country’s qualifications. The impact assessment refers to contacts with regulators but, as I said in a previous debate, these are very minimal, and regulators were notably sparing in their responses to government consultation. We do not have a thorough picture of how this will impact on regulators, but I can assure noble Lords that years, not months, is the norm for recognising qualifications—for going through the whole process. As a result of this Bill, there will be a gap when the old qualifications are no longer recognised and the new ones are not yet accepted. Already, we have shortages in a number of professions; we have had shortages for many years, but the Brexit situation has made them much worse. The rhetoric that went along with Brexit has made so many foreign professionals feel unwelcome, and that lack of feeling welcome has had an impact way beyond the EU immigrants; it has impacted on people across the world.
I suppose I should be reassured that the impact assessment states that, although the Bill sweeps away current EEA recognition, the regulators are able to sign recognition agreements with individual countries. However, there is an element of farce here, because dealing with that costs money and is bureaucratic and complex. It is a pity the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is not in her place, because she would be nodding fiercely with me on that one. But it will cost money, and that cost will fall on people working in each of the professions concerned. Also, the Minister himself told us in a letter that the old agreements were unpopular, although I have not found anyone echoing that within the sector. But the Government felt that they were unpopular and wanted to replace them.
The sensible thing would be for the Government simply to continue to accept the status quo—the EEA system—at least for a much longer interim period and perhaps review it after five years. I hope we can persuade the Minister that the pragmatic thing to do is to accept this amendment, or maybe even to commit to looking at it again and adding that the whole thing will be reviewed in five years’ time. It will take that long to re-erect a sensible, comprehensive system to replace what the Bill is sweeping away.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. She highlighted extremely well the nonsense in the Government’s proposals, which seek a faster-track application system and reduced fees for in-demand services, at the same time as recognising that the Bill itself will increase fees. I will make a couple of points in support of my noble friend’s case and that of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Some of us have not lost hope that a degree of pragmatism will still be found somewhere in the basements of Whitehall and that the Government can bring it up to see the light. If so, it would be in our self-interest and in the interests of our professions and public services.
On the first day in Committee, noble Lords discussed the Minister’s attempt to read a degree of revisionism into the position of the UK and the EU in forward-looking negotiations and the withdrawal agreement. For the benefit of the Committee, the UK’s negotiating document called for “a framework” for the relevant authority of a profession in a jurisdiction. The EU’s response, in paragraph 43, referred to
“a framework for negotiations on the conditions for the competent domestic authorities”.
There really was not much between the two after the UK Government said that they wanted a Canada-style agreement. The EU said, “You will have it”, and we have such an agreement, with increased burdens and complications and the UK having to negotiate with each individual member state. That is the impression given by the Government’s impact assessment, which says that it gives us a competitive advantage and our professionals an advantage over others. However, we seem to hear from the Government that they are now quite open to a Europe-wide mutual recognition system. The Minister is being coy: this is an opportunity for him to be abundantly clear on whether the UK would favour—continues to favour, if his argument is to be believed—a Europe-wide system.
My noble friend Lady Randerson pointed out why it is in our interests to hit the pause button and not inflict more damage. The regulated professions database, which the Government have cited in the Bill’s accompanying documents, makes the case for us. Its records go back to 1997-98 and the number of UK doctors since then who have had their UK qualifications recognised in all European countries—the 27 and the smaller number before enlargement—is 2,468. In that period the UK has recognised 32,412 to work in our health service. The figures for civil engineers were 550 from the UK working in Europe and 1,227 Europeans in the UK.
For UK nurses going abroad, the figure is 4,570, while for EU nurses with recognised qualifications working in the UK over the period it is 47,000. If you take out Ireland—to which 3,850 UK nurses went, while Europe had 3,355 coming in—700 British-recognised nurses went to Europe to work, against 44,000 Europeans working in our health system. It is abundantly clear that these difficulties, which will continue, are putting pressure on our services which the Government say the Bill is meant to counteract.
