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, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
Top of the morning to you, Mr Speaker.
The protocol is explicit in its respect for the UK’s territorial integrity, and the Government are committed to delivering it with as little impact on businesses and day-to-day lives as possible. The Government have set up the free-to-use trader support service to support businesses trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland at a cost of £270 million and have made full use of provisions within the protocol to ensure that no tariffs are charged on internal UK trade.
Ian Paisley
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Does the Minister accept that the protocol actually discriminates against British businesses trading between GB and Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and GB? It undermines trade, damages consumer opportunities and rights, and increases costs to both consumers and businesses on both sides of the channel. What action will the Government take, and indeed encourage others to take, to save British businesses and the economy from this economic discrimination? How long will businesses have to wait for a solution and what compensation has the Treasury calculated to cover the loss in trade, which, at present, is running at hundreds of millions of pounds?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Member for his question. Of course, this follows a wide concern that he has put in front of the House on many previous occasions. I do not accept the characterisation that he has given of the situation in Northern Ireland, but I absolutely agree with him that the Government need to continue to press for the Northern Ireland protocol to be implemented in a proportionate and pragmatic way. That is an important goal of the Government. He talks about the schemes in place. Let me remind him that, so far, the trader support service has processed something like, I think, 700,000 consignments, 59,000 traders have been registered, there is the Brexit support fund and there is the new movement assistance scheme, as he will know, for food and agriculture trade. We retain a focus on making those systems, rules and support work as effectively and as widely as possible.[Official Report, 28 June 2021, Vol. 698, c. 2MC.]
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
We are encouraging employers of all sizes to take on new apprentices through our hiring incentive. Employers who hire a new apprentice of any age until the end of September will receive £3,000 per apprentice. We are also continuing to improve the apprenticeship system for employers by introducing more flexible trading options, making the transfer of unspent levy funds to small businesses easier, and supporting apprenticeships in industries with flexible working patterns through the launch of portable apprenticeships.
Mark Eastwood
The Government’s £3,000 initiative incentive for businesses to employ apprentices is welcome, with several companies in my constituency looking to apply, including Shackletons in Dewsbury, and John Cotton and Alexander’s Bar in Mirfield. There is no doubt that this initiative has been a great success in enabling young people to get on to the employment ladder. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend consider an extension in funding for the scheme beyond the 30 September deadline?
Rishi Sunak
I pay tribute to, I think it was Shackletons and John Cotton in my hon. Friend’s constituency for the example that they are setting, which I hope is emulated by employers across our country. The scheme, as he says, has been a success. More than 50,000 incentive payments were claimed by employers, 80% of which were for young apprentices between 18 and 24. We will of course keep this very successful scheme under review.
Chris Clarkson
Apprenticeships are a fantastic way for people to learn, earn and realise their potential, so much so that I have just advertised this week for one to join my team via Hopwood Hall College in my Heywood and Middleton constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that businesses big and small can play their part in turbocharging our post-covid recovery by offering these fantastic opportunities?
Rishi Sunak
I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend is working with Hopwood Hall College in his constituency to hire an apprentice. Hopefully, I will get an opportunity to meet them in the future. He is right about the ability of this scheme to support all types of employers. Small businesses in particular should know that the £3,000 equates to about a 35% wage subsidy for young apprentices and the Government pay 95% of all training costs, so there has never been a better time for employers to do as he says to help turbocharge our recovery and to hire an apprentice.
Lucy Allan
As with every economic crisis, it is Telford’s young people who have been hit hardest by the pandemic. Telford College is playing a vital role in working with employers across the region and securing 1,000 quality apprenticeships this year, helping young people to build their future. Will the Chancellor congratulate Telford College on its inspirational work, and will he commit to putting skills and opportunities for young people front and centre in his economic recovery plan?
Rishi Sunak
I am delighted to hear that news from my hon. Friend. I am happy to congratulate Telford College on a fantastic performance in creating new apprenticeships and working with its local employers to provide those opportunities. She is absolutely right: young people have borne the brunt economically of this crisis. They comprise the majority of the job losses, so it is right that they are front and centre of our minds as we think about the recovery. That is why, whether it is the kickstart scheme, tripling the number of traineeships or the new lifetime skills guarantee, we are focused on providing them with the opportunities and support that they need.
Edward Timpson
It is clear that the pandemic has hit the youngest the hardest. Alongside apprenticeships, many businesses in my Eddisbury constituency, including Safety Shield in Winsford, have used the kickstart scheme in order to bring more good jobs to young people as part of our economic recovery. To that end, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what impact the roll-out of the kickstart scheme is having, and how more businesses that want to, and could, join that scheme and invest in young talents in their area are able to do so?
Rishi Sunak
I congratulate Safety Shield in Winsford on embarking on taking on new kickstarters. This is central to our plan for the recovery in providing opportunity to young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and others. I am pleased to say that over 31,000 kickstarters have started their jobs, with 10,000 more to come in the coming weeks and months. I would say to employers who are looking to take on a kickstarter: go online, talk to your local business organisations, whether it is the Federation of Small Businesses or the chamber of commerce, or apply directly to the Department for Work and Pensions to be accredited so that you can give a young person a fantastic opportunity as we go through the stages of our recovery.
Laura Farris
Unemployment is now falling fast in west Berkshire, and that is in no small part thanks to the Treasury-backed apprenticeship scheme. However, Newbury College, our principal training provider, says that it is still the large employers that take the bulk of young apprentices, when it is small and medium-sized enterprises that form the backbone of our local economy. Does my right hon. Friend think there is an opportunity to reallocate some of the surplus from the apprenticeship levy to encourage take-up among SMEs?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am proud that she is working with Newbury College in her constituency. She is right that SMEs are the backbone of west Berkshire and other local communities across our economy. On her particular point, I am pleased to tell her that, from August of this year, employers who pay the levy but have unspent levy funds will be able to use a new bulk transfer service to send that money to SMEs, combined with a new SME match function so that they can find the SMEs that are most appropriate to their business, supply chain or local area. I hope that is helpful to her and Newbury College. The plan is for the Department for Education to have that up and running in August.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government have put together an unprecedented package of support for the self-employed, including the self-employed income support scheme, the temporary £20 per week increase in the universal credit standard allowance, and temporarily suspending the minimum income floor. The self-employed are also able to access the restart grant, the recovery loan scheme and business rates relief.
Mr Perkins
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. However, my experience with some self-employed people in my constituency is that, having been self-employed for several years and accepted support from the self-employed scheme, if they then try to get credit, they are told that because they were on that scheme they are no longer eligible for credit, even though there is no reason to suspect that they will not be able to carry on being a guitar teacher, or whatever it is that they do, after the crisis is over. What can he say to the banks to ensure that they take a sensible approach to these people, who have perfectly sustainable businesses that have been suspended temporarily because of the Government’s restrictions but are just as good a credit risk as they were three or four years ago?
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman makes a very sensible and worthwhile point on this matter. We are looking closely at the Financial Conduct Authority’s “Financial Lives” survey, which indicates the degree of liquidity that exists. I work closely with the lenders on affordability assessments for the self-employed. I am happy to commit to continue to keep this matter under review and to receive further representations from him.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
In March 2021, the Chancellor announced a further £300 million to build on the existing £1.57 billion of culture recovery fund support to protect our cultural sector. To date, more than £1.2 billion in grants has been paid.
Sir Robert Neill
The Minister is right, of course, to point out the unprecedented sums that have been given to the arts sector, and that is very welcome, but does he recognise that, particularly for the performing arts, the further four-week delay is crippling their future plans? As all the leading producers both in the west end and throughout the country point out, it takes months to get a show going, and uncertainty cripples that planning. Will he at least consider the calls from throughout the industry for a Government-backed insurance scheme to deal with cancellations if there is further uncertainty? There is a precedent in film and TV production that could readily be adapted. This is about getting them back working, which is actually want they want, rather than simply being subject to grants all the time. They want to get back on stage.
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the success of the film insurance scheme, which has protected over 45,000 jobs and £1.6 billion of spend. On the specific issue he raises, that is exactly why my right hon Friend the Chancellor announced the additional £300 million of support at the Budget. He anticipated the fact, in going long with that support, that there would be the risk of further delays to the covid row-back, so that was part of the announcement of an additional £300 million that he set out at the Budget.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
The live events sector continues to be hard hit by covid-19. UK Music and We Make Events have called for additional financial support, an extension of the VAT reduction and Government-backed covid-19 cancellation insurance. Just now, it is impossible for those running concerts and festivals to plan, and some, including Kendal Calling, have had to postpone again until 2022. Can the Minister tell me why the UK Government have left this sector and the many thousands who work in it without the additional support they are calling for?
Steve Barclay
I fear that the question came before my previous answer. I had just mentioned the £300 million of additional support, over and above the £1.57 billion of support that has been announced. Indeed, the hon. Member frequently raises the plight of those individuals who have been hit, and again that is something we very much recognise. Again, however, that is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out the wider package of support, such as the time to pay arrangements, loans, business grants and the universal credit uplift. This is about looking at the totality of support within the £352 billion that my right hon. Friend has set out.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Stimulating business investment will be key for our economic recovery, and under the super deduction we announced at Budget 2021, for every £1 a company invests in qualifying plant and machinery, its taxes are cut by up to 25p. We have also just launched the UK Infrastructure Bank, which will partner with the private sector and local government, supporting more than £40 billion-worth of infrastructure investment overall.
Jane Stevenson [V]
My right hon. Friend will know that manufacturing and engineering companies are absolutely crucial to the economy in the Black Country and in Wolverhampton. Does he agree that companies feeling confident to make investments, with Government support and schemes like the super deduction, is key to really building back quickly and better, and to lowering unemployment in the Black Country?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of manufacturing in particular to the Black Country. I am pleased to have received the representations from organisations such as Make UK that led to the creation of the super deduction, which, let us be clear, is all about jobs. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: by companies investing and unlocking the cash that is sitting on their balance sheets, we will create jobs to help drive our recovery and drive up our productivity in the process. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight it.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution set out £12 billion of new investment in green industries and will crowd in three times as much private investment. Budget 2021 built on the 10-point plan by encouraging private investment, using the tax system and continuing with the direct Government support announced at the spending review. It also included announcements on offshore wind, energy innovation and hydrogen.
Jason McCartney
Does the Minister agree with me that it makes sense to help, support and incentivise people on low incomes and pensioner households to convert to heat pumps and to insulate their homes?
Kemi Badenoch
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Since June 2020, the Government have spent £1.5 billion on supporting low-income households to improve energy efficiency and install clean heat. A number of subsidy schemes for heat pumps are available and in development. The sector expects to install 67,000 heat pumps in 2021, which is up considerably from the 35,000 installed in 2019. At Budget 2020 we extended the renewable heat incentive, and announced the clean heat grant. That will provide grants for all homeowners towards the cost of heat pumps from 2022. Further funding decisions will be announced at the spending review.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Between the end of January and the end of April, 1.5 million people left the furlough scheme. The most recent business survey from the Office for National Statistics estimates that the number of employees furloughed continued to decline after that point, to approximately 2 million at the end of May, which is the lowest level reported by the survey since June last year. At the same time, the number of payrolled employees has increased for six consecutive months. I believe that the coronavirus job retention scheme is striking the right balance between supporting the economy as it opens up, continuing to provide support and protect incomes, and ensuring that incentives are in place to get people back to work as demand returns.
Nicola Richards
Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the start of the pandemic, many commentators feared that it would lead to unemployment on an unprecedented scale? Has he estimated that impact of his furlough scheme on protecting jobs?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The furlough scheme has supported more than 11.5 million jobs since the start of the pandemic, and she is right to say that at that point, forecasts suggested that unemployment would peak at around 12%. Those forecasts now show unemployment peaking at half that level, which means 2 million fewer people losing their jobs than previously feared. Our unemployment today is lower than that in Italy, France, Spain, Canada, the United States and Australia, and it shows that our plan for jobs is working.
Greg Smith
The figures my right hon. Friend gave in his earlier answers are encouraging, but some employers in my constituency with employees still on furlough tell me that they are desperate to get those employees back to work, but the uncertainty over when restrictions will finally be lifted is holding them back. For example, in the events supply chain, the unwillingness of customers to pay deposits is holding those firms back. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way to get the economy moving and get those employees back to work is for restrictions to be lifted by 19 July?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is right, and my hope and expectation is that we lift those restrictions on 19 July. By that point, we will have done what we set out to do, which is to get extra jabs in more people’s arms to provide us with that extra level of protection. My hon. Friend is right: the only sustainable way to protect those jobs is to reopen the economy so that people can return to work and provide for their families, and move on to bright new opportunities.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Independent experts have told the Government 12 times that the failure to provide adequate financial support to people self-isolating has contributed to the spread of covid, endangering lives and livelihoods. We now know that the Treasury instructed Government officials actively to supress information about the furlough scheme that was to be used by employers to financially support people self-isolating. Will the Chancellor explain why that instruction was issued by the Treasury? Will he appear in front of the parliamentary Committee’s inquiry into covid to explain why the Government chose not to improve self-isolation support, despite repeated warnings?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady is wrong, because the Government did no such thing. Indeed, guidance on usage of the furlough scheme was there in black and white—I am looking at it—and plain for everyone to see from the start. At the beginning of this crisis we improved the way that statutory sick pay works to deal with self-isolation. That was one of the earliest steps we took. We then introduced a rebate scheme for small and medium-sized businesses, to claim back the cost of statutory sick pay for isolating employees from the Government. We also introduced a £500 self-isolation payment, which once the isolation period reduced from 14 to 10 days increased in value by 30% and is now worth at least the national living wage to a worker, if not 20% or 30% more, depending on how many days they isolate for. That shows that the Government are supporting those who need to self-isolate. They did so at the beginning of this crisis, and they will continue to do so until the end.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]
Given the rapid pace of our economic recovery and the plans for the further reopening of the economy, I support my right hon. Friend’s decision to phase out furlough by the end of September. However, does he accept that a small number of sectors are likely to require yet further support after that time—not least the travel sector, whose revenues, according to evidence received by the Treasury Committee, have suffered a 90% fall during the crisis?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the difficult circumstances facing that sector, which is why I think in aggregate more than £7 billion of support has been provided to the sector through various means. He will know that there are some particularly large companies that talk to the Government on a bilateral basis. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on those conversations, but he will of course be aware of the support we have put in place, for example, for regional airports, the vast majority of which are paying no business rates for the first half of this year. As he would expect, we keep everything under review.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Chancellor set out the Government’s strategy on financial services to the House in November—a vision of a sector that is more open, more technologically advanced and a world leader in the use of green finance, serving the communities and citizens of this country. Since then, we passed the Financial Services Act 2021 in April to begin the necessary reforms to our framework, and we have agreed text with the EU for a regulatory co-operation forum.
Sarah Atherton
There is no doubt that all should be done to support British businesses to export, no more so than in my constituency of Wrexham, which houses one of the largest trading estates in the UK. Businesses are keen to grasp these opportunities—none more so than Matclad, a specialist clay brick slip manufacturer, which is already reaping the benefits of exporting. Does my hon. Friend agree that schemes such as the parliamentary export programme, which I recently took part in, are an excellent opportunity?
John Glen
I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend. I experienced that myself with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray). The parliamentary export programme is an excellent way of getting that ambition to export out across the country, and it is just another example of this Government’s commitment to grow exports. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) may also be interested to know that I shall be visiting Cardiff tomorrow to meet the first cohort of FinTech Wales’s FinTech Foundry, a new accelerator programme that will support firms as they seek to build their footprint.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend knows of my concern about the protectionist attitude towards financial services that the European Union has shown over the past few months, and the risks to the City that result from it. We have President Macron hosting people from Wall Street next week, and we have the unlocking of travel in the European Union, which will help the financial services sector there. I hope that the Chancellor and the Minister will do everything they can to encourage ministerial colleagues to do the same here, but will the Minister take whatever responsible steps are necessary in modifying our regulations to ensure that the City and our financial services sector have a strong, competitive future regardless of the behaviour of the European Union?
John Glen
I thank my right hon. Friend for his representations on this matter, and I heartily agree with him. We are promoting the international role of the sector and developing ambitious trade and regulatory relationships with other jurisdictions. We keep all these matters under review. We have taken on board the work of the taskforce on innovation, growth and regulatory reform, and just after Question Time, the Chancellor and I will be meeting representatives of banks as we seek to work with them to make those interventions that our financial services sector needs.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Financial services were not even part of the Brexit agreement that the Government negotiated, because they never made them a priority. Equivalence arrangements are nowhere in sight, £1 trillion-worth of assets have been moved abroad, and now food and drink exports to the EU have fallen by 47% in the first three months of the year. The Government estimate their new trade deal will add just 0.02% to our GDP. Is the sight of Ministers doing a lap of honour for that trade deal not the equivalent of asking our export industries to give thanks for losing a pound and finding a penny? When will the Government actually help our industries with the red tape that is baked into the agreement that they negotiated?
John Glen
I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of where we are. On financial services, as I hope he knows by now, we have deep dialogue across a number of jurisdictions. That is an ongoing process. If I think about the work we are doing with Brazil, India and China and the dialogues we are having with Switzerland, there is no end to this Government’s ambition to improve our financial services’ relationships and deepen the opportunities that Brexit has given us.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The details of the sector visions will be set out by the relevant Departments in the coming months. In developing the visions, the Government will consider the role of the state in supporting high-growth sectors that have the potential to build a globally competitive advantage, as well as how the sectors can also be used to support wider objectives, for example levelling up or enabling a transition to net zero.
Gavin Robinson
I am very grateful to the Financial Secretary for his response. He heard the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), mention the tourism and travel sectors, and I encourage him to look on them favourably, but from my perspective, aerospace remains the No. 1 private employer in my constituency and across Northern Ireland. It employs more than 6,500 people. Last year was a difficult year for aerospace and still it turned over £1.4 billion. It has high-end and high-level manufacturing skills that we cannot lose. I hope the sector will feature in the plans that are brought forward.
Jesse Norman
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the comments he makes. I share his view that aerospace is a very important strategic industry for the country as a whole and, of course, particularly for Northern Ireland and his constituency. Let me reassure him that the sector visions we are discussing will be guided by considerations of comparative advantage—we have a considerable comparative advantage in many areas of aerospace—and future growth potential—I do not think anyone doubts that that is an area. He will know that we are investing very heavily in supporting that sector in the transition to net zero, with green fuels and electric flights, and also supporting levelling up. Those all play into a very positive story for Northern Ireland as well as the rest of the UK.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government are committed to helping people own their own home. Our new mortgage guarantee scheme is increasing the availability of mortgages for credit-worthy households who only have a 5% deposit, helping them realise their dream of home ownership. The lifetime ISA provides a bonus to those under 40 saving towards a home, worth up to £450,000.
Dr Lewis
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last week, The Sunday Times detailed the colossal sums imposed on ordinary people by rapacious freeholders and reckless developers. Why should anyone risk purchasing a lease on a residential flat if we fail as a Government to protect innocent leaseholders from bearing the costs of defective extra storeys or defective extra cladding forced on them by those who are actually responsible for such terrible defects?
John Glen
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. The Government are investing more than £5 billion in building safety, including an additional £3.5 billion announced this year for the remediation of unsafe cladding for all leaseholders living in high-rise residential buildings. We are also introducing a new tax on the UK residential property development sector and a new levy on developers of certain high-rise buildings to help pay for cladding remediation costs.
Jack Lopresti
Does my hon. Friend agree that the mortgage guarantee scheme has in a short time seen a dramatic increase in the availability of 95% mortgages, which will make home ownership a realistic goal for people aspiring to be homeowners?
John Glen
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since the scheme has been up and running—as he says, it has been a matter of only a few weeks—we have seen the provision of 95% mortgages expand from just five to 192. This is a significant change, and I am grateful to the industry for the moves that it has made, with Government support.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
We are providing a further £1.4 billion over the next three academic years for education recovery. This is on top of the £1.7 billion provided for academic year 2020-21.
Mohammad Yasin [V]
It has been widely reported that it was the Chancellor who refused by a 90% margin to find the funding recommended by Sir Kevan Collins to help our nation’s children to catch up on their education after the pandemic. The Chancellor has benefited from a first-class private education, so will he take this opportunity to apologise to the generation of children he is letting down as the Tories refuse to invest in our children’s and our country’s future?
Steve Barclay
There was a striking omission from that question. There was no reference at all to the additional £2.2 billion of core school funding, over and above which there is the £1.4 billion announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Of course, the House would expect proposals to be evidence-led, deliverable and provide value for money, and we will work with Department for Education colleagues on that, but there was no mention in the hon. Gentleman’s question of the additional £2.2 billion of core school spending uplift this year.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that the significant long-term cost to our economy from the Chancellor’s failure to invest in our children and young people is as much as £350 billion in lost earnings. Has the Treasury done its own assessment and will the Minister have the decency to publish it?
Steve Barclay
As I said in my last answer, we will have a review to inform the question in terms of the impact on time. Most of the debates that we have had in this House have focused on teacher quality as the biggest driver of outcomes for children, so we need to see the evidence of it. For example, if we look at Finland, we see that Finland has a shorter school day but a higher PISA—programme for international student assessment—result. If we look at the USA, we see that it has a longer school day but a lower PISA result. So it is right that we look at the evidence, but teacher quality is usually seen as the bigger driver and that is why we have funded the tuition in the way that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has.
Bridget Phillipson
With this Government, it seems that it is a case of “don’t know, don’t care”. The reality is that the Chancellor’s failure to invest in our children’s future is the very definition of a false economy. The Chancellor recently said that he could not say yes to everyone. He seemed to have no problem saying yes to the friends and donors of the Conservative party, but it is a no to the children who urgently need support to catch up after the biggest disruption to their education for a generation. Is the Minister really proud of that?
Steve Barclay
I am very proud that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has committed an additional £7.1 billion over three years to increase the school uplift, with £2.2 billion this year alone. I am very proud that he announced £1.7 billion of additional recovery funding. I am proud that he announced a further £1.4 billion, but again, the hon. Lady appears to have written her question before hearing the answer. The answer was that we will of course look as part of our review at the effectiveness of the additional time. I have cited some of the international evidence that we will look at, but teacher quality is usually the bigger driver and that is why we have focused on teacher training but also on the tuition programme, so that we are training an additional 500,000 teachers and rolling out 6 million tuition courses to get that targeted learning support to children across the country.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
I was pleased to announce the location of eight new English freeports at the Budget in March. The next phase of delivery for freeports is being led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It is working with the eight freeports to help them to establish the appropriate governance structures and develop their investment proposals. The Government will then review their proposals for investment and the deployment of the tax and customs reliefs later this year.
Mrs Murray
I welcome the news that we have a freeport in neighbouring Plymouth. Will the Chancellor’s Department please work with the Department for Transport to ensure that we have quick, flowing transport links across the Tamar to make the most of these opportunities for my constituents?
Rishi Sunak
I am delighted for Plymouth and its surrounding communities that it has received freeport status. As my hon. Friend says, this is a fantastic opportunity to drive investment and create jobs. I will, of course, work with the Department for Transport on improving transport links across the south-west. She previously welcomed the £2.5 billion upgrade of vital road connections such as the A303, the A30 and the A358, as well as the replacement of the vital Dawlish sea wall, which will improve rail connectivity in the region.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has a strict duty of confidentiality in relation to information it holds on taxpayers. HMRC will share information on individuals or employers with the Home Office for immigration purposes only where a clear legal basis exists, and it will share or disclose only the information that is necessary and proportionate to the intended purpose through strict adherence to data protection principles, including the UK general data protection regulation. Personal data that is disclosed is minimised where it can be and strictly governed and subject to audit.
Anne McLaughlin [V]
It is not necessary and proportionate in the cases I have been hearing about. In one case, someone who had been here as a highly skilled migrant for 10 years was refused the right to remain because he had miscalculated his tax by £1.20 years previously. What global talent does the Minister think will want to take the risk of uprooting their families to another country that may well kick them out for something HMRC previously said was a minor issue?
Jesse Norman
For reasons that I have described, I cannot comment on individual cases. However, the hon. Lady is welcome to raise them with HMRC on behalf of her constituents. I can tell her that legislation provides very specific, well-designed information-sharing gateways under an umbrella memorandum of understanding governing all data sharing between the two sides, and all of that is grounded in strict obedience with the law.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
The Treasury carefully considers the equality impact of both individual measures and fiscal events on those sharing protected characteristics, including gender, in line with both its legal obligations and its strong commitment to promoting fairness.
Kirsten Oswald [V]
I thank the Minister for that response, but there are glaring gaps. For instance, on women’s pensions, my constituent Kay cannot understand why she has to suffer because of the accelerated timetable for increases in women’s state pension age. What does the Minister say to her and to the Women Against State Pension Inequality who wonder why the Government have not undertaken an impact assessment of the detriment they have all faced?
Kemi Badenoch
The Treasury complies with its public sector equality duty and takes into account all sorts of circumstances that need to be considered before putting forward any policies. We have had numerous debates about WASPI pensions over the last four years, and I am afraid this issue is settled. If the hon. Lady has specific issues with a particular constituent, I encourage her to take those up with the Department for Work and Pensions.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government recognise that cash is crucial to the daily lives of millions of individuals and businesses across the UK, and we have committed to legislate to protect access to cash. The Government made legislative changes to support the widespread offering of cashback without a purchase by shops and other businesses in the recent Financial Services Act 2021 and this summer we will consult on further legislative proposals for protecting cash for the long term.
Ronnie Cowan [V]
I welcome the announcement that there will be further consultation, but will the Minister confirm that any legislation introduced post consultation will include a requirement on banks to provide adequate access to cash withdrawals that are free at the point of service and meet the needs of local communities in both urban and rural areas?
John Glen
I can commit that we will look very carefully at the evidence on the best possible interventions to make. I am pleased that, as of March 2020, 98% of the population could access free cash within 3 km, but we have to come to terms with the fact that from 2009, when 56% of transactions were by cash, we were down to 17% by last year. We have to come up with appropriate legislation to meet that change.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Dame Meg Hillier.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
More than 1 million people still use only cash, and approximately 4 million use cash regularly, so it is vital that they have access to it. This is now the second consultation that the Treasury is going through, but as the PAC has seen, all the distribution of cash is in the hands of private providers. Can the Economic Secretary give any indication of the type of legislation that he can introduce to ensure that if people are very poor, they can get cash? That does not mean going to the supermarket and getting it out when they do not even know what is in their own account.
John Glen
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her recent elevation. I take her points on board, but this is a complex area. There will need to be a range of interventions from industry, working with regulators. The LINK scheme already has a £5 million fund to help areas of great deprivation and provide extra access points for cash, but we need to recognise that technology will have to play a significant role. We will also use the extensive network of 11,500 post offices to make good on our pledge to ensure that access to cash remains available across the country.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
As we have reopened our economy since the last lockdown, we have continued to provide extensive support through our £400 billion plan for jobs, protecting businesses, families and individuals. I am pleased to say that the early data on household incomes, employment, corporate insolvencies and consumer and business confidence all show that our plan for jobs is working.
Margaret Ferrier [V]
Following the Treasury’s announcement of compensation to cover up to 80% of the losses of holders of mini-bonds with London Capital & Finance, will the Chancellor now also act to provide full compensation to the victims of another scandal, the collapse of Equitable Life? The vast majority have received just 22% of their losses.
Rishi Sunak
I very much appreciate the hon. Lady’s raising the issue. She will know that the matter has been extensively discussed and debated for many years. The matter, after review, has been concluded and closed and is final in all respects.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Rishi Sunak
I can assure not just my hon. Friend, but Keith and Dave from the Titanic brewery, that we have consulted industry on the prospect of such a lower rate as part of our ongoing alcohol duty review. The team and my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary are working closely with HMRC to further understand the practicalities and the cost of the proposals; we will provide further updates in due course. My hon. Friend is right about securing hospitality in the meantime. The temporary VAT cut, the business rates holiday and, indeed, freezing beer duty at the last two Budgets are all helping in the short term.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Whether on social care, on Northern Powerhouse Rail or on tackling climate breakdown, there is a growing gap with this Government between what is promised and what is actually delivered. The Treasury’s response to the net zero review was first due to be published in autumn last year, yet it is nowhere to be seen. The COP26 climate summit begins in November. While the UK is hosting, the Government cannot lead with authority, because the fact is that we cannot have a climate strategy without a sustainable economic plan behind it. Will the Chancellor please tell the House on what date he will publish the final report of the net zero review?
Rishi Sunak
The net zero report will of course be published imminently, but the hon. Lady talked about last autumn. Last autumn, the Prime Minister published the green 10-point plan, perhaps the most comprehensive plan from any Government anywhere in the world, on how we will meet our net zero ambitions. Contained within that plan was £12 billion of new investment, creating probably a quarter of a million jobs when all is said and done, ensuring our leadership in industries such as offshore wind and creating jobs in places such as Teesside and Humberside, which is important to the future prosperity of this country, so I think we are doing a great job of getting on with meeting our climate ambitions and demonstrating leadership to the world.
Rachel Reeves
Then why not publish the net zero review, Chancellor? When it comes to this Government’s net zero strategy, tomorrow never comes. There is no time to waste, because it is the responsibility of all of us to hand on to our children and grandchildren a more sustainable planet, creating new opportunities for our pioneering British industries and investing today in the jobs of the future, whether in hydrogen, tidal energy or electric vehicles, to ensure the fair and just transition that we need to see. So, as the Chancellor still cannot give a date, months after the event, for when he will publish his final report on the net zero review, will he commit to ensuring that our net zero carbon targets are hard-wired through the forthcoming spending review, as I would do as Chancellor?
Rishi Sunak
Meeting our climate ambitions is obviously at the heart of everything that the Government are doing. The hon. Lady talked about sectors where we should show leadership: I have just talked about offshore wind, and we can keep going, with electric vehicles. This country now has more rapid charging points per mile than any country in Europe other than Norway, and we are doing more.[Official Report, 28 June 2021, Vol. 698, c. 3MC.] She talked about showing leadership: as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) reminds me, we recently published the Dasgupta review, which is a groundbreaking piece of work on tackling biodiversity. She talked about infrastructure: we launched the UK Infrastructure Bank just last week, not a million miles away from her in Leeds, the home of the infrastructure revolution. And at the G7 summit that I recently hosted, we reached a landmark global agreement to get the G7 to agree to mandatory climate disclosures, because, much as she would like us to, this Government alone cannot solve all these problems. The private sector will have to play its part, which is why climate disclosures across the world would help to unlock billions in private capital to help us to meet our climate ambitions.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I briefly pay tribute to him for his work last week on tech net zero. We launched the UK Infrastructure Bank last week in Leeds. Capitalised with £12 billion from the Government, it will unlock £40 billion of investment into tackling both levelling up and our net zero ambitions, and the team there are fantastic. I want to take this opportunity to say an enormous thank you to Chris Grigg for his superb leadership. It is brilliant that we can attract people of his calibre to lead these organisations, and I feel very confident about the UK Infrastructure Bank’s future progress.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
Concerns have been raised that the narrow criteria of the Business Banking Resolution Service have left far too many ineligible, and also that not enough banks are participating in the scheme. With many businesses now at risk with covid-19 debt, can the Minister tell me what he intends to do about the situation?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady is right in the sense that many businesses have taken on debt to get through the crisis, which is why we have implemented something called Pay as You Grow. More than 1 million businesses took bounce back loans, and they now have the ability, at their option, to turn those loans instantly into 10-year loans, doubling the term and reducing their monthly payments by around half, and to take further six-months holidays or interest-only repayment periods. They can take any of those options and it will not have any impact on their credit score, because we recognise the burdens on cash flow and we want to do our bit to ease them and support our recovery.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
Of course, local taxation in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Government. The UK Government’s primary focus, as my hon. Friend will be aware, has been on supporting recovery from the pandemic, and we recognise that the tourism sector has been particularly hard hit. That is exactly why we have provided more than £7 billion so far through the reduced VAT rate for the hospitality, accommodation and attraction industries across the UK; it is why we have extended the reduced rate until 30 September 2021; and it is why we have put in place a much wider array of support as we come out and play it long in relation to the pandemic.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of the youth investment fund. It was a manifesto commitment and it is due to launch in the coming months. He will recall that at the spending review 2020 we allocated some funding to inform pilots, as we shape that launch.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman will know, as we have discussed it on many occasions, how we have absolutely bent over backwards to attempt to include as many people as possible and have leant into considerable discussion, both with excluded groups and with other related groups. As he will know, it is not a single picture; different groups are not included for different reasons. As a result, we have in part been able to evolve and extend the programmes, and he will be aware that we did so in the last iteration of the self-employed scheme.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Government will need to ensure that revenue from motoring taxes keeps pace with the change away from petrol and diesel vehicles so that we can continue to fund infrastructure such as the A3, which she mentions. I am sure that colleagues in the Department for Transport can speak about her petition specifically, but I would like to reassure her and her constituents that this Government will continue to focus on record, unprecedented investment in the strategic roads network over this Parliament, through the £27.5 billion road investment strategy, which will deliver about 70 major upgrades.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is absolutely clear that there are significant lessons for the FCA to learn from the Gloster review, and I have regular conversations, including just last week, with the new chief executive on the transformation programme. He has employed five new senior executives to drive that programme forward urgently, and I look forward to seeing the results of that intervention.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
John Glen
My hon. Friend rightly recognises the value of the TIGRR report, which we received last week, and we will be looking very carefully at those recommendations. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor chairs the better regulation committee, which has been established to drive forward a new strategy to deliver better regulation outside the EU. There is a lot of work to be done, but progress is being made.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have made available to local authorities, initially at least, £1.5 billion and a further top-up sum, in order precisely to meet hard cases that may fall between the cracks of the very wide-ranging support that we have given otherwise. I strongly encourage her constituent to talk to her local authority about that funding.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
Steve Barclay
I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration. He will know from the announcement at the Budget that the prospectus set out the process, the types of projects, and indeed how bids will be assessed. To reassure him, there will be further opportunities for local authorities to submit bids to the fund. One of the things that we are encouraging those local authorities to do is to work with elected Members of Parliament in the shaping of those bids, and I hope that they will now take the opportunity to do so.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) [V]
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady talked about outcomes in the labour market. She will know that we have now had six consecutive months of more people in work, which is something to be celebrated. Vacancies are now running higher than they were at the start of the pandemic, which is a fantastic sign of things to come. The unemployment rate, as I highlighted earlier, is now half what was forecast: 2 million fewer people are forecast to lose their jobs, which is lower than most of our major competitor countries. She is right to highlight, as we have discussed previously, the plight of young people. Our interventions, such as the kickstart scheme and the apprenticeship incentive, will continue to provide opportunity for them up and down the country.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Jesse Norman
I congratulate Elddis, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on giving Elddis profile, on fighting the campaign that he has, and on the outcome and its very successful results in this case. I have it on very good authority that the Chancellor would be delighted to visit Elddis, so I am in a position to make a binding commitment from the Government side, and I am sure that he looks forward to it very much.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Events Research Programme
(3 years, 6 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
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the results of the events research programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
The world-leading events research programme has conducted 14 pilot events across two phases since April. The findings from these events will inform decisions around the safe removal of social distancing at step 4 of the road map. We committed to publishing the final report ahead of step 4 of the road map, and that is what we will do. The report will cover key findings and the operational approach of the research programme. The events research programme has studied some highly complex questions. The guidance for the sector that comes out of this work will, however, be practical, clear and simply set out.
Following the delay to step 4, the Government will now run a third phase of the events research programme. This phase will gather more data, consolidating our evidence base and helping in our aim of getting spectators back to live events in greater numbers. Phase 3 will include trialling the practical use of covid certification at a range of events, alongside other mitigations. Some of these pilot events will be permitted at full capacity, providing visitors demonstrate their covid status. The men’s and women’s finals at Wimbledon, for example, will be played with centre court at full capacity, and those matches will be the first major outdoor sporting events held at full capacity in the UK since the start of the pandemic. The events research programme is continuing live discussions with a number of theatres and cultural and business event organisers about their inclusion in the programme, which would see events taking place with larger capacities.
I am sure that the House recognises how vital this research is in supporting the reopening of venues and sectors that we and our constituents are so passionate about. However, it is important to recognise that public safety is the main priority. Although we are not yet in a position to publish the full report, I assure the House that post-event data is closely monitored and has not shown any evidence of the events causing outbreaks. If the events had, we would have communicated that information urgently. As the Prime Minister has stressed, the road map is driven by the data, not target dates.
Like everybody present, I know how important it is for spectators to return to live events in greater numbers. We are hopeful that the events research programme will enable us to work with the experts and the events sectors to allow reopening as planned in step 4 of the road map.
Jo Stevens
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and the Minister for his response.
The terms of reference for the programme were published on 22 February; we are four months on and no results have been published. Last month, the Secretary of State said in a newspaper interview that 15 of the 58,000 ERP participants had tested positive for covid, but still no results have been published. I am afraid there was nothing in the Minister’s response to explain the failure to publish the results. What is the secret? Why will the Government not tell the public, the industry and us what the results are?
All those who have spent time and money on organising and hosting test events, and those who rely on the programme, would like to see the results. They wanted to see them in real time or, at the very least, at regular intervals over the past four months. Without seeing the results, how can they plan for the summer? How are the public to understand the Government’s plan for the sector?
Organisations involved in the ERP have told me that a report with those good results was produced by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, but they were not allowed to see it. They also told me that No. 10 refused to allow the report to be published last week because it did not fit with the communications grid. Did No. 10 block publication of the report last week?
What evidence are the Government using to make decisions about pilot events? Why are some organisations getting the go-ahead to test events and not others? Andrew Lloyd Webber refused to join the programme because the rest of the industry was not being treated equally; do companies have to have the Prime Minister’s mobile number to run a test event? Kendal Calling was cancelled yesterday because its application to participate in the third phase of the ERP was refused. Under what criteria was Wimbledon accepted as a pilot? When was that agreed? Will there be a fourth stage of the ERP if restrictions remain in place for the sector beyond 19 July? Finally, will the Minister just publish the ERP results today?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and agree with her that many people have been involved in the events research programme. We thank David Ross, Nick Hytner and all those involved—including hundreds of volunteers up and down the country—who have made the events so successful.
When we announced the programme, we outlined our intention to release the report prior to step 4 and that is exactly what we will do: we will release the report very soon. The ERP report is subject to a comprehensive and rigorous co-ordination and approval process across Departments; the academic institutions that have been involved in the programme, as the hon. Lady knows; and the ERP governance board.
The programmes have been selected in consultation with the science advisers on the events research programme science board. Those events involved in the latest phase, phase 3, have been approached based on the advice we received on the information we need to get out of the events research programme. They were approached on an equal basis. We will announce further ERP programmes shortly.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Many of the event organisers who took part in the pilots did so at a financial loss, purely to help their industry and the country more widely, so the delay in getting the vital data into the public domain is a huge let-down and is undoubtedly leading to cancellations, with Kendal Calling festival being the latest example just yesterday.
Will my hon. Friend commit to releasing all available data as a matter of urgency and writing to the Select Committee with what we know to date? Does he recognise that the clear failure to do so adds to a growing impression that some decision makers are being swayed by unaccountable scientists without the proper and relevant data being put before them? After all, we are a democracy, not some sort of scientocracy.
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend, who chairs the Select Committee, highlights the importance of making sure that information is correct and data is accurate, because it will help inform decisions about opening up. We will also be using the events research programme to provide guidance to the sector. We are well aware that it needs that guidance as far in advance as possible in order to help with events and logistical arrangements when they open. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I completely agree. We want to get the information and data out very soon. We will be doing so before the next phase, as we stated at the beginning of the programme.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
The events and live music sector has been calling for Government covid insurance help for months, as have the SNP and many Tory MPs, including members of the Select Committee. Why are Ministers not listening to their colleagues on this issue? What are the arguments against offering insurance help for this vital sector, which desperately needs it?
Nigel Huddleston
I should say that we very much appreciate the work that has been happening with the devolved Administrations, co-operating with information sharing relating to the events research programme. As the Secretary of State made clear at the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Thursday 13 May, the Government are very aware of the wide concerns about securing indemnity for the live events sector. We continue to assess options to provide further support to the sector within the public health context. These are live considerations.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The work that DCMS has done in getting cash to businesses in the arts sector in my constituency and beyond has been great, but getting people into venues is now what is required, as highlighted to me last weekend when I visited the Empire theatre in Consett, and at a national level, by great organisations such as UK Music. I welcome the events research programme and what it is doing to look at reopening. It sounds like it is good news. Publishing it soon will be vital for the sector, so that they can get on with planning to reopen. If it is good news, it is also going to be vital for public confidence in booking. Will the Minister commit to publishing the findings as soon as possible, so that theatres, nightclubs and other venues in my constituency can get on with planning to reopen?
Nigel Huddleston
As my hon. Friend says, the purpose of the events research programme was precisely for those goals—to help inform decision making around the opening of public events and large events on a scale that we have not been able to experience over the last few months. We will be publishing the information shortly, as well as guidance to help events open.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
My constituency is home to internationally-known theatre and music venues and exhibition centres. They tell me they are still waiting for promised Government funds, an insurance scheme that gives them certainty on reopening and, specifically, the publication of the events research programme report. One industry source told me today that failure to publish
“is both creating confusion and eroding confidence across the events industry.”
What should I tell them, their customers and their staff?
Nigel Huddleston
As I mentioned, we are considering the indemnity issues. The sector has had support through, for example, the culture recovery fund, which is a £2 billion fund, as well as other support from Government. The whole purpose of the events research programme was and is to enable the sectors to open as soon as possible.
It is important to stress as well that under step 3 of the road map, indoor events of up to 1,000 people and outdoor events of up to 4,000 people or, in some cases, 10,000 people, can happen. We have not gone back—that is still possible under step 3 of the road map. Many events are taking place right across the country precisely because of that.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
In my constituency and others, many events over the summer, such as highland games, agricultural shows and the rest, have been cancelled for a second year in a row. Was there ever an expression of interest from the Scottish Government to hold any test events north of the border? Should any event organisers in mine or any other Scottish constituency approach DCMS for permission to be made a test event, would the Minister consider that?
Nigel Huddleston
We are co-operating with the devolved Administrations, as I mentioned. They run separate programmes. The programme held in England is the largest that we are aware of in the world, and the most comprehensive and broadest. We will be sharing information and data. The spirit of co-operation is there across the nations, but there are no plans for the English-based ERP programme to consume the Scottish programme at this moment in time. We need to co-operate.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I trust that I am always consistent in what I say—what I am about to ask will come as no surprise to either the Minister or the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight). If the Government were to underwrite insurance for events and festivals, it would be a real boost and would really get them going again. There is a precedent, when it comes to terrorism. Her Majesty’s Government do rather well out of that—they make a profit on the deal. Will the Government think again?
Nigel Huddleston
As I said previously, we are aware of the wider concerns about the sector, including the insurance and the indemnity issues. We are considering options, and we are taking those issues very seriously.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
First, may I thank the Minister for his personal visit to my constituency and to the fantastic Puzzlewood attraction? I know that he had a fantastic time and helped to sell the benefits of my constituency more widely. On this particular subject, though, I am a little confused. When the Government do not publish something, it is normally because it is bad news and they are trying to hide it away. I have a very strong suspicion that this set of data is fantastically positive. It must be ready for publication because it must have been prepared for last week when step 4 was due to announced. My fear is that it demonstrated the opposite of the decision that the Prime Minister announced last week and that we could have opened safely on 21 June. That is the real reason it has not been published. Why does the Minister not publish it today and put our minds at rest?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my right hon. Friend for his initial comments. I very much enjoyed meeting his constituents and visiting his constituency. I am afraid that I would not buy into some of his conspiracy theories around this. We have said already that, if there were major concerns, we would have made sure that that information was in the public arena. That would be the responsible thing to do. Some of the initial data points were already announced by the Secretary of State back in May. The report needs to be comprehensive and it needs to be reviewed by a large number of stakeholders in Government. We will be releasing it very soon.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The live events sector, musicians and the creative industries have been severely hit during this pandemic, with many excluded from Government support schemes. They deserve clarity, but instead of transparency, the Government have been busy trying to hide information, including the findings from the events research programme, which should have been published last month as initially promised. Can the Minister confirm whether the Prime Minister had access to the events research programme and used the findings to inform his decisions about extending lockdown restrictions? If seeing that information was important enough for him, why is it not good enough for this Parliament and for people who are desperately trying to plan to reopen their businesses?
Nigel Huddleston
Again, I am afraid that I do not buy into some of the conspiracy theories circulating around here. Clearly, the goal of the Government—the goal of the whole House—is to open up sectors as soon as we can in a responsible way. The events research programme is providing vital and pivotal information to enable us to do so. We will be providing additional guidance to the events sector, and we have been providing further support for these vital sectors—[Interruption.] I agreed with the hon. Gentleman’s first comment. These are pivotal sectors for the economy and for our livelihood and we want to provide them with support.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Is not the example of Israel, where a high level of vaccination among the general population acted as a means to avoid any restrictions on events, one for the Government to follow? If my hon. Friend were to publish this report, he most certainly would not be damned.
Nigel Huddleston
I am not sure how to read that, but I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I think he makes an important point about the correlation between opening up and the vaccination programme. We would not be where we are, even with some of the smaller events that we have already enabled to open up or with the events research programme, were it not for the incredibly successful vaccination programme to date. I thank everyone involved in that, because that is what is enabling these sectors to open up, with all the economic and mental health benefits that come with these major events taking place.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The delay in the publication of this ERP data is not without real-world consequences, particularly for us in north Lancashire and south Cumbria where we saw the cancellation yesterday of the Kendal Calling festival. That is a festival that has received no support from the culture recovery fund, and it has been cancelled now for a second year. That will have real-world economic consequences in my local area. I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said, but he has failed to give any credible reason for the delay in publishing this data. Can he try once to give one credible reason for the delay in publishing this data?
Nigel Huddleston
We will be announcing phase 3 of the culture recovery fund very shortly, and I am sure that it will be received as positively across the whole House as the previous phases. It is important to be very clear that we are unable to get to step 4 of the road map not because of the delay in the release of this document but because of increases in infection rates, concerns about the variants of concern, and the inability to meet the tests required to get to phase 4. That is why we are not able to open all the events programmes as we would like to at this moment in time. It is responsible for us to continue with the events research programme so as to be in the best possible position to take full advantage when we are able to open.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
I welcome the work that has been done through the events research programme. However, does my hon. Friend agree that even when step 4 is reached, the events sector will need some confidence that it can plan for future events knowing that they are either considered to be safe because of the work of the events research programme or because there is sufficient insurance in place to protect them in case new restrictions come, and that without that confidence it will be very difficult for events organisations to plan for the future?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend, who has a lot of credibility and experience in this area, makes absolutely the right points. Even when we can open, there will be a need to build confidence in the public arena, and some of these sectors have been hit so hard that it will take several years for them to recover. We will be continuing to support them through the next phase of the CRF and other support measures. We will publish guidance along with the report that will also help these sectors to open up.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his responses so far. Does he agree that mixed messages are being sent about safety outdoors, with schools still making parents and children carry on wearing masks, yet they can walk from school to the playground without a mask? Will he undertake to clarify the requirements for outdoor activities as a whole and not be limited to the pilot schemes for large-scale events so that all Government Departments can send the same message across all Departments and all regions, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly? All information can then be shared equally, and there can be the same policy across all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Nigel Huddleston
I would not want to step into some of the devolved issues or indeed some of the concerns being expressed. However, to be fair, most of the devolved Administrations, as well as the UK Government, are setting clear guidance about when facemasks are required. The events research programme has been trialling events without social distancing and without facemasks precisely to look at where we can open up further, which I think is the point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The events and conferences sector has such a positive impact on our economy, not least because it showcases the UK around the world, provides a platform for businesses to export and attracts inward investment, yet it is on its knees as one of the last sectors still to be almost shut down because of the covid emergency. Will the Minister publish this data? He has acknowledged that the pilot events have not led to increased infection rates. Is it not time to give the events and conferences sector a clear timetable for reopening?
Nigel Huddleston
I could not agree more about the sector’s pivotal role and its absolutely pivotal importance to our economic wellbeing, as a lot of sales go on at business events, conferences and so on right across the country. It is a major part of our economy and we want to get it open as soon as possible. We have had a business event as part of the ERP programme and we are hoping to have another one as well. It is a sector that I pay close attention to, as it is a pivotal part of the economy, and I will be happy to work with my right hon. Friend to promote it in the long term. It was mentioned in the tourism recovery plan last week as a major part of our potential growth.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
It is good to see the success of events such as the Download festival pilot, which gives us all a glimpse of a post-covid restriction life that might be possible. However, it is only possible for these events to go ahead with Government underwriting. Can the Minister not see the necessity of extending events insurance if more events like this one are to go ahead?
Nigel Huddleston
Indeed, the event last weekend—a little bit of rain did not put off a lot of people from attending—was very successful and provides key learning. As I have said, we are looking at indemnity options.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I am incredibly heartened to hear the Minister say that the reinsurance scheme is under active consideration. I am further heartened that he accepted the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) that the last time we did this kind of thing it made the Exchequer money—we got the planes off the ground after 9/11 and made a profit for the Treasury. Does the Minister agree that the industry, which is worth £84 billion a year, really deserves the confidence of a reinsurance scheme, and that it is a vote of confidence in global Britain and in our vaccine scheme?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a hugely important sector to our economy; it employs 1.5 million people right up and down the country, and there are whole households that rely on it. That is exactly why we have the events research programme: to try to build confidence so that we can get the sector up and running again. We will be looking at alternative ways in which we can continue to support the sector, including indemnity.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Organisers have done their side of the bargain and so have people attending these testers, but now the Government’s lack of communication is threatening a summer’s worth of events. Industry experts such as Tysers and the Association of Independent Festivals are clear that a Government-backed insurance scheme would protect events and unlock a potential £9 billion boost to our economy, but what we have heard today from the Minister is equivocation about plans that might come forward in the future. It is already the middle of June, so will he meet the moment now and give people the definitive answer that they are all waiting for?
Nigel Huddleston
At the risk of repeating myself, it is really important that we recognise that the whole point of the events research programme is to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman is asking for: to provide confidence that these events can go ahead. As I have said—this is important, because there has been a lack of clarity about this and some misinformation being spread—events of a certain size can go ahead already, including indoor events of up to 1,000 people and outdoor events of 4,000, or in exceptional cases up to 10,000. Many events can go ahead. The major events will be sharing the learnings from the events research programme very soon, which will be pivotal to helping those major events take place.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It was great to see thousands of people enjoying the Download festival this weekend: it reminded us all of the more normal times that we all crave and gave hope to all those who are hoping to attend Boardmasters in Newquay this summer. Boardmasters brings £45 million into our local economy and supports more than 400 jobs. Can the Minister confirm that, provided that we take step 4 on 19 July, with the continued successful roll-out of the pilot scheme, we have every hope that Boardmasters will go ahead in August? Will he ensure that those who run Boardmasters are provided with the guidance that they need in a timely manner so that they can make the necessary preparations to run the event safely?
Nigel Huddleston
I know what a huge supporter of the sector my hon. Friend is. Boardmasters sounds like a very exciting event; I know that there have been some problems in the past with being able to hold it, but we want to ensure that that event and others planned for later in the summer get guidance. We are working on that guidance at this moment in time. The events research programme learnings will provide information going into that guidance, which we hope to be able to release prior to the announcement of step 4. My hon. Friend makes the really important point that the organisers need to plan ahead and plan the logistics. We want to help them with that.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Kendal Calling, in a statement on its website cancelling this year’s event, says:
“Our understanding is that…DCMS…are keen to publish the ERP findings and guidance, but that it now does not fit around No. 10’s communications plan. This is insulting to our entire industry, who have been awaiting the results of a pilot event that took place almost 2 months ago to inform our approach to staging events safely this summer.”
If it is reasonable for the Government to use that data, and if the data is in a fit state for the Government to use to make decisions, is it not reasonable to make it available to businesses to allow them to plan?
Nigel Huddleston
As I have said repeatedly, we will be releasing the information and data very soon. I will have to repeat this, because it has obviously not been understood: the reason that we were not able to get to step 4 and that events cannot take place at this moment in time at a scale that we would all desire is not that the release of the report has not happened, but that there has been an increase in infection rates and that there are concerns around the delta variant. That is the reason for the delay in step 4.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
If, when the Minister looks at the results, he does not find any differentiation between the sporting arenas that are largely seated and those that are largely not seated, will he look to equalise the allowable crowd capacities at the two types of venue? The latter will suffer an awful lot during the next four weeks.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for his comments. I know how passionate he is about this sector, in particular racing. I have had conversations with the sector about this. We can increase capacity up to 10,000 where there is a seated capacity of over 16,000. However, we still have some concerns about events where there is the potential for mingling and, taking public health advice, we have been unable to allow further opening at this moment in time. I am aware of the impact that has had on certain sectors, in particular racing, and that is exactly why we want to get the events research programme moving and all these sectors open as soon as possible.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Many businesses in my constituency of Blaydon are involved in the events industry and have suffered. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of this latest lockdown on the events industry?
Nigel Huddleston
Indeed, this is a hugely important sector up and down the country; it is a major employer and makes a major contribution to our economy. That is precisely why a variety of schemes, including the Government’s general support measures and the culture recovery fund, have been pivotal in helping the events sector. Importantly, we are also encouraging those in the supply chain to apply for the additional restriction grant, and we are encouraging councils up and down the country to be sympathetic to applications to that programme from events supply chain businesses.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The events research programme has been an invaluable lifeline for many flagship events. The British Grand Prix at Silverstone, due to be held between 15 and 18 July, is the UK’s largest annual sporting event, with more than 140,000 in attendance. It contributes more than £100 million to the local economy in my constituency and neighbouring areas, sitting in the heart of “motorsport valley”, supporting 40,000 UK jobs. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the Formula 1 British Grand Prix goes ahead as part of this programme, as a fully attended spectator event?
Nigel Huddleston
It does not surprise me at all that my hon. Friend raises this issue; we have had many conversations about the importance of the motorsport sector. We continue to work very closely with our partners in Formula 1 and elsewhere in Government to deliver this year’s Silverstone grand prix with as many fans as possible. Plans are progressing very well, the discussions are constructive, and we hope to be able to set out further details shortly.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
As 2017 UK city of culture, we in Hull know how vital the arts and cultural events sector is for keeping existing jobs and generating new ones. Creative Hull, the Humber Street Sesh and the Freedom festival have all made preparations, based on Government guidance, to be covid-safe and secure, and have invested time and money. Should they be able to become pilot events if they so wish?
Nigel Huddleston
Of course, we cannot involve every single event, worthy though many of them are, in the ERP. We have had conversations, or are currently in conversations, with those entities that are in the consideration set at the moment. I am afraid that we will not be able to include all those we would like to, but I encourage events to take place to the greatest extent that they are able within current step 3 guidance if they cannot be part of the current phase 3 of the events research programme.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I am excited to tell the House that the world-famous Buxton International festival will be going ahead from 8 July, as will the fantastic Buxton Fringe alongside it, and Eat in the Park later in the year. Unfortunately, not all events locally are as fortunate. The fantastic Hope show, one of the UK’s biggest and best agricultural shows, has already had to be cancelled, and it is still uncertain whether the Y Not festival, which is due to take place at the end of July, can go ahead. These incredibly important local events are the lifeblood of our local economy, but they take a long time to plan, with large up-front costs. I urge the Minister to pull out all the stops to restore confidence in the events sector, including looking at an indemnity scheme, so that we can look forward to a great British summer of events.
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend is clearly passionate about the events sector and has a large number of events planned in his constituency, which is fantastic. Some of them are able to go ahead—that is great; I encourage them to do so, obviously within existing guidance and by talking to local public health. Later in the year—as soon as we possibly can—it is absolutely our ambition to open up far more events at much greater scale, and we will provide guidance that will help enable them to do that.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
In March, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s report said:
“The hospitality and entertainment sectors have not seen sufficient data to underpin decisions relating to their industry…building trust with these sectors is absolutely essential and the level of transparency has not been sufficient.”
The test events seem to have gone well. In Liverpool, apparently only 11 of 13,000 people tested positive and the local director of public health said the event caused “no detectable spread” of the virus. However, we know that only from the press reports, because the data has not been published for that event or any other. The Minister has still not explained properly why that is. Does he think that is an acceptable way to rebuild trust and transparency with these businesses?
Nigel Huddleston
As everybody knows, a huge amount of information and data at a local level about infection rates is available weekly online; in fact, it is updated daily. As I said at the beginning, if there were a major outbreak, we would inform the House and others about it. We will publish the information in due course, but it is vital that we do so sensibly. The report is pretty comprehensive, and we must go through due process before releasing it.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the 1.5 million people who work in the events industry are largely self-employed and thus often miss out on furlough payments, so reopening events and conferences is crucial to their and their families’ welfare?
Nigel Huddleston
I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a hugely important part of our economy. Many have been able to access some—but, admittedly, not all—of the support programmes offered by the Government. There are additional discretionary schemes available through local government for some of the smaller suppliers. In particular, as I have mentioned previously in the House, we want the events supply chain to benefit from the additional restrictions grants; I appealed to local authorities to be very generous with such applicants.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
I think that everybody who organises these events understands that during a pandemic there can be unforeseen circumstances beyond anyone’s control that mean an event has to be cancelled or significantly reduced. However, the uncertainty about event insurance underwritten by the Government is due entirely to the Government’s refusal to answer the question already asked numerous times this afternoon. When should the events sector expect to know whether Government support for covid cancellation insurance will ever be forthcoming?
Nigel Huddleston
As I have said previously, we are well aware of the sector’s concerns and the uncertainty with which it is living. That is precisely why we are trying to get as much open as soon as possible. The sector needs to have confidence to reopen and do what it does best: getting out there, entertaining people and enabling people to enjoy themselves at sporting events and so many other things. The Secretary of State did say to the Select Committee that we are aware of the concerns about indemnity and looking at options.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Thanks to the brilliant events research programme, thousands of people have been able to enjoy events including the FA cup final and Euro 2020 fixtures at Wembley. Following the programme’s success, does my hon. Friend agree that there is no reason why we should not be able to open up football stadiums at full capacity from the start of the new season in August?
Nigel Huddleston
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s hope and aspiration. That is precisely why we conducted the programme. Despite the cynicism we have heard from Opposition Members, the events research programme is important not just for its scientific learnings but in helping to lift the mood of the nation. The fact that we have been able to watch football with crowds in stadiums again has been fantastic. We will shortly see other events such as Wimbledon, with centre court again at full capacity. Life is getting back to normal, and that is something we should be celebrating.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Following on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) said earlier, has the Minister actually read what the Kendal Calling festival said about the reason it cancelled? It stated that, crucially, it was the Government’s failure to publish the research from the events research programme, and with it safety guidance. That is why it had to cancel, even though the festival fell beyond the reopening dates. The Society of London Theatre said that research from the Crucible theatre and the snooker world championship showed no difference—a negligible difference—between 25% and 100% capacity. Why are the Government hiding this information from the public, to the detriment of our theatres, our venues and our festivals?
Nigel Huddleston
I am very disheartened to hear that events are cancelling, but we need to be clear: events could not necessarily take place under step 3 of the road map. We need to be in step 4 before many of these events can open. So the hon. Gentleman is confusing the release of the publication of a report with the rules and regulations regarding the steps in the road map. They are two different things.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I thank the Minister and his Department for allowing thousands of cricketing fans like me and others to go to Edgbaston to watch the recent England and New Zealand test match. The thrill of being back in the stadium is a great thing, even if the cricket was a bit sketchy. I also welcome the inclusion of the England versus Pakistan one-day international on 13 July. Does he agree that the public accept the cautious nature of what the Government are doing, and appreciate the careful consideration of all the data to ensure that we approach step 4 properly?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and I agree with him completely. As I said, a huge amount of work and effort has been done by event organisers, as well as by those involved in the events research programme, including the chairs, Nick Hytner and David Ross, for whom we have extreme appreciation. Such events are very valuable and are lifting our spirits in the way described by my hon. Friend.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
The pilot scheme means that, although some events are going ahead at full capacity, other events cannot continue at all. Contradictions in Government guidance mean that amateur choirs cannot even rehearse indoors with protective measures in place, despite other non-professional activities, such as amateur orchestras, brass bands, theatre and grassroots team sports being allowed indoors. Can the Minister explain why choirs have been singled out from other similar risk activities? Will the Government update guidance to allow non-professional choirs to resume their valuable activities, or do they have to apply to be pilot events to be allowed to rehearse and perform?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady is correct in highlighting the difference between professional and non-professional choirs. In accordance with performing arts guidance, non-professional groups of up to six people can now sing indoors. They can also perform or rehearse in groups of up to 30 outdoors, or in multiple groups of 30 outdoors, provided that the groups are kept separate. Those limits do not apply to commercial activities. We all know from our mail bags that this is an area of importance to our constituents, and we want to get choirs up and running again in all formats as soon as possible.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I fear there is a two-tier system when it comes to data. The data tends to exist for football, motor racing, tennis and horse racing, yet there is no data to support outdoor events in my constituency. The Black Deer festival takes place in Eridge park. It is a music event. It is completely covid-safe, with track and trace and a covid manager in an outdoor area, yet it had to cancel, which has knocked our local economy and is undermining local jobs. What advice and support can the Minister give to Gill, who has unfortunately had to cancel the Black Deer festival, which was hoping to host around 10,000 people in an arena fit for 40,000?
Nigel Huddleston
I was very sorry to hear that the Black Deer festival has been unable to take place this year. I know that is enormously disappointing to many of my hon. Friend’s constituents and indeed to her, because I have spoken to her about this. She has lobbied very effectively on behalf of the festival and all the stakeholders, including Gill, who has also been in contact with the Department. I am afraid we have not been able to make every event, including many incredibly worthy events, ERP events, even in phase 3. But I must say to my hon. Friend that it is not true they are all sporting events; a wide variety of events—indoor, outdoor events, music events, business events and so on—are all part of the events research programme, because we want to get learnings across multiple sectors.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
Like many Warringtonians, and indeed a number of other hon. Members who I know plan to attend, I am massively looking forward to Warrington’s Neighbourhood Weekender festival, which has been rescheduled for September. Naturally, news that the Kendal Calling festival has been cancelled has caused huge concern to the events sector, as has the lack of publication of the events research programme. Festivals cannot plan ahead on a vague promise of “very soon” from the Minister, so what recent discussions has the Minister had with festivals across the country that need to make imminent decisions impacting on jobs, livelihoods and events of cultural significance to ensure they can go ahead?
Nigel Huddleston
I can assure the hon. Lady that I, other Ministers and officials in the Department are in frequent contact with stakeholders across the variety of sectors that are reliant on the results of the events research programme, and also the guidance she mentions, beforehand. So it is absolutely the intent to release the report prior to step 4. We also want to make sure that the events sector has the relevant guidance so that it can help events to open as effectively and efficiently as possible as soon as they are able to do so.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in praising the events sector, especially those businesses and organisations in Stoke-on-Trent, for the measures they have put in place and taken to cautiously begin reopening in line with restrictions over the past few months, and does he agree that the events research programme will play a crucial role in supporting the sector to be able to bring back much larger events over the coming months?
Nigel Huddleston
I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have said, this is a hugely important sector at both a local and a national level in terms of the economic impact, and I thank those in the sector for their incredibly constructive engagement throughout the process. That engagement will continue, because we all want to see numbers increase over time so that they can get back to doing the things that they love and we love them doing.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I really feel for the Minister, who has clearly been sent here to say as little as possible in an hour, and in that he has largely succeeded, but it does a real disservice to the creative arts, the exhibition and the events sector, which want to be able to plan ahead. He says, “data, not dates”, and I agree with him. Where is the data to allow these companies and organisations to be able to plan ahead? Get on with it, cut the waffle and publish the data.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive advice. I can absolutely share that. I sense the frustration in the Chamber. Believe me, we all have the same goal here. We want the events sector to open as soon as possible as safely as possible and to get back to doing the things that we love it doing. Absolutely, we all recognise that. But Opposition Members did vote with the Government last week on the step 4 programme. One of the points of that is in terms of the timing of being able to open events. We listen, we look at the data and see what is appropriate to open at the appropriate time. As I have said, before we are able to open the broader sector under step 4, we will be releasing the report and we will be releasing guidance to achieve the goals that he and I both want to achieve.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Reopening sports, live music and theatre is obviously very important. Many companies, such as Stage Audio Services in Dudley South, rely on community events, and business events and conferences as well. Will my hon. Friend make sure that the next phase does include such business events, so that we can bring people back safely to the full range of events and all of the jobs that rely on them?
Nigel Huddleston
First, I have to say that that is a fantastic tie. In terms of the events sector, my hon. Friend knows as well as I do, as a west midlands MP, that he is making a really important point. As for the per capita contribution, the business events sector is greatest in the west midlands. We have major, fantastic, world-class events facilities and we want to get them back up and running as soon as possible. I look forward to working with him, because he is a fantastic champion for his constituents, to make sure that we can do so as soon as possible. I hope that we will have—we are planning on having—a business event in the latest programme as well. The final details, which have yet to be concluded on, will be announced soon.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]
The cancellation of Kendal Calling in the north of England has been devastating to the whole region. In the statement that Kendal Calling issued, it said that its understanding was that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport had the information from the events research programme and could release it, but that No. 10 did not want it released. That is staggering if true. What assessment has the Minister made of the economic impact on the livelihoods of people working in this area in the north of England specifically, because many of the events being mentioned here are in the south? There seems to be a huge lack of recognition of the hugely important work done in the north and the number of people’s jobs that rely on the industry.
Nigel Huddleston
I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that we recognise the importance of these sectors right across the country. If she remembers, phase 1 of the events research programme had a particular focus on Liverpool because of its ability to work with and focus with us. I recognise that some of the events that have been announced recently are particularly focused in the south. We will announce more events right across the country. She makes a really important point: these sectors thrive in the right conditions right across the country, and I want to work with them to do so again. They are hugely important to all our constituencies.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The excellent Minister has talked about publication being in due course, shortly, very soon, as soon as possible. I was going to ask: what does that mean in English? Does it mean this week or next week? But I want to ask him something more important, bearing in mind that this was sort of agreed with the Secretary of State in the Chamber a week or so ago. Would the Minister consider making this House of Commons a pilot event for one Wednesday before recess, ripping out these stupid barriers, getting the public back in and voting in the Lobbies to see what happens?
Mr Speaker
I am not sure that that is the Minister’s decision; it is mine. But come on, Minister.
Nigel Huddleston
I dare not step on anybody’s toes in answering this one. I am sure that the appropriate authorities have heard my hon. Friend’s question, and it is an intriguing one.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Throughout this pandemic, transparency is key, and while, on the one hand, we can understand how circumstances have changed with the delta variant, it makes no sense in ensuring public trust and business trust that the data is not presented now so that we can get a sense of, for example, outdoor versus indoors and seated versus mingling. There will be broad-brush conclusions that can be drawn from the data as seen. Why will the Government not treat people like grown-ups, and why will they not release the data and then let us have a debate about what happens next?
Nigel Huddleston
As I have said repeatedly, we will be releasing the information and data. If there were major concerns, we would have released that information already, but it is a report that has comprehensive information. There are many stakeholders involved in gathering it together and producing it and we need to go through due process before releasing it. We have said all along that we will release it before step 4. That is exactly what we will be doing.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I am extremely proud that my constituency is home to the world-renowned theatreland in the west end. Sadly, the latest figures from the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre suggest that, this year, theatres will return to only 67% of 2019 levels and 66% of that is planned for stage 4. While the theatre sector is keen to provide as much data as possible to prove that its environments are safe, will my hon. Friend confirm that the reopening of theatres at stage 4 will not be delayed to analyse data from the events research programme?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend is a passionate supporter of all DCMS sectors, particularly in London, and she makes really important points. We are seeing a strong recovery in domestic tourism, arts, sports and so on, but London has some particular issues. That is precisely why we focused on London and the cities as part of the tourism recovery plan. She will be seeing an appeal for people to visit cities, and to spend money and time in cities, as part of the Escape the Everyday campaign. We will be releasing further information in due course and I will be happy to have a follow-up conversation with her.
Mr Speaker
Don’t forget to look after Rugby League either, Minister.
I have received a report from the Tellers in the Aye Lobby for the Division at 7.30 pm yesterday on the Opposition day motion on local involvement in planning decisions. The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) has informed me that the number of aye votes was erroneously reported as 231, rather than 212. I will direct the Clerk to correct the numbers in the Journal accordingly. The ayes were 212 and the noes were none. The names were correctly recorded in Hansard.
Points of Order
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last night I objected to the motion on the adjournments for the conference, November and Christmas recesses, which will now be determined by a deferred Division tomorrow. I did so on the basis that, unlike the Labour party conference, it is not yet possible to book tickets for the Conservative party conference, which is due to be held in Manchester from 3 to 6 October. Given that we have been assured that covid restrictions will now end by 19 July, it seems a little strange that the party of government is unable to give the events, hotel and hospitality sectors the certainty that not only will its party conference go ahead, but that other such events will be able to proceed. Forgive me for being suspicious, Mr Speaker, but we are at risk of being strung along. I ask you, Mr Speaker, what means I have at my disposal to draw this matter to the attention of the House. How might we be reassured that the conference recess will be used for its intended purpose, rather than simply as a means to keep Back Benchers away from this House asking awkward questions?
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is important that, before the House is asked to take decisions on important matters, such as its being in recess for three weeks, it has available the essential information. If we are not to have an in-person Conservative party conference, we will not need to be in recess for that period. It therefore seems not unreasonable to ask the Government, in the person of the Prime Minister as leader of our party, to set that out before we are asked to vote tomorrow. That is not just important for us. As we have just heard in the urgent question, thousands of businesses across the country depend on conferences and events. If the governing party is not able to set out with confidence that an event scheduled for October can take place, the sector will draw its own conclusions, which will be very damaging to many thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of employees.
Mr Speaker
First of all, I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) for giving me notice of his point of order. On booking tickets, he need not worry as he lives in Greater Manchester, so I think I can overcome that little difficulty for him. [Laughter.] I cannot comment on the arrangements that parties make for their conferences. I can confirm that the motion on yesterday’s Order Paper was objected to and will therefore be subject to a deferred Division tomorrow—I am sure the Whips are really pleased with him about that. If it is agreed to, the House will adjourn for the days indicated on the motion.
In fairness, there is a genuine concern. There are jobs at stake; it is an industry that really does matter. This matter is beyond me, but at least, if nothing else, the hon. Gentleman’s point is on the record. The Whips will definitely want a word with him, so he will be able to pass on his concerns directly to the Chief Whip.
I will now suspend the House in order for the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill
Tuesday 22nd June 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 View all Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, before I talk about the Bill I wish to congratulate our parliamentary colleague the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on becoming the leader of his political party. I look forward to working with him in the period ahead. I also hope, as I am sure all colleagues do, that he has a very enjoyable week, not just with the introduction to becoming leader-elect of his party, but with the very big family event, a wedding, with which we all wish him well.
The United Kingdom is a family of nations and a Union of people. We share cultural, social and economic ties that bring us together, and make us more prosperous and secure. This Government believe in upholding the constitutional integrity of this great nation. Our Union is strongest when its institutions work well, work together and deliver real change on the issues that matter. In Northern Ireland, that means we need properly functioning institutions, both in Stormont and in Westminster.
Brandon Lewis
I will make a bit of progress, then I will give way to colleagues.
In this centenary year for Northern Ireland, today marks exactly 100 years since the opening of the first Northern Ireland Parliament, at Belfast city hall, by King George V and Queen Mary. This momentous occasion saw locally elected politicians for the first time, following the first Northern Ireland general election, so it is fitting that this Bill has its Second Reading today, of all days. The Bill will strengthen the democratic institutions of Northern Ireland and serve to build the people of Northern Ireland’s faith in their locally elected representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly. As this House knows, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly were restored on 11 January 2020 when all five of Northern Ireland’s main political parties came together under the New Decade, New Approach agreement. I wish to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) and the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for North Down (Stephen Farry) for their dedication and persistence, with others, in pursuing this deal, which was a great achievement after three years of impasse.
Prior to the restoration of the institutions, there had been no functioning Executive since January 2017. The absence of a devolved Government for such an extended period had a detrimental effect on the people of Northern Ireland. We saw the first strike in the 103-year history of the Royal College of Nursing over pay and staffing levels. There was ongoing action by teaching unions, and schools were not co-operating with the inspections in a dispute over teacher pay and workload. Essential infrastructure projects, including the York Street interchange and investment in waste water infrastructure, which was at capacity in many places across Northern Ireland, could not be progressed.
I think we can all agree that a pandemic with no Executive would have been unthinkable. I was pleased therefore to see the First Minister and Deputy First Minister nominated last Thursday, following this Government’s intensive engagement with the party leaders. However, the events of last week also highlight how important it is for everyone to deliver on their commitments under the New Decade, New Approach agreement. It is disappointing to see that a way forward has not yet been found to implement all of the parts in full, which is why the Government have, for example, promised to deliver the balanced culture package that was agreed in NDNA through Parliament if it has not been taken forward by the Northern Ireland Executive by the end of September. I wish to reiterate and be very clear that our strong preference and desire is for this to be delivered in the appropriate place by the devolved institutions.
Sammy Wilson
I am sure that people back home will be amazed at the honeyed words of the Secretary of State. He talks about the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and the importance of the devolved Administration and devolved institutions, and yet he has interfered, and has just announced that he is prepared to interfere once again, in the institutions in Northern Ireland in a way in which no Secretary of State would dare to do in Scotland or Wales. Does he not accept that, for the Unionist community, this continual interference in the institutions at Stormont at the behest of Sinn Féin is not an annoyance but something that enrages people?
Brandon Lewis
I have to say that I do not recognise the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman outlines his point. The reality is that the UK Government are the Government of the United Kingdom. The UK Government are a co-guarantor of and signatory to the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which the parties themselves negotiated and agreed. For example, the parties agreed between themselves the cultural package, which has had a lot of attention in the past week. We have a duty to ensure that, for all the people of Northern Ireland, these things are delivered in a way that is set out and agreed by the parties. I would much rather see that delivered by the institution itself. That is why we have given time and space for the institution to be able to move things forward. It is also right that, on a range of issues, including women’s healthcare, women in Northern Ireland have access to the same good-quality healthcare as women across the United Kingdom. I make no apologies for making sure that we the United Kingdom Government are representing people across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He has referred to the position across the United Kingdom. Obviously, like him I am a strong Unionist, but there is one thing that I am concerned about. I heard this morning that the outgoing leader of the Democratic Unionist party, Mr Edwin Poots, has said in a number of media interviews that he has received assurances from the Secretary of State about changes to the Northern Ireland protocol. I know that that is now a story. Is the Secretary of State able to say anything to the House about whether that is true or not? Obviously, it will be of great interest to people not just across Northern Ireland but in constituencies such as mine, which have understandable problems with shipping goods across our United Kingdom.
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. There are two points. First, at the end of last week some of Edwin Poots’s colleagues commented about an announcement. Actually, the announcement was not really an announcement; it just confirmed that we had requested from the European Union an extension to the grace period, particularly for chilled meats from 1 July. I said on the Floor of this House last week, and I am very happy to reconfirm it today, that, as the Prime Minister himself has outlined, we do have issues with the Northern Ireland protocol. Like others across this House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has, quite rightly, outlined an example of those challenges for consumers and businesses in Northern Ireland. We are not going to allow that to continue. We want to get this corrected so that consumers and businesses in Northern Ireland can continue to function as a full and integral part of the United Kingdom.
As I said at this Dispatch Box just last Wednesday, and as the Prime Minister has said both publicly and at the Dispatch Box, we will do what we need to do to make sure that we deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, and we will take nothing off the table in that regard. Obviously, we will wait to hear from the EU, and we want to work this through with it with regard to the request we made last week.
The Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill will deliver elements of the New Decade, New Approach deal relating to the governance of the Executive and within the competence of this House. That includes reforms to sustainability of institutions, updating the ministerial code of conduct and reforming the petition of concern mechanism. The UK Government and this Parliament have a duty to ensure good and functional governance in Northern Ireland. Today, through this Bill, we discharge that duty by bringing forward measures that will help continue to enhance the public’s confidence in the Northern Ireland institutions through increased transparency and improved governance arrangements. Those measures will ensure that the institutions will be more sustainable, more resilient and for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.
Let me turn briefly to the contents of the Bill. In short, we are legislating, first, to provide up to four six-week periods for the appointing of new Northern Ireland Ministers, including the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, after an election; secondly, to provide up to four six-week periods for the appointing of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister after they cease to hold office—for instance, in the case of one of them resigning; thirdly, to provide, if the First Minister and Deputy First Minister cease to hold office, that other Northern Ireland Ministers remain in office for a maximum period of 48 weeks after the First Minister and Deputy First Minister ceased to hold office, or for 24 weeks following any subsequent election, whichever is the shortest, unless the Secretary of State triggers the sufficient representation provisions.
The Bill will implement reforms to the petition of concern mechanism in the Assembly, including a new 14-day consideration period before a valid petition can be confirmed; it will require petitioners to come from more than one Northern Ireland political party; prevent the mechanism from being used for matters that concern the conduct of a Member and for Second Reading votes on a Bill; and it will update the code of conduct for Northern Ireland Ministers in accordance with a request from the Northern Ireland Executive and in line with the New Decade, New Approach transparency and accountability recommendations.
Mr Harper
The Secretary of State has rightly set out the scope of the Bill. May I press him on another matter that was referred to in the New Decade, New Approach agreement? He knows that the prosecutions of soldiers as part of the legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland is of great concern. I shall not press him on the content of the legislation, because I know that work is under way, but may I press him a little on the timing? Many Members are eager for that work to proceed at pace so that we can resolve these issues, and many are keen for that to happen before the House rises for the summer. Is the Secretary of State able to give the House any indication today of the Government’s latest thinking on when they may be able to bring that legislation—if, indeed, it is separate legislation—before the House?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend asks a fair question—that is part of New Decade, New Approach, so it is a fair point. I outlined, I think in February or March this year, my ambition to bring something before the House before the summer recess; I still have that ambition, but I should also say clearly that we are determined to do what we have always said we would do, which is to engage with our partners—not only the Irish Government but the parties in Northern Ireland and victims’ groups, because whatever we bring forward has to have victims absolutely at its heart. We have to deal with information recovery and truth and reconciliation, because whatever we bring forward has to work properly for the people of Northern Ireland, so it is right that we take the time to do that properly and methodically, which I am looking forward to doing. We will do that and we are still absolutely committed to ensuring that we deliver on our manifesto pledge to the veterans community. I will touch on that a little more in a few moments.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Will the Secretary of State explain very carefully for some people in this House who do not seem to understand that, if an amnesty is given to anybody—for example, if an amnesty is given to soldiers who maybe committed murder on the streets of Derry, Belfast or anywhere else—an amnesty would have to be given to everyone, including IRA members, Ulster Volunteer Force members and Ulster Defence Association members?
Brandon Lewis
As I said before, we want to ensure that we put forward a package that works for all of Northern Ireland and genuinely allows it a chance to move forward. One thing that we have heard consistently from civic society is a desire to move forward. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that whatever we do has to be balanced across the whole community. As I say, I will come back to that in separate legislation in due course—we are not dealing with legacy legislation today.
Sammy Wilson
Just so that no one is misled by the previous intervention, will the Secretary of State confirm that no one has sought an amnesty for soldiers? All that has been asked for is that soldiers who have already had cases investigated—some up to three times—should not be trailed through the courts again for political reasons by those who are attempting to rewrite the history of the troubles.
Brandon Lewis
As I say, we are not dealing with legacy today, so I will resist the urge to go too much into that, but I will say that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in the sense that we have been clear that we are committed to ending the cycle of re-investigations. We also have to accept that, as we have all seen recently, the current situation is not serving anybody. It cannot be right that, as we saw in the Ballymurphy case, it has taken 50 years for people to get information. Equally, it is inappropriate and wrong to see people go through a cycle of investigations. We have committed to end that and we will do that.
Let me turn to the specifics of the Bill before the House. Clause 1 amends the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to extend the period of time available to appoint a First Minister and Deputy First Minister after the resignation of either or after the first meeting of the Assembly following an Assembly election. Currently, the period for ministerial appointments is only 14 days from the first meeting of the Assembly after an election, and seven days after the First Minister or Deputy First Minister ceases to hold office. The Bill will extend the period for filling ministerial offices to a six-week period that is automatically renewed—unless the Assembly resolves otherwise on a cross-community basis—for a maximum of three times, up to a total of 24 weeks.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
It will not have lost anyone’s attention that we are discussing the extension of the sustainability mechanisms at a time when there is huge instability in the Assembly, when we have had First Minister resignations and changes and multiple seven-day cliff edges potentially emerging. Can the Secretary of State take this opportunity to stress that all parties in Northern Ireland should act responsibly in relation to the institutions, not make any threats to collapse them, and should work to deliver on the core issues of health, education and jobs, on which people urgently need action over the coming months?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Our focus, for all of us, as I have outlined over the last week or two, should be on making sure that we have stable institutions that can deliver on issues such as health, education and infrastructure, among other things, for the people of Northern Ireland. That is what I believe the people of Northern Ireland want to see, and it is why I was so pleased that, to be fair, the parties in Northern Ireland were able to resolve this issue within three days and have stability, with a First Minister and Deputy First Minister having been nominated.
By extending those periods, the Bill will allow more time for discussions between the parties and for the Secretary of State to facilitate a resolution before they come under an election duty. It also allows for Northern Ireland Ministers to remain in post after an election until the end of the period for appointing new Ministers. That change will again allow for greater continuity in decision making.
Under clause 2, Ministers will no longer cease to hold office after the election of a new Assembly. It provides for up to a maximum of 24 weeks after an election or a maximum of 48 weeks since a functioning Executive was in place—whichever is the shorter—in which Ministers may continue to hold office, subject to those offices otherwise being filled or if a Minister is not returned as a Member of the Assembly. The measure will ensure that institutions become more sustainable and more resilient. Currently, the Secretary of State is required to propose a date for an Assembly election where the Assembly resolves to dissolve itself, or where the period for appointing Northern Ireland Ministers or a First Minister and Deputy First Minister expires without those offices being filled.
Clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to certify or call an Assembly election at any point after the first six weeks in the period for filling ministerial offices if the Secretary of State considers that there is not sufficient representation among Ministers to secure cross-community confidence in the Assembly.
Clause 4 substitutes a revised ministerial code of conduct that sets out expectations for the behaviour of Ministers, including provisions around the treatment of the Northern Ireland civil service, public appointments and the use of official resources and information management. Those updates are in the reserved or excepted space and are unable to be progressed through the Assembly. The UK Government are bringing those changes forward at the request of the then First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the agreement of the Executive.
Clause 5 reforms the petition of concern mechanism to reduce its use and to return it to its intended purpose as set out under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement—a safeguard to ensure that all sections of the community can participate and work together successfully in the operation of the Northern Ireland institutions and are protected when the Assembly legislates, and to prevent one party from blocking measures or business. The mechanism, which was given effect in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, allows MLAs to lodge a petition against a matter that the Assembly is voting in, providing that they can gather at least 30 signatures.
A successful petition means that the relevant matter is to be passed on a cross-community basis rather than on a simple majority basis. The Bill will require the petitions to be signed and confirmed 14 days later by at least 30 MLAs from two or more political parties, which will prevent one party from being able to block measures or business that would otherwise have cross-community consensus. These specific changes and commitments from the Northern Ireland parties aim to reduce the use of the mechanism to the most exceptional circumstances and as a last resort only, having exhausted every other available mechanism.
The Government are bringing forward those changes through Westminster legislation as they are excepted matters. Separate legislation seeking to make provision for legacy commitments made in the New Decade, New Approach deal—to go back to the comment made absolutely correctly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean—will be introduced separately. This Bill will implement aspects of the New Decade, New Approach deal, which the parties agreed to in January 2020. The provisions in the Bill seek to reform the sustainability of the institutions, update the ministerial code of conduct and reform the petition of concern mechanism.
We will always be steadfast in maintaining the importance of Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. We are working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government to progress the delivery of all the commitments in the New Decade, New Approach deal.
By introducing this Bill now, we are delivering on those promises, but it is ultimately up to the parties to come together. Both the Irish Government and the UK Government will continue to stand together and stand ready to support them, as we did in bringing about the package of measures under New Decade, New Approach. Until then, the Bill is a reminder that the UK Government will always uphold our responsibilities for political stability and good governance in Northern Ireland. I commend it to the House.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in congratulating the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on his appointment as leader of the DUP and I also look forward to working with him. I thank the Secretary of State for setting out the measures in the Bill and for the regular updates he and the Minister have provided to me and my office over the past few weeks.
The instability in recent months has been unsettling for all of us who cherish the Good Friday agreement and who believe that its institutions and the principles that underpin it represent the best way forward for Northern Ireland, but, as ever, that instability has been most keenly felt by the people of Northern Ireland. They need a stable, functioning Executive to meet the enormous health and economic challenges facing Northern Ireland—a third of the entire population languishing on health waiting lists; nearly 300 children without a post-primary place for next year’s term; and, of course, recovery from covid. For all political leaders in Northern Ireland, that must be the priority in the coming days and weeks. It is partly for that reason that the Labour party supports the Bill before the House today.
We welcome attempts to safeguard power sharing and improve the sustainability of the Executive and the Assembly. Although we will suggest amendments to tighten up provisions in the Bill, the lessons from the past should offer a clear warning to all of us. Institutions are much easier to collapse than they are to get back up and running. Recent events could scarcely have provided a clearer example of why the provisions contained in the Bill are necessary.
Precisely because we support the provisions in the Bill, which were agreed through New Decade, New Approach more than 18 months ago by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), I want to make clear the mistake I believe the Secretary of State has made in leaving it until now for this crucial piece of legislation to be considered. It is simply not credible that this was the first moment that parliamentary time allowed for the Bill to be considered, and it is unclear why we are debating these measures only now, in the midst of political turmoil in Northern Ireland.
The instability we have seen in recent months, which the Bill in part attempts to address, has not emerged out of thin air. I fear the delay in bringing forward the Bill is symptomatic of the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland.
Too often over the past decade, Northern Ireland has been an afterthought here. As the consequences of decisions taken by Ministers have played out in Northern Ireland, the Government have frequently behaved as though they have found themselves at the scene of an accident entirely beyond their control. Too often, Northern Ireland has been overlooked and the work to deliver on the promise of peace allowed to stall.
Nowhere is that more striking than in the Prime Minister’s actions. He was repeatedly warned of the consequences for the fragile peace process of his Brexit deal and he chose to ignore those warnings. There is a direct line from his dishonesty over the deal to the instability we see in the institutions today.
It would be foolish to assume that the provisions of the Bill alone can guarantee stability. They cannot. To do that, Ministers must address the effects of their own actions, which have shaken faith in Northern Ireland. Progress has stalled and instability has grown. The Belfast/Good Friday agreement has been treated as a crisis management tool rather than as the vehicle through which lives and communities can be transformed.
Although Labour supports the Bill, we believe there are several missed opportunities for the Government to refocus on delivering on the promise of peace, which they have allowed to stall. We will seek to bring amendments to push for the full implementation of the Government’s commitments under the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which, like the Bill, have been delayed for too long.
The same principle is true of the undelivered promises of the Good Friday agreement on a Bill of Rights, integrated education and housing, women’s rights and giving communities a real say in decision making. They were the essence of the Good Friday agreement and the shared future that it imagined, but progress on them has been virtually non-existent over the past decade. We do not believe that the instability that we see can be separated from the failure to deliver on such commitments. Above all, the way to guarantee stability is to demonstrate that commitments made will be honoured and that Westminster is still prepared to step up and honour our side of the bargain.
We will further seek to tighten up the provisions on the caretaker institutions to prevent misuse and promote good governance. With that in mind, we have concerns about what might be described as some of the constructive ambiguities in the Bill and some of the unintended consequences that may follow. Our concerns fall into two categories: those relating to a caretaker Executive and those relating to the vetoes available within the Executive.
First, on the provisions allowing for a caretaker Administration following an Assembly election or the resignation of the First Minister or Deputy First Minister, the scope of statutory powers was recently significantly expanded. Although the Government talk about caretaker Ministers being able to operate only “within well-defined limits”, those limits are in no way outlined. That leaves open a broad statutory remit and does not provide the necessary safety catch to prevent caretaker Ministers from exercising powers not envisaged in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that point or if we could address it in Committee.
Secondly, the Bill deals with the petition of concern and its use and misuse. We absolutely support this limited reform, which will return the mechanism to its original intention, but the Bill is silent on the other effective vetoes that have been used to block agenda items from reaching the Executive or to prevent discussion on cross-community issues of concern. If the petition of concern reform was intended to prevent it from being misused by a single party to block progress, it would be a mistake to allow other vetoes to persist that allow for much the same outcome.
Finally, we hope to see some movement from the Government on dual mandates to allow for greater flexibility, potentially on a short-term basis. I reiterate our support for the limited measures in the Bill, but I make it clear that this is only a start. There is much, much more work to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now go to the Chair of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
I welcome the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I particularly echo his welcome and congratulations to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on his assuming the office of leader of the Democratic Unionist party at what we know is a very difficult time for the politics of Northern Ireland. I know that the House will wish him well as he begins that task.
I also welcome the fact—probably overlooked, but long called for by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—that this is not emergency legislation. It is nice to have a Northern Irish Bill being dealt with in normal parliamentary time. That is important, and I think that it says quite a lot about how we are dealing with these issues. It also provides an opportunity to remind ourselves that the Good Friday agreement is a process, not a monolithic event or structure that is beyond change or tampering. It was supposed to be an iterative, organic process; it is important that we remind ourselves of that.
It is sad, I suppose, but we need to remind this and future generations of the importance of peace and of the horror before the Good Friday agreement was brought into being. I hope that the Secretary of State, the Government and those who are serving in Stormont refocus as they move forward on ensuring that, within the prosperity agenda of the Good Friday agreement, peace is the bedrock and the widest possible delivery of the benefits of prosperity are felt throughout the communities of Northern Ireland.
I also welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in response to an intervention about legacy. I welcome his affirmation that he will take a victim-centric approach, and I was encouraged to hear him talk about the need to ensure that the Republic and those in the north are taken along in the process rather than having an impost made on them. I know that the timetable is tight and that there is a lot in his in-tray, but I encourage him to follow and adhere to the commitment that he made to me some months ago on the Floor of the House that we will see what he is proposing before the House rises for the summer recess and possibly have the opportunity to debate it.
Devolution, in its operation, is not a political equivalent of a Woolworths pick and mix. It will not and cannot work if those who are charged with its care and delivery duck difficult decisions and abdicate responsibilities. In part, this Bill is there to address that, as quite a lot of the New Decade, New Approach process is supposed to as well.
I echo those who have said—I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said this pretty clearly—that if there ever is a time to collapse the Executive, although I am never convinced that there is, now is most certainly not it. I say that not least because it would let down the people of Northern Ireland who were so badly harmed by a three-year interregnum and a pressing of the pause button on the delivery of public service reform and better services for those who rely on them. Now is not the time to embark on political blackmail—“Do this or we will”, or “Don’t do that and we won’t.” In reference to the pretty gruesome statement made by the Loyalist Communities Council at the tail end of last week, I also say that now is not the time for those who are unelected and who have never faced the tests and trials of the ballot box to start issuing ultimatums to those who do take up the baton of public service and try to deliver a better life for the communities of Northern Ireland.
I welcome the Bill, I think. I say “I think” because we have here four six-week periods, and then another four six-week periods. These elongated timeframes are understandable, but I occasionally worry that we will just feed the beast of instability by putting in place longer and longer periods and opportunities for people to “play around”, which we would not see with regard to the operation of devolution in Cardiff or Edinburgh, and at some point we will have to wrestle with that. If we are to make devolution a normal thing in Northern Ireland that can deliver, we need to try to weed out and cut away all the props that allow people to pause and think and so on. None the less, we are where we are. We understand the tensions and we understand the history, which is why I shall support the Bill.
The changes to the petition of concern process are to be hugely welcomed, and that has been recognised across the House in speeches made by those on the two Front Benches. Again, that process was a good intention initially, but it got played. When a system gets played, and it does not look right and it does not smell right, then it needs to be changed, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on wrestling with that.
I share the Secretary of State’s hope that it will be a fully functioning and vibrant Stormont that can deliver the cultural package that everybody signed up to in New Decade, New Approach. If it does not or cannot, or if that becomes another insurmountable obstacle to the delivery of other issues, then the Government are absolutely right to take up the mantle and to legislate for it here in the House of Commons. I hope and pray that we do not have to and that it is dealt with by those charged to do so in a devolved environment, but if not, the Government are right to do it. If one of the by-products of that is taking off the table a nut that nobody was prepared to crack in Northern Ireland because one or another thought it was too difficult, that would be a good thing because it would remove another reason for somebody to take their ball home and not play.
This is an important Bill, but we should not just view it in isolation. There is a lot from which it flows, and there is a lot that flows from New Decade, New Approach, which is not addressed in this Bill. None the less, we know that the Secretary of State is up for the task. There are huge issues ahead. We have to deal in a proactive and sensible way with this protocol.
Let me close by making an observation to those on my party’s Front Bench. We are asking the parties that have signed up to New Decade, New Approach to adhere to it in full—not to cherry-pick or to do the things that are more pleasant or easier first, but to take it as an entire package and to deliver and implement it. Why can we make that legitimate demand of them? Because they signed up to it and they agreed to it. When the Government perhaps do not play as fixedly to that rule vis-à-vis the protocol, with some of the things that some Ministers have been saying, it should be of no surprise if those who want to try to wriggle off the commitment hook pray in aid some of those observations of Ministers as their defence and their cover.
I wish the Bill well. All of us are very conscious of the environment in which we are holding this debate and of what is going on across Northern Ireland, with so many big issues. Let us all, coming from different traditions, different strands of thought, different histories and different communities, recommit to the golden thread of motivation in political life, which is public service. We are here to serve the people who send us to this place, just as those who are elected to Stormont are there to serve the community of Northern Ireland. At this crucial moment, let nobody dodge that. Let us hope that we can all rise to the occasion and meet the needs and aspirations of the people we serve.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Let me begin by offering my congratulations and those of my party to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on his elevation to be leader of the Democratic Unionist party.
This is a very important Bill in the sense that it is required to deliver on aspects of the New Decade, New Approach commitments. There are parts of that agreement that can and, I would argue, should be delivered by the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly themselves. I am sure that other speakers will begin to go over that ground in more detail, but I do not intend to do so myself. I will seek to confine my remarks to the measures in the Bill that can only be implemented by this place.
Before I do, I would like to offer a perspective from Scotland. There has been much comment about devolution. The Chair of the Select Committee said that devolution is neither a pick and mix nor a picnic. The Prime Minister, who clearly regards himself as a success, has notoriously described devolution as a failure. I think that most people in Scotland, and indeed further afield, would feel that the Prime Minister has got these things the wrong way round altogether.
Nevertheless, as with all Governments, there have been times when devolved Administrations, including the Governments in Scotland, of whatever political stripe, have acquitted themselves well and times when they have not—times when people have been left wondering why some things were not being done or, in some cases, why they were being done at all. There have been occasions when Parliaments have failed to pass budgets or when Governments have unexpectedly found themselves in a minority on an issue, sometimes within the Parliament and sometimes outside it. Occasionally, in the early days of devolution, there were also crises on education policy, aspects of social policy and even matters of personality and who held office, which left the institution somewhat battered and exposed in the harsh glare of the media and, at times, in its public standing. While I do not pretend that there is any scale of comparability, I would hope, viewing the situation from Scotland, that we can look at the progress that is being made in Northern Ireland with some kind of insight into the politics that goes on.
Over that time, there were strong opinions, deeply felt and sometimes trenchantly expressed, within, between and beyond political parties, some of which, as I say, led people to question the value of the institutions themselves. However, across the piece, politicians did what they had to do, which was not to ignore differences or try to come together on a false consensus, but instead to talk, to listen, to understand, to take responsibility and ultimately to move forward and start finding the much-vaunted Scottish solutions to Scottish problems instead of always looking to this place to have them sorted out for us by Governments who, very often, we did not elect. It is important that politics continues, and sometimes in order for politics to continue, all that is required is to give politicians the political space they need to be able to have the discussions they need to have with colleagues, to negotiate inside and outside the parties and between the parties, and sometimes even to reflect more broadly on whether public opinion on some issues is really where it has always been assumed to be. Who takes the decisions, and where and why, is obviously hugely important, but it is still important that the decisions that need to be taken are taken.
It is telling that in the opening of the “New Decade, New Approach” document, so much space was taken up with bread-and-butter issues such as resolving the long-standing issues around the delivery of healthcare and healthcare entitlements, around reforms to the education system and around the need to press ahead with capital expenditure and infrastructure, all of which had backed up during the absence of self-government. So, while I hope I do not underestimate for a single moment the sensitivities involved in a climate of power sharing, or the importance of being in a position to match words with deeds, I believe that the Bill will enhance the transparency and accountability of the institutions and that it is significant for what it sets out to do.
Politics may abhor a vacuum, but there is no question but that trying to bring matters to a head too quickly in the face of short and sometimes artificial and meaningless deadlines can lead to problems all of their own. For that reason, I believe that allowing an extended period, as the Bill seeks to do, for the appointment of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, whether in the event of their ceasing to hold office or in the aftermath of an election, is an important step. Similarly, allowing Ministers to remain in office after an election to allow for some limited but necessary political direction to be provided over that period is an important mechanism for ensuring continued normalcy, not only to ensure the continuity of government but to assist the political process in the formation of new Governments. Similarly, while the petition of concern process has been an important consociational mechanism, the time is surely right to begin to narrow the scope of its potential usage while broadening the support required in order for it to be brought to bear. Also, I believe that an updating of the code of conduct for Ministers to enshrine the Nolan principles will be opportune.
As I have said, this is an important Bill. The people of Northern Ireland deserve stability and, with it, the ability to have decisions taken on their behalf by the Assembly that they elect and by the Executive who are there to govern on their behalf, and so long as these proposals enjoy the broad support of the people of Northern Ireland and the parties of Northern Ireland, they will have our support too.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I rise to support the Bill, and I would like to pay tribute to the MLAs and to the Northern Ireland Executive for the role that they have played during the coronavirus crisis. There were lots of reasons why I was delighted that the Executive and the Assembly got up and running last January, but that was before we knew about covid. To have had no Government during this period does not bear thinking about, and all my thoughts are with the families and friends of those who have lost loved ones across Northern Ireland as a result of these tragic 18 months.
It is worth pointing out that one of the exciting things in the restoration was the fact that all five parties engaged with it. Nichola Mallon, Conor Murphy, Robin Swann, Naomi Long, Michelle O’Neill, Arlene Foster and all the other members of the Executive got stuck in during this period, and that has been really important. I would also like to pay tribute to Diane Dodds, Peter Weir and Gordon Lyons, who left the previous Executive. Let us see whether they will be in for just a short period on the Back Benches; they—or one of them—could well be back very soon. I also join colleagues who have sent congratulations to Jeffrey Donaldson on his election as DUP leader. As well as dealing with the covid crisis, the Northern Ireland Executive have done positive work over the past 18 months on infrastructure, on city deals, on climate change and on getting the finances under control—the Fiscal Commission and the Fiscal Council have been set up—so although the last year has been very bumpy at times, much has been achieved by this group of people.
This Bill does not contain components of NDNA that have been in the media recently—namely, the cultural package and the protocol. While I understand there are parties here that want to propose amendments to the Bill to enact the cultural components of NDNA, it is in my view important that that should be the final resort. The cultural components of NDNA are clearly a matter for the Assembly. While I would support a vote here in extremis, I believe that, following the agreement between the two main parties and the Secretary of State last week, we should encourage the new Executive and the Assembly to enact those themselves.
Many hours and days were spent agreeing these and the other provisions of the NDNA agreement, and I would make two broad points. First, it is wrong for some to claim or to report that there is an Irish language Act in the NDNA agreement; there is not. Negotiators wanting an Irish language provision won important language provisions, but not the all-encompassing Act that was their initial goal. Much time was spent by negotiators on the other side of the argument who wanted to balance and to limit the scope of the provisions both in legislative terms and in practical terms, particularly for signage and public signs. I make no comment on the merits or otherwise of this, but there is no Irish language Act in the New Decade, New Approach agreement—rather a series of carefully nuanced cultural provisions to reflect and represent all communities in Northern Ireland.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way, and it is good to highlight that. Unfortunately, the media and many political pundits keep peddling this line, and very little has been done in relation to giving confidence to the Unionist community. In fact, many within the Unionist community believe that devolution is dead. Those who have driven around Northern Ireland will have seen the many banners hanging around lampposts telling us that devolution is dead and the Belfast agreement is null and void. The messages that have come forward from this Government in the last year and a half have not given any confidence to the Unionist community. I am glad to hear the right hon. Member making mention of the issue of no Irish language Act being included in NDNA.
Colum Eastwood
We will keep checking back as to what actually happened during those talks with the right hon. Member, who committed an awful lot of time and did an awful lot of good work to ensure that we actually got devolution back. Can I just ask him, because we have had confirmation that Sinn Féin did not actually negotiate an Irish language Act, despite what the claims have been, to confirm to me that this legislation going through the House today was actually a demand of the DUP, so the DUP did get some stuff out of NDNA?
Julian Smith
I would argue that all parties got a lot, and all parties negotiated hard, including the hon. Member’s own, and of course the DUP.
The second item that is not part of this Bill is the Northern Ireland protocol. I note that the Government have now asked for an extension of the grace period, and I am pleased to see that the EU response looks positive. I called last year for the Government to negotiate a grace period for the whole of 2021, and I believe now that they should cut a deal around the offer by the EU of a veterinary zone—a temporary veterinary zone. I would encourage a compromise on both sides to meet halfway and to ease the many practical complaints from Northern Ireland business. I am pleased that the rhetoric is easing, and I would encourage everyone to continue to dial it down.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Indeed, in the interests of dialling it down, as the right hon. Member quite rightly says, does he regret that he made a commitment to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in October 2019, when he made it clear that the protocol would be “light touch”? Does he agree now that that was not the case, and that in fact the heavy-handed approach of the protocol now, in the words of the new Economy Minister, concerns him because of the “commercial discrimination” that now appears to exist in Northern Ireland?
Julian Smith
I strongly believe that the protocol can be light touch, but it does require significant amounts of practical working behind the scenes and not politicising every particular issue. I strongly believe that can happen, and I believe it will happen. I would urge both the EU and the UK Government to continue a positive, practical dialogue through the Joint Committee.
The Bill provides for a number of important and practical measures. It ensures more time to work through the creation of an Executive should there be Dissolution after an election. The 24 weeks for things to be worked out in a positive way is important, because we must avoid the three-year impasse that we have had before. The petition of concern provisions came from hard-fought negotiations by the Alliance, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists, to ensure that both the major parties did not continue to abuse the veto mechanism, as had historically happened. Although provisions in the Bill do not go as far as those parties had hoped, they contain practical and positive improvements that make the petition of concern more difficult to abuse. The UK Government have also agreed in the overall agreement to review the usage of the petition of concern, and lay a report before Parliament every six months.
Finally, the Bill will ensure stricter adherence by Ministers to the Nolan principles and to higher standards in public life, following various scandals such as the renewable heat initiative scandal, and others, and address the misuse of public money and the need to maintain high standards in ministerial office.
We have heard reference to the significant tension in the politics of Northern Ireland over the past weeks and months regarding the protocol, language, leadership putsches and leadership contests. There have been burning buses, marches and demonstrations. The headlines of the past few months do not represent my experience of Northern Ireland. Whether as a result of what people have been through, its contested status, or the beauty of its land and the skills, capabilities and intelligence of its people, Northern Ireland is a unique part of the world. It is a great place to live, an exciting place to do business, and it is full of positivity and dynamism.
There has been much talk about a new Ireland, a united Ireland, and threats to the Union in recent weeks, but the high probability is that the Good Friday agreement will maintain the status quo for many years to come. Successive UK Governments have said that they will respect that agreement, and that the provisions in it, particularly those on the Executive and the Assembly that we are discussing, will have ongoing support from this House. As they have shown during this covid crisis, this Government will continue to do that for the foreseeable future.
If that is the case, the noise and headlines of the past few months risk leading many people down paths that will not come to pass, and missing the massive opportunities that the GFA hybrid situation provides, such as all-Ireland opportunities for infrastructure and climate change, east-west opportunities for work and progress on health and other issues, and huge opportunities to maximise Northern Ireland’s position coming out of the pandemic. It also risks missing the opportunities provided by the protocol, and not maximising the big opportunities of power sharing, and how that can deliver on the issues that matter most to the majority of Northern Ireland citizens, such as improving waiting lists, inward investment and jobs, education, coming out of the pandemic and enhancing incomes and life chances. There is the first Northern Ireland Youth Assembly in years, and a fantastic new head of the Northern Ireland civil service, whose obsession is innovation and how to make Northern Ireland more competitive globally, given its position on the cusp of the EU and UK, is about to take power at Stormont.
The UK Government cannot guarantee a Unionist First Minister for ever more, and they cannot change the fact that they signed an international agreement to exit the EU, which contains issues that need to be resolved. We in this House must be clear and honest about those facts. However, the Government can and will support the Assembly and Executive in supporting and developing this important and unique part of the UK, and in doing so they create the best possible protection of the Union. The Bill contains important technical amendments to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to ensure that the best vehicle for doing that, the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, continues to prosper. It also reconfirms today that the Good Friday agreement remains the only show in town.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
First, let me make it clear from the outset that the Democratic Unionist party will be supporting the Bill’s Second Reading. That is not because, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) seemed to suggest, the Bill is somehow or other a Unionist game and an exclusively Unionist demand. There are provisions in the Bill that seek to ensure that the Assembly cannot be torn down by those who want to see instability in Northern Ireland. Indeed, for three years they ensured that there was instability and no Assembly. We wanted those changes to ensure that that could not happen again, not for the benefit of the DUP or the Unionist community, but for the benefit of the whole of the community. I want to make that clear at the outset.
This is not a Unionist game. This is not a Unionist Bill. This is not a Unionist demand. This is an attempt by the parties in Northern Ireland, led by us in the negotiations, to ensure that we could not have three years without a Government in Northern Ireland. Incidentally, because the Government here in Westminster were afraid to take on Sinn Féin, they sat on their hands and refused to do anything to try to get a situation going in which devolution was restored in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, there is a certain irony. We had the Secretary of State standing here today, and we heard his honeyed words that the Bill is all about the Government’s commitment to the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and that parties should not be making threats to bring down devolution. Yet, in the same breath, he described how, once again, he intends if necessary to cast devolution aside and take on the responsibilities of the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to satisfy the threats of one party and one party alone: Sinn Féin.
Of course, the impasse and fears we had in Northern Ireland were because Sinn Féin was threatening not to appoint a Deputy First Minister if it did not get the cultural aspects of New Decade, New Approach delivered on the timetable it demanded. I must say that while my party has signed up to the cultural aspects, many people—including, I suspect, Sinn Féin voters in Northern Ireland—really are questioning why, at a time when we are coming out of covid, with hospital waiting lists at about 350,000, with lots of children in schools having missed out on their education and in need of catch-up and with unemployment having doubled as a result of the covid restrictions, the main concern, and the threat to devolution again, is, “If you do not do the cultural aspects of New Decade, New Approach and allocate resources, Assembly time and political capital to it, we will not allow devolution to be set up again.” Pathetically, the Secretary of State caved in to those threats again with the commitment he made to Sinn Féin that if it is not done in the Assembly by the end of September, he will take the devolution powers and do it in Westminster.
Either the Secretary of State wants parties in Northern Ireland to work together or he does not. Either he wants to try to take the poison out of the system in Northern Ireland or he does not. I can tell this House one thing: if this one-sided pandering to Sinn Féin—setting aside the devolved powers—continues, all he is doing is allowing Sinn Féin to come back time and again. this is the irony: this is a party that refuses to take its seats in this House and wants to see Northern Ireland divorced from the rest of the United Kingdom, but when it cannot get its own way, where is the first place that it goes scurrying to? A British Secretary of State, the British House of Commons—“Please do these things for us because we can’t persuade people in Northern Ireland to do them.”
I think the Secretary of State should think very carefully about the way he undermines devolution. The Bill is meant to be all about sustaining devolution—to try to make devolution stronger, to try to stop it being hijacked by any one party, to try to stop the disruption that we had in the past—and yet, at the same time as the Bill is going through, we have the Secretary of State once again giving the green light to a party that does not want to see stability in Northern Ireland, that does not really care whether there is stability in Northern Ireland, and that gives priority to its niche demands over the main concerns of people in Northern Ireland, whether they are Unionist or nationalist, which are to get money spent and time devoted to dealing with the essential, day-to-day issues.
I listened to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who endorsed this approach. I have to say, the kind of condescending, patronising attitude that we get from the Chair of the Select Committee does not go down very well in Northern Ireland—this kind of condescending attitude: “If the natives can’t get it together, then let’s do it here”. He was talking like some 19th-century colonial ruler. Of course, there are difficult situations and difficult decisions to be made in Northern Ireland. I served as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive for five years; I served as Finance Minister. None of the parties ever accused the DUP at that stage of being one-sided in the way in which it dealt with the finances across Departments. My own party actually complained more about not getting the money for certain things than some of the other parties did, because that is just the job, and if we do not have enough money, we cannot give everyone everything they ask for. But no one ever accused us of being biased. We worked our way through difficult issues including, during that period, the most difficult issue of the devolution of policing and justice. For any Member of this House to suggest that the natives cannot work their way through these things, so we have to take things over occasionally—all it does is ensure that those who wish to be intransigent will continue to be intransigent because they know that they have the safety valve of running to the Secretary of State’s door, and he will sort it all out for them rather than them sorting it out for themselves.
I know that this is not part of the Bill, but the Secretary of State mentioned it and he mentioned his intention in the House today. I give warning to him that if he wants to find a way of undermining devolution and of making it difficult for parties to work together, let him continue down this road of giving in to people because they threaten. Or, maybe it is because the Government fear that Sinn Féin has more of a threat than any other party in the Executive and therefore it has to be pandered to. This does not augur well for devolution.
Let me turn to the terms of the Bill itself and the period of up to 24 weeks for reflection and attempts to try and overcome the difficulties that there are. Sometimes there are issues that parties do not see eye to eye on, which they cannot agree on and which are important to them. There would be that 24-week period with Ministers in place, but I take the point made by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), about what powers those Ministers should have. That is a very fine balance. Do we have 24 weeks in which Ministers have full power without accountability? Do we have 24 weeks in which Ministers have no power other than to administer issues and therefore are not able to deal with serious issues that come up? I do not have an easy answer to that, but she posed an important question.
There may be occasions when that elongated period is necessary. If we are going to have it, we have to be very clear what Ministers can do during that time. If they are simply there as lame ducks, there is no point in having them, yet if they are able to do everything that they would normally be able to do with Assembly scrutiny, I think that there would be grave concerns about that. I hope that some of those issues will be teased out in Committee. I do not know whether it is easy to codify that or put it in the terms of the Bill, but certainly it is not an issue that can be ignored.
On the changes to the petition of concern, I note again what the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said. He said that the changes are necessary to stop the abuses of the petition of concern by the large parties. First, let me make something clear. The Belfast agreement did not put any limitations on the petition of concern. It can be used for whatever purpose. Incidentally, that was not drafted by Sinn Féin or the DUP. We were not the largest parties when the Good Friday agreement was negotiated. It was drafted in that form by the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Ulster Unionist party, who thought that they would be the ones who would be able to exercise the petition of concern. It is very significant that, now that Unionists no longer have a majority in the Assembly, those who clamoured for the petition of concern because they said it was necessary to protect minorities are the ones who wish to see it watered down.
There were not abuses of the petition of concern. Indeed, it was not even used all that often. When it was used, all parties used it, and the time that it was used and abused the most was by the SDLP when it came to welfare reform. I am sure we will get some lectures about the petition of concern when the SDLP speakers get up to speak, but all I can say about the changes is that, incidentally, no one party now would have 30 Members to exclusively put forward a petition of concern, and the petition of concern was one of the safety mechanisms in the agreement, for use when there were divisive issues and one bloc tried to impose those issues on others.
Incidentally—this is significant, again, as an example of the Government’s interference—there is nothing more divisive in Northern Ireland than the Northern Ireland protocol, yet the safety measures in the Belfast agreement for issues such as the protocol have been totally removed. They were totally removed when the protocol and the withdrawal agreement were brought here to the House of Commons. As a result, we now have the protocol being able to be pushed through without any real say by the people who are most affected by it, although, as Members have pointed out today, it is beginning to affect some of their constituents too, because they cannot even trade in Northern Ireland. It is another example of where, in order to attain certain objectives, the Government have cherry-picked parts of the safeguards built into the constitutional structure of Northern Ireland. What angers many people in Northern Ireland is that that seems to be done on issues that most affect the Unionist community. I am sure some of my colleagues will have something to say on some of those other issues.
We will be supporting the Bill tonight, but if the Government want to sustain devolution and see it prosper, it will require more than just this Bill. It will require them to show the same respect to devolution in Northern Ireland as they would show in Scotland and Wales. I guarantee that no Secretary of State for either Scotland or Wales would dare interfere in the devolved settlements in those two countries in the way in which this Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and this Government have done with devolution in Northern Ireland.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
It has been a great pleasure to listen to the speeches so far, in particular the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). His remarks about the future, innovation and the opportunities for Northern Ireland struck a chord with me. They took me back a decade to when I visited Northern Ireland as the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform. I remember very clearly meeting youngsters at a local school and talking predominantly about the future. I was keen to understand how young people viewed the future. When we talk about Northern Ireland we spend a long time, for understandable reasons, talking about the past. I went away from that meeting incredibly optimistic, because they were very keen to focus on what united them and on the opportunities for the future. Those young people who were then in the sixth form will now be in their late 20s. They will be in careers, building businesses and building families. I was very optimistic about that and I echo what my right hon. Friend, a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, said about the opportunities for Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
I add my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on his successful election as the leader of the Democratic Unionist party at what, I suspect, will be a challenging time in Northern Ireland politics. I wish him all success in that role, and in the role he will play in ensuring the devolved institutions remain in being and are able to be successful in helping to govern what is a beautiful part of the United Kingdom.
On the Bill, a lot of the press comment over the past week about the future of the institutions has been rather feverish. It is worth reflecting on something the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said about the timetable. We are considering this proposed legislation in the normal way and I think that is a good thing. It is clear from the programme motion that the Bill will be considered in a Public Bill Committee until July. It will then come back on to the Floor of the House and make its way to the other place to be debated there. Looking at the commencement details, there is a further two-month period before it comes into force. It is therefore worth all the parties in Northern Ireland reflecting over the coming days and weeks that if anything were to happen to the institutions at the moment, the rules governing events are the current rules, which obviously have some very challenging timescales attached to them. It is worth all the parties reflecting that, as we debate the Bill, the rules in force at the moment will be those in force for a considerable period of time.
I support the measures in the Bill, but the Chairman of the Select Committee made a good point—I think it was also touched on by others, including the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson)—about time periods. Although I accept that the current time periods are very tight, there is a danger in extending them too far, whereby we lose the focus we get from the results of democratic elections. The danger is that we allow the results of elections not to be put into place, we do not concentrate people’s minds appropriately and we get drift and indecision; although it may be uncomfortable, we sometimes need deadlines and uncomfortable consequences to enable people to make what are often difficult decisions, to ensure that there are functioning institutions. Although I support what is in the Bill, it is worth our reflecting on whether we are perhaps going too far; it is worth bearing in mind that there is a balance to be struck.
I will briefly touch on what is not in the legislation—I trust I will not tempt you to intervene, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I think we are allowed to touch on this briefly on Second Reading. I wish to reflect on the exchanges I had with the Secretary of State and the exchange involving the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim on the forthcoming legislation on legacy prosecutions. To make it absolutely clear to the hon. Member for Foyle, I certainly do not advocate an amnesty, and I do not believe those in my party who advocate for a better settlement and fairer treatment of veterans have ever argued for one. One important factor in the reputation of the British Army around the world is that our armed forces are bound by the rule of law and if they transgress it, they deserve to suffer the consequences. What we are talking about here is a situation where a due process has been undertaken and vexatious attempts are then made to prosecute people where there has been a proper investigation. This is about how we get that balance right—not through having an amnesty but reflecting that there have been some injustices. That is what we are trying to achieve, and I think the right hon. Member for East Antrim put that point well when he intervened. I will leave that there for now, because it is not covered in this Bill—it will come in separate legislation and I know the Government are considering carefully the right content, to reflect the points made by Members on both sides of the House.
The Secretary of State touched on the final couple of points that I want to make when he talked about where it was right for this House to legislate—the right hon. Member for East Antrim and the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon also mentioned this—and where matters are properly devolved and the Assembly would be able to deal with them. I have had slight differences with the Government on this point in the past. For example, although I very much support same-sex marriage and voted for it in England, my view was that that was a devolved matter that the Northern Ireland institutions should have resolved. I know the former Secretary of State took great pleasure in putting it into force, but I did not agree that it was right for him or the Government to do so—it should have been for the devolved institutions to do so. I raise that because of the debate we had on the cultural aspects of the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which the former Secretary of State touched on. I have been following the debate that has been taking place in Northern Ireland. The understanding that has been set out in the media—which of course is not necessarily completely representative of the facts—is that under the deal that appears to have precipitated the end of the former leader of the Democrat Unionist party, Mr Poots, there had been an agreement that if the cultural aspects of the deal were not dealt with in the Assembly, they would be legislated for here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon has said that his view is that they should be done locally. He is prepared, in extremis, to countenance their being done here. When the Minister of State winds up the debate, could he set out a little of the Government’s thinking about when the devolved aspects should be dealt with by the devolved institutions, and about what the Government’s tests are for when they should be legislated for here?
I would perhaps put it a little less loudly than the right hon. Member for East Antrim, but I broadly support his sentiments that if we have devolved matters, they should be ones for the devolved institutions. As in other parts of the United Kingdom where there are devolved governance mechanisms, we do not have to agree with the decisions of the devolved Administrations in order to accept that they are the right people to be making them. The test for me is not whether I agree with what the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive do; if a matter is devolved, the decision is for them, and it does not matter whether I, the Government or this House like it. The decision is for the institutions to take, and for them to justify to the people who elect them. That is the essence of democratic accountability.
There is an important point here: if those who were elected in Northern Ireland to govern Northern Ireland do not make those decisions and are not held accountable, we damage the entire drive to enable properly functioning democratic institutions. It will not be sustainable if every time something very difficult challenges the ability of those institutions to make decisions, somebody else sorts it out for them, for whatever reason. Whether it is for good motives or not, that will not be helpful in the long term. A little thinking about how the Government approach these matters would be helpful.
The final point, which the right hon. Member for East Antrim and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon touched on, is about the powers of Northern Ireland Ministers in the extended periods when they are able to remain in post but there is no functioning combination of a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister. I think that the Bill is still an improvement on where we are today because, as I understand it, when we were in the long period of having no functioning Government, officials were in the very difficult position of having to manage Departments. For rather obvious reasons, they are incredibly constrained in the decisions that they can take; they are not accountable to anybody, and regardless of their actual powers, they are very constrained in what they are able to do.
I am not clear from having read the Bill and the explanatory notes quite what the legislation envisages, for example about the extent of the powers in the 48-week period with Ministers taking decisions. However, I still think that even if they are having to take quite important or big decisions, they have the benefit of being accountable. They are able to appear before the Assembly and have questions asked of them; that provides better accountability, which is an improvement on having those decisions made by officials.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
This point has now been raised on three occasions. It is probably worth reflecting for the benefit of the House—perhaps the Minister will pick up on it later—that during the negotiations that led to this provision, it was recognised and remains the case that no Minister can act on a significant cross-cutting issue without recourse to the Executive. That also applies if the issue is controversial. In those circumstances, the Executive will not be sitting, because there will not be a First Minister or a Deputy First Minister, so the Minister will have full competence in their range of departmental responsibilities—but should any issue be significant, cross-cutting or controversial and require recourse to the Executive, it should not proceed.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I had in mind what happened during the extensive period in which officials were having to manage these things, when really important issues built up in the national health service in Northern Ireland and there were important decisions to be made about pay, conditions and funding. My understanding, having looked into it, is that there were serious deteriorations in the quality of care provided. I do not think that that raises issues of the sort that the hon. Gentleman raises, but it is obviously helpful if Ministers can take decisions. Even if Ministers are taking decisions that may not have been envisaged when the legislation was set out, at least they have the benefit of being accountable, having to set out both in the Assembly and publicly what they have done and why they have done it and, at some point, being accountable at the ballot box. I think that is an improvement. If the Minister can, in winding up, say anything about the extent of those powers or decision taking that is not currently set out in either of the documents before us, that would be helpful to the House.
I hope that the Bill progresses to Committee after we have concluded our remarks.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
It really is a new experience to be sitting in between the two wings of the DUP. If they need any help to bring themselves back together again, we have a bit of experience in that.
Before I continue, I will deal with some of the points made by the previous speaker, the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). He talked about devolution, and I absolutely agree with him that this place should not be encroaching on the devolution settlement. Those are points that we made during the debate on the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. There is not as much support coming from some quarters of this House to oppose what is very clearly a power grab in all the devolved spaces right across the different policy areas. There is not as much support coming from certain sections of this House for that.
One of the issues that had to be legislated for in this House that could not be legislated for in the Northern Ireland Assembly was marriage equality. In other words, two people who love each other could not get married just because politicians said so. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) talks about politicians being unable to deal with things in a devolved context. I remember being the person who proposed the motion that got majority support for marriage equality in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That was the will of the House, and it was the will of the people, but we were blocked by the petition of concern that the right hon. Gentleman talks about. The petition of concern, despite what he might say, was there to protect minorities. It was abused time and again, including to stop people who loved each other getting married. So this is all connected.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim accused us of using the petition of concern on welfare reform. Absolutely we did, because welfare reform brought through by the Conservative party and supported, surprisingly, by some of the parties in Northern Ireland, was there to attack the most vulnerable in our communities—communities that have been let down and abused over many decades. The people who suffered the most as a result of the troubles in Northern Ireland were being abused again by Governments. I would sign a petition of concern any day of the week to stop that.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim also talked about legacy. I get that it is not his or many other people’s intention to bring about an amnesty, but let me tell him this; we are talking to the British Government every day of the week about this. An amnesty is what you are going to get, because if you say to people, “In the early days of the troubles, your case was properly investigated”—well, it absolutely was not. That is why we are having to go through this process.
Who is going to come with me to see a Bloody Sunday family, or somebody who was shot by the IRA in any year during the conflict, to tell them that they are not entitled to go through the justice process like everybody else? Come with me and do that any day of the week—I will take you to those victims. If you follow what this British Government intend to do, you will be saying not just to veterans, but to IRA people, UVF people, everyone, that they are entitled to walk the streets free, and that the people who were murdered, and their family members who have been left behind, who have suffered the most and have been left out of this peace process, will just have to wait because once again, we are going to let them down.
That is the road that this British Government are on. It flies absolutely in the face of the New Decade, New Approach agreement; it flies in the face of the Stormont House agreement; and it flies in the face of common decency, but that is what you will be supporting. You will be supporting an amnesty for everybody if you support the intentions of this British Government.
On why we are here, I think it is important to remember. I really wish we did not have to be here putting in legislation to stop people walking out of government. It should never be the case that, in the 21st century, any political party should be threatening or walking out of government. We are here because Sinn Féin brought down the institutions for three years. It started with the renewable heat incentive scandal and has ended up with the Irish language and God knows what else. The reality is that we had three years of no Government. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) will know of the long, tortuous hours of negotiating and discussing and going through every one of these issues. I am not a massive fan of much of this Bill, but we will support it because we did not win the argument in the New Decade, New Approach discussions.
Will we all take the same approach—that whatever was agreed in the New Decade, New Approach negotiations should be implemented? That is not happening today. I note that DUP Members are saying that we should not be going over the heads of the devolved space and the Assembly and implementing things that were not agreed. But it was agreed—you have all accepted it.
The Irish language Act that I wanted did not come to pass as part of those negotiations. This Bill’s provisions for language and culture are nowhere near enough. People should be prepared and able to continue to argue for better support for the Irish language, but that is not what was delivered in that agreement. I have to accept that. However, when you are in government in Northern Ireland, you have to implement it. I do not want this place legislating at all in the devolved space, but if parties like the DUP and Sinn Féin cannot deliver in government, this is what is going to keep happening time and again. If you want to stop Westminster going over the heads of the devolved Government, do the things that you agreed to do in the first place, and then we will not be in this situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and I were prepared table amendments to the Bill to deal with the issues of language and culture. We would not have changed one single word that was agreed in the NDNA discussions—the legislation that was published at that time by the Government. Actually, I think that the Government have badly mishandled this last week and we have ended up on the brink of another collapse of our institutions.
Mr Harper
I just want to pick the hon. Gentleman up on his last point. I take his point that the parties agreed on things in New Decade, New Approach, but he has just said that, if the parties in the Assembly cannot sort things out, things will get done here. That is exactly the problem. My argument would be that it is for the public in Northern Ireland to look at how the parties are dealing with commitments they have made and to then reach appropriate decisions at subsequent elections. If the decisions are just taken here, whatever we think about a particular issue, that would effectively let the parties in Northern Ireland off the hook on delivering on their commitments and promises, and it would not end up leading to a robust devolved institution. That is the argument that I would make, countering slightly the point the hon. Gentleman is making.
Colum Eastwood
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He has a very optimistic view of how politics in Northern Ireland works. I have absolutely no interest in things being done here that should be done at home, but people have to live up to the things that they committed to and deliver them.
The reality is, though, that there are a lot of things in New Decade, New Approach. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon will know that I talked about this every single time we met during the negotiations. I am the representative for the city of Derry, and for 57 years we have been denied a full-scale university. It is in New Decade, New Approach. What are the Northern Ireland Executive doing about that? We had to fight like mad to get them to implement the support for the medical school at Magee. What are the Northern Ireland Executive and the British Government, who will need to support this, doing about waiting lists? Again, that is in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. What are the Executive doing about making housing a stand-alone priority in the programme for government?
I very much welcome today’s elevation of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and I phoned him earlier to congratulate him. I was disappointed, though, to hear him say in his first statement as leader of the party that his No. 1 priority will be the protocol. Last week, we heard from Sinn Féin, whose No. 1 priority was the Irish language Act. I want to take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that the SDLP’s No. 1 priority is the 350,00 people languishing on waiting lists, in pain, today, because the Executive have not got round to dealing with that crisis. The waiting lists in Northern Ireland would make a third world country blush. Yet, last week, Sinn Féin threatened to bring down the very edifice of government over the Irish language Act—it is a very important issue, but not the most important issue that we should be dealing with today. This week, the DUP is threatening to bring down the very edifice of government on the protocol.
Would it not be better if we actually sat down together, worked these issues out, worked together, recommitted to the institutions of the Good Friday agreement, and, more importantly, the spirit of the Good Friday agreement and began to deal with the issues that are the real priorities of the people of Northern Ireland—nationalist, Unionist or other?
Sammy Wilson
Will the hon. Member agree then that, since we already spend about £200 million on the Irish language, whether it is in relation to education, broadcasting, street names and a whole lot of other things in Northern Ireland, he would not give priority to further cultural issues when a huge amount of money is needed to deal with the waiting lists he described?
Colum Eastwood
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. He gave a fantastic oration earlier on in support of devolution and the Good Friday agreement. It was fantastic to hear him talking about the Good Friday agreement in such glowing terms. I was 14 or 15 when that was signed. Maybe my memory is not quite serving me right, but I just cannot remember how exactly the DUP voted on the issue of the Good Friday agreement. But if he has now become a convert to the Good Friday agreement and all things power sharing, I welcome him on to the pitch. I am delighted to see it.
The point about the Irish language issue, and all the cultural issues—remember, it was not just the Irish language that was dealt with in the NDNA agreement—is that you can do two things at once; you can do many things at once when you are in government. I would go much further, by the way: I believe absolutely that the language and cultural legislation needs to happen and has to happen as quickly as possible. Do I think we should be threatening the very edifice of government and power sharing over that issue? No, I do not. Equally, do I think we should be threatening the very edifice of government and devolution and power sharing and the Good Friday agreement institutions over the protocol? No, I do not.
That is the problem. We have two parties in control in Northern Ireland—in charge for the last 14 or so years—that are absolutely and totally obsessed with themselves and their own self-interest, with nowhere near enough effort put into dealing with the problems and crises that are evolving, in our collapsing health service and in our education system, which is in real trouble. Why do we not focus our efforts on that, instead of constantly having culture wars and constantly dragging ourselves to the brink of collapse? I will tell hon. Members why: because it suits those two political parties and the system we have created and the bastardisation of the Good Friday agreement that happened at St Andrews to keep having this culture war: “Let’s build both sides up against each other; let’s build the walls higher and higher.”
Why not break down some of the walls? Why do we not realise that the people’s priorities are the health service, access to decent education and a job for the young people? When I walk around the city of Derry, it is a city that has been starved of investment for many a decade, and a city that still does not have—this was in New Decade, New Approach, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon will know, as I helped write some of the words in that document—the full-scale university that it desperately needs. Derry needs that university to stem the tide of our young people leaving—hundreds of them every year, never coming back.
They are the issues we should deal with. They are not Unionist priorities. They are not nationalist priorities. They are priorities for every single one of our citizens. For God’s sake, can we not start dealing with those, instead of bringing ourselves to the brink of collapse every single time?
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The Secretary of State made reference to the fact that this Bill coincidentally—or perhaps by design—coincides with the 100th anniversary of the official opening of the Northern Ireland Parliament. It is worth my referring to the words of King George V at the official opening, when he appealed to those listening to do their utmost
“to stretch out the hand of forbearance and conciliation, to forgive and to forget, and to join in making for the land which they love a new era of peace, contentment, and goodwill.”
If we perhaps leave aside some of the historical context, it is none the less worth noting how relevant those words are to the situation in which we in Northern Ireland find ourselves today. We need to be very conscious that if things go wrong and people push and push and push, we could see a situation in which Northern Ireland and the future of power sharing and devolution are in real trouble.
There is a certain irony, particularly in respect of the sustainability aspects of the legislation, that this debate is happening at a time when, under the outgoing rules on the seven-day window, there is so much turmoil in Northern Ireland, some parties are playing fast and loose with those rules and putting demands on the table, and, if things go wrong, we could potentially see Northern Ireland going for an early election. An election would see the fall of a lot of legislation that is currently in works, including an important justice Bill, and would further delay the urgent reforms that are required for our health and education systems and the process of job creation. Elections are, of course, always important for democratic renewal, but it is none the less important that politicians fulfil their mandates and do the job they are required to do on behalf of the people.
I will certainly support the Bill today. It is about putting into practice some of the governance aspects of the New Decade, New Approach agreement that fall to Westminster, and there may well be some aspects on which we can go further and perhaps clarify some ambiguities that were left in that agreement. I mean no disrespect to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who did an absolutely marvellous job in his leadership on negotiating the agreement, but there are things that could be clarified. In some areas of the agreement, we could go further in building on the reforms that are offered.
It is important to recognise that, ultimately, rules can take us only so far in terms of any structures. Any society has to work on the basis of trust, conventions and respect among the various political actors—those norms of democracy. In the context of Northern Ireland in particular, that relates to partnership and power sharing. At times, we see trust and mutual respect pushed to the very limits. The boundaries of what is necessary to maintain the integrity of devolution are frequently being breached. We cannot see that as sustainable.
Two particular aspects are currently focusing minds: the first relates to the protocol and the second to the language and cultural package. First, on the protocol, it is important that we remind ourselves why the protocol is here: it is the outworking of Brexit and, in particular, the decisions on the very nature of Brexit that were taken by the Government and, indeed, this Parliament. The protocol is a response to decisions taken elsewhere.
At times, the current situation is seen very much through the lens of Unionist discontent with the situation. However, it is important to bear in mind that there is a wider community in Northern Ireland and most people in Northern Ireland recognise why the protocol is there. They do not see it as a breach of the Good Friday agreement or of the constitutional settlement—the principle of consent is written in stone in respect of the various withdrawal agreement documents—and they want to see a situation in which the problems are resolved and we end up with genuine political stability and, indeed, stability for businesses in terms of investment. That means not scrapping the protocol or taking us to or over brink, but finding practical solutions.
I was pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon make reference to doing even a temporary veterinary agreement. That is of fundamental importance in addressing the checks across the Irish sea. If such an agreement were implemented, we could see the removal of 80% of those checks. If all parties in Northern Ireland pushed in that direction, I think the UK Government would listen a lot more in that regard. The Government need to be very conscious of the choices they make—whether they want to pursue a very pure Brexit or to be pragmatic—for the sake of Northern Ireland and stability.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Gentleman talks about the commercial impact of the protocol. As his party has Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly, has he no concerns that, as a result of the protocol, many of the things that are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and many of the laws and regulations that were made in the Northern Ireland Assembly will and can no longer be made there, but will be made in Brussels?
Stephen Farry
When we were part of the European Union, certain laws were made in Brussels, but, of course, we had democratic representation at the time. This is all about the pooling of sovereignty, which means that we gain much greater benefits through being part of a much bigger enterprise. While the right hon. Gentleman is perhaps correct to point to the fact that there is now that democratic deficit, there are things that can be done in terms of what happens to the UK representation through, for example, the Joint Consultative Working Group. The European Union is also being innovative in trying to find space for voices from Northern Ireland to address some of these issues. None the less, it is far from perfect, which is one of the many reasons why we were opposed to Brexit in the first place.
The language and culture aspects of the current situation were very much part of the New Decade, New Approach agreement. It is fair to say that the language and culture issues were the most fundamental and, indeed, intractable part of what was almost a three-year interregnum of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is natural that there is a focus on getting those issues delivered in a timely way. Indeed, the document itself refers to its happening within 100 days. In theory, if it were not for covid, the Assembly would have acted by now.
I appreciate that comments have been made about this issue being something for the Northern Ireland Assembly to sort out and for democratic politicians to work through, but there are two things to say in response to that. First, it has not happened. I very much wish that it had happened in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it has not. If need be, Westminster may have to intervene to address it. Secondly, this is not an ordinary democratic issue that comes along from time to time that politicians have to address. All five parties in the Northern Ireland Executive are back in office due to the New Decade, New Approach agreement. If we find a situation in which we do not honour the agreements that we make around the integrity of devolution, then devolution will collapse. That is the reality, and that is why this is seen in that very particular light.
There are those who point to a much sadder situation where, time after time, we are seeing agreements made and breached. In particular, aspects in relation to rights on equality do not seem to move through the Northern Ireland Assembly for one reason or another. That is a source not just of frustration for many, but of despair for those who depend on those rights. That moves beyond simply issues around the culture and language aspects and into areas around marriage equality and women’s reproductive rights, on which the Minister of State is working very keenly.
I want to focus on the three different sections of the Bill. The first is the sustainability of the institutions. Again, rather than having just seven days following the collapse of the institutions, it may well be necessary to have a little more breathing space, but that does bring a downside, which some Members have very ably drawn out today. There are also some wider issues around sustainability, which is how the institutions evolve to meet the needs of an evolving society.
Northern Ireland is a very diverse society, but if we go back to 1998, there was this working assumption that the world was divided into two camps—the Unionist camp and the nationalist camp—and there were a small number of people in between who were either “others” or “neithers”. They were perhaps a slightly awkward group that could be put to one side because they were not that many, but, over time, that centre ground bloc, or those who were designated as “others”, has grown dramatically in the Assembly. Indeed, after the next Assembly election, who knows, they could represent more than 20% of the Members of the Assembly.
In that context, the nature of designations becomes ever more untenable. They are fundamentally anti-democratic; they are about dividing Northern Ireland and sending out a message that Northern Ireland is fundamentally divided and will be so perpetually, which is not how many people, particularly young people, wish to see the future of their society. It is entirely possible to have power-sharing in different ways, through weighted majorities and so on, where we do not need the system of designations.
The same applies to how we form Governments in Northern Ireland through what was a mandatory coalition, with the built-in vetoes that caused so much damage. There are other ways in which power-sharing can be done with different models of associational democracy. The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) referred to an associational model. It is important that the Government are conscious that in the very near future some of the fundamental rules of the Assembly, particularly the assumption that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will always be a Unionist or a nationalist, may come under pressure through electoral demographic change and we could see a major crisis of legitimacy of the institutions. It is important that the Government act ahead of that rather than in response to yet another crisis that may emerge.
The ministerial code has perhaps not had the same amount of attention in this debate as other matters. It is very welcome that we strengthen the standard to which Ministers are required to keep in Northern Ireland. In doing so, however, it is worth referencing that what is proposed on paper for Northern Ireland now goes further than what is the norm for the UK Government in their operations. Obviously in recent months there has been a lot of controversy in Whitehall over the ministerial code and how it is enforced. That rather prompts the question: if it is good enough for Northern Ireland to have a strengthened ministerial code with independent enforcement and oversight, then why not Whitehall as well? In Northern Ireland the ministerial code is frequently breached by Ministers from a number of parties on a regular basis, so simply having an improved code on paper does not always mean that we see an improvement in practice.
On petitions of concern, there has been a long-standing demand for reform from my party and indeed many others. There have been particular frustrations over recent years where petitions of concern have been used, and indeed abused, to block the delivery of rights and equality issues in Northern Ireland. In effect, it gives a party that previously had over 30 seats the ability to have the net equivalent of 55 or 56 seats and to block anything that it does not like. That is not democratic. It moves us away from the original intent in the Good Friday agreement: the petition of concern was to protect the vital interests of different sections of the community, not to enable rights that cut across the entire community to be blocked. I welcome what has been negotiated in New Decade, New Approach, which will hopefully be placed into law, although I am still slightly sceptical as to whether it goes far enough. We may need to revise and review it in future if it proves not to be workable. None the less, it is good to see it on paper.
Alongside that, it is worth stressing that the petition of concern in the Assembly is only one feature of the vetoes. There are also the hidden vetoes that operate inside the Northern Ireland Executive: not only the vetoes tabled by the Executive, where a number of Ministers can block an issue; but because the two largest parties control the agenda of the Executive and either party can prevent an issue from even coming to the Executive table. Those areas also need to be addressed if we are to have a proper functioning democracy.
My final point is about legacy. I will hopefully come back to this if and when a Bill is produced by the Government in due course. While it is welcome that the Government are being faithful to the governance aspects of New Decade, New Approach, it is worth stressing that in terms of legacy they are not. The chapter on legacy in New Decade, New Approach refers directly to Stormont House; in fact, that is its actual title. It could not be more clear that the intention in that document is to deliver the previous agreement that was made between the UK and Irish Governments and a number of the other parties back in 2014.
However, we have seen a major U-turn away from the principles of Stormont House and, indeed, the content of Stormont House. I concur with what other Members have said, including particularly the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), in that what we are likely to see is a de facto amnesty. We cannot do what Parliament wants to do in relation to members and veterans of the armed forces, and not do the same in relation to those people who were involved in terrorist organisations. It has to be uniform, and the Government know that is the legal advice they have been given.
It is worth stressing that what may be coming down the tracks on legacy does not have the support, at least in public, of any political party in Northern Ireland, it does not have the support of any of the victims groups right across the community and it is something that may well be imposed over the heads of those in Northern Ireland. Right around the world, whenever we see different forms of transitional justice, even those that may well have a statute of limitations or indeed an amnesty, they are part of a wider peace agreement and they have legitimacy whenever parties across the political spectrum buy into them. That is not the case with what may be happening in Northern Ireland. That point stands apart from the fact that what may well be coming from the Government is not likely to comply with article 2 of the European convention on human rights, and what is proposed will eventually be struck down in the courts. We will wait and see what emerges, but for today I am happy to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a genuine pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) and indeed, before him, the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). It is at moments when the House has to debate matters relating to Northern Ireland and to Northern Ireland alone that the somewhat asymmetric nature of the Union that makes up the United Kingdom is most apparent. I think it assists the House enormously that we are able to hear now a variety—a multiplicity—of views coming from Northern Ireland. I thank those hon. Members, and indeed all hon. Members from Northern Ireland who have made their contribution to this debate today.
I also place on record my congratulations and the congratulations of my party to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on assuming the leadership of his party. He does so at a difficult and challenging time, and I am sure that he has the good wishes of all parts of the House in taking on the task that he has undertaken.
My party, like those represented by everybody else who has spoken today, will support the measures in this Bill. I think it is perhaps worth reflecting parenthetically that, in a debate that has generated a fair amount of disagreement, the one thing in respect of which there has been universal agreement is that we all support the Bill. That just makes me wonder whether the measures in the Bill are the equal of the political situation that it purports to deal with.
I think the political context is important here. Let us not ignore the fact that much of the political instability to which others have referred is a consequence of the Brexit deal that was done by the Prime Minister and of the Northern Ireland protocol. I suggest that the Prime Minister and his party have for the most part, with a few honourable exceptions such as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), been careless in the custody of their duties under the Good Friday agreement. I have always felt that they never really understood the genuinely fragile nature of the peace that was created by the Good Friday agreement, and that it becomes acute at a moment like this as a consequence. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Down just said, the most obvious and sensible thing that could be done at the moment is the negotiation of a temporary veterinary agreement in relation to Northern Ireland. It would, I think, be something not that difficult to construct, but for reasons of dogma as much as anything else, the Government seem incapable of doing that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I were both in this House in 2003 when it was necessary to cancel elections to the then Northern Ireland Assembly. That was a difficult and painful time. It led to the suspension of the Assembly and to business and legislation relating to Northern Ireland being conducted directly from this Parliament. It was a disgrace. I remember whole Bills going through in Committee Rooms upstairs in 90 minutes for all stages. The idea that there was any democratic scrutiny or accountability as part of that process is nonsensical. Therefore, at the very least, I welcome the fact that we are managing not to return to that. However, as I look around the Chamber, there are not many hon. Members who were here in 2003, so I remind them of what it was like under direct rule when the Assembly collapsed previously. It would not be in their constituents’ best interests to return to that.
As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Select Committee, said, this is not emergency legislation. Of course, in the technical, parliamentary sense of the term, it is not, but I suggest that it is still urgent. He also said that the Good Friday agreement was a process, and he was correct in that as well. However, as somebody who has observed and participated in the conduct of Northern Ireland business in this House for some time, I think that it is a process that we might have hoped would bring us further and faster than it has done. It established a framework for the people of Northern Ireland to deal with problems for themselves through politics rather than through violence. Although it sounds modest to say that now, it was a significant achievement. The process started actually under Margaret Thatcher and went through the Governments of John Major and Tony Blair.
In the course of the debate, many people, including the right hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), have reflected on the different ways in which devolution works, and unfavourable comparisons have been made about its operation in Scotland and Wales compared to Northern Ireland. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, I was part of the process that saw the set-up of the Scottish Parliament. The Liberal Democrats were an active participant, along with the Labour party, the local authorities, Churches and other parts of civic Scotland, in the constitutional convention that constructed the blueprint for the Scottish Parliament. Those were the roots of devolution in Scotland, and we did that out of a concern that Scottish institutions and Scots law would be better protected and promoted through a devolved Parliament.
Devolution in Scotland and Wales was the product not of a peace process but of an aspiration to make democracy work better and make democratic politics work better for Scotland and Northern Ireland. To suggest now that a comparison can be made is, I am afraid, misleading. It is rooted in a misunderstanding of the process that has brought us to this point. An understanding of the process that brought us to devolution is important, because that reminds us of the consequences should we allow devolution—the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland—to fail.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Down spoke about designations and the difficulties now with the model of government set up under the Good Friday agreement. He is absolutely right. So much in that agreement created institutions that were never intended to be as enduring as they have been. The purpose of power sharing was to provide an environment in which the communities could work together eventually to achieve what we in the rest of the UK would regard as normal politics, where it would not be necessary to have an Executive constituted in the way that they are, where, in effect, everybody is in government and nobody is in opposition. That is why the one tiny point of disagreement I have with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is when he says we should be seeking to maintain the status quo. The status quo was never meant to be maintained, and I do not believe that in the long term it is sustainable as a democratic exercise. We need to be more ambitious than that, and for those in this House there must come a point when we decide whether we help the progress towards normal democratic politics in Northern Ireland by continuing to “help out” or whether eventually we will have to say that that is a problem for the Northern Ireland institutions themselves to resolve. For today, on Second Reading, this Bill has my support, but I want it to be clearly understood that in as much as it does sustain a status quo, it can do that only to create stability to ensure further progress. Otherwise, it is always going to be a waste of time.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The New Decade, New Approach agreement certainly paved the way for the return of the Northern Ireland Assembly in January 2020, and this was welcomed by everyone. It is therefore ironic that the backdrop to today’s Second Reading debate is a decision of this Government to threaten to usurp the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the exercise of its newly restored powers, not to prioritise the promises and pledges on health, the economy and education but to prioritise a cultural package. Mention has already been made of this, but I need to reiterate that the three-year long crisis and absence of devolution in Northern Ireland was precipitated by Sinn Féin’s refusal to share power unless and until its demands were met. In doing so, it held to ransom not just the other political parties in Northern Ireland but every person on the health service waiting lists, as they spiralled out of control.
Somewhere along the line, the fact that the sustainability provisions in this Bill are actually needed as a direct result of the behaviour of Sinn Féin would seem to have been forgotten. A former Member of this House for the Foyle constituency used to say, “What gets rewarded gets repeated”, and that is never more true than today. Last week, Sinn Féin played the same old trick again and, surprise, surprise, was richly rewarded by this Government. That is the message that will have been heard loud and clear across Northern Ireland. The precedent has been set. If Sinn Féin was prepared to use such tactics to speed up the delivery of a cultural package, many in my community would ask why Unionists would not adopt the same approach when the constitutional status of Northern Ireland within the UK is at stake, under the guise of the protocol.
At its heart, this Bill is about the sustainability of the political institutions in Northern Ireland, yet the delay in introducing this legislation has contributed to the lack of political stability in the Province. Had the Government introduced this legislation sooner, they might have avoided the ransom politics of Sinn Féin, who were prepared to hold the political institutions hostage over the timing of a cultural package set out in NDNA. Having spent three years working to secure the return of powers at Stormont, Sinn Féin wasted no time in giving back control to Westminster, not because the DUP refused to implement the cultural aspects of NDNA, but because it would not do so ahead of other priorities within that agreement. As a Unionist, I suppose the fact that Sinn Féin has changed its message from “Brits out” to “Brits in” should be regarded as progress. However, the fact that the Government are prepared to pass legislation without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly on matters that are entirely within the devolved arena at the behest of a party that does not even take its seats in this House is beyond parody.
The last time the Government breached the Sewel convention, with regard to abortion and same-sex marriage, they did so under the cover of the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, much to my frustration and despair. Today, no such pretence or pretext exists. Instead, a new exception to the Sewel convention has been created. In the light of this background, the fact that elements of this Bill will not achieve the desired objectives seems almost irrelevant. Let us take just one example. When the First Minister or Deputy First Minister resigns, as happened last week, there can now be a period of up to 24 weeks to replace them without the need for a fresh election, but there are no arrangements in place to allow the institutions to function credibly during this period. In the absence of a First Minister or Deputy First Minister, no Executive can meet and Ministers are unable to take significant or controversial decisions. That is not a sustainable way to do business, and I hope that those arrangements can be looked at again in light of recent experience.
My party signed up to New Decade, New Approach in its entirety, not because we welcomed every dot and comma but because we believe in devolution and we believed that the agreement was a pathway forward for the devolved institutions. It was by no means a deal without fault, but with waiting lists spiralling out of control, with the challenges posed by Brexit, with the need to address educational underachievement, with welfare reform mitigations coming to an end and with so many other issues pressing on people’s lives, we engaged with other parties to stop the harm that Sinn Féin’s boycott was doing to ordinary people in Northern Ireland.
However, NDNA is about more than the cultural provisions on which there is considerable focus. It also deals with the reform of public services, policing resources, infrastructure investment and so much more, yet on much of this there has been no progress and nothing said. The voices on these Benches from within the Government and the Opposition that are so exercised by the Irish language question are silent on the worst waiting lists in the whole of the United Kingdom.
The Bill is designed to address the sustainability of the political institutions in Northern Ireland, yet in the final analysis the Assembly will be sustainable only if the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland is respected. My party is prepared to lend its support to the Bill tonight, but I have very real concerns that the Bill is too little, too late. Through their actions in recent days, the Government have damaged the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland in a way that they would never countenance doing in Scotland or Wales. The real challenge for this Government in the coming weeks will be to address their commitments in New Decade, New Approach in relation to the UK’s internal market. I trust that, in that endeavour, we can count on those in this House who supported the Government’s approach to the culture package to display the same enthusiasm in that regard.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). I guess I also need to reflect on the points made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). He made two points, and I substantially agree with the first, which was about the range of voices from Northern Ireland in this debate and the positive aspect that that brings to our deliberations in this House. I say that acutely knowing that I am following a colleague of mine and that people will be thinking, “For goodness’ sake, we’ve just had six minutes of that, and now we’re going to get another 15 or 20 from the big lad.” I promise I will try to give an alternative reflection.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is right, and I too believe that the 2017 to 2019 Parliament was greatly inhibited by the curtailed voices. There was no range of voices from Northern Ireland save for that of Sylvia Hermon, the former hon. Member for North Down. That is not to say that I agree with everything that is said or with other contributions, but I think this House benefits from a range of reflections. I also make the point, since there are now a range of voices from Northern Ireland in Parliament, that it is still important that the other parties engage with us. It would be a shame for anyone to think that they now have a buddy or a mate in Parliament, so there is no need to broaden their own horizons; that would similarly be a foolhardy mistake. I look forward to continued engagement with the right hon. Gentleman.
The fact that there is widespread critical agreement on the progress of the Bill through Second Reading highlights the point that it is probably not that significant an advancement. Its provisions take us so far and make some changes, but they are not significant in and of themselves. It is appropriate, however, that there are advancements to New Decade, New Approach, and in a legislative sense it is appropriate that those aspects are before us today.
It is right that we reflect that this is non-emergency legislation. That is nice for me as a Member of Parliament who has been here for six years and seen hugely significant issues that affect the people of Northern Ireland rushed through this Chamber in a three or four-hour process of Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading. None of that is appropriate. It is important to recognise how this is progressing and is intended to progress over the months to come.
We benefited not only from the contribution that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) made earlier, but from his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I remember the engagement that we had at Stormont House on the discussions about New Decade, New Approach, and the personal determination that he had at the time to make sure that politics worked; I sometimes feel that that is lacking now. I hear time and again from community voices, sectoral support, business and public servants in Northern Ireland, all of which still have good contact with the right hon. Member and still hugely value the contribution that he made to our society in Northern Ireland. That energy and drive was predicated on Northern Ireland people working for Northern Ireland people on supporting devolution in Northern Ireland, on making it work no matter how difficult or intractable the problems appeared, on highlighting, recognising and dealing with the continual difficulties in our society, and on supporting us collectively across the political spectrum to deal with those issues in Northern Ireland.
That is why I think that the commitment made last week was so retrograde. We know that there are challenges—they have been reflected in this debate—but do not turn around and give the impression that “If you just can’t do it, we’ll do it for you.” I said to the Minister of State two weeks ago, “Do not make the commitment that you will legislate on any aspect of NDNA without political consent, because the political party that you are going to do it for still needs to work with other political parties in Northern Ireland.”
The only way that devolution will be successful in our Province—the only way that we will continue on the pathway from troubles to peace—is if we work with one another, trust one another and build a relationship based on shared values and a shared outlook on how we grow as a society. If the British Government, the Irish Government or the American Government step in at every turn and say, “Come on, now, I’ll hold your hand and take you down this certain path, because that’s where you want to go,” it will not work.