The worst example I have found, however, is in social work. It is clear from government statements that there is a shortage in the profession. This database shows that over the same period, 63,000 British social workers’ professional qualifications have been recognised abroad, while in the UK we have recognised 201,000 from the 27 and their predecessors.
It is perfectly clear that we are creating a major problem in our labour market. The Government themselves have said in a Home Office statement that they forecast a 70% reduction in new applications. So the reason the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is correct to say that there should be a degree of pause is that we have damaged the reputation of those who have worked here already, we have stopped that trajectory and, as I said, we are forecast to cut it by 70%. That will never be compensated for by those coming from other countries through some of those mysterious mutual recognition agreements that have not even been negotiated yet. I do not know what the Government’s view is on solving this problem of demand. The Bill will not do that and they need to set out what the solutions will be. At the very least, there could be a degree of common sense so that we do not halt all the benefits that the UK has at the moment and hit the pause button. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, the core purpose of the Bill is to update how regulators recognise professionals whose qualifications and experience have been gained overseas, reflecting our status outside the single market and our global outlook. Clauses 5 and 6 are part of the means of doing that. I note that my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has given notice of her intention to oppose Clauses 5 and 6 standing part of the Bill. I hope that over the course of my speech I can change her mind. Noble Lords have raised a number of detailed technical points in this short debate, and I will obviously write to them on those points of detail, to the extent that I do not answer them fully in my response.
Clause 5 revokes legislation that places obligations on regulators to recognise professional qualifications in line with the systems that were in place when the UK was a member of the EU. Clause 6 complements Clause 5 by providing a power for modifications to be made to other retained EU recognition law to cause it to cease to have effect. The current arrangements for the recognition of professional qualifications were an interim system put in place to provide essential continuity immediately after the transition period. They were never meant to be permanent, nor do I believe that they should be. Legislation that obliges regulators to offer unreciprocated recognition to European Economic Area and Swiss-qualified professionals in the UK, often preferentially, is clearly not appropriate going forward. That is why Clause 5 will revoke the 2015 regulations.
Clause 5 also provides a power for consequential amendments to be made to other legislation, in particular corrections to cross-references or imported definitions. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that this will require a level of detail that would be set out more appropriately in secondary legislation. It will also enable the devolved Administrations to modify legislation that falls within their devolved competence.
We believe that there are benefits to all four corners of the UK from having a global outlook to the recognition of professional qualifications. We have not placed an obligation on the devolved Administrations to use this power because we trust that they will make decisions that will allow the new framework to operate effectively, including revoking any remaining legislation no longer compatible with our new status outside the EU single market. As we make these changes, we will work with interested parties, such as the devolved Administrations and regulators, to make sure that they work for the professions concerned.
Clause 5 will come into effect only through commencement regulations. These regulations will include saving and transitional provisions ensuring that professionals recognised before the revocation are unaffected—a point that we discussed in one of our earlier debates. The savings also ensure that any ongoing applications made before revocation would be treated under the rules of the interim system, which means that applications in the pipeline will continue to be considered.
The Government will consider carefully when to implement commencement regulations to support a coherent legislative framework while also making sure that decisions are taken at the right time for the professions affected. I assure noble Lords that we will not rush this. We will think about it carefully, and the commencement regulations will be brought in when we think it is the right thing to do, taking all this into account. This will support a transition to the new framework for recognising overseas qualifications. These regulations will be laid before Parliament at a suitable time and—I assure my noble friend Lady McIntosh—not without the appropriate prior engagement with the devolved Administrations, regulators and other interested parties. This also allows regulators time to transition from operating under EU-derived obligations to the new system suited to the needs of the UK’s economy going forward.
I turn now to Clause 6, which complements Clause 5 and enables modifications to be made to other relevant retained EU recognition law to cause it to cease to have effect. This is legislation which provides for, or relates to, the recognition of overseas qualifications or experience for the purpose of determining whether individuals are entitled to practise.
In providing for the revocation of this EU law, your Lordships have just heard me say that the Government are committed to their existing obligations to implement the provisions in the UK-EU withdrawal, EEA EFTA separation and Swiss citizens’ rights agreements with regards to qualification recognition. I reassure noble Lords, as I did in a previous debate, that Clauses 5 and 6 do not amend the UK’s obligations under these agreements, nor do they prevent regulators setting up or continuing routes to recognition for professionals with overseas qualifications in line with other existing powers.
Clauses 5 and 6 are essential for paving the way for the introduction of the framework I have set out. I commend that these clauses should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken and to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for being so supportive, for her reference to the impact assessment and for her recognition that there will be a gap as a result of the Bill, as the old qualifications will no longer be recognised nor new ones accepted. I think both she and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed—I am also very grateful for his support and forensic analysis of the situation—said that the status quo for a limited period would be acceptable.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his response. I am not entirely clear whether he suggested that we will now have that limited reliance on the status quo, because he said in relation to Clause 5 that the commencement regulations would be brought in at the right time after the appropriate consultation. I am not sure I heard him respond to the Bar Council’s concerns that those good parts of the regulations that will be dropped when the new regulations come in might be kept in the longer term, but I commend that to my noble friend to consider.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, set out very pressing reasons, and went on to analyse the 70% reduction in applications that the Government have accepted there will be. He made a plea for a pause to limit the damage at this time. Concern has been expressed in the Committee, justifying this debate. I will consider whether further action is required at the appropriate stage, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
“(d) publish advice and information about immigration requirements for entry to the United Kingdom for purposes of practising a regulated profession.”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, there have been a number of interesting debates today, and this is an important one. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the assistance centre to give information about visa and work permit requirements. In a previous debate, the noble Lord the Minister—the noble Baroness the Minister is answering this debate—told us that the assistance centre is up and running. Clause 7 provides for the assistance centre, which is there to facilitate transparency on the recognition and regulation of professional qualifications in the United Kingdom, to provide advice and assistance to UK qualified professionals who want their publications and experience to be recognised overseas, and to publish certain advice and information.
I agree with the Law Society of Scotland, which drafted this amendment for me, that it would be important for the assessment centre also to provide advice and information about visa and work permit requirements for entry to the UK for employment and other related purposes. At present, the UK Centre for Professional Qualifications—UK CPQ—which is managed by Ecctis, provides advice and information across the UK on recognition of professional qualifications in an international context in the UK and abroad. Clause 7 provides the statutory basis for that service.
The UK CPQ does not provide advice or information about visa and work permit requirements for entry to the UK; nor does it signpost to relevant advice and information on immigration matters. There is another body, the UK national agency for international qualifications and skills—UK ENIC—which is also managed by Ecctis. Visitors to its website, who wish to see information about visa and nationality matters, are directed to the Home Office. I do not need to tell the Committee that that is not the most helpful advice to give to anyone. That there is a choice of bodies with similar names operating in the same sphere and run by the same entity must be confusing to an individual from abroad who wants to have their qualification recognised but also to obtain the basis for employment in the UK; namely, a visa or work permit.
I agree with the Law Society of Scotland’s view that it would be much better and more cohesive were the assistance centre more of a one-stop shop, in respect of the benefits of offering a joined-up service to nationals of other countries seeking to requalify and potentially establish themselves in the UK. This amendment will help achieve that. I agree with the Law Society’s view that the Long Title of the Bill is broad enough to bring such functions within the ambit of the assistance centre. Perhaps between now and Report, the Minister—who I know is a very helpful Minister—could make inquiries about whether such a provision could be included in amendments later in the Bill’s passage. In the meantime, by making this point, I hope that the Government will agree that there would be practical and reputational benefits of offering comprehensive advice and assistance to international colleagues.