The short-term gain of what was agreed last week is futile and fundamentally injurious to devolution in Northern Ireland. I say at this stage—it is not part of the Bill, but it is intrinsic to all that has gone before—that the Government need to recognise that continuing along the path that they have outlined would be hugely detrimental to progress in Northern Ireland. I say that with no joy—none whatever.
The protocol was mentioned. It is a hugely symbolic and genuinely difficult issue affecting all strands and strata of our society. We hear voices at one side saying, “It’s all a disaster and it’s all been imposed upon us,” and we hear others saying, “Well, you brought it upon yourselves.” None of that actually matters at the end of the day for the ordinary consumer, the ordinary businessman or the ordinary member of our community who is striving for the best but sees the barriers ahead of them.
I heard the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood)—I am glad that he is back in the Chamber as he gets a mention—say that he was surprised that the protocol featured in the statements made today; “Why not the priority of the health service?” We first need to recognise the difficulties. We need to highlight the problems and work to resolve them. But make no mistake about it: there was a suggestion that a focus on veterinary agreement would be significant in relation to the protocol; it is but one aspect.
We recognise the challenges in the health service. How do we deal with the challenges in the health service if we do not deal with the grace period on medicines that is going to expire? Was it not the European Union, three months ago, that sought to trigger article 16 to prevent the export of vaccines to Northern Ireland? It was. We saw cancer drugs get approval by our UK medical agency in the last month, but the European medical agency had not yet quite made the approval, so those cancer drugs were not being made available in Northern Ireland, a part of this country—a constitutionally integral part of this country, enshrined under the Good Friday agreement that we all seek to protect.
Let us not suggest that veterinary issues alone will solve the protocol. They will deal with the significant impediment of barriers for food and animal products, but they will not deal with the totality of it.
Stephen Farry
I appreciate what the hon. Member says about medicines. It is important that we have a resolution in that regard, and I believe that some very good work is being done by both the European Commission and, let me say, the UK Government in that regard. But on the veterinary agreement, although I appreciate that it is only one part of the equation, would his party join all other parties in Northern Ireland in making a common call to the Government in that very particular respect? I appreciate that it does not address all the issues, but surely, if all five parties were to make a common pitch on that one topic, it would make a huge difference, and I would expect the Government to listen to that.
Gavin Robinson
I understand why the hon. Member puts forward that proposition, but he is falling into the same trap. That alone will not solve it. If we go collectively as five parties and say, “Sort out veterinary,” the Government will, but does that solve all the problems impacting Northern Ireland on the protocol? No, it does not. Does it solve the medicines issue? No, it does not.
There was a clamour months ago about steel, and a resolution was found for the importation of steel into Northern Ireland, with a Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs fix. Did it do anything for aluminium? No, it did not. Does that impact aerospace, the largest private employer in my constituency and a huge employer in the hon. Member’s constituency—something we recognise that, despite the problems last year with coronavirus, had £1.4 billion-worth of economic benefit to Northern Ireland and still employs 6,500 people? Is that on the table for resolution? I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of my disappointment and anger when I got a message back from the Northern Ireland Office indicating, “Well, actually, the letter was sent to Mr Šefčovič, and it’s not going to be added to the agenda.” There has been little change since.
That is before we touch on the constitutional aspects and before we touch on the democratic deficit associated with the protocol. I am not saying that we should not collaborate on veterinary checks, but let us not go down the rabbit hole of focusing solely on one singular issue when the issues are many, deep and broad and they need to be resolved.
I shall conclude on this, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are challenges in society in Northern Ireland. There have been concerns around the stability of our institutions in Northern Ireland and the opportunity for progress. Although I recognise them all, I will not lose my passion for progress in Northern Ireland—for all of us, irrespective of our differences, working together in Northern Ireland. It costs me nothing to say I believe and agree that commitments that were entered into shall and will be honoured, but we cannot ignore the huge and damaging impact that the protocol has brought to society in Northern Ireland and the unease that abounds throughout my community and many others, and we have to buckle down and deliver, and solve it.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). We served together as Belfast city councillors and his voice and his views are always worth hearing. I believe that if they were the values and views projected by his party we would be in a much better position. While not seeking to put him on the spot, I think that was a very important point to make about the fact that if we, as five parties, went to the Government—if I am hearing him correctly—and spoke about how much a veterinary agreement would solve many of the problems facing us in Northern Ireland, he believes the Government would listen. I hope that that is the case, because he, like me, will know that there is progress to be made and fixes to be done on medicines. He will know that there is not a person in Northern Ireland who has been denied cancer drugs as a result of Brexit or anything else, but that constructive spirit would take us very far indeed and I would like to endorse the proposal.
January 2020, before covid and Brexit, might feel like a completely different place and time politically, but the politics of the past fortnight have been a reminder of the culture of crisis, stand-off, side deal and repeat that dogged devolution and the operation of the Good Friday institutions, and preceded the 2017 to 2020 collapse and the New Decade, New Approach deal that followed it. That came after three years in which Northern Ireland was a governance black hole. While the whole world was talking about the Good Friday agreement, its institutions were lying empty. Because of that, the agreement spans very many issues, including waiting lists, support for victims of the troubles, third-level education and childcare. Those were the preoccupations of the SDLP during the negotiations and I think they better reflect the preoccupations of the electorate as well.
It is worth reminding Members that it was not the deep desire of the power parties that restored Stormont, but the message sent by the electorate in December 2019—my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) were elected in that election—and the message sent by striking healthcare workers. Credit for getting power back to the Good Friday institutions goes to them, along with, it must be said, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who by all accounts and all regards is the best Northern Ireland Secretary we have had in a generation. His commitment was matched by the then Tánaiste Simon Coveney. They, and particularly the healthcare workers and the striking nurses in Northern Ireland, deserve credit. They and other people voted for a break in the stalemate, but they expect and need a lot more than just the absence of stalemate. They want delivery on all the policy commitments in New Decade, New Approach and in terms of change to the governing culture.
There is no doubt that covid has been an immense drain on political and legislative time, and there is no doubt that Brexit has been a drain on good will and political energy, but neither of those explains or excuses the paralysis that has beset many of the commitments in New Decade, New Approach. Culture and language fall into that category. They are not, in fact, among the most complex and challenging issues. The New Decade, New Approach commitment endorses a three-dimensional legislative compact that was drawn up by the Office of the Legislative Counsel in Northern Ireland, so it was not one-sided or maximalist. It means that many of those who for many years and in good faith campaigned strongly and honourably for an Irish language Act will see that the legislative guarantees are not as free-standing or as far-reaching as they wished to see.
That should have meant that those who opposed the Act would be encouraged to recognise that its nature, balance and thrust were not in one direction and not out of proportion in terms of purported cost or unwanted impact on anybody. Edwin Poots himself, as he was departing, said that one of Unionism’s faults is that it plays up the wins of others and plays down its own achievements. This is a very good example of that. This was an opportunity for the DUP to agree to a balanced package and I regret that it seems to be rejecting it. The Assembly has passed other legislation since its resumption last January, so there is no reason it could not pass this “Blue Peter” “Here’s one we made earlier” Bill. The only reason it has not passed it is resistance and reluctance. The former First Minister Arlene Foster waited until her resignation statement to commend the package, but that was a proportionate perspective that could have been used, in partnership with her fellow First Minister, to bring forward the Bill that would have been a significant part of an honourable legacy for her, a meaningful gesture towards a shared future and a signal that the DUP is willing and able to share power.
Like the hon. Member for North Down, the King George V speech has caught my attention today as well. There is a lot in it that is worth quoting. I am not usually given to quoting monarchs, but perhaps some of my DUP colleagues will take it more from a former king than they will from their neighbours. As well as the points that the hon. Member outlined, he talked about a Parliament for Northern Ireland being
“an instrument of happiness and good government for all parts of the community”.
He talked about
“moderation, with fairness and due regard to every faith and interest”
and about bringing forward
“a new era of peace, contentment, and good will”
upon
“sure foundations of mutual justice and respect.”
I say, 100 years on: please can we have another crack at doing that? The words ring very true.
If the issue is the UK Government legislating over your head on the Irish language, the opportunity still exists to send a signal to your neighbours that you are prepared to do it on their behalf. Withholding legislation on language as a worn-down bargaining chip is not a basis for meaningful sharing—neither, though, is Sinn Féin’s tactic of withholding the whole of devolution to achieve it. Sinn Féin criticised the DUP for withholding its nomination and the DUP criticised Sinn Féin the week before for withholding its nomination, with each party righteously condemning the mirror-image tactic from the other and each instalment draining away belief and faith in power sharing among the general population.
Over recent weeks, against the backdrop of no movement on bringing forward these legislative terms, the SDLP, as an honourable party to New Decade, New Approach, explored with the Secretary of State whether those pre-published legislative terms could be included by amendment to this Bill, which is, of course, a vehicle for advancing those aspects. Although he rested the onus us to design the relevant amendments that might be scoped, we established that the Government were not opposed in principle or practice to Westminster legislating for that, on the basis that it had been signed off by all five parties. We are grateful for the assistance of Clerks and drafters in navigating those possibilities.
We had proposed to table specifically and faithfully the legislative drafts that were agreed by all those parties and drafted by the Office of the Legislative Counsel—no more and no less were we going to do—and, in draft format, those amendments run to only 23 pages, so they would be even fewer in Bill form. Now that the Government have declared in public what they had agreed in private, the obvious question occurs: why not now with the means available to us with this Bill? There is a real argument, we believe, that it would be better to incorporate this package into this miscellaneous approach to New Decade, New Approach rather than leaving it until October when other factors might be at play. We have seen slippiness and slipperiness when it comes to previous commitments. As others have outlined, we are grossly overdue legislation relating to victims and New Decade, New Approach, so we do not and cannot have blind faith in how the Government will discharge that commitment, or what concession or other factor they will read into it in the autumn. We hope that the people of Northern Ireland and the Gaeilgeoirs of Northern Ireland do not look back in a few months on this as a missed opportunity.
This tale of the last few weeks of bad faith and foot dragging are the last 14 years of stop-start governance in microcosm. For all that the letter and spirit of the agreement are used as an amulet for people for or against Brexit, the spirit of power sharing and working the common ground, and of building trust through mutual endeavour, are quite absent from the Assembly. Watching that daily in the media drains away those feelings in the public. We are now very far off the vision that in 1998 created infrastructure and architecture to manage differences and to be able to realise a better future in Northern Ireland.
There are other issues on which we will table amendments, and we will not resile from New Decade, New Approach, but we will put forward ways that would strengthen the provisions in that and correct some of the divergence from the concepts of the Good Friday agreement—on, for example, restoring the joint nature of the First Minister’s office, which has been distorted by St Andrews. That was a centrepiece of strand 1, and although we hear a lot of waxing about parallel consent, that was the part of the Good Friday agreement that spoke about parallel consent and about the Assembly collectively nominating the First Ministers who would then be accountable to it. That foundation that would embed those concepts in the Assembly as an act of leadership from the top down was stripped out by the DUP and Sinn Féin at St Andrews.
Similar corrections to the petitions of concern are sensible and valid. It was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle outlined, a mechanism designed to protect minorities, but instead it is used to thwart them. In fact, it is now thought of as a byword for veto, and that extends to the vetoholic tendencies of the DUP in the Executive and other corruptions of the agreement inserted at St Andrews. The three-Minister provision is causing absolute logjam in the Executive office and prevents Ministers from bringing forward progressive and productive legislation because they know that it will be thwarted at the Executive.
There are a number of other good points to be made and discussed around the issue of designation, which runs the risk, when it is wielded as it is by the larger parties, of locking in and embedding some of the sectarianism that the Good Friday agreement was designed to phase out. We look forward to discussing some of those issues.
Stability and sustainability ultimately will not come from rules and procedures; they will come from people believing, understanding and accepting that sharing power with their neighbours is the right thing to do, and not just sharing that power because the law tells them that they cannot make decisions without it. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) made a number of good points about how devolution is not just about preventing conflict, because if we look at Scotland and Wales, it is of course about local power being in local hands, and about people being able to realise opportunities that those elected close to the ground will understand.
The hon. Member for Belfast East about spoke about common grounds and shared values. They are what we all want; they unite people of all backgrounds in south Belfast and in Northern Ireland as a whole, but they are currently absent from the top the Assembly. They would be displayed if the DUP were willing to advance all the aspects of the New Decade, New Approach deal, and if they were, legislation would not be required from this House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I want to give the perspective of those in the Unionist community who are very disillusioned and have great concerns, which I will express at some length in the time that I have been allocated.
As a Northern Ireland MP, a Unionist and a resident of Northern Ireland, I must express my great concern about the work and movement of this House, not in the Bill, which has been introduced in an appropriate manner and by the correct mechanism, but on Northern Ireland issues, which the Minister has not deigned to lay before Members of the House or indeed answer to in the House. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply to what I and other Members have said from all perspectives across the House, however.
It is very fitting that the Bill is before the House because the fractious state of emotions in Northern Ireland could well see an election called shortly. Indeed, it could be called before the Bill has managed to make its way through the due process. I am not saying that that will happen or that I want that to happen, but it could happen because of where we are. I have often taken due process for granted, but it is absolutely missed when it is not in place.
I was beyond shocked last Thursday to hear that a deal had been done—it was promoted as such on TV—with Sinn Féin to deliver on the Irish language aspect of the New Decade, New Approach deal, especially when so many life-changing aspects have been left behind. The Bill brings in aspects of the new deal, yet I do not see the Irish language aspect anywhere, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said. It really does make me angry and annoyed whenever we look at these things. Perhaps when the Minister replies he can explain why there is an intention to bring proposals before this House, perhaps by September this year, if there is not some sort of arrangement or deal, yet promises have been made and I, as the representative for Strangford, have no idea what they contain. Why is it that we should be made aware of this via the TV news at a half past seven on a Thursday morning? Why are these deals done behind backs?
To be frank, the irony of this Bill coming before us today, after the backroom dealings of last week, is not lost. The Bill has been brought in, ostensibly, to firm up democracy—a process by which we are all here in the House and in which we all believe, and to create a path forward—yet the actions of last week, in tandem with the Northern Ireland protocol, have angered and upset people and made them question the very fact of their being as British as those in Finchley. Are we as British as those in Staffordshire, London and elsewhere?
The protocol has left the people of Northern Ireland shaken in the ties that bind to this place. There is a feeling of anything goes for one community: “Have your thousand-strong funeral, your two-tier policing and your Irish language brought in by stealth—sure, you have your cake and then you can have my cake as well.” That is how some people feel. The anger is palatable and can be cut with a knife in Northern Ireland at this time. It really concerns me to see the republicans making a quick call to have the Irish language circumnavigate the process of devolution, when they refuse to come here and take their seats in this place to bring such a measure forward democratically, if they felt they could do that. It would be laughable were it not so serious and were tensions in my community not at boiling point at this moment in time.
I will never condone the actions of some who burn buses and destroy property, but I absolutely understand the frustration behind that—frustration inflamed by the Secretary of State just last week, when he annoyed many people to an extent that I am not quite sure he understands. There are those who will never burn a bus or step out of line, and I thank God for those people. Everyone in this House and on this side of the Chamber would be among those people, but there are many others who will never resort to that either. There are those who have signed the petitions against the protocol and lawfully waited to see the democratic process at work, and those who have contacted my office and other offices with issues to do with keeping their businesses afloat—they do it all appropriately and according to the legislation, following it religiously—then see the background dealings and threats and wonder why they continue to do the right thing only to be done over again. Some of the strongest Unionists I know have told me that they question why it is that they cling to their Britishness when their Government are content to step in for things that are important to the republicans but avoid the things that have mattered over the years for us.
I have great concerns. During the last collapse of Stormont, I came to this House repeatedly, and I am probably one of those who have spoken more on the Northern Ireland protocol over the last period of time than most other MPs. I have repeatedly asked the Government to step in and act for education, for our health service and for our veterans, yet the answer is always the same: “We cannot overstep the democratic process.” Well, they can if it suits them, but not if we ask for some things that are really important. One constituent suggested to me—indeed, it has been suggested by many constituents—that not overstepping the democratic process is only the case if the normal person is asking: representatives of unapologetic terrorism can have every whim satisfied and looked after. I find myself unable to dispute that assertion from my constituent and many others.
The action taken by the Government to go above the Assembly to implement any form—any form—of Irish language measure will of course mean that every aspect of the New Decade, New Approach agreement must be administered and wholly funded by the Government. It is not simply about the electoral forms presented today and on which the Minister will speak shortly. How much funding has been sourced to implement the other aspects of the deal? Others have referred to health, as will I, because I am my party’s health spokesperson in this place and I am well aware of the precarious position of the health sector in Northern Ireland. Some 300,000 people are on the list waiting for their examinations and surgical operations. People are waiting for knee replacements, for hip replacements, for their tonsils to be removed, for cataracts—the whole thing is enormous. People are waiting to settle the ongoing pay dispute for our nurses.
When I see and hear about the Irish language, I just ask myself, “What’s the priority?” I ask my constituents what the priority is, and even some of those of a different political persuasion from me in relation to Unionism say, “The most important thing is health, education, policing, roads.” They want to see the money spent on those things, not spent on an Irish language that only 5% of the people of the Province actually speak.
We need to introduce a new action plan on waiting times and deliver the reforms on health and social care set out in the Bengoa report. I become intensely frustrated when I see the numbers of people who come to me and my office with issues about getting operations. Today a guy told me that he has been waiting a number of years for an operation on his knee, and some of those waiting for cancer operations have unfortunately not been able to have their operation because they are no longer here. When I see the waiting lists, and the need for such operations, I think that is where we should be spending the money.
On education, the Executive should urgently resolve the current teachers’ industrial dispute, and address resourcing pressures in schools. A number of schools have contacted me about their funding and the money available for maintenance, and every school must have access to a sustainable core budget to deliver quality education. The Executive should establish an expert group and propose an action plan to address links between persistent educational under-achievement and socio-economic background, including the longstanding issues facing working-class Protestant boys. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East and I know a number of young Protestant boys who have under-achieved.
Today in the press the Chair of the Education Committee referred to under-achievement by young white boys and men on the mainland. We have had that in Northern Ireland for a while, but what is being done to address it? It is a massive issue for my constituents, and when it comes to spending money, we should spend it on those things, not on something that is unnecessary at this time. The Executive should also deliver a new special educational needs framework to support young people with special needs to achieve their full potential. We must consider the mental health of our children and look at these massive issues.
On security, the Executive need to increase police numbers to 7,500. Ask my constituents what they want to spend the money on. Should we spend it on the Irish language, or on recruiting new police officers to protect those in their homes, stop antisocial behaviour, and have a more obvious platform. This is the tip of the iceberg, and I would welcome hearing from the Secretary of State how such measures will be implemented. How much funding outside the Barnett consequentials has been set aside to deliver on the things that are important to people—health and education—as opposed to those things important to the Sinn Féin agenda, to the detriment of health and education?
This deal was published in January 2020, and we have spent the last 18 months being battered by coronavirus and decimated by the Northern Ireland protocol. It frustrates me greatly, and there is the threat of worse to come under full implementation of the protocol. The person on the street is praying that their business will see it through so that they can keep their job and staff. People are concerned about whether their loved one who has been diagnosed with cancer can be treated quickly, or they are waiting four years—or longer—for knee surgery. Parents wonder whether they can get a funded nursery place for their child in their town, yet it seems that the republican agenda comes before life and before quality of life. Hon. Members will understand the frustration I am expressing on behalf of my constituents, who have told me how angry they are.
To do anything less than implement all the agreement is tantamount to the Government admitting that they are yet again bowing the knee to the republican agenda against the process of democracy. I am a democrat and I have always believed in the democratic process. I want to see it working. When the democratic process works, it calms people, and they see it can work. If it does not work, people say, “Well then, something else will have to work.” To go against that democratic process is abhorrent to every right thinking person in the Province, and it should also be abhorrent in this place. If the Minister of State, and others, can appreciate my annoyance and the abhorrence felt by me and those I represent, we will have made a step in the right direction.
Yet again we have been strong-armed by the thirst for a new historical narrative, and a new attack from Sinn Féin’s never-ending litany of ways to take from the British Government without improving the quality of life of even one person in Northern Ireland. Indeed, many of its supporters would like issues such as health, education, policing and roads to be prioritised.
It is up to the Assembly democratically to outline the form of any language changes, not this House. This is a sensitive issue and, as with the issues of abortion and the Northern Ireland protocol, our democracy has again been overruled. Whether there is a vote today is not the issue. The voice of the people of Strangford matters, and I hope I have expressed it on their behalf today. They have elected me to do a job, and I want to ensure that their viewpoint is heard in the Chamber. Those people, of all persuasions, matter to me. Their right to devolution matters to me. They have a right to see their taxes pay for more operations, smaller classes in education, greater help for special needs, and an adequate, fully funded and numerically strong police force. All of those things matter to them a lot more than whether a sign is in a language that they do or do not understand and have little desire to understand.
This House did the people of the Province a disservice last week when this was announced. There is time to correct it, to do the right thing and to remind the people of the Province why we are better off together, instead of making all of those who have treasured their British identity all their lives wonder why they have treasured it and whether the blood of their loved ones was shed in vain.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I place on record my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on his appointment as the leader of his party. I also thank the Members who have spoken in this afternoon’s debate, adding their rich and in many cases first-hand experiences of previous political difficulties in Northern Ireland, to enhance and improve the legislation as it stands. That point has already been far more eloquently delivered by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson).
Today we have heard from the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) and the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), about the benefits of using this Bill to strengthen the ministerial code and the promotion of the Nolan principles of public life. If I may echo the words of the hon. Member for North Down, this House and the Government could benefit from such a provision, given the issues we have seen over previous weeks.
We have also heard the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), the right hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) make passionate cases for the benefits of devolution. This is an area extremely close to my heart, as an MP from a devolved nation. I believe that it was the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who stated that devolution should not be treated like a Woolworths pick‘n’mix, and I wholeheartedly agree.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) has outlined, as well as delivering devolution, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement remains one of Labour’s proudest achievements in office. We have made it clear that we welcome these attempts to safeguard power sharing and improve the sustainability of the Executive, the Assembly and the institutions and decision making within it. The provisions in the Bill are a sensible and necessary evolution of the post-Belfast/Good Friday agreement landscape and should promote greater stability and good governance. It is for that reason that we will support the Bill as it makes its way through the House.
However, as we have heard this afternoon, it is unfortunate that due to the prolonged delay in introducing this legislation, many months after the agreement was signed, its crucial provisions will now be utterly redundant in the current political crisis. The unfortunate lack of urgency from Ministers means that the provisions of the Bill are highly unlikely to come into force until winter. Will the Minister therefore explain why the commencement provision is for two months after the legislation receives Royal Assent, and not immediately?
While ensuring necessary scrutiny, the Opposition will do what we can to ensure that the important provisions of the Bill are in place as quickly as possible. The current situation clearly demands it. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley has made clear, we will, working with colleagues from Northern Ireland and across the House, seek to tighten up the provisions of the Bill.
On the caretaker Executive, we will seek to bring much greater clarity to the powers that Ministers are entitled to exercise during a caretaker period; to probe what constitutes a caretaker Executive with sufficient cross-community support; to guarantee the sustainability of decision making; and to ensure the proper consideration of equality duties and good governance. On the petition of concern, while we welcome amendments in and for themselves, we also encourage Ministers to look at the other effective vetoes, which are being used in much the same way as the petition of concern. Without careful scrutiny, there is a danger that much-needed reform of the petition of concern will simply displace veto activity elsewhere without addressing the problem itself.
Speaking more broadly, what is not in the Bill is as significant as what is in it. Twenty-three years on from the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, progress has undoubtedly stalled over the past decade. The unmet promise of the Good Friday agreement, including the Bill of Rights, integrated education and housing, and a civic forum to give citizens a proper say in the functioning of the Government, has been held back for far too long.
Take the Bill of Rights, for instance—a Westminster responsibility. Decades on from the Good Friday agreement, it has still not been implemented. Does the Secretary of State agree that if provisions designed to underpin the rights of all communities are not delivered, confidence in the agreement itself is diminished? Does the failure to bring that forward in this Bill not represent a real missed opportunity to properly bolster the Good Friday agreement?
The same can, of course, be said of the Civic Forum, which was established under the Good Friday agreement and was supposed to give communities a real stake and a say in decisions made about them. Given the real need for communities to see the Assembly working for them, do Ministers back its reintroduction?
Furthermore, the New Decade, New Approach agreement was agreed 18 months ago, yet the Government have held just one meeting on its implementation and many of the commitments remain unmet. Is it not time that the Government delivered on the promises made and demonstrated clearly to communities in Northern Ireland that the deal to restart power sharing is working for them?
Labour look forward to offering the careful scrutiny this Bill demands as it passes through both Houses of Parliament. Although we support the technical provisions within the Bill, we believe that, with ambition and vision, the Bill could and should go much further and do much more to secure the foundation of the Good Friday agreement and build on its promise.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
It is a great pleasure to respond to such a well-informed debate and I pay tribute to all the Members who have taken time to speak this afternoon. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said, Members from across the House have spoken with real passion and experience.
I am very grateful for the support we have heard from all parties for the Second Reading of the Bill. I recognise that there are a number of issues that people will want to explore in Committee. I look forward to those debates and hope they can be as well informed as this debate has been.
I add my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on his election as leader of the DUP. I very much look forward to working with him in the months to come.
As we have heard, the Bill being debated today will implement aspects of the New Decade, New Approach deal, which the parties agreed to in January 2020. We will reform the sustainability of the institutions, updating the ministerial code of conduct and reforming the petition of concern mechanism. These measures were all agreed by the main political parties in Northern Ireland upon restoring the Executive. It was a pleasure to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), the former Secretary of State, who did so much to reach that agreement.
We heard from a number of Members in today’s debate who played a crucial role in securing that deal. I pass on my congratulations to all of them for getting there. We have heard many passionate speeches from all sides, and from all sides of the debate in Northern Ireland, about the importance of devolution. It was the achievement of the deal to restore devolution.
We have made good progress on the delivery of the commitments that the UK Government made under the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which helped to bring that about. We will continue to support the delivery of those commitments. I draw the House’s attention to a few examples beyond the scope of the Bill, such as our support for the resolution of the nurses’ pay dispute by securing an advanced drawdown of funding; the release of £556 million of the £2 billion-worth of funding agreed in the deal; the revision of the immigration rules governing how people in Northern Ireland bring their family members to the UK, which took effect from August 2020; the appointment of a Veterans Commissioner in September 2020; the launch of the programme for the centenary of Northern Ireland in 2021, supported by £1 million from the shared history fund; the establishment of an independent fiscal council; and regulations to bring Union flag flying days in line with guidance for the rest of the UK.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd referred to the Secretary of State’s meetings. He has been meeting regularly with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the Executive. There have also been two formal meetings including the Irish Government over that time. Those will continue.
I thank everybody for the contributions we have heard. I will not be able to respond to all of them because I have been asked to keep my remarks to a reasonably short period of time, but I did want to respond to the point that the hon. Member for Pontypridd made about so-called caretaker Ministers, a point that was also reflected on by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper).
As part of NDNA, Ministers will remain in office in a caretaker capacity to allow for greater continuity in decision making, but those Ministers will be required to act, as the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made very clear, within well-defined limits, including as set out in the ministerial code and in accordance with the requirement for an Executive Committee to consider any decisions that are significant, controversial and cross-cutting. The hon. Gentleman made the point well; in the case that the Executive Committee is not there, Ministers cannot go beyond their brief. As was also demonstrated by that exchange, there are important decisions that could be taken, which is a much better position than we saw during the period that the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) described as a black hole in governance—during the absence of the devolved institutions. I am sure we can explore the point further in Committee, but there are clearly defined limits on the role of those Ministers.
On the issue of language, we heard many passionate points. This is not, as we all accept, part of the Bill before us today. The hon. Lady asked a fair question: why not, and why not now? I think there is a simple answer to that question, which we have heard a lot about in the debate today, and I think everyone actually agrees that this would be best dealt with in the devolved space. I have met both the Ulster Scots Agency and Conradh na Gaeilge in the last few weeks; apologies if my pronunciation is not right there. I have met some of the key bodies on both sides arguing for progress on the cultural issues, and what they are saying very clearly is that they want to see this delivered by the devolved institutions. We want to give the devolved institutions every chance to do that, and we do not therefore want to legislate on this issue at this time.
Colum Eastwood
I appreciate what the Minister says, and of course this would be better done in the Assembly, but I do not know where he has been, because I have heard very clearly today that the DUP will not support it going through the Assembly on a quick timeframe, so why not now—why wait?
Mr Walker
I have made the point that we want to give every opportunity for that to happen. The Secretary of State has also made this clear, and he did so in a written ministerial statement. I accept the frustration and the anger that the hon. Gentleman expresses on behalf of many of his constituents, but there was a clear written ministerial statement that set out the approach we are taking, and if there is not progress by September, then we have agreed that this House would step in.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean asked a crucial question on this point, and I think it is a very important one about where we do this. The answer should be that we never want to be doing it and we never want to have to do it. The Government believe in empowering and supporting the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland and across the UK. That is why we are bringing forward this Bill to strengthen the stability of the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland. We do not take lightly any decision to intervene in legislation for Northern Ireland, and would only ever do so on devolved issues as a last resort. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is incumbent on us to support the Executive and the Assembly to legislate for themselves. However, I am sure he would also agree that, as co-guarantors of the NDNA agreement, it is incumbent on us to deliver the package it promises, if necessary, to ensure that can be delivered. The point of the intervention was to get the devolved institutions restored and to get Ministers nominated so that we could have an Executive in place.
Sammy Wilson
I have a list the length of my arm of other issues contained in the New Decade, New Approach document that are not being delivered on. Why does the Minister feel that these cultural issues are a greater priority than dealing with the reforms in the health service and dealing with the waiting list of 350,000 in the health service? Why is he not stepping in to deal with that as a priority, rather than these cultural issues?
Mr Walker
Actually, I very much welcome the fact that the Health Minister has set out the approach to dealing with those issues. As I have said, we have already provided some of the up-front funding to unblock some of the health issues that Northern Ireland was facing in the absence of the Executive, but of course there is more to do on that front.
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman, from whom I will take an intervention—he is always a very courteous intervener—has made the point very powerfully about the priorities of his constituents on these issues. These are all devolved issues that we want an Assembly and an Executive in place to deliver on.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is most generous in giving way, and I thank him for that. Does he accept that 100% of the people of Northern Ireland want the health issue sorted out, 100% of the people of Northern Ireland want education sorted out, 100% of the people want police recruited and in place, 100% of the people want the roads issue sorted out as well, and only 5% of those in Northern Ireland actually speak the Irish language? Put it in order of priority. The priorities are health, education and policing, not the Irish language.
Mr Walker
I recognise the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but I think the issue is that these were the areas agreed in NDNA. They were hard-fought, and they were negotiated, as we have heard, very strenuously between the parties. No one got precisely what they wanted, but at the end of the day these were the compromises that were agreed and we need to move forward with them. It is crucial that the Executive are in place to deliver on those issues.
This Bill will help to deliver greater stability and transparency to governance in Northern Ireland.
Mr Walker
I will have to press on, I am afraid. I am under instructions, which my right hon. Friend will understand, from the Whips to get on.
We are looking forward to talking further about the NDNA agreement with the Irish Government during the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference later this week. I do want to commend this Bill to the House, and I do want to thank those from all sides of this House for the profound case we have heard for having strong devolved institutions in place. That is what all of us want to get on with, and this Bill will help to take that forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions Of Concern) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) 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 Thursday 8 July 2021.
(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.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
McVitie’s Tollcross Factory
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It has been several weeks since we learned of the proposal put forward by Pladis, the company behind the McVitie’s biscuit brand, to close its long-standing factory in my Glasgow East constituency. In that time, I have raised the matter at every opportunity, both outside and on the Floor of the House. This evening’s debate, however, gives me much more time to expand on the situation and I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr Speaker for very graciously allowing me to hold this Adjournment debate. As you can probably understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am currently battling laryngitis, but nothing and no one would hold me back from being in the House to represent my constituents tonight. That said, should my voice give way, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) might want to make the points on my behalf, but let us hope it does not come to that.
Before I begin my speech, I wish to remember Andy Millar, a long-serving employee at the McVitie’s factory in Tollcross who recently died. Andy had worked at the factory for 37 years—his entire adult working life. His dedication and loyalty to McVitie’s was undeniable, and I want to extend my heartfelt condolences to his family, friends and colleagues. I also want to thank the Minister for taking the time to listen to what I have to say this evening, because this is not just a factory closure—not for me, not for the workers at the factory, nor for my constituents. I will come on to talk more about the history of the Tollcross site, but suffice it to say that having been in operation for almost a century, McVitie’s is firmly embedded in the DNA of the east end of Glasgow.
I recently attended the socially distanced rally in Tollcross Park which was organised by the GMB trade union, where hundreds of McVitie’s employees and their families had gathered to protest against the closure of the factory. One image that stuck in my head was of a young girl holding a handmade sign that read, “Save our mums and dads jobs.” I want to provide the Minister with some context here. For many kids in the area, their household income either comes largely or completely from the factory. I know from speaking with factory staff that there are a large number of households where either the sole breadwinner or both parents work at the factory, and in many instances there will be a huge impact on the extended family network. Employment at the factory is intergenerational and there were kids at that protest who will not only have parents, but aunts, uncles and grandparents all working there simultaneously. That is the crux of the issue.
It is no exaggeration when I say that the closure of the Tollcross McVitie’s factory would be devastating for the local community. I have said before in this Chamber that the closure would be the equivalent of economic Armageddon for the east end, and I truly mean that. With a shared history as rich and vibrant as that of McVitie’s at Tollcross, it would be impossible for the company to turn its back with no consequences.
McVitie’s has become synonymous with Scotland. The UK’s biggest biscuit brand has had a presence in Scotland since 1830, born out of a bakery in Rose Street in Edinburgh. The factory in Tollcross was built almost 100 years later and has operated continually to the present day. I have visited the factory many times. It is a building with an incredible amount of history, which is shared and recounted by the proud workforce. I have lost count of the number of people who have told me colourful stories of their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents who have worked there. Those generations of families in the east end of Glasgow helped to propel the McVitie’s brand to its contemporary dominance over the domestic biscuit market. A huge part of that success, and the reason why McVitie’s outsells the next seven biggest biscuit brands combined, is because the business is very much a family business. This proposal, however, changes all of that.
The McVitie’s brand stands on the shoulders of its dedicated Tollcross workforce—generations of families past and present—and today’s workforce does not deserve to be abandoned. I do not use that word lightly, but that is exactly what Pladis would be doing: abandoning its loyal employees. Over the past 15 months, the world has been turned upside down, yet throughout the pandemic the Tollcross factory workers continued to serve McVitie’s diligently as key workers. While millions of others worked safely from home, they come into work day in, day out, to keep the UK fed. How are those Tollcross factory employees being rewarded for being key workers during the pandemic and contributing to a “bumper” sales year for McVitie’s? They are being rewarded with the threat of closure and redundancies.
I have already made my feelings abundantly clear to David Murray, the managing director of Pladis UK and Ireland, about how the staff have been treated, but to say that it is a complete kick in the teeth is a huge understatement. The dedication of the workforce at Tollcross helped McVitie’s towards its record high sales throughout 2020, but their dedication has been met with cold and callous thanklessness.
In Pladis’s annual biscuit review, it outlines its successes during 2020. The report highlights that Britain’s biscuit market grew by 7.2% last year, equivalent to an extra £212 million in sales. UK biscuit retail sales were worth £2.96 billion in 2020, and they were bought by 99.5% of all UK households. By way of rationale for the proposed closure, Pladis insists that the UK biscuit market is “mature”, yet in the report Scott Snell, vice-president of customer at Pladis, states:
“as the number one biscuit supplier, since almost a quarter of biscuits purchased (24.6%) are pladis brands, we believe there is yet more growth to be tapped into.”
I therefore do not believe that the rhetoric is matched by reality. The stated reasoning behind axing 468 jobs and the complete abandonment of Scotland is weak to say the least. I can see that, the trade unions can see that and, most importantly, the workers at the Tollcross factory can see that. That is why we are not giving in without a fight.
The local community, employees at the factory, trade unions, local elected representatives, Clyde Gateway, Scottish Enterprise, Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government have rallied to the cause and are working hard to prevent the closure. I also want to put party and constitutional politics aside and place on record my thanks to the UK Government for working with me and playing their part in the efforts to keep the factory in the east end of Glasgow. Whether it is the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Scotland Office—I see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), on the Treasury Bench tonight—or the Prime Minister himself, I have found a genuine willingness to work constructively together across traditional party and constitutional lines to save these jobs in my constituency. The campaign, though, is fundamentally a grassroots one. A petition organised by workers at the factory is currently sitting at more than 64,100 signatures, and, at this juncture, I wish to pay tribute to Paul Smith who works at the factory.
In addition, on behalf of my Glasgow East constituents, I presented a petition in this Chamber in which I outlined their concerns and the public opposition to the proposed closure. Hundreds of factory workers and their families attended a rally protesting against the factory closure. It was organised by GMB, which has also been working incredibly hard to protect local jobs, as has Unite the Union.
Glasgow City Council passed an emergency motion, which was brought forward by my SNP colleague and Shettleston ward councillor, Laura Doherty. The unanimous passing of this motion gave the full support of all party groups to the leader of the council to take all appropriate steps to assist in preventing the loss of these jobs, and to explore ways to secure a sustainable future for the site.
That motion also allowed for the formation of an action group, chaired by the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, Kate Forbes, and Councillor Aitken. The group has brought together representatives, officials, trade union representatives and stakeholders to encourage an open dialogue with Pladis ultimately to try to find a solution—any solution—to keep the Tollcross factory open.
Despite this enormous collective effort, last Friday, Pladis officially issued its HR1 notice signalling advance notification of potential redundancies. The 45-day consultation process began on Friday, and, over the weekend, the worst fears of hundreds of families became a reality. At this juncture, may I say that my thoughts are very much with the families and the factory workers who now face an incredibly uncertain time? Far too often, even in this House, we lose sight of the fact that people are worrying about how they will pay their car loan, how they will pay their rent and how they will pay their mortgage. I do not believe that the factory closure is a foregone conclusion, and I will continue to work around the clock to play my part in finding a solution.
I know that David Murray and other senior Pladis executives will be watching this debate intently this evening. Indeed, they spend an absolute fortune on public relations and spin, so, as a result, all the lobbyists will be watching this debate. On behalf of the trade unions and the staff at the factory, I want to say this directly to David Murray and Salmin Amin: “The proposal to close the factory cannot go ahead. It would completely devastate the local area and create an economic scar that would remain for many, many years to come.”
My message to David Murray is clear: “Your staff do not deserve to be treated with contempt. They have been instrumental in your success. Their parents and their grandparents built your business. And, yes, to you, this is business, but to us this is deeply personal. The McVitie’s brand is cherished because of its history, not in spite of it. McVitie’s is as much a part of the east end of Glasgow as we are a part of it. Please work with us. Please engage with the action group. Listen to the reasonable propositions being put forward. Have the good sense to change course and to continue our mutual success.”
There is a genuine and collective will to prevent the factory being shuttered and to protect local jobs. I will continue to play my part and I look forward to the Minister’s response this evening.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I congratulate Mr Linden who is battling laryngitis on completing the speech. His voice was heard loud and clear. Whether that is down to the biscuits, something in the whisky or something in the water, I do not know.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
All of them together.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing and indeed completing today’s important debate. I had feared that we were going to have one of Parliament’s longest ever interventions by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) should that not have been the case. As Mr Deputy Speaker has said, we are here to be the voice of our constituents and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman’s voice is being heard at full volume here today, as he brings this really important issue to the attention of the House.
I also pay tribute to Kate Forbes, the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy, for all the work that she is doing with Susan Aitken, the leader of Glasgow City Council, the unions and other agencies to secure a positive outcome for the site and its 468 employees, and I know that their message will be heard loud and clear today.
I, too, join the hon. Gentleman in remembering Andy Millar. I pay my sincere condolences to his family, friends and colleagues. This is such a reminder of the human nature of these issues. These decisions are not just about spreadsheets; there is a human cost. It is so, so important that we remember what is at stake here. Unfortunately, the stakes are incredibly high and I pay tribute to Andy Millar.
The employees and their families are central to the debate and we must continue to focus our efforts on them to secure a positive future. As we have heard, it is the employees who have made the McVitie’s brand so successful. Some belong to families who have worked at Tollcross for generations, and they should rightly be proud to be part of the century-long history of making the famous biscuits that have been household names in Britain for decades and are enjoyed by people all over the world. The petition that the hon. Gentleman referred to, which has attracted more than 54,000 signatures, demonstrates that that is a widely held view.
I therefore pay tribute to the workers who have continued to work through the pandemic, like many other factory workers, to ensure that the nation can continue to enjoy its favourite products. I sympathise with all those who will be affected by the company’s decision to close the Tollcross site factory, which is so important to the local community and the wider local economy. I say to them that we will do all we can, working with the Scottish Government, to ensure that they can access the support that they need.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, although we are disappointed that pladis has taken this decision and issued the redundancy notices, it is a commercial decision for the company. Although the Government have no role in the strategic direction or management of private companies, we stand ready to support anyone affected by the redundancies.
Gavin Newlands
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I had not given him an indication that I would intervene. May I ask what the Government have done thus far? I take him at his word on his sincerity on the issue, but when I secured a debate on the hundreds of jobs that were going to go at Rolls-Royce at Inchinnan, the then Minister—the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi)—essentially said that the workers should be grateful that they had been offered voluntary redundancy. Can the present Minister tell us, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and the workers at Tollcross, what the Government are actually doing about it?
Paul Scully
Yes, I will outline a few of the issues that my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions will be standing up as a result. I do recognise that this is a worrying time for those Pladis employees. We will do all we can to support each of the workers affected, including through the Department for Work and Pensions, Jobcentre Plus and the support that they can access through Partnership Action for Continuing Employment in Scotland. People will also be able to access redundancy help and job search advice through the Department for Work and Pensions’ jobhelp.campaign.gov.uk website.
There is also information on gov.uk and updated information packs provided to employers to help them to signpost employees to the support that is available. That support includes connecting people to jobs in the local labour market; help with job searches, including CV writing, interview skills, where to find jobs and how to apply for them; and help to identify transferable skills and skills gaps linked to the local labour market, along with advice on what benefits they may get and how to claim. Additionally, the Government’s plan for jobs is helping to support businesses to recover from the pandemic and create more jobs, with measures such as VAT cuts, business rates relief and cash grants for the sectors most affected.
David Linden
By virtue of shadowing it, I take as much interest as anybody in this House in the role of the Department for Work and Pensions, but as I have discussed with the Under-Secretary of State, there is another Department in this Government that has a crucial role to play: the Foreign Office. Pladis is, of course, a Turkish-owned company. Will the Minister give a commitment at the Dispatch Box that every single bit of machinery in the UK Government, including in Her Majesty’s Foreign Office, will be engaged to try to put as much pressure as possible on the Turkish owner, Salman Amin, to ensure that Pladis does not take a decision that would lead to work for the Department for Work and Pensions? Instead, will the Government use the global Britain brand? I am not, perhaps, as much a fan of it as the Minister, but if the global Britain brand is to be taken at its word, will that pressure be brought to bear on Salman Amin in Turkey?
Paul Scully
It is frustrating, because it is clearly a commercial decision for Pladis, but we want to make sure that we work with Pladis and other companies to keep and increase investment within the UK and show them the opportunities. Indeed, should the factory end up closing, perhaps it might be repurposed for other areas of productive work that could re-engage the workforce. These are conversations that I am sure will continue in partnership with the Scottish Government, the hon. Gentleman, unions and other agencies in the local area.
Let me turn to a slightly wider point. I know how important manufacturing is to the local area, to Scotland and to the whole of Britain. As the largest of the manufacturing sectors, food and beverage manufacturing contributed £31 billion of gross value added to the UK economy in 2019 and directly employed more than 450,000 people across every region of the UK. It provided £4.8 billion to Scotland’s economy in 2019. The importance of manufacturing to Scotland’s industrial history is well known, and today Scotland has a high-tech, high-value offer in other areas as well, including leading sectors such as space, aerospace, defence, and marine and life sciences.
Manufacturing is so often the economic anchor in local communities, providing good jobs, and the Tollcross site is no exception, so we must work together to ensure that Glasgow and other local areas in Scotland continue to provide an attractive offer to manufacturing firms and to all investors, both domestic and foreign-owned. That is how we will ensure the future of the 190,000 manufacturing jobs in Scotland and the 2.7 million across the UK.
We will continue to support UK manufacturing capability in its transition to net zero through significant investment in research, development and innovation, so that it is globally competitive and can continue to provide the products demanded across the world and the jobs that are so important to local communities. The Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution mobilises more than £12 billion to create more than 250,000 high-skilled jobs across the UK.
Scotland and other industrial heartlands are central to this blueprint for building industries of the future and decarbonising existing ones. Scotland’s clean energy and high-tech manufacturing capability, together with Glasgow’s aspirations to be a net zero city, have made it the obvious place to host COP26 later this year. That is going to showcase the city’s sustainable industrial credentials. The offshore wind manufacturing investment fund will have particularly strong benefits in Scotland and, due to geographical factors, we expect much of the UK’s future floating wind deployment to be in Scottish and Welsh waters. There is significant growth potential there, and that can ultimately deliver new and disruptive local supply-chain content to support the future floating offshore wind projects in Scotland. That could lead to the creation of new high-value jobs in a sustainable growth industry.
I want to assure the hon. Member for Glasgow East that my officials are in regular dialogue with officials in the Scottish Government and with colleagues in Scottish Enterprise, and we will continue to work with them to support not only the Scottish Government’s efforts to help those affected but the broader manufacturing industry and economy in Scotland. As we build back from the pandemic, we should be pulling together more than ever to strengthen our United Kingdom and learning from one another to try to achieve the best outcomes for our great nation. We will continue to deliver for people across Scotland as part of a strong United Kingdom, and I am not saying that to make a partisan point or to show up political differences. I just think that when we look at the human cost, it is so important to realise that we are a collection of communities as well as of nations together.
The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 provides the opportunity for the UK Government to complement and strengthen the support that is already given to citizens, businesses and communities across Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. For the first time in decades, we will be able to provide direct financial support to regenerate town centres and high streets together, to improve local transport links and infrastructure together, and to invest in cultural, sporting and economic development that will level up the whole of the UK.
We are going to boost funding for communities with the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund to support local infrastructure and with £220 million to invest in local areas, ahead of launching the UK shared prosperity fund in 2022. That is in addition to the £1 billion Glasgow city deal that supports tens of thousands of new jobs through infrastructure and also through innovative industries including high-tech manufacturing, life sciences and advanced design. Scotland will clearly continue to benefit from our £352 billion package of covid-19 support, which has protected one in three Scottish jobs.
Glasgow and East Kilbride will benefit from new jobs and investment from the Government, with the Cabinet Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office moving hundreds of civil service roles to Scotland. That will create new opportunities for brilliant Scottish public servants to join UK efforts to tackle joint domestic and international challenges. We will continue to work for every citizen, every community and every business across Britain to improve quality of life and access to opportunity by harnessing local economic strengths.
Coming back to Tollcross, I know that this will be a deeply worrying time for the workers and families affected by the recent announcement from Pladis on 17 June that it was going to issue the HR1 redundancy notice. We have to work together to do everything we can to ensure a bright future for these workers so that their skills can continue to be used to benefit the local economy in Glasgow and more widely. I join the hon. Member for Glasgow East to encourage Pladis to work in a responsible and compassionate way for its employees. My ministerial colleagues and officials stand ready to work with the Scottish Government and the hon. Gentleman to do all we can to assist the employees affected so that they have access to all available support. We must work together to make sure that manufacturing continues to grow and provide skilled, well-paid jobs in Glasgow and Scotland. The proud history of Glasgow’s manufacturing sectors, together with its achievements in sustainability and aspirations to be the UK’s first zero-carbon city, provide a firm and enduring foundation for future jobs and great opportunities.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind Members that in line with what we are doing in the main Chamber, we have narrowed the distance between Members in this Room to 1 metre. Please therefore sit in the spaces that have the rather nice blue tickets beside them.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021.
The regulations were laid before the House on 12 May 2021.
The draft instrument makes a number of amendments to three separate contracts for difference regulations: the Contracts for Difference (Definition of Eligible Generator) Regulations; the Electricity Market Reform (General) Regulations and the Contracts for Difference (Allocation) Regulations. The amendments will help to support the ambition for the next contracts for difference auction, planned to open in December this year, and help to make progress towards the 2050 net zero target.
The amendments include adding and removing technologies from the list of technologies eligible to compete in a CfD round and measures aimed at strengthening the supply chain plan process and extending the delivery years that can be set for successful projects. They also include some small technical amendments to the non-delivery disincentive rules, capacity cap rules and technical changes to improve the operation and clarity of the allocation regulations.
We are proposing the legislative amendments following two public consultations, during which our proposals received broad support. The CfD scheme is designed to offer long-term price stabilisation to new low-carbon generators, allowing investment to come forward at a lower cost of capital, and therefore at a lower cost to consumers. The scheme has been successful in driving substantial development and deployment of renewables at scale in Great Britain, while rapidly reducing costs to electricity consumers.
The most recent allocation round in 2019 saw contracts awarded to 5.8 GW of new renewable energy projects, with the costs of offshore wind generation falling by around 30% from the previous allocation round in 2017. We are laying the amendments today to give certainty to businesses on what basis projects will be eligible to take part in the next CfD scheme in advance of the round opening in December.
CfD applicants with a capacity for 300 MW or more are currently required to present a supply chain statement to the Electricity Market Reform Delivery Body as part of their application. A statement is provided if a developer can demonstrate to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction that the project will make a material contribution to the development of relevant supply chains. The aim of the policy is to encourage the effective development of open and competitive supply chains and the promotion of innovation and skills in the low-carbon electricity generating sector.
The Government believe that the current policy approach needs to be strengthened to boost competitiveness and productivity in places that stand to benefit the most, harness innovation and invest in skills while driving progress towards the UK’s net zero target.
The regulations revise the criteria that the Secretary of State must consider when assessing an application for a supply chain statement. In addition, they create a new stage in the process, requiring a CfD generator to apply for a supply chain implementation statement in order to demonstrate the extent to which they have delivered on the commitments set out in their original supply chain statement. The regulations also set out the process for providing or refusing a supply chain implementation statement. That statement will enable a CfD generator to fulfil a condition of the CfD contract. Failure to fulfil that condition may lead to the termination of the contract. That new requirement will be inserted into all CfD contracts awarded from the fourth allocation round.
Biomass conversions have played a material role in helping to meet the UK’s 2020 renewables targets by replacing coal-fired power stations with renewable energy generation. However, as electricity generation has become less carbon intensive, we have reviewed the role of biomass conversions. The regulations remove biomass conversion projects from the list of technologies eligible to apply for a CfD in future allocation rounds.
The Government have confirmed a new ambition for 1 GW of the new 40 GW offshore wind target to come from floating offshore wind on account of widespread agreement that floating offshore wind will play an important role in helping the UK to meet its longer term decarbonisation targets. That technology is currently in an earlier phase of development making it more costly than offshore wind that is attached to the seabed. It is therefore appropriate for floating offshore wind projects to be recognised as a distinct technology within the CfD scheme, one subject to its own administrative maximum strike price. The regulations therefore establish floating offshore wind projects as a category of technology eligible to take part in the CfD scheme and to compete alongside other less established technologies. In doing so, that delivers on our manifesto commitments.
The UK’s new 2050 net zero emissions and carbon budget six targets, which we put into law yesterday, mean that we will continue to require substantial amounts of new, low-carbon power sources to be built before 2050. The changes in the regulations ensure that CfD allocation rounds can best support an increase in the pace of deployment of new renewable electricity generation needed to achieve our ambitions, while continuing to consider value for money for consumers. Subject to the will of Parliament, the arrangements will come into force on the day after the regulations are made.
I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The business before us concerns a number of miscellaneous amendments—as set out in the title of the statutory instrument—relating to the operation of CfDs. I do not think that either the Minister or the Committee will benefit from a recitation of what CfDs are, how they work, their benefits and so on. Suffice it to say, the Opposition are very supportive of their continuation as a method of securing capacity, and giving certainty to developers that the projects they are embarking on will have a secure future. CfDs have proved a good way of developing offshore wind generation in particular in the past, and hopefully they will continue to do so.
The amendments represent a minor tinkering with the process to achieve, as stated in the SI, a “better outcome” of the CfD process as it matures. The miscellaneous amendments offer good and bad news—there are good amendments and bad ones. The Minister has offered a general overview of their purpose. They are quite detailed, and I do not think the Committee will want to go into all the detail of all the amendments, but I want to highlight two or three that may have some question marks attached to them, and one in particular which I just think is a mistake and needs some earnest thought from the Minister about how she wants to proceed with it.
My first question relates to the idea that floating wind will be in a separate pot for future CfDs negotiations. I think that is a thoroughly good idea, which will enhance its ability to come to market more effectively and speedily. The CfDs rounds coming up will have a new condition attached to them, namely “hard and soft boundaries”. Quite simply, that means that where a round has a capacity limit attached to it in general, it appears that the amendments will enable that boundary to be furred over slightly as applications come in. My understanding is that if an apparently worthy scheme comes in and is right on the margins of the suggested capacity limit in a particular round of CfD auctions, it may be possible to rub that application in rather than rub it out, provided that the general capacity boundary is adhered to. According to the mechanism set out in the SI, a round is declared to have soft or hard boundary, and therefore might allow for different treatment to be given to particular schemes. I do not particularly dissent from that way of doing things, but I think the Minister should look a little carefully at the possibility that a particular scheme on a particular occasion might get in to the round, whereas another scheme on another occasion might not get in because of the apparent relative hardness or softness of the boundary, and for which no criteria are given in the amendments. That could give rise to possible legal action by a project that has not got in when it could have got in on a more furry boundary. I might be a good idea if the Minister checked that that proposal is reasonably proof against that scenario. In a competitive auction, the ability to get inside the capacity arrangement could be quite important for a project’s future, and therefore there would be quite a lot riding on it. The operation of the round needs to be as watertight as possible.
The Opposition do not have any problem with the biomass conversion proposal, under which CfD inclusion is ended for biomass plants that are converted from existing coal-fired power stations. This country has examples that have been successfully carried out under previous CfD arrangements, one being Drax in the east midlands. Drax is an interesting example in as much as the statement in the explanatory notes relates to the idea that although the Government are, as it were, withdrawing favours from biomass conversion as it stands, they acknowledge that the role of biomass with carbon capture and storage is a high priority for the Committee on Climate Change and is considered by it and many others as a substantial contributor to future net negative emissions. Should bioenergy with carbon capture and storage proposals be made, the Government may want to review their decision on biomass conversions. It is not an academic issue precisely because not only has Drax involved itself in biomass conversion from an existing coal- powered plant, but it is implementing a CCS programme for the biomass conversion that has taken place. Circumstances could arise in which a developer came forward with a proposal for not only biomass conversion of an existing coal-fired power station but CCS attached to it. It would therefore fall into the BECCS area in terms of future biomass arrangements. It would well behove the Government to consider that possibility early rather than later, because that is likely to be quite a considerable portion of biomass activity in the future. It would be of concern were the Government not ready to support that in the best way possible.
The mistake, I think, is to deny floating wind the ability to phase its arrangements under a CfD in the same way as offshore wind does currently. I cannot see what advantage there is to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, or to anyone, of saying with specific reference to floating wind that no phasing will be allowed from applications for CfDs, whatever pot they happened to be in. The argument in the SI suggests that floating wind is a small scale operation and that the arrangements for its deployment can be successfully carried out on a one-phased basis. It is suggested that the problems of scale encountered by offshore wind—the time taken to erect large offshore wind platforms and so on—will not be replicated by onshore wind. However, the SI also makes it clear that the Government are prepared to look at the current arrangement again should the circumstances of offshore floating wind change—if it turns out that offshore wind is deploying at much wider scale than is currently the case. The problem is that it is inevitable that offshore floating wind will deploy at scale and simply looking at what has happened so far means looking at demonstration and proving models. It is right that those models should be created to establish the viability of offshore floating wind, but they bear no relation to what will happen in the commercial roll-out phase. As the Minister knows, in the Celtic sea and elsewhere, there are already proposals for much larger scale offshore floating wind installations than has previously been the case.
The 2019 Carbon Trust offshore floating wind joint industry project phase 2 summary report made the precise point about the necessity of scaleability for offshore floating wind and offered a clear indication that there were no perceived obstacles to the size of turbines being adapted from their present fixed arrangement to a floating one. There is nothing stopping developers from bringing forward offshore floating wind at scale, and indeed it is the declared intention of a number of them. The suggested course of action in the SI will actually impede the roll-out of offshore floating wind, which, as the Minister will be aware, is subject to a target in the 10-point plan. It does not seem a smart idea to impede the progress of something for which the Government have set a target in the first place.
The Minister said that there were two consultations on the proposed amendments, one in the spring and one in the autumn, and that the responses were broadly very supportive of the changes proposed. That is substantially true, but not entirely so. The overwhelming response to the consultation on the phasing arrangements for offshore floating wind was opposed to that plan, for precisely the reasons that I cited. That was acknowledged in the report on the consultation, but in response the Government said that despite that overwhelming opposition, they would go ahead with their arrangements any way. That does slightly worry me about the purpose of the consultation in the first place.
I think that the Minister is moving towards a mistake, and I hope that she would want to review the arrangement at an early stage to see whether she is completely satisfied that it is as robust as suggested by the SI. If she is not satisfied, I hope that she can undertake a reasonably smart about-turn, and I for one will laud that and not criticise it, because we all want to see offshore floating wind succeed and its operation to be undertaken efficiently and effectively as possible.
The Opposition will not oppose the SI, and I hope that my comments are regarded as friendly advice as to how we should proceed with it. I hope that the Minister will take my comments in the spirit in which they are intended, and go away and think about how we best move forward, in particular on offshore floating wind.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for, as ever, his valuable contribution. If I may, I will answer some of his concerns.
On the question of the hard and soft boundaries, each rounds will have specific aims about the amount of new capacity to be supported, and will always look for the value for money balance. As we go through the next round, we will be able to assess the success of that approach.
On BECCS, I hope I can reassure the hon. Gentleman when I say that the biomass strategy will be published in 2022. It will consider how we move forward in terms of biomass with carbon capture and storage, because existing CfDs for the likes of Drax run out in 2027. We will then set out on the next phase.
The hon. Gentleman said that we have failed to provide a phasing framework for floating wind. The construction risks for floating wind are much lower because the constituent parts of the turbines and blades will all be joined in the port and not out at sea. At this stage, we are comfortable with that arrangement. At the moment, we are in the first stage of getting floating wind into action, and if the technology proves very successful, and we all hope that it will, but delivery develops not as we have predicted, we can always return to the House to make further amendments to regulations, as we are today. That is the beauty of wanting to keep CfDs up to date with the technological developments. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
We are trying to ensure that we build the capacity in renewable energies to help us to achieve net zero by 2050. No doubt more regulations will be introduced in due course to help us make sure that we can best support the increase in pace of renewable deployment, as well as always remembering that value for money for consumers is a critical part of delivery.
I hope that the proposed regulations give developers the certainty about who will be able to take part in the next CfD round in December, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
Tuesday 22nd June 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 June 2021 - (22 Jun 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have some preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of this Committee, except for the water provided.
I remind Members to observe physical distancing. They should sit only in the places that are clearly marked. It is important that Members find their seats and leave the room promptly, in order to avoid delays for other Members and staff. Following a decision of the House of Commons Commission yesterday, we may now sit a little closer together—one metre—but it is important to continue to observe other distancing measures. Members should wear face coverings in Committee unless they are speaking or medically exempt.
Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk.
We completed line-by-line consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill last week. Today, we will start to consider new clauses. New clauses that were grouped for debate with amendments to the Bill will not be debated again, but if the Member who tabled the new clause indicated in their speech that they wished to divide the Committee, they will have the opportunity to do so. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room. I remind Members wishing to press a grouped new clause to a Division that they should indicate their intention when speaking to the clause.
New Clause 74
Proceeds of crime: account freezing orders
‘(1) In section 303Z1 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (application for account freezing order)—
(a) omit subsections (5A) and (5B), and
(b) in subsection (6), at the appropriate place insert—
“‘relevant financial institution’ means—
(a) a bank,
(b) a building society,
(c) an electronic money institution, or
(d) a payment institution.”
(2) In section 316(1) of that Act (general interpretation), in the definition of “relevant financial institution”, after “303Z1” insert “(6)”.
(3) In section 48 of the Financial Services Act 2021 (extent)—
(a) in subsection (1), for “subsections (2) and (3)” substitute “subsection (2)”, and
(b) omit subsection (3).
(4) In paragraph 14 of Schedule 12 to that Act (forfeiture of money: electronic money institutions and payment institutions) omit sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).’
This new clause amends for Northern Ireland the definition of “relevant financial institution” for the purposes of account freezing orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 so as to align the definition with that which applies in England and Wales and Scotland.—(Victoria Atkins.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Harassment in a public place
‘(1) A person must not engage in any conduct in a public place—
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person would think the conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“conduct” includes speech;
“harassment” of a person includes causing the person alarm or distress.
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to conduct if the person can show—
(a) that it was for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b) that it was under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c) that in the particular circumstances it was reasonable.
(5) A person who engages in any conduct in breach of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.”—(Alex Cunningham.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Kerb-crawling—
‘(1) It is an offence for a person, from a motor vehicle while it is in a street or public place, or in a street or public place while in the immediate vicinity of a motor vehicle that they have just got out of, to engage in conduct which amounts to harassment in such manner or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance, alarm, distress, or nuisance to any other person.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to revocation of their driving licence, or a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or both.
(3) In this section “motor vehicle” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1972.
(4) In this section “street” has the meaning given by section 1(4) of the Street Offences Act 1959.’
New clause 23—Street sexual harassment—
‘(1) A person must not engage in any conduct in a public place—
(a) which amounts to sexual harassment of another, and
(b) which they know or ought to know amounts to sexual harassment of the other.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to sexual harassment of another if a reasonable person would think the conduct amounted to sexual harassment of the other.
(3) The conduct referred to in subsection (1) is known as street sexual harassment.
(4) A person (A) engages in conduct which amounts to street sexual harassment, or which they know or ought to know amounts to street sexual harassment, of another (B) if—
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i) violating B’s dignity, or
(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
(5) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (4)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—
(a) the perception of B;
(b) the other circumstances of the case; and
(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
(6) For the purposes of this section, “conduct” includes speech, non-verbal attitudes such as gestures imitating or suggesting a sexual act, and obscene sound effects.
(7) A person who engages in any conduct in breach of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(8) Where on any occasion an authorised officer finds a person who he has reason to believe has on that occasion committed an offence under section 1 above, he must give that person a notice offering him the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for that offence by payment of a fixed penalty, unless subsection (9) applies.
(9) This subsection applies (and subsection (8) does not apply) if a person has previously—
(a) been found guilty of an offence under subsection (1), or
(b) made payment of a fixed penalty issued under subsection (8).
(10) Where a person is given a notice under this section in respect of an offence—
(a) no proceedings shall be instituted for that offence before the expiration of fourteen days following the date of the notice; and
(b) he shall not be convicted of that offence if he pays the fixed penalty before the expiration of that period.
(11) A notice under this section shall give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence as are necessary for giving reasonable information of the offence and shall state—
(a) the period during which, by virtue of subsection (2) above, proceedings will not be taken for the offence;
(b) the amount of the fixed penalty; and
(c) the person to whom and the address at which the fixed penalty may be paid; and, without prejudice to payment by any other method, payment of the fixed penalty may be made by pre-paying and posting to that person at that address a letter containing the amount of the penalty (in cash or otherwise).
(12) Where a letter is sent in accordance with subsection (11)(c) above payment shall be regarded as having been made at the time at which that letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
(13) The form of notices under this section shall be such as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.
(14) The amount of a fixed penalty payable in pursuance of a notice under this section is £500.
(15) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.’
This new clause creates an offence of engaging in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature in public. Those found to have committed an offence would be given an on the spot fine of £500. Those who commit the offence on further occasions would liable to receive a fine of up to £1000.
Alex Cunningham
I move new clause 1 in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). I will also speak to new clause 23, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).
For young women up and down the country, being harassed in a public place has become a way of life. Derogatory comments, wolf-whistling, stalking and harassment have become so commonplace that many women find themselves living in a constant state of fear simply by stepping out of their front door. The figures are as startling as they are shameful. A recent survey by UN Women UK showed that 80% of women in the UK have experienced sexual harassment in their lifetimes; that increases to a staggering 97% of women aged 18 to 24. The survey also showed that sexual harassment in the street had become so commonplace that the majority of women take no action, because they have lost all faith in the authorities to deal with it.
Shamefully, only 4% of women who had suffered sexual harassment reported the crime, and only 45% believed that reporting the crime would make any difference. Among those who did not report their crime to the police were people who had been groped, followed and coerced into sexual activity. This shows that women have a catastrophic lack of trust in the Government when it comes to doing anything about sexual harassment or to taking any concrete steps to tackle the underlying causes of it.
For many women, first-hand experience tells them that when they do report the crimes, they are often gaslighted, or told they are overreacting or making a fuss about nothing—yet nothing could be further from the truth. Being sexually harassed can have a profound impact on the lives of victims. Rose Caldwell, the chief executive officer of Plan International UK, points out:
“Street harassment makes girls feel ashamed, frightened and vulnerable. It causes them to change their behaviour, like avoiding certain streets or changing their clothes before leaving the house, which has serious implications for their freedom and autonomy.”
A feature on the news last night was about women and where they felt that they could and could not go when walking home in the evening.
Sexual harassment also acts as a precursor to other acts of violence and discrimination against women and girls. Laura Bates, founder of the Everyday Sexism Project, points out:
“As a society, the normalisation of sexual harassment in public spaces plays a huge part in creating a gendered power imbalance and ingraining derogatory attitudes and behaviours towards women. What starts in public places does not stop there. It plays into discrimination against women in the workplace and abuse in the home. If we say street harassment doesn’t matter, we are designating women’s bodies as public property and that has a huge knock-on impact.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, as always.
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for tabling her amendment. I know it will not be pressed formally, but I put on the record my thanks to her for bringing the issue before the House and, indeed, to the hon. Member for Stockton North for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue in Committee. The Government are absolutely committed to tackling all forms of abuse against women and girls, including sexual harassment. No one should feel unsafe while going about their daily life, and it is completely unacceptable for anyone to make a woman or girl feel objectified or scared.
Following tragic events earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reopened the first ever public call for evidence for the new tackling violence against women and girls strategy, to capture the many stories that women and girls shared with their friends and their family and on social media. We want to capture those stories as part of our work to shape the new strategy that is coming forward later this year. More than 160,000 responses were received in just two weeks, bringing the total of public responses to more than 180,000—an extraordinary figure for a Government consultation. It says so much about the determination of women and girls to stop those sorts of behaviours.
We are equally determined to respond to the sharing of those experiences. The new strategy will include work to tackle sexual harassment and to recognise the disproportionate impact it has on women and girls.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way—we are so intuitive now that we do not need to ask to intervene on each other.
This sort of behaviour starts at a very young age, which is why the Government were right to accept my amendment to the Bill that became the Children and Social Work Act 2017, to make relationships education for all primary school children mandatory. That should have started last September; we are now told it will start this September. Will she comment about that early intervention and the importance of it?
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for her previous work and for making this important point. I want to give the Committee an impression of the work that we are undertaking as part of the strategy. Legislation is of course an option, but we need to do so much more. We need boys and young men to understand that some of the things that they might have seen on the internet are not real life and not appropriate ways to behave towards women and girls in the street, the home or the school, as we have seen in the Everyone’s Invited work. Education is critical and, I promise her, flows throughout our work on the strategy.
I wish to correct some impressions that might exist. While there is not an offence of street harassment—or, indeed, of sexual harassment—a number of existing laws make harassment illegal, including where such behaviour occurs in a public place. That can include, depending on the circumstances of the case, offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Public Order Act 1986 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
However—this is a big “however”—I assure hon. Members that we are looking closely at the existing legislation on street harassment and we are committed to ensuring that the law is fit for purpose. We remain very much in listening mode on the issue. We will continue to examine the case for a bespoke offence and will listen closely to the debate as it develops through this House and the other place.
It is important to stress that a law is of limited use unless people know it is there and have the confidence to make a report in accordance with it. Equally—this relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Rotherham about education—it is important that police officers and law enforcement know how to respond properly to such allegations.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I am glad about what the Minister has just said, that she remains in listening mode and that she will continue to examine the case. Does she have more detail on what form that listening mode takes? Are people in the Home Office looking at this? Is there any possibility of it? Is there a timeline, a review, that we are waiting for before a decision or any kind of structure around that?
Victoria Atkins
I hope the Committee will understand that it is taking us time to work through the 180,000 responses that we received—an extraordinary number for any Government survey. We have a team of officials who are working through each and every response, and we have taken each and every response very seriously. It is taking a bit of time. Once that exercise, the results of the survey, has been fully understood—fully collated and absorbed—from that, the strategy will be shaped. Later this year, we hope to be able to publish.
The strategy will deal not just with the sorts of topics that have been discussed in the course of the Committee, along with many other forms of crimes that disproportionately affect women and girls, including, for example, female genital mutilation, so-called honour-based abuse and such like. We want this to be an ambitious strategy that meets the demands of the 2020s, including the emergence of online crimes. We know from our discussions of this Bill and the scrutiny of what became the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 that perpetrators of crime can find ample opportunity online to continue their abuse. We are being mindful of all those aspects when drawing up the strategy.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
The Minister is indicating a willingness to look carefully at this. Does she expect the strategy to which she is referring to end up creating new legislation? Does she expect new legislation to come out of it?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady is asking a question I cannot properly answer at this stage. She will know from her previous experience that drafting strategies of such depth and breadth requires cross-Government work. I am not at a stage at the moment of being able to comment directly on that. Our wider work, such as commissioning the Law Commission to look at the use of the internet and image-based abuse, which I suspect we will be talking about later this morning, and the online safety Bill, is all part of ensuring that there is lots of work across Government knitting together to provide a safer environment for women and girls, both on and offline.
We are aware that the issue is not just about the public knowing and understanding what the law is, but helping the police in knowing how to respond. I am pleased that the College of Policing has agreed to develop advice for forces in England and Wales to assist them in using existing offences in the most effective way. The Crown Prosecution Service, similarly, will revise its legal guidance on public order offences to include additional material on public sexual harassment.
Hon. Members across the Committee will agree that legislation alone cannot be expected to tackle sexual harassment. We are clear that we need to continue to drive a cultural change in attitudes and help boys and girls grow up to understand what a healthy relationship looks like and what sort of behaviour is healthy, respectful and civil in public places, and we must ensure that the sorts of episodes that girls in particular referenced in the Everyone’s Invited work are no longer experienced. I acknowledge and appreciate the debate that the amendments have induced and understand what hon. Members are seeking to achieve through the new clauses. However, I hope that, given our assurance that the Government continue to explore the issues, the hon. Member for Stockton North will feel able not to press the new clause today.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the Minister for her response and that commitment to tackling the issues being debated this morning. I recognise that it is not just a matter for legislation. It is a matter for education as well, working with boys, girls and young men to have a greater understanding of the impact that what they might think is a bit of fun can have on people’s lives.
The Minister talked about 160,000 or 180,000 responses —I think she used both figures—but either way, 160,000 responses to any consultation exercise is a tremendous result and I am delighted about that. It illustrates the extent of the problem that has existed for many decades. She talked about the forthcoming strategy and the report later this year. I think we can act now; we can do something now. We can do small things now as we await that and we have a number of amendments that can contribute to what will want to be achieved in time by the overall strategy. We do not need to wait many more months—possibly years—before something happens on this.
There was no indication from the Minister of when the strategy will be published. If it is later this year, we are a long way from the end of the year—when will the various provisions suggested within that strategy be implemented? That may require some form of primary legislation, so we will be looking at that next year, and there will be some time before it is implemented. It could be some considerable time before we see some action.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Opposition think that this excellent new clause makes up for the missed opportunity in the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who are the co-chairs of the all-part parliamentary group on women in the penal system. I also thank the Howard League, which acts as the secretariat to the APPG, for its continued energetic work on this issue.
Under the Bail Act 1976, the courts can remand an adult to prison for their own protection, or a child for their own welfare, without being convicted or sentenced, and when the criminal charge they face is unlikely to—or in some cases cannot—result in a prison sentence. The new clause would repeal the power of the criminal courts to remand a defendant into custody for their own protection—or in the case of a child, for their own welfare—pending trial or sentence. Last year, the Howard League published a briefing from the APPG that looked at those provisions and their use. The briefing concludes:
“The case for abolishing the power of the courts to remand for ‘own protection’ or ‘own welfare’ is overwhelming. The use of prison to secure protection and welfare is wrong in principle and ineffective, even damaging, in practice.”
It goes on to say:
“Repealing the provisions in their entirety would be in-keeping with the direction of other recent and proposed reforms. In particular it is in line with, and is a necessary and urgently required extension of, the reforms to the use of police cells as a ‘place of safety’ under the Policing and Crime Act 2017.”
Professor Sir Simon Wessely’s 2018 review “Modernising the Mental Health Act” recommended the removal of the power of the courts to remand defendants for their own protection and own welfare on mental health grounds. The Ministry of Justice has already indicated that it will act on that recommendation. The Government’s sentencing White Paper suggested there would be forthcoming reforms to remand for own protection but, disappointingly, that was not included in the Bill. On page 58 of the White Paper, the Government notes:
“The Independent Review of the Mental Health Act highlighted that there are still cases where sentencers appear to make decisions that prison is the safest option for some people who are mentally unwell, under current legislation in the Bail Act 1976 or the Mental Health Act 1983.”
It goes on to say:
“Prisons should be places where offenders are punished and rehabilitated, not a holding pen for people whose primary issue is related to mental health.”
The White Paper mentions a project by Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service on these cases. Could the Minister provide an update on the work in that area? In the Lord Chancellor’s letter responding to the APPG’s report, he said,
“we are determined to ensure that remand to prison is not considered as an option when seeking a place of safety for a person in crisis. However, it is vital that the operational mechanisms are in place before any legislative reforms are made in order to ensure that the system can work smoothly and effectively to deliver this objective.”
Could the Minister please share an update on the operational mechanisms that the Lord Chancellor refers to? Are they in place yet? How much longer should we expect to wait for them to be so?
The provisions in the Bail Act are already out of step with the aims of our justice system, but the implementation of the proposals in the Bill will make them look even more outdated. Since there will now be a requirement to consider welfare before remanding a child, as we know how damaging even short stints in custody are for children, how does it make sense to keep a provision on the statute book to put a child into custody to protect their welfare? The ability to remand women and children for their own protection is, as Dr Laura Janes of the Howard League put it in one of our evidence sessions, “rather Dickensian”. The Opposition agree that this power in the Bail Act is completely outdated, and that it has no place in a modern justice system. We urge the Government to support the new clause so that we can do away with it.
Sarah Champion
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I am fully supportive of new clause 3, because I think it addresses a rather patriarchal approach that is going on and needs flushing out. The all-party parliamentary group on women in the penal system recently released its third briefing report, “Arresting the entry of women into the criminal justice system”, and its key finding was that 40% of women arrested resulted in no further action. That figure is even higher for women who are arrested for alleged violence.
That shows to me that women are being arrested and put into custody disproportionately, without the necessary due process in terms of what the outcome is likely to be. This creates a drain on police resources and, to be quite honest, is a waste of time, as arrest is not an appropriate response to women showing challenging behaviour. We need a more nuanced approach. Many officers arrested women for fear of criticism from more senior officers if they did not, and black women are two and a half times more likely to be arrested than white women, which raises concerns. Officers need to realise that turning up in a uniform can actually make a situation much more tense, and many women are arrested due to their response to the police turning up, not necessarily because of what the police were called in for. Frances Crook of the Howard League put it very well when she said that these women are annoying, but not necessarily dangerous.