That deals with Amendment 39. Amendments 44 and 50 are also in my name. I will not press them, because we dealt with the same principle on a previous amendment. Members who were there will recall that I passed on the responsibility to my friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who sadly cannot be with us today. What he explained then applies to this amendment equally well. The points made by the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, were helpful, particularly the Minister’s assurance that the regulator is not required to make the disclosure if that would contravene the data protection legislation. It was very helpful to have that clarified. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I put on record our thanks to the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my near namesake, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and endorse his words. This group contains a number of different amendments. I will focus on Amendment 43 in my name, but that does not indicate that I do not support elements of the others.
I have done what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, advises against, which is to table an amendment to one element of this clause in order to speak to a larger confusion that I have. This is a probing amendment, but the real point is: what is this centre for and why will it operate as it does? We have established a few facts at Second Reading and through previous amendments, so we know that the Government foresee one overarching centre rather than four national ones, and to do this, the Minister has painted a picture of two people and a website—a landing page. Forgive me, but this is a website requiring 48 lines of primary legislation, so it must have some importance in the mind of the Government to go to this much trouble when it replaces what was a sentence in an EU directive, which is the previous assistance centre. So much for red tape. We have 48 lines of primary legislation to establish a website run by two people.
My amendment leaves out Clause 7(4), which deals with disclosing information. Clearly, it reinforces that certain information cannot be disclosed, but to whom will this information be disclosed? It paints a picture of the collection and dispersing of individuals’ data, so what is the point? Why is it there? What data is it—whose stuff? I do not understand what it is for. I understood that it was to point people in certain directions. This is saying that it is a requirement to disperse data, but what data, and to whom? That is the central reason why I have put my name to this amendment. Of course, if it is collecting important data, it would be nice to know that it is doing so properly, so the terms of this subsection are of course correct, but we need to know why this centre is being set up as it is and what on earth it is for.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have two very small amendments in this group, both taking us back to my unfavourite word, “substantially”. When we were discussing this last week, my main objection was that “substantially” always implies that something is missing. Last week it was applied to standards, and my argument then was that you cannot water down standards so should not use “substantially”. With these two amendments, my argument is that the word is completely unnecessary. In “substantially corresponds to”, “substantially” is a modifier and “corresponds to” is a modifier; you do not need them both, so I simply put this forward to ask if we can please neaten up the Bill by two words and take out “substantially” in both contexts.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I speak on Clause 7 standing part of the Bill, rather than on the detailed amendments in this group. We had a brief discussion about the advice centre on our first Committee day, when the Minister told us that the current UK Centre for Professional Qualifications does not cost very much, although he would not tell us how much. The UK set up the Centre for Professional Qualifications because it was required to by the EU, so I do not understand why BEIS has not looked long and hard at whether it needs to carry on funding it now that we have left. Just because people have occasionally found an item useful is not a sound rationale to carry on spending money on it. There has to be a demonstrated need, and nothing in the documents on the Bill has established this.
Until I got involved in the Bill, I had not heard of the centre. I have since visited the website and am doubtless going to be included in its statistics on hits next time it reports to the Minister how successful it is. I did not find it useful at all. I first wanted to know how I could come to the UK to practise as a registered auditor, but the website gave me no information at all. It does not have a global search facility, so I could not even work out whether the information was hidden somewhere on the website. When I said that I was a UK professional accountant seeking to practise abroad, again it had absolutely nothing to tell me.
I suspect that, if the centre disappeared from the web tonight, no one—but no one—would miss it. Most of what is on the website can easily be found with a search engine and a couple of extra clicks. It is not a treasure trove of information; it is very minimalist. The best thing that could be done with it is to put it to sleep, which is why I do not believe that Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to speak in support of Amendment 39 from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and I commend the remarks of my noble friend Lady Noakes, because it takes a brave person to say what she did. I look forward to hearing my noble friend Lady Bloomfield’s response from the Front Bench. I do not know whether I have the temerity to try the same, as a non-practising advocate, but I am tempted.
Amendment 39 is particularly important given the reasons that we debated in the short debate on Clauses 5 and 6 standing part of the Bill. Those reasons were raised again by the Law Society and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who so eloquently moved Amendment 39: we need a tool to remove all barriers, or any whiff of a barrier, that might be in this place. It is important to take this opportunity to do that. I hope that my noble friend enthusiastically endorses Amendment 39 as a small but essential tool to enable those who might consider applying for their chosen profession to work in the United Kingdom to do so.
Another reason for this was given by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in summing up the last debate, who mentioned that we now have a Canada-style agreement. The briefing I have from the Law Society of England and Wales is rather discouraging:
“This model is yet to deliver a single MRA between the EU and Canada in the three years since it came into force … We feel Government impetus is necessary to achieve MRAs.”
Clause 7 is an essential part of the Bill. It is extremely important that we have an assistance centre and I welcome the fact that it is already up and running. It is even more important that it passes the Noakes test—that it is easy to use, fit for purpose and will embrace Amendment 39.
I am not going to speak at length, but I take this opportunity to support the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on disclosure. I look forward to my noble friend’s response on that and to Clause 7 stand part.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Garden has wisely pointed out the poor grammar in the Bill. I hope that note will be taken of that. The really significant question here is what the assistance centre is for. It is built on—and the Minister went out of his way last time to point this out—the modest size and the modest number of inquiries that the current assistance centre has dealt with. It is a creation of the UK Government as a result of a non-legal requirement from the EU—a suggestion from the EU. It is not a legislative requirement by the EU. The UK Government decided to make the requirement in law, but the EU situation does not make it a requirement.
We therefore have this organisation that has clearly, in the past, had a small, modest but useful function, but the world has moved on. If you search for anything online these days, there is a wealth of information. Even if you have a limited level of experience in a particular field, you rapidly discover what information is reliable and what is not. What is proposed here is a much bigger organisation—a much more grandiose and legally established organisation with scope for further growth. The Minister told me not to be suspicious, but I remain suspicious. In my view, the UK Government see this organisation as an opportunity for them to take a centralising, co-ordinating role which will nudge the devolved Administrations out of the way in fields where the vast majority of activity is devolved, such as health, teaching and social work. The day-to-day activity in the health service, the teaching profession and social work is done and controlled by the devolved Administrations, even if there are not always separate regulators.
We have raised previously the concurrency of powers of the devolved Administrations and the UK Government. This is an attempt by the UK Government to bring what they see as order and an element of control to the situation. If the assistance centre had a purpose, modern search facilities online have now made it redundant. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that it is better to put it to sleep—put it out of its misery.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, while I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes that any advice would be better if it was comprehensive and included all the things that everyone would want to know if they were applying either to move here or to go away, the more fundamental question, which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked, is whether we need Clause 7 at all. As she and others have said, it is not clear why it is necessary to establish a statutory advice centre simply to handle information and provide advice and assistance. It will not make any decisions. It will not have the authority to chide regulators for not doing something; it does not have any authority over them. The statutory requirement is actually on regulators to provide advice to the centre—there is no statutory requirement on the centre to fine them if they do not do it or anything else like that—although, as has been said, there are already other ways of getting that information. In addition, only the UK Government, not the other Governments in the Bill, interestingly enough, are able to enforce this requirement. I do not know whether that is an oversight but, given that there is more than one national authority in the Bill, it would be interesting to know why the requirement on regulators is laid down only by the UK Government.
This is all very strange. It is a very clunky and convoluted way of simply asking statutory regulators to tell a Minister such information as is needed to provide advice to potential applicants on how they go about getting their qualifications recognised here. They have been doing that for years. We heard earlier about a number of regulators, particularly in the health service, veterinary science and other areas, that have been doing this for years without any statutory requirement to provide the advice, so it is unclear why the new law is needed. As has already been said, we know that the assistance centre is already in operation. But I think none of us knows why we need a specific underpinning now, and what it is that could not be done by a couple of civil servants within BEIS.