I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on Lancashire police, who have started a pilot through which they bring independent domestic violence advisers to the scene where domestic altercations are going on. Officers are reporting that they have found that incredibly useful in de-escalating the situation, rather than just going straight to charging or bringing the woman in for their own protection. The new clause raises the points that first, there is a problem with the system, and secondly, more creative approaches can be used, so I am very interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. New clause 3 seeks to remove the provision in the Bail Act 1976 for a defendant to be refused bail where the court feels it is necessary for their protection—or, in the case of children, their own welfare—that they are remanded in custody. It is extremely important to make clear to the Committee that this provision is used very rarely. It is considered to be a last resort, and it is only used when there are no alternatives, so we should be in no doubt that this is an unusual provision to use.
Maria Eagle
“Rare” is a relative concept. Would the Minister like to tell us how many people were remanded in this way during, say, the last year for which he has figures?
Chris Philp
I am afraid that I do not have that precise figure to hand: I was relaying reports I have received from people who are active in this area. I can certainly see if that figure exists, and if it does, I would obviously be happy to share it.
The intent behind this amendment is clearly to ensure that prison is used only when strictly necessary. Of course, when somebody has a mental health crisis, for example, prison is not ultimately the best place for them to be, but there may be limited circumstances in which it is necessary to use remand for someone’s own protection—as a last resort, as I say. There is a risk that if we abolish this power without being absolutely clear what the alternatives are, vulnerable people could be left exposed. The Government agree with the sentiment behind this amendment, but we want to be certain that there will be no unintended consequences and no gaps created as a result.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister made the point that the use of this provision is very rare and that prison should be used only as a last resort. I accept that, but surely for such people we should ensure that there are facilities across the country, so that it is not necessary to remand a person, in any circumstances, to prison for the good of their own health.
Chris Philp
Clearly, the provision of alternative accommodation in those circumstances is the most desirable outcome. We need to think carefully and make sure we have covered the full range of circumstances that may arise. That is why the Government have committed to a review of this issue. We have already written to the all-party parliamentary group on women in the penal system to set out our plan for this, so that is in the public domain. I know the Howard League for Penal Reform has been campaigning in this area and it will be consulted as part of that review.
Maria Eagle
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I welcome the fact that he is going to conduct a review. In doing that, could he see whether any research already exists or do some research on what the outcomes are for the small number of people who are remanded in this way? I can certainly see circumstances in which they might end up in a worse state than they would have done had they not been remanded in such a way. That is important if the Minister is considering whether to get rid of these provisions.
Chris Philp
Yes, that is exactly the type of question the review should consider, along with the counterfactual question of what would happen if this measure is not used. Both alternatives need to be considered to reach an informed decision.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
When that review takes place, can the Minister ensure that there is particular consideration of alternatives in very rural areas? Currently, women in Wales are generally held outside Wales, for example at HMP Oakwood, as there is no local provision.
Chris Philp
Yes, consideration of the available provision needs to form part of the review to ensure that, if the option were to be withdrawn, rarely used though it is, appropriate provision across the jurisdiction of England and Wales would be available.
As this is a complicated issue, and we do not want to accidently cause a gap in provision, and because a review has already been commissioned to look at the issue, I respectfully ask that the new clause is not pressed.
Alex Cunningham
I accept what the Minister says about unintended consequences. It is important that the individual is always protected. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood has welcomed the review into this, and I do too. I also welcome the fact that the Minister responded positively to my hon. Friend when she talked about an outcome study about the people who are actually involved.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister at some time in the future about how that would work, to ensure that we work in the best interests of the people who are affected by this situation. We may well want to return to the matter in future, but for now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Video recorded cross-examination or re-examination of complainants in respect of sexual offences and modern slavery offences
“(1) Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 comes into force in relation to proceedings to which subsection (2) applies on the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) This subsection applies where a witness is eligible for assistance by virtue of section 17(4) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (complainants in respect of a sexual offence or modern slavery offence who are witnesses in proceedings relating to that offence, or that offence and any other offences).
(3) This section has effect notwithstanding section 68(3) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.”—(Alex Cunningham.)
This new clause would bring section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which provides for the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses to be recorded rather than undertaken in court, fully into force for victims of sexual offences and modern slavery offences.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 20—Special measures access for eligible witnesses—
“(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 19(2), omit paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) inform the witness of the special measures which are available to them by virtue of this Act; and
(b) give a direction under this section providing for whichever measure or measures as the witness may decide they wish to be applied to apply to evidence given by the witness.
Provided that a direction under paragraph (b) shall so far as possible ensure that the measure or measures provided for do not inhibit the evidence of the witness being effectively tested by a party to the proceedings.
(3) Omit section 19(3).”
This new clause would mean that once witnesses are determined as eligible for special measures they will be informed of all provisions and able to decide which option best suits them, rather than relying on the court to decide which measures would best improve the quality of evidence.
Alex Cunningham
The new clause will extend the roll-out of section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which allows the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses to be recorded rather than undertaken in court, to come fully into force for victims of sexual offences and modern slavery offences.
Section 28 is now in place at all 83 Crown court locations in England and Wales for vulnerable witnesses. That includes all child witnesses and any witness whose quality of evidence is likely to be diminished because they are suffering from a mental condition of a significant impairment of intelligence and social function, who have a physical disability or who are suffering from a physical condition that would impact their quality of evidence.
The Opposition are extremely supportive of the Government’s work in this area. However, we are concerned that the roll-out of that measure, which can obviate the distressing and sometimes traumatising experience of being cross-examined in court, is going far too slowly.
Sarah Champion
I fully support new clause 4. It links very tightly to my new clause 20, which I would like to speak to. New clause 20 would mean that once a witness was determined to be eligible for special measures, they would be informed of all provisions and able to decide which option suited them best, rather than the onus being on the court to decide which ones they were allowed. Special measures are an absolute lifeline for many victims giving evidence in court against their abuser. Navigating the criminal justice system can be incredibly challenging, and the idea of giving evidence as a witness against your own perpetrator is extremely distressing. Cross-examination causes re-traumatisation for victims and special measures are vital for reducing the impact on their mental wellbeing. Special measures include screening the witnesses from the accused, giving evidence by a live link and in private, and video- recorded evidence. Currently, victims of child sexual abuse are eligible for special measures in court when giving evidence as a witness. However, delivery of the provisions remains inconsistent and victims often have trouble accessing the measures to which they are entitled.
The onus is currently on the court to offer the provisions to the victim if it believes it will
“improve the quality of evidence”
by witnesses—so is not about the survivor’s mental wellbeing and abilities. An APPG on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse survey found that 44% of victims were not offered the opportunity to give evidence remotely or behind a screen.
This new clause would amend the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act to ensure that once a witness was determined as eligible for special measures by the court, they would be informed of all options and could decide which measure or measures suited them best. It is worth saying that some survivors I work with actually want to be in court and face their abuser—but it is up to them to make that choice.
This amendment will provide what is best for the witness’s wellbeing, rather than if the judge thinks it will improve the quality of evidence. There was support for this proposal in the Bill Committee’s evidence sessions. Phil Bowen, Director of the Centre for Justice Innovation, said:
“Yes, I think a presumption would be useful, but I think it also requires attention to implementation and delivery issues. Special measures should already be used in specialist domestic abuse courts across our magistrates court estate and, in many cases, domestic abuse victims are without access to those measures, for want of anyone who asked.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 43.]
Adrian Crossley, Head of the Criminal Justice Policy Unit at the Centre for Social Justice, said of special measures:
“I think it makes a massive difference to the view of the complainant and, unfortunately, it would also make a massive difference to the view of some defendants, who may face the reality of the evidence against them earlier. It may encourage pleas that should have happened earlier.”
“Sometimes the implementation of special measures and, certainly, the pragmatics of what happens in court are not there and the stress that that puts witnesses through is absolutely huge.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 46.]
As we have seen too vividly with the rape review findings, lack of support for witnesses and victims in court proceedings has a genuine impact on the justice process. More than a quarter of child sexual abuse cases did not proceed through the criminal justice system last year because the victim and survivor did not support further action. One of the main reasons was that the victim worried they would find the legal process too upsetting.
The Minister may say that we should keep the law so that it is the quality of evidence that remains, because that matters the most. I say to the Government that it is obvious that when we prioritise the wellbeing of victims and survivors—the people giving the evidence—the conviction is more likely to be secured because they feel more able to speak. If the victim assumes that they will be re-traumatised in the court proceedings, why on earth would they even try to secure justice? If that is the assumption, more offenders will walk free.
Dame Vera Baird, the Victims’ Commissioner, also agreed with this proposal. In her view, the problem begins
“with the fact that the needs assessment is not done clearly by a single agency.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2021; c. 113.]
It needs to be carried out as part of the witness care unit, rather than across the Crown Prosecution Service and police, as it currently does. Dame Vera Baird also said that the measures that may best suit the victim are not always available. Special measures are not consistently available across the country.
What will the Minister do to ensure that resources and funding are sufficient to support victims giving evidence? Some witnesses who gave evidence have claimed that special measures should remain available at the discretion of the judge. The Minister may use that argument in the Government’s response to my new clause. However, we know that the current system is letting victims down, and something needs to be done so that it is legally required that they have these options available to them. The majority of court proceedings have taken place via a live link since the pandemic began. What reason is there to refuse the same provision to vulnerable witnesses? Let us be frank: the court is not always functioning with the victim’s best interests at the centre of its decisions. This change would grant vulnerable witnesses much more autonomy over their experience in court, rather than the courts relying on who and how they are able to give evidence—the same courts that have let so many down.
If it were better for special measures to be left to the flexibility of the court rules, we would not have a situation where victims wait years to give evidence, and often then face their abuser in court. Additionally, under this new clause, the court would still be included in the decisions. It would still have to ensure that the measures or measures provided
“do not inhibit the evidence of the witnesses being effectively tested by a party to the proceedings.”
As the Victims’ Commissioner said, it should be the default position that victims, if they choose, can pre-record their video evidence weeks, months or years before the trial takes place. Not only would that be less traumatic for them, but it means the recollections are more current and therefore more reliable.
Cross-examination can also take place on video under section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act. This is particularly useful to reduce the huge backlog that the courts currently face, and these measures already exist. We just need to make sure that victims can access them as they should. The Government need to ensure that implementation is effective, and that the courts are fully resourced for it. More funding must be given to courts to provide places for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence securely, and ISVAs must also be available and dramatically expanded, so I am glad that the Minister has said that as part of the review she will actively look to employ more ISVAs.
I hope the Government listen to this argument and address the issue urgently, so that no more victims have to suffer the traumatising process of giving evidence without access to special measures.
Chris Philp
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North, and the hon. Member for Rotherham for raising this important issue. Clearly, all hon. Members from across the House would want victims of these terrible crimes to be supported at what are often traumatic court hearings, and the Government have certainly been working hard on it.
Reference was made to the rape review published last week. As the hon. Member for Rotherham suggested, it contains a range of measures designed to help support victims of these terrible crimes, not least a provision for more ISVAs, as she said in her remarks. It also asks the police to take a better, more proactive, faster, more comprehensive approach to the investigation of rape. No victim is to be left without their phone for 24 hours; digital material will be requested only where strictly necessary and proportionate to the line of inquiry; and there will be better joint working between the police and the CPS and so on. So numerous measures were announced last week, all designed to help improve the situation in the area that we are discussing. In all frankness, it certainly does need to be improved.
Specifically, the clauses mention pre-recorded evidence permitted under section 28, as we have heard. It is worth saying that for vulnerable witnesses we have already fully rolled out the availability of section 28 pre-recorded evidence; that was completed in November last year. Vulnerable witnesses include all child witnesses, and also witnesses whose quality of evidence is likely to be affected because of a mental health disorder or some form of physical disability. The measure has already been implemented in every single Crown court across the country.
On intimidated witnesses, as the shadow Minister said we are already piloting the use of section 28 evidence for intimidated witnesses in three early adopter Crown courts—Leeds, Kingston upon Thames and Liverpool. That means that victims of those crimes have access to this measure and are able to pre-record their evidence, cross-examination and possibly re-examination via video early in the process, outside of the courtroom environment. That, for reasons we have discussed, is often of significant benefit to the victim.
Sarah Champion
I am very heartened by what the Minister is saying. One problem that keeps getting raised with me is that if victims choose to go down the live link route there must be authorised sites, but there are so few in the country, and they have backlogs and so on. There is a resourcing issue. However, it is my understanding that a lot more live evidence has been given by video link during the pandemic. Surely we have had a year of piloting this, as well as the specific pilots that the Minister is doing, so is he now looking at rolling back the opportunity to give evidence via live link, in order to wait for the pilot?
Chris Philp
Giving evidence by live link in proceedings is obviously different from section 28, which applies to pre-recorded evidence and cross-examination. In answer to the question about live links, no, there is no intention to try to influence the judiciary to use live video links less than they have been doing so. Generally speaking, it has worked very successfully. Each week there are 20,000 court sessions across all jurisdictions—criminal, civil, family and tribunals—using video technology, and there is no desire on the part of the Government to see that reduced, should the judge and other participants want to continue with it. That option is available. All Crown court rooms have the cloud video platform installed in them, which will remain the case.
A new system is coming in that will improve things further, but there will be no removal of remote capability from Crown court rooms. They will have the ability to take live evidence by video link. Every cloud has a silver lining, and one of the silver linings has been the fact that every Crown court room now has that capability.
Sarah Champion
My new clause shifts the choice to the victim rather than the judge. What the Minister is saying is great, but will he support my new clause, so that the victim is able to choose whether to give evidence by live link?
Chris Philp
Having spoken to new clause 4, let me turn now to new clause 20. As the hon. Lady says, it moves the discretion away from a judge and makes it the witness’s choice whether the section 28 recording is conducted. We want to encourage as many eligible people as possible to make use of the special measures that are available, and we have taken a number of steps to ensure that objective. For example, the revised victims code, which came into force just a few weeks ago, on 1 April, focuses on victims’ rights and sets out the level of service that victims can expect to receive from criminal justice agencies. The code also enshrines victims’ rights to have their needs assessed by the police or a witness care unit in order to determine whether they are eligible to give evidence using special measures and would benefit from doing so, to help relieve some of the stress involved in giving evidence. We want to ensure that every single eligible witness is identified, and that the matter is actively considered.
Maria Eagle
Does the Minister accept that many of these offences leave the victims feeling powerless? Powerlessness, and having things done to them, is part of the horror that arises from such offences. To give victims agency—to allow them to decide for themselves in those proceedings what would work for them—would be a powerful fillip to their psychological wellbeing, so that the court system is not then doing to them, after they have had the perpetrator doing things to them, and all the while they are feeling powerless. The Minister could do a lot of good by accepting the provision.
Chris Philp
Clearly the victims code, published a few weeks ago, is designed to help victims in many of the ways that the hon. Lady described. I will come on to the specific question of who makes the decision in a moment. In addition to the victims code, however, we are doing more work with important agencies such as the police and the CPS, drafting guidance to share with victim care units and making sure that the understanding of the special measures, such as section 28, is as high as it possibly can be. We are also looking to maximise the use of section 24 and to improve the use of remote link sites—the point that the hon. Member for Rotherham made a moment ago—again to help victims.
On the question of empowerment, which the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood just asked about, there is clearly a balance to strike. Obviously we want to ensure that victims are protected and looked after, and that we minimise the trauma that may follow from reliving the experience. We should also be aware, however, that these are court proceedings, designed to determine guilt or innocence. The consequence of a conviction in such cases is, most likely, a long time in prison—rightly so. We therefore need to ensure that the interests of justice are considered, as well as the interests of the victim, which are also extremely important; they are both important.
Ultimately, the judge decides whether a live link may be used or the other special measures may be activated for someone who is eligible. The reason for that is that it is for a judge to make a determination in an individual case on how that case is managed and conducted, having regard to all the particular facts in the case—the circumstances, the victim and the nature of the victim, the nature of the questioning or cross-examination that might need to take place.
The concern of the Government is that if we simply legislate to remove that judicial discretion, saying that the judge cannot decide and what happens is automatic, it means that the judge will in some sense lose control of how the proceedings are conducted. There may be circumstances in which that undermines the delivery of justice.
We hope that judges listen to our proceedings—I am sure they do—and hear the very strong emphasis that we in this House give to victims. The judges are aware of the victims code and the strengthened rights that it gives victims, and they will keep that at the front of their minds when they make such decisions. I hope that they will make them—they normally make them and I hope will continue to do so—in a way that is sympathetic and sensitive. To wholly extinguish judicial discretion, however, would go a long way.
Sarah Champion
I appreciate the Minister’s giving way. I am not entirely convinced that his civil servants have read my amendment. After proposed new paragraph (b) in subsection (2), the new clause states:
“so far as possible ensure that the measure or measures provided for do not inhibit the evidence of the witness being effectively tested by a party to the proceedings.”
It explicitly gives the ultimate call to the judge. We would be giving the victim the right to have a choice, but if the judge believes that it in any way discredits the evidence that they are able to give, the judge has the right not to allow it.
Chris Philp
The drafting is:
“Provided that a direction under paragraph (b) shall so far as possible ensure that the…measures provided for do not inhibit the evidence”.
As far as I read it, it does not give the judge the power not to make the order; it simply states that they must make the order in such a way as not to inhibit the evidence being given
“so far as possible”.
My understanding of the words on the page is not that the judge has an ultimate veto; they must simply exercise a direction in that way.
Furthermore,
“so far as possible”
is not a high test when it comes to justice being done and ensuring that evidence is given fairly. When we are potentially convicting someone and sending them to prison for a long time, ensuring that justice is done
“so far as possible”,
intuitively, does not feel like the standard is quite high enough.
Sarah Champion
I am happy to work with the Minister to get the wording exactly right, so that it does exactly what I think we both want.
Chris Philp
The Government’s position, in conclusion, is that it is very hard to sit in Parliament and legislate definitively and bindingly—
Chris Philp
Let me finish the sentence—for all the circumstances that may arise in an individual case. Therefore, although we have guidelines, procedures and so on, ultimately, the management of any particular case, including things such as the use of live links and proceedings in the courtroom, are a matter for the very experienced judge who is looking at the case, the defendant and the witnesses in front of him or her, the judge.
That is why, ultimately, judicial discretion is required. However, we agree with the direction of travel. I have already mentioned some of the things that we are doing to push things further. I am certain that judges looking at our proceedings will respond accordingly and will take a positive, constructive and accommodating view where the issues arise. In fact, they already have a duty under section 19 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to take into account the views of the witnesses in making their decisions. We feel that that strikes the right balance.
Alex Cunningham
I do not know whether the Minister accepted the kind offer of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham to assist him in developing new clause 20 to make it fit for purpose. He has indicated with a nod of the head that he is pleased to work with her—is that the case?
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful for that clarification.
I am also heartened by the Minister’s response to new clause 4. I will not take anything away from the Government for the tremendous progress that they have made in this area. However, there have been many pilots and I believe that those have already proved that the system is working. I suspect that if it were not working, he would be looking to do something else, rather than extending the pilot. I hope that we can make some more progress sooner rather than later.
The Minister talked about the various recommendations in the rape review. I do not think that we need to wait for the Government to roll out their actions from the rape review. We could take some action now. I see the new clause as another opportunity to take another small step, but it is a significant step, to protect victims and even to improve the quality of evidence that is given in court. Who knows, that, too, might improve some of those abysmal conviction rates that we suffer as a country—suffered by victims who do not receive justice.
Sarah Champion
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fear of giving evidence as the system stands, prevents any justice from happening? Any movement that the Government can make that is sensitive to the needs of victims and survivors would be hugely beneficial.
Alex Cunningham
That is very much the case. Yesterday, following the statement from the Lord Chancellor, there were various discussions of the statistics around cases. For some people, the case does not get beyond the police investigation; it never reaches the CPS. That is because of some of the issues outlined by my hon. Friend. We believe that it is time to start taking action. I say gently that it is great to have warm words from Ministers, but we actually need to make real progress. I will therefore press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 7—Offence of pet theft (Scotland)—
‘(1) The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 17 (protected animals) insert—
“17A Definition of pet
A protected animal is a “pet” for the purposes of this Act if it provides companionship or assistance to any human being.”
(3) After section 23 (animal fights) insert—
“23A Pet theft
A person commits an offence if they dishonestly appropriate a pet belonging to another person with the intention of permanently depriving that other person of it.”
(4) In section 40 (disqualification orders) after subsection (13)(b) insert—
“(ba) an offence under section 23A,”.
(5) In section 46 (penalties for offences) after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) A person guilty of an offence under section 23A (pet theft) shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine, or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or to a fine, or to both.
(1B) When the court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under section 23A it must consider the following as aggravating factors (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence)—
(a) that theft caused fear, alarm or distress to the pet, the owner or the pet or another person associated with the pet;
(b) the theft was for the purposes of commercial gain.”
(6) In Schedule 1 (powers of inspectors and constables for Part 2) after paragraph 4(5)(a) insert—
(aa) an offence under section 23A,”.”
New clause 8—Offence of pet theft: consequential amendments—
‘(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 17(1)(c)(v) (entry for purposes of arrest, etc in connection with offences relating to the prevention of harm to animals), for “and 8(1) and (2)” substitute “8(1) and (2) and 8A”.”
Alex Cunningham
We now turn our attention to quite a different subject. New clauses 6 to 8 would work as a package to create a new specific offence of pet theft, punishable by a custodial sentence of up to two years. As the Minister is aware, the theft of pets is currently an offence under the Theft Act 1968. However, although the law of theft caters for certain specific offences—for example, bicycles, scrap metals and even wild mushrooms, unbelievably—that is not the case for pets. That matters because the Theft Act does not consider a pet’s intrinsic value as a much-loved member of the family. Instead, it takes into account only its monetary or sale value.
I am sure that, like me, the Minister gets a regular flow of emails from animal lovers and owners who want tougher laws to deal with those who would deprive them of their pets. They value their pets way beyond many things in their lives and even make sacrifices to ensure they get the expensive vet treatment that they need. It seems absurd to us that the theft of a much-loved pet is currently regarded in law as the same as the theft of a mobile phone or a handbag.
Pets are living, sentient beings that come into our lives and become irreplaceable members of our families. I do not mind saying that it broke my heart when my dog, Lady, died. It was the same when KT the cat died. He was called KT after we discovered that we had a male cat, which had previously been named Katie by one of my sons.
We believe that legislation and sentencing must reflect reality, and that is why Labour tabled new clause 6. It would create a specific offence of pet theft that would enable courts to deliver sentences for pet theft offences that properly reflect the attitudes of modern society. I know the Minister will remind us that the Government are looking to reform this area of the law, but that was due to happen last year.
Fewer than 1% of pet thefts lead to charges being brought. Although the Theft Act allows for a minimum custodial sentence of up to seven years’ imprisonment, the evidence shows us that someone found guilty of pet theft is far more likely to be handed a caution than a custodial sentence. That is because the vast majority of cases involving pet theft will be handled by the magistrates courts, rather than the Crown court. That is exactly why we need a change in the law. Creating a specific offence of pet theft, rather than leaving offences to be prosecuted under the Theft Act, would mean that judges are able to sentence acts of pet theft in accordance with the huge emotional damage that the offence causes.
The change is as important as it is timely. As the Minister is aware, the number of pet thefts—dog thefts in particular—has skyrocketed during the pandemic. Five police forces across England and Wales reported more acts of dog theft in the past seven months than during the whole of the previous year. Indeed, the number of dog thefts has been increasing year on year for the best part of the past decade, and we are now at the point where, on average, at least five dogs are stolen in England and Wales each and every day. That is a staggering and horrifying figure. I have heard of pets actually snatched from their owners in the street, as criminals steal them to order.
What is even more worrying is that, while the number of dog thefts increases with each year, the number of court charges relating to dog theft has gone down. In 2015, only 62 court charges were brought. In 2016, that had decreased to 48, and by 2017 the number was only 37. By failing to take decisive action as pet thefts rocket and successful prosecutions fall, the Government are sending a dangerous message to criminals—that they can continue to break the hearts of families up and down the country with complete impunity.
Given that the Government have taken no action, the Opposition feel that we must step in and offer them an opportunity for change with a specific offence of pet theft, punishable with a custodial sentence of up to two years. Again, that would allow judges to hand down sentences that properly reflect the emotional family value of a pet, rather than simply its value as an object. That seems to us a wholly sensible response to the current crisis of pet thefts that we see today. Pets are not simply objects; they are invaluable members of our family, within our homes. They provide emotional comfort, support and happiness to families across the country.
It is not just the Opposition who recognise that. The Minister will be aware that many animal welfare groups support a change in legislation, as do members of his own party and the vast majority of the public. The current system does not work and it is the country’s 12 million households that have pets who are being let down. I hope that the Minister, rather than saying that the Government will sort this issue out some other time, will take decisive action and support the new clauses today.
Sarah Champion
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North for tabling these new clauses, because during the pandemic in particular the rate of dog theft has gone through the roof, as the cost of puppies, dogs and all other pets has also skyrocketed.
These animals are worth so much more than their monetary value; they are valued members of our households. And we have seen some very high-profile cases that demonstrate the impact when pets are stolen. The law needs to catch up and I really urge the Minister to take this opportunity to do that.
In March, DogLost—a UK charity that helps victims of dog theft—recorded a 170% increase in the rate of this crime between 2019 and 2020. It is very welcome that in May the Government announced a taskforce that will consider the factors contributing to the rise in dognapping and recommend solutions to tackle the problem, but we do not need just another consultation. What we actually need is action and the Bill provides the perfect opportunity for the Government to take that action.
Campaigners against dog theft have called for pet theft to be made a specific offence and they are right to do so. That crime needs more robust punishment than just being covered by theft of property; treating pets just as “property” does not recognise the emotional attachment that people place on them.
Hywel Williams
Does the hon. Lady recognise, as I do, the value of pets in therapeutic situations, especially when people have a disability and perhaps build a particular relationship with a cat or dog? In that respect, the theft of such an animal is even worse than the theft of just a family pet, as it were.
Sarah Champion
I completely agree. While the hon. Gentleman was talking, I was reminded of my grandma, who had a budgie called Bluey. As a child, I did not realise why, every few years, Bluey changed colour. But for my grandma, if Bluey had been stolen it would have broken her, as Bluey was the one constant in her life. The value of a budgie is—what? I do not know—£20? What we find, though, is that when people are caught for petnapping they only receive a small fine; indeed, sometimes they just receive a suspended sentence. Those punishments do not reflect the emotional worth that the pets have.
According to the Pet Theft Reform campaign, in recent years only 1% of dog thefts have even led to prosecution. Campaigners have called for reform of the current system of pet microchipping, to improve the chances of reuniting stolen animals with their owners.
As we have discussed, it is heartbreaking when a beloved family pet is stolen. Currently, however, it is very difficult to collate definitive statistics on pet theft, which is principally due to, first, the different methods of recording pet theft that are used by different police forces and, secondly, pets not being differentiated under the Theft Act 1968. Pets are more than property and legislation should reflect that.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I have campaigned on this incredibly important issue. However, having looked into the details and worked with different campaign groups and the Gloucestershire police force, which is recording these crimes well, I think some of the issues that the hon. Lady has touched on are becoming wider and wider in scope. There is a range of things that we need to fix.
I am inclined to say that the taskforce is the way forward to get to legislation. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must look at all of the issues, rather than just trying to tackle either specific sentencing or specific legislation?
Sarah Champion
I completely agree with the hon. Member. Yes, of course, we need robust data to be able to do that. We are in a chicken-and-egg situation because, as the hon. Member highlights, different police forces record different things, so it is hard to grasp the problem. The thing that I am most mindful of is that the opportunity to make changes to the legislation are slight in Parliament, but the Minister has an opportunity now, so I urge him to grasp it.
Does the Minister agree that the punishment should outweigh the potential rewards for stealing pets? At the moment, people receive tens of thousands of pounds for stealing dogs, but they are not given a sentence if they are convicted. I completely understand the work of the taskforce, but we need a positive response, which campaigners and pet owners have called for. There have been some really disturbing cases, with increasing violence used in dog thefts. That is another reason why I want the Government to send a strong message that that is not acceptable and is punishable.
A dog owner was knocked to the ground and punched in a terrifying attack by two men trying to steal her pet. Allie Knight, 22, was attacked near Mutley Plain, Plymouth, as she walked her pug, Paddy. Mike Jasper was walking his dog Ted—this was awful—a sprocker spaniel, in south London in December after visiting his allotment when he was brutally attacked by two men wearing face masks and Ted was taken. “BBC Breakfast” raised this case, and it highlighted the depth of the loss that someone feels when their pet is taken. A 50-year-old woman was attacked and had her dog stolen while she was out walking in Moira Road in Woodville, Derbyshire. One man pushed her to the floor, and grabbed her two-year-old dachshund called Minnie, while the other held his fist to her face.
Police forces need sufficient resources and training to be able to deal with pet theft in a sensitive manner and highlight resources where owners can turn for support. Blue Cross strongly supported the recent decision of Nottinghamshire police to appoint Chief Inspector Amy Styles-Jones as the first specialist dog-theft lead in the country. Having a dedicated dog-theft specialist in each police force would make a huge difference, and would address the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud about the disparities across the country.
Chris Philp
Once again, I am grateful to the shadow Minister and his colleagues for raising an extremely important issue: criminals seeking to profit from the theft of a pet. Sadly, it is a growing trend. Dog owners do not feel safe or comfortable very often, and it can be heartbreaking when a much-loved family pet is taken. Recognising that, the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have recently created a new taskforce to investigate the problem end to end and find solutions—not just in relation to the criminal offence, which we will come on to in a moment but in relation to prevention, reporting, enforcement and prosecution of the offences. It will make clear recommendations on how the problem can be tackled. We have seen in other contexts—for example, there was a problem a few years ago with scrap-metal thefts from church roofs—how an end-to-end approach can have an effect. We should not look simply at one element of the problem but at the whole thing end to end, and that is what the task force is urgently doing, as well as taking evidence from experts. The Minister for Crime and Policing is also involved, to make sure that police investigation is what it should be.
As we have heard, the theft of a pet is currently a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968, so the question arises of why we need a new offence. The first thing I would say is that the maximum sentence for the new offence proposed by the new clause is only two years, whereas the maximum sentence under the Theft Act is seven years. The new clause, if adopted, would reduce the maximum penalty available for stealing a pet from seven years to two years, which strikes me as incongruous, given the purported objectives of the new clause.
The shadow Minister made some points about whether the emotional value of the pet was recognised and accounted for. I draw his attention, and the Committee’s attention, to the Sentencing Council guidelines on theft, which are used by judges when passing sentence for theft up to the seven-year maximum. Under the guidance, which judges are bound to use, harm includes the emotional distress caused by the theft. The guidance also talks about the value to the person who suffered the loss, regardless of monetary worth, so the emotional distress and the non-monetary value are baked in already, in black and white, in those Sentencing Council guidelines. Indeed, the table specifying the level of harm sets out that emotional damage and harm to the victim cause an escalation in the sentence, over and above what would be the case based simply on monetary value.
Siobhan Baillie
Characteristically, the Minister is absolutely correct in everything he is saying, but we cannot get away from the fact that even though legislation provides for sentences of up to seven years, such sentences are not being passed. It is important to recognise that. One of the reasons that I would not back the proposal is that the Minister is right about the two years. We already have a greater sentencing option in the legislation, but that is not being taken, which is why the taskforce is key to looking at the range of options. That includes the judiciary and the Sentencing Council.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and those topics are precisely the ones the taskforce is addressing to make sure the appropriate statutory powers exist. The maximum sentence of seven years is there. The ability to take account of emotional distress and non-monetary value is there in black and white, in the Sentencing Council guidelines. I talked through a couple of examples in which instances of high harm and high culpability can lead to substantial periods in custody. Even if the level of harm was 3, there would still be level A culpability and the possibility of between six months and several years in custody. The powers are there in statute. The question is more practical, as my hon. Friend says, and that is exactly what the taskforce will address.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister is outlining how people who steal pets could get up to seven years in jail, but there is no evidence at all, anywhere in the country, to suggest that those cases go beyond magistrates court. The sentence is normally a fine; there is no evidence of custodial sentences. I do not know what the Minister proposes to do to improve guidance to the courts on how they deal with that, but perhaps it is something he needs to consider.
Chris Philp
That is exactly the kind of question the taskforce will be considering. Under the 1968 Act, theft is a triable either-way offence, which means it can be tried in the Crown court or the magistrates court. One matter the taskforce might consider is where the more serious of those offences are prosecuted. The option of the CPS seeking to have more of the cases tried in the Crown rather than the magistrates court could be explored, and that is a topic the taskforce most certainly may consider.
It is also worth mentioning that, in addition to the work of the taskforce and the existing powers relating to a maximum sentence of seven years, there is a lot more the Government are doing. For example, in the area of animal welfare, we are introducing legislation to recognise animals as sentient beings and putting animal welfare at the heart of Government policy decision making. We have also supported calls for increasing the penalty for animal cruelty from six months to five years under the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which received Royal Assent in April.
Maria Eagle
The Minister is making an interesting point about classifying animals in law as sentient, which is overdue. Does he foresee such a change leading to changes in this legislation? Theft of a sentient being appears to be a somewhat different offence from theft of what is currently seen as an object with monetary value.
Chris Philp
On monetary or emotional value, the Sentencing Council guidelines recognise emotional value and non-monetary worth. The hon. Lady asks about the interaction between the 2021 Act and sentience, on which we are looking to legislate. That is the kind of topic that the taskforce will have in mind. It is an interesting point, and I will ensure that it features in the taskforce’s deliberations.
Given the work that the taskforce is doing across a far wider area than the criminal offence, and given that the criminal offence already has a maximum of seven years and that emotional value is recognised, I feel that the taskforce is doing the necessary work to step up action in this area. We recognise that there is a problem. More needs to be done, and the taskforce is doing it.
Alex Cunningham
Pet owners across the country will be delighted that we have had the debate. We listened to what Members have said and listened the Minister’s response, and we look forward to the taskforce reporting. I do not know when the report is due, but pet owners across the country still want the Government to take action. We do not want any more dilly-dallying; we need the Government to act. We hope that they will press the taskforce to report quickly and to make recommendations that will deliver what the public want: more severe sentences for people who would steal their pets. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Rental of high performance vehicles
“(1) It is an offence to offer for rental a motor car of more than 300 brake horsepower, unless the motor car is fitted with a black box.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a black box is a telematic device which records information about the way a motor car is driven.
(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations determine the information which a black box must record for the purposes of this section.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) must provide, at a minimum, for the following information relating to the motor car to which it is fitted to be collected throughout the period of rental—
(a) its location;
(b) its speed; and
(c) its rate of acceleration or deceleration.
(5) The information recorded by the black box must be disclosed to a constable on request, and the failure to disclose such information is an offence.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.
(7) The Secretary of State must by regulations determine how the brake horsepower of a motor car is to be calculated for the purposes of this section.
(8) For the purposes of this section, “motor car” has the meaning given by section 185 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.” —(Sarah Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Sarah Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), with my support and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Peter Kyle) and for Stockton North. It would produce more accountability in the rental of high-performance vehicles or supercars. I understand that the issue of high-powered vehicles being driven recklessly in and around neighbourhoods, thereby plaguing towns and communities, is a challenge not only in parts of West Yorkshire, but across the country. Many attempts have been made to combat the issue at local level, involving local authorities working side by side with police forces, but such partnership initiatives can go only so far, and it has become clear to all involved that action at national level is needed.
More often than not in the examples of road traffic offences committed by people using cars described as high-performance vehicles, supercars or even prestige cars, the driver is not the owner, but has hired the vehicle. In recent years, there has been an increase in people hiring cars such as Lamborghinis and Ferraris and passing the keys to someone else, if not several others. The vehicles are then driven at dangerously high speeds, which puts other road users, pedestrians and the drivers themselves at risk.
Often the driver will not have the appropriate insurance. They will argue that they believed that they were somehow covered by the rental agreement, by their own insurance or simply by the fact that the person who hired the car had given them consent to take it around the block. They will say that they had not intended to crash, so they did not need insurance. In the majority of cases, they will not have experience of handling 300 hp-plus vehicles, which can be deadly in the wrong hands. Many companies that hire out vehicles operate responsibly and with transparency, but there are much darker elements in the industry. The sliding scale of criminality ranges from drivers engaging in antisocial use of the roads in communities to dangerous and reckless driving through to serious and organised crime.
What can we do to ensure that all companies that rent performance vehicles act responsibly and drivers are accountable for their actions behind the wheel? The new clause makes a start, and it follows a ten-minute rule Bill that was introduced on the Floor of the House on 24 February by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. She recalled a recent example in which a police officer had stopped two high-performance vehicles on the same 40 mph road, one going at 76 mph and the other at 86 mph.
The new clause would mandate all rental vehicles of 300 hp or above for use on public highways to be fitted with a black box. A black box is typically the size of a matchbox and it records information about how and when a car is driven. Many hire car companies act competently and do their very best to ensure that their vehicles do not fall into the hands of the irresponsible—that includes fitting black boxes—but a minority fail to carry out due diligence.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I am a member of the all-party parliamentary historic vehicles group, and I am a little concerned that many older vehicles that may be hired—for example, vintage Bentleys—cannot be fitted with a black box, which might prevent those vehicles from being enjoyed by people who perhaps want to hire a little of our history.
Sarah Jones
I confess that I am not a car expert, but my understanding is that the vehicles in question are 300 hp or more. I do not know whether the vehicles the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned are in that category. The new clause relates to powerful cars that are hired by people—often young people—who pass them on to their friends. In some cases, significant damage is caused.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. I understand the problem she has identified. However, the Jaguar F-Pace 3.0 litre 4x4, for example, which families might hire to pull a caravan on a holiday or to go on a trip, would fall into that category. I am a little worried that many people who are not part of the problem might be drawn into additional cost and the difficulties that that might present.
Sarah Jones
I imagine that if a vehicle could not accommodate a black box, it would not fall within the remit of the new clause. Perhaps we could work on the guidance accompanying the new clause to fix the issue that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I am grateful to him for doing so.
Sarah Champion
Does my hon. Friend agree, though, that fitting a black box would not inhibit a good driver, and it should not put an additional cost on the hire? The new clause would allow us to capture the data that could prove that people had been acting recklessly after hiring sports cars.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right, as always. The purpose of the new clause would be of no concern to people who drive safely and competently.
The new clause would also make it a requirement for companies to hand over that black box data to the police should they request it. As Members of the House have communicated to me, this problem is repeatedly raised on the doorstep in some communities and in constituency surgeries, and getting a grip of it would not only make people safer, but push back on the costs picked up by responsible road users who are penalised through their own insurance to cover the risk presented by a minority of reckless road users who drive vehicles without insurance that become involved in crashes.
The Motor Insurers Bureau has shared with me some troubling examples of questionable insurance policies being used by some companies in this rental sector. Agencies agree that costs are passed on to law-abiding road users by those abusers of system. A black box would help to provide an evidence base for determining whether road traffic offences had been committed and, ultimately, for securing prosecutions if necessary. That would protect law-abiding road users from risk and cost to them.
Over the years, I have seen the police and various partnerships deploy several attempts to address the issue, with varying success. The new clause would make a start by using legislation to address reckless driving facilitated by the irresponsible use of hired supercars.
Victoria Atkins
I have listened very carefully to the arguments made by the hon. Lady, and it seems to me that the issue comes down to the driving habits of the small group of people in West Yorkshire and elsewhere that she described.
Sarah Jones
I fear, Sir Charles, that two non-car-experts are talking about cars, which is probably uncomfortable for car experts across the country. Many of the cars the Minister has mentioned are fitted with black boxes. Police cars are fitted with black boxes. A lot of companies offer much cheaper insurance if someone has a black box fitted to their car. Indeed, there are insurance companies with the words “black box” in their name. The provision is not extreme, and this is becoming normal anyway. Given the Minister’s argument about the breadth of models of car that might be affected by the new clause, perhaps she will commit herself to considering a better definition so as to tackle this particular, extreme problem, which is very concerning for a lot of people.
Victoria Atkins
There are other concerns about the new clause, which come back to the proportionality argument. I fully accept, of course, for those communities that are affected by the sort of antisocial—indeed dangerous—driving that hon. Lady has described, that their feelings as to proportionality will differ from those in a quiet rural area, for example, where there is no such behaviour, but this is where the powers that I have already outlined come in. They include public spaces protection orders, which can be particularly powerful, because they allow a local area to address the concerns in a particular part of the area as appropriate.
The concern that we have for the wider hire market is that the requirement to fit devices to these vehicles—the Honda Civic, the Volvo V60 and suchlike—could restrict choice and availability of vehicles. The low threshold may defeat the objective of stopping higher-performance vehicles being driven at speed. Consumers may in fact switch to lower-powered vehicles so as not to be monitored by black boxes, and continue to break the law.
Sarah Jones
As I understand it, given the problems that have been described to me, people specifically want to hire these high-glamour cars—Lamborghinis and so on—because they want to show off and race each other. Getting a lower-performance car is not what they are aiming for; the point is to hire these big, high-powered, high-glamour cars and show off in front of their friends.
Victoria Atkins
This is difficult, in terms of defining the type of car. But I also fall back on the proportionality argument, because in requiring devices to be fitted to every single car as a matter of law, we would be affecting the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens, who do not race Lamborghinis and so on—although I do note, having watched Jeremy Clarkson’s farming programme, that he has a Lamborghini, albeit a Lamborghini tractor, which I suspect would not fall into this category.
We would have further concerns about the privacy consequences of fitting these devices, because to ensure that we were acting in the way that the new clause sets out, it would have to affect responsible road users as well as irresponsible ones. Telematic data is normally used to assess individual road safety risk, which can be an inexact science. As the hon. Lady said, this is currently voluntary, not mandatory. Forcing those using even medium-sized rental cars to have these devices fitted could understandably lead to privacy concerns on the part of all rental vehicle users and not just the irresponsible racers, on which the new clause is understandably focused.
For those reasons—for reasons of proportionality but also because there are existing powers to deal with this irresponsible, dangerous behaviour—we do not believe that the new clause is proportionate and therefore we hope that the hon. Lady feels able to withdraw the motion.
Sarah Jones
I have heard from several MPs about the problem that this behaviour is causing in their constituencies. The argument of proportionality is always a strong one, but in this case the problem is such that people are concerned for their safety and for the lives of the people hiring these vehicles, and therefore I would like to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 11—Definition of “issue of consent”—
“(1) Section 42 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) “issue of consent” means any issue where the complainant in fact consented to the conduct constituting the offence with which the defendant is charged and any issue where the accused reasonably believed that the complainant so consented;””
This new clause re-defines “issue of consent” for the purposes of section 41, including in the definition the defendant’s reasonable belief in consent, and thus removing it as a reason for the inclusion of a complainant’s sexual history or behaviour.
New clause 12—Admission of evidence or questions about complainant’s sexual history—
“(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 43 insert—
“43A In any trial or contested hearing to which section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 applies, if no pre-trial application in accordance with Part 36 of the Criminal Procedure Rules has been made, or if such application has been made and refused in whole or in part, no further application may be made during the course of the trial or before its commencement to call such evidence or ask such question, and no judge may allow such application or admit any such questions or evidence.””
This new clause would have the effect that no section 41 evidence or questions could be admitted by a judge at trial unless there had been an application before trial in accordance with the practice directions; and the amendment would ban applications from being made immediately before or during the trial.
New clause 13—Complainant’s right of representation and appeal on an application to adduce evidence or questions on sexual conduct—
“(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 43 insert—
“43A In any trial to which section 41 applies, where notice is given that there will be an application under Part 36 of the Criminal Procedure Rules for leave to ask questions or to adduce evidence as to any sexual behaviour of the complainant—
(1) The complainant may not be compelled to give evidence at any hearing on the application.
(2) The complainant will be entitled to be served with the application and to be legally represented (with the assistance of legal aid if financially eligible) as “a party” within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Rules in responding in writing to the application and in presenting their case at any hearing on the application.
(3) If the application succeeds in whole or in part, the complainant will have a right to appeal for a rehearing of the application to the Court of Appeal on notice within 7 days of the judgement being delivered.
(4) On any such appeal, the Court of Appeal will rehear the application in full and may grant or refuse it in whole or in part.
(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulation, set out rules of procedure relating to any hearing or appeal under this section.””
This new clause would give the complainant a right of representation, with legal aid if they are financially eligible, to oppose any application to admit section 41 material about them. This new clause would also give complainants a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal if the application is allowed in whole or in part. The new clause also provides that the complainant is not compellable as witness at the application.
New clause 14—Collection of and reporting to Parliament on data and information relating to proceedings involving rape and sexual assault—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall collect and report to Parliament annually the following data and information—
(a) The time taken in every case of rape or sexual assault for the case to progress from complaint to charge, from charge to pre-trial plea and management hearing; and from then until trial.
(b) The number of applications to ask questions or adduce evidence of any sexual behaviour of the complainant under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (“the 1999 Act”) made in the Magistrates and Crown Courts of England and Wales, irrespective of whether a trial was subsequently held.
(c) The number of cases which involved questions on or evidence of any sexual behaviour of the complainant in all rape, sexual abuse and other trials or contested hearings in the Magistrates and Crown courts in England and Wales, irrespective of whether an application was made to admit such questions or evidence in advance of the trial or hearing.
(d) In cases to which section 41 of the 1999 Act applies—
(i) whether Part 36 of the Criminal Procedure Rules was followed in each application and if it was not, how it was not;
(ii) the questions proposed to be asked;
(iii) the evidence proposed to be called;
(iv) whether the prosecution opposed the application and if so the content of their representations;
(v) whether evidence was called to support or oppose the application;
(vi) whether the application was allowed in whole or in part and a copy of the judgement made on the application; and
(vii) any other material which might assist in an assessment of the frequency, basis and nature of applications for the use of such questions or evidence and the likely impact on any parties to any trial and the trial outcome.
(2) The data and information to be collected under subsection (1) shall include—
(a) all the material from any pre-trial application;
(b) the questions in fact asked and the evidence in fact called about any sexual behaviour of the complainant in the trial;
(c) any application at the start or during the course of the trial to vary or alter any judgement given in any earlier application or any further application to admit such questions or evidence;
(d) whether any material not previously authorised was used in the trial;
(e) whether the prosecution objected; and
(f) any ruling made or action taken by the judge on the further conduct of the trial as a consequence of the admission of questions or evidence under section 41 of the 1999 Act.
(3) The data and information to be collected under this section shall be collected from the date of Royal Assent to this Bill.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to collect and report to Parliament data and information on trial delay and section 41 matters.
New clause 15—Training for relevant public officials in relation to the conduct of cases of serious sexual offences—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall, on this Act coming into force, publish and implement a strategy to provide training on the investigation of rape and alleged rape complainants, and the admissibility and cross-examination of complainants on their sexual history to—
(a) the Crown Prosecution Service;
(b) Police Forces;
(c) the Judiciary; and
(d) such other public bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that any judge who is asked to hear a trial where the accused is charged with rape or any other serious sexual offence has attended and completed a training programme for such trials which has been accredited by the Judicial College.”
This new clause ensures that all criminal justice agencies shall be trained and that no judge can hear a sexual offence trial of any kind unless they have attended the Judicial College serious sexual offence course.
New clause 42—Enhancement of special measures in sexual offences—
“(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 27, after subsection (1), insert—
“(1A) Any interview conducted under this section of a complainant in respect of a sexual offence must be conducted by—
(a) a member of the Bar of England and Wales,
(b) a member of the Faculty of Advocates,
(c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or
(d) a solicitor advocate.””
New clause 57—Restriction on evidence or questions about mental health counselling or treatment records relating to complainant or witness—
“(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 43 insert—
“43A Restriction on evidence or questions about mental health counselling or treatment records relating to complainant or witness
(1) If at a trial a person is charged with a sexual offence, then, except with the leave of the court—
(a) no evidence may be adduced, and
(b) no question may be asked in cross examination,
by or on behalf of any accused at the trial, about any records made in relation to any mental health counselling or treatment which may have been undertaken by a complainant or witness.
(2) The records made include those made by—
(a) a counsellor,
(b) a therapist,
(c) an Independent Sexual Violence Adviser (ISVA), and
(d) any victim support services.
(3) The court may give leave in relation to any evidence or question only on an application made by or on behalf of a party to the trial, and may not give such leave unless it is satisfied that—
(a) the evidence or question relates to a relevant issue in the case which will include a specific instance (or specific instances) of alleged sexual behaviour on the part of the complainant,
(b) the evidence or question has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice, and
(c) a refusal of leave might have the result of rendering unsafe a conclusion of the jury or (as the case may be) the court on any relevant issue in the case.
(4) For the purposes of making a determination under paragraph (3)(b) the judge shall take into account—
(a) the interests of justice, including the right of the accused to make a full answer and defence;
(b) the need to preserve the integrity of the trial process by removing from the fact-finding process any discriminatory belief or bias;
(c) the risk that the evidence may unduly arouse sentiments of prejudice, sympathy or hostility in the jury;
(d) the potential threat to the personal dignity and right to privacy of the complainant or witness;
(e) the complainant’s or witness’s right to personal security and to the full protection and benefit of the law;
(f) the provisions of the Victims Code; and
(g) any other factor that the judge considers relevant.
(5) Where this section applies in relation to a trial by virtue of the fact that one or more of a number of persons charged in the proceedings is or are charged with a sexual offence—
(a) it shall cease to apply in relation to the trial if the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case against that person or those persons in respect of that charge; but
(b) it shall not cease to do so in the event of that person or those persons pleading guilty to, or being convicted of, that charge.
(6) Nothing in this section authorises any evidence to be adduced or any question to be asked which cannot be adduced or asked apart from this section.
(7) In relation to evidence or questions under this Section, if no pre-trial application in accordance with Part 36 of the Criminal Procedure Rules has been made, or if such application has been made and refused in whole or in part, no further application may be made during the course of the trial or before its commencement to call such evidence or ask such question, and no judge may allow such application or admit any such questions or evidence.””
This new clause would restrict evidence or questions about mental health counselling or treatment records relating to complainant or witness unless a defined threshold is met.
New clause 68—Law Commission consideration of the use of complainants’ sexual history in rape trials—
“The Secretary of State must seek advice and information from the Law Commission under section (3)(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 with proposals for the reform or amendment of the law relating to the use of complainants’ sexual history in rape trials.”
Sarah Champion
I would like to speak to new clause 57, which would restrict evidence or questions about mental health counselling or treatment records, unless a defined threshold is met. Under current legislation, the police and defence are able to access all the victim’s counselling notes relatively easily. That results in many victims fearing that their counselling notes will be used against them in court proceedings, while some victims are actively discouraged from accessing counselling until after the trial has taken place.
New clause 57 would create a presumption that the disclosure of counselling notes would not be used as evidence, so that only in exceptional circumstances could the victim’s records be accessed. The new clause would add a new section to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, so that the judge would have to take into account multiple factors, including the victims’ code, and the potential threat to the person’s dignity and right to privacy of the complainant or witness.
The mental health records would also have to relate to a relevant issue in the case, and the judge would have to ensure that the evidence has significant probative value. That would reassure victims that it would be unlikely that their records would be used, and give them more confidence in working with the police and courts to secure justice.
I recently received an email from a brave woman who used to live in my constituency. She has now moved away from the UK because she did feel emotionally or physically safe in Rotherham, or indeed in England. She left the UK as a direct result of the traumatic court case. She literally moved to the other side of the world. In 2011-12, she reported childhood sexual abuse to South Yorkshire police. In her email to me, she wrote:
“After I completed my video evidence, the officers told me it would complicate the trial if I sought any mental health support, and to wait until it was over. That took 18 months, 18 of the most difficult months, when I was emotionally abused and outcast by my family for reporting the abuse. I had nowhere to turn, needed to see a psychologist for support and I was utterly traumatised. Today, I suffer from post-traumatic stress from that trial, and I feel it is related to being denied my human right of access to mental health support. If the police denied anyone cancer treatment during court proceedings, there would be uproar. We need to see mental health in the same way.”
She goes on to say:
“Despite it not being illegal to see a counsellor, it appears to be more convenient for the police case if one is not seen. When someone in such an immense position of trust indicates it would be better not to see a counsellor, the victim is so vulnerable and so strongly led by the police that I fear it will continue, even if it is off the record. Furthermore, the fear of past or ongoing counselling notes being shared with the courtroom is so overwhelmingly terrifying it is enough to put someone off seeking help, even if they were not directed against it by the police, as I was.”
Minister, this needs systematic change. Receiving counselling or mental health support should not make a victim unreliable as a witness. In 2018, in a debate about the victims’ strategy, the then Solicitor General, now Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), said:
“Where we have suitably qualified…mental health professionals, there should…be no bar to the sort of general counselling help that would be of real value to people who are experiencing some form of trauma.”—[Official Report, 11 October 2018; Vol. 647, c. 374.]
More recently, in response to my written question, the Minister for Crime and Policing, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), said:
“Victims of crime have a right to be referred to support services and have services and support tailored to their needs. There are no rules that restrict access to therapy in advance of criminal proceedings.”
My constituent was denied mental health support. I received a letter from South Yorkshire police confirming that there is guidance, which the CPS relied on in this case, to deny therapy to vulnerable witnesses in cases where the evidence can be argued as tainted and the prosecution lost. My constituent was refused counselling, but the police then found and shared counselling notes from sessions she had had at university, four years before the court case. She states:
“I was already fearful about how much of that information I’d freely shared in confidence four years earlier would be shared with my abuser and whoever else turned up to court that day.”
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Eighteenth sitting)
Tuesday 22nd June 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 June 2021 - (22 Jun 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Here we are. We have the ambition, according to the Whips, to get to new clause 59 by 5 o’clock. That will take some energy and effort from Committee members, but I am sure that with a fair wind behind you and natural checks in place, you will succeed in your ambition.
New Clause 10
Restriction on evidence or questions about complainant’s sexual history
‘(1) Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) starting in paragraph (b) omit “in cross examination, by or on behalf of any accused at the trial,”;
(b) at end insert “with anyone other than the defendant”.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) for “an accused” substitute “a party to the trial”;
(b) in paragraph (a) omit “or (5)”.
(4) For subsection (3) substitute—
“(3) This subsection applies if the evidence or question relates to a relevant issue in the case and that issue is not an issue of consent.”
(5) For subsection (5) substitute— In subsection (6), for “subsections (3) and (5)” substitute “subsection (3)”.”
“(a) For the purposes of subsection (3) no evidence may be adduced or question asked unless the judge determines in accordance with the procedures in this subsection that the question or evidence has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.
(b) In determining that question the judge shall take into account—
(i) the interests of justice, including the right of the accused to make a full answer and defence;
(ii) the need to preserve the integrity of the trial process by removing from the fact-finding process any discriminatory belief or bias;
(iii) the risk that the evidence may unduly arouse sentiments of prejudice, sympathy or hostility in the jury;
(iv) the potential threat to the complainant’s personal dignity and right to privacy;
(v) the complainant’s right to personal security and to the full protection and benefit of the law;
(vi) the provisions of the Victims Code;
and any other factor that the judge considers relevant.
(6) In subsection (6), for “subsections (3) and (5)” substitute “subsection (3).’—(Sarah Champion.)
This new clause excludes the admission in evidence of any sexual behaviour of the complainant with a third party, whether by the prosecution or the defence, to show consent, whilst leaving it admissible if it is relevant to any other issue in the case. It sets out the additional requirement that to be admitted the material must be more probative than prejudicial and sets out the considerations the judge must have in regard to considering that extra requirement.
Brought up, and read the First time, and Question proposed (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
New clause 11—Definition of “issue of consent”—
‘(1) Section 42 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) “issue of consent” means any issue where the complainant in fact consented to the conduct constituting the offence with which the defendant is charged and any issue where the accused reasonably believed that the complainant so consented;”
This new clause re-defines “issue of consent” for the purposes of section 41, including in the definition the defendant’s reasonable belief in consent, and thus removing it as a reason for the inclusion of a complainant’s sexual history or behaviour.
New clause 12—Admission of evidence or questions about complainant’s sexual history—
‘(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 43 insert—
43A In any trial or contested hearing to which section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 applies, if no pre-trial application in accordance with Part 36 of the Criminal Procedure Rules has been made, or if such application has been made and refused in whole or in part, no further application may be made during the course of the trial or before its commencement to call such evidence or ask such question, and no judge may allow such application or admit any such questions or evidence.’
This new clause would have the effect that no section 41 evidence or questions could be admitted by a judge at trial unless there had been an application before trial in accordance with the practice directions; and the amendment would ban applications from being made immediately before or during the trial.
New clause 13—Complainant’s right of representation and appeal on an application to adduce evidence or questions on sexual conduct—
‘(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 43 insert—
43A (1) The complainant may not be compelled to give evidence at any hearing on the application.
(2) The complainant will be entitled to be served with the application and to be legally represented (with the assistance of legal aid if financially eligible) as “a party” within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Rules in responding in writing to the application and in presenting their case at any hearing on the application.
(3) If the application succeeds in whole or in part, the complainant will have a right to appeal for a rehearing of the application to the Court of Appeal on notice within 7 days of the judgement being delivered.
(4) On any such appeal, the Court of Appeal will rehear the application in full and may grant or refuse it in whole or in part.
(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulation, set out rules of procedure relating to any hearing or appeal under this section.’
This new clause would give the complainant a right of representation, with legal aid if they are financially eligible, to oppose any application to admit section 41 material about them. This new clause would also give complainants a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal if the application is allowed in whole or in part. The new clause also provides that the complainant is not compellable as witness at the application.
New clause 14—Collection of and reporting to Parliament on data and information relating to proceedings involving rape and sexual assault—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall collect and report to Parliament annually the following data and information—
(a) The time taken in every case of rape or sexual assault for the case to progress from complaint to charge, from charge to pre-trial plea and management hearing; and from then until trial.
(b) The number of applications to ask questions or adduce evidence of any sexual behaviour of the complainant under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (“the 1999 Act”) made in the Magistrates and Crown Courts of England and Wales, irrespective of whether a trial was subsequently held.
(c) The number of cases which involved questions on or evidence of any sexual behaviour of the complainant in all rape, sexual abuse and other trials or contested hearings in the Magistrates and Crown courts in England and Wales, irrespective of whether an application was made to admit such questions or evidence in advance of the trial or hearing.
(d) In cases to which section 41 of the 1999 Act applies—
(i) whether Part 36 of the Criminal Procedure Rules was followed in each application and if it was not, how it was not;
(ii) the questions proposed to be asked;
(iii) the evidence proposed to be called;
(iv) whether the prosecution opposed the application and if so the content of their representations;
(v) whether evidence was called to support or oppose the application;
(vi) whether the application was allowed in whole or in part and a copy of the judgement made on the application; and
(vii) any other material which might assist in an assessment of the frequency, basis and nature of applications for the use of such questions or evidence and the likely impact on any parties to any trial and the trial outcome.
(2) The data and information to be collected under subsection (1) shall include—
(a) all the material from any pre-trial application;
(b) the questions in fact asked and the evidence in fact called about any sexual behaviour of the complainant in the trial;
(c) any application at the start or during the course of the trial to vary or alter any judgement given in any earlier application or any further application to admit such questions or evidence;
(d) whether any material not previously authorised was used in the trial;
(e) whether the prosecution objected; and
(f) any ruling made or action taken by the judge on the further conduct of the trial as a consequence of the admission of questions or evidence under section 41 of the 1999 Act.
(3) The data and information to be collected under this section shall be collected from the date of Royal Assent to this Bill.’
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to collect and report to Parliament data and information on trial delay and section 41 matters.
New clause 15—Training for relevant public officials in relation to the conduct of cases of serious sexual offences—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall, on this Act coming into force, publish and implement a strategy to provide training on the investigation of rape and alleged rape complainants, and the admissibility and cross-examination of complainants on their sexual history to—
(a) the Crown Prosecution Service;
(b) Police Forces;
(c) the Judiciary; and
(d) such other public bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that any judge who is asked to hear a trial where the accused is charged with rape or any other serious sexual offence has attended and completed a training programme for such trials which has been accredited by the Judicial College.’
This new clause ensures that all criminal justice agencies shall be trained and that no judge can hear a sexual offence trial of any kind unless they have attended the Judicial College serious sexual offence course.
New clause 42—Enhancement of special measures in sexual offences—
‘(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 27, after subsection (1), insert—
“(1A) Any interview conducted under this section of a complainant in respect of a sexual offence must be conducted by—
(a) a member of the Bar of England and Wales,
(b) a member of the Faculty of Advocates,
(c) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland, or
(d) a solicitor advocate.’
New clause 57—Restriction on evidence or questions about mental health counselling or treatment records relating to complainant or witness—
‘(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 43 insert—
“43A Restriction on evidence or questions about mental health counselling or treatment records relating to complainant or witness
(1) If at a trial a person is charged with a sexual offence, then, except with the leave of the court—
(a) no evidence may be adduced, and
(b) no question may be asked in cross examination,
by or on behalf of any accused at the trial, about any records made in relation to any mental health counselling or treatment which may have been undertaken by a complainant or witness.
(2) The records made include those made by—
(a) a counsellor,
(b) a therapist,
(c) an Independent Sexual Violence Adviser (ISVA), and
(d) any victim support services.
(3) The court may give leave in relation to any evidence or question only on an application made by or on behalf of a party to the trial, and may not give such leave unless it is satisfied that—
(a) the evidence or question relates to a relevant issue in the case which will include a specific instance (or specific instances) of alleged sexual behaviour on the part of the complainant,
(b) the evidence or question has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice, and
(c) a refusal of leave might have the result of rendering unsafe a conclusion of the jury or (as the case may be) the court on any relevant issue in the case.
(4) For the purposes of making a determination under paragraph (3)(b) the judge shall take into account—
(a) the interests of justice, including the right of the accused to make a full answer and defence;
(b) the need to preserve the integrity of the trial process by removing from the fact-finding process any discriminatory belief or bias;
(c) the risk that the evidence may unduly arouse sentiments of prejudice, sympathy or hostility in the jury;
(d) the potential threat to the personal dignity and right to privacy of the complainant or witness;
(e) the complainant’s or witness’s right to personal security and to the full protection and benefit of the law;
(f) the provisions of the Victims Code; and
(g) any other factor that the judge considers relevant.
(5) Where this section applies in relation to a trial by virtue of the fact that one or more of a number of persons charged in the proceedings is or are charged with a sexual offence—
(a) it shall cease to apply in relation to the trial if the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case against that person or those persons in respect of that charge; but
(b) it shall not cease to do so in the event of that person or those persons pleading guilty to, or being convicted of, that charge.
(6) Nothing in this section authorises any evidence to be adduced or any question to be asked which cannot be adduced or asked apart from this section.
(7) In relation to evidence or questions under this Section, if no pre-trial application in accordance with Part 36 of the Criminal Procedure Rules has been made, or if such application has been made and refused in whole or in part, no further application may be made during the course of the trial or before its commencement to call such evidence or ask such question, and no judge may allow such application or admit any such questions or evidence.’
This new clause would restrict evidence or questions about mental health counselling or treatment records relating to complainant or witness unless a defined threshold is met.
New clause 68—Law Commission consideration of the use of complainants’ sexual history in rape trials—
‘The Secretary of State must seek advice and information from the Law Commission under section (3)(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 with proposals for the reform or amendment of the law relating to the use of complainants’ sexual history in rape trials.’
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles—probably for the last time in this Committee, as I believe you may be going fishing on Thursday. That might be just a rumour.
New clause 42 is yet another attempt by the Opposition to improve the provisions of special measures for victims of sexual offences. I hope the Government are more open-minded to this proposal. The new clause would make the use of professional advocates mandatory when complainants of sexual offences undergo video-recorded interviews. I thank the Society of Labour Lawyers for its extremely valuable input in the formation of this new clause.
A number of special measures are available to vulnerable and intimidated witnesses giving evidence at trial, under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. They include the use of screens, the use of a live TV link, giving evidence in private, the removal of wigs and gowns and the use of video-recorded cross examination where a video-recorded interview is admitted as evidence in chief—under section 28, which we discussed earlier.
The new clause deals with the special measure provided for under section 27—the use of video-recorded interviews as evidence in chief. Where the witness concerned is the complainant of a sexual offence, a video-recorded interview is presumed to be admissible in a Crown Court trial as evidence in chief. The Opposition seek to amend section 27 of the Act so that, where a victim of a sexual offence undergoes a video-recorded interview that is intended to stand as their evidence in chief at trial, the interview is conducted by a professional advocate as opposed to a police officer. We believe that is a relatively small but extremely effective proposal that could strengthen the evidence collected under section 27, and as a result strengthen a number of sexual offence cases from the outset.
Currently, video-recorded interviews are conducted by police officers rather than professional advocates. That is a rather significant extension of the role of the police in investigating crime, which includes the production of witness statements and interviewing of suspects, because a section 27 video-recorded interview is intended to be played to the jury and to stand in place of the live evidence on oath that would normally be elicited from the witness by the barrister for the prosecution.
Although it is true that police officers are trained to plan for and ask appropriate questions when conducting a video-recorded interview, it cannot be said that they have the same level of training or experience in witness handling as professional advocates such as barristers. An experienced practitioner explained to me that, in their experience, the interviews conducted by police can sometimes be repetitive, confusing and unclear. As a result, they may risk undermining the prosecution’s case.
I stress that I am not criticising the police, who we know are committed to a full and thorough investigation of crimes. Rather, we believe that this is not covered by the police’s usual remit of expertise, so it stands out as an anomaly in the range of police duties. The police should not be asked to carry out such duties, which fall outside the ordinary range of criminal investigation—especially in cases involving vulnerable or intimidated witnesses, which is what section 27 makes provision for.
We are also concerned that the use of police officers to conduct examination under section 27 may risk creating an imbalance in the equality of arms between the prosecution and defence. That is because the cross-examination of the same victims, whether conducted live during a trial or pre-recorded under section 28, will be conducted by a professional advocate, namely the defendant’s barrister. The provisions of section 27 are intended to help a witness give their best evidence, but under the current system they may be prevented from doing so.
As things stand, with police officers undertaking interviews under section 27, the key witness in a sexual offence case—they will often be the only one in such cases—is denied the benefit of having their evidence for the prosecution elicited by a professional advocate. New clause 42 would redress that imbalance so that victims who receive the special measure of a section 27 video-recorded interview are not denied the chance to have their evidence elicited by a professional advocate.
The Government should adopt this eminently sensible proposal as soon as possible as one of their planned measures to improve the criminal justice system’s response to rape and sexual offence cases. It would improve both the strength of the victim’s evidence, and their experience of being questioned. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts; I could not see anything on section 27 in the end-to-end rape review. Has his Department looked at the issue? Could it do some more work on it?
Before I turn to new clause 68, I pay tribute to the Mother of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), for the time and energy she has devoted to this Bill. She has been a fierce and tireless advocate for improving the lives of women and girls, and her reputation as one of the most powerful voices in the House is well deserved. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham has made powerful points while speaking on amendments relating to section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. As she has already spoken at length about what section 41 does, or at least is intended to do, I will spare the Committee’s time by not repeating what has been said.
I move on to new clause 68. The Opposition are deeply concerned by the issues raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham. If section 41 is not functioning as was intended it is only right that the law be reviewed and, if necessary, amended. The last thing we want is for alleged victims of rape to face the ordeal of their sexual history being discussed in court—unless it can be shown to be absolutely necessary and only when strict criteria are met.
The Opposition’s whole approach to this Bill has been to try to protect women and girls from violence and abuse and to ensure that all victims of violence are supported and protected through the criminal justice system. On section 41, we have sought to achieve this through new clause 68. The clause would compel the Government to ask the Law Commission to review section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, with the specific purpose of identifying whether it provides the safeguards intended when it was enacted—and if not, to advise the Government on avenues of reform.
As I am sure Committee members will agree, the question of what evidence should be admitted during trial is contentious and difficult; any reforms must carefully balance protecting complainants with respect for fair trial rights. Allowing the Law Commission to conduct a thorough review of section 41 would be the best course of action to determine the way forward.
Our thinking is twofold. First, we can have full confidence that the Law Commission will be able to evaluate this type of issue. It includes some of the most pre-eminent legal minds in the UK, so there is no doubt that it would review section 41 with the utmost care and detail. Secondly, if the Law Commission were allowed to undertake a root-and-branch approach to section 41, it might make recommendations for reform that went beyond those covered by the new clauses tabled to the Bill. For example, even the most experienced of legal practitioners sometimes struggle with the complexity of section 41, leading to avoidable errors made during trial. We hope that new clause 68 would allow the Law Commission to recommend changes that might be beneficial in this area, as well as others.
It seems that the Opposition are not alone in believing that pursing a Law Commission review is the best way to approach section 41; over the weekend, I was pleased to hear that the Government also concur with that view. Page 17 of the Government’s end-to-end rape review report sets out that one of the actions that the Government will implement within the first six months will be to ask the Law Commission
“to review the way rape myths are tackled as part of the court process and the way in which evidence about the victim is used.”
Yet that strikes me as somewhat strange. When answering a question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham on this very topic in the Chamber yesterday, the Lord Chancellor seemed somewhat reluctant to confirm that that was the case. Furthermore, paragraph 114 of the Government’s response to the rape review sets out that the Government have already asked the Law Commission to review section 41. I ask the Minister: which is it? Have the Government already asked the Law Commission to review section 41? If not, will he show his unequivocal support for that course of action by voting for new clause 68?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I hope that this is not the last time I serve under your chairmanship on this or any other Committee, Sir Charles.
Chris Philp
There is a lot to speak to in this group of new clauses, all of which cover the extremely serious question of the evidence given by rape complainants and other victims of sexual violence before the court and the need to make sure that they are properly looked after and that no one is deterred from coming forward with their claim. It would be terrible if people had an allegation and did not feel able to make it because they were concerned about the issues that we have talked about this afternoon.
I will take each new clause in order. New clause 57 talks about the rules around the disclosure of counselling or therapy sessions in some circumstances. It is important to set out how the law currently stands. There are already significant safeguards, and it is worth going through them. First, the police may request advice from prosecutors on whether something might be a reasonable line of inquiry. If they believe that medical notes might be a reasonable line of inquiry, they are allowed to approach the counsellor. They are not allowed to approach the counsellor simply because they believe such notes exist; that is allowed only if they believe the notes would support a reasonable line of inquiry.
If the notes do exist and if there is a reasonable line of inquiry, the police may approach the therapist to ascertain the situation, and the therapist may confirm or not confirm that there is a reasonable line of inquiry to pursue whether the notes do or do not exist. If they do exist, and if there is a reasonable line of inquiry, the therapist or counsellor does not disclose the relevant notes unless the victim gives their consent. The victim can withhold their consent and say, for whatever reason—understandably, in many cases—“I am not comfortable having that disclosed.” Unless there is a court order compelling disclosure, which is a significant process that involves going to the court to get an order, the notes are not disclosed.
If the victim agrees that the notes can be disclosed, that does not mean they will necessarily be produced in evidence or disclosed to the defence. That will happen only if there is material capable of undermining the prosecution or, conversely, capable of assisting the case for the defence. So there are several steps to go through before very sensitive, private and personal information gets disclosed, one of which is the victim’s own consent. That can be overridden only by an order of the court.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I appreciate how sensitively and proactively the Minister is responding. The problem seems to be the perception as opposed to the reality on the part of the victim and also on the part of the police who, from my constituents’ experience, were routinely saying, “Unless you give us that information, we cannot proceed with the case.” That has a chilling effect, which is why I am pushing for clarity and also a change in the law so that the guidance that should be there now would necessarily flow from that change in the law.
Chris Philp
I accept the point that there are instances, such as those that the hon. Lady referred to in her speech and I am sure exist more widely, where victims have had things said to them that are basically not appropriate and that either misrepresent the law as it currently stands or have the effect of deterring someone who would otherwise want to proceed with a case. That is probably one of the things that contributes to the unacceptably low level of rape prosecutions at the moment.
Paragraph 20 of the rape review report explicitly includes working with the police and getting them to take a different approach, frankly, to the one that the hon. Lady described in her speech and intervention. That will avoid the chilling effect. A moment ago, I laid out the law as it stands: it provides significant safeguards, including the victim’s own consent. The issue is not the law, but how the law is being described to victims. That is why this issue is not so much for legislation but for the police and others to communicate more appropriately with victims. I assure the Committee that that is absolutely at the heart of the Government’s agenda for the rape review and other work.
Alex Cunningham
Will the Minister confirm that the particular issues that I raised on new clause 68 are covered by the review? Can he totally clarify that?
Chris Philp
Yes. The Law Commission has been commissioned already and the remit, to which it has agreed—it has not been debated—is to examine the law, guidance and practice relating to the use of evidence in prosecutions of serious sexual offences and to consider the need for reform in order to increase the understanding of consent and sexual harm, and improve the treatment of victims. It covers all the areas that we have discussed.
Section 41 relates to the disclosure of a victim’s personal sexual history—obviously a very private, personal matter. We are all concerned that that provision may in some cases discourage, or deter, people from making complaints. Under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, there is a general prohibition on the admission of evidence or questions in cross-examination relating to the sexual history of the complainant apart from four very specific exceptions listed in subsections (3) and (5). Those exceptions are narrow and limited, and the judge’s consent—permission —is required in advance; the defence cannot just bring out that history in court.
Besides having one of those conditions met, further criteria must be met: first, the evidence cannot be designed simply to impugn the credibility of the complainant; secondly, it must relate to specific and relevant instances of behaviour; and thirdly, the refusal of permission might render the verdict of the jury unsafe. That second set of criteria are applied after the court has examined whether one of the four very specific circumstances are met. That is why in 92% of cases no such evidence is adduced—a good thing, frankly. That practice will be considered by the Law Commission, however, as per the request in new clause 68.
The review has been commissioned and will examine the matters that we all agree are important and sensitive and where a delicate balance has to be struck. Rather than legislating in haste now, albeit absolutely for the right intentions, I think we should let the Law Commission’s work unfold and proceed. That will not happen in time for the Bill because we will be on Report and Third Reading in just a few weeks’ time. However, there are other Bills—I will not be specific, but if Members look at the Queen’s Speech they can probably work out which ones—in which measures such as this might be made. I suggest to the Committee that that is the best way to proceed.
The Chair
I call Sarah Champion if she would like to respond before I call the shadow Minister.
Sarah Champion
My frustration is that we always promised jam tomorrow. It is always a report, a review or a consultation. All I want—and I believe the House wants—is for the justice system to be victim-centred rather than causing damage to victims of crime. I heard what the Minister said, and I am content to withdraw the new clause.
Alex Cunningham
I do not intend to press new clause 42 to a vote, but I hope that the Government’s future plans will recognise the need for a provision to better serve victims. Similarly, I was mindful of pressing new clause 68, but I am delighted by the clear statement from the Minister quoting, I believe, from the document referred to the Commission. I am satisfied that these issues will be looked at. I hope that it is not just an internal review by the Law Commission but will listen to the views of people outside, including me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman).
Sarah Champion
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16
Threshold for imposing discretionary custodial sentence
“Section 230 of the Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows—
‘(2A) If the court finds that the offence is so serious that neither a fine alone or a community sentence can be justified for the offence, it must state its reasons for being satisfied that the offence is so serious (having regard to the principles in subsection (2B), and, in particular, why a community order with appropriate requirements could not be justified).
(2B) When forming an opinion under subsection (2), the court should take account of the following principles—
(a) Passing the custody threshold does not mean that a custodial sentence should be deemed inevitable. Custody should not be imposed where a community order could provide sufficient restriction on an offender’s liberty (by way of punishment) while addressing the rehabilitation of the offender to prevent future crime.
(b) Sentences should not necessarily escalate from one community order range to the next at each sentencing occasion. The decision as to the appropriate range of community order should be based upon the seriousness of the new offence, or offences.
(c) Section 65 of the Sentencing Code (a relevant previous conviction to be treated as an aggravating factor) should not be interpreted so as to push over the custody threshold the sentence for one or more offences that would not themselves justify custody.
(d) Where the offender being sentenced is a primary carer, imprisonment should not be imposed except for reason of public safety.’”—(Alex Cunningham.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I begin by thanking the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies for its work on this new clause. Its considered and thoughtful approach to reform in this area has been utterly invaluable.
This new clause amends the Sentencing Act 2020 to strengthen the custody threshold by making provision for sentencers to state their reasons when imposing a custodial sentence. We have tabled this new clause with a view to encouraging sentencers to use community-based sentences rather than short prison sentences. The benefit of community disposals has been discussed at length in the Committee, especially in our discussion on part 6, and I do not propose to go over those issues again in full.
The Opposition are interested in reforming the sentencing regime to guard in some way against short sentences, which evidence suggests may be associated with higher levels of reoffending than sentences served in the community, and during which there is little time to address the offender’s needs. The Lord Chancellor’s predecessor was acutely interested in reform in this area. In fact, while we are on the topic, I would be interested to hear an update from the Minister on the Ministry of Justice’s unpublished Green Paper that features sentencing proposals to reduce the use of short-term custody. I recognise that his Department’s position has moved on somewhat since then, but the paper may contain an evidence base that is helpful for legislators across the House as we seek to better our criminal justice system. Perhaps he can share some of its findings.
But the current Lord Chancellor is not as enthusiastic about radical reform in this area as his predecessor, so we have tabled a new clause that is a principled starting point for reform on this issue, which we hope the Government can adopt and build on. The aim of the new clause is to reduce the use of custody for less serious offending, for which there are better and more appropriate responses in the community sentencing framework.
The premise of reserving imprisonment for serious offences is already established in statutory terms in the Sentencing Act 2020, section 230 of which states:
“The court must not pass a custodial sentence unless it is of the opinion that — the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.”
However, it notes that the threshold is generally not applicable
“where a mandatory sentence requirement applies”.
But even though we already have statutory provision that should guard against it, HM Inspectorate of Probation’s 2019 inspection on “Post-release supervision for short-term prisoners” recognises that, in reality, people continue to go on an “expensive merry-go-round” of multiple wasteful short prison sentences.
The report noted that within the cohort of offenders on short prison sentences, women are disproportionally serving such sentences, with 15% of all female prisoners on them as compared with 6% of male prisoners, and that many in the cohort
“go in and out of prison for acquisitive crime associated with the dual diagnosis of mental health and addiction needs, but specific data are not available for this group.”
Even the Government’s sentencing White Paper shows little enthusiasm for the efficacy of short sentences in our current framework, describing them as offering
“temporary respite from offending behaviour”
and
“at best providing limited public protection, as most offenders continue to reoffend following release.”
Outside the strengthening of the threshold for remand for children, however, the Bill as we have it does not make reforms to improve our regime with regard to short sentences or custodial periods.
The new clause would address that missed opportunity in the Bill and build on principles already accepted in sentencing guidelines, enshrining them into legislation to better clarify the currently rather opaque statutory custodial threshold. Specifically, it aims to better ensure that sentencers are appropriately reserving custody for serious offences by better clarifying the assessment that sentencers are required to make, and that the impact of imprisonment on dependent children is considered in the sentencing of primary carers. The latter point is an important one, and we will discuss it more fully when we get to new clause 26.
The clause also limits the relevance of previous convictions in determining custodial sentences. For the principle of reserving imprisonment for serious offences to be met in practice, it would be helpful to separate the issue of persistent low-level offending from that of serious offending. There is a range of low-level offending behaviour that is exacerbated rather that eliminated by short sentences, and which would be much better addressed by appropriately severe community sentences. Importantly for the current Lord Chancellor, perhaps, the clause as it stands does not eliminate short sentences. Speaking to the Justice Committee in 2019, he explained he did not believe abolishing short sentences was the right way forward, and said:
“My own experience as a recorder teaches me that there are times when, however reluctantly,”
short term prison sentences
“should be available to judges and magistrates. For example, repeat offenders who fail to comply with community orders ultimately need the sanction of custody”.
The clause does not prohibit short sentences altogether; indeed the Opposition would have several reservations with that proposal, including the fact that it has been shown to lead to sentence creep.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend is making powerful points. Does he agree that the new clause would prevent the expensive merry-go-round of short-term wasteful prison sentences that do not ever address the nub of the problem? We are not trying to prevent short-term prison sentences, but to deal with the situation of the repeat offender going round and round, which costs so much and blocks up the system.
Alex Cunningham
That is most certainly the case. This is not just about cost, yet the cost to the Prison Service of accommodating people in prison even for very short periods is absolutely huge. The real effect, however, is not monetary; money is not the only factor. There is the whole issue of the effect on the family, and, as my hon. Friend said, the effect on the prospect of reoffending.
In Western Australia a ban on prison sentences of up to six months resulted in an increase in prison sentences over six months for law breaking that would previously had received a shorter prison sentence. It does not even go as far as introducing a presumption against short prison sentences, though this is an approach with something to be said for it and which has had some success in other countries, including my homeland, Scotland. Instead, the clause simply requires the court to explain why it believes a custodial sentence is appropriate and a community sentence cannot be justified. This will focus the mind of the court to ensure that custody is being used as the most appropriate option, not the simplest one. It also has the added benefit of improving accountability and understanding of sentencing decisions, which is important for public confidence in the criminal justice system.
As Adrian Crossley of the Centre for Social Justice said in one of our evidence sessions:
“We need to be much bolder about the amount of people we keep out of prison and deal with in the community. We can see clearly that in treating alcohol, drug addiction, mental health problems, literacy and numeracy, you are far more likely to have an effect on those key drivers of crime if you deal with people in the community than if you put them in prison. We could be much bolder in dealing with community disposals. There is a real risk of sentencing inflation here, of a prison population growing out of control and, in my view, of brutalising people who might otherwise be able to reform.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 42, Q58.]
Chris Philp
Broadly speaking, the Government are keen to see alternatives to short custodial sentences. That is why we have been forward in promoting alternatives, such as community sentence treatment requirements to ensure that people get mental health, drug or alcohol addiction treatment as an alternative to short custodial sentences. As the Lord Chancellor has said, however—the shadow Minister also quoted him—in some cases, as a last resort, short sentences are required where the offender is not complying with community alternatives. I think we are agreed that short sentences should be available as an option.
I hope that the shadow Minister is reassured to know that the proportion of our prison population serving a short sentence of less than one year, say, is small. I do not have the precise figure at my fingertips, but I am pretty sure that less than 5% of our total prison population is serving a sentence of less than a year. Already, therefore, the principle that community alternatives are better than a short sentence is being applied in practice.
The new clause in some areas simply repeats the existing law, but in other areas I disagree with its principles. In fact, four principles are laid out in the new clause, the first and second of which—that custody should not be imposed where a community sentence would suffice, and that the community sentencing range should not escalate on each occasion—are already included in the Sentencing Council’s “Imposition of community and custodial sentences” guidelines, which set out the approach that courts should take when deciding whether to impose a community or custodial sentence. The law is clear that custody should only be imposed where an offence or combination of offences is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified. Therefore, the first two of the four principles in the new clause are already enshrined in law.
The third principle of the new clause we disagree with on principle. It states that a relevant previous convictions should not push an offence over the custody threshold, where the current offence would not justify custody on its own. In effect, that element of the new clause says, no matter how many previous offences someone might have committed, “Don’t look at that when deciding how long to sentence someone for.” I disagree with that. When someone is before the court having committed a large number of previous offences, that is rightly treated as an aggravating factor, which makes custody and longer custody more likely. It is right that repeat offenders are sentenced more seriously than people who have, for example, committed a first offence. So that element of the new clause I disagree with on its own terms.
The final of the four principles in the new clause refers to not giving custody to an offender where they are a primary carer, except for reasons of public safety. A legal principle is already established in the case of Petherick that where an offender is on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependents, which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate. The principle about primary carers is also reflected in the imposition guideline, and further to that the sentencing guidelines already say that where someone is a
“sole or primary carer for dependent relatives”
that is taken to be a mitigating factor.
The law as it stands gives some protection to primary carers. It does not go quite as far as the new clause, which I think goes too far; I do not think that someone being a primary carer should literally be a get out of jail free card. That person should be accountable and answerable for their crimes, if they have committed them, but their role as a care giver should be taken as a mitigating factor. That consideration is in law already, so for all those reasons, I do not support the new clause.
Alex Cunningham
I welcome the clarification around carers and sentencing, but it is still a fact that carers often find themselves in prison for short sentences when that could have been avoided.
I appreciate that the Government are making a commitment to look at short sentences and how they are set in the future. I hope that that work is done quite quickly, because I think it could drive tremendous change not just for defendants, or offenders, but for their families, and drive the rehabilitation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham referred earlier.
I do not intend to press the new clause. The Minister spoke about previous offences always being taken into consideration. I think that adds to the roundabout of people entering prison, leaving prison, entering prison, leaving prison, when the Government should ensure that such people have proper rehabilitative support rather than just their sentences being extended each time they appear in court for a similar offence. We need a much greater emphasis on rehabilitation in this country, and I hope that the Government recognise that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 18
Release of prisoners on Fridays or the day before Bank Holiday periods
“Section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (3)—
‘(3A) Where a prisoner is to be discharged on a Friday or the day before a bank holiday, at the discretion of the governor of the prison they may be discharged on a day within the previous five working days that is earlier than the day on which the prisoner would otherwise fall to be discharged.’”—(Alex Cunningham.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Cunningham
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause makes a very simple amendment to the current discharging regime from the prison, which the Opposition believe would ensure that those leaving prison have the support that they need as they transition into the community.
May I begin by thanking Nacro for its invaluable help in drafting the clause and its essential work to support people leaving prison? The new clause would give prisons the option to release people who need community support and are due for release on a Friday or the day before a bank holiday period on an earlier day in that same week, to ensure that support is put in place ahead of the weekend. That would support rehabilitation and resettlement. It would allow release to be spread from the Monday to the Thursday to prevent a significant increase in releases on the Thursday, which could be difficult for prisons to manage. Similar legislation has already been passed in Scotland in the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Act 2015, and we think that it is time to introduce similar provisions for prisoners in England and Wales.
Many people released from prison on a Friday face an almost impossible race against the clock to get all the support that they need in place before the weekend. Getting all the correct support in place can prove a challenge on any day of the week, but it is especially difficult on a Friday because many community services have reduced service on Fridays, and reduced or no service exists over the weekend. Prison leavers have a very limited time window in which to make all the necessary arrangements that are vital to their resettlement before services close up shop for the weekend. If the prison leaver is unable to access those services, the likelihood of their reoffending is significantly increased.
Another issue is that there is actually a spike in releases on Friday. The national data show that more than a third of custody leavers are released on a Friday, and that includes releases that were scheduled for the Friday as well as those who have release dates over the weekend or on a public holiday. This peak in releases adds significant pressure to service staff and can consequently lead to late releases and pressure on services in the community.
Our new clause addresses that by giving the governor of the prison discretion to spread releases over the previous five days so that we do not simply end up shifting the Friday spike into a Thursday spike. We know that the release day is critical for putting in place the foundation blocks for life outside prison. As well as needing to attend mandatory appointments with probation, prison leavers may need to attend the local housing office to secure somewhere to live.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my experience as a Member of Parliament, which is that many people have come to my door on a Friday afternoon who have been made homeless for a particular reason or are in some kind of crisis, because they have found it almost impossible to get through to any services because people go home on a Friday? It is a very real thing. A question I always ask when I interview somebody to be a case worker is: “What would you do if someone comes to you on a Friday afternoon at half-past 4 and has nowhere to go?”. Although this seems such a simple new clause, it is incredibly important and could be the difference between someone slipping back into old ways or getting a bit of support that they need to rehabilitate themselves.
Alex Cunningham
That is most certainly the case. I may not have encountered as many as my hon. Friend, but I have had people in that situation who have nowhere to go. We find ourselves turning to local charities, but when it gets to 4.30 or 5 o’clock and somebody shows up, it is far too late to access even those sorts of support services.
Of course, the person may need to visit the jobcentre to make a universal credit claim or other benefits claims. They may need to see their GP or to attend community mental health or substance misuse services. No doubt there are many individuals who would have to do a number of things on that list. If they are unable to find somewhere to live, or to sort out necessary medication or financial support on the day, they may be left homeless over the weekend without vital medication and with only £46 to last until Monday when they can try to access services again. That can sadly lead to them falling back into old networks or habits just to get by.
It is therefore entirely in the Government’s interest to make resettlement as seamless as possible, to minimise any possible lapse into reoffending. There is a window of opportunity when people are released from prison, when they are most motivated to move forward in their lives. That can pass by if the barriers to resettlement and rehabilitation are too high. Nacro has said that it often hears from staff and professionals in other agencies working with people on release from prison how Friday releases have a huge impact on levels of hope and motivation. It has provided me with a few case studies that well illustrate the problems that Friday prison releases can cause.
The first is the case of M:
“M was released on a Friday before a bank holiday weekend after serving a year in custody. He has an addiction to heroin but, when released, was not given the prescription charts from the prison which were needed to determine the dose of methadone he needed. He was also not given a bridging prescription.
As it was late afternoon on a Friday, the GP from the substance misuse service had left and M and his resettlement broker were unable to get his medication.
M was vulnerable and entitled to priority housing. However, the local authority did not deem him to be priority need and, as it was a Friday afternoon, M didn’t have time to gather the further evidence needed to prove this before the weekend.
M spent the weekend sleeping in a known drug house and ended up using heroin. As part of his licence conditions, he was required to give blood samples and tested positive for drug use.
Releasing M earlier in the week would have meant faster access to the medical services and the medication he needed and increased his chances of finding a housing a solution more quickly.”
Something as seemingly small as the discharge day being a Friday had seriously disastrous consequences for M and put his rehabilitation and resettlement in serious jeopardy.
Nacro also shared the story of C:
“C was released from prison after serving a three-week sentence. On release, his Through the Gate mentor met him and went with him to present himself to probation, a train ride away.
On presenting to the local housing authority to make a homeless application, C was told to make an online application to receive an appointment with a housing officer for the next week.
C’s mentor contacted a local charity to which he could also make a homeless application and they asked him to come down on the following Monday. C also had to wait until the following Monday to go to the Jobcentre Plus to enquire about getting a deposit for a flat.
C slept rough that weekend. Had C been released earlier in the week, he would have been able to access these services faster without a three-night gap in which he had to sleep rough, which increased his chances of reoffending.”
Chris Philp
We do recognise that there are challenges in making sure that offenders leaving prison are given access to the services they need, so that they can get their lives back on track. However, Friday is a working day, and we would prefer to focus our efforts on making sure that those services are available on Friday, rather than on excluding Friday as a release day and therefore concentrating all the releases on just four days—Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday—which, by definition, would mean that release numbers on those days were 25% higher than would otherwise be the case.
Sarah Champion
I hear what the Minister says, but the new clause would mean that we could address any issues on a Friday and before the weekend, when no staff are available.
Chris Philp
In terms of ensuring that people have access to the necessary services—we recognise that that needs to be done—significantly increased investment is being made to address the concerns that the hon. Lady has just raised. For example, in January this year—just a few months ago—the Government announced a £50 million investment to reduce crime and tackle the drivers of reoffending. That included work to help develop the Department’s approved premises—those are obviously important when somebody is coming out of prison—to provide temporary accommodation to prison leavers at risk of homelessness in five key probation areas. In addition, earlier this year—again, I think it was in January or February—an additional £80 million was announced, which was aimed at expanding substance misuse programmes. Those two initiatives, funded this calendar year with £50 million and £80 million, are aimed at tackling prisoner homelessness issues and, separately, drug addiction problems, so there is a real commitment to do more in this area.
I would like to turn to the question of Scotland—the shadow Minister’s native home. As he said, it legislated in 2015 to allow release not five days earlier, but up to two days earlier. A Freedom of Information Act request made just a few months ago uncovered the fact that over the six years that Scotland has had this provision, only 20 people have been released early under it, so it has not had an enormous effect in Scotland.
We would like to focus our efforts on making sure that when people are released on a Friday they are properly looked after, instead of increasing the numbers on Monday to Thursday—
Chris Philp
I was about to sit down, but I can see that the member of the Committee from a Scottish seat wants to intervene, and it would be churlish not to accept.
Allan Dorans
I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that a significant number of people are imprisoned hundreds of miles from their homes, and being released on a Friday would prevent them from getting the necessary services locally? Does he also accept that the prison governor, having known the prisoner’s history in prison, is best placed to decide whether releasing him a few days early would benefit him and his opportunity to reintegrate into the community, thereby reducing his reoffending?
Chris Philp
I do understand the point, but public transport clearly does operate on a Friday and, indeed, on a Saturday and a Sunday for the most part.
It is instructive that, over the last six years, only an average of three people per year have been released early from Scottish prisons, suggesting that prison governors in Scotland, for whatever reason, have not chosen to use this power very widely. For that reason, it is right to concentrate our efforts on investing in rehabilitation services, as we are doing.
Alex Cunningham
I am hoping that the Minister is allowing me to intervene at the end of his remarks. He is concerned about increasing the number of people released from Monday to Thursday, but—I am sure he was listening attentively to my speech earlier—a third of all prisoners are currently released on a Friday. Some 33% or 34% of all prisoners are released on a Friday, and some of them could be spread over the previous four days, which would help services in trying to come to their aid.
I am concerned about what the Government might want to do. The question I pose to the Minister is: what are the Government going to do about the fact that such a high proportion of prisoners are released on Friday, to level it out a bit? I do not intend to press for a vote, but it is important that the Government consider what they are going to do about the huge spike on a Friday and, more importantly, about the lack of access to services. The Minister talked about investment in services, but if those services close down at half-past 4 on a Friday afternoon, they are no use to anybody being released from prison in those circumstances.
Chris Philp
I thank the shadow Minister for drawing attention to the statistic. As I said earlier, the focus is on investing to make sure that services are available—the £50 million and the £80 million. An additional consideration would be encouraging governors to make the release early in the day to avoid encountering services closing for the weekend.
The Chair
You do not have to give way, Minister. You are doing a very generous thing here in responding to interventions.
Hywel Williams
I thank the Minister for giving way, and thank you for your guidance, Sir Charles. I tried to intervene earlier, but the Minister was distracted by another colleague.
I raised earlier the fact that women prisoners from Wales are held very far away from their homes. Release can entail a whole day’s travel or even longer. However early in the day services are provided, it may be of no help whatever to people who have to travel cross country, perhaps by public transport, and who will not get back to their home communities until late evening.
Chris Philp
Yes, although I will probably sit down now. We are obviously looking at a very bespoke set of circumstances concerning female prisoners in Wales released on a Friday. I hear the concern about distances travelled in Wales, and I will undertake to raise that with my colleague the Prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk).
Alex Cunningham
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 19
Implementation of the Law Commission review of hate crime
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations implement any recommendations of the Law Commission following the conclusion of its review of hate crime.
(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes—
(a) power to amend primary legislation; and
(b) power to amend or revoke subordinate legislation.
(3) A document containing a draft of regulations under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament not later than three months after the publication of the Law Commission’s recommendations, and that draft must be in a form which would implement all those recommendations.
(4) Draft regulations under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament not earlier than 60 days, but not later than 120 days, after the document referred to in subsection (3) was laid before Parliament.
(5) The draft regulations laid before Parliament under subsection (4) must be in the form in which they appeared in the document laid before Parliament under sub-section (3), except that they may contain any changes which have been recommended by any committee of either House of Parliament which has reported on that document.
(6) A Minister must make a motion in each House of Parliament approving the draft regulations laid before Parliament under subsection (4) within 14 days of the date on which they were laid.
(7) Subject to subsection (8), if the draft regulations are approved by both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State must make them in the form of the draft which has been approved.
(8) If any amendments to the draft regulations are agreed to by both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State must make the regulations in the form of the draft as so amended.”—(Alex Cunningham.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to implement any and all recommendations made by the Law Commission’s review of hate crime. Draft regulations implementing the Commission’s recommendations would be subject to the super-affirmative scrutiny process (by subsections (3) to (5)), and would be amendable (under subsection (8)).
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 25—Strategy to tackle misogynist attitudes in society—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a comprehensive national strategy to tackle misogynistic attitudes in society for the purpose of reducing the number of violent and non-violent offences perpetrated against women and girls.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) misogyny is defined as the dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against, women or girls.”
This new clause compels the Government to commit to the creation of a comprehensive national strategy to tackle the misogynistic attitudes which underpin the abuse faced by women and girls in society for the purpose of reducing the number of violent and non-violent offences perpetrated against women and girls.
Alex Cunningham
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for her tireless work in drafting the new clause, as well as her efforts to draw attention to this important issue. I met her in the corridor on the way back to the Committee this afternoon, and she was wishing us all well—“everybody,” she said—in the hope that we could move this matter on. She knows that the community out there are watching closely, because they understand that it is this afternoon that I will be speaking to these new clauses.
New clause 19 would compel the Government to act on the recommendations of the Law Commission review on hate crime legislation, which we expect to be published later in 2021. As members of the Committee will be aware, the Law Commission’s remit for the review is to
“review the current range of specific offences and aggravating factors in sentencing”.
In its initial report published in September 2020, the Law Commission made several initial recommendations, one being that it explicitly supported the inclusion of “sex or gender” into the framework of protected characteristics. The effect of this would be to place “sex or gender” alongside characteristics that are currently protected by hate crime legislation—race, religion, transgender identity, disability and sexuality.
Unfortunately, history shows us that without a clear legislative vehicle for Law Commission proposals, it can be years until recommendations are implemented. That was the case with the 2014 Law Commission review into hate crime, which has yet to receive a response from the Government and has now been superseded by the more recent review.
For that reason, the Opposition wholeheartedly support new clause 19. Victims of misogynistic hate crime cannot afford to sit back and wait years for the Government to implement the Law Commission’s recommendations, if they choose to implement them at all. We have seen that happen before and we cannot allow it to happen again. We cannot have more dither and delay––something this Government are unfortunately all too keen to do. New clause 19 would use the statutory instrument process to enable the Government to introduce legislation to enact the commission’s recommendations. It has been drafted specifically to provide for parliamentary oversight of the introduction of the recommendations, including the ability to vote on them using the super-affirmative process.
While it is not possible to require the Government to act on recommendations that do not yet exist, this process would ensure that parliamentary time is made available for debate, scrutiny and amendment as soon as they do. Without new clause 19, there is a very real chance that the Law Commission’s recommendations will take years to be introduced into law and, given the current epidemic of violence against women and girls, that is time victims cannot afford. Taken in isolation, recognising misogyny as a hate crime will not be the silver bullet in the battle to tackle the way women and girls are treated as a whole. That is why we have tabled new clause 25 to stand alongside it.
In order to really take on violence against women and girls, we first need to recognise and treat the root causes that drive it. As the Minister must agree, a culture where misogyny is accepted without challenge, or shrugged off all together, underpins many of the violent and abusive crimes perpetrated against women and girls. As Sophie Maskell of the Nottingham Women’s Centre puts it so brilliantly:
“Misogyny is the soil in which violence against women and girls grows.”
As long as we see violence against women and girls as somehow being created in a vacuum, we will never be able to fully tackle it. If we really want to confront the growing threats women and girls face, we must be more ambitious than simply looking to tackle individual acts of crime and must divert our gaze to the cause. In this case, that cause is misogyny. We must accept that hostility towards women and girls is deeply engrained in our society and it is this toxic culture, and our combined failure to tackle it, that enables perpetrators to commit their crimes. Whether the crime is serious sexual assault, domestic abuse or wolf-whistling at a woman in the street, unless as a society we start to take misogyny seriously, we will continue to lose the battle.
I was reminded of the horrific and pervasive impact of misogyny recently when I met a group of inspirational young women from St Michael’s Catholic Academy in Billingham in my borough who are doing a project on the impact of sexual harassment on women and men. They were full of energy to tackle society’s challenges, but they told me that they did not feel like they were being listened to; that they did not have a voice. That was only a few weeks ago, and I promised them that I would give them a voice today in this Committee.
Cassidy Desira told me:
“Our trauma is often minimalized and stigmatized, because the alternative of taking it seriously is too uncomfortable… I believe the issue is that people don’t actually see the issue at all, or they plainly do not want to, they believe that they can see the world how they please, how they were raised, as the law is clean-cut, their outdated opinions won’t destroy someone’s life. Unfortunately, the law has failed assault victims many, many times.”
She went on to say:
“In my opinion, these ideas must be conveyed from the youngest ages possible, that means burning the victim-blaming ideology from the root, as sexual assault only gets worse over time. It starts with a whistle, soon the predator feels entitled to take it even further.”
Emily Barlow, another student at the school told me:
“Peer pressure is a very big reason as to why boys in particular feel the need to degrade girls. Pride. Many boys think of the comments and actions they say and make as normal, this is because sexual harassment has become so normalised that it has become second nature but the scary thing is that they don’t know they are doing it.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech. He does not need to implore this Government to listen to the girls he has quoted. Not only are we listening, not only have we listened, but we are following through with a tackling violence against women and girls strategy that is truly ambitious and, I believe, an unprecedented effort to tackle the issues that the girls he quoted have to contend with.
As I said, we conducted the first ever call for evidence on tackling violence against women and girls. No other Government have gone out to the public as we have to ask girls and women for their experiences of what they face day in, day out in their lives. We opened the conversation to the whole of society, so men and boys were very welcome to contribute as well.
I set my officials the challenge of reaching a young woman in her 20s, getting the bus home from work at night, who would not normally respond to surveys. We would somehow try to find ways of reaching her. Not only did we try that in December, but following the awful events of earlier this year—I deliberately do not name anyone, because I am respectful of the family, but I suspect we know the events of which I speak—we reopened the survey, precisely because we understood that women and girls want to talk and to share their experiences.
That is when we received 160,000 further responses. Each and every one is being read and considered carefully in drawing up our tackling violence against women and girls strategy. However, because the Government place so much focus on crimes that disproportionately affect women and girls, we have also decided to focus not one, but two national strategies on such crimes. For the first time, therefore, we have split out domestic abuse from the catch-all phrase “violence against women and girls”, not because we are trying to de-gender it or to deny that the crime disproportionately affects women and girls, but because it is such a high-volume, high-harm crime that it deserves its own national strategy. Thus, we are giving it the focus it deserves in the domestic abuse strategy, which will be published later this year, after the VAWG strategy.
If nothing else has come out of recent events, it is that the range of offences that VAWG covers is significant, so we cannot pretend that a one-size-fits-all approach will suit all those crimes. We do not try to do that, and we are certainly not working towards that. We want to have tailored strategies fit for the 2020s, looking at both offline and online behaviour.
Sarah Champion
I hope the Minister is aware of how grateful I am for all the work she has done on this cause. She has really been a champion for it. Is she able to share with the Committee her thoughts about whether the crime is increasing or our awareness is increasing? Does she have any thoughts she can share about the root causes of this, and therefore how early prevention will stop it happening?
Victoria Atkins
It is a complicated answer to a complicated question. We know, for example, that some forms of crime are increasing, and there is ongoing academic research into some of those, but we have reason to believe that more women are reporting facing violent acts within sexual relationships. That encompasses a range of relationships, from intimate, long-term relationships to first dates. That is precisely why, on the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, we worked across the House with colleagues to clarify the law on the so-called rough sex defence, because we knew that women in intimate, long-term relationships and in shorter relationships were experiencing that. Through that Act, we also brought in the prohibition on non-fatal strangulation, and again we worked on a cross-party basis. There is emerging evidence, particularly on the latter, that more and more victims of domestic abuse, but also those in other types of relationships, are facing these acts within—to use shorthand—the bedroom. We very much wanted to put a marker in the sand to say, “This sort of behaviour is not healthy, and it is now not lawful.”
The thinking is that those sorts of behaviours have increased over recent years. The thinking behind that is that online pornography has had an impact. However, I refer the hon. Lady to the research that I commissioned when I was Minister for Women and Equalities on the impact of online pornography and attitudes towards women and girls. The Government published that a few months ago. It is fair to say that there are not quite the clear lines that some would expect, but there are common themes there, if I can put it as broadly as that. Online pornography is a factor with some crimes, but sadly violence against women and girls is—dare I say it?—as old as time. The ways in which a minority of men—I make that absolutely clear—see fit to behave towards women and girls is part of the Gordian knot that we must try to untie. It will be a longer-term process than this Bill or the next Bill that comes along when legislation is appropriate. It will require a cultural education journey, as well as shorter-term fixes.
I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Stockton North raised the Law Commission research. As part of our work on ensuring that the law is keeping up to date with modern practices, we have commissioned a lot of work from the Law Commission recently. I do not apologise for that. In fact, it gives me the opportunity to thank the Law Commission for the work it conducts, often looking into very complex areas of law and trying to find ways through in order to assist this place and the other place in updating the law.
The current investigation into hate crime illustrates that point very well. In 2018, we asked the Law Commission to consider the current range of offences and aggravating factors in sentencing and to make recommendations on the most appropriate models to ensure that the criminal law provides consistent and effective protection from conduct motivated by hatred towards protected groups or characteristics. The Law Commission published its consultation document in September. It was an enormous document—more than 500 pages and 62 separate questions. The Law Commission has been very clear that the consultation document was exactly that; it was not a report or a set of conclusions. It does not represent the Law Commission’s final position on any of the issues raised.
I make that point because the new clause invites Parliament to adopt those recommendations wholesale, and I think we are all duty bound to acknowledge that what we have had so far from the Law Commission is a consultation document. It is not its final report. Indeed, the Law Commission hopes to report in October, and of course the Government will give that report very, very careful consideration. I do not believe, however, that it would be appropriate for this Government, or indeed any Government, or any Parliament, to sign what is effectively a blank piece of legislation without seeing what the Law Commission is going to recommend.
We do not know what the consequences may be of the recommendations, nor what would be required to enact and enable them. It may be, for example, that changes to primary legislation would be required. I have to say that I feel uncomfortable at the prospect of the Bill permitting other parts of primary legislation to be overwritten—overruled—by virtue of the super-affirmative procedure. We must surely ensure that significant changes to the law should be properly debated by both Houses of Parliament in the normal way, with any Bill going through all the normal processes and stages.
I gently suggest to the Opposition that perhaps they should be careful what they wish for, because in this very Bill clause 59 gives effect to the Law Commission’s recommendation relating to the common law offence of public nuisance. It made that recommendation in 2015 and recommended that it be put into statute. If I recall our deliberations correctly, the Opposition opposed that very clause. I cannot imagine what the reaction would have been had we attempted to have this super-affirmative procedure imposed in relation to clause 59.
Sarah Jones
The Minister points to the risks of legislation being passed that defines something that is as yet undefined, and that being a blank cheque. Does she agree that our concerns about the protest element of the Bill, which gives the Home Secretary the right to define vast sections of the Bill after the legislation has been passed, relate to the same principle?
Victoria Atkins
No, no, no, on the very contrary. I do not want to get into very technical discussions about the ways in which hate crime legislation is drawn up, but the hon. Lady will know that there are reams of statute setting out various elements of hate crime and aggravating factors in sentencing. The proposed new subsection to which the hon. Lady refers in clause 54 relates to the definitions of
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of a public procession, or…serious disruption to the life of the community.”
It is not a proper comparison in any way, shape or form, because that is a definition of two terms, whereas—who knows?—the Law Commission may be very radical in its reform and recommend that we change many parts of primary legislation that has been passed over several years by various Governments.
On new clause 25, we have already taken significant action, not least with the passing of the Domestic Abuse Act, but we must go further. That is why we will publish the tackling violence against women and girls strategy and a complementary domestic abuse strategy to focus all our attention on those crimes that disproportionately affect women and girls. I have already spoken about the importance of education and challenging some cultural attitudes that exist in corners of society. That will be very much part of the work of both of those complementary strategies, so I invite the Committee to await the Law Commission’s publication of its conclusions, and publication of the Government’s VAWG and domestic abuse strategies. I hope that the hon. Member for Stockton North will be content to withdraw his new clause.
Alex Cunningham
There are sufficient protections for Parliament in the secondary legislation process. Given what the Law Commission has done in the past, “radical” does not strike me as a word that would be applied too often.
Victoria Atkins
Will the Opposition then change their mind and support clause 59, which is a Law Commission recommendation to put public nuisance on the statute book?
Alex Cunningham
Indeed we will not.
The important thing here is to think about what we are trying to achieve. We are actually trying to achieve better protection for women and girls out there in society, day after day, week in, week out.
The Minister managed to talk about commissioned reports, two strategies and one survey. We have so much information in the system already that we know now that we need to act to deal with this. The evidence that I quoted from Emily and Cassidy bears that out. They are 15 or 16 and they were making it very clear that this is a major problem in society. I praise their school for facilitating discussions across the school. I hope that other schools will follow on, because that might build awareness and do away with us punishing people as, hopefully, society changes to the extent that women and girls are much more valued and not subject to the abuse that they suffer now, which may start as verbal but ends up very physical.
Sarah Champion
Will my hon. Friend comment on Nottinghamshire police’s pilot on misogyny as a hate crime? They thought it worked exceptionally well in challenging behaviour. That is the sort of thing that we need rolled out across the country.
Alex Cunningham
As I said earlier, we have evidence that things are working in some areas and that there is a real need to do much more across the country. For that reason, we should be strong enough to accept with confidence that we can examine the Law Commission’s recommendations later in the year and commit the decision making to a legislative Committee. On that basis, I shall press new clause 19.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
I am mindful that the Whips want to finish at 5 pm. We need to make progress if that is to be achieved.
New Clause 21
Minimum sentence for an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) an individual is convicted of an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and
(b) the offence was committed after the commencement of this section and at a time when the individual was aged 18 or over.
(2) The court shall impose an appropriate custodial sentence (or order for detention) for a term of at least the required minimum term (with or without a fine) unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which justify its not doing so.
(3) In this section “appropriate custodial sentence (or order for detention)” means—
(a) in the case of an offender who is aged 18 or over when convicted, a sentence of imprisonment, and
(b) in the case of an offender who is aged under 18 at that time, a sentence of detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
(4) In this section “the required minimum term” means seven years.”—(Alex Cunningham.)
This new clause creates a statutory minimum sentence for rape of 7 years. A court must impose at least the statutory minimum unless it is of the opinion there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which justify not doing so.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 22—Minimum sentence for an offence under section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) an individual is convicted of an offence under section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and
(b) the offence was committed after the commencement of this section and at a time when the individual was aged 18 or over.
(2) The court shall impose an appropriate custodial sentence (or order for detention) for a term of at least the required minimum term (with or without a fine) unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which justify its not doing so.
(3) In this section “appropriate custodial sentence (or order for detention)” means—
(a) in the case of an offender who is aged 18 or over when convicted, a sentence of imprisonment, and
(b) in the case of an offender who is aged under 18 at that time, a sentence of detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
(4) In this section “the required minimum term” means five months.”
This new clause creates a new statutory minimum sentence for adults convicted of “stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress” of 5 months. A court must impose at least the statutory minimum unless it is of the opinion there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which justify not doing so.
Alex Cunningham
It is impossible for anyone who has not been through it to imagine the trauma of being raped. That is why I will start with the anonymous voice of a rape victim who was attacked on 29 February last year. The attack happened after a night out in Marlborough. The victim awoke to find 20-year-old Killian Hutchinson assaulting her before raping her. She told police officers that she felt unable to move, either out of fear or because she was intoxicated. She told the Swindon Advertiser:
“I felt immense shame, I felt like nobody would believe me, I felt like it would go nowhere and I’d…done all of this for nothing. But know that none of this is true, those who love you will believe you, the shame you may feel is misplaced. And it won’t all be for nothing.”
It is a scandal that her attacker was sentenced to imprisonment of just five years and three months after pleading guilty to rape.
For the benefit of the Committee, I point out that although the maximum sentence for rape is life imprisonment, there is not currently a minimum sentence set out in statute. Instead, the sentencing guidelines set a starting point for rape of five years, which can be reduced to only four years if certain mitigating circumstances exist. The Opposition simply do not believe that four years is a proportionate sentencing option for one of the most horrendous crimes that it is possible to commit.
There are two options available to us. One would be to ask the Sentencing Council to review the current sentencing guidelines as they apply to rape, but that would take time and there is no guarantee that it would recommend any changes. The second is to create a statutory minimum sentence for rape—a provision along the lines of section 51A of the Firearms Act 1968, which compels a court to hand down a minimum sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence, or the offender, that justify not doing so. In other words, this method creates a minimum sentence that can be set by Parliament, but still gives judges the power to depart from that sentence in exceptional circumstances.
New clause 21 uses this method to create a minimum statutory sentence for rape of seven years, which we believe is more proportionate to the devastating consequences of this crime. The new clause would not only ensure that the punishment better represented the crime; it would also bring our sentencing regime closer to that in other common-law jurisdictions around the world.
I thank the House of Commons Library for the extremely helpful briefing that it put together on this point. When I asked what the sentencing ranges for rape were in other common-law countries, its research showed the following. The minimum sentence for rape in India was increased in 2018 and now stands at 10 years. In Australia, the Australian Law Reform Commission said in 2020 that the penalty range for rape was 12 years to life imprisonment. In the state of Victoria, rape carried a standard sentence of 10 years; and in New South Wales, the standard sentence was seven years.
That prompts the question of why is the sentencing minimum for rape comparatively low in this country? Can the Minister honestly say that a four or five-year sentence can ever truly reflect the enormous damage caused by rape? I must be clear about this: we are not talking about the maximum sentence available to courts, nor the average sentence; we are talking about the minimum sentence that a rapist could conceivably receive, as the sentencing regime stands.
I have a suspicion that the Minister will argue that setting minimum statutory sentences undermines the law by removing the discretion afforded to judges by way of the sentencing guidelines. He was previously at pains to talk about average sentences handed down being somewhat higher than the minimum, but it is still the case that many rapists receive much lower sentences. Surely toughening the law around minimum sentences cannot be so disagreeable, as clause 100 of this very Bill ensures that repeat offenders in relation to certain crimes receive a statutory minimum sentence. As the Library briefing sets out:
“Clause 100 and Schedule 11 of the Bill would change the law so that for these offences a court is required to impose a custodial sentence of at least the statutory minimum term unless there are exceptional circumstances that relate to any of the offences or to the offender”.
If members of the Committee have suddenly had a feeling of déjà vu, they are correct in thinking that they have heard that phrase before. That is because new clause 21 would create a statutory minimum sentence for rape of seven years, unless exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or the offender would make it unjust to do so. In other words, new clause 21 is much the same as clause 100 of the Government’s Bill, which sets a minimum sentence for those convicted of repeated drug offences and burglaries.
That raises an important point. If the Minister says, as I suspect he will, that the Government cannot support new clause 21 because he does not agree with statutory minimum sentences, why does he support clause 100? What is it about the crimes under clause 100 that the Government feel deserve minimum sentences that rape does not? Why does it seem that the Government’s thinking is different when it comes to crimes that affect predominantly women and girls? Why is he happy to have minimum sentences for repeat drug offences, which, as I set out earlier in Committee, will greatly increase racial disparity in the justice system, but not for rape?
As an Opposition, we accept that increasing the minimum sentence for rape will not in isolation solve the greater issues at play, but it would ensure that the punishment is proportionate to the crime. Fundamentally, it would send out a clear message that the Government are serious about tackling the epidemic of violence against women and girls in society. The question for the Minister is simple. Does he feel that four to five years in prison can ever be a proportionate sentence for rape? If not, does he support longer sentences for rapists? He has indicated in the past that he does; now is the time for him to ensure that they are imposed.
Like new clause 21, new clause 22 would use the model of the Firearms Act to create a statutory minimum sentence for those who commit the most serious type of stalking offences. When researching the law in relation to stalking, I came across a very useful and persuasive report written by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham. The report was part of a campaign by someone who is now the Minister responsible for prisons to recognise the immense harm stalking causes and to increase the maximum sentence that applies to the more serious forms of stalking—stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress. The report makes a compelling case and it is little wonder that it led to the maximum sentence being doubled from five years to 10. However, it did nothing at all to ensure that the minimum sentence for this horrendous crime reflects the impact on victims’ lives.
As with rape, there is currently no minimum statutory sentence for those who stalk with the intention of invoking fear of violence or serious alarm or distress. Instead, judges follow the sentencing guidelines. As the law currently stands, someone convicted under section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 can receive anything from 10 years in prison to a category C fine. Not only do we not agree with that, but it misrepresents the gravity of the offence. We also believe that the current system provides no deterrence to perpetrators of this terrible crime. Moreover, it is deeply troubling how few perpetrators of serious acts of stalking ever receive custodial sentences. One report notes that despite record numbers of convictions for stalking, 58% per cent of stalkers received only community or suspended sentences. How can it be right that more than half of stalkers never spend a day in prison? What sort of message does that send to the victims of this horrendous crime?
The purpose of new clause 22 is to end that undue leniency and ensure those convicted of the most serious form of stalking can expect to receive a custodial sentence as default, rather than as an exception. The question for the Minister is one of policy. Is it right for someone who stalks with the intention of causing fear of violence to receive a simple fine or a suspended sentence?
Chris Philp
As the shadow Minister made clear in his opening remarks, these are incredibly serious offences that leave victims traumatised and distressed, and the psychological scars are often borne for many years, if not decades, after the offences are committed. They are among the gravest offences that can be committed, and it is right this House takes them seriously. We have discussed the Government’s commitment to improving prosecutions in this area, and that was laid out by the Lord Chancellor in his statement yesterday following the publication of the rape review on Friday last week. More needs to be done, and the Government commitment in this area is clear.
Sarah Champion
I am listening intently to everything the Minister and his colleague are saying, which is great, but does the Minister understand that we have been promised all this for a long time? Although we are hearing his promises, we are awaiting the outcomes of reviews for which we are not given dates. Women are being murdered and abused.
Chris Philp
My colleague, the safeguarding Minister, tells me that the refreshed VAWG strategy will be published this year, in less than six months. I hope that gives some reassurance to the hon. Lady. If she is asking for action, I would point to the extra £25 million VAWG-specific funding, the new offences created in 2012 and the doubling of sentences in 2017. Those are not promises for the future, but actions that have been taken. She should also note that three quarters of those convicted of the offence get immediate custody, and that immediate custody of 16.9 months is more than three times longer than the minimum proposed in the new clause.
We want to make sure that those found guilty of those bad offences, which are terrible in themselves and can lead to escalation, are getting appropriately punished. But we are trying to strike a balance between that and the need to give the judge the ability to consider the individual case on its merits. That might include, for example, the perpetrator having mental health issues, where treatment might be more appropriate than custody. We need to tread carefully in striking that balance.
Given the action that has been taken and that three quarters of the offenders get immediate custody for a term much longer than the minimum proposed in the new clause, we are trying to strike a balance, which is not easy. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue, but we feel that the current sentencing laws make sense in this context. We have made a commitment to keep this under ongoing review and there are other legislative vehicles that could reconsider the issue. I am sure that the VAWG strategy, which my hon. Friend the safeguarding Minister is overseeing, will consider all the issues in the round, when it reports a little later this year.
These are difficult issues and difficult balances to strike, but I hope that I have explained why I believe the Government’s approach strikes that balance.
Alex Cunningham
On new clause 22 and stalking, it was interesting to listen to the level of sentencing imposed, and that is quite encouraging. But I think the Government recognise that more still needs to be done, and I hope that they will continue to consider the matter.
I also think that it would be helpful to have more publicity about what happens to stalkers who commit that crime, because women are still not confident about coming forward. If they learn that they will be taken seriously and that the people who are making their lives a misery may receive the sort of sentence the Minister outlined, more women may come forward and use the law. I hope that the Government will consider that suggestion.
I am disappointed that the Government are prepared to vote against increasing the sentence for rapists. I never thought that I would stand in Committee and believe that Conservative Members would think that it was okay to vote against a minimum sentence of seven years for rapists. I have spoken to rape victims—it was some time ago, not recently—and they tell me that the people convicted went to prison for four years, five years, seven years, but they, the victims, got a life sentence. They continued to live that ordeal. Then, of course, when they learned that the person was due to be released, they lived their lives in more fear because they were afraid that something dreadful might happen to them again.
Chris Philp
On a point of order, Sir Charles. In my speech, I said that 74% of people convicted of a stalking offence with serious alarm faced immediate custody. I should have been clear that that was all custody, not just immediate custody.
The Chair
Thank you for that point of order, Mr Philp; I am sure it was much appreciated by the Committee.
New Clause 23
Street sexual harassment
“(1) A person must not engage in any conduct in a public place—
(a) which amounts to sexual harassment of another, and
(b) which they know or ought to know amounts to sexual harassment of the other.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to sexual harassment of another if a reasonable person would think the conduct amounted to sexual harassment of the other.
(3) The conduct referred to in subsection (1) is known as street sexual harassment.
(4) A person (A) engages in conduct which amounts to street sexual harassment, or which they know or ought to know amounts to street sexual harassment, of another (B) if—
(a) A engages in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, and
(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i) violating B’s dignity, or
(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
(5) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (4)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—
(a) the perception of B;
(b) the other circumstances of the case; and
(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
(6) For the purposes of this section, “conduct” includes speech, non-verbal attitudes such as gestures imitating or suggesting a sexual act, and obscene sound effects.
(7) A person who engages in any conduct in breach of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(8) Where on any occasion an authorised officer finds a person who he has reason to believe has on that occasion committed an offence under section 1 above, he must give that person a notice offering him the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for that offence by payment of a fixed penalty, unless subsection (9) applies.
(9) This subsection applies (and subsection (8) does not apply) if a person has previously—
(a) been found guilty of an offence under subsection (1), or
(b) made payment of a fixed penalty issued under subsection (8).
(10) Where a person is given a notice under this section in respect of an offence—
(a) no proceedings shall be instituted for that offence before the expiration of fourteen days following the date of the notice; and
(b) he shall not be convicted of that offence if he pays the fixed penalty before the expiration of that period.
(11) A notice under this section shall give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence as are necessary for giving reasonable information of the offence and shall state—
(a) the period during which, by virtue of subsection (2) above, proceedings will not be taken for the offence;
(b) the amount of the fixed penalty; and
(c) the person to whom and the address at which the fixed penalty may be paid; and, without prejudice to payment by any other method, payment of the fixed penalty may be made by pre-paying and posting to that person at that address a letter containing the amount of the penalty (in cash or otherwise).
(12) Where a letter is sent in accordance with subsection (11)(c) above payment shall be regarded as having been made at the time at which that letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
(13) The form of notices under this section shall be such as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.
(14) The amount of a fixed penalty payable in pursuance of a notice under this section is £500.
(15) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”—(Alex Cunningham.)
This new clause creates an offence of engaging in unwanted conduct of a sexual nature in public. Those found to have committed an offence would be given an on the spot fine of £500. Those who commit the offence on further occasions would liable to receive a fine of up to £1000.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 48—Reporting of data on homicide reviews—
“(1) The Secretary of State must collect and report to Parliament annually data and information relating to reviews under—
(a) Section 16M of the Children Act 2004 (child death reviews) where the death of the child was due to homicide,
(b) Section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (domestic homicide review), and
(c) Section 23 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2021 (offensive weapons homicide reviews).
(2) The Secretary of State must set out in regulations the type of data to be collected and reported under this Section.
(3) Not later than three months after each report has been laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report which assesses the lessons which may be learnt from the data.
(4) The report prepared for the purposes of subsection (3) must be prepared by a person independent of the Secretary of State.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to collect and report annually to Parliament data on child death reviews where they involve homicide, domestic homicide reviews and offensive weapons homicide reviews. It would also require the Secretary of State to commission and lay before Parliament a “lessons learnt” review of the data.
New clause 55—Domestic homicide reviews—
“(1) Section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (2) substitute—
‘(2) The Secretary of State must in all cases which meet the circumstances set out in subsection (1) direct a specified person or body within subsection (4) to establish, or to participate in, a domestic homicide review.’
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
‘(3ZA) The Secretary of State must by regulations set out—
(a) the type of data relating to domestic homicide reviews which must be recorded, including—
(i) the number of domestic homicide reviews taking place across England and Wales annually; and
(ii) the time taken to complete each individual domestic homicide review;
(b) that the data must be recorded centrally in a Home Office database; and
(c) that the data must be published annually.’”
This new clause seeks to modify the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to force the Secretary of State to automatically direct a domestic homicide review in circumstances as outlined in Section 9 of the Act. The amendment also aims to improve data collection methodologies around domestic homicide reviews.
Alex Cunningham
The record will show that the Conservative members of this Committee voted against a minimum sentence of seven years for rape. The Minister pointed out some of our votes, and I am happy to put that on the record, too.
I again thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and my right Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for their support on this new clause. New clause 24 would require the Lord Chancellor, within 18 months of the commencement of this Act, to commission a review of the effectiveness of current legislation and sentencing policy surrounding domestic abuse. The review, conducted by a senior member of the judiciary, would have a particular view to increasing sentences for domestic homicide, and reducing the gap in sentence length between domestic homicide and other homicides. The review would also examine the effectiveness of sentencing more broadly for domestic abuse.
It is a stain on our society that the number of female victims of murder in England and Wales is the highest that it has been since 2006, some 15 years ago. Rather than things getting better, things are getting dramatically worse. Staggeringly, almost half of female homicides––48%––take place in the family home. This flies in the face of the commonly held myth that murders take place away from the safety of the family home and are predominately committed by strangers.
As I set out earlier, while the Opposition fully support the Government’s introduction of clause 103, which increases the custodial sentence for murder committed by a person under the age of 18, we feel there is much more that could be done in this area. This is particularly the case when it comes to the staggering difference in sentence lengths between those who murder within the home and those who murder a stranger in the street. Once again, I will repeat Carole Gould’s words which I feel really ring true on this point:
“Why should a life taken in the home by someone you know be valued less than a life taken by a stranger in the streets?”
Even under the proposals set out in the Bill, a child aged 10 to 14 who commits murder after taking a weapon to the scene, say a public place, would be liable to a minimum of 13 years imprisonment. For a child of the same age who committed murder using a weapon in the family home, the minimum sentence would be eight years.
That gap exists not only for children, but for adults. As I have told the Committee before, Joe Atkinson was 25 when he murdered his 24-year-old ex-girlfriend in a jealous rage. For those who take a knife or weapon to the scene, such as those who stab someone to death on the street, the normal starting point for sentencing is 25 years, but Joe Atkinson was sentenced to just 16 years and two months, partly because the murder was committed using a weapon found in the victim’s home. But that is just one piece of legislation that new clause 24 would seek to review. The review would also examine the effectiveness of sentencing more broadly for domestic abuse in general.
As Committee members will no doubt be aware, we have seen a staggering increase in appeals for help during the pandemic from those suffering domestic abuse. Between April 2020 and February 2021, Refuge recorded an average of more than 13,000 calls and messages to its national abuse helpline each month, a truly horrifying number. This is an increase of more than 60% on the average number of monthly contacts at the start of 2020. The crime survey for England and Wales showed that 1.6 million women and 757,000 men had experienced domestic abuse between March 2019 and March 2020, with a 7% growth in police-recorded domestic abuse crimes. Each of those figures suggests that the current measures the Government are taking to address domestic violence and domestic homicide simply are not working.
In order to truly tackle these issues, we need a root-and-branch independent review of how our criminal justice system responds to domestic abuse and domestic homicide. This is too important a point to ignore, and I hope the Minister will support new clause 24 today.
Sarah Jones
I will not try to remake my hon. Friend’s argument, which was compelling. I shall speak to new clauses 48 and 55, which have been grouped with new clause 24. I have spoken previously in Committee about the importance of learning the lessons of homicides. The relevant clauses would introduce offensive weapon homicide reviews, and we are debating the Bill at a time when serious violence is at record levels. Of all homicides in the latest year, 37% were knife-enabled crimes. A large proportion of homicides involved offensive weapons: in the year ending March 2020, 275 homicides involved a sharp instrument, 49 involved a blunt instrument and 30 involved shootings. We welcome this part of the Bill. It is important that lessons are learned.
It is incredibly important that the pathways that lead people to be involved in homicides can be understood and that the knowledge is shared with the bodies that can make preventive interventions and changes. Every homicide review that is carried out has a life behind it, and at the heart of every review is a person who has lost their life, each with a complex set of circumstances that can help to inform multi-agency bodies to prevent another death and provide better protections for those left behind. We owe it to the families of victims to ensure that any lessons are learned.
The domestic abuse charity Standing Together recently reviewed domestic homicide review processes in London boroughs, and its report highlighted that not enough knowledge sharing is happening. With new clause 48, we are seeking to put in the Bill a requirement on the Secretary of State to ensure that data is collected and reported on for all homicide reviews. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to collect and report annually to Parliament data on child death reviews involving homicide, on domestic homicide reviews, and on offensive-weapon homicide reviews. It would also require the Secretary of State to commission and lay before Parliament a lessons learned review of the data.
New clause 55, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), would modify the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004 to force the Secretary of State to automatically direct a domestic homicide review in circumstances as outlined in section 9 of the Act. We also aim with the new clause to improve data collection methodologies around domestic homicide reviews.
New clause 55 would bring about a really important change. Section 9(4) of the 2004 Act states:
“The Secretary of State may in a particular case direct a specified person…to establish, or to participate in, a domestic homicide review.”
However, those should not just be particular cases at the Secretary of State’s discretion; it should be the norm that when a person aged 16 or over has died, and their death has or appears to have resulted from violence, abuse or neglect by a person who they were related to, in a relationship with, or in the same household, a domestic homicide review should be automatically directed.
There are some serious gaps in data that a more common application of domestic homicide reviews would help to bring to light. Unless I am wrong, in which case the Minister can correct me, the Home Office does not publish a record of the number of domestic homicide reviews taking place across the UK, the number of victims with a history of domestic abuse who have gone or remain missing, or the number of unexplained or sudden deaths of victims with a history of domestic abuse. In the UK, the Office for National Statistics provides an annual homicide report for England and Wales, while Scotland has its own similar dataset, but those figures only scratch the surface. The ONS finds that over the last decade in England and Wales, an average of 85 women a year are killed by a partner or ex-partner. That is 44% of all homicides against women, while in Scotland the proportion is 49%.
Although Government data tells us the number of victims, their gender and their relationship to the perpetrator, there is no further information around the crimes and their nature. Some cases may also be lost because the killer’s gender is not noted. Crucially, there is no information about the perpetrator’s history of domestic abuse. That makes it hard to understand the relationship between domestic abuse and homicide, even on the most basic level.
Eight women were killed in the first three days of 2012, and in the same year, Karen Ingala Smith, chief executive of the domestic violence charity Nia, began to name them on her WordPress page to count dead women. She trawled through articles, police reports and domestic homicides reviews to collect and memorialise the cases. In 2015, Ingala Smith and Clarrie O’Callaghan launched the Femicide Census following their work on the count. Their 10-year report, released in November 2020, paints a stark picture of homicide against women in the UK. According to their report, there has been no improvement: women are being killed by men at the same rate as a decade ago, averaging 143 deaths a year when including all killers, not just intimate partners.
The Femicide Census provides crucial context for each killing, providing data on everything from the location to the method of the killing to the perpetrator’s history of abuse. Femicide Census findings published in November 2020 show that over the past decade, 62% of cases encountered were of women who died at the hands of an intimate partner. Nearly two thirds of perpetrators were currently or had previously been in an intimate relationship with the victim, and 72% of female homicide victims died in their homes. The census also begins to link domestic abuse and femicide: 59% of cases involved a history of coercive control or violence, and almost half the perpetrators were known to have histories of abuse against women.
Victoria Atkins
New clause 24 seeks to establish a review into sentencing in cases of domestic homicide, following many tragic cases, including those of Ellie Gould and Poppy Devey Waterhouse, among others, where there remain concerns about the sentences handed down by courts. The Government recognise those concerns, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has already announced a review of sentencing in domestic homicide cases.
We are carrying out a targeted review of how such cases, focused on those that involve fatal attacks on intimate partners or ex-partners, are dealt with in our justice system, including how such cases are sentenced. It is the Lord Chancellor’s intention to make quick progress on this and to conduct the review while the Bill is making its way through the legislative process. The first phase of the review is under way to gather data and relevant information, following which the Lord Chancellor will consider the best form for the next phase of the review.
As for a review of domestic abuse legislation more generally, Parliament has just finished scrutinising, at length and in depth, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The Act contains many important reforms and proposals for the future, and our focus must be on implementing those reforms before reviewing their impact.
Turning to new clauses 48 and 55, clause 27(7) requires the Secretary of State to publish or make arrangements to publish the report of an offensive weapons homicide review, unless publication is considered inappropriate, in which case the Secretary of State must publish as much of the report as is considered appropriate for publication. Beyond that statutory requirement, we want to ensure that the recommendations from offensive weapons homicide reviews are shared, considered, debated and, where appropriate, implemented locally and nationally in England and Wales. We will therefore set up a new Home Office homicide oversight board to oversee the introduction of offensive weapons homicide reviews to monitor implementation of any findings and to support dissemination of learnings locally and nationally. We will set out further details about the board and how it will operate in due course.
We have already undertaken to create a central repository to hold all reports from DHRs. Once introduced, all historical reports will be collected to ensure that there is a central database on domestic homicides. That is a significant move forward. We are working closely with the domestic abuse commissioner on the detailed arrangements for that central repository so that it can be effective in helping all relevant agencies to access and apply the lessons learned from DHRs.
Finally, in relation to child death reviews, the “Working together to safeguard children” guidance sets out the statutory requirements regarding child death reviews. Established processes are already in place to collate and share learning from such reviews, and it is a statutory requirement that child death review partners make arrangements for the analysis of information from all deaths reviewed and that learnings should be shared with the national child mortality database. The database analyses the patterns, causes and associated risk factors for child mortality in England and disseminates data and learning from the reviews via its annual and thematic reports.
We are not persuaded that new clause 55 is necessary. The statutory guidance for DHRs makes it clear that where the criteria for a review are met a review should be conducted. The power in section 9(2) of the 2004 Act to direct that a review be undertaken is a backstop and, in practice, is rarely needed. However, when it is needed, it is exercised. Indeed, the Home Secretary exercised it recently in the case of the death of Ruth Williams, because Torfaen Council had refused to progress a DHR. Furthermore, we have introduced a process whereby the DHR quality assurance panel reviews all cases where a decision has been made not to conduct a review. The quality assurance panel is made up of members representing statutory bodies and expert organisations, and they are well placed to consider whether a DHR is necessary and to offer appropriate feedback. That process ensures that DHRs can commence as soon as practicable, without needing the Home Secretary to intervene in every case.
In summary, we agree that the lessons for all the homicide reviews must be learned and applied locally and nationally. Mechanisms are already in place, or are indeed being put in place, to ensure that that happens, so we are not persuaded that the two new clauses are necessary at this stage.
Sarah Jones
I am interested in the homicide board to which the Minister referred. We would appreciate more details about how that would work, and it would be nice if we could get them before Report. I am reassured about the number of databases that there are, because we know that violence breeds violence, and I suspect that there are themes across all these areas from which we could learn more. I ask the Minister to keep pushing the issue.
Alex Cunningham
I am not sure how the dual thing in one set of clauses works in protocols, but we have managed anyway.
Sir Charles, you will be thinking that if you got a fiver for every time you heard the words “review”, “survey” or “commission”, you would be able to fund your fishing fees for a week on the River Tweed. Here we are, asking for a further review, so that is another fiver in the pot towards your fees.
We believe that the Government are doing well across the domestic abuse agenda, but we think that much more could be done, in a much more positive way. I suppose the report card would say, “Could do better,” and we think that the best way to do that is through a formal review, captured in the legislation. That would compel things to happen, and then we would get the information we need on which to act. For that reason, I want to vote on new clause 24.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 32—Requirement for a pre-sentence report when sentencing a primary carer—
“(1) Section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) A court must make inquiries to establish whether the offender is a primary carer for a child.
(3B) If the court establishes that the offender is a primary carer for a child, unless there are exceptional circumstances before sentencing the offender the court must obtain a pre-sentence report containing information to enable the court to make an assessment of the impact of a custodial sentence on the child.’
(3) After subsection (4) insert—
‘(5) In this section—
(a) “child” means a person under the age of 18; and
(b) “primary carer” means a person who has primary or substantial care responsibilities for a child.’”
This new clause amends section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to make clear the requirement for a sentencing judge to have a copy of a pre-sentence report, considering the impact of a custodial sentence on the dependent child, when sentencing a primary carer of a child.
New clause 33—Duty of the court to state how it has considered the consequences for the child when sentencing—
“(1) Section 52 of the Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (9) insert—
‘Offenders who are primary carers
“(10) A court sentencing a primary carer for a child must state how the best interests of the child were considered in determining the sentence (including, if appropriate, consideration of the views of the child).
(11) A court sentencing a pregnant woman must state how the best interests of the baby were considered in determining the sentence.
(12) In this section—
(a) ‘child’ means a person under the age of 18; and
(b) ‘primary carer’ means a person who has primary or substantial care responsibilities for a child.’”
This new clause amends section 52 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to require a sentencing judge to state how the best interests of a child were considered when sentencing a primary carer of a dependent child.
New clause 34—Welfare of child to be a distinct consideration when sentencing a primary carer—
“(1) After section 227 of the Sentencing Act 2020, insert—
‘227A Restrictions on imposing imprisonment on a primary carer
(1) This section applies where a court is considering imposing a custodial sentence on—
(a) a primary carer for a child, or
(b) a pregnant woman.
(2) The sentencing court must—
(a) consider the impact of a custodial sentence on the child or unborn child, and
(b) presume (subject to victim impact and any other sentencing considerations) that a non-custodial sentence is in the best interests of the child or unborn child.
(3) In this section—
(a) “child” means a person under the age of 18, and
(b) “primary carer” means a person who has primary or substantial care responsibilities for a child.’”
This new clause would create a requirement for a sentencing judge to consider the impact of a custodial sentence on a child when sentencing a primary carer of a dependent child.
New clause 35—Welfare of child to be a distinct consideration when determining bail for a primary carer—
“(1) Section 4 of the Bail Act 1976 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (9) insert—
‘(10) Where a court determines whether to grant bail in criminal proceedings to a person to whom this section applies who is a primary carer for a child or pregnant, the court must—
(a) consider the impact of not granting bail on the child or unborn child; and
(b) presume (subject to victim impact or other relevant considerations) that it is in the best interests of the child or unborn child for bail to be granted.
(11) In this section—
(a) “child” means a person under the age of 18, and
(b) “primary carer” means a person who has primary or substantial care responsibilities for a child.’”
This new clause would impose a requirement for the judge to consider the impact of not granting bail on a child when determining, in criminal proceedings, whether to grant bail to a primary carer of a dependent child.
New clause 36—Data collection in relation to prisoners who are primary carers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must collect and publish annual data identifying—
(a) how many prisoners are the primary carers of a child,
(b) how many children have a primary carer in custody, and
(c) the ages of those children.
(2) In this section—
(a) ‘child’ means a person under the age of 18, and
(b) ‘primary carer’ means a person who has primary or substantial care responsibilities for a child.”
This new clause would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to collect and publish data on the number of prisoners who are the primary carers of a child and the number of children who have a primary carer in custody.
Alex Cunningham
The new clauses fall broadly into three categories: sentencing provisions, which is new clauses 32, 33 and 34; provisions relating to determining bail, which is new clause 35; and provisions relating to data collection, which is new clauses 26 and 36. I will speak to them in that order.
I would like to thank Women in Prison for its helpful input to the new clauses, and I recognise the excellent work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, whose members have promoted new clauses 32 through to 36 and carried out forensic work on the matter in recent years.
An estimated 53,140 children are affected by their primary carer going to prison each year. The mother is more likely to be that primary carer, and as the 2007 Corston report notes, as many as 95% of children are forced to leave their home when their mother goes to prison. That separation can be extremely traumatic for children, and they go on to face a huge upheaval in their lives as a result of something that is no fault of their own.
As Georgia, a young woman who was 15 years old when her mother was sentenced to prison, eloquently put it to the inquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
“This is the thing I always think about, and I think back to it quite a lot. I know my mum did wrong and deserved a punishment, but if you were to stand my mum up in that box with me and my brother, and someone turned around and said ‘Do you sentence these three?’, would the judge look at it differently?”
We know that the primary carer is often also at risk of losing employment and their home, even after a short period in prison. Research has shown that, even among those who do not lose their home, many will face problem debt, which consequently will still leave the children vulnerable to homelessness. As Women in Prison notes:
“The imprisonment of a household member is one of ten adverse childhood experiences known to have a significant negative impact on children’s long-term health and wellbeing, their school attainment, and later life experiences, including life expectancy and the likelihood of being imprisoned themselves.
Significantly, experiencing parental imprisonment increases a child’s own risk of involvement with the criminal justice system, with over two thirds of prisoners’ sons going on to offend themselves.”
Sarah Champion
I support the new clauses, because I have yet to see a positive reason for women going into prisons. As my hon. Friend is saying, the impact on children is dramatic, but it is not only the fact that children are more likely to themselves face criminal actions; it is also that, on every measure, children going into care fail to achieve their potential. We really are damning children by doing this to their mothers.
Alex Cunningham
We certainly are. I quoted the figure earlier; some 95% of children end up leaving their home when their principal carer goes to prison, which bears out what my hon. Friend says.
The 2017 Farmer review found that family ties are a factor in reducing reoffending, which has attendant benefits for all our communities. The Government’s own 2018 female offender strategy acknowledges that
“custody results in significant disruptions to family life”
and that many women
“could be more successfully supported in the community, where reoffending outcomes are better.”
Sentencers are already expected to consider the impact on child dependants, but it seems that in reality the current guidelines are not applied rigorously or consistently across all cases.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights found in its 2019 inquiry “The right to family life: Children whose mothers are in prison” that despite the fact that the Sentencing Council had strengthened its guidance to judges and magistrates about the need to consider dependent children,
“evidence to the inquiry clearly indicated that this guidance is not being satisfactorily adhered to in practice and the question remains whether these steps go fast or far enough to guarantee children’s rights.”
Taken together these clauses will strengthen sentencers’ existing duties to ensure that they are applied consistently across all cases and that, as a result, children’s rights are guaranteed.
I will now consider the new clauses that deal with sentencing provisions. New clause 32 amends section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to make clear the requirement for a sentencing judge to have a copy of a pre-sentence report, considering the impact of a custodial sentence on the dependent child, when sentencing a primary carer of a child. The Joint Committee has raised concerns about the current quality and use of pre-sentence reports and in its inquiry was told that pre-sentence reports were
“vitally important in ensuring that courts have all the information necessary about dependent children before sentencing a primary carer,”
but written evidence from Dr Natalie Booth noted that they were used
“inconsistently and ineffectively in many cases”.
New clause 33 amends section 52 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to require a sentencing judge to state how the best interests of a child were considered when sentencing a primary carer of a dependent child. New clause 34 would create a requirement for a sentencing judge to consider the impact of a custodial sentence on a child when sentencing a primary carer of a dependent child.
The Opposition believe that these new clauses can help address the current inconsistency that I previously referred to by explicitly requiring sentencers to give due regard to the impact of a sentence on any dependent children and their welfare. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights notes:
“These new clauses merely reflect what ought to, but sadly often does not, happen—to consider and respect the rights of the child when a primary carer is sentenced”.
As Dr Paradine of Women in Prison told the Committee in one of our evidence sessions:
“It is completely unacceptable that the measures up until now have not resulted in the change needed. This is an opportunity to make that small change. It does not require anything different, but it will make sure, hopefully, that the things that should be happening in court do happen, that imprisonment is not having a disproportionate impact on children and that their best interests are safeguarded.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2021; c. 150, Q255.]
I think Dr Paradine puts it very compellingly; these are things that are already meant to happen in the court, yet in many cases they still do not.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making some very valid points and no one should underestimate the effect on a child of having either parent sent to jail. He talks a lot about “a primary carer”. As a parent, I see myself as sharing the care of our children. Is he assuming that in every case the woman would be the primary carer, or does he consider in these days of equality that it would be for the judge to decide who might be the primary carer?
Alex Cunningham
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. There are some cases where a lone male parent is the principal carer who may find himself in the dock facing a prison sentence. Naturally, the provisions apply to both men and women.
Dr Paradine puts it very compellingly: these are things that are already meant to happen in the court, yet in many cases they still do not. The Government clearly intend these things to happen, so I hope they can support the new clauses backed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights today and tighten provision in this area.
New clause 35 would impose a requirement for the judge to consider the impact of not granting bail on a child when determining in criminal proceedings whether to grant bail to a primary carer of a dependent child. This is an important measure because we know that even short bouts in custody can have very destabilising effects on families. The Government’s own figures show that a significant proportion of women remanded into custody do not go on to receive a custodial sentence. In 2019, 66% of women remanded by the magistrates court and 39% remanded by the Crown court did not go on to receive one. Again, under the current provisions, consideration should be made of child dependants but in practice it is not, and so again we ask the Government to support the amendment backed by the JCHR and tighten practice in this area.
Finally, I turn to the data provisions in new clauses 26 and 36. New clause 26 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to collect and publish data on the number of offenders who receive a custodial sentence and who are parents of children or are pregnant at the time of their sentencing. New clause 36 would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to collect and publish data on the number of prisoners who are the primary carers of a child and on the number of children who have a primary carer in custody. Both clauses speak to the same issue: there is an absence of data on this topic that needs to be addressed.
As the JCHR stated in its legislative scrutiny report for the Bill:
“The Government still does not know how many mothers of dependent children are in prison. It also does not know how many children are separated from their mother by her imprisonment. Despite this Committee’s repeated recommendations that it should collect this data, the Government’s approach continues to keep a group of children invisible to policy makers, the courts, the Prison Service and other support services.”
The Committee continued:
“A lack of data inhibits the ability of the Government, prisons and local authorities to design and evaluate services for children whose mothers are in prison. It prevents children whose primary carer has been separated from them, through no fault of their own, from accessing the support that will help them during and after their mothers’ sentence, and ultimately shows a blatant disregard for the rights of the child, as well as their parents’ right to family life.”
The absence of data is impacting service provision and ultimately preventing the Government from being able to improve measures to support primary carers and their children who are affected in this way, and means that we cannot measure progress in this area. These simple and straightforward duties on the Government are the next necessary step in improving the criminal justice system’s response to these cases, and I hope that the Government can support them today.
As Women in Prison recognises, this is a timely opportunity for the Government to
“make progress on their ambitions to radically reduce the number of women in prison included in their strategy and National Concordat on women in the criminal justice system, as well as the recommendations of the Farmer Review on women.”
Given that three in five women in prison have children under the age of 18, the proposed changes are needed now, as the Bill ushers in sentencing reforms.
The new clauses have cross-party support and will safeguard the welfare of the thousands of children who experience the profound impact of maternal imprisonment by ensuring that it is at least at the forefront of sentencers’ minds. All we ask is for the Government to ensure that what should happen does happen. Often, it simply does not.
The inclusion of the new clauses in the Bill will ensure that the data on the welfare of children is captured and adequately reported, so that those children can access the services and support that they need and deserve.
Chris Philp
I am conscious that we are perhaps not progressing as quickly as we had hoped, so I will try to be concise, while answering the questions properly.
The Government accept that we should avoid imprisoning a primary carer unless it is absolutely necessary, but we should also be clear that when someone commits a serious criminal offence, the fact that they are a primary carer should not confer immunity from imprisonment on them. There is clearly a legitimate criminal justice objective in imprisoning some people in some circumstances. We should not get into a position whereby simply having a dependant renders the offender immune from custody—that is not a reasonable proposition. However, we should ensure that custody is used as a last resort and sparingly. I will answer the questions in that spirit.
New clause 26 concerns data collection. The Government fully support the intention behind it, but we do not believe that it is necessary. We already take steps to obtain details of dependent children or pregnancy both at court, as part of the pre-sentence report, and again on reception into custody. However, it is true that the information is not collected centrally, or in a standard format. The Government intend to enable that information to be collated better and to improve its availability. The underlying data exists; it is simply a question of collation and we intend to respond positively to the various JCHR recommendations on that.
Again, we support the principle behind new clause 32, but do not believe that it is necessary. The sentencing code is already clear that
“the court must obtain and consider a pre-sentence report before forming the opinion unless, in the circumstances of the case, it considers that it is unnecessary to obtain a pre-sentence report.”
Existing legislation already asks the court to obtain that PSR. In addition, further guidance was introduced in 2019 for probation practitioners. It sets out that for those who are primary carers with responsibilities for children, a request to the court for an adjournment to prepare the PSR is considered mandatory. That is to ensure that the impact of a custodial sentence on dependants is considered.
As we set out in the sentencing White Paper last September, we are currently running a pilot in 15 magistrates courts. It includes targeting female offenders, who, among other cohorts, have been identified as having particular needs, for fuller written PSRs.
I hope that it is clear from the sentencing code, the guidance issued to probation practitioners and the pilot work that the matter is already being addressed through existing measures. That is probably one reason why so few women are in prison.
Again, the Government are sympathetic to the sentiment behind new clauses 33 and 34, but, by law, a court is already required to state its reasons for deciding on a sentence, and courts are required to take into account the impact on dependants at various points in the sentencing process. We have already discussed the Petherick case, which established that, on the cusp of custody, cases where there is a dependant should be treated in a way that takes that into account. That can tip the scales so that a custodial sentence that might otherwise have been considered proportionate becomes disproportionate.
As we have discussed, courts are also required by law to follow relevant sentencing guidelines issued by the independent Sentencing Council, unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. Reflecting the principles in the Petherick case, which we have spoken about, the guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences is clear that
“on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.”
Alex Cunningham
I emphasise to the Minister that new clause 26 does not stop or rule out custody for anybody who is a carer or primary carer.
I am grateful for the Minister’s comment on data. As I have said before in this room, we know how poor data is across the Ministry of Justice, judging by the number of times I get answers to parliamentary questions that state that the data either is not available or cannot be provided without disproportionate cost. I very much welcome that commitment to collecting data in this area and others.
The Minister talked about pre-sentencing reports. I emphasised in my speech that these reports must very much take into consideration the child, not just the offender. Perhaps we need to do more work with our sentencers to make sure that they are aware of the restrictions on them when it comes to remanding people in custody or sentencing them to it.
On bail, I understand what the Minister is saying, but there is still a very high proportion of women and carers being remanded in custody who do not go on to receive a custodial sentence. That plays back to my point that perhaps we need to do more work with sentencers to make sure they are applying the law in the fairest way possible.
In the light of the explanations from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
National Insurance Contributions Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 22nd June 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions Act 2022 View all National Insurance Contributions Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 June 2021 - (22 Jun 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed in the sitting. I remind Members that we have moved to 1 metre social distancing in general Committees, in line with the Chamber and Westminster Hall, so Members should continue to sit only in places that are clearly marked. I can see that you all are—thank you. I will suspend the sitting if I think anyone is in breach of social distancing guidelines. Mr Speaker has asked that Members wear face coverings in Committee except when they are speaking, unless of course they are exempt. The Hansard reporters would be grateful if Members could email any electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 22 June) meet at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 22 June;
2. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 22 June.—(Jesse Norman.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Jesse Norman.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be circulated to the Committee by email.
We now begin our line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have been through all the clauses of the Bill as introduced.
Clause 1
Zero-rate contributions for employees at freeport tax sites: Great Britain
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Freeport zero-rate relief: review of incomes and wages—
(1) The Government must conduct a review of the impact of sections 1 to 5 of this Act on income and wage ranges at all freeport tax sites.
(2) The review must assess—
(a) the average income and wage ranges of jobs in respect of which employers have claimed the secondary Class 1 relief introduced by section 1 of this Act; and
(b) for each freeport, how the incomes provided by these jobs compare to average median incomes across the local authority areas in which the freeport is located.
(3) The review must be commenced by 31 October 2022.
(4) The review must be published and laid before Parliament by 31 January 2023.
This new clause will require the Government to evaluate the wages of the jobs created as a result of the employers’ relief introduced by this Bill.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
It is a great pleasure to be able to address these important clauses in a small but important Bill, and I thank all colleagues for joining us today.