The Minister said last Wednesday that “new legislative cover” is required, but he did not spell out what it was required to do—why this could not be done on a voluntary basis. We have lots of other advice centres which do not have to have statutory underpinning, so why is legislation needed? He said, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, just quoted, that the centre
“is basically a focal point—a signposting mechanism that tells people where to go to get more information about professions”
and that
“it employs either two or three people.”
It must be tiny; I was going to say that it received 1,600 queries in a year, but it has now received 1,601—I think our little website here gets far more hits than that. As the Minister had the honesty to confess:
“These queries can be as simple as saying, ‘What is the address of the place I have to write to, to find out how I become a nurse in Great Britain?’”—[Official Report, 9/6/21; col. 1501.]
If you google “nurse vacancies”, you might just find it. The idea that we are employing anybody and paying them money to tell people about the address they need to write to to find out how to become a nurse in Great Britain makes me worried, and why on earth does it have to be a statutory body if it is just signposting?
The impact assessment says that
“the Secretary of State can (through contractual arrangements) require the national assistance centre to support professionals”—
it is unclear what “support” means—
“in getting their UK qualifications recognised overseas by providing reasonable information to their overseas counterparts.”
Again, surely the regulator can do that. If a doctor wants to apply to be a doctor in New Zealand, for example, surely their regulator can supply that information. If it is to be done by the advice centre and by contract, it is really hard to think why, again, it needs two bodies or persons to be statutory if they are simply setting up contracts to be able to exchange information—because it is not a decision-making body.
It is unclear what the relationship will be between the centre and overseas regulators. If it is by contracts, how much will they be bound by data protection to ensure that the overseas regulators will look after people’s data according to normal laws? That is easier in a regulator-to-regulator agreement—we have talked about these elsewhere, so why not here?
I am completely mystified as to why Clause 7 is in the Bill. Perhaps we can just take it out, and then we can all go home.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I have to confess that I am still surprised that this is proving such a contentious part of the Bill. For the record, the centre has had 1,602 inquiries—I rang it this morning and it was very helpful, answering the phone within minutes and telling me exactly what to do about what I was asking.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, for their amendments, which address wide-ranging issues around the operation of the assistance centre, in particular extending the scope of advice provided, readjusting how information-sharing interacts with data protection, and the definition of “corresponding profession”.
Amendment 39 from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, seeks to place an additional duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the assistance centre to publish advice and information about immigration requirements for entry to the UK for the purposes of practising a regulated profession. I clarify that, under the current arrangements, the assistance centre is part of the UK ENIC, which I had not realised until the noble Lord brought that up. The UK ENIC focuses more broadly on academic qualifications, whereas the assistance centre focuses on professional qualifications.
Placing an additional duty on the assistance centre to publish advice and information about immigration requirements would go beyond the scope of the Bill. Furthermore, under the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, immigration advice and services can be provided only by qualified persons. To include these additional requirements would increase the asks on the remit of the assistance centre and the qualifications of the staff required to deliver it. It would also increase the costs associated with doing so. I know that others in the Committee, including my noble friend Lady Noakes, wish any service to be as economical and targeted as possible.
The Home Office already provides guides and tools to the public to help them understand immigration requirements and eligibility, including a dedicated visa-checking tool. Adding this to the assistance centre contract would therefore duplicate Home Office services.
Amendment 43 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would remove Clause 7(4), which clarifies that the disclosure of the information required under Clause 7 does not breach disclosure restrictions, such as any obligations of confidence. The subsection as drafted is both consistent with existing legislation and required to give clarity about the intersection of this clause with data protection legislation. Without it, no direction would be given on which takes precedence.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, also asked about the information that the Government are asking regulators to provide to the assistance centre. This is very limited in nature and not onerous: it is to ensure that the assistance centre has the necessary information to support the delivery of its functions. It also facilitates transparency on the recognition of professional qualifications in the UK. Regulators are already required to provide this information to the current assistance centre, and, in our engagement, no regulators have raised concerns about continuing to do so. The objective of the service provided by the assistance centre is and always has been to complement and support regulators, not to replace them.