Part I of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 stipulates that secondary class 1 national insurance contributions be calculated at a standard rate of 13.8% on earnings above the secondary threshold—currently about £8,700 a year. Part I also provides for other rates of secondary class 1 NICs—the zero rate for 21-year-olds or apprentices under 25, for example—that can be applied up to an upper secondary threshold.
Clause 1 introduces a new zero rate of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions on earnings up to a new upper secondary threshold in Great Britain. The standard rate of NICs, 13.8%, in most cases will apply above that threshold. The threshold will be set through regulations at £25,000 per annum.
Clause 1 provides employers that meet the conditions set out in clause 2, which we will shortly debate, with access to this relief where they have a secondary class 1 liability. An employer may qualify for various rates of secondary national insurance contributions. Clause 1 therefore stipulates that an employer must elect to apply the freeport relief if they wish to utilise this zero rate. By applying the rate, their status as a secondary contributor remains even if, as a result of this relief, an employer has no secondary class 1 liability. The relief will be administered through pay-as-you-earn and real-time information returns by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. This approach has been welcomed by stakeholders.
New clause 5, if I may say so, recapitulates much of what the Government have already done. I remind the Committee that the Government have already published a decision-making note that clearly sets out how sustainable economic growth and regeneration are prioritised in the freeports assessment process. We will also be publishing costings of the freeports programme at the next fiscal event, in line with conventional practice. Those costings will undergo the usual scrutiny from the Office for Budget Responsibility.
It is also important to say that the Government are already taking the necessary steps to gather the information required to review the programme effectively. Before funding is allocated and tax sites are designated, each freeport will need to pass a business case process, which includes assessing how effectively tax sites can be monitored. Freeports will need to collect data on reliefs and their realised outcomes, which will include monitoring the effectiveness of tax reliefs, and the Government will continue to publish information relating to HMRC through its annual report and accounts. It is important to note that the Government have already committed to keeping this measure under review as new information becomes available. The publicly available tax information and impact note also commits the Government to keeping the scheme under review through communication with taxpayers’ groups.
The Government reject the proposal in new clause 5 because a report that focused exclusively on just one aspect of the policy would not do justice, however valuable its focus, to the whole, which includes other important aspects over and above wages, such as changes to customs rules, Government infrastructure spending and planning reform. I therefore ask that the Committee reject new clause 5.
I am sure that Committee members will not wish to delay the investment associated with clause 1, which introduces a zero rate of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions that employers can apply when they meet the conditions specified in clause 2. For that reason, and with the reassurances that I have given, I urge the Committee to agree that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Ms Nokes, for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Opposition. We begin by considering the clauses that relate to freeports. In March 2021, the Chancellor announced that eight freeports would be created in England—East Midlands Airport, Felixstowe-Harwich, Humber, Liverpool City Region, Plymouth and South Devon, Solent, Thames, and Teesside—and we understand that discussions continue around further freeports in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Clause 1 will introduce a new secondary class 1 national insurance contributions relief for freeport employers. It provides for that relief to apply when secondary class 1 NICs are due from an employer other than a public authority when the conditions set out in clause 2 are met. Clause 1(2)(a) states that the rate for the relief is 0% and applies up to the upper secondary threshold; subsection (2)(b) states that for earnings above the upper secondary threshold, the secondary percentage—currently 13.8%—applies. Subsection (3) states that the upper secondary threshold, or the prescribed equivalent, will be set by statutory instrument under a power established by clause 8.
As the Financial Secretary may remember, we discussed on Second Reading the fact that the upper secondary threshold for freeport employees would, according to a policy paper published by the Government on 12 May, be set at £25,000 for 2022-23. As I pointed out at the time:
“That is substantially less than the equivalent thresholds for employers’ relief for under-21s and apprentices, which is £50,270 in 2021-22…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.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 49.]
In response to my question about the Government’s rationale for picking the figure of £25,000 for employees of freeports, the Exchequer Secretary said:
“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.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 69.]
I would like to take this opportunity to understand the Exchequer Secretary’s response a bit more. I would therefore be grateful if the Financial Secretary let us know the specific source of the data that says that £25,000 is approximately the average salary in the UK. I ask this because according to the Office for National Statistics the median income in all the 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.
We would like to take this opportunity to press further on this point, which is why we have tabled new clause 5. We want to understand if the Government are concerned that making the threshold for the NIC relief in freeports £25,000 might create an incentive for employers to create posts paid less than £25,000, rather than higher paid posts, which could in turn create the risk of salaries being bunched below the threshold, thereby undermining salary progression.
New clause 5 requires the Government to conduct a review, after this policy has been in place for six months, to assess the average income and wage range of jobs in respect of which employers have claimed the secondary class 1 relief introduced by clause 1, and for each freeport to assess how incomes provided by these jobs compare with the average median income across the local authority area in which the freeport is located.
I would be grateful if, for clarity, the Minister let us know the precise statistical source of the figure of £25,000 for the average UK salary. Will the Government support the review we propose, which would assess the average incomes of jobs created by this employers’ relief? If not, does he think that setting the threshold for the relief at £25,000 risks creating an incentive for employers to create posts that are paid less—even just less—than £25,000, rather than higher paid positions?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I saw that he raised the issue on Second Reading and, if I may say so, it potentially reflects a slight misunderstanding.
As the Exchequer Secretary said, the decision has been taken to set the rate at £25,000, roughly the national average earnings. That is different from median earnings. I do not think it is right to suggest that the threshold has been set at a level that is approximate, because it is designed to be comprehensible and readily understandable. To make it more precise might affect that.
The overall generosity of the package of support that is being given to freeports, and the range of potential employees to which this applies, is very creditable to the Government, because it shows the intensity and strength of the intent to make the freeports policy work. This is an important part of that policy, but only one part of a set of policies that are designed to increase the attractiveness of freeports for growth and for employment as well.
The way in which this measure has been structured is focused towards longer-term employment, as the relief runs for three years, and therefore it allows the employment rights associated with longer-term employment to be vested in those employees. From that point of view, it reflects a commitment by the Government to create high-quality and stable longer-term employment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Freeport conditions
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(e) the employer pays, as a minimum, a living wage, to all staff it employs, and
(f) the businesses operating in the freeport in which the employer has business premises have collectively—
(i) put in place a strategy setting out how the freeport will contribute to the target for net UK emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 as amended by the Climate Change Act (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019,
(ii) put in place a strategy setting out how the businesses will ensure that no goods passing through the freeport are the products of slave labour, and
(iii) carried out an environmental impact assessment of the operation of the freeport.”
This amendment provides conditions to businesses in freeports. These include a strategy on how the freeport will contribute to the target for net UK greenhouse gases emissions, a strategy ensuring no goods passing through the freeport are products of slave labour, and an environmental impact assessment of the freeport.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 11, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(e), the living wage per hour—
(a) for the financial year 2020-21 is—
(i) £9.30 outside of London, and
(ii) £10.85 inside London; and
(b) for each year after the financial year 2020-21 is to be determined by the Living Wage Foundation.”
This amendment defines the living wage, payment of which is one of the conditions business would have to meet under Amendment 1.
Clause stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
New clause 1—NIC relief for employers at freeports: review of commencement date—
(1) The Government must conduct a review of job creation in the 2021-22 financial year at each of the eight freeport tax sites.
(2) The review must assess the impact on decisions around job creation of the relief becoming available from April 2022 rather than April 2021.
(3) The review must be commenced by 30 April 2022.
(4) The review must be published and laid before Parliament by 31 July 2022.
This new clause will require the Government to assess the impact on job creation in freeports in 2021-22 as a result of NIC relief being available from April 2022 rather than April 2021.
New clause 2—NIC relief for employers at freeports: review of the conditions of eligibility—
(1) The Government must conduct a review of the conditions of eligibility for the National Insurance contributions relief introduced by section 1 of this Act.
(2) The review must take into account the number of freeport employees in 2022-23 who work at more than one freeport site and who earn less than the relevant upper secondary threshold set under the powers created by section 8.
(3) The review must consider the impact of the matter in subsection (4) on decisions by employers about job creation.
(4) The matter is the relief introduced by section 1 of this Act being available for employees who spend 60% or more of their working time in one freeport, and not for employees who spend 60% or more of their working time across more than one freeport but less than 60% in any one freeport.
(5) The review must be commenced by 30 September 2023.
(6) The review must be published and laid before Parliament by 31 December 2023.
This new clause will require the Government to evaluate the impact on job creation of the employers’ NIC relief not being available for employees who spend 60% or more of their time across more than one freeport, but less than 60% in any one freeport.
Richard Thomson
There is a pretty basic principle that lies behind this: that you shouldn’t get owt for nowt. In exchange for the substantial package of reliefs that are on offer through this Bill, we believe that businesses must offer something in return, beyond their presence and their baseline economic activity within the bounds of a freeport.
In this case that would include, through amendments 1 and 2, meeting local environmental obligations. Many freeports are built on sites that have environmental sensitivities. We believe there need to be some enhanced obligations around that. Activities in a freeport should contribute to wider environmental objectives, such as the commitments to net zero and climate targets. It is very important to protect workers’ rights, not only within the perimeter of a freeport but anywhere else that has any kind of economic relationship with the freeport. That means taking steps to actively ensure that we are preventing the exploitation of slave labour at any stage in the value chain and ensuring that a living wage, as defined, is paid to the workers in the freeport.
Those are all important objectives in policy terms and are a fair exchange for the public goods being consumed through the creation of the freeport. They are modest asks in the context of the relief being offered and are worthy of support.
James Murray
Clause 2 sets out the conditions that employers must meet to qualify for the relief created by clause 1. Those conditions require that the freeport employment must begin between 6 April 2022 and 5 April 2026; the relief will apply for three years from the first day of each eligible employee’s employment; and the employee must spend 60% or more of their employed time in a single freeport tax site at which the employer has business premises.
We have a number of points to raise with the Minister on the details of the clause. First, as I mentioned on Second Reading, it is hard to understand why the relief is conditional on employment not commencing until 6 April 2022. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation pointed out, with freeports expected to start operating in 2021, that would surely hamper freeport employers this year, and perhaps even create perverse incentives to delay the start of an employee’s work. In her response to my raising this point on Second Reading, the Exchequer Secretary said:
“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.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 70.]
I found it hard to understand that the Minister’s point. Having a clear start date may well be a simple approach, but my question was not about whether the relief should have a clear start date, but why the Government had chosen a start date in 2022, rather than in 2021 when freeports are expected to start operating. To press Ministers on that, we suggest a simple review, as set out in new clause 1, which would require the Government to conduct a review of job creation in 2021-22 at each of the eight freeport tax sites. The review must assess the impact on job creation decisions of the relief becoming available from April 2022 rather than April 2021. I would be grateful if the Minister committed to carrying out such a review. If he is not willing to, perhaps he could explain why the Chartered Institute of Taxation is wrong to say that this choice of date could hamper freeport employers this year and perhaps create perverse incentives to delay the start of an employee’s work.
Alongside the start date for the relief, we want to raise questions about clause 2(1)(d), which states that at the time the qualifying period begins, a freeport employer must reasonably expect that the earner will spend 60% or more of their employed time in a single freeport tax site in which the freeport employer must also have business premises. That means that the relief introduced by clause 1 is available for employees who spend 60% or more of their working time in one freeport, but not for employees who spend 60% or more of their working time across more than one freeport, but less than 60% in any one freeport. If an employee splits their working time between two freeport sites, the employee may not qualify as a freeport employee, which might not be what is intended.
We have therefore proposed, in new clause 2, a review of the impact of that feature of the policy design on employers’ decisions about job creation. Again, I would again be grateful if the Minister committed to carrying out such a review. If he is not willing to, perhaps he could explain why he does not think that issue is likely to arise.
Finally, I would like to ask the Minister about clause 2(1)(a), which provides that the employed earner’s employment is a new employment commencing between 6 April 2022 and 5 April 2026. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation has pointed out, it is unclear whether an employee who is TUPE transferred from an existing employer to a new freeport business on or after 6 April 2022 qualifies for this relief.
Although clause 2(2) would prevent an employee from qualifying if the two businesses were connected, that would not always be the case—for instance, when a freeport business buys the trade of an unconnected business and commences that newly acquired trade at a freeport site. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether, in such a case, we can assume that the freeport business would be a “new” employer for the purposes of this relief, while recognising, of course, that its “new” employees would have continuity of employment for employment rights purposes.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Gordon and for Ealing North for their contributions. We have discussed already how clause 1 introduces a new rate of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions. If I may, I would like now to explain the freeport conditions that enable a freeport employer to qualify for the relief. That is set out in clause 2, and I will then discuss clause 3 and the amendments and new clauses that have been tabled.
Clause 2 has the following effect. It sets the conditions that an employment must meet to qualify for the freeport employer’s NICs relief. A freeport employer is an employer that has a business premises in the freeport tax site—business premises being defined as building or structure out of which the business is carried out. A freeport employee is an employee of a freeport employer who spends 60% of their working time in a freeport tax site and has not been employed by that employer in the previous 24 months. A freeport employer can apply the zero rate for 36 months on new hires from April 2022. The earnings of freeport employees hired before April 2026 will qualify for the zero rate for the full 36 months.
Clause 3 provides the Treasury with the power to legislate for the finer detail of the measure in secondary legislation. It provides a power to add, to amend and to remove certain conditions. The practical effect of that is to allow the Government to react to the economic realities of today, and also to give a degree of future-proofing to the measure against unintended policy outcomes.
The hon. Member for Ealing North raised the question of the starting date in 2022, and I understand that he is repeating the concern that he raised on Second Reading. It is adequately and properly met by the response that the Exchequer Secretary gave. It is a hypothetical matter as to when these freeports will begin to operate. We expect that to be soon, and we are pressing forward, but there are number of further steps to be undertaken before a freeport tax site can be designated and a freeport can go into operation. It is useful therefore to have a date certain for the operation of the policy.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the 60% rule discriminates against people who work flexibly. It is important to understand that this is a place-based policy—that is to say, it is a policy designed to focus and operate from a very specific location. To meet the objective of encouraging new investment and economic activity, and to maintain the focus and the targeting of the policy overall, it is important to restrict reliefs to those whose jobs are based in a freeport tax site. The Government will do that by making it a requirement that eligible employees spend at least 60% of their working time in a tax site.
Opening up that relief to employees who did not meet that requirement would undermine the policy aim of supporting employment in the freeport area, because it would mean that employers could effectively claim relief on employees carrying out work outside a freeport area—indeed, in an area that may not be related to the freeport at all.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question about TUPE-ed employments. These are not regarded as new employments, and the employment is transferred but is not regarded as new, and therefore the employee would not be eligible for the reliefs offered in the Bill.
I turn now to the questions raised by the Scottish National party in the speech made by the hon. Member for Gordon. It is important to note that the SNP’s amendment would place additional eligibility criteria—with respect to employment rights, equalities and the environment —in the Bill. Of course, those would add complexity to what is a well-established and rapidly moving process, and they would create potential delay. For that reason, it is not an attractive amendment.
The Government are committed to reducing carbon emissions, which is why this country was the first major economy to implement a legally binding net zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2050. Of course, it remains open to the Scottish Government to impose higher standards if they wish, either on freeports or on other ports that exist in Scotland, since environmental policy is a devolved area. The hon. Gentleman may want to take up his concern with the Scottish Government if he wishes to see higher standards in ports in Scotland. From the Government’s standpoint, we are also committed to supporting those in employment, which is why we introduced the national living wage in 2016. This month, workers have seen a pay increase to £8.91 an hour, which is a 2.2% pay rise.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about ensuring that goods passing through freeports should in no way be the products of slave labour. This is a global problem, and employers and freeports will need to meet the same high regulatory standards on slave labour that other businesses in the UK meet. That is to say that they must abide by the landmark transparency and supply chain provision in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, by which the UK became the first country in the world to require businesses to report on the steps they have taken to tackle modern slavery in their operations and global supply chains. With that said, I hope hon. Members will withdraw their new clauses and amendments.
Richard Thomson
I thank the Minister for his response. One of the things that we hear most often is that any amendment that may be desirable may add complexity, which seems to be a standard phrase that gets thrown in whenever the Government do not wish to proceed with something and cannot think of a better argument.
On the basis of what I have heard, I am unpersuaded that the suite of benefits and reliefs that are offered should make it easier to help achieve those objectives. I take what the Minister said about the obligations that already exist under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but I still think that more can be done to embed the expectations that we have, and not just in Scotland. I take the Minister’s point that the Scottish Government have a certain latitude in this area, but the point is to ensure that the provision applies all over and that there is some kind of equality. On that basis, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jesse Norman
If I may, I will explain a little of the background to clause 4. In addition to the powers taken in clause 3 to amend freeport conditions if the relief is found to be subject to abuse, clause 4 excludes employers that arrange their affairs with the aim of benefiting from the relief where that arrangement is contrary to the policy intent. Clause 4 works by removing eligibility for the relief if the conditions set out in clause 2 are met only as a result of an avoidance arrangement.
The Government are aware that the incentives of the freeport package potentially lend themselves to businesses taking steps to organise their affairs so that they can benefit from the relief; that is the design of the policy. Therefore, the Government have taken a similar approach to that in section 14 of the Finance Act 2021, which exempts employers if their arrangement is contrary to the policy intent of the relief and specifically in relation to the avoidance of tax.
An example of where the Government would expect HMRC to reject a claim for this relief would be where an employer structures their employment contracts so that a workforce can easily be dismissed after three years with the sole purpose of hiring new staff so that they can benefit from another three years of relief, or if an employer were to fire their employees and rehire the exact same posts with new employees.
The Government want the freeports to thrive, to boost local investment and to be a hotbed of innovation. Clause 4 provides an invaluable backstop and gives HMRC the ability to recover any relief that has been claimed as a result of contrived arrangements. I urge that clause 4 stand part of the Bill.
James Murray
As we have heard, clause 4 states that the relief for freeport employers cannot be claimed if an avoidance arrangement has been used, and it defines what is meant by an avoidance arrangement. We welcome any steps to prevent employers from taking advantage of the relief in cases in which avoidance arrangements are used. As this clause sets out, avoidance arrangements are those that are, or include steps that are
“contrived, abnormal or lacking a genuine commercial purpose, or”
that circumvent
“the intended limits of the application of section 1 or otherwise”
exploit
“shortcomings in that section or in provision made in or under sections 2 and 3.”
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm for us what extra resource, if any, has been made available to HMRC to ensure that it can identify and take action against employers in a freeport who have used avoidance arrangements. I would also like to understand what the Bill suggests about wider access to tax reliefs that arise from avoidance arrangements. I would be grateful if the Minister could offer some clarity on the wider situation.
This clause makes it clear that the tax relief in clause 1
“does not apply if it would otherwise apply only as a result of avoidance arrangements.”
Perhaps the Minister could help me to understand this by explaining whether, generally, companies are still able to claim tax reliefs if they arise only from avoidance arrangements—that is to say, arrangements that are contrived, abnormal or lacking a genuine commercial purpose. Although we of course support this relief being withheld in cases in which it can apply only as a result of avoidance arrangements, I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister about why this specific measure is needed and why the relief would not be withheld by existing provisions in law if it was deemed to have arisen from avoidance arrangements.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Of course, HMRC is taking a close interest in freeports and has been closely involved in the policy design in order to minimise any potential for avoidance and any other failure to target the policy as we would desire. It is well staffed to address all the concerns that are raised. Of course, its staffing is flexible and also is something that reflects periodic conversations with the Treasury during the spending review processes and otherwise in order to ensure that it is as effective as possible—and it is highly effective, as is shown by the fact that the tax gap in this country is now lower than it ever has been. It is significantly lower than it was in 2005, for example—it is something like 40% lower than it was under that Government. That important achievement puts things into perspective.
Jesse Norman
Clause 5 confirms the Government’s commitment to provide a freeport NICs relief in Northern Ireland. It gives the Treasury the power to legislate for the detail of the freeport NICs relief in Northern Ireland in secondary legislation. The power is limited in so far as the relief must be similar to or correspond to that available in Great Britain.
In Northern Ireland, the specific design of the relief will have to comply with European Union rules on the provision of state aid, due to the requirements of the Northern Ireland protocol. It will be developed and agreed through a process of engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive on the detail of the wider freeports offer in Northern Ireland.
This Bill legislates for a power to allow the Government to set out the detail of the employer NICs relief in Northern Ireland in secondary legislation once engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive is complete. These regulations will be laid at the earliest possible opportunity once negotiations with the Northern Ireland Executive have given a clear indication of consensus on the tax offer.
Given the timing of the Bill, I trust Members will see that this approach is sensible, and ensures all stakeholders are fully engaged. I commend the clause to the Committee.
James Murray
Clause 5 gives the Treasury a regulation-making power to provide for a freeport secondary class 1 NICs relief in Northern Ireland. On Second Reading, the Minister assured us that, although the measures in clauses 1 to 4 relate to Great Britain, it is the Government’s intention to legislate for this relief in Northern Ireland as soon as practicable. He drew attention to the fact the Bill provides the Government with the power to set out the detail of employer NIC relief in Northern Ireland in secondary legislation once engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive is complete.
I note that the House of Commons International Trade Committee’s recent report on UK freeports, published on 20 April, discussed the issue of freeports in Northern Ireland, and in particular their relationships with the Northern Ireland protocol. It quotes Professor Catherine Barnard of the University of Cambridge, who said:
“under the Northern Ireland Protocol the EU state aid regime applies, certainly to Northern Ireland where there is an effect on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the EU. You should also bear in mind that the protocol is probably wide enough to catch any freeport legislation that applies throughout the United Kingdom.”
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury acknowledged to the Committee that the freeport offer would have to be adapted to comply with the UK’s obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. Acknowledging that, the Committee’s report concluded that it is clear the Northern Ireland protocol will impact the terms under which a freeport can be established in Northern Ireland. It recommended that the Government should set out in their response to the report their view on how the freeports model will need to be adapted in Northern Ireland to comply with the terms of the protocol. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an update on the Treasury’s thinking in that regard.
I would also like to clarify a comment in the memorandum from the Treasury to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on this Bill. On clause 5, the memorandum says:
“The Government’s intention is that the employer NICs relief for Freeports employers is in place by 6 April 2022 throughout the UK.”
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that means it is the Government’s intention, as set out in the memorandum, for a freeport to be established in all four nations of the UK by 6 April 2022.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He asked me to update the Committee on the detail of the discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive on a freeport and noted the comments made by the Select Committee. I am afraid I am not in a position to do that. These things are subject to current discussion and negotiation. It is a matter of some complexity and I do not think it would be appropriate to do so. I assure him that once matters have reached a conclusion and a consensus, Parliament will of course be given a full picture of what has taken place and I am sure colleagues will take a great interest.
He also asked a question about timing. For the reasons I have indicated, I do not think it would be prudent to specify a time by which a particular freeport, either one in process at the moment in England or one in the devolved Administrations, will be up and running. That is something for the Governments concerned and for the freeport operators and there will of course be processes of further designation that will need to be gone through. I assure him that it is certainly the UK Government’s intention that this should be done as rapidly and effectively as possible, across the whole of the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 6
Zero-rate contributions for armed forces veterans
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 7 stand part.
New clause 3—NIC relief for employers of veterans: review of the tax year of relief claims—
(1) The Government must conduct a review of how many veterans have been employed in 2021-22 in jobs for which employers have accessed the National Insurance contributions relief provided for under section 6 of this Act.
(2) The review must assess the impact on decisions around job creation of the requirement that the relief must be claimed retrospectively for 2021-22 rather than being available in real time.
(3) The review must be commenced by 30 April 2022.
(4) The review must be published and laid before Parliament by 31 July 2022.
This new clause would assess the impact of NIC relief for employers of veterans being claimable retrospectively for 2021-22, rather than in real-time.
New clause 4—NIC relief for employers of veterans: review of the period of NIC relief—
(1) The Government must conduct a review of how many veterans have been employed in jobs for which employers have accessed the National Insurance contributions relief provided for under section 6 of this Act.
(2) The review must assess the impact on decisions about the creation of jobs for veterans of the relief being available for earnings paid over a one-year period rather than a three-year period.
(3) A review must be conducted for each of the financial years 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24.
(4) Each review under subsection (3) must commence within 30 days of the end of the relevant financial year.
(5) Each review under subsection (3) must be published and laid before Parliament within three months of its commencement.
This new clause will require the Government to evaluate the impact of the NIC relief for employers of veterans being available only for one year rather than three years.
Jesse Norman
We have considered the clauses concerning the zero-rate contributions for employees at freeport sites. I turn now to the second aspect of the Bill—the clauses on zero-rate contributions for armed forces veterans, starting with clause 6.
As the Committee will recall, the Government made a manifesto commitment to support ex-service personnel in their attempts to work to secure stable and fulfilling employment. Clauses 6 and 7 honour that commitment and provide employers with a zero rate of national insurance contributions on the earnings of qualifying veterans.
The Chancellor announced that policy at the spring Budget in 2020 and launched a policy consultation shortly after. The Government received 37 written responses from a variety of stakeholders and a response to that consultation was published on 11 January 2021. That response document outlined the final policy design. On 11 January 2021, the Government also published draft clauses for a technical consultation, which closed on 8 March 2021. Thus, the measure has been fully and effectively consulted upon, tested with stakeholders and debated by Parliament. It should be seen in that light.
Clause 6 introduces a zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs when the conditions in clause 7 are met. The relief can be applied on earnings up to the upper secondary threshold. Earnings above that threshold will be liable to the standard rates of NICs.
The relief will be available initially for three years. For the tax years 2022-23 and 2023-24, employers will have immediate access to the relief. For earnings in the 2021-22 tax year, employers will be able to claim the relief from 2022 onwards. The Government have sought to introduce this policy as quickly as possible, but practical and, in particular, IT considerations have meant that claims for earnings in the 2021-22 tax year will need to be at year end. That does not affect the amount of relief that an employer is able to receive.
The Government are keen to understand the effectiveness of the relief and will review the impact before deciding whether to extend it. Clause 6 provides the Treasury with the power to add additional years.
Clause 7 sets out the conditions that need to be met to allow an employer of a veteran to qualify for the zero rate that clause 6 provides. To qualify as a veteran for the relief, an individual needs to have completed at least one day of basic training in the regular forces. An employer can claim the relief for the first 12 months of a veteran’s first civilian employment since leaving the armed forces. The 12-month period starts on the first day of the veteran’s first day of civilian employment and ends 12 months later. Any employment in that period will qualify for this relief, which means that a veteran will not use up access to this relief if they take on a temporary role immediately after leaving the armed forces.
The relief will be available on the earnings of qualifying veterans from April 2021. Clause 7 also provides that a veteran can commence their first civilian employment before April 2021 and still qualify for the remaining period. Therefore, the 12-month period will begin on the first day the veteran took up their first employment and the relief will be made available only from 6 April 2021 for the remainder of that 12-month period.
Opposition new clauses 3 and 4 ask the Government to report on the impact of claiming the relief retrospectively and the impact of providing the relief for one year, rather than three. I shall explain why they are unnecessary. First, most of these issues were considered during the detailed consultation, which I have described. In addition, the Government have already committed to reviewing the measures and will, of course, be transparent about their expected impact. The policy costing for the measure and the underlying analysis were signed off and certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, and the methodology was set out in the Budget policy costing document. As I say, the Government are committed to keeping the measure under review as new information becomes available. As part of the review process, HMRC and HM Treasury will speak to stakeholders to gauge their views on how the policy is operating.
Clause 6 will support veterans and help them to find stable and fulfilling employment, and it will provide employers with up to £5,500 in savings. I hope the Committee will agree to clauses 6 and 7 standing part of the Bill, and that the new clauses will not be pressed.
James Murray
Clauses 6 and 7 introduce an important relief, designed to help service personnel leaving the armed forces to get back into work. As I made clear on Second Reading, we believe that this is a vital issue. Veterans deserve the Government’s full support 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.
Clause 6 sets out the detail of the relief. It provides for a 0% rate of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions up to an upper secondary threshold for the tax years 2022-23 and 2023-24. Earnings above the upper secondary threshold will be liable to secondary class 1 NICs at the secondary percentage, currently 13.8%. It also specifies that the relief is available for the 2021-22 tax year retrospectively. In practice, that means that employers need to pay secondary class 1 NICs as if the relief did not apply; then, from April 2022, they can claim the relief retrospectively for the earnings in 2021-22. The relief described by clause 6 applies if the veteran conditions in clause 7 are met. The conditions include that to qualify for the relief the earner is required to have served for at least one day in the regular forces, and that the relief is available for one year, beginning on the earner’s first day of civilian employment after leaving the armed forces.
On Second Reading, I asked Ministers to explain why the employer’s relief for veterans is for 12 months, which is much less than the relief for employers in freeports, which is 36 months. In her response, the Exchequer Secretary said:
“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.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 70.]
That did not address my question about why the Government had chosen to make the relief for veterans’ employers available for one year, rather than any longer; in particular, why not for three years, in line with the relief for freeport employers, which the Bill also introduces. That is why we wanted to raise the matter again, and why we tabled new clause 4, to address the impact of the Government’s decision.
New clause 4 would require the Government to conduct a review of how many veterans had been employed in jobs for which employers accessed the national insurance contributions relief provided under clause 6. The review would have to assess the impact on decisions on the creation of jobs for veterans of the relief being available for earnings paid over a one-year period rather than a three-year period. I would be grateful if the Minister agreed to undertake the review. If he does not, perhaps he will explain in greater detail why the Government have chosen a one-year period for veterans’ employers, rather than the three years for freeport employers.
New clause 3 is about enabling us to understand the impact of the Government’s reluctance to make the relief claimable in real time for 2021-22. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation sets out, it seems that the policy intention is that the relief will be available from 6 April 2021, although employers will need to pay the secondary class 1 NICs on the earnings of eligible veterans for the 2021-22 tax year, then claim them back retrospectively in April 2022. From the 2022-23 tax year onward, employers will be able to claim the relief in real time through their PAYE declarations.
The Chartered Institute of Taxation reasonably questioned why employers cannot self-serve the relief for 2021-22, once the legislation has been passed, especially given the challenging circumstances of the pandemic and the cash-flow implications. The institute asks whether HMRC could be permitted to exercise its discretion and to permit employers to make real-time claims for 2021-22 where their payroll software provides for suitable identification of eligible veterans.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He repeated the question from Second Reading of why the measure is for one year, contrasting it with the freeports measures, which are for three years. The Exchequer Secretary was absolutely right, but it is important for me to add more colour.
The freeports measure is set at a lower upper secondary threshold, but for a longer period, because the goal is to bring people into an environment that has already been greatly supported by taxpayers, but to create circumstances in which they can have long-term secure employment, in particular with all the employment rights that come with more durable employment. The NICs relief for veterans is at a higher level for a shorter period, because the goal is to support a very specific process of transition, which veterans have as they come out of the armed forces.
Many people in the room have constituencies in which there are veterans or serving armed forces personnel, so they will appreciate the importance of the measure. Veterans are extremely skilled individuals who have extraordinary life experience, but there is often that process of transition. Therefore, the more effective approach is to provide more support for a shorter period to assist that transition in as flexible a way as possible.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I understand the concept of the transition, but does the Minister not share my concern that it might go against the grain of what he is trying to do if we were to find that, after a period of one year of having the national insurance relief, people were out of employment? The proposal to look over a longer period would be beneficial to veterans in maintaining long-term employment.
Jesse Norman
I fully understand the concern of the hon. Lady, and precisely because the Government have been concerned about transition, we have introduced the relief. If it were the case that veterans still had a serious problem of finding secure and stable employment, of course that would be a matter that the Government would wish to reflect on and consider. I thank her for raising it.
To go to the second point raised by the hon. Member for Ealing North, he asked about the timing and the issues of real-time payments that the Bill contemplates. I understand the concern, in particular at this moment of pandemic when the Government are seeking to protect and support the cash flow of businesses and have done so across a vast number of them, across the whole of the United Kingdom, in many different forms. The Committee is aware of that.
The hon. Gentleman asked if we would look at that. Of course, I am happy to consider the matter further and to ask HMRC to consider it, but as he will recall, the matter has been given extensive consultation and internal discussion, and the IT and other problems that I described are not ones that can be wished away.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
When it comes to veterans’ national insurance contributions relief, I really feel that it needs to be for much longer than a year, for some of the reasons that the Minister has just highlighted. The cuts to 10,000 armed forces personnel come at a time when people are losing their jobs due to the economic pressures from the pandemic, and it seems very odd to say that we are looking at a long-term solution yet giving armed forces personnel the security of only one year.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I would repeat the points that I made earlier, which is to say that this is about managing a process of transition. The process of transition is one that has a beginning and an end. The key thing is to offer genuine support at a moment when a veteran needs it as they come out of the armed forces and go into employment, and to design that flexibly. That is what we have done. It has been extensively consulted on throughout a process with a series of stages, which have taken place during the pandemic and in which colleagues and wider stakeholders have been well sighted. It reflects the shared and calibrated understanding, but of course we recognise the concern that colleagues have raised, and we will continue to reflect on this policy, as we will on other tax policies.
Jesse Norman
No, I think we have had quite enough discussion of this topic. If the hon. Lady is going to raise a new point, of course I am happy to take the question.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I am. The Minister says that he is confident about the argument he is making, and that the Government believe they are on the right track. With these new clauses, all the Opposition are asking the Government to do is evaluate and assess the decisions that they have made. Why will the Minister not do that, if he is confident about what they are doing?
Jesse Norman
As I have explained, we already have in place processes of evaluation and assessment. We will be following them, and this reflects an extensive process. It is lovely to see the Labour party waking up at last after its long slumbers, but the question that the hon. Lady raises is not, in fact, a new question; it is a reiteration of the same question, so I am going to stick with the answers I have already given.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Upper secondary threshold for earnings
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jesse Norman
I do apologise. We wait in expectancy and hope.
Clause 8 contains a regulation that would allow the Treasury to set for every tax year a freeport upper secondary threshold and a veterans upper secondary threshold over which the secondary percentage, rather than the zero secondary percentage, would apply. Different upper secondary thresholds may be set for each measure. The freeports bidding prospectus confirmed that the freeports UST would be set at £25,000 for the 2022-23 tax year. The veterans consultation document confirmed that the veterans UST would be £50,270 for the 2021-22 tax year.
On Second Reading, a question was asked about the freeport UST being lower than that for veterans. We have touched on it already, but let me come back to it. Unlike other NICs reliefs that are available to employers generally, businesses operating in a freeport are likely to be able to claim the refund for almost all their new hires. That is the basis on which the upper secondary threshold has been set, in the context of the wider generosity that has been given. Employers will still be able to claim up to approximately £6,500 of relief on the salaries of employees earning more than that. The clause also provides that regulations may specify that the veterans UST is set retrospectively, and that is for reasons that we have described and discussed.
I turn now to clause 9, which contains a consequential amendment in relation to the apprentice levy that is calculated by reference to employers’ annual pay bill. It amends section 100 of the Finance Act 2016 to ensure that earnings that are liable for the freeport and veterans zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs are still considered when calculating an employer’s annual pay bill. This approach is consistent with other employees’ NICs reliefs, such as the under-21 and under-23 apprentice reliefs.
James Murray
Clauses 8 and 9, which were discussed with earlier clauses, allow the Treasury to set an upper secondary threshold for secondary class 1 NICs specifically in relation to armed forces veterans and freeport earners every tax year. The Bill will therefore allow different thresholds to be set for veterans and freeport employees, and for those thresholds to be different from the thresholds that apply to under-21s and apprentices.
We welcome the fact that the Minister confirmed on Second Reading that the upper secondary threshold for veterans will be £50,270 in a veteran’s first full year of civilian employment. After the Minister’s explanation, however, I remain unconvinced by his argument for setting the threshold for employers in freeports below the average wage in freeport areas, as we discussed at length during debate on earlier clauses. If the Minister has had time to think further about his argument, I would welcome further explanation in his response. If not, I will leave my remarks there.
Jesse Norman
No, I have nothing to add. We have already discussed this at some length.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Treatment of self-isolation support scheme payments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jesse Norman
It may help the Committee if I start by explaining some of the background to clause 10. We are making good progress, and we move now to the treatment of self-isolation support scheme payments in respect of contributions paid by the self-employed.
In response to the coronavirus pandemic, the Government announced last September 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. The Scottish and Welsh Governments announced similar schemes shortly after that. To ensure that those payments, which are provided by local authorities, would not be subject to employee and employer class 1 and class 1A NICs, the Government introduced secondary legislation to exempt payments under the support schemes from employee and employer class 1 and class 1A NICs.
Clause 10 is intended to extend that exemption to the self-employed and retrospectively exempts Test and Trace support payments from class 2 and class 4 NICs for the 2020-21 tax year. The clause also enables the Government to ensure, through regulations, that future Test and Trace support payments will not be included in profits liable to class 2 and class 4 NICs.
James Murray
Clause 10 provides a national insurance contributions exemption for payments made under a self-isolation support scheme. That ensures that they are not taken into account for the purposes of computing profits liable to class 4 NICs or for the purposes of class 2 NICs.
As I set out on Second Reading, we welcome this exemption from national insurance contributions for payments made under a self-isolation support scheme. It is crucial that people who need support to self-isolate receive it, so we welcome any steps that make the system for self-isolation payments more effective and subject to less administrative burden.
The Minister may recall that on Second Reading I asked why the exemption for class 2 and class 4 contributions was not implemented earlier, in line with the exemption for class 1 contributions. In response, his colleague the Exchequer Secretary explained 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.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 69.]
I accept that the formal processes for introducing the exemptions for the different classes of NICs may differ, but my point on Second Reading was that announcing the class 2 and class 4 exemptions earlier could have given much-needed certainty to self-employed people at an earlier point in the outbreak. I am sure that the Minister would agree that self-employed people would have benefited from such certainty. The Exchequer Secretary seemed to claim in her comments that the Government’s intention was always to provide that relief for class 2 and 4 NICs, and the delay appears to have been for solely practical reasons.
I would therefore be grateful if the Minister confirmed exactly when the Treasury announced, by way of ministerial statement or other appropriate means, that the exemption for national insurance contributions would be extended to class 2 and class 4 contributions for payments made under a self-isolation support scheme.
Jesse Norman
The hon. Gentleman asks why it was not exempted earlier; the Exchequer Secretary was absolutely right that it is a quirk of our tax system that regulations should be used to exempt national insurance contributions on the employment side, but not these ones. I do not have the date that he describes at hand, and I am happy to write to him on that. It has always been the Government’s intention that the self-employed should benefit from that, as one would expect, given the nature of national insurance contributions and the overall treatment of employment and self-employment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Disclosure of contributions avoidance arrangements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jesse Norman
Clause 11 widens the existing power in the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to make amendments to the disclosure of tax avoidance scheme regime known as DOTAS, which I mentioned earlier. The changes enable HMRC to obtain information and documents much earlier for avoidance schemes that HMRC suspect should have been notified to them but have not been disclosed. The changes will allow HMRC to issue a notice to anyone they reasonably suspect of being a promoter or other supplier involved in NICs tax avoidance schemes. It would require the provision of all documents and information that relate to the schemes in question. The amendments will ensure that regulations can be made mirroring the changes to the DOTAS procedures that are included in the Finance Act 2021.
The changes here are necessary to satisfy HMRC that a NICs scheme is not notifiable. If HMRC are not satisfied, they would be able to issue a scheme reference number, or SRN. DOTAS was introduced in 2004 and seeks to provide HMRC with early information about new tax avoidance schemes, how they work and those who use them. The equivalent regime for VAT and other indirect taxes, known by the unattractive label of DASVOIT—disclosure of avoidance schemes for VAT and other indirect taxes—was introduced in 2017.
Currently, when avoidance promoters fail to meet their DOTAS obligations, it can take HMRC a considerable period of time to challenge that failure, often years. Throughout that delay period, there is no disincentive to promoters continuing to promote their schemes, meaning that taxpayers may remain unaware of the risks they face and could end up with large tax bills.
It is appropriate that we should continue to act to protect taxpayers and discourage such behaviour from promoters where they involve NICS. The clause provides that future modifications to part 7 of the Finance Act 2004—Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes—can be applied or modified so that they apply to NICs without the need for primary NICs legislation. That will enable changes to be made efficiently and effectively, with the minimum of separation in time, to ensure the rules continue to move in step. It is usual practice where an existing tax rule is extended to NICs, and I hope the Committee will agree that it is appropriate to have that in place.
The DOTAS regime provides HMRC with important early information, on the basis of which we can make interventions. The prompt disclosure to HMRC of proposals and arrangements that bear the hallmarks of tax avoidance will allow them to be fully considered and tackled much earlier and more effectively, as appropriate.
James Murray
Clause 11 widens existing regulation-making powers so that regulations can be made for national insurance, mirroring the amendments to the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—DOTAS—procedures that are included in the Finance Act 2021. This measure, and its counterpart in the Finance Act, means that when HMRC suspects someone has failed to disclose arrangements or proposed arrangements that should have been notified to them under DOTAS, it may issue a notice to anyone it suspects of being a promoter or other supplier involved in the supply of the arrangements. The notice explains that if the person is unable to satisfy HMRC that the arrangements are not disclosable, HMRC may allocate a scheme reference number to the arrangements.
As I made clear on Second Reading, we welcome any measures that help HMRC to track tax avoidance schemes. During the debate, I drew Ministers’ attention to a point made by the Chartered Institute of Taxation: that it believes that there is a hard core of between 20 and 30 promoters, identified by HMRC, who clearly do not play by the rules. I asked:
“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.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 53.]
Unfortunately, the Exchequer Secretary did not address those questions at the end of Second Reading, so I am glad to have the chance today to raise them again for the Financial Secretary to address. Would he comment on whether he recognises 20 to 30 as the number of hardcore promoters, and on whether there are any targets with dates by which Ministers expect the number of hardcore promoters at large to fall substantially?
Jesse Norman
Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is HMRC’s view—as he says that it is the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s view—that some 20 or 30 promoters are in the market at present. HMRC are vigorously applying themselves to curtailing that activity and to supporting and protecting taxpayers. The Bill will give them an important additional tool with which to do that. By their nature, the promotion of tax avoidance schemes is constantly changing and evolving; promoters are highly resourceful in seeking new ways to sidestep responsibilities and avoid the attention of HMRC. That is one reason why the earlier interventions and the greater flexibility that we have provided are so important.
For that reason, I do not think that it would be prudent to make an estimate or assessment of what the appropriate number of promoters is or could be. The number that we want, obviously, is zero: we would like to see no promotion of tax avoidance schemes in the market, because it is a reprehensible and disgraceful practice.
To reassure the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee, I will say that over the past six years, more than 20 promoters have left the market. That is a significant achievement that reflects the decisions that have been made. As I have also indicated, there has been a substantial reduction more widely in the overall tax gap, which bears testimony to HMRC’s wider effective prosecution and collection of unpaid tax.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jesse Norman
Clause 12 specifies how regulations are to be made under the Act and the parliamentary procedure that will apply to them. I ask the Committee to agree that it stand part of the Bill.
James Murray
As we turn to clause 12, which provides for regulations under the Bill to be made by statutory instrument, I would like to discuss which regulations can be decided by the negative and the affirmative procedures. It might be helpful to focus on clause 3(3), which is mentioned in clause 12.
Clause 3 gives the Treasury regulation-making powers to
“provide for circumstances in which a freeport condition is to be treated as being met.”
That has the effect of making the relief available in circumstances in which it would not otherwise be. We note that clause 3 also gives the Government extensive powers to
“amend, repeal or otherwise modify”
the relief. Although it will always be easier for the Government to amend legislation by way of regulations, we recognise the concerns that the Chartered Institute of Taxation has articulated that the powers to make those changes are extensive. There may well need to be flexibility to allow the finer detail of legislation to be amended, but there is a strong argument that any fundamental changes should be subject to full consultation and scrutiny.
I would be grateful if the Financial Secretary explained why he considers that the powers granted in clause 12, with effect on clause 3, to make decisions by way of regulations are proportionate. Does he agree that the clause gives the Government more powers than are desirable to change key elements of the policy by regulations? In particular, given that regulations under clause 3(3), which relate to freeport conditions, are subject to the affirmative procedure, will he explain why regulations under clause 3(2), which also relate to freeport conditions, are subject to the negative procedure instead?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Clause 12(2) specifies that regulations made under the Act are subject to the negative procedure, except for clause 3(3), which relates to the power conferred on the Treasury to add, remove or alter the qualifying conditions for the freeport relief; clause 5, which relates to the power conferred on the Treasury to apply for a freeport secondary class NICs relief in Northern Ireland; and clause 8, which relates to the power conferred on the Treasury to specify the amounts of veterans’ and freeports’ upper secondary threshold. All three are subject to the affirmative procedure.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Treasury takes extremely seriously the question of what are its appropriate powers, and there has been considerable discussion and indeed parliamentary engagement on what the appropriate powers for HMRC should be in each case. In this case, the normal procedure has been followed, which is to try to recognise the public policy intent and overall public benefit of a more flexible arrangement, but also to respect the parliamentary procedure that where a measure includes new burdens or new taxes, or makes material changes of those kinds, they should be subject to an enhanced level of scrutiny by Parliament, provided by the affirmative procedure. That is the approach that we have taken.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Interpretation etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Murray
I do not have any specific concerns to raise in relation to the interpretation or the short title. May I take this opportunity, as it is the final clause under consideration in Committee, to thank my hon. Friends for joining me on the Committee, to thank you, Ms Nokes, as Chair, and to give special thanks to the Clerks, the Library and the Chartered Institute of Taxation for all their advice during the passage of the Bill so far?
Jesse Norman
If I may say so in a similar spirit, as I may not have the chance to do so after the conclusion of deliberations on the final provisions, let me also offer my thanks to you, Ms Nokes, to the Clerks, to my colleagues and also to the officials at the Treasury and HMRC for the work that they have done to prepare the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 6
Zero-rate contributions for employees of green manufacturing companies
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b) of the 1992 Act in respect of earnings paid in a tax week in respect of an employment,
(b) the green manufacturing condition is met, and
(c) the employer (or, if different, the secondary contributor) elects that this section is to apply in relation to the contribution for the purposes of section 9(1) of the 1992 Act instead of section 9(1A) of that Act or section 1 of this Act.
(2) For the purposes of section 9(1) of whichever of the 1992 Acts would otherwise apply—
(a) the relevant percentage in respect of any earnings paid in the tax week up to or at the upper secondary threshold is 0%, and
(b) the relevant percentage in respect of any earnings paid in the tax week above that threshold is the secondary percentage.
(3) The upper secondary threshold (or the prescribed equivalent in relation to earners paid otherwise than weekly) is the amount specified in regulations under section 8.
(4) For the purposes of the 1992 Acts a person is still to be regarded as being liable to pay a secondary Class 1 contribution even if the amount of the contribution is £0 as a result of this section.
(5) The Treasury may by regulations make provision about cases in which subsection (2) is to be treated as applying in relation to contributions payable in respect of a tax week in a given tax year only when—
(a) that tax year has ended, and
(b) all contributions payable in respect of a tax week in that tax year have been paid.
—(Richard Thomson)
This new clause provides NIC relief for businesses in freeports dealing with green manufacturing products.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—Green manufacturing condition—
(1) The green manufacturing condition is that the employer is engaged in the manufacture of products within the categories designated under subsection (2).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must by regulations designate categories of products that in the opinion of the Secretary of State are manufactured with the aim increasing environmental standards. The categories of products designated must include—
(a) wind turbines, and
(b) electric vehicles.
This new clause is linked to NC6.
Richard Thomson
With your permission, Ms Nokes, I would like to speak to new clauses 6, 7 and 8, if that is possible. I will just wrap everything into one debate. I would like to add my own thanks to the Clerk and you, Ms Nokes.
Richard Thomson
Okay. In that case, on new clauses 6 and 7, I simply seek to make the point that there is a strong appetite to find new ways to support the economy, especially in those sectors that can contribute to green recovery, beyond the covid recovery and into the future.
A key element in progressing that, along with the cost curve for new technologies, is driving competition and, through that, improvement. Providing exemptions on NICs and ensuring that they are targeted on businesses engaged solely in green manufacturing could do much to drive that innovation and improvement. That requires that incentives are targeted at enterprises that are engaged in green manufacturing and in driving that new green industrial revolution.
New clause 7 provides examples of two categories of products that clearly fall within that bracket, although there is certainly scope to expand beyond that, but I think that the principle stands. If that strategy is not to be achieved in that manner, it certainly should be achieved in other ways. I would welcome the Minister’s remarks on that. It is not my intention to push the new clause to a vote.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech and his attention to the Bill. The new clauses tabled by the Scottish National party would create a new zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs for employers that are classed as “green manufacturing companies”, including those that produce wind turbines and electric vehicles. In considering such a measure, it is important for the Government to balance the different potential benefits and costs in a context that respects the requirement to manage public money and support public services.
A change to the tax system of this kind needs careful consideration and assessment of costs and benefits and goes far beyond what should be done via amendment in such a Bill. Designing a sector-focused relief is not straightforward and it adds complexity to the tax system. Having said that, the Government take supporting green manufacturing companies extremely seriously, and we have a raft of policies in place to do that. For example, since 2013, the Government have provided £150 million a year for the Aerospace Technology Institute, match-funded by industry to support the development of incremental improvements to existing aerospace technology, alongside zero-emission technology to protect and secure the sector. That includes £84.6 million of investment to develop zero-emission flights, and further support for other potential zero-emission aircraft concepts. There are many other areas, including support for the Advanced Propulsion Centre and the Faraday battery challenge, let alone all the work that has been done to subsidise the development of offshore wind, which attest to the importance the Government place on green manufacturing and green manufacturing jobs.
I encourage the Committee to reject the new clause, but I acknowledge that the Government fully share the policy intent.
Richard Thomson
On the basis of the Minister’s remarks, the principle stands, but on this occasion, I will not seek to progress by moving to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Scottish Government Covid payments: exemption from primary Class 1 contributions
(1) A primary Class 1 contribution is not to be payable in respect of any Scottish Government Covid payment.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a ‘Scottish Government Covid payment’ means a payment of £500 pro rata to any NHS Scotland or social care worker in accordance with the announcement made by the Scottish Government on 30 November 2020.”—(Richard Thomson.)
This new clause provides exemptions for Scottish Government Covid payments to social care workers.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Richard Thomson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As this will be my penultimate contribution, I would like to offer my thanks to the Clerks and everyone who has helped the proceedings to move so smoothly, through your chairmanship, Ms Nokes, which has helped considerably with that objective.
On Second Reading, I remarked on the unfairness that was caused by the Treasury’s refusing to exempt income tax on the thank-you payment that the Scottish Government made to health and social care workers. It was in the form of a £500 thank-you bonus to reflect how health and social care workers were valued for their contribution during the incredibly challenging period that we have been through. The full benefits of that payment have been put at risk by the UK Government’s ability to tax us. Contrary to a number of assertions, the Scottish Government do not have the ability to get round that, other than by paying far more than the £500. It would therefore be far better to have the exemption in place.
Although an exemption for the bonus would be welcome, we recognise that the majority of welfare employment powers reside with the UK Government. We therefore want to press the new clause to ensure that clarity is provided and that any future payments for health and social care workers can be exempt from national insurance contributions.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and, again, his attention to the Bill. The Government recognise, as he does, that covid-19 is the biggest threat the UK has faced socially, economically and in many other respects for many decades. Key workers, including social care workers and workers in the NHS, have demonstrated an astonishing commitment to keeping the public safe in the fight against the disease. The Government massively value and appreciate those contributions. However, in this case, although I understand where the hon. Member is coming from, the Government do not believe that the new clause is appropriate or necessary. We fully recognise the hon. Member’s concern, but we do not believe the new clause is the appropriate way to proceed.
Under long-standing rules, any payments made in connection with an employment are chargeable to income tax and national insurance contributions. They also count as income for the purposes of calculating entitlement to certain benefits. The £500 payments made by the Scottish Government to health and social care workers function as a top-up to wages. We therefore consider that those payments are taxable as earnings under normal rules, as I think has been recognised by the Welsh Government.
The UK Government have provided more than £5.9 billion of additional funding for the Scottish Government this year through the Barnett formula. If the intention of the Government in Scotland is for health and social care workers to benefit by at least £500, it remains open to them to gross up the payment to take into account the tax and NICs liabilities, as the Welsh Government have done.
Richard Thomson
I think everything that needs to be said has been said. On that basis, I would like to move to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
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
Covid-19: Religious and Ethnic Minority Communities
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Before I call the Member who will move the motion, let me say that yesterday the House of Commons Commission said that Members who are not on the Westminster Hall call list but who are physically present will now be able to come along and make interventions. Today, we do not seem to have Members who wish to make interventions, despite their being able to see on the Order Paper that there is only one Back Bencher on the call list beyond the hon. Gentleman whose debate this is. This is a very important subject, so I just want to make it clear to those observing from outside the House that I am sure there would be a lot more participation but for the constraints and inflexibility of the rules, which do not allow Members who have not given advance notice and are not on the call list to come along and participate by making speeches. I do not think that the message from yesterday’s meeting of the Commission that they can at least come along and make interventions has got through.
I would also like to say that this is a one-and-a-half-hour debate, this is an important subject and the Chairman of Ways and Means made it clear, when the Chairmen’s Panel last had a meeting with her, that she thought it desirable, in a debate in which there was not that much participation but a lot of time, that the Minister should be willing to take as many interventions as there are, rather than feeling constrained to refuse interventions. I just mention that because I know that the Minister we have today is assiduous in taking interventions, so I hope that today he will be able to set an example to some of his colleagues.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the covid-19 pandemic on religious and ethnic minority communities throughout the world.
As you rightly say, Sir Christopher, this subject matter is of the utmost importance, to me but to others as well. I know that it is a matter that the Minister is greatly taxed about, and I am pleased to see him in his place. As always, I am sure that the response to the debate will encourage those of us who have a burden in our heart for this issue.
I want to make an apology, if I may, on behalf of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who, unfortunately for this debate, has a meeting every Tuesday at this time with, I think, officials from Downing Street. She sent me a wee text message to tell me that, because she would love to have been here. Her heart, like mine, has a burden for this issue, but unfortunately she cannot be here, and she wanted me to record that.
There are others who cannot be here. It is a pity that I had not known about the current situation, because not everybody can come to be here. For instance, I am the only one of my party colleagues who is over here in Westminster this week. The daughter of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) is getting married on Thursday, so he has other things to be involved in. Of course, he has also put his name forward for the leadership of our party, so he has a lot on his plate at the moment. Otherwise, he would have been here to participate.
Why is this issue important? I often say this when I have these debates, but the fact that I say it often does not lessen its importance. This is a chance to be a voice for the voiceless, to speak up in this place for those who perhaps have no voice, and to ensure that the issue is looked at thoroughly. The motion says it all: the effect of the covid-19 pandemic on religious and ethnic minority groups throughout the world. I will illustrate in my contribution shortly just how important this is and what is happening across the world. I will give a large number of examples to illustrate that it is not specific to one religious or ethnic group, but affects many groups across the world. In particular, I will be speaking of those with a Christian faith, but I will speak for Muslims and others as well.
As covid-19 swept across the globe in 2020, people’s lives almost everywhere were fully upended. Almost overnight the way we live and interact was completely overhauled, thriving economies were suddenly shuttered, our social interactions outlawed and our most basic movements curtailed. Although the pandemic has served as both a reminder of the oneness of humanity and of the interdependence and interconnected nature of the world that we live in, there have been immense inequalities in our experiences of the crisis, as I will illustrate shortly, and I know others will do the same.
Here in the United Kingdom, some of our freedoms were restricted to ensure that our collective right to life was prioritised and protected. It is an unfortunate reality that in many other parts of the world the pandemic has been used as a smokescreen to further restrict marginalised and repressed minority groups. At this point I should declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We speak up for those of a Christian faith, other faiths and no faith. I genuinely believe in the Lord and Saviour that I serve, so I speak up for all religious and ethnic groups across the world.
Many religious and belief groups have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. The spread of covid-19 has exacerbated pre-existing prejudice globally. Some groups have experienced outright violence and hostility, while others have been subjected to discriminatory restrictions imposed by the state. Many more have also suffered disproportionately owing to a range of structural factors that often place religious and belief minorities in the more vulnerable segments of society that more often lack access to social justice.
As chair of the APPG, I am very aware of where in the world those of a Christian faith and other groups find that they are always at the end of the queue when it comes to help for covid-19, and at the end of the queue when it comes to the aid handouts as well. The charity Aid to the Church in Need estimates that in 2020 oppression against vulnerable faith communities increased in 25 of the 26 countries that it identifies as the most oppressive against such groups, so they have oppression to start with and even more oppression because of covid-19. Other religious groups then blame the small religious and ethnic groups for what takes place.
I want to outline the ways in which faith and belief groups have been unfairly impacted by covid-19 and the consequent financial crisis, and will examine the open hostilities, secondary effects and systematic challenges. I implore Her Majesty’s Government and the Minister to commit to using their extensive knowledge and resources to foster a more equitable environment globally.
Minorities are at greater risk of becoming infected with coronavirus and of dying from it if they become infected. As marginalised and more vulnerable segments of society, minority groups often do not have the same level of access to medical treatment as is available to most of the population. The charities and non-governmental organisations warn of the unequal access to medical care within states, both through outright discrimination and service delivery to minority groups and because of entrenched disparities in wealth between groups. For example, in Pakistan, which I have a particular burden in my heart for, and an interest in, we find that when it comes to the allocation of jobs, those of a Christian belief get the more menial jobs. They do the street cleaning, look after latrines and can be in bondage work in factories. Some of these groups are perhaps not educated, but they do not have the ability to rise out of that either, and that happens to a large extent in Pakistan and in other countries as well.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Christopher, for reminding us about interventions. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for highlighting the plight of Christians, particularly minority Christians, during the pandemic, and the inequality that has been wrought. I hope that we will continue to scrutinise the level of vaccinations so that they are given out equally to everyone, because everyone should be equal under the aid and medical support that we give during covid. I hope that we will do that in a very fair and even-handed way, and remember all the repressed minorities, particularly the Christians, who have suffered greatly during the pandemic in many places throughout the world, especially in the middle east and Pakistan, as well as remembering autonomous regions that perhaps are not prioritising certain groups as quickly as others because of their religious background.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight that. It is very obvious in my contribution, and I am pretty sure that it will be obvious in the contributions of others and in the Minister’s response, that there are many examples of Christians being at the end of the line when it comes to the vaccine roll-out and the health systems that are needed. I hope that in our aid structures across the world we would want to see equality and parity in the roll-out.
Minorities are at greater risk both of becoming infected with coronavirus and of dying from it if they become infected. Being marginalised and more vulnerable, these minority groups do not have the same access to medical treatment. We are getting some examples from charities and NGOs, who warn of the unequal access to medical care within states, including through outright discrimination. In other words, if someone is a Christian, they are at the back of the queue or maybe just ignored in service delivery to minority groups, and because of entrenched disparities in wealth.
Overt discrimination on the part of some medical practitioners has been documented in a number of states throughout the pandemic, whereby those belonging to specific religious groups have been refused medical treatment on the grounds of their faith. In India, just to give another example, it is not only Christians who are affected; there have also been widespread reports of Muslims being denied medical attention throughout the pandemic. We are hearing many examples of that coming through. They include claims that some hospitals were denying treatment to Muslims until they received a negative coronavirus test. That requirement is not being placed on non-Muslims in India, so why is it being placed on Muslims there?
This is not only a problem in healthcare provision; NGOs in Pakistan have also reportedly denied food and emergency handouts to Christians and Hindus during the pandemic. Members of religious and belief minority groups have also been subjected to verbal abuse, death threats and physical attacks when attempting to access public services. So it is not just verbal abuse; there is also physical abuse.
More commonly, this inequity of access to medical care is closely correlated to economic disparities; being more economically vulnerable, members of minority groups may not have the resources needed to seek treatment. They may also be more adversely impacted by measures to contain covid-19 and the stopping of economic activity. The World Bank estimates that the number of covid-induced new poor rose by 119 million to 124 million in 2020, and may increase to between 143 million and 163 million this year. That is worrying for me, because if someone does not have a job to feed their wife and children and to keep their head above water, the impact of covid will be greater.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees warns that the pandemic is a force multiplier, amplifying the needs of people of concern, and increasing unemployment and poverty within communities that are already marginalised, for example those in Pakistan that I referred to earlier. It is these systematic economic disparities that are thought to put religious or belief minorities at greater risk of contracting covid-19 in the first place.
Overcrowded housing, poor sanitation, unregulated workplaces and the need to continue to operate in high-risk environments out of economic necessity are all contributing factors. If someone has to work and abide by the conditions of that work because they need the money to survive, when it comes to safety and other issues they perhaps have not focused on them in the way that they normally would.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has noted that these factors cause marginalised communities to be over-exposed to the virus, adding that these precarious work patterns and overcrowding ensure that such groups are less able to self-isolate if they become infected. For example, refugees who have fled religious-based violence and now live in overcrowded refugee camps with unhygienic living conditions have become particularly vulnerable to the virus.
I can think of many such groups. The Rohingyas are a supreme example, but there are many others in Syria and across the middle east, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) mentioned, for whom issues of hygiene are really important. They live in crowded conditions in small areas, and every day the risk of disease is very real to them. Minority groups may also be geographically isolated from state services, after years of underfunding of services in areas that are home to ethnic and religious minorities.
More research is needed on the reasons why these stark inequalities have manifested in a number of wholly different states. The magnitude of the problem can be totally overwhelming—both in my prayer time and in preparing for this debate, I have been very aware of how massive the task is. I know that our Government, and the Minister in particular, have been very responsive and reactive to that, which I appreciate. That is why this debate was requested, and why I look to the Minster and to our Government for a response.
Even within the UK, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned of the disproportionate impact of coronavirus on different ethnic minority communities, and made recommendations to the UK Government to lessen those inequalities of experience. While it is right that Her Majesty’s Government research the myriad impacts of the pandemic on British citizens within the UK—the Government’s priorities are still at home first—the devastating consequences for many communities around the globe should not be overlooked.
Many of us in this House have been very keen to ensure that other countries have the same opportunities when it comes to the vaccine roll-out. Rather than ensuring that UK aid is delivered in a manner blind to religion, Her Majesty’s Government should ensure that aid is prioritised for marginalised faith and belief communities to lessen these inequalities of access experienced within states. I would ask the Minister how we can ensure that the aid we give actually gets to the religious groups and small ethnic minority groups so that they have equality in the vaccine roll-out and the healthcare that they need.
Misinformation about the virus, its origins and methods of contagion, alongside entrenched distrust between many communities around the world, has led to mass discrimination against peoples on grounds of ethnicity and religion. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has warned that faith communities have suffered a tsunami of hate and xenophobia during the pandemic, and the evidence points to that—real, factual evidence—in many countries across the world. One of the most shocking ways that belief communities have been targeted has been by being falsely blamed for spreading the virus. How disheartening that must be, for any religious or ethnic group to find themselves being blamed for the spread of the virus when they are affected by it just as much as other groups.
In a number of western countries, the Jewish community came under attack during the first wave after claims that their religious practices were fuelling the spread of the virus. In Iran and Turkey, there were widespread claims that covid-19 was a Jewish conspiracy, while Jewish Orthodox communities in Europe, the United States and the Middle East saw police operations against worshippers.
In Turkey, an Armenian church was set alight over claims that Armenians were responsible for bringing the coronavirus. Christian Solidarity Worldwide, one of those excellent charities that work on behalf of Christians and others across the world, noted a sudden and significant increase in online hostility towards Christians in China after allegations that the January 2021 coronavirus outbreak in Hebei province originated in a church. China is not far behind North Korean when it comes to human rights abuses and suppression of religious beliefs. Online hostility is easy to follow, and anyone online could find themselves on the frontline.
The UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ahmed Shaheed, condemned the flare-ups and existing religious intolerance in many countries, including the scapegoating of religious or belief communities, as experienced by Christians, Jews and Muslims. In parts of India, coronavirus is widely believed to be an Islamic conspiracy, with Muslims being beaten, prevented from entering certain districts and having their businesses boycotted. Hateful rhetoric, including from Indian Government officials themselves, targets religious minorities, encouraging—if not inciting—intimidation, harassment and violence. It is always important that we, as elected representatives, choose our words with care. It is also important that those in other parts of the world, such as India, pick their words carefully and ensure that they do not inflame the situation.
The Shincheonji Church of Jesus in Daegu in South Korea reports some 4,000 cases of injustice against its congregants since a local outbreak was traced back to the church. These reportedly include termination of employment and domestic persecution, as the church’s parishioners face blame for the covid-19 cases in the country. It is grossly unfair that that should happen—again, it is direct discrimination against those people, who just want to worship their God and their church. Human Rights Watch has called on Governments to work to combat such stigma, and it has said that the virus recognises no distinctions of race, ethnicity, religion or nationality. How true that is, and everybody should realise that that is the case. Covid-19 struck across the world wherever it had the opportunity, and it did not matter what country people were in, what religion they were, or whether they were old, young, male or female. It went everywhere.
The UK Government have committed to counter the spread of hateful misinformation campaigns that have caused, at best, escalating inter-community tensions and, at worst, open conflict, which has been evidenced in some places in India, China, Pakistan and elsewhere in the world. Will Her Majesty’s Government prioritise putting processes in place to tackle such misinformation before it leads to inter-community conflict?
Under the guise of tracking and containing coronavirus outbreaks around the world, a number of already stigmatised groups have been further marginalised from societies and seen disproportionate controls imposed on their lives. Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews have found that their religious beliefs put them in a different category. During the imposition of coronavirus restrictions, some religious and belief minorities who had been blamed for the spread of covid-19 had their movements and activities placed under stricter control than those of majority groups. I thank the Lord that we in this country are able to go and worship wherever we like on a Sunday. Nobody is taking our car registration numbers, seeing who is going into the church or sitting in the church and noting what people are saying, but there are parts of the world where that happens all the time.
In Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, Government authorities indicated that Shi’a religious communities were responsible for the spread of coronavirus and subjected some neighbourhoods and localities to stricter lockdown measures. Again, that is disproportionate and over the top, and it directly affects those of religious and ethnic minority groups. The Saudi Government imposed a lockdown on the majority Shi’a province of Qatif, and the Hazara community in Pakistan also had their movements and work restricted in one region before any wider regional lockdown was introduced. The Pakistan Government’s failure to address hate speech and to promote religious harmony is said to have contributed to violence, with attempted mob lynchings in September 2020. It is not hard to incite a mob of people whenever they are minded to do that. Therefore, it is really important that those in positions of power in government at all levels, be they MPs, councillors or community leaders, are there to protect everyone.
As further barriers to international travel were put in place, access to regions was reduced for journalists, international officials and aid organisations. That had a cooling effect on access to information, so we may not know the whole story. We are probably getting parts of it at this moment in time. It may have led to the under-reporting of abuses perpetrated against minority communities. News about the violence in Tigray in Ethiopia—we spoke about this in the main Chamber last week—was slow to reach international attention, and aid groups normally present in the region were unable to confirm the reports of mass killings and widespread rape against Tigray women and children, which began in late 2020.
In the debate on sexual violence in the main Chamber last Thursday, many of us believed that the reports that we were getting downplayed what was actually taking place. In a meeting last week, an official from the Eritrean embassy refuted the claims that atrocities were proved to have taken place. How out of touch are they? The evidence is there and coming from various people, and the numbers are particularly worrying. I personally find it difficult to speak of that because I can almost feel the pain of those who have been abused. It bothers me greatly and it bothers many others. Notwithstanding what the Eritrean embassy said, due to covid-19 restrictions, no outside observers have been allowed to travel to the region. The feedback about what is happening is therefore restricted to those who contact family members outside the region.
Restrictions have also affected the functioning of law and order globally, as police forces redirect resources to managing containment. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has highlighted reports of numerous anti-Hindu incidents in Bangladesh occurring with impunity during coronavirus lockdowns. Again, it is worrying if Governments stand by and do not step in.
The pandemic is said to have created a perfect storm for land rights abuses. I have spoken about that in relation to the Baha’is in Iran. I do not know whether you, Sir Christopher, have had the chance to meet people from the Baha’i faith. I have had the opportunity over the years to meet quite a few. They are the gentlest, nicest, kindest, most well-mannered people I have met. They are certainly not aggressive or abusive. They are just so gentle, yet their gentleness seems to be trampled on by people in Iran. I am not sure whether I can use the clear terminology that has been used in the press in the past few days to refer to the new leader in Iran. I worry greatly that, given that that person is in charge, the abuse against the Baha’is will escalate. They have experienced forced evictions and land confiscation.
The UK Government previously said that they will use UK aid to support protections against forcible evictions and claimed that they were deeply troubled by the deterioration in the land rights of religious minorities in Iran. That burdens my heart, and I know that it burdens the Minister’s heart and the hearts of other speakers. Is there still such a commitment from Her Majesty’s Government, given the extensive cuts to official development assistance? I do not want to harp on about the aid cut because it is not fair to keep at it all the time, but I want to make sure that the aid that goes through gets to the right people.
Measures to stop the spread of covid-19 have included severely limiting religious gatherings around the world, profoundly impacting individuals’ and communities’ ability to manifest their religion or belief. For much of the pandemic, the right to health and freedom of religion or belief have been deemed almost mutually exclusive. Where activities have been allowed to resume, some regions have continued to restrict particular religious activities under the auspices of preventing the spread of covid-19, even when other comparable activities have been allowed to resume.
The Algerian Government, for example, granted mosques and Catholic churches permission to reopen last August, but the evangelical churches remained closed throughout the remainder of 2020. Why that disparity? Why was it okay for one group but not for the others? I do not understand that.
In Malaysia, Hindu temples and Christian churches face different reopening schedules from mosques. Last year, Malaysian officials temporarily banned refugees and migrants from mosques as they reopened. The imbalance and the inequality of treatment is real.
Alongside particular faith and belief groups being subjected to additional restrictions, seemingly equal policies have violated freedom of religion or belief. For example, in Sri Lanka, authorities insisted on the cremation of all those who died from covid-19, including Muslims, despite the fact that the practice is prohibited under Islam. We welcome the fact that the requirement was lifted in early 2021, due to the pressure that our Government and our Minister exerted and also to raising awareness of the issue across the globe.
As I said earlier, as a result of the pandemic, many faith and belief groups have moved their worship online. For those with internet access, that could have enabled greater engagement with religious services, particularly for those who are geographically isolated, those with disabilities or those with age issues. That rapid move to online worship in many parts of the globe has also led to growing concern that hostile state authorities might use this technology, because it is easier to get that, for increased surveillance and monitoring of minority religious communities. The rise in surveillance has been documented against religious groups across China, where unfortunately everything seems to be under the control of Government and suppression of human rights and religious beliefs is rampant.
With much of the world now just beginning their national vaccination programmes, it is important that we learn from the inequalities in access that the covid-19 crisis has exposed and work to lessen those disparities going forward. By doing that, we can work to ensure that local roll-out is distributed justly and that the human rights of minority groups are upheld in the process. How important it is to get that.
The same problems in accessing healthcare have proved to be the very same barriers to minority groups in accessing covid-19 vaccines. I have implored the UK Government to take a multi-pronged approach to tackling those inequalities, both to prevent outright discrimination against religious and belief groups and to support aid programmes that work to tackle the systematic marginalisation of those communities globally.
I welcome the UK Government’s allocation of healthcare as a key aid priority in the integrated review. That is good news. However, having heard many of the specific and distinct ways in which religious and belief communities are affected by the crisis in mine and others’ contributions today, will the Minister agree to ensure that such programmes, specifically access and the needs of religious and belief minorities, are being prioritised, redistributing such aid to lessen the inequalities? If our Government and our Minister could do that or give that assurance, that would help a great deal. Can the Minister also tell us how the cuts to official development assistance are predicted to affect Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to global health? Again, knowing what is going on would give us that reassurance, not only for covid-19 and the vaccination roll-out, but for all the other health issues.
Joy Morrissey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important debate. On the issue of making sure that healthcare is available for all, I also think the issue of detention of minority groups is important, not only because of the quality of healthcare but because their human rights are being violated. I thank the Government for the things they have done to work with international partners to investigate those matters, and even going further on how can we prevent human rights abuses from happening to minority groups, whether they be Muslim or Christian, but specifically Muslim minority groups where there have been accounts of them being detained and used for vaccine testing. There are some quite alarming human rights abuses being reported. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising those concerns and the Government for what they have done to work with international partners to make sure we are raising those concerns, both with the United Nations and in our covid vaccine roll-out across the world.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Again, they are very wise words and I wholeheartedly agree with what she has said. We are impressed by what the Government have done so far. We are highlighting some of the issues across the world where there are anomalies and where we need to focus. That is what we wish to do. We in the western world have a responsibility to reach out for those who have no one to speak for them. We will probably never meet some of the people the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has referred to, and of whom I shall speak today, in this world, but perhaps we will speak to them in the next.
Finally, I also want to use this opportunity to congratulate the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I also want to put on record all its work in implementing the recommendations made by the Bishop of Truro’s report in the independent review of the FCO’s work to support persecuted Christians. I have been greatly heartened by that. I have also been greatly heartened by the hon. Member for Congleton, who has been made the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. We had a chance just a few weeks ago to hear her speak at the annual general meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and it was not just her smiling face but her words that encouraged us all. The hon. Lady is a good person with a passionate belief and interest in the issue. I do not believe there is anyone better to champion it at that level.
As we approach the deadline for an independent review of how the 22 recommendations have been carried out, I ask the Minister, what plans have been put in place for the review to be conducted? Would he consider asking the Foreign Affairs Committee to conduct that review? This time next year or thereabouts, there will be an international conference that coincides with that. I know that some of those recommendations have already been secured, and some have yet to be secured. This time next year, we will have the chance to review all of them. Perhaps at that stage we will be able to look honestly and truthfully at what we have achieved and what we need to achieve in the next period.
I have said quite a lot, because I need to have it on the record for all those who have contacted us. As I said earlier, as chair of the APPG for international freedom of religious belief, I speak up for those with Christian faith, those with other faiths and those with no faith. Today has been an opportunity to speak for those of all faiths and no faith, and those with Christian belief as well, which is very close to my heart. I have put the case for them across the world, so that our Government can focus their attention on helping those people where we can. Covid-19 has been horrific for the whole world. It has been horrific for those who are probably well off and have a good standard of living, but for those with Christian belief who are ethnic minorities across the world, the effect has been disastrous. Today we highlight that for those people across the world. I look forward to other contributions, and to the Minister’s response in particular, as I always do.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
There are no Back-Bench speakers, as the only person on the list has withdrawn, so I call the SNP spokesman.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and I think this is the first time I have spoken in the Boothroyd Room version of Westminster Hall. I thank all the staff, Clerks and officials who are keeping us safe and covid secure, so that we can enjoy the kind of securities, practices and safety that, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, so many people around the world have not been able to throughout the pandemic.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He does not secure these 90-minute debates by accident; it has to be demonstrated that there other Back Benchers and cross-party support across the House for the topic, so even if some colleagues have not been able to make it here today, for unavoidable reasons, he is undoubtedly representing a consensus across the House on the importance of these issues. He has given us a comprehensive demonstration of his own tireless commitment to freedom of religion and belief around the world.
The hon. Gentleman is right in particular to highlight the work of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is the Prime Minister’s new envoy on these matters. All of us in his APPG warmly welcome that appointment; she met with us recently and we look forward to going forward. The APPG has produced a detailed report on the state of freedom of religion and belief around the world, which includes a chapter specifically on the impact of covid. Although she was unable to catch your eye to make a speech, Sir Christopher, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) made a number of valuable points, particularly about the detention of minorities and the importance of access to healthcare.
The debate has been an important opportunity to recognise what the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights described as the “disproportionate toll of covid-19” on marginalised and discriminated groups around the world. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, the high commissioner described covid as a “force multiplier” of existing inequalities and discriminations. The pandemic seems to be having a dual effect, exacerbating existing inequalities, which are also exacerbating the impact of the pandemic among minority communities.
In the limited time available, I want to look at the covid challenges facing religious groups and ethnic minorities and at how existing discriminations are being exacerbated. As the debate is about religious and ethnic minority communities throughout the world, that includes this country, and I want to make a few brief comments about the domestic situation of those communities.
Throughout the world, including here at home, ethnic minority groups have been hit the hardest by the pandemic. Minority groups have experienced higher rates of infection and mortality and deeper and more difficult impacts from all the challenges that have come with the pandemic. Those include the financial impacts and the barriers caused by illness, as well as the difficult choices that those people have to make. People who are a part of a minority group and who are already living in difficult financial circumstances have to make incredibly difficult choices about whether to self-isolate or to continue to go to their places of work to make an income and support their families. That increases the risks to their families and communities. The hon. Member spoke about people living in overcrowded situations in different parts of the world, which of course has an impact on transmission.
A related issue is access to vaccines. There are accounts throughout the world, which are highlighted in some of the reports the hon. Member referred to, of Governments—particularly, oppressive regimes—prioritising some groups over others for access to vaccines. As we know, there is also vaccine hesitancy here at home among some minority groups, for a whole range of reasons. Faith and community leaders and faith-based organisations have an important role in helping to address those challenges and perhaps misunderstandings over vaccines. Where faith leaders around the world have stepped up to speak about the importance of vaccines, it has encouraged people to get one where they can.
Access to worship, and particularly funeral rituals, has been a challenge. The hon. Member spoke about the situation in Sri Lanka, where Muslim communities were forced to take part in cremations, which will have been particularly distressing. I remember being in this room more than a year ago, when we discussed the very early stages of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and the issue of cremations and how, even in our own domestic law, we could respect religions that require the dead to be buried rather than cremated. These have been very difficult and challenging decisions for Governments around the world to make.
One of the biggest challenges the hon. Member spoke of was scapegoating and blame, when dominant groups blame minorities. He highlighted that in some countries the majority religion is blaming the minority one, and in another country, where that minority and majority are reversed, the blame goes in the other direction. He gave the example of Muslims being blamed in Cambodia. Sadly, we also see the ugly head of antisemitism appearing on social media and elsewhere, and that always has to be challenged and called out. As he said, the virus does not recognise borders or boundaries, or ethnic groups or religions. We are all human beings—we all carry the same kind of blood, and we all breathe the same air—and that is how the virus is transmitted, not because of someone’s particular ethnic background or religious belief.
That scapegoating is also an example of how covid has acted as an exacerbating factor of existing discriminations, and the hon. Member was right to highlight how Governments and oppressive regimes around the world have been using the cover of covid restrictions and the distractions of the pandemic to increase persecution or discrimination. He quoted statistics from Aid to the Church in Need—I pay tribute to its important work around the world—from Open Doors’ World Watch List 2021, which highlights religious discrimination, and from the report by his APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, which referenced the expression from the UN Secretary-General that covid is fuelling a “tsunami” of xenophobia, with all the disastrous consequences that come with that.
Oppressive practices have continued even when restrictions should be in place—whether that is the destruction of Uyghur mosques and shrines by the Chinese Government or of Hindu temples in Pakistan, the eviction of the Baha’i communities in Iran, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, or the growing ethnic and regional conflict in the horn of Africa. All are being exacerbated by the pandemic and, in many cases, the pandemic is being used by Governments as an excuse or a distraction. We cannot turn a blind eye. Even if this debate is not the busiest that Westminster Hall has been recently, it is an important opportunity to speak out and draw attention to such matters. The hon. Member spoke of the Eritrean embassy, for example, and we know that Governments around the world pay attention to what is said in this place. Hopefully the Minister will join others in calling out such behaviours when he responds.
There has been a particular impact on refugees and displaced peoples around the world. The refugee and displacement crisis has been growing over many years, and the pandemic is serving only to exacerbate it. It does not take a lot of imagination to understand the impact of overcrowded accommodation in refugee camps on the increased risk of transmission and then, if someone does contract covid, the impact of a lack of healthcare facilities, such as ventilators, and access to treatment—things we take for granted in this part of the world. Uganda is named in the House of Commons Library’s exceptional briefing for this debate as a country in which people need identity cards to access healthcare services, and a displaced person or a migrant who has come across the border will not have an identity card and cannot access the healthcare system, further exacerbating the challenges.
Domestically, in my own city of Glasgow, refugees and asylum seekers were forced out of apartments and other residential accommodation and into hotels under some guise that few of us could understand, with all the attendant impacts on both physical and mental health. I will touch briefly on a few domestic considerations, because these global problems are reflected to a greater or lesser extent in some of the challenges we experience at home. For example, we know that rates of transmission and mortality are higher among black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, particularly among refugees and asylum seekers.
The restrictions on worship have been particularly difficult. It has been a challenge both around the world and here at home. Funerals and farewells have not been possible in the usual way under these challenging circumstances. Even in our community here we have lost good friends and colleagues. I think of Jimmy Gordon, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, who was a very good friend to the APPG and faith communities. He succumbed very early, and I suspect that, in normal times, his funeral would have been standing room only, with people outside the packed church. The late Archbishop of Glasgow, Philip Tartaglia, led the way in some respects in Glasgow, celebrating mass livestreamed from his empty cathedral by himself every Sunday of the pandemic after the churches were closed, until he himself succumbed to covid and his own funeral had to be livestreamed with no more than 20 or 30 people in the cathedral. It has been a very painful and difficult experience for a lot of friends and families and all those who have lost loved ones. I want pay tribute to them and to everyone who has, sadly, lost their life to this disease.
Worship is not something that can always be replicated online. There have been many fruits of these changes, and religious communities have been able to take part in religious services around the world. Last year, I took part in Easter services live from the Vatican from the comfort of home. But that is not the same as a community or in-person worship, and that was recognised in the judgment of Lord Braid in the Court of Session in Scotland in response to a case brought by Christian ministers, including my friend, Canon Thomas White, who is the parish priest of St Mary’s, in Calton, Glasgow. That was an important judgment, which Governments will have to take account of if we find ourselves in similar situations in the future.
The Scottish Government have recognised the impact of the difficult decision to close places of worship. Everyone who has an interest in these matters welcomes the return to greater numbers and participation as we move forward, and that includes, potentially, singing, although not everyone’s communal singing is to be welcomed in the same way.
In conclusion, the UK Government have an important responsibility in challenging and tackling the discriminations and inequalities faced by religious communities and ethnic minorities, and particularly those that have been exacerbated by the pandemic. They can start here, at home, by looking at the root causes of increased transmission and of vaccine hesitancy among black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities and by supporting faith-based organisations and faith communities. But they also have to lead and support international initiatives to massively scale up access to healthcare, vaccines, personal protective equipment and to take action against violence and discrimination by all the different oppressive regimes that we have heard about in this debate.
Joy Morrissey
I want to highlight the excellent work of another person from Scotland, the investigator of prisons and detention centres, who has been working for the Council of Europe tirelessly throughout this pandemic. He has been visiting prisons and detention centres across Europe and the world to make sure they are treating their prisoners with respect and decency and not allowing the spread of covid.
Will the Government give further explanations of the work they are doing to investigate the abuse of ethnic and religious minority groups in prisons and detention centres during this pandemic? What are they doing to investigate these claims? There have also been claims of certain Muslim minority groups being forced to participate in unethical vaccine trials. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide further clarification of those claims.
Patrick Grady
I thank the hon. Lady for that. That clarification would be helpful; the thought of people being forced into vaccination trials is abhorrent. We warmly welcome everyone who has volunteered—tens of thousands of people volunteered around the world, and that has helped to keep us incredibly safe, but it has to be a free choice. It is incredibly distressing to hear what the hon. Lady describes. I am sure the Minister has heard it and will respond shortly.
We welcome the work of all these different envoys and inspectorates—the Government’s envoys on freedom of religion and belief and on girls’ education, as I think the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. Tackling all these issues and building a safer and more secure world will help us in the future. It might help us to avoid future pandemics and future spread if everybody is brought up to the standard envisaged by the sustainable development goals.
Jim Shannon
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we can raise the educational standards and abilities of young people we will give them the aspiration to do better? For instance, if they gained the educational standards to start with, they could be teachers or nurses or go into many other jobs. That is why, when it comes to addressing covid-19 and its effect on religious minorities, there is a greater plan, and education is part of that plan. With that, people are given the chance to do better.
Patrick Grady
I agree entirely. That is what the global agenda of sustainable development goals is for. We can raise standards around the world on education, health, access to water and sanitation, and gender equality, in particular. If we can do those things, the world will be much more resilient to all these challenges, whether pandemics, natural disasters or the likelihood of oppression and discrimination.
Some of those factors are the root causes: poverty and a lack of understanding and education are among the root causes of the challenges that we face. If we can tackle them, we are building that resilience. That is why we cannot just let go the point about 0.7% and the Government’s commitment to aid. That was world leading; now we are the only G7 country that is cutting our aid budget. The Government have to recognise that. Perhaps the Minister can say when the Government envisage restoring that target, as they have pledged to do.
The Government also need to end arms sales to any regime where there is doubt about how those arms are being used. If arms manufactured and sold from the UK are being used to oppress people and abuse their human rights, that is very dubious under international law, and the Government need to set the highest possible standards.
This comes back to all the global issues that we are not unused to discussing in Westminster Hall. If the Government take the attitude I have described and show leadership, recipient countries and the organisations that deliver aid and support can meet their commitments and plan effectively for the future.
In the context of the pandemic, we often say that nobody is safe until everybody is safe. That safety includes respect for freedom of religious belief and the rights to worship and to practise a faith. As we have said, the virus does not recognise boundaries or religions. We should recognise everyone’s right to identify with and be part of their communities and to practise their religion and belief. I welcome the opportunity we have had to highlight that today.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
At this stage, we would normally hear from the spokesperson from the official Opposition. We received notice that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) would be here physically today. In her absence, and without any explanation of why she is not here, I have no alternative but to move straight to the Minister for his response.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
I think we have done rather well, Sir Christopher. Three of us have managed to fill an hour so far. It has been wonderful to hear from hon. Members today, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for not only securing the debate but continuing with his long-standing commitment to freedom of religion or belief for all. He stressed that he is passionate about this subject, including when it comes to those of no faith, which is important to recognise.
We have heard today that the pandemic continues to have a huge impact on countries and communities around the world. Not one of us remains unaffected. My hon. Friend was spot on when he said that the virus does not recognise race, religion, ethnicity, gender or borders. It has put a terrible strain on the enjoyment of the full spectrum of human rights, including the right freely to practise a religion or belief.
I take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government’s unwavering commitment to freedom of religion or belief, to championing that right around the world, and to promoting respect between religious and non-religious communities. I am pleased that my noble Friend and fellow Minister, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, continues to champion this cause in his capacity as the Minister for Human Rights, but I will continue to stand in for him, given the fact that he is not allowed to address this House. I am thrilled that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion and belief, is working closely with my noble Friend to ensure that no one suffers discrimination, violence or persecution because of their faith or belief, or for not following a faith.
We believe that at least three actions can mitigate the effects of covid-19 on the most vulnerable members of society, irrespective of race, religion and ethnicity. The first is working together through multilateralism. The second is strengthening the evidence base on the effects of covid-19. The third, to which all hon. Members present have referred, is equitable access to vaccines.
Let me turn to the impact of the pandemic on freedom of religion or belief specifically. As we have heard from the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Strangford, we are aware of the potential for crises to reinforce already marginalised positions in society, which increases discrimination, violence and stigma. Like the hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), I remain deeply concerned about the incidence of hate speech and conspiracy theories that suggest certain faiths or beliefs are to blame for the pandemic. I am alarmed by reports of attacks aimed at Shi’a Muslims and Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, and by the worrying rise of anti-Muslim sentiment in Sri Lanka; the rise of antisemitism and other forms of discrimination in the wake of covid-19 is also deeply troubling.
Such incidents of hatred are completely unacceptable, so we will continue to stand up for those whose right to belief or religious practice is curtailed. To ensure that we continue to challenge hatred in the most challenging of times, we have stepped up our engagement with the UN and other multilateral organisations to protect the rights of members of religious and ethnic minority communities. Last week I was in Geneva and met a number of organisations, including the UNHRC, to see what more the United Kingdom can do to assist international bodies in ensuring that the impact on the most vulnerable is mitigated as far as possible. Lord Ahmad has also urged member states to mitigate the impact of covid-19 on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society, including ethnic and belief minorities. That work took place at the 44th session of the UN Human Rights Council.
In November, we demonstrated our concern about the rise of another form of discrimination, antisemitism, in the wake of covid-19 in a statement to the UN General Assembly. Building on that, in the same month, Lord Ahmad attended the ministerial conference to advance freedom of religion or belief, which was held in Warsaw, where he reaffirmed our commitment to this issue, particularly during the pandemic.
When faced with global challenges, we need a global response, so I am especially pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton will be speaking about the exact issues raised today at a UN Human Rights Council side event taking place tomorrow. I welcome her ongoing work and engagement. The event tomorrow will further demonstrate the need to work together and with civil society to confront the challenges that have been created by this dreadful pandemic.
As a complement to our ongoing multilateral work, the Government have kept threats to these freedoms under review around the world, including in west Africa and south Asia. Members of religious minorities living in poverty in the shadow of covid-19 experience intersecting vulnerabilities, and those have worsened during the pandemic—an example is the position of women in religious communities in west Africa. A key response to that is to prioritise girls’ education. I am pleased that, through our programmes and advocacy, we have already helped more girls to access education this year, including in Nigeria. Educating girls is one of the best investments that we can make to lift people out of poverty, save lives and—to coin a phrase—“build back better” from covid-19. I am also pleased that the United Kingdom and G7 partners will invest £10 billion in development finance over the next two years to help women in developing countries to build resilient businesses and recover from the impacts of the pandemic.
Our work in south Asia shows the need for international actors to protect women and encourage them to voice their concerns about domestic violence, rape and sexual abuse, which, sadly, have increased during lockdown. It is deeply saddening that religious justifications for these abuses still persist. Because of this, the United Kingdom ensures that our human rights policies consider the intersectionality of human rights—for example, the importance of addressing the specific issues, such as gender-based violence, experienced by women from religious minority communities. No one should suffer because of their conscience, and no one should suffer twice because of their conscience and their gender.
My hon. Friends the Members for Strangford and for Beaconsfield and the hon. Member for Glasgow North all mentioned the very important issue of equitable access to vaccine programmes. On top of working multilaterally and strengthening our evidence base, we believe that equitable access to vaccines will address some of the effects that have been raised here today. I am pleased that through the G7 we recently pledged 870 million covid-19 vaccine doses, of which at least half are to be delivered by the end of this year. An equitable roll-out across the world will help to ensure that no one is left at risk or left behind, irrespective of their religion, race, ethnicity or gender. That is why the UK was one of the earliest and the largest donors to the COVAX advance market commitment, launched at the global vaccine summit more than a year ago. As a country, we have provided more than half a billion pounds to that programme, which has now delivered more than 87 million doses across six continents.
Patrick Grady
You encouraged us to intervene on the Minister, Sir Christopher, and I am sure he is delighted that I am doing so, although he might not have the answer to my question immediately to hand.
It is great that the Government are doing these things—increasing their funding to COVAX and the supplies of ventilators to India, for example, and personal protective equipment to other countries—but how is that affecting the overall aid budget? Can the Minister be clear that any of these donations that are being made will be additional? Otherwise, if the Government are going from 0.7% to 0.5% and counting all these commitments for the unforeseen pandemic, that could in effect constitute a diminution of the overall pot that had been available anyway—the 0.5% of GNI. Have the Government started to figure out how these extra contributions of aid will fit in with the overall reduction in official development assistance?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point, and I thank him for his support for the COVAX commitments that we have already made, which are critical to distribution of the vaccines. More than 130 countries will benefit.
In terms of the broader ODA budget, if we have already committed such big sums as part of the vaccine programme, that potentially would have an impact on ODA, but I will confirm with the hon. Gentleman in writing whether that sits outside the ODA budget, which, as he knows, is temporarily reduced. I am sure he will be pleased to hear that, based on OECD data for 2020, the United Kingdom will still be the third largest donor as a percentage of gross national income in the G7.
The hon. Members for Glasgow North and for Strangford raised other points that I will try to address. I am conscious that I have to give the hon. Member for Strangford two or three minutes at the end, but I think we might be all right in that regard and might be able to pad it out, although we are not paid for the time spent speaking. It is good to be able to address some of the issues raised during the debate.
The issue of cremations in Sri Lanka was raised by many of the Sri Lankan diaspora who got in touch with right hon. and hon. Members. Lord Ahmad spoke on numerous occasions to the Sri Lankan authorities and the High Commissioner, and I am pleased that the cremations are no longer going ahead. It is absolutely the case that we need to respect everyone’s beliefs during the pandemic, but I am aware that that process has now stopped in Sri Lanka. We were pleased to be able raise that bilaterally with the Sri Lankan authorities.
The hon. Member for Strangford spoke about the plight of the Baha’is in Iran. We are particularly concerned about the continuing systematic discrimination and targeting and harassment of the Baha’i community. He has met some of them, as have I. We regularly raise human rights at all levels with the Iranians, and with our international partners we continue to press Iran to improve its incredibly poor record on human rights. That includes every opportunity we get at the ongoing UN General Assembly session. The continuing restrictions on freedom of religion or belief are deeply worrying, as is any discrimination against any religious minority.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the Bishop of Truro’s review. We are committed to implementing the 22 recommendations in full. The work to implement them continues in a way that can bring real improvement in the lives of those who are persecuted because of their faith or belief. Some 18 recommendations have already been or are in the process of being implemented, and we will implement all of them by July next year, three years from the publication of the report. Also, our mission at the UN in New York is working to determine the best approach to achieve council support.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for giving way. He says that the recommendations in the Bishop of Truro’s report will be implemented by July next year. At that stage, would it be possible to review how those recommendations have been carried out and whether they have been successful? It is important that we look to see whether they have achieved the goals that we hoped they would.
Nigel Adams
I am more than happy to have my ministerial colleague, Lord Ahmad, write to the hon. Gentleman, or he is always welcome to come to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to sit down with him and his team. We are more than happy to lay out where we have got to and what we believe the impact of the recommendations is.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned his concern about persecution of Christians in Pakistan. We continue to urge Pakistan to guarantee the rights of all people in the country, particularly the most vulnerable, including women, minorities and children. That is actually laid down in the constitution of Pakistan and is also in accordance with international standards. It is vital that Pakistan guarantees the rights of all its citizens. Also, we regularly raise at senior level our concerns about the human rights situation with the Government of Pakistan.
Jim Shannon
Regarding Pakistan in particular, one of the things that I have a great concern about—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) has the same concern—is the misuse of the blasphemy laws. I am ever mindful that we are not in the business of telling countries what they should do with the law of their land, but we want to raise awareness that the blasphemy laws are being used adversely and maliciously against the Christian minority and certain ethnic groups. Has there been an opportunity, through Lord Ahmad or whoever, to raise this issue?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Member is right to raise this issue. We regularly raise the issue of blasphemy laws with the authorities in Pakistan at a senior level. These laws have been used to target Muslims and non-Muslims. The United Kingdom Government condemns any instance where the content or application of blasphemy legislation encourages or justifies violence or discrimination, or causes a violation of a person’s human rights. He is right to raise this issue and, as I say, we regularly raise it with the Pakistani authorities.
I will begin to work towards a conclusion. We will continue to champion this work. I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Member for Strangford has brought this subject to the House again. The effects of this pandemic have been incredibly extensive. Many of us have had the virus and been affected that way, and many of us know people who, sadly, lost their lives to it, but just imagine the situation of someone who has to contend with this virus and is living in a camp for internally displaced persons or refugees. The effects of this virus on humanitarian work are horrific, but we are committed to do what we can as a country to help the most vulnerable in those sorts of situations, and coronavirus will have an effect on our lives for some time to come.
As a champion of human rights, the UK has a duty to promote and defend equality, inclusion and respect, at home and abroad, for everyone, so I assure the House that the Government will do just that. Whatever obstacles may lie in our path, we will continue to raise awareness wherever people are persecuted for what they believe in. We will continue to stand up for the rights of minority communities around the world and we will defend the right to freedom of religion or belief for everyone everywhere.
Jim Shannon
First of all, I thank all those who have participated in this debate. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) made a very valuable contribution, for which I thank her. It is good to have those types of intervention, Sir Christopher. We used to have them in Westminster Hall, and hopefully, we will have them again when we return there.
I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for his contribution. In all the debates that either one of us has, we are usually side by side, saying the same things, promoting the same ideals and principles, and making the same requests. He referred to minority groups and their higher rates of mortality. I think that is the point of this debate—covid-19 has adversely affected Christians and ethnic minority groups across the world, with greater impact than it has had on others; in addition, there has been a financial impact. All these things are factors, as is the particular role that faith-based groups matters play.
The hon. Gentleman referred to access to vaccines and to problems in the horn of Africa, including in Eritrea, and Uganda, where there are refugees and displaced people. The lack of medical care and treatment for the Baha’is in Iran was referred to by all of us, including the Minister. These are global problems, some of which have been replicated at home, albeit on a smaller scale; there are also painful issues such as restrictions on funerals.
In outlining a number of instances of violence by oppressive regimes across the world, I probably just scraped the surface. There are many countries where this can be seen, and I referred to action against such violence. Had the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) been here, she would have contributed a vast amount of knowledge. While she may not have been here in person, she was here in spirit, and I am very confident that her contribution was here in our thoughts, if not in words.
I especially thank the Minister. I do not say this lightly, but I believe we are very fortunate to have a Minister who has a really deep interest in this subject and who comes here with the belief to give a response that we all wish to hear. The commitment from the Minister and his Department to religious freedom for all people around the world is important. He outlined the role of Lord Ahmed, and those of us who have had the chance to speak to Lord Ahmed know how important his role is. I think we are fortunate to have the right Ministers in the right place at the right time to convey the spirit and the requests from this debate to the Government. When it comes equitable access to vaccines, no one should be left behind.
The hon. Members for Glasgow North and for Beaconsfield and I are all interested in girls’ education. We all want to see education standards lifted. The Minister referred to the amount of money set aside for that purpose. There are more girls being educated this year than there have been for many, many years. That is good news, and it is the sort of response we were seeking. The people who ask us to do these things are very conscious of that as well.
I welcome the Minister’s action to stop what was happening with Muslim cremations in Sri Lanka. That was also good news. He always speaks up for the Baha’is, which is very important.
We discussed Pakistan’s blasphemy laws and at how they are being used in a malicious and misinformed way against Christians and those of other religious beliefs. I very much welcome the fact that the UK is a champion of human rights across the world, because I do believe that we all have a role to play—our Ministers; our Government; our influence through our ambassadors, embassies and staff; our commitment to training staff so that they can respond better and influence countries where there has been an abuse of religious and ethnic groups, so that that we can speak for them.
I always finish with a text from scripture. I think it is important to do so, and I think the Minister and all Members present would expect me to. I have chosen a piece that is appropriate for this debate, for the Minister, for our Government and for all of us here, Proverbs 3:27:
“Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to act.”
Today, we have the power to act. Our Minister and our Government have the power to act. I believe that we should not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in our power to do just that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effect of the covid-19 pandemic on religious and ethnic minority communities throughout the world.
Covid-19: Recovery of Central London Businesses
(3 years, 6 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
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the recovery of businesses in central London from the covid-19 outbreak.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am delighted to have secured this extremely important debate on business recovery in central London following the covid-19 pandemic. It has been very clear from my weekly meetings with business representatives from across Cities of London and Westminster that businesses, restaurants, shops and hotels are all part of a larger ecosystem, which also relies on the huge cultural offer that my constituency provides. Covid has proven that if we take one part of that ecosystem away, for example by not allowing theatres to open to their full capacity, there is a vast knock-on effect on all surrounding hospitality businesses, as well as on other cultural offers such as museums and galleries. I am confident that London will bounce back, but the Government have a choice on how quickly that happens.
Cities of London and Westminster is home to the monarch, to the Head of Government and to Parliament. It is also home to the nation’s high street, Oxford Street, and to the cultural and entertainment powerhouses of Soho and Covent Garden. On the one hand, Westminster’s businesses supported in excess of 715,000 jobs and contributed £53.6 billion annually to the national economic output, the highest contribution of any local authority in the United Kingdom. To put that into context, before the pandemic the Oxford Street district alone generated £13 billion of gross value added—25% of the entirety of Wales’s GVA. On the other hand, the UK’s world-class financial sector, based in the square mile in my constituency, is the underlying strength of our international trade and total services exports. The City of London has the largest financial services cluster in the world, with nearly 60,000 companies and hundreds of thousands of jobs for workers commuting in, pre-pandemic.
A key concern regarding the London recovery is business rates. The system, born in the 16th century, is wildly out of step with the modern digital age. Even before the covid-19 pandemic, it was not working—it was not fit for purpose. Empty retail space was on the rise, footfall was in decline and the sector was grappling with systemic shifts in customer behaviour. The pandemic has only accelerated that. It has also laid bare the urgent need to create a fairer and more sustainable tax system that relies less on property and that does not go only one way—up.
Without action on rate reform, the viability of much of the retail sector and the substantial taxes that it generates will hang in the balance. Specifically for central London, it would be useful if the Minister considered whether the business rates relief cap of £2 million could be temporarily removed so that businesses can secure the relief that they need right now. The cap effectively means that many mid-sized chain businesses, which typically pay well above £2 million in business rates, face bills that, according to UKHospitality, could force them
“to prioritise paying tax over paying wages.”
The large hotels and event spaces that depend on business conferences and meetings will be particularly hit by the cap and will be paying business rates in full by the end of July, with no realistic prospect of an uptick in income until at least the autumn. That is simply not good enough.
Covid-19 has created new challenges for the business rates system. I know that the Government have called for its review and for fundamentally reforming business rates, but we need that to be accelerated and temporary relief in the short term to be announced as soon as possible. There is no doubt that that reform is a crucial part of the puzzle as our economy recovers from the impact of the pandemic.
That leads me to my third point. The beating heart of the west end is our significant cultural offer.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Member agree that major tourist attractions in her constituency and in mine, such as the London Eye, rely on visitors and tourism from across the world? Does she agree that the Government need to consider business rates relief, additional employer contributions on furlough and flexible loan repayments, all of which need to be in place over the summer to help businesses once lockdown restrictions are eased?
Nickie Aiken
The hon. Lady makes the clear point that tourist attractions in central London, whether in her constituency or in mine, are suffering due to the lack of international visitors.
Theatres in particular have a significant multiplier effect for the local economy. It is estimated that people who buy theatre tickets will spend up to five or six times more in the local economy, whether in restaurants, hotels or wherever. To remedy the situation, we should urgently address several areas in our recovery from covid-19, which will no doubt have a significant impact on the central London ecosystem.
First, and in light of recent decisions, I ask the Government to give due consideration to a Government-backed insurance scheme to help event organisers plan for the risk of covid-19-related cancellations. Indeed, UK Theatre’s May 2021 survey of members’ planned economic activity up until June next year on productions, both planned and currently running, was 67% of 2019 levels. Of that, 66% was planned for stage 4, which has now been delayed. Without a Government insurance package, theatres expect that proportion to fall to around 35% to 50%, which will be a devastating hit to both the sector and those who rely on its influence to draw in consumers.
Secondly, UK Music noted that extending the 5% VAT freeze on cultural tickets until the end of the financial year 2021-22 would go a long way to incentivise activity in the capital and support investment. Indeed, by keeping VAT low the Government will be allowing more money to be invested into venues, recapitalising and paying off pandemic debt—we know how much pandemic debt many of these companies have.
On another note, I am glad that the Government’s tourist recovery plan, launched this month, acknowledges that London is the gateway for international tourism and, as such, is an integral part of the wider UK levelling-up agenda. Support and investment for central London must reflect that and help mitigate its reliance on high-volume footfall from tourists and workers. In central London, international visitors account for 50% of all spending, even though they make up only 25% of visitors. With the international travel market not likely to start growing again until early next year—possibly into spring next year—shops will open with the return of all the costs that entails, such as business rates, rents and employee costs, but they will not yet have the major customer footfall spending money in their premises. That will put new pressure on businesses that have already exhausted their reserves.
How can we mitigate that? It could be as simple as allowing Sunday trading hours to be extended from 6 pm to 8 pm in the international centres of the west end and Knightsbridge in order to accommodate new patterns of opening hours. I raise this now because, prior to the pandemic, few theatre productions ran a Sunday matinee, for example. Now, however, theatres are increasingly looking at scheduling Sunday matinees and it is likely that Sundays could become as busy as Saturdays, and with that comes increased need for the consumer.
With most other global international centres—New York, Dubai, Tokyo, Beijing, Hong Kong and even Edinburgh—having no restrictions, we are at a competitive disadvantage in London. Allowing longer Sunday trading in an international centre would have a localised impact of up to £290 million net in additional sales, and 2,000 full-time jobs. That is not to be sniffed at. The support measures would cost the Government nothing but could mean the world to businesses in London.
I also urge the Government to work with businesses to seek new ideas and encourage more visitors, especially high-spending ones, to our areas. Most experts estimate that international tourism will not return to 2019 levels until 2023 at the earliest. The Government should do all they can to accelerate tourists’ safe return, with plans to promote London globally as a place to visit and do business.
On a similar note, how office workers react post pandemic will be important for business recovery in the capital. The Government need to do all in their power to stimulate a safe return to the office. Right now, only about 10% of office workers have returned to full-time work in central London, which is woeful. Business representatives from across my constituency, and from multiple sectors, all concur that they do not expect to see any big return until at least September—that is three months from now, and costs will be increasing from next week.
What I find most concerning about this situation is that the shortfall in workers returning to the office is due to a distinct lack of confidence in public transport and changing work practices. As we emerge from the pandemic, the Government must help by encouraging the return to work and encouraging confidence in the safe use of public transport. It is imperative for Government Ministers to encourage civil servants in their Departments to lead the charge and to come back to their desks. I appreciate that we will not see the same volume of office workers over the summer and into the autumn, but even seeing a return of working on a flexible basis—say, two or three days or week while we recover in the short term—would have a huge impact on the economy of central London. For that reason, I welcome this week’s announcement by the Government of the new flexible season tickets. Within London, we need a robust transport system that commuters are confident to use again, with the Mayor working constructively with the Government to ensure that is the case.
I will leave it there for now, because I am confident that London will recover from the covid-19 pandemic, as it has recovered from previous shocks, be they plagues, fires or world wars. I want to see London getting some recognition from central Government for the key role that it plays in supporting the UK’s economy, and we need that recognition to be married to a clear vision for business recovery in central London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) on securing this really important debate. I thank her for all the work that she is doing to engage with businesses and ensure that their voices are heard in this place and across London through the Mayor, the Greater London Authority and all the boroughs. It is so important that, as she says, we work together really constructively in this area, because that is the only way we will bounce back.
As my hon. Friend says, London normally bounces back every time. It normally leads the charge in the UK for bouncing back from adversity and every recession. I have no doubt that the same will be true this time, but rather than leading the way, it is clear from the feedback we are getting from the cultural and hospitality sectors that London is lagging behind, and my hon. Friend outlined some of the reasons why.
London is three times the size of the next biggest European city, never mind UK cities, so it has a centre of gravity that is mainly based on public transport. We must give people the confidence to come back in, as my hon. Friend says, and enjoy the benefits of being in the workplace and what London has to offer. It goes beyond confidence: I describe it as confidence and joy. We can get people back in the first time, but if things are too onerous and difficult in hospitality terms, they will perhaps go back and rely on a ready meal and a bottle of wine in their back garden. That might be great every now and again, but it is the last thing we want if we are to help London’s recovery and ensure that it remains the greatest city in the world in which to live, work and bring up a family, and to really enjoy.
I have lived on the outskirts of London for the best part of 30 years, and the greatest thing about it is that I can enjoy the green spaces and schools in outer London, and raise a family there, but I have London on my doorstep. As well as the benefits of the suburbs, I have the benefits of the city—the theatres, the London Eye, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) said, and the restaurants that rival anything available elsewhere in the world. We can go around the world within the few square miles of Greater London. That is so important.
When we talk to business that are encouraging people—or not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said—back into their workplaces, we have to remind them that London and the businesses that serve people in their workplaces cannot sit there and wait. They cannot survive on fresh air. They cannot be there for people if people do not come back and use them. That is why it is important that we encourage people to come back into London. London generates 25% of the GDP of the entire country, and the west end generates 4% of the country’s gross value added—that is before we get to the City and Canary Wharf. That is testament to the work of my hon. Friend and all the people she engages with; it is important that we celebrate and showcase it.
My hon. Friend talked about business rates. Clearly, London has a particular issue because of the cost of property here, and the business rates that follow. She will be aware—she referenced this—that we have a fundamental review, which is due to report back in October. I hope it is as fundamental as it suggests. My hon. Friend is right that, due to property costs, business rates particularly affect London.
One of the things that I discovered as I was working through the covid support measures that we were putting in place is that the grant system—seemingly the easiest system to deliver—still had its challenges. It was seemingly the easiest because local authorities across the country knew exactly who qualified, because in the first tranche of grants they knew which retailers, who in the hospitality sector and which small businesses were getting small business rates relief. However, they did not have the bank account details or know who to pay it to. The challenges were about fundamental things such as that. Sometimes the local authority’s relationship with its local businesses was not quite as close as it might have liked and expected. We have had to work through all those unintended consequences at pace over the past year, which led to me speaking to something like 112 local authorities across the country to see what more we could do to help them along.
In London, there was the grant scheme. I am pleased that with all these schemes, we were able to flex, following representations from colleagues such as my hon. Friend, to iron out some of the unintended consequences. Indeed, the early discretionary grants were based on the residents living in those areas. That obviously affected my hon. Friend’s constituency. There are not that many people living in the City of London, but there are a lot of businesses. That was an unintended consequence that we were able to correct in later iterations of the discretionary grants. That is testament to the fact that we have been able to flex and work in what were, frankly, completely unprecedented times. We have had to work at pace to change and develop the support accordingly, and we will continue to do that.
We have put in £352 billion to date—it is £407 billion when the various types of fiscal support are included, with the following year to come. As a small-government, free-market Conservative, having just made one of the biggest interventions since the second world war, that gives me 407 billion reasons why we have to get the next bit right. Having protected those jobs, businesses and the spirit of London, we have to make sure that we keep those gains.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for giving way and for his crucial point on jobs and opportunities. Obviously, today we celebrate the 73rd anniversary of Windrush Day and the contributions of so many people who came to the UK to rebuild our country on the back of the war. Does the Minister agree that many people who work in businesses in his constituency and mine, and in that of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), rely on people from a diverse range of backgrounds? What more assurance can he give to struggling businesses that want to help Londoners get back to work, but that are struggling financially?
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. My father came over not on Windrush, but from the other direction—from Burma—in the 1950s, at around the same time. He completed his apprenticeship here in the UK, having started it in Rangoon, as it was, after the war. At the time, he had that shared experience of helping Britain to recover through his engineering work. The interesting point that she raises about how we support that particular section of the workforce is crucial—I talked about the spirit of London—in making sure that we get the recovery right for everybody.
I have talked about the Mayor of London, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster is absolutely right that we have to work constructively together. Now we have the London elections out of the way, although we will always do party politics and the ding-dong, we have to make sure that we collaborate closely together.
My fear has always been that he wanted to have the title of Mayor, but did not work out which city he wanted to be Mayor of. It is important that he is the Mayor for all London; otherwise, we will have a Gotham City scenario. Frankly, I do not think he would mind it if he was the mayor of Gotham City. What do I mean by that? In Gotham City in the Batman movies—“Joker” and so on—there is the holistic city that has the ultra-rich, who can be insulated from all these sorts of things, because they have the money to be able to support it. There are then the lowest-paid in society—the people who service all the workforces and workplaces, and who have to travel into the middle of town. There are then those in the middle, who live in areas like mine on the suburbs and outskirts, who can opt out. They can sit in their back gardens with their ready meal and a bottle of wine, and shop locally in their outer London high streets, which are starting to bounce back quite well.
That leaves a massive gap in the city centre—in the central activity zone, as it has slightly unromantically been titled over the last few years. Essentially, that is the west end, the City of London, Canary Wharf and those areas that people around the world know so well. People look to London, invest in London and want to travel to London because they know those areas. Those are the areas we see in the films and tourism brochures.
We then get to the question: how do we attract international visitors to go into those areas and beyond, across the UK? That is why the tourism recovery strategy is so important in making sure that we start that slow burn, because we know that it will take time to get international visitors back to the UK. However, we must do it.
We also have to get domestic tourists to London. That is why I absolutely agree with the Mayor that his campaign, Let’s Do London, is a far better campaign than we have had in previous re-openings after lockdown. It is a real call to action. If one looks around London, whether at the London Eye, the Tower of London—which I had the privilege of going to the other day—the Museum of London, the British Museum or the Royal Opera House, there are no queues. People who live in the south-east and who walk past those areas on their way to work or when they are in the workplace should go to them, because they will not have another chance to do so with no international tourists and without having to queue up for half an hour. They can see some of the best places, the best cultural buildings and the best institutions in the world right on their doorstep. That is what Let’s Do London is all about—getting people to rediscover the spirit of London.
There are two more types of people we want to encourage back, as we start to reopen. One is students. There are 40 universities in London—a massive chunk of organisations that attract young people who will want to spend more time in London after their studies. They will get jobs and fill some of the roles in the City and elsewhere that my hon. Friend spoke about. We also want to get people back into their workplaces.
The Prime Minister rightly wrangled with the decision over when to reach stage 4 of the road map. He did not make that decision easily because there were so many factors to consider, but it was the right one to take when making the argument that we want to ensure that we are moving in only one direction. The big lesson of last year is not to chase the virus and not to have the stop-start, because that costs businesses even more. A cautious reopening, put back a few weeks, is the right thing to do.
However, one of the unintended consequences of moving the reopening to July is that that leads quickly to August, which tends to be a quiet month for London. We want to ensure that we are working with big employers now, and looking at what more we can do to be flexible and encourage people back to their workplaces.
I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomed the flexible season ticket. We are demonstrating—not just doing it—that Transport for London has never cleaned the tube network as many times before. The problem is that that is being done at 2 o’clock in the morning, so we need to show people what is being done. Public transport is safe. I have been taking it most days for the past year and I have never worried about it. I encourage people to try it and see for themselves. They should spread their journeys out beyond rush hour to maintain space, because hands, face, space and fresh air are still important. We are not going to kill the virus in one day when we reopen and get to step 4. This is not like a thriller where the baddie is killed and the credits roll. We are going to be living with this for some time, but that is no reason to stay closed.
Finally, my hon. Friend talked about Sunday trading. I have been speaking to the Heart of London Business Alliance and the New West End Company about that. It is a tough one. We have looked at it time and again in Parliament, and it has always been incredibly controversial. Although she talks about international centres for it, it still needs primary legislation. We will keep it under review and work with colleagues to see what the objections are and get the balance right.
We will continue to look at what we can do with business rates. My hon. Friend talked about VAT. Something like £27 billion of support has gone into the VAT reduction. The Chancellor needs to look at measures in the round and holistically, just as she talked about looking at London holistically.
London is an ecosystem. People do not stay in a hotel in London just to sleep in another bed; they do it because of the theatres, the restaurants and all the other things London has to offer. That is what we have to protect. We will continue to try to do that, working together with the Mayor, the boroughs, this place, and our businesses and communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Welsh Rural Economy
(3 years, 6 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
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between debates. 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 also remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their cameras on for the duration of the debate and that they will be visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the Welsh rural economy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I am honoured to lead today’s debate on the future of the Welsh rural economy, itself an integral and culturally vital component of the very identity of Wales. This year, 2021, has been one of extraordinary challenges for the Welsh rural economy. Agriculture is awakening to the cold long dawning of a new restrictive trading agreement with our largest export market, the European Union, while tourism and hospitality are enduring the sudden deep freeze and slow defrosting of covid-19 restrictions.
Our communities are facing a series of interlinked crises and interwoven threads of inequalities. There is an environmental and climate change crisis, there is a public health crisis and there is an economic crisis. More than a decade of Tory austerity casts a shadow over our communities’ capacity to respond and to develop resilience. Communities such as mine in Dwyfor Meirionnydd suffer from youth depopulation, while the young people who wish to stay can no longer afford to get on the housing ladder. Wages are among the lowest in the UK. Meanwhile, former family homes become luxury second properties or investment holiday rentals in a febrile market.
Today’s debate is therefore a timely opportunity to consider how the political tectonic shifts of the last five years are changing the Welsh economic landscape, even as their legacy becomes intertwined with the unprecedented and thus unpredictable social and economic results of a global pandemic in a world dependent on global trade. I hope that all of us here will be able to take just a step back and consider what success looks like and to have the humility to recognise that, mere politicians as we are, we will have failed in our duty to our constituencies in the here and now, and to the future children of Wales, if we are satisfied with short-term glories that leave no lasting legacy while failing to remedy the evident injustices of the present.
The Welsh rural economy plays a pivotal role in the wider Welsh economy, accounting for 28% of the economic output across Wales in 2019. It is the heartland of key export industries, including Wales’s highly successful food and drink sector. Yet such economic successes have failed to translate into real economic gains for rural communities or attention by both UK and Welsh policy makers. If this is trickle-down economics in action, we are experiencing a drought. The gross value added per capita of Welsh rural areas was just £18,000 in 2019, significantly below the Welsh average of £21,295 in 2019, and also far behind the UK average of £29,599. That is reflected in low pay, with my home county of Gwynedd a rural area where 31.4% of employees—the highest proportion in Wales—earn below the real living wage.
Disturbingly, this is being translated into worse life outcomes for our youth. The spectre of child poverty, which has risen in 20 of Wales’s 22 local authorities, is particularly acute in rural areas such as Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion, Powys and Carmarthenshire, and a recent report by the Rural Youth Project suggested that 68% of Welsh rural youths struggle to find work in their local communities. We do our communities a deep disservice if we just shrug our metaphorical shoulders and say, “Well, that’s how it has always been”—that somehow we in Wales should be resigned to our children leaving, because all the glittering prizes have always been elsewhere, and that we had better knuckle down and accept that, to Westminster, some places are just more deserving than others.
As I have already mentioned, the combined disruption of Brexit and the covid-19 pandemic has hit key sectors of the Welsh rural economy disproportionately hard. In my role as a commissioner on the UK Trade and Business Commission, I have heard at first hand how Welsh small and medium-sized enterprises located in rural communities have lost market share, and whole export markets in some cases, due to the trade disruption caused by Brexit. Equally, the pandemic has caused untold hardship for hospitality businesses across the UK, but especially in rural areas such as Dwyfor Meirionnydd, where hospitality and accommodation employ 27% of the total local workforce.
Policy makers therefore have a key role to play in ensuring that the Welsh rural economy is at the forefront of Wales’s economic recovery. Plaid Cymru local authorities, such as Carmarthenshire County Council, have led in that regard, implementing clear strategies such as furthering business scale-ups and improving transport links and access to housing. However, the UK Government are hampering our efforts to develop a more vibrant and sustainable rural economy. Time and again, Plaid Cymru has tabled amendments to Finance Bills, asking the Treasury to consider how to channel investment into Wales and its rural economy more effectively and coherently and, perhaps most importantly, with a long-term vision. Instead, the UK Government have replaced the needs-based funding investment formula adopted by the EU, which was formerly a significant investor in the Welsh rural economy, with competitive UK-wide schemes that ignore rural need and disadvantage Wales. Such schemes not only fail to honour Conservative manifesto promises to Wales, but lack a collaborative and future-focused strategy to further Welsh economic development.
Let us go back to the word “competitive”, because it is a word that the Tories like—winner-takes-all, macho stuff to make headlines. Let us unpick the meaning of “competitive” in this context. It is setting communities against each other—winners and losers in a political popularity contest—and does not begin to recognise need. This is about the Tories wanting to have their cake and eat it—every last crumb. Adding to the injury is the fundamentally flawed United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which acts as a vortex deliberately set in motion to dismember the principle of subsidiarity. It is a terribly long word, but it means pulling apart the integrity of Welsh devolution, which the people have supported again and again whenever they have had the opportunity. After vesting Westminster with powers that previously were clearly and exclusively at the disposal of our Parliament, we now even see limitations on how Welsh public bodies can purchase from local Welsh companies, removing a key pillar of support from local Welsh food producers and hospitality businesses.
The Conservatives’ austerity has indirectly resulted in local authority budgets in Wales shrinking by 17% and led to the loss of public services that are so central to our communities in rural areas, and the UK Government are now actively encumbering Welsh rural authorities. Consequently, although many key drivers of the Welsh rural economy are devolved, Westminster is failing where it is encroaching. That is why I urge the Government to work with, rather than against, Welsh institutions to help them deliver locally informed economic strategies that will further, rather than hamper, the Welsh rural economy. Anything else will ensure only that stagnating rural incomes, rising rural poverty and youth migration will continue unabated.
No issue better encapsulates the consequences of such an outcome than the worsening second home crisis in Wales. The low incomes and poor economic prospects of rural communities have left them unfairly exposed to the rapid increase in house prices and second home ownership across the UK. It is not an overstatement to say that this has created a situation of pervasive exclusion of local workers and younger members of communities from their local housing markets.
In Gwynedd, for instance, approximately 40% of houses that go on the market every year are now bought as second homes. In the village of Cwm-yr-Eglwys, Pembrokeshire, there are now only two permanent residents—the rest of the 50 houses are holiday homes. This not only has dire ramifications for local public services and distortionary implications for the local economy, but fundamentally means that local workers, especially the young, find it almost impossible to stay in their local communities. That is why I welcome action by Plaid Cymru-led local authorities, such as those in Gwynedd, Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire, to increase revenue through second home council tax premiums to fund local housing initiatives, and I urge the Welsh Government to work with Plaid Cymru to address this issue urgently.
Fundamentally, however, we need to improve the resilience of the Welsh rural economy itself. Last week’s headlines alone were an unwelcome reminder of the urgency of doing so, as they announced a bad trade deal with Australia. This could well establish a disastrous precedent for Welsh agriculture, as well as increase the growing risks posed by climate change, as described by the Climate Change Committee.
On the subject of trade, I urge the UK Government to involve the Welsh and other devolved Governments closely in the negotiation of new trade deals, particularly as economic development in key sectors such as agriculture are devolved competencies. As my Plaid Cymru colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), have argued, the deal with Australia threatens to undercut our local farmers, hollow out our rural communities and damage our climate.
Equally, our net zero pledges require urgent action to decarbonise our rural economy and build upon its key strengths. Wales is an energy-rich nation, yet we lack not only the borrowing powers to finance nationwide developments, but a modern energy transmission grid that would allow local renewable energy developments to feed electricity into it. That hampers the ability of actors ranging from farmers to local authorities to decarbonise and make the best use of Wales’s natural resources for our common good. Those are just two issues, but I hope that today’s debate will further this much-needed discussion on improving the rural economy’s resilience.
The Welsh rural economy has a pivotal role to play not only in ensuring Wales’s post-pandemic recovery, but in ensuring that we meet our net zero obligations as sustainably and rapidly as possible. The Welsh rural economy is a vital component not only of the wider Welsh economy, but of Wales as a nation. It is the heartland of the Welsh language; the origin of some of our finest food and drink; the guardian of the sustainable use of our environment; and, of course, the destination for tourists worldwide.
Plaid Cymru is calling for the UK Government to work with, rather than against, the devolved Governments, by involving and engaging with them, whether on regional and rural development funds or in trade negotiations. We urge both the UK and Welsh Governments to support Plaid Cymru’s proposals to address the second home crisis and, in order to meet our net zero objectives, to give us the borrowing and regulatory powers needed to develop Welsh renewable energy projects and connect them to a newly upgraded electricity transmission network.
Not only are these goals achievable; they are undeniably necessary to support our Welsh rural economy and allow it to flourish. If our communities are to withstand the unprecedented and interlinked crises ahead, resilience must be built into our economy in the long term. The Westminster Government have failed time and again to show they have the ambition or the ideas to do so, but today’s debate provides them an opportunity to set out a coherent strategy for supporting the future of the Welsh economy. I look forward to a constructive debate. Diolch yn fawr.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for securing this important debate on the future of the Welsh rural economy.
My constituency of Ynys Môn has one of the lowest GVA rates in the UK. It is heavily dependent on tourism, and haemorrhages young people when they leave school because of the limited local employment opportunities. Frankly, if any part of Wales needs an economic revival, it is Anglesey. In the past 21 years, since the Senedd was established, and with a Labour Welsh Government, the island has systematically lost major employers, including Anglesey Aluminium, the Wylfa nuclear power station, Octel and Rehau, with huge job losses. We have seen next to nothing from the Welsh Government to address these issues. As such, I am campaigning to bring a freeport to Anglesey.
The benefits incumbent with freeport status would encourage inward investment and employment on the island. I already have businesses, such as Tratos, keen to set up on Anglesey, should we get freeport status. This would mean hundreds of jobs waiting to be created, yet the Welsh Labour Government are digging in their heels and refusing to launch the Welsh freeport bid prospectus. The people of north Wales can only look on as Liverpool establishes itself as a freeport and businesses that could have come to us go instead to England.
Even our farming community suffers when the Senedd votes in legislation creating a whole-Wales nitrate vulnerable zone at an estimated £360 million cost to Welsh farmers, putting local farms at risk of financial ruin.
Anglesey has been sidelined by a Welsh Government who have no concept of the issues facing the island and no local presence. It therefore falls to the UK Government to pick up the pieces of the Welsh rural economy—a job that they are taking on with gusto. Let me give a few examples of the support being given to Ynys Môn. The Secretary of State for Wales was very clear when he gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee last week: if the Welsh Government will not commit to setting up a freeport in Wales, then the UK Government will. There is massive support locally for a freeport on Anglesey and we are putting together an exciting and innovative bid, led by Stena, which has the potential to transform the future of our island. I urge the UK Government to take this forward as quickly as possible.
The levelling-up and community renewal funds have been opened by the UK Government with millions of pounds available for investment. The community renewal fund gave me the opportunity to work directly with the Isle of Anglesey County Council and to build relationships with them. The island’s head of regulation and economic development, Christian Branch, and his team submitted a fantastic range of projects last week, which will generate local jobs and boost the economy directly and indirectly. Our council will also receive over £140,000 in capacity funding to help it generate excellent quality bids for these funds.
We are working hard to bring new opportunities here. In his March Budget speech, the Chancellor announced £4.8 million of funding for the new Holyhead hydrogen hub. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be on the island next week to meet M-SParc and the Minister for Science to discuss bringing the cutting-edge thermo-hydraulic facility here. I am also in talks with Rolls-Royce about bringing SMRs to the island as well as continuing discussions about potential developers for Wylfa Newydd.
The trade deals that the UK Government are working on will open up new and exciting markets for our farmers. Countries keen for our high-quality produce are coming online. Earlier this month, the Minister for Trade Policy spent 50 minutes speaking to farmers on Anglesey, in English and in Welsh, about those opportunities. He was also happy to reassure them that scaremongering on food standards is incorrect and that standards will not be compromised by imports.
The UK Government are also committed to levelling up communications and transport infrastructure. They are delivering the shared rural network to improve 4G coverage and have committed £5 billion to support the roll-out of broadband through Project Gigabit. The Union connectivity review by Sir Peter Hendy highlighted the need for investment in road and rail infrastructure right across north Wales. All these moves by the UK Government will contribute to levelling up our rural community on Anglesey by giving businesses and individuals better access where they have been failed in the past.
Anglesey needs good-quality, well-paid jobs. This is how we stop our young people leaving; how we stop the decimation of the Welsh language; and how we preserve our local communities, our language and our heritage. I see great opportunities for the Welsh rural economy with the moves being made by the UK Government, and I look forward to seeing the fortunes of Anglesey reversed as a result. Diolch yn fawr.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC) [V]
Diolch, Mrs Cummins; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I would first like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for securing the debate, and commend her for such a passionate speech—I agree with the sentiments wholeheartedly. A particular challenge that rural Wales faces, and on which I would like to focus my remarks this afternoon, is a lack of connectivity, in digital and in transport, between our rural economy and the rest of the UK, and the wider global market.
Digital connectivity remains a tremendous challenge for the rural economy of Wales. Ofcom’s “Connected Nations” report in 2020 noted that nearly 9,000 premises in Wales cannot access a decent fixed broadband service or get good 4G coverage indoors, with almost all those premises in rural areas. More recently, NFU Cymru and others found that less than 50% of those who lived in rural areas said they had standard broadband, only 36% had superfast broadband, and 66% said that they or their household had been impacted by poor broadband.
That has dire consequences for constituencies such as mine, where only 20% of the population live in an urban area. In the rural areas, it is estimated that 26.5% do not receive a decent broadband connection—by that, I mean a download speed of 10 megabits per second—compared with the Wales average of 11.9% and the UK average of 9.3%.
That is largely to do with the UK Government’s difficulties in delivering a digital infrastructure strategy that works for rural communities in Wales. The Government’s Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review proposed an “outside in” approach, to ensure that gigabit-capable connectivity across all areas of the UK is achieved at the same time, so that no area is systematically left behind. However, the UK Government’s reduced target of gigabit broadband coverage of 85% by 2025 is to the detriment of rural communities, which yet again will have to wait for improved connectivity.
The original plan would have been a big boost to people living in rural communities struggling on speeds below 30 megabits per second and the Government have already admitted that reaching the final 1% of very remote homes could be prohibitively expensive. That is without even addressing the excess costs facing rural communities under the universal service obligation, which offers a maximum of £3,004 to a single premises, well below the costs being quoted to connect some of my constituents in Ceredigion. To make matters worse, schemes that exist to address rural connectivity, such as the broadband upgrade scheme, need greater co-ordination between the Welsh Government and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if their potential is to be realised.
Ceredigion, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire were included in the pilot broadband upgrade scheme, which proved successful locally in aggregating community demand for better broadband in such a way as to encourage alternative network providers to bid to undertake upgrade work in some of our most rural communities. A number of these companies have shown an interest in connecting communities across Ceredigion. However, despite working successfully with local residents, they have encountered a range of difficulties, foremost among which were data problems that saw entire communities being deemed ineligible for gigabit voucher support due to their sharing a postcode area with a solitary premises that had benefited from broadband upgrade work, despite the fact that they themselves were struggling on less than 3 megabits per second.
More recently, a number of proposals to connect communities have been thrown into uncertainty due to the announcement that commercial roll-outs might be possible in these areas in the next four or five years. No detailed plans have been announced, but the eligibility criteria for gigabit voucher funding means that, due to this announcement, proposals already under development as part of the broadband upgrade fund may no longer be viable. So the communities affected are thrown into yet another limbo in their quest for decent broadband.
Compounding this debacle is the fact that the Government’s policies for addressing better mobile connectivity in rural areas are also not delivering. The shared rural network, for instance, uses many of the emergency services network sites run by the Home Office. The delay by the Home Office in constructing new masts and connecting existing masts is denying rural communities in Wales the opportunity of improved connectivity now.
Just as important as digitally connecting our rural economy is the need to decarbonise our transport system rapidly and responsibly reduce private car use. Local authorities in Wales have a vital role to play in developing and supporting local bus networks, such as Bookabus. However, such services do not come cheap. In Carmarthenshire alone, over 85% of local transport routes in rural areas are subsidised to some degree, with the average subsidy in 2019 in Carmarthenshire per passenger being £3.63. As such, it is simply not enough for the Governments on either end of the M4 to call for improved active travel or the adoption of electric vehicles if they are not also prepared to invest in the necessary infrastructure and improved public transport.
In sum, better supporting our rural communities’ connectivity, both digital and transport, is pivotal to securing the future and resilience of the Welsh rural economy. All areas, all communities—indeed, all nations of the UK—deserve equal treatment, so I hope the UK and Welsh Governments will do their utmost to secure the investment and, where necessary, the policy reform to allow our rural communities to fulfil their potential.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mrs Cummins. It is an absolute pleasure to speak in this debate and to serve under your chairmanship, I believe for the first time.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) on bringing forward this important debate and setting out so well in her opening remarks the many challenges facing rural communities in Wales. Needless to say, I agreed with everything she said. It was a pleasure to listen to her opening remarks.
Levelling up has acted as a convenient smokescreen for the UK Government on these matters, but we have yet to see a credible strategy underpinning the slogan. In my first Parliament here, in 2010, there used to be “geographical rebalancing”. There was not much geographical rebalancing in the past 10 years, but now we have levelling up. What discussions is the Minister having with the Treasury about how issues facing rural communities will be factored into the metrics used to measure the success of levelling up? We know that work is going on, and we hope that there will be more than just words behind the strategy on this occasion.
One of the key measures must surely be improved connectivity through better transport and broadband infrastructure. On broadband, I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake). The pandemic has proved beyond any doubt that access to broadband is critical, both for economic prosperity and individual wellbeing.
The pandemic has also highlighted the importance of maintaining our physical fitness and provided an opportunity to enable more active travel. In Carmarthenshire, the county council is about to submit a shovel-ready levelling-up fund application for an exciting Tywi valley cycle pathway, linking the towns of Carmarthen and Llandeilo. It has my full support, and I ask the Minister to look into the submission and give his support to what we are trying to achieve in Carmarthenshire.
Moving towards more sustainable models of travel is critical if Wales is to meet our climate targets, yet currently 87% of all journeys in mid-Wales are undertaken by car. To reduce that figure, we must drastically improve our railways. It will come as no surprise to anyone who frequently travels by train in Wales that we have historically received only 1% of rail investment, despite having 11% of the track. I encourage the Minister to look at the submission by the renowned transport expert, Professor Stuart Cole, to the UK Government’s connectivity review. He makes the case for a £20 million investment in the beautiful Heart of Wales line, which connects Swansea and Shrewsbury, and links three of the main market towns in Carmarthenshire, all of which reside within my constituency: Ammanford, Llandeilo and Llandovery. Professor Cole outlines how that investment would improve and increase service provision on the line and bring substantial economic and social benefits.
Notwithstanding my points about decarbonising transport, I believe that there is still an important role to be played by investing in road transport. I cannot miss the opportunity to highlight the very damaging announcement today by the Welsh Government that they will not invest in the Llandeilo bypass—there is a moratorium on bypass developments. There was a cast-iron guarantee for the communities I serve in Carmarthenshire that it would be built by now. There has been obstacle after obstacle, and today’s news will be a hammer blow for the Tywi valley.
All too often, rural Wales finds itself at the back of the queue for investment in infrastructure. Our farmers are bearing the brunt of Wales being an afterthought in the UK Government’s trade policy. The lamb and beef tariff rate quotas in the proposed trade deal with Australia have confirmed the worst fears that many of us had about the trajectory of trade policy post Brexit. It sets a precedent, and not only for the agriculture sector. Trade deals with far bigger economies than Australia will undoubtedly be more problematic, not just for food but for other sectors such as steel and manufacturing.
Meanwhile, the consequences of Brexit are beginning to bite. Analysis by the Food and Drink Federation of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data shows that British food and drink exports to the EU fell by £2 billion in the first three months of 2021, with sales of dairy products falling by a staggering 90%. It is time to give up on the spin that those are just teething troubles, and acknowledge that the latest figures show that wholescale dentistry is required in the Trade and Agriculture Commission. An urgent veterinary agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary rules would be one way to remove barriers for Welsh farming exports created by the current Brexit deal, as well as alleviating friction caused by the Northern Ireland protocol.
Reports indicate that at the G7, President Biden offered a trade deal—which I suspect did not include food products—with the US, even if the UK aligned with the EU on food standards. Surely that is too good to turn down, considering the current shambles. Has the Minister made any assessment of whether reports of reduced checks in the Australian trade deal would prevent such an agreement with the EU?
Before I bring my remarks to a close, I would like to touch on another issue that threatens not only to undermine the long-term sustainability of Welsh agriculture and the unique linguistic and cultural traditions maintained by farmers in our country, but completely to change the local landscape. There is growing evidence of Welsh farms being bought by large multinational companies from outside Wales for unregulated woodland planting in order to offset their carbon emissions. Furthermore, rich people from outside Wales are buying up productive Welsh farms and planting them, while coining Glastir support.
Once an agricultural holding is lost to woodland, it will not return. Anyone who recognises the challenges of the climate crisis will support a policy of increased woodland. However, the debate on the issue far too often fails to recognise the contribution that grassland systems play in providing an important carbon sink. I am delighted to see my colleague the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) here. In Scotland, they have managed to increase woodland planting without supplanting agriculture, working with their farmers. We need that approach in Wales.
This is a matter for the Welsh Government, which in my view should set a maximum limit based on the national woodland target for tree planting in each farm holding, and ensure that Glastir and woodland planting schemes are available only to actual, active farmers. I am interested to know whether the Minister has come across this issue in Sir Fynwy. I would like to use the debate to call on the Welsh Government to revise their planning technical advice notes, to ensure that woodland planting is done in a manner that preserves our agricultural heritage.
There is also a wider question. Carbon offsets may present a very attractive shortcut for companies to reduce their emissions, but we need to cut emissions in the first place. The UK Government are due to publish a net zero strategy before COP26. Will that address the question of corporations using carbon capture, rather than reducing their carbon emissions?
To tackle the many issues faced by rural communities, the Welsh Government must be empowered with the fiscal levers required to deliver an effective post-covid recovery strategy. That includes reforming the funding formula, greater tax freedoms and increasing the cap on borrowing. Only in that way can we deliver tangible benefits for those living in rural communities throughout Wales.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for securing the debate. I speak today as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Wales. I am sure Members will join me in welcoming my newest colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) to the House, a proud Welsh woman, as she made clear with her affirmation in Welsh yesterday.
Moving on from yesterday’s news to today’s debate and the future of the Welsh rural economy, the Welsh high street, like much of the UK, has suffered over the past 15 months. It is obviously right that shops had to close during the pandemic, but now they must be supported in the recovery. When talking about the rural economy, people often assume that it is just agriculture. Although I will turn to that, it also includes those businesses that serve rural communities, for example, local shops. It is vital that those businesses are supported during the recovery, something that my colleague, the Liberal Democrat Member of the Senedd for Mid and West Wales has been championing since her recent election.
I ask the Minister to detail what consideration has been given to rural retail generally. In the face of strong competition from online retailers, what measures will be considered to level the playing field in the recovery from the pandemic? As part of that recovery, and as businesses and communities respond to having left the EU, it is vital that communities throughout Wales, particularly those in rural areas, receive investment.
It is only two weeks since I last spoke in a debate in Westminster Hall about the importance of the community renewal and levelling-up funds. Then I asked whether the Minister responding would commit to a meaningful relationship with the Welsh Government on the formation and administration of those funds and, going forward, of the shared prosperity fund. I also asked for assurances that Wales would not lose out on the funding it used to receive. Today, I add to those questions by asking whether the first meeting of the promised inter-ministerial group with the Welsh Government has taken place and whether a statement can be made as to its outcome. If it has not, when will such a meeting take place?
In the previous debate, we were reassured that the stated figure of 5% of allocated funding coming to Wales represented a funding floor, not a ceiling, but I understand from my colleagues in Welsh local government and from my own experience in my constituency of North East Fife in Scotland that it has been arguably more challenging for local authorities under the devolved Administrations to put together bids for both funds, the deadlines for which passed last week, so again I ask the Minister what steps will be taken to ensure that the floor is met even if fewer bids from Wales are received than expected.
Finally, I turn to agriculture. As colleagues have mentioned, there are significant concerns that the Australia trade deal will put the Welsh rural economy at risk. I say “concerns”, but perhaps I should say “suspicions”, because full details are still awaited. There were recent reports in the media that there will be no tariffs on Australian beef imports until they rise above 35,000 tonnes —six times the current level of imports—or on lamb imports until they go above 25,000 tonnes, which is three times the current imports. Australian animal welfare standards are significantly below ours, which means that people there can produce cheaper products.
This Government say that they support Welsh farmers, but if those reports are true and Welsh farmers are undercut by such produce, how can they be doing anything other than breaking that promise? How does the Minister plan to support Welsh farmers in the light of the Australia trade deal? Sadly, parliamentarians will not be given a vote on the deal when it comes to Parliament, so what opportunities will we have to scrutinise it? I am sure that Welsh farmers, like farmers in North East Fife, have worked very hard over the last few years to diversify their economies. I would hate to see that hard work undone by that trade deal.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Thank you, Mrs Cummins, for your indulgence, given my slightly late appearance at this debate. I apologise to colleagues in the debate and especially to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for being slightly late—demonstrating to colleagues that it is literally impossible to be in two places at once.
I am very pleased to take part in this debate, but I will proceed with caution because, despite a very happy 18 months living and working in the Vale of Glamorgan, I recognise my limited knowledge of matters Welsh, and there is nothing more irritating to a Member of Parliament than somebody talking about our part of the world with less than comprehensive knowledge. But there are very many similarities between the situation that the rural Welsh economy finds itself in and the rural Scottish economy.
I represent a rural ward in Angus in Scotland. There is not so much difference between the Welsh valleys and the Angus glens. I would contend that neither are being particularly well served by the UK Government at the current time, a classic example of that being the Australia trade deal. I will not labour this point. It is a hot topic in the Chamber and in the media. Suffice it to say that the reassurances—if we can call them that—coming from the Department for International Trade and, to a significantly and tellingly lesser extent, from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are very hollow indeed. The supposed safeguards for Welsh producers, Scottish producers and Cumbrian producers of lamb are paper thin. There is also the fact that, watery as they are, they are timebound over a maximum period of 15 years. I wonder what the Government will tell Welsh farmers is going to happen after 15 years. Is the scale of Welsh farming suddenly going to increase after 15 years to the extent that farmers will be able to compete with the colossal enterprises in Australia and, by that time of course, New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil and many other colossal producers?
Liz Saville Roberts
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns about the anticipated trade agreement with New Zealand, which we expect to be announced in August? It has seen the precedent set with Australia and, in terms of lamb, this deal looks even more damaging than the present agreement.
Dave Doogan
The right hon. Member is exactly right. We are looking at the thin end of the wedge. I will come on to why this is a function of a disconnect in the current set-up of the United Kingdom, but of course she is right. With my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), I met the Australian high commissioner to the UK about a year ago, and we were assured by him that Australia was not particularly interested in bulk volumes, in terms of exporting lamb to the UK. I did not believe it then and I do not believe it now; it is inconsistent.
New Zealand will follow where Australia leads. Such is the unseemly haste with which the UK Government are pursuing any and all opportunities for international trade, as though it somehow validates the ridiculous and reckless Brexit course, they will do deals with New Zealand and we will see further attrition in the markets that we currently satisfy from domestic production. It is a very damaging prospect that faces us now.
Yesterday I met NFU Scotland members in Angus. Their issues include the arbitrary discussions around journey times for animals; the trade deals we have touched on today; welfare standards that we must adhere to in this country but that our competitors are not similarly held to; and the availability of seasonal agricultural workers because of the Conservative Government’s fundamental ideology of not wanting people to come from outside to support our industries and enhance our communities, despite the negative effect that that has on the rural economies of the constituent nations of the UK. Likewise food standards are now a lottery, depending on the food we buy and the market it comes from.
I had an interesting meeting recently with a renewable energy company that has floating wind farms. It has a tremendous pilot project off the Pembrokeshire coast, and it wants to do something similar off the North sea coast, off Peterhead. The dialogue that it had with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was so slow that it represents a golden opportunity lost by the Government to open up rural and very rural parts of our economy and to meet our net zero and renewable energy targets. There is a level of disconnect. Even if the company did get the project going, like many renewable projects in mid and west Wales, the feed-in tariffs, although not so bad in Wales, are still appalling, whereas we have energy producers around London paid to connect to the grid. In Wales they will have to pay a couple of pounds per unit, and in Caithness in Scotland, very, very rural communities will have to pay £6 or £7 per unit. BEIS just holds up its hands—“It’s not us. It is Ofgem.” Such levels of disconnect from central Government in London are not acceptable. They hold our economies back.
As a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I take part in good faith and in good spirit when discussing issues that are of no consequence to my constituents because I am a Member of the UK Parliament. I would rather not be, but I am—I wish I was a member of a sovereign Scottish Parliament. What has come through loud and clear is the disconnect and the asymmetry in the representation of the people of the United Kingdom. There is no English Government, but DEFRA is little more than an English Government Department. It has very little locus in the United Kingdom at large, and where it does, it exercises it with indifference and ambivalence. It is a great impediment to our rural communities.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Cummins.
I add my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) on securing today’s debate. At the start of her speech, she talked about the combined challenges of Brexit, covid and 10 years of austerity, which have had a real negative impact on the Welsh economy, including the Welsh rural economy, and she talked about the pivotal role that the rural economy plays in Wales. She also spoke about the levelling-up fund and the competitive nature of the fund, which was the subject of a recent debate, and her concern—shared by some Opposition Members—about the focus of that funding, which should be based on need and deprivation and issues other than the competitive funding stream that we have seen in recent weeks. As other Members have, the right hon. Lady voiced her concerns about the Australia trade deal and spoke about the need to involve the devolved Governments in this and future trade negotiations, which some of us have been calling for in recent weeks.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) talked about the freeports. I agree that it would be a positive step, but I gently ask her to convince her colleagues to offer financial support for Welsh freeports similar to that provided for English ones. I understand Wales gets just a third of the funding available for freeports in England; that difference is clearly not acceptable.
Liz Saville Roberts
I also beg the Government to give us some clarity about exactly which freeport they are talking about in Wales. Holyhead is much mentioned, but there is also mention of Pembrokeshire and the ports there as well, with Milford Haven. It is one thing to praise the virtues of freeports—although we are concerned that they may cause economic displacement—but we could also have greater clarity about exactly which freeport and which place they are talking about in Wales?
Gerald Jones
We do indeed need clarity from the UK Government on freeports, not least on funding but on other issues as well.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) talked about a subject that is close to my heart: the digital connectivity challenges across rural areas of Wales and that striving for broadband upgrade. It is right to recognise that, these days, decent broadband regarded as a necessity, not a luxury.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) talked about sustainability and the need for sufficient investment in railways, comparing the 1% of investment with the 11% of track. He also raised concerns about trade deals and the involvement of devolved Governments in those.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) talked about rural shops and retail. She also spoke about the levelling-up fund, which we discussed in this Chamber just two weeks ago, and the assurances that the fund will address the obvious need of our communities in Wales.
Finally, the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) expressed concerns about the trade deals and how the current discussions do not bode well for future trade deals, not least the New Zealand trade deal, which the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd also mentioned. He also spoke about the level of disconnect with the UK Government.
We all know that Wales has some of the most stunning natural and rural areas of any nation in the world, but we all have a part to play if we are to ensure that those areas can continue to thrive and are protected for future generations. The Labour Welsh Government have used the tools available to them to take action against practices that threaten our environment and rural areas. They have used planning powers on land and sea to oppose fossil fuel extraction, including by maintaining the ban on fracking. They have also pursued ambitious policies to protect the environment, bringing forward a net zero target for Wales, creating a new national forest for Wales and driving forward major renewable energy projects, such as the Awel y Môr offshore wind farm and the world-class centre for marine engineering at Pembroke Dock. In Wales, we have reached the milestone of generating more than 50% of our energy from renewable sources.
As we have heard in the debate today, farmers are on the frontline in the climate emergency. The Welsh Government’s sustainable farming scheme will credit farmers for good environmental practices that have not been valued in the market in the past, such as improved soil, clean water and actions to tackle climate change. In Wales, we have protected the terms and conditions of agricultural workers by retaining our agricultural workers’ board, in contrast to the Government’s decision to abolish it in England. As we have left the European Union, farming subsidy schemes are being amended. The Welsh Government are committed to ensuring that all funding coming from the UK Government to replace the common agricultural policy and other EU subsidy schemes is retained for that purpose. Yet the UK Government have removed more than £130 million in rural development funding for Wales, which threatens our rural economies.
Finally, we know that the effects of the pandemic continue to be felt across all communities in Wales, right across the UK and further afield. Our rural areas in Wales are no different. Farms and other agricultural businesses have faced extreme pressures. For obvious reasons, a number of rural events have been cancelled over the last 15 months. Agricultural shows, such as the Vaynor show in my constituency and many others, provide an integral opportunity for farmers and agricultural workers to celebrate together our heritage, language and rural communities.
I am pleased that the Welsh Government’s Wales farm support group has met throughout the pandemic to consider what can be done to support our farmers and agricultural businesses. Bespoke support has been provided to the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society to support preparations to reinstate shows when it is safe. I welcome this debate and the ongoing discussions with the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Cummins. Diolch yn fawr iawn i’r Aelod gwir anrhydeddus dros Dwyfor Meirionnydd. Although we obviously disagree and see things slightly differently politically, I acknowledge many of the issues raised by the right hon. Lady for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and their importance. I am pleased we are having this discussion on a subject that is of importance to all, regardless of our political persuasions.
I begin by assuring the right hon. Lady, and other Members, that the recovery and renewal of our rural economy is a central part of our strategy to build back better from the pandemic, but also to strengthen the Union—a matter for which the hon. Lady may not share my enthusiasm. The passion evident through all the contributions shows we can agree on other things. We agree that the countryside of Wales is close to the hearts of everyone who lives there, and because of the large proportion accounted for by land classified as rural, it is essential that local businesses in those areas are able to flourish, drive up the economy and create jobs for local people. From the mountains of Snowdonia to the beaches of Ceredigion in Pembrokeshire and the rolling hills of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Monmouthshire, there is a special place in the national consciousness of Wales for its rural locations.
If Wales is to continue to thrive, it is essential that the local economies of rural Wales are able to create good, sustainable jobs—not just jobs, but careers to drive up growth, as I heard on a tour of north Wales. We are committed to levelling up in every part of the United Kingdom, and Wales is certainly no exception. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have undertaken visits, and my first visit after lockdown was to north Wales to discuss the growth deals and look at the issues the right hon. Lady for Dwyfor Meirionnydd has rightly raised today.
The importance of tourism to the area was underlined by the Tourism Network, which says that people do not want jobs; they want careers. The network tells young people to not go into a minimum wage job and stay there until they are sick of it and leave for England or elsewhere. They want people to be offered a career, so that they can go in doing a low-wage job, and at the same time undertake training for bookkeeping, personnel, or whatever, allowing them to become the leaders of tomorrow. That is something we would all want to support.
Before I go into the detail of the UK Government’s commitments to Wales, I will reflect on the unprecedented support they provided to businesses and individuals during the covid pandemic. More than 500,000 jobs were protected by the UK Government’s support schemes, such as the coronavirus job retention scheme. Billions were provided in Government loans to Welsh firms, and an extra £8.6 billion has provided to the Welsh Government through the Barnett formula since the start of the pandemic. I was left scratching my head when I heard the First Minister suggest that we had taken money away from the Welsh Government. I am surprised that when he suggested that in an interview he was not asked how much money he received two years ago—the difference is absolutely huge.
Liz Saville Roberts
The Minister mentioned the levelling-up fund and that the Welsh Government have said they now receive less than they previously did. What does he make of the Welsh Government’s estimation that they are set to receive as little as £50 million a year, instead of the £375 million they previously got from the EU, under levelling-up agreements?
David T. C. Davies
There is a very simple answer to the right hon. Lady on that point: £375 million a year is the average that the Welsh Government received in structural funds throughout the programme period, and £375 million is what they will continue to receive. In fact, I think it is slightly over that in the next year. That money will continue to come from the European Union over the next two or three financial years, so the extra money she refers to does not replace the structural funds; it is additional to the structural funds, which they will continue to receive. As for tail ends—to use a term that I hear a lot—and that EU money gradually dissipates, it will be replaced by the shared prosperity fund. We are absolutely standing by our manifesto commitment to ensure that Wales receives exactly the same amount after Brexit as it did before Brexit. I am delighted to make that clear.