Amendments 44 and 50 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, relate to data protection in Clauses 7 and 10. Similarly to another tabled by him last week, they seek to create a defence if a disclosure made under the duties in either clause contravenes data protection legislation. As my noble friend Lord Lansley reflected on the first day of Committee, the approach in the Bill is consistent with existing legislation such as the Trade (Disclosure of Information) Act 2020 and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. I return to my earlier point that Clauses 7 and 10 require disclosure only when it does not contravene data protection legislation. Therefore, a defence is not needed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response. I am having trouble matching the words that she is using with the thing that she is describing. That is my problem. The words “a website run by two people” and “assistance centre” are not really the same, so are we talking about an assistance centre or a landing page? When I talked about a landing page the other Minister kind of nodded. It would help if the Government would clear up what this thing actually is and, in so doing, tell us how much they think it will cost.
The specific question I have is about data. The Minister seemed to suggest that in order for this centre/website to conform to existing data protection regulation it needed guidance in primary legislation. Is that because it will be asked to do more data protection, less data protection or the same amount? If it is the same amount of data protection, why does it need primary legislation to tell it what to do?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Providing a statutory basis for the continued existence of an assistance centre places a duty on competent authorities to co-operate with it. This is to ensure that the assistance centre has the necessary information to help support the delivery of its functions, rather than relying on voluntary information-sharing arrangements. In a practical sense, it provides a signposting system through its website. It also has a telephone answering service, which dealt with my question this morning about the need for English language skills for particular professions. It answered the question very carefully and properly by saying that that was not part of its remit and I needed to talk to the visa requirements section. The centre is at least directing you to where you need to go for your questions to be answered.
The legislation also requires that the assistance centre provides information to the Secretary of State when requested. As I said, this is not onerous information, but it is an important requirement, as the Secretary of State has a responsibility for the wider recognition of professional qualifications principles. Lastly, its existence in legislation helps validate the credibility of the assistance centre for engagement with its overseas counterparts.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, a lot of interesting things have emerged during this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, my noble friend Lady Hayter and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, seem to have set up a new all-party group—friends of Google. I warn them to be careful and alert them to the fact that if you Google something you will find at the very top of the list people who have paid to come top of that list. If you look, for example, at getting a Covid test, you will find that the ones that you pay for are right at the top and the free ones are down at the bottom. Beware of Google—and other equivalents—because they do not necessarily give you the best advice.
The Minister has been very helpful in her response. However, some things still need teasing out as far as the assistance centre is concerned. I would argue still that the visa and admission regulations that I am suggesting would enhance its role. It was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that the functions it is dealing with now might be better dealt with at a devolved level. As she knows, I am a very strong devolutionist. Immigration, visa regulations and other regulations are not devolved. Therefore, that would give the assistance centre a little more credibility.
However, my noble friend Lady Hayter has a good point: does it need to be statutory? I think you can have an assistance centre working very effectively without it having to be on the face of the Bill. Often, we argue strongly that things should be on the face of a Bill, and we get rebuffed, but I am not sure the case has yet been made for it to be statutory.
When I was a Minister, I used to tell officials and civil servants to go back and think again from time to time. I ask that both Ministers—the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and the noble Baroness, who has replied so eloquently to this debate—perhaps have another look afterwards, in the cold light of tomorrow morning, and go back to the department and say, “Wait a minute. Some valid points have been raised”. That is what these sessions of Committee and Report are about—going back to the department. Perhaps it could be arranged for some of us to be given more information and some direct contact with the centre. There are things that can be done between now and Report that would make the Bill much better and make it more likely for us to get consensus when we get to Report. I hope the Minister will be able to do that. She is nodding nicely to me as always. With that, I will withdraw the amendment.