As right hon. and hon. Members will undoubtedly be aware, the Secretary of State for Wales launched “The UK Government’s Plan for Wales” on 20 May. It sets out how we intend to build back from the pandemic by investing in digital and transport infrastructure, providing the right financial backing for green industry, and supporting jobs and growth right across Wales in the coming months and years. As one would expect, the plan had a thread of ambitious projects and initiatives for rural Wales, and I will turn to some of those commitments.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) rightly raised the issue of broadband, as did the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) and many others. Yes, it is a traditional bugbear for our rural communities and, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) rightly said, we have realised just how important it is during the pandemic. I entirely agree with most of what has been said in this Chamber. Members are right to hold the Government to account for not quite reaching the speeds in rural areas that we would like, including in my Monmouthshire constituency. I welcome that Ministers are being held to account and being put under pressure on this issue.
However, we have invested £5 billion to support the deployment of gigabit-capable broadband in the hardest-to-reach areas of the United Kingdom, including in Wales. We will be investing £1.2 billion over the next four years. BT Openreach recently announced plans to deliver full-fibre broadband to about 415,000 homes and businesses across Wales over a five-year period. The shared rural network programme, of which the hon. Member for Ceredigion was a bit critical, will deliver 33 new masts, which will hopefully mean that 95% of Wales is covered by 4G by 2026. I make one genuine suggestion to the hon. Gentleman in particular, whom I met recently to discuss the growth deals in mid and west Wales, and the potential projects that may come forward. On a recent visit to Swansea, I saw that connectivity has been made one of the major project areas of the Swansea city deal, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr will be aware. When we return shortly, we will look at how the Swansea digital village is developing. My suggestion to the hon. Member for Ceredigion is very simple: encourage the local authorities in the area to make connectivity one of the planks of their growth deals.
Liz Saville Roberts
In my constituency, we are waiting for the Home Office to switch on 10 masts for the emergency services network. That is something the Government could do immediately in the here and now. I urge the Minister to use his good office to good effect, and ensure that we get improved connectivity along those lines.
David T. C. Davies
My officials are following that specific issue with interest at the moment. I suggest that they may wish to draft the right hon. Lady a response, because it seems a perfectly reasonable point to be making.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr also mentioned the importance of physical fitness during the pandemic. He is a fine exemplar of that, given that the last time I met him he was just coming out of the gym in the hotel that I had also been in. He practises what he preaches, which is very good.
I shall move on to the support the Government have given to farmers—the bedrock of our rural community. Various Members raised the Australian trade deal, so I will come on to that in a second. I believe that some misinformation has been put out about agricultural funding. Like EU structural funding, it will of course continue to come from the EU for the next couple of years. The UK Government have rightly made the commitment to match the agricultural funding we received before we left the European Union and to ensure that the same amount is received going forward.
The hon. Members for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and for Angus (Dave Doogan) raised the Australian trade deal, along with various other Members, and I have written down a couple of notes about it. Of course, we received beef imports from Australia as members of the European Union and the total amount that came in last year was about 560 tonnes. According to the AHDB, the amount that we imported in total was around 238,000 tonnes—about 400 times the amount that was coming from Australia. Most of that came from the Republic of Ireland. So if anyone is starting to get a little bit worried about an Australian trade deal, it should be the Irish Government, not British beef farmers. I think the hon. Member for Angus suggested that it could go up six times if we sign the trade deal. Well, we will sign the trade deal, and even if it did go up six times—even if it went up 10 times—it would still be an absolutely tiny fraction of the total amount of beef that we import from Ireland each year.
Dave Doogan
Does the Minister accept that the detail and nuance of this crisis is what it displaces? The volume in itself is one element of the factor, but it is what it displaces because our production costs are far higher than Australia’s.
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman says that, and I have also heard it, but I am not sure I entirely accept it. He appears to have a smartphone in front of him, and I suggest he has a look at the prices for cuts of beef in Coles or Woolworths, which are the two major supermarkets in Australia, and compare them with Tesco. To be honest, by and large the same cuts of beef cost more in Australia. Australian beef costs more on the shelves of Australian supermarkets than British beef does on the shelves of British supermarkets. The idea that Australian beef is ridiculously cheap does not really stand up to much scrutiny.
Liz Saville Roberts
I anticipated that the Minister would make this argument on the price. Will he recognise that Australia has suffered two droughts in recent years? Previously Australian lamb was extremely cheap, at 300 cents per kilo. With the markets in China being as fragile as they are, and Australia perhaps seeking alternative markets, the prices may not remain as high as they are at present. Looking into the future and in the long term, that is perhaps a disingenuous argument.
David T. C. Davies
Looking into the future and the long term, of course that is the case. The level of sterling or the Australian dollar could vary or the markets in China may not be the same, but there is generally seen to be a drive towards greater wealth, not just in China but across the whole of the Asia-Pacific rim, which is driving an increase in the demand for beef and sheep meat. I cannot pretend to look into the future and guess what currency and stock prices might do—if I was any good at that, I probably would not be an MP, as I would be making millions in the City. Based on 560 tonnes coming in at the moment, I do not see that there is anything very much for anyone to worry about, even the Irish farmers, and especially not considering the very high-quality beef that we produce in Wales, and in Scotland, if I may say so to the hon. Member for Angus.
The danger of ad-libbing means that I have probably used half my speech on that issue, so I will now turn to tourism. It is another area that is of great interest and importance to us in Wales—I think it was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. I was absolutely delighted when I was in north Wales to be able to sample the first-class tourism that north Wales has to offer. I did so by staying at the brand-spanking-new Hilton Garden Inn, the first Hilton in north Wales, and visiting Surf Snowdonia, which certainly was no hardship for me. I also looked at some of the other tourism projects that are taking place in north Wales, which are all coming about as a result of the growth deals that have been funded jointly by the UK Government and the Welsh Government. We have put £120 million into the north Wales growth deal. We will support the mid-Wales growth deal with £55 million across the region, and I hope tourism will play a part in that and in the other regions of Wales.
We are also very, very ambitious as to what the growth deals can do in helping to support our efforts to become net zero by 2050. The hon. Member for Angus mentioned floating offshore wind. I suspect I know which company he met with and I know it is very enthusiastic about getting floating offshore wind into Scotland and off the coast of Wales. I do not know what is going on in Scotland, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I personally signed off a cheque for some of the money for the Swansea Bay city deal, which will help build infrastructure at Pembroke Dock to enable floating offshore wind companies to trial their products there.
I believe I know which company it is, and I fully support its enthusiasm for dealing with BEIS. However, BEIS is already saying that it will ensure, when the new contract for difference auctions come forward, that offshore wind is part of that mix, so it may be reluctant to talk to specific companies. I can understand why that might be, because BEIS will not want to be seen to be lobbied by or to give preference to any single company, but it has made it very clear that floating offshore wind will be supported through a strike price. That should enable those industries to thrive, which is a very good thing.
Notwithstanding the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Angus for Scotland, I would like to say that there is indeed huge potential in the coastal areas of Wales. We are absolutely blessed with marine energy potential and we are seeing a number of early-stage schemes looking into that. As well as Pembrokeshire, I should mention the Morlais project in north Wales, which is more about hydro energy than floating offshore energy. I believe that might be one of the first projects that comes forward in the North Wales growth deal—I very much hope so. It is one that I was certainly enthused by, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has done a great deal to lobby me and BEIS Ministers to ensure that that project goes ahead
Finally, I shall turn to transport, which has also been mentioned by various Members present. I would never underestimate its importance to the rural economy. It is only fitting that the global centre of rail excellence will be on the site of the Nant Helen opencast mine in Onllwyn; that facility will support innovation in the UK rail industry, including the testing of cutting-edge green technology. That is a real vote of confidence in rural Wales, and one that the Secretary of State for Wales was absolutely instrumental in making a reality. I know how many meetings he personally held with various officials and other Ministers to make sure that that happened.
In addition the UK Government are developing numerous other rail schemes, such as the £2.7 million Cambrian line signalling upgrade, which is due to be delivered by May 2022. The upgrade will enable the introduction of new trains and allow interoperability with other digital signalling schemes. There are also the investments that have been made in new stations, such as Bow Street in Ceredigion; I think the hon. Member for Ceredigion and I were there at the virtual opening of that in February 2021.
There is the £17 million being spent on the Conwy Valley line between Llandudno Junction and Blaenau Ffestiniog to repair and restore it after multiple flood events in the past five years. We are also going through the outline business cases to develop the freight lines on the South Wales relief line, which will mean more trains going between Cardiff and Bristol and will have a beneficial impact on constituents of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, I am sure. In north Wales, we are beginning the process of the outline business case to improve the North Wales Coast line. So there is a great deal going on to improve transport in Wales.
I take slight issue with the mention by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr of the much-quoted figure of 11% of the railways and 1% of the funding, because that was simply looking at enhancements. I believe that page 20 of the same report—I may be wrong about that, but it is certainly in there somewhere—makes it clear that, actually, if you look at maintenance operations, renewals and enhancements, the overall figure is closer to around 4%, so it is not quite the headline that the hon. Gentleman states.
Jonathan Edwards
The Minister may not accept my argument on that point, but has he read the statement of funding policy that accompanied the last comprehensive spending review? It indicated that the Barnett consequential share for Wales is plummeting as a result of the Department for Transport spending on HS2, and showed the inequity that Wales faces compared with Scotland and Northern Ireland because of that.
David T. C. Davies
I think the hon. Gentleman is right that HS2 was not Barnettised, and I would be heading off down a branch line myself in terms of this debate if I go into it. Very briefly, virtually everyone here has signed up to the view that we need to become carbon-neutral by 2050. If we are to do that, one of the things that we must do is get people out of their cars and on to trains. If we are to do that successfully, we need to build lines where they will get the maximum number of people out of cars and on to trains, and that happens to be along the HS2 route.
Some expert in the field said to me the other day that it was a pity it was called High Speed 2, because that gives the impression that it is all about delivering a high-speed train. But he said it is not at all; it is about delivering a huge amount of extra rail capacity that will get vast numbers of people out of their cars, off the roads and on to a train, which will be powered by electricity that should come from green sources. Possibly the name could have been slightly better chosen.
I may have exhausted your patience, Mrs Cummins, so if there are no further interventions, let me thank all hon. Members for an interesting, perceptive debate. If I have not responded to every question, I should be more than delighted to do so if I am reminded of what they are.
The UK Government’s commitment to the Welsh rural economy is not in any doubt. It is integral to building back better from the pandemic, as well as strengthening the Union. Our support for the Welsh rural economy is unwavering and I am sure will go from strength to strength in the coming months and years, driving local growth and creating jobs. As we come out of this pandemic as a result of the wonderful vaccine, that it was possible to deliver so quickly as a result of Brexit, the Secretary of State for Wales and I look forward to visiting Wales on many occasions over the coming months and hopefully even years—who knows—in order to see those growth deals in action and to watch levelling up happen before our eyes. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Liz Saville Roberts
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd. I am very grateful for the opportunity to wind up. Members have touched on many points that will be close to our hearts, and close to the hearts and the experiences of people who live in rural Wales.
I would like to return to three issues, the first being the question of connectivity, which many of my colleagues raised. Let us just take a step back. We talked about levelling up and about many of the wonderful, glittering projects that will happen. None the less, there are certain activities, certain functions, that only central Government can do. When it comes to infrastructure and connectivity—whether we are talking about the grid for electricity, or connectivity in terms of mobile signal and broadband—that is where government has to intervene, be that the UK Government or the Welsh Government. If government does not do that in rural areas, it will not happen, and that will not increase the salaries that people are able to draw down in rural areas—as I mentioned, almost a third of the people working in my constituency are under the real living wage. We are talking about raising those salaries to a level where people can afford mortgages, which surely we should use as a mark of success. If we are serious about that, we should be looking at government doing what only government can do.
Secondly, I would like to touch upon the significance of Welsh farmers and their excellent track record in upholding animal welfare standards and turning grassland into the highest standard of protein that we can imagine. We have to maintain food production alongside environmental diversity. Those should not be two contradictory points, but things that we must hold together.
Farmers will be disappointed that in the UK we only have two full-time agricultural counsellors, and farmers actually pay for them by a levy. That compares to, I think, 22 full-time for Australia. Extraordinarily, the Netherlands has 100. If we were looking at that, that really would be the Government putting farmers’ interests first. I always like to quote the president of the NFU, Minette Batters, who said:
“We need a Government that stops doing PR and starts doing policy.”
I will leave that there—it is a very appropriate quote.
A theme that I want to raise, although many aspects of it are devolved, is housing. Housing, for us in rural Wales, is such a symbol. In every street, in every family that I speak to with young people, children—my own children among them—are looking for homes in their own communities, looking for homes in the areas in which they grew up, and being utterly disheartened by the lack of availability, or even the prospect of availability. The market economy has failed them. Competition has failed them, and it is failing and undermining our communities.
That means, of course, that essential key workers cannot afford to live within many of those rural communities. We have care workers who have to keep a car, who cannot afford to keep a car, who then go and work in retail. Yet we have an ageing demographic and we need those workers, but they cannot afford to live in those areas. In the fire service, there are retained firefighters who are working out of the town in which the fire engine in which they work is located, who cannot be on shift when there is an emergency. In the here and now in rural Wales, that is the symbol of how those who seek to govern us are not dealing with the problems that face us every day.
Forgive me: Plaid Cymru MPs are inclined to do this. I will close with the line that sums up this issue for the area of Meirionnydd: “Fesul tŷ, nid fesul ton, bydd colli Meirion”—we will not lose Meirionnydd in one great swoop; we will lose it house by house by house. All that we stand for; all that we love. It is very vulnerable. It is our duty to protect it. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the Welsh rural economy.
Syrian Refugees in Jordan and Lebanon
(3 years, 6 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
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members are all attending physically, and I remind you to please clean your spaces before you use them and, importantly, before you leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the situation of Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, and to have the opportunity to highlight the situation of Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon. I want to try to put a human face on some of what I will speak about, and I will start by referring briefly to a constituent of mine, whom I will call Mr N. I will speak about him and his family.
The case of Mr N and his family represents so much that is brilliant about how the UK and the international community support Syrian refugees, but also so much that is awful about the gaps that there still are. Mr N, his wife and his younger children have found safety and a home here in the UK in my constituency, which is of course the brilliant bit. However, the family has suffered too much and many people, including me, would say that we can do more. Not all of what I would term as Mr N’s immediate family have made it here. His adult daughter, son-in-law and one grandson remain in Lebanon.
As I will come to, the situation for Syrian refugees in Lebanon is not good, and that has impacted on the family in the most heart-breaking way. There were previously two grandsons. One lost his life after illness at the age of three. Mr N explains that his grandson was initially refused admission to hospital in Lebanon. Even when he was finally admitted, he was left for seven hours without receiving treatment, which the family attribute to his status as a Syrian refugee. That accords perfectly with the evidence from the country, which I will come to.
Of course, the loss of the child has hit the family hard, with Mr N’s daughter and wife particularly badly hit. Mr N’s daughter had already been vulnerable to mental ill health after her husband had been detained and suffered ill treatment in Syria. They are currently residing in a garage on a farm in Lebanon, where they are working in exchange for accommodation. The family rely on the family here to transfer them money for food and basic essentials. A family reunion application for Mr N’s daughter, son-in-law and grandson has been refused, but given his circumstances, I hope that decision can be revisited and reversed. Although I appreciate that the decision is not the responsibility of the Minister’s Department, I would be incredibly grateful if he could persuade one of his Home Office colleagues to meet me to discuss the case.
The family’s grim existence in Jordan is far from unique. Millions of other Syrians across both Jordan and Lebanon are also suffering. That is a collective failure by the international community, because it cannot be left to those two relatively small countries to take an unbelievably disproportionate share of responsibility for those who fled conflict and persecution in Syria. The countries are trying hard. There is no doubt that we can ask more of them, but we should ask more of ourselves first.
I will briefly set out a bit more about the situation for Syrian refugees in those two countries and ask what the UK response is, in terms of both aid and taking refugees from the area. Of course, there has been good work in both of those areas, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am deeply concerned about what cuts to international aid mean for the work that is going on there. I am also concerned about the end of the Syrian resettlement scheme, the gaps in the family reunion rules along the lines of those that have hit my constituent’s family, and the so-called new plan for immigration. My concern is that it is driving desperate people straight into the hands of people smugglers. I am concerned about what the cuts to aid and all the reforms to immigration will mean when they are added together.
Despite talks of crisis here in the UK or in Europe more generally, it is not our wealthy club of countries that is required to take responsibility for hosting those who had to flee Syria. As ever, that responsibility has fallen on countries such as Jordan and Lebanon. Since 2011, over 5.6 million refugees have fled Syria and sought safety abroad, not only in Lebanon and Jordan but in Turkey, Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports that refugee poverty and vulnerability is increasing and that the impact on host communities is growing. Funding for the humanitarian response is not keeping up with need.
UNICEF reports that among those 5.6 million Syrian refugees, 2.5 million children live in those same countries in camps, informal settlements and urban settings among host communities. The situation for those children is sometimes dire. UNICEF says:
“Major challenges remain in realizing the rights of refugee children. Due to the protracted situation and the covid-19 crisis, refugees are vulnerable to several protection risks, including psychosocial distress, child labour and domestic and sexual violence. Economic hardship has led some women and girls to resort to negative coping mechanisms such as child and forced marriage. The socio-economic impacts of covid-19 have also disrupted and reduced access to health care, vaccinations and learning, and increased food insecurity and child poverty, resulting in an overall decline in children's well-being.”
As we have heard, Mr N’s grandson obviously struggled to gain access to healthcare, with devastating consequences.
Jordan has provided refuge for over 1.3 million Syrians, which is the third highest number of Syrian refugees that any country has taken in. Around half of them are registered refugees and around 126,000 of those live in refugee camps, while the greatest number have settled in urban and rural areas, mainly in northern governorates and Amman.
The Assessment Capacities Project’s humanitarian analysis programme reports that in Jordan
“almost 6 in 10 Syrian refugees of working age are unemployed. Amid aid cuts and the covid-19 pandemic, most Syrian families are relying on humanitarian assistance to meet their basic needs. Before the pandemic, Syrian refugees living outside of camps spent more than two-thirds of their monthly household budget on shelter, leaving few resources for food, health or education. They often resorted to negative coping mechanisms such as cutting meals, child labour, or early marriage. This is a rising concern as more urban refugees and host communities have difficulty accessing basic services and earning an income due to the covid-19 containment measures.”
The UN calculates that 86% of Syrian refugees outside camps in Jordan live below the poverty line and that most of them rely on humanitarian aid to meet their basic needs. Although Jordan is not a signatory to the refugee convention, the Jordanian Government work closely with UNHCR. However, even before the pandemic Jordan was facing record unemployment and slow growth, and things are much worse now.
Before I move on from Jordan, I should also mention in particular the situation just over the border in Syria at the Rukban camp, where humanitarian workers are prevented from accessing 12,000 refugees who are stranded there. I understand that those restrictions have been contributed to by the Jordanian Government, as well as by the Assad regime and Russia. The presence of coalition forces in the area around the camp and border crossing means that they could be well-placed—they may even be required—to ensure that aid is delivered, and it would be useful to hear the Minister’s response on that.
Lebanon hosts more refugees per capita than any country in the world, including around 1.5 million Syrian refugees. Lebanon was already facing deep economic and financial crises before covid. Not only has the pandemic made things significantly worse, but so too did the explosions at Beirut’s port on 4 August last year. The UNHCR reports:
“The protracted nature of the refugee situation with limited self-reliance possibilities, coupled with the impact of these recent crises, have led to an exponential rise in extreme poverty among refugees. According to the 2020 Vulnerability Assessment of Syrian Refugees (VASyR), 89% of the Syrian refugee families are now living below the extreme poverty line, up from 55% in 2019. The situation is creating hunger, increased debt and mental and physical health problems, as well as increasing risks of evictions, exploitation, child labour and gender-based violence. At the same time, the percentage of Syrian refugees holding valid legal residency has further decreased, as the number of refugees able to pay for residency renewal has reduced and fewer fall within the criteria of the 2017 fee waiver. A lack of legal residency exposes refugees to the risk of arrest and detention. It also hampers their access to basic services like education, health care and social services, as well as to obtaining civil status documents such as marriage and birth registration. Non-Syrian refugees without legal residency are particularly vulnerable and at high risk of deportation to their country of origin”.
The scale of the problem with residency rights is huge. Human Rights Watch has suggested that only 22% of the 1.5 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon have the legal right to live there, meaning that
“the majority are living under the radar, subject to arbitrary arrest, detention, harassment and summary deportation to Syria”.
Refugees and other vulnerable groups are also being left behind in the covid response, with Syrian refugees dying from the virus at a rate that is more than four times the national average.
I turn now to the UK response. As I say, I acknowledge that some excellent aid work has been funded. The Syrian vulnerable persons scheme has been, on the whole, an absolute triumph. But the question is this: what happens now? Neither Jordan nor Lebanon are on the list of 34 countries that will receive bilateral overseas development aid from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in 2021-22. However, I fully appreciate that other Departments may spend money in those countries, that the UK may contribute to multilateral assistance, and that the list of countries might grow beyond 34. Nevertheless, we really need some information here and now.
The Minister provided a written answer at the end of April in which he talked about the need for aid to be
“more strategic and remain a force for good”.
However, he did not explain what the implications of that were for Jordan and Lebanon. The International Rescue Committee says its funding for protection work for vulnerable Syrians in Lebanon has been removed. Another programme in the same country, aimed at providing protection services to 107,000 people was cancelled before it could even begin. The Mines Advisory Group has confirmed that all UK funding to support its work there in removing and destroying land mines has been cancelled. That is probably the tip of the iceberg and as much as I could find in the time available. Surely now is the time to increase spending in Jordan and Lebanon, rather than cut it.
Meanwhile, the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Scheme has been closed, having achieved its 20,000 target over five years. A new global resettlement scheme has been announced and is underway, but we know little about its ambitions in terms of numbers or how many it will take from Jordan and Lebanon, the focus of the earlier scheme. If there is no target, how do we budget? How do partners such as local authorities plan?
In the grand scheme of things, the global community is not even beginning to scratch the surface of what needs to be done. As the UNHCR’s Ambassador in the UK has said:
“UNHCR estimates that 1.44 million refugees globally are in need of resettlement, but only 22,770 were resettled through UNHCR last year, with 829 arriving in the UK. These are the lowest numbers we have seen in almost two decades—just when refugees needs are extremely acute and rising”.
Turning to key asks, regarding the family I mentioned, if there is any way the Minister can encourage a Home Office Minister to meet me to discuss that specific case, I would be hugely grateful. Will he also comment on the issues relating to the Rukban camp and humanitarian access? More generally, what is the FCDO’s response to the deteriorating situation for Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan? How can now be the right time to cut aid? What impact will that have on people who are forced to seek better conditions elsewhere? What work will he do with UNHCR to achieve its goals in supporting refugees there, including access to protection, to a legal status, to protection from arrest and forced return to Syria, and access to health care, work and support? Will he work with the Home Office to broaden family reunion rules, so that families such as the one I have highlighted can be reunited here? What are the targets for the new resettlement scheme? How many will come from this region? Does not this combination of cuts to aid and a flimsy regime of safe legal routes simply mean that all the more people will feel compelled to use people smugglers—something that none of us wants to see?
In conclusion, these countries may seem far away, but I think we all agree that every country, particularly wealthy countries such as ours, have a responsibility to play our role in supporting the victims of the war in Syria. That also, of course, has an impact here. Syrians continue to flee here, including on dinghies in the Channel. Most importantly, there is an impact on families, such as my constituents, who are already here and settled and who have seen their loved ones suffering in such a terrible way. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to put these points and the family’s case today.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair today, Mrs Cummins. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to the work he has done in support of Syrian refugees and the moving points he made about his constituent Mr N. and his extended family.
Let us first recall why we are having this debate. Over the last 10 years, Assad’s unrepentant and unreformed regime has inflicted untold suffering on the Syrian people and has consistently and deliberately undermined efforts to pursue peace. Over half of Syria’s population has been displaced by the violence; more than 6.4 million people have fled their homes and sheltered in other parts of Syria; and over 5.5 million have taken refuge in neighbouring countries. As the hon. Gentleman said, the number that have fled to Lebanon is estimated to be 1.5 million and they make up the largest concentration of refugees per capita in the world.
The UK has a long and proud history of supporting refugees in need of protection and the Syria crisis is no exception. To date, we have committed over £3.7 billion in response to the crisis in the region—our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis. Since 2012, across Syria and the region we have provided over 28 million food rations, over 21 million medical consultations, 6 million cash grants or vouchers, 10 million relief packages and over 14 million vaccinations. Our aid provides life support to millions of Syrians, in support of refugees to remain in countries in the region, and it enables host communities to provide for and manage a protracted refugee presence.
Jordan and Lebanon have shown tremendous generosity in hosting 670,000 and 880,000 registered refugees respectively. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is not the full number of refugees that those countries have had to host. The UK Government recognise that generosity, which is why we have contributed over £720 million in bilateral development assistance to Jordan since 2012, and over £780 million in humanitarian and development funding to Lebanon since the start of the Syria crisis.
In Jordan, our support has provided access to quality education and social protection. It has enabled partners to deliver primary and reproductive healthcare, and specialised care for refugees with disabilities. Over the past three years alone, UK humanitarian funding has helped 65,000 refugees and vulnerable people access mental health services, legal aid and rehabilitation for people with disabilities. Our cash programme has supported around 100,000 refugees with regular cash assistance.
With our support, the Jordanian Government have enrolled 83% of all Syrian children in education, the highest proportion in the region. In Lebanon, since 2011, we have provided 1.1 million people with sustainable access to clean water and sanitation. We have helped provide access to education and psychosocial support to 300,000 children. We have improved infrastructure and services in over 220 municipalities, and we have helped to create 1,300 new jobs for both Lebanese and Syrian communities and supported nearly 400 small and medium-sized enterprises.
Despite the grave economic challenges facing the UK this year, we have continued to provide humanitarian support for the Syrian crisis, as part of our commitment to the region and its overall stability. At the Brussels conference on supporting the future of Syria and the region, in March this year, the UK pledged at least £205 million to the Syrian crisis for 2021. That support will continue to deliver essential, lifesaving and life-sustaining assistance in Syria, and provide vital support in neighbouring countries that host refugees.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East mentioned our aid. The UK Government are completely transparent about our aid programme. We publish detailed information every year, and this year is no exception. Final audited spending for the 2020-21 financial year will be published in the annual reports and accounts. Final 2020 spending will be published in statistics on international development in the autumn, and will contain detailed breakdowns. I hope that document will allow him to answer some of the questions that he posed at the end of his speech.
Ahead of the publication of those figures, I can explain what our development assistance will achieve in Jordan and Lebanon this year. In Jordan, we will continue to support the most vulnerable refugees with cash transfers for food and basic needs. We will support refugees and vulnerable Jordanians to access services such as legal counselling, child protection services and rehabilitation for people with disabilities. In Lebanon, we will continue to provide those most in need with assistance and protection services to cover essentials, and hopefully reduce gender-based violence, which he alluded to in his speech. We will ensure that Syrian refugees and vulnerable Lebanese people have access to quality formal and non-formal education.
Through our CSSF—the conflict, stability and security fund—we will support vulnerable Syrian refugees to access services and will support initiatives to improve livelihoods, community peace building and reconciliation. Our support for peace-building initiatives is particularly important as the economic crisis in Lebanon puts additional strain on all communities, both Syrian and Lebanese, but we are very concerned about the increase in the critical rhetoric around refugees that we hear in Lebanon, particularly the reports of forced returns.
Although we hope Syrian refugees will ultimately be able to return home, conditions in Syria do not currently allow that to take place, and it is essential that international law is respected and that any refugee returns are voluntary and safe, and done with dignity. We continue to work with the UN on a political process to deliver a lasting peace in Syria. We do not believe the Assad regime, which has committed so many atrocities against the Syrian people, is capable of delivering that peace. If the regime and its backers want to avoid another 10 years of conflict, they must seriously engage with the political process as outlined in UN Security Council resolution 2254.
When I visited Lebanon in December last year, I stressed to my counterparts, including the then Foreign Minister, that conditions in Syria did not allow for safe, voluntary and dignified returns. I made clear the need to uphold their commitment to the principles of no forced returns. I also stressed to my counterparts the need to grip the economic crisis, which has devastating effects on the already vulnerable Syrian refugee population. The UK is united in agreement with the rest of the International Support Group for Lebanon on the issue. Only the formation of a new Lebanese Government and the implementation of economic reforms can unlock the international financial support required to stabilise the economy.
Finally, I will outline the support for refugees at home. The UK has a long history of supporting refugees in need of protection. Our resettlement schemes have provided safe and legal routes for tens of thousands of people to start a new life here in the UK. Overall, since 2015, we have resettled more than 25,000 refugees through safe and legal routes direct from the regions of conflict and instability, around half of whom were children. On 25 February, we fulfilled our commitment to resettle 20,000 refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, and we continue to welcome refugees through the UK global protection scheme, as well as through the community sponsorship and mandate resettlement schemes.
Our focus will remain on helping people directly from the region of conflict or instability, thus reducing the drivers for people to put themselves in the hands of evil people-trafficking criminals. That commitment, alongside a fair and firm asylum system, will ensure that we continue to offer safe and legal routes to the UK for vulnerable refugees in need of protection.
For more than a decade the Assad regime has inflicted untold suffering on the Syrian people. It is a source of pride that the UK, as a force for good in the world, is supporting Syrian refugees in countries around the region and at home. We will continue to do so with determination, and with persistence we can, I hope, secure a brighter future for Syria and its people.
Question put and agreed to.
Planning System Reforms: Wild Belt Designation
(3 years, 6 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
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate, and there will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate.
I must also remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their cameras on for the duration of the debate and that they will be visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room.
I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall. Members attending physically who are in the later stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move to the horseshoe when seats become available. Members can speak from the horseshoe only where there are microphones.
I aim to start the Front-Bench speeches promptly at 5.35 pm, so an immediate time limit of three minutes, which might need to be reduced as we go on, will apply in order to include everybody in the debate. Please consider keeping interventions to an absolute minimum. I call Claire Coutinho to move the motion.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered a proposal for Wildbelt designation in planning system reforms.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. In the UK, we have seen a 41% decline in our species since 1970, and in England one species in eight is threatened with extinction. Wildlife habitats in this country are fewer, smaller and more distant than they ever have been, which is a problem not only for biodiversity, but for our fight against climate change. When nature is working, it can capture carbon, improve our air and water quality, and act as a flood defence. Restoring and protecting our natural system could provide more than a third of the carbon mitigation needed by 2030 to meet the Paris climate agreement. When nature is broken, however, it cannot protect us.
The Government are already taking action. We have an ambitious goal to build a new national nature recovery network in order to create 500,000 hectares of connected wildlife-rich habitat by 2042. To give some context, that is equivalent to 200,000 football pitches. The Prime Minister has also committed himself to protecting 30% of our land and sea for nature recovery by 2030. We are backing up those pledges by investing close to £750 million in the Nature for Climate Fund and restoring wetlands, peatlands and woodlands. Our historic Environment Bill introduces a new biodiversity net gain requirement for development, creating a sustainable funding stream for environmental improvements and ensuring that, when we build homes for people, we build habitats for wildlife alongside them.
As things stand, the sites of those hard-won green gains, where we are investing in restoring and repairing nature, are not protected under existing designations. In England, we have lots of land designations, but none of them exists to protect nature in recovery. The site of special scientific interest designation is critical for preserving individual sites that have been identified as wildlife hotspots, and the national park area of outstanding natural beauty and green belt designations—many hon. Members have them in their patch—protect landscape and amenity value, but do not directly protect biodiversity value. Although we very much like to spend time in beautiful green fields—I feel honoured to represent a seat with 94% green belt, which I think is the highest total of any seat in England—they can often be quite poor in terms of wildlife habitat. That is why I propose the new designation of wild belt to plug the legal gap and to safeguard our investments.
Wild belt is the brainchild of Craig Bennett, chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts. His proposal would provide longer-term protection for land being managed for nature’s recovery—a new designation that goes beyond conserving the nature we have to creating and connecting corridors across the land, making sure that wildlife and the natural environment have the time and space they need to flourish.
One site that would benefit from a new wild belt designation is Holmesdale wetlands in Godstone, east Surrey, which is one of three biodiversity opportunity areas being restored by the Surrey Wildlife Trust to create a connected living landscape across Surrey. All three are exposed under the current system, but could be protected by a new wild belt designation.
Left to degrade, those wetlands would emit carbon to the atmosphere, fuelling global warming, but restored they would be one of the most cost-effective methods of removing carbon—sucking out carbon, sponging up flood risks and enabling the return of a riot of bugs and insects. Those wetlands are a cost-effective natural means to achieve our aims, which is why this work deserves protection.
Across the UK, we see that nature recovery work is creating signs of hope. Take the return of the noble beaver, which is one of the best natural flood defenders, flow regulators and flora supporters we have. The beaver was once native to England, and we are seeing the beaver return after four centuries of extinction in Britain. Last summer, we had another biodiversity boost from the return of the white stork. Extinct for more than six centuries, it is back and successfully breeding in the south-east of England.
Last winter, we saw an ecological miracle on the River Don, which was once considered the most polluted river in Europe—for the first time in two centuries, salmon have spawned. East Surrey’s own natural haven, the Lingfield nature reserves, after decades of restoration work by hard-working volunteers, is home to more species of butterfly than are found across Northern Ireland. I am hopeful that our environmental treasure chest will expand again this year with the return of sand martins, nesting in Surrey for the first time in 25 years thanks to the work of the Surrey Wildlife Trust.
Bringing back species will be a key part of helping ecosystems to function, yet the examples I have mentioned are in the minority. We have seen a decline in our hedgehogs because their habitat has become so fragmented that many have struggled to find a mate. We have seen a decline in our bee population, whose abilities we rely on so as to grow food and crops, but the creation of a wild belt could create stepping stones for our hedgehogs and pollinator pitstops for our bees.
The benefits of wild belt would be far reaching not only for nature, but for our own health and wellbeing. We have seen time and again, especially during the past year, that people feel better when they are surrounded by nature-rich space. A survey carried out at the peak of the first lockdown last year found that 87% of people agreed with the statement, “Being in nature makes me happy.” The science is pretty clear: having good access to nature can reduce our risk of developing obesity, heart disease and diabetes.
The proposal also makes socioeconomic sense. Poorer households are 3.6 times less likely to live close to nature-rich space than richer households, and it remains the case that poorer neighbourhoods have poorer-quality green space, but by stretching round, through and between England’s towns and cities, wild belt could knock down those barriers and level up green access.
Making sure that we can build the right homes is our moral duty to the next generation and an important part of maintaining this country’s competitiveness in an increasingly competitive world, so it is important that wild belt works alongside housebuilding, not against it. Wild belt would, however, help to address the real concerns of my constituents about species loss, and help us to live in harmony with nature.
Schemes such as the Trumpington Meadows development in Cambridge have synchronised housing and biodiversity ambitions, although it was degraded agricultural land when the housing developer and the wildlife trust came together to build in an ecological way. Now it is home to a 1,200-strong community where 80% of the land remains biodiverse space and 40% of the properties are affordable housing.
Wild belt might encompass some greenfield sites, but it could overlay the area of outstanding natural beauty and greenbelt designations and make use of forgotten bits of land: river valleys, roadside verges, railway lines, scraps of golf courses. Members here today will all have such pieces of land on their patch and those could be rewilded to create a network of green continuous corridors from the countryside all the way through our towns and cities.
I shall bring my remarks to a close and allow time for other Members to speak. However, just as we have led the world in reducing carbon emissions and in renewable energy, we now have an opportunity to lead the world in restoring nature. Alongside COP26 in Glasgow this year, we have the largest biodiversity conference in a decade a month before, in COP15. I believe these planning reforms are a national opportunity, and the introduction of a wild belt designation would give us the chance to put nature at the heart of our recovery.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) on securing the debate. My right hon. Friend the Minister will understand that, because of time constraints, my remarks will have to be fairly brutal, but I mean no discourtesy to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey mentioned that 41% of our native species are in decline, and 15% of those species are threatened with extinction. We have lost 97% of our meadows, 80% of our chalk grasslands and 50% of our ancient woodlands. The United Kingdom, to our shame, is one of the most nature-depleted nations in the world. The Prime Minister set a target of having 30% nature-friendly land in the United Kingdom by 2030. If we are to hit that 30:30 target, we will have to take some fairly serious action.
The Wildlife Trusts said in response to the “Planning for the Future” White Paper that it would
“do little to create better homes and communities for wildlife and people. The proposals for three new zones do nothing for nature’s recovery—both the ‘Growth’ and ‘Renewal’ zones fail to integrate nature, and it is business as usual in the ‘Protected’ zone.”
The proposal for a wild belt is certainly a useful tool and a good suggestion for a way forward. However, I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that the hedgerows of this country, the headlands on agricultural land and the agricultural land itself, with the changing crops and changing seasons, provide the best possible habitat, if we are serious about renewing this country. We have to protect agricultural land. I look to my right hon. Friend to assure me that that will happen.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, I think for the first time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) on securing such a timely debate. Following the Chesham and Amersham by-election, the issue of planning has indeed been raised, although it is a little disappointing that no Liberal Democrat Members have decided to come along and contribute to today’s debate.
A revision of the planning system in England and Wales is long overdue. The emphasis has always been on the number of properties constructed; largely ignored has been the effect of developments on biodiversity, natural habitats and types of landscape that have not been considered worthy of designation. The proposal from the Wildlife Trusts for a new wild belt designation to protect land that is being restored for nature is a good idea. A wild belt designation would enable land that does not do much for wildlife to be protected so that efforts to create or restore natural habitat or rewild the area were secure from future changes to land use. Therefore, I particularly support the five proposals in the Wildlife Trusts initiative.
I want to raise two issues through a constituency example. My constituency contains the Welsh Harp, which is a site of special scientific interest due to the migration of birds from throughout Europe to our country to breed in that location. The site is enormous, and it is very near Wembley, between West Hendon ward and the Welsh Harp ward in Brent. Those are areas of deprivation, but the site is a real gem.
Recently, we have had a regeneration of the West Hendon estate—something that needed to be done and was long overdue. Indeed, some of the properties have been marketed as waterside living, and that is correct—they are. However, I am concerned about a proposed bridge across the northern section of the Welsh Harp. That would mean the west side of the bridge being located in an area that is known as woodland, but is actually wetland. I return to the Wildlife Trusts’ point that all decisions must be based on up-to-date data. We are in danger of losing a magnificent wetland that is used by creatures not only to breed, but to forage, which increases our biodiversity.
The second point I want a raise with the Minister is enforcement, which does not occur, particularly in my Welsh Harp location. My local authority, Barnet Council, simply does not have the money to ensure enforcement on a site of special scientific interest. Something must be wrong in that example. When local authorities cannot afford to fund adult social care, they certainly cannot afford to provide enforcement at such locations. I urge the Minister to look at the issues of data management and, indeed, enforcement resources.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, and I extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) on securing this important debate. She has clearly struck a chord.
I will always claim that the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust is visionary and ahead of the curve, and I should declare an interest as a member of it. The trust does brilliant work in my constituency, specifically around rewilding. Fishlake Meadows on the edge Romsey, a bog in North Baddesley, and, of course, the Wilder Wallops project, which it has supported, are brilliant ways to inspire local communities not just to visit nature, but to volunteer and become part of it, and to ensure that facilities in those areas improve and increase. A specific designation could do exactly that.
I want to turn the clock back 10 years to when the chief executive of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust came to visit me and spoke of wildlife corridors—perhaps the forerunners of wild belts. That was a recognition that a belt in itself is not adequate: we need areas where wildlife can spread, move and migrate, and we need to ensure that they are linked so that where there is development, green corridors can surround that development to make sure that our wildlife can thrive. That is why a new planning designation could really help, giving strategic planners the opportunity to look at things holistically and work out how to integrate development and green areas in a managed way.
We know that nature, when left to its own devices, can be incredibly rich and can provide some of the solutions to climate and pollution challenges. In Romsey and Southampton North, we have some important designations. We have national park, SSI, SINC—site of importance for nature conservation—and ancient woodland, but no green belt. I will always make a pitch to the Minister to consider having some green belt in Hampshire. We have farmers who have embraced high-level stewardship and have pioneered environmentally friendly techniques and low plough strategies to prevent soil erosion. We have the Broughton water buffaloes, which are used as part of a regenerative farming policy that enables carbon to be captured and has built biodiversity.
None of that happens by accident. People take deliberate, carefully thought through decisions to improve the local environment. I am extremely envious of the green belt that my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey has in her constituency. I also want to pick up the comment about enforcement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). In the valley of the River Test, we have seen over the last few days a horrific pollution incident, which I sincerely hope agencies such as the Environment Agency will seek to remediate as quickly as possible. That incident reinforces the message that where we put in protections for our environment, we must also give authorities the power to enforce when accidents happen or, indeed, when deliberate acts cause pollution.
Fundamentally, I want to leave the Minister with one thought: we need planning policies and strategies that will help nature and our environment, and the proposal for a wild belt could do exactly that.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, and I join other Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) on securing such an apposite debate. It is a testament to her and to the importance of the issue that so many colleagues have joined us. It is always a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes).
If hon. Members will indulge me, I will stake a claim to representing rewilding central, because I share not only the estate of Knepp with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), where we have beavers and white storks, but the Norfolk estate, which has done such a fantastic job nurturing the difficult-to-rear grey partridge.
Last week, the Minister visited the Barlavington estate in my constituency, where there is one of the last surviving populations of the rare Duke of Burgundy butterfly. Unlike a fellow yellow or orange-tiered species, this is one that we do wish to foster in the south of England. All this is connected by places such as the Wiston estate, where Richard and his family continue to nurture environments. Sadly, we do not have any water buffalo—I shall take the message back to west Sussex that no rewilding project is complete without them.
We benefit in many parts from the South Downs national park, where genuine protection is given. Areas between the national park can be knitted with areas of natural beauty, such as Chichester harbour or the North Weald. However, too often—and increasingly—they are separated not just by islands of concrete, but by encroaching areas of it. The wild belt proposal from the Wildlife Trusts, which has my full support, would be a magnificent endeavour to protect the precious species we have heard about. It commands my support and I hope the Minister will take that into account. We know he is listening and has been extremely diligent in consulting with colleagues. However, as we bring forward proposals, would the wild belt not be a wonderful component within a new planning system that put nature at its heart?
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
I remind Members to wear masks when they are not speaking.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I am going to change the tone of the debate slightly, to be more pragmatic, and talk about protection and responsibility. The biggest local issue in my patch before covid was planning: the need for homes for those who retire to downsize and for families wanting to grow, and of course the aim of reducing cost. Crucially, we need the right homes, in the right place, with the right infrastructure, all while protecting the character and promoting the environment of our community. Who is responsible for that? Nationally, MPs set the broad framework of how we deal with this. We have the system and we protect the environment. Locally, county councillors deal with the roads and infrastructure. Fundamentally, at the core of our process, it is the responsibility of borough councillors to make those decisions.
The best way to protect areas responsibly is through local plans. I know that the Minister wrote to our borough leader in Hinckley and Bosworth because there have been delays in adopting a local plan. That causes a huge problem, because every month we get more speculative developments. The second way is through neighbourhood plans. My community is passionate about deciding the best way to support home growth in a sustainable manner. The third way is the designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty, sights of special scientific interest and special areas of conservation, and now a proposal for wild belts.
In Leicestershire, that is a real opportunity. We have no green belt. We are sandwiched between Birmingham and Nottingham, which both do have green belt. We are a prime area for development and well connected. However, that needs to be done responsibly, with priorities put into maintaining the character and environment. A shining example is the areas around Burbage Common, which are constantly under threat.
I see wild belts working on two levels: on a macro level, with channels around the A5 joining Birmingham and Leicestershire; and on a micro level, in parts of neighbourhood plans to allow protected development to happen, with the local community at the heart of what that character looks like. It fits with the Government’s ambitious proposals to have 30% of the land for nature by 2030. Most importantly, it would give protections to our wildlife and communities, for which we all have the responsibility.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) for securing the debate. I am pleased to speak on this crucial topic, and to see many of my hon. Friends doing the same. I welcome the publication of the Government’s planning White Paper and the Wildlife Trusts’ response. It is vital that the planning system takes into account the natural environment and does so as soon as possible. During the past year, our dependence on local parks and outdoor spaces has increased. Local communities have relied on those spaces, and we have appreciated more than ever the huge benefits for both mental and physical health afforded by being outdoors.
Having green spaces for purposes such as active travel is vital. I believe that our communities are better off when planning decisions have cycling and walking in mind, not just for our physical and mental health but for the environment. Currently, around 8% of the land area of England is designated as a national or international protected area for conservation. However, in Nottinghamshire the proportion is below that level and the protection of more land will be vital, if we are to ensure that 30% of England is in nature recovery by 2030.
Adjacent to my constituency of Broxtowe are locations, such as the Erewash valley, that need to be at the heart of our green recovery. The Midlands Engine recently published the green growth action plan, which demonstrates the potential of the midlands to lead the way with investment in blue and green infrastructure, green jobs and protection of our landscapes. The Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust has also undertaken fantastic work to ensure the protection and preservation of our environment.
We are fortunate in Broxtowe to be linked to the East Midlands Development Corporation, which through its partnerships is spearheading world-leading research in green growth. For example, there are plans for the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust to have a unique research hub. That research hub, based at Attenborough Nature Reserve, a much-loved and well visited nature reserve in my constituency, will focus research on nature recovery techniques. Those techniques will help us meet the challenges of the combined climate, ecological and health crisis, while driving investment and creating jobs. Such plans are a demonstration of how we can harness research and partnerships within the community easily to incorporate wild belts in our local area, benefiting both the environment and our economy.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey once again for securing the debate. I conclude by saying that I fully support the Wildlife Trusts’ proposal for the introduction of wild belts. I believe it is our right to step up to our responsibility and protect our natural environment for future generations.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho). Let me put my cards on the table: I wholeheartedly support an additional designation of wild belt within a formal legal framework. I want to focus my remarks on what is true for many things in this place. It is crucial not only to have a good idea but to define what it is, to ensure that it is effective and achieves the aims that it seeks. In doing that, I ask Members to bear with me, as I draw on past experiences to describe the wild belt today.
Trophic pyramids—my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey once misunderstood and thought that I had said “tropical pyramids”—are a fancy title for the web of life in an ecosystem. From the bottom to the top, any extensive study, or any child, will tell us that all elements of a trophic pyramid are required to be in place for an effective ecosystem, as the chain of energy flows up, from the soils and decomposers, the detritivores and fungi, primary producers, the plants, the chemivores, the primary consumers, the herbivores, caterpillars, grasshoppers and cute rabbits. There are the secondary consumers; omnivores and carnivores—hedgehogs and birds, in English. Then there are the tertiary consumers: carnivores—the wild cats. Any ecosystem requires all of those things.
The only way to return the UK to its natural state is for us to wind back the clock 15,000 years and for all human beings to clear off. That is not going to happen. At that point, we would see bears, wolves, giant elk, wild cats, beavers and a truly natural ecosystem. I hug trees, but we are not going to clear off deliberately. What can we do to manage responsibly a patchwork of natural state environments to a self-sustaining state? What does that mean for the legal framework and the law?
I have highlighted, as have colleagues, the importance of reservoir populations, on a scale that allows for a viable population of at least secondary consumers—the hedgehogs. That needs two things. First, that needs space, in the form of viable access habitat that we can measure in multiples of field. For that to be effective, the dots must be joined up by wildlife corridors. Secondly, the most important thing to make the effective ecosystem is something that no politician can produce or promise: time. To introduce another term, that is sere succession. They need to be left in place to occur—the bramble patch and the foxgloves that are slightly messy on the eye. This is as important as those wonderful mature forests or the wetlands in South Ribble, the salt marsh and peat bog.
What can we do as the House of Commons to highlight their importance? We need additional categorisation: growth renewal protect wild belt, and the space designation to allow it to happen, but also the acceptance that a wildlife corridor even 3 metres deep will allow it to happen. Create the space and time and do not let it swap in and out over five and 10-year periods.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) on bringing forward this important debate. In a past life, I was environment editor for the Observer and Times newspapers. I was always struck how, when we look at this country, we see it as it is now, not as it has been in the past or could be in the future. We have become completely accustomed to the phrase “nature depletion”. We do not see it.
Half of the reason is because I spent a lot of my youth in Norway, which is a country of pure wilderness. I have spent time in Norway seeing nature as it is. I come back here and see a real lack of nature everywhere. We have cut down almost all our woodland in the UK. We have only 11% tree cover in the UK, which compares with the European average of over 30%. In Europe, only Ireland and Denmark have fewer trees than we do.
As people have mentioned, we have lost a lot of our major species. Some of them are coming back. Reintroductions are going on and that is great news. Our largest predator in the UK is the badger. It means that species such as deer have no natural predators whatsoever and we have to cull them. We need to have a vision of how we are getting nature back. One of the great things that is happening is that people are now thinking about that and the Government are supporting that. They now support stopping biodiversity loss by 2030. They have big programmes, such as the nature and climate fund, to bring back nature in all its glory.
In Cambridgeshire, we have a vision for doubling nature by 2050. I am working with the Natural Cambridgeshire group, which works with Natural England and various other groups, such as the Wildlife Trusts, to try to double the amount of biodiversity in Cambridgeshire by 2050, but we need help. We are one of the most nature-depleted parts of the UK. We have only 3% tree cover, which is one tenth of the European average and one quarter of the UK average. It is partly because the land is so fertile that it has all been cleared for farming, quite understandably, but we need to bring nature back and that is very much supported.
How can the Government help? Planning is a big issue in Cambridgeshire. We have a huge amount of house building, but it would be great if the planning Bill, when it comes forward, could help to promote biodiversity and put nature back. It needs to bring back biodiversity in the UK rather than hurt it. One of the great ways of doing that would be through wild belts, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey and the Wildlife Trusts. We have lots of green belt, but that does not help to promote or protect biodiversity. Wild belts will be able to do that, but the devil will be in the detail on exactly how they fit in with the legal framework and the protections they will give to nature.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) for her excellent proposal to promote and increase nature biodiversity. We know that this is important and have heard that from across the room. However the proposals for planning reform shape up, it is absolutely imperative that we put nature and biodiversity at their very heart. I am pleased to see that is happening. Let us not forget that the UK, along with nearly 90 other countries, is committed to reversing biodiversity loss by 2030, through the leaders’ pledge for nature.
We know that globally, let alone in the UK, nature and biodiversity are still declining alarmingly. That is why I wanted to speak in this debate, because giving legal protections to aid nature recovery is vital. Creating wild belts as the mechanism for areas set aside for nature recovery, and providing green corridors for wildlife to move between biodiversity hotspots, is an excellent idea.
Many of us were lucky during lockdown, because we could count on having access to green space, but what about the 11 million people—one in eight—who do not even have a garden? A wild belt designation could easily sit alongside an AONB, a national park or an SSSI. If it gives more access for the public to enjoy protected green spaces that cannot be developed on because they are there for nature to recover, it would give enormous benefits, and not just for nature and biodiversity, but for our wellbeing and health.
The Government are doing enormous work on decarbonisation and setting world-leading targets, but the focus on nature and biodiversity must have equal standing with those targets. We know that the landmark Environment Bill legally binds us to improve air quality, soil quality and water quality, and to leave the planet in a better state than we inherited it, as does the Agriculture Act 2020, which focuses on the environment and promoting biodiversity. It is hugely important, and the Government are doing it. They are weaving it into the very fabric of every piece of legislation coming forward, to enhance and protect nature, and I can see that a wild belt designation would do the same thing. That is why I entirely support it as part of the planning reforms.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I particularly welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) in her introduction, and the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) and for Bosworth (Dr Evans) in setting out the impacts on their constituencies, which mirror those in my constituency.
The London suburbs are an area where we serve the needs of a capital city, but they are also a very popular area for people who are looking to access nature. They often enjoy some planning protection as green belt, which for many years—sometimes many centuries—has been vital as the lungs of the city and as part of the agricultural infrastructure that maintains the life of the city. In Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner alone, we have the beautiful Colne valley, Ruislip woods—oaks that formed the roof of Westminster Hall—and Ickenham marshes, all of which are successful examples of where the local authority and local voluntary groups have undertaken rewilding efforts. That has benefited native species such as stag beetles, various kinds of river fish and red kites, which are now quite common across the area, having been on the verge of extinction not so many years ago.
Despite the impact that we see from projects such as HS2, it is clear that the planning process offers a real opportunity to protect and enhance the wildlife in areas that may be green belt but that certainly surround our towns and suburbs. I can give examples of where local authorities serving my constituency have required everything from bat tunnels to newt ponds as part of planning developments, in order to ensure that wildlife enjoys the protection that the local community expects.
However, as we go into the debate about what type of approach we want to take as part of levelling up, we need to be more strategic about supporting, preserving, developing and improving our green spaces and the part that plays in everything from climate emissions to animal welfare in our country. That is where the concept of a wild belt offers a huge advantage, and it is certainly one that I encourage Ministers to take forward. It is ancillary to the benefits that we see from the green belt, but with a specific focus not just on places that look beautiful and are easy to enjoy, but on places that can provide vital parts of our ecosystem for wildlife; places that may often be found at the margins of our towns and cities, but which are so incredibly important for nature. We must ensure that we support the biodiversity of our country for the future. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey for securing the debate, and I hope the Government will give the issue very serious consideration.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) on securing this important debate. I will be brief and focus my contribution on public transport and the inclusion of waterways in any wild belt.
I have had excellent meetings with Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, which is a force of nature in itself. I know from its briefing that wild belt could happily overlap with other designations, such as national park and SSSI. However, we perhaps need further clarity on what wild belt designation would mean for mothballed and protected transport routes. A wild belt that can be enjoyed by people reconnecting with nature is surely one that needs to be connected to public transport corridors.
My bid, along with colleagues, to reopen the Stoke to Leek line is compelling precisely because of the transformative opportunity it presents to reconnect urban communities with the wider countryside. It will involve clearing quite a lot of vegetation and decades-old trees on the old mothballed line, but the net socioeconomic benefit will be substantial, on top of the environmental benefit of modal shift from road to rail.
I also want to see Etruria station reopened and built back better as an interchange with local buses and, crucially, with the existing blue-green corridor of the Trent-Mersey canal, which is on the national cycle network. I want to go further. My reverse Beeching bid for Etruria includes exploring the rewilding of Fowlea brook as a new blue-green corridor running through Etruria valley. The brook runs through concrete channels and culverts, and it still suffers the effects of centuries of heavy industry, even though it need not and should not.
The Environment Agency is already investing in flood protection in the brook by increasing its capacity in Stoke town, but I want the ambition of rewilding Fowlea brook to match what we are delivering on the River Trent. I said in my maiden speech that we need “more Trent in Stoke-on-Trent” and I am delighted that we are getting on and doing that. The Sunrise project has reintroduced meanders, canopy shade and spawning grounds to the Trent. The BBC’s “Countryfile” was hugely impressed with Trentside walks. Trentside walks will undoubtedly make Stoke-on-Trent an even better place to live, visit and study.
We could have a wild belt walk all along the urban Trent, levelling us up and even exceeding the ambition shown by central London’s Thames path. Causley brook and tributary brooks through Bentilee and Eaton Park could be superb trout-spawning grounds and walking routes, with a few interventions, and the route along Foxley brook through Abbey Hulton could be a much more attractive blue-green walking route if it were rewilded out of concrete and restored to the glory that attracted the abbey’s monks to the confluence of the Foxley and the Trent in the first place. In short, a focus on blue-green routes would mean rewilding for nature, for residents and for the leisure tourism economy. Waterways should be a priority.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, and well done to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) for securing this debate.
I have hardly any time, so let me cut to the chase. We have a huge challenge here, which is to stop biodiversity loss by 2030 and, in fact, to reverse it. We talk of nature and natural recovery, but what do we mean by that? Nature for the United Kingdom is truly an overwhelmingly forested land mass, whereas the rural landscape that we have come to know and love is, in fact, entirely man-made and a managed environment. We need a realistic solution. One such solution is a shared approach with improved agricultural practices—that is crucial, because only 6% of our land mass is developed and the rest of it is used for agriculture—plus rewilding of marginal land.
What is the bad boy here? It is farming practices post world war two, when, frankly, we broke the co-existence between nature and food production. That was encouraged by the common agricultural policy, whereby we had subsidies to remove hedges, subsidies to put subsoil drainage in our fields and huge subsidies to bring as much land as possible back into production. That was then followed up by agronomists who had been employed by agribusiness to pitch for the use of agrichemicals on the land in ever-increasing amounts, in the pursuit of yield above all else. The result has been a reduction in long-term rotations, the increasing use of expensive inputs, reduced profitability and therefore reduced margins, both in profit and loss terms and in terms of margins around fields. The result was reduced space for nature. As we have heard, that has led to a 97% reduction in our meadows and an 80% reduction in our chalk grasslands.
What should we do about that? The big answer is that we need to move our agriculture substantially towards regenerative principles and farming, but I do not have time to talk about that now. The second answer is to take marginal land out of production and use it for wildlife restoration.
A wild belt designation, with the consent and support of landowners, will help in the nature fightback. It could build on the concept of conservation covenants, which already exist, but bring that concept into the planning process. It would be a recognition of the new approach to natural recovery, bringing it within the planning system, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey so ably described. Together with ELMS and our new approach to agriculture, that could change mindsets and highlight that nature has a value in its own right.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) on securing this debate on a wild belt in the planning system. I commend her contribution, and those of so many others, about the importance of wildlife and the added value that local wildlife trusts and others provide by increasing biodiversity and protecting nature in their constituencies. We have heard so many good speeches.
The importance of our wildlife, and the need to protect and enhance it, is not in doubt. What has been in doubt is the Government’s commitment to bring forward legislation that will be effective in halting and reversing that decline in the UK, and specifically in the planning system, on which so much of the future of our country’s land is dependent. The Government claim to be protecting native and endangered species, but we need to ensure that the rhetoric and the reality match.
I will not reiterate the facts about the level of the crisis of nature depletion in the UK—I thank the Wildlife Trusts for the excellent briefing—but there is no doubt that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. We failed to meet 17 of 20 UN biodiversity targets, while funding for UK wildlife and environment has been slashed by 30% in two years. We need a serious plan for delivery of the recovery of nature but, unfortunately, we have a Prime Minister who has dismissed those trying to protect our natural environment as “newt counters”. Funding has dropped, particularly to Natural England, where staffing has halved since 2010.
The planning system needs to be at the centre of the challenge. It can and should be shaping a path towards net zero emissions and our work to improve biodiversity and our natural environment across the country. I will not rehearse the concerns expressed by many Members in last night’s debate about proposals to amend the planning system, but there is no doubt that those working in the field say that the existing protections are inadequate to protect wildlife and wildlife sites.
Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have said in the main Chamber that with the Environment Bill, they want to protect the environment and include new species abundance targets. However, the amendments that we have now seen commit only to
“further the objective of halting a decline in the abundance of species.”
In those amendments, there is no commitment to reversing the decline in nature. That is left to the planning system to achieve, and the proposed planning Bill will be crucial.
I will close my remarks with some questions for the planning Minister. Will the forthcoming planning legislation do what the Environment Bill clearly does not? The Government have said that they want to ensure that street trees are planted in every new development. That is a clear and measurable target, and it is to be welcomed. Will they do the same for other natural environment targets? If the Government have given consideration to introducing the status of a wild belt, how will we know that that is binding and a reality, not yet more rhetoric?
How exactly will the Government strengthen planning powers? How will developers be held to conditions once they have gone and future landowners manage the land? The Government intend local plans to be the primary tool for shaping and delivering future development. That will require huge resources and specialist expertise from both councils and non-governmental organisations, particularly if wild belts are to be a factor in all local plans; that is the only time the public will get a say in planning decisions in growth areas, which will cover a fair bit of the country. As it appears as though the public will be excluded from decisions around planning applications in growth areas, how will local wildlife trusts and other community organisations input their concerns and expertise into the decision making on specific planning applications? I leave those questions with the Minister, who may reply now or in writing.
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
I gently remind the Minister that he may wish to leave a couple of minutes for the Member in charge to respond.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
Thank you, Mrs Cummins. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I will certainly leave as much time as I am able to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho). I congratulate her on bringing forward this debate and on assembling such a passionate, wild bunch in favour of her wild belt designation proposals.
I will say a few words about our planning proposals before I turn to my hon. Friend’s proposals. We have said that building back better from this pandemic means ensuring not only that new developments are greener and better for the environment, but that they support healthy, happy and flourishing communities and habitats. I want to be absolutely clear that one of the key purposes of our planning reforms is to leave a legacy of environmental improvement.
Our new planning system will improve both the quality and the standards of development. It will secure better outcomes, including for our countryside and the environment, alongside increasing the supply of land for new, beautiful homes and sustainable places—not least by getting local plans in place; as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) rightly noted, that is a significant contributor to preventing speculative development and building in the wrong places, rather than the right ones.
To deliver on our ambitions, we have announced a number of proposals for driving forward environmental benefits, through both the Environment Bill and our proposed reforms to the planning system. The Environment Bill, which has already come before the House, mandates, for the first time, a 10% net gain for biodiversity as a condition of most new developments. We are now proposing to extend that to the nationally significant infrastructure regime.
Recognising the relationship between the environment and development, we want to broaden the use of measurable environmental net gains beyond biodiversity to include wider natural capital benefits, such as flood protection, recreation and improved water and air quality, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) suggested. Alongside existing regulations that protect our most threatened or valuable habitats and species, that will allow us to establish a strategic, flexible and locally tailored approach that focuses, above all, on positive outcomes. We want to capitalise on the potential of local nature recovery strategies, including opportunities for new habitat creation, as we seek to make the system clearer and more responsive.
To complement this, we are examining the current frameworks for environmental assessment. They are often complex and lengthy, and we believe they lead to unnecessary delays, hindering opportunities to protect the environment and open up appropriate development. Our intention is to bring forward a quicker, simpler framework that encourages opportunities for environmental enhancements to be identified and pursued early in the development process. We will embed this approach through further updates to national planning policy, ensuring that environmental considerations feature fully in planning decisions, including their role in mitigating and adapting to climate change.
As several hon. Members have suggested, our reforms also encourage the sector to think more creatively about biodiversity and about how bee bricks, green roofs and community orchards can improve the quality of our air and the quality of our lives. We are taking action through the national planning policy framework to set the expectation that all new streets will be tree-lined, aspiring to the beauty of green infrastructure such as we see in the cherry blossom trees that line the streets of Bonn in Germany.
Protecting and enhancing the green belt is very much part and parcel of this. I said that yesterday in the debate on planning brought forward by the Opposition, and I say it today specifically to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who is keen on the green belt—she said as much in her speech. I trust that she will encourage her local council to be equally keen on the green belt. I can certainly assure her, as I assure the shadow Minister, that it is our intention to undertake a wholesale reform of local authority resourcing, including looking at the fee structure to ensure that local authorities have the wherewithal do the job we ask of them.
Christopher Pincher
If she will be very brief, I will give way to my right hon. Friend.
Caroline Nokes
We have no green belts in Hampshire, and it would be lovely to have some. Would my right hon. Friend the Minister consider it?
Christopher Pincher
In consultation with local authorities, I am happy to have that discussion with my right hon. Friend.
Before I turn to the issue of wild belt designation, our White Paper proposes a new approach to the categorisation of land, reflecting its potential for growth, for renewal and for protection. We are now considering responses to our consultation carefully, so I hope that hon. Members will understand that I cannot say overmuch about the proposals while they are still being digested. I can say, however, that I am open to some of the proposals that my right hon. Friend has suggested, but with this word of caution. It is not only roots and vines that creep; the scope of Government Departments and their arm’s length bodies also creeps. We must be very careful that by giving statutory powers to such bodies, we do not allow them to make use of land—or rather, designate against development of land—that could be good brownfield sites, such as land close to railway lines. That simply places the weight of expectation of development on other places, such as greenfield sites. We need to be careful about what we wish for.
What we want to do is to build on more brownfield sites to protect the sort of land that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) talked about. That is why we have increased the local housing network calculation for the 20 largest cities in our country; that is why we increased brownfield regeneration funding by £500 million; that is why we have introduced an urban taskforce; and that is why we have introduced PDRs, to allow better and easier gentle densification of urban and town centre landscapes.
We are determined to support our environment through our planning reforms, we are determined to build on brownfield first and we are determined to take forward the views and aspirations of all in this Chamber who want wildlife to be placed first and foremost at the heart of our planning reforms. I appreciate that the fickle finger of time is ticking down the clock, so I am very happy now for my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey to retake her rightful place and close the debate.
Claire Coutinho
I thank the hon. Members who contributed today; looking around this room, I see such a wealth of experience in environmental matters, and it has been a privilege to hear from everyone. I am grateful to hear so much enthusiastic support for this proposal, and I am grateful to the Minister for a gracious and detailed response. Most importantly, I welcome his wise recognition of the level of support that he has heard in this room.
We have heard passionate speeches today about the tragedy of species decline and the importance of access to green space, but I think the most important word has been “strategy”, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and so many others. It is always a good day when I hear my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) talk about trophic pyramids. Finally, I thank the Wildlife Trusts; those are the words we have heard the most today, and for very good reason. I am very glad to put this proposal forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered a proposal for Wildbelt designation in planning system reforms.
Written Statements
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sale of Cabinet Office Stake in Axelos Ltd
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Introduction Metric Impact Sale proceeds £175 million Hold valuation The price achieved is above retention value. Public sector net borrowing The sale reduces public sector debt. All else being equal, the sale will reduce future debt interest costs for Government. The reduction in Government’s shareholding means it will not receive future dividend income that it would otherwise have been entitled to through these shares. Public sector net debt Improved by £213.9 million Public sector net liabilities Improved by £50.5 million Public sector net financial liabilities Improved by £50.5 million
I am pleased to announce that the Cabinet Office has conditionally agreed to sell its 49% stake in Axelos Limited to PeopleCert International Ltd, a member of the PeopleCert group. This is part of a joint sale with Capita of the whole of Axelos. Subject to the timely satisfaction of conditions the sale is expected to complete in July.
Sale of the Cabinet Office stake will generate cash proceeds of approximately £175 million. The Cabinet Office has also received cash dividends of approximately £10.7 million this year making total cash receipts of some £185.7 million.
As part of the sale, the Cabinet Office will also receive accelerated settlement of outstanding deferred consideration (currently worth some £24 million) owed to it by Axelos dating from the formation of the joint venture.
The sale values the business at £380 million on a cash free, debt free basis.
Axelos staff and senior management will be transferring with the business.
Rationale and timing
The Axelos joint venture was established with Capita in 2013 to commercialise certain best practice methodologies (principally ITIL and Prince2) previously developed by HM Government. The Cabinet Office chose to retain a 49% stake on the formation of the business with a view to delivering better value for money through a future sale.
The sale followed a strategic review triggered by Capita’s desire to sell its majority stake. The Cabinet Office concluded that a joint sale was likely to attract greater interest and generate a higher price per share than a separate sale of the Cabinet Office’s 49% stake; it also offered the opportunity to share in the premium typically available on the sale of a controlling stake.
The sale was conducted through a public auction process and the sale proceeds exceed the Cabinet Office’s retention value.
Contingent liability
The sale terms include standard sale indemnities and an indemnity by the Cabinet Office for 49% of Axelos’ share of the deficit in the Capita Group’s defined benefit scheme, calculated on the basis set out in section 75 Pensions Act 1995, to the extent that it exceeds the allowance already made for it. Any liability under the indemnity is not expected to exceed £300,000 and is expected to be settled during this financial year.
On this occasion, due to the sensitivities surrounding the commercial negotiation of this sale, it was not possible to notify Parliament of the particulars of the contingent liability in advance of the sale announcement. Instead, the Cabinet Office notified the chairs of the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
More information on this contingent liability has been set out in a departmental minute that has been laid before the House alongside this statement.
Fiscal impacts
The impact on the fiscal aggregates, in line with fiscal forecasting convention, are not discounted to present value. The net impact of the sale on a selection of fiscal metrics are summarised as follows:
[HCWS112]
Report of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
The Ministry of Defence welcomes the Select Committee’s report on the Armed Forces Bill (HC1281). I am grateful for the Committee’s support of the endeavours to improve the lives of our Service personnel, veterans and their families. I will address the Committee’s recommendations in turn.
I look forward to engaging with Members across the House as the Bill makes progress.
Beginning with the Committee’s recommendation that Select Committee scrutiny should continue to be the convention for Armed Forces Bills, I believe that the appointment of a Select Committee, with its ability to produce a report and to make recommendations, ensures transparency and proper scrutiny of the Armed Forces Bill and the legislation in question. I therefore thank the Committee for their work and report and readily welcome the Committee’s recommendation.
I note the Committee’s recommendation that more time be allocated for the conduct of its business. The Government are committed to giving Select Committees adequate time to undertake their work. However, the timing available for primary legislation is ultimately a matter for the business managers. The primary purpose of Armed Forces Bills is the quinquennial renewal of the legislation that governs the Armed Forces. Armed Forces Bills must reach Royal Assent before the Armed Forces Act 2006 would expire. Additional time for the Select Committee could compress the time available for other stages of the Bill, impact the wider parliamentary programme and delay the Bill’s passage, placing undue pressure on the deadline to renew the Armed Forces Act 2006. Furthermore, time is also given for further scrutiny of the Bill, as it is considered by a Committee of the whole House as well as by the Select Committee.
The Committee’s keen interest in the Armed Forces Covenant reflects members’ universal support for our Service personnel—both regulars and reserves—veterans and their families. While there remains a difference of view on some issues, I welcome the Committee’s assertion that questions in the annual continuous attitude surveys would help to ascertain whether the Covenant has had a positive or negative impact on the defence community. For that reason, the armed forces and families continuous attitude surveys already include a Covenant-related question on whether the Service person or Service family feels advantaged or disadvantaged compared to the general public in specific areas, such as housing, education and healthcare. This provides a measure of whether Service life is having a positive or negative impact and is therefore of use as a measure of the Covenant.
I acknowledge the Select Committee’s concern over how the duty to have ‘due regard’ would function in practical terms and its recommendation that the Government should conduct a review of this after 24 months of operation. We recognise the importance of understanding the impact of the new duty, and how that can be measured will form an important part of our ongoing work in helping our Covenant stakeholders as they begin to implement the new Covenant duty. We are always happy to work with the House of Commons Defence Committee, and the Government will of course continue to report on the progress of the Armed Forces Covenant, including the new duty, annually to Parliament. As part of the Armed Forces Act, the new Covenant duty would also be subject to the quinquennial parliamentary renewal process.
Further, I thank and appreciate the Committee’s conclusions on our efforts to reform the Service Justice System. The Bill addresses a small part of that work, and we are implementing a number of recommendations following the Service Justice System review that will ensure the Service Justice System is more effective, efficient and provides a better service to those who use it, in particular victims and witnesses. A key means of underpinning that assurance will be the establishment of a Defence Serious Crime Capability. We are making progress to build a stronger, more effective and collaborative approach to policing across Defence, building a means of maintaining the capability and skills of the Service Police along with further joint working with the civilian police forces.
On another note, I thank the Committee for welcoming Defence’s efforts to speed up the Service Complaints process, though the Committee still has concerns as to possible delays to appeals and has suggested that priority should be given to implementing all the recommendations of the Wigston review within six months. However, let me reassure the Committee that Service Complaints Reform aims to tackle the main areas of delay in the Service Complaints system, through increased efficiency and other measures aimed to increase confidence in the system.
The ability to set a reduced appeal timeframe where it is appropriate to do so will further align the SC system with other public sector and the MOD’s civilian grievance system timeframes. Regulations will continue to ensure that those who need extra time due to the unique elements of service life will continue to have access to the system, by allowing extra time where it is just and equitable to do so. We will work closely with the Service Complaints Ombudsman on the detail of the regulations that will be brought forward.
Defence is committed to delivering the Wigston recommendations. As set out in the Gray review, out of the 36 Wigston recommendations, 34 had either been implemented or were in progress. The remaining recommendations are in progress and being prioritised, with some linked to the reform of the Service Complaints system and implementation dependent on the AF Bill being passed.
I welcome the Committee’s finding that the experience of people in the Armed Forces with protected characteristics has improved. I also recognise there is more to be done. While the Committee recommends that a metric be added to the annual report on the Armed Forces Covenant to report on the experience of those with protected characteristics, we report on this in other ways. I wish to assure the Committee that we continue to explore how better to identify the issues affecting our people, and this remains a central issue for Defence. The recent Defence Command Paper set out our intent to tangibly, rapidly and significantly improve the lived experience of all those working in Defence, including those with protected characteristics. The MOD already reports progress against this intent through departmental performance and risk reporting processes, as well as mainstream Defence feedback mechanisms and regular localised climate assessments, all of which is subject to regular review by the Chief of Defence Staff and the Permanent Secretary. Diversity is a source of strength for the Armed Forces, and we welcome and encourage absolutely a more diverse Armed Forces.
I welcome the Committee’s recommendation that the Government urgently set out how their plans to meet targets for the Transition, Intervention and Liaison Service, Complex Treatment Services and Improving Access to Psychological Therapy. The Government remain wholly committed to their ambitions set out in the NHS long term plan to expand and transform mental health services in England and to invest an additional £2.3 billion a year in mental health services by 2023-24. This will give 380,000 more adults access to psychological therapies by 2023-24. All but one of the four regional areas are meeting or exceeding targets for the Transition, Intervention and Liaison Service, and activity is already in hand to further improve performance in those few areas where targets are not yet being met. The number of days that a patient waits from initial referral to being offered an assessment for referral in 2020-21—up to the end of January 2021—-was on average 12 days, which falls within the 14-day target. All four regional areas are meeting this target, and it is an improvement from the waiting times in 2019-20. Following an assessment, a patient is offered an initial clinical appointment, if the outcome of the assessment is to be seen within the Transition, Intervention and Liaison Service. The target for this is also 14 days, and in England on average so far in 2020-21 this target is being met. Only one regional area is not currently meeting the target, but it has seen a reduction in average wait of 11 days since 2019-20.
Launched in 2017, the Transition, Intervention and Liaison Service, the Complex Treatment Services, and more recently the High Intensity Service, have been offering support to serving personnel, veterans, and their families dealing with complex mental health issues. These services have now been brought together under the collective name Op COURAGE, providing a single point of entry for veterans looking to access support for their mental health needs.
We are doing our utmost to ensure that our mental health services are there for everyone who needs them during the pandemic. Talking therapies are being made available remotely so people can access help safely from home. The NHS is working to ensure that the option of face-to-face support is provided to people with serious mental health illnesses across all ages where it is clinically safe to do so.
This leads me on to the Committee’s next recommendation that further work must be done to ensure that the principle of “priority treatment” is better understood by both veterans and service providers. In 2018, the MOD/UK Department of Health’s Partnership Board established the Priority Treatment Working Group. The group’s membership is made up of both patient and clinical representatives from all four nations, MOD, Office for Veterans’ Affairs and the Service Charities sector. The group continues to meet to share best practice of priority treatment and will discuss the action from the Committee—to address the lack of clarity and understanding amongst veterans, family members, and service providers and develop methods to improve understanding.
Within its report, the Committee has recommended that work be undertaken to minimise variation in the level of services across the UK, with specific reference to Northern Ireland to deal with the challenges faced by veterans attempting to access mental health services there. We believe that, by improving awareness and understanding of the Covenant among public bodies, our proposed legislation will help to reduce disadvantage to the Armed Forces Community and minimise variation in service across UK.
The unique circumstances in Northern Ireland mean that delivery is approached in a different way from the rest of the UK. The Government are making good progress in delivering the Covenant in Northern Ireland. For example, the first Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner has been appointed and will jointly chair—with the Chief Executive of the Northern Ireland Reserve Forces and Cadets Association—a Mental Health Committee, bringing together key statutory and third-sector providers of mental health services and support. The Northern Ireland Veterans’ Support Office, which has been provided with additional funding by Her Majesty’s Government to assist in delivery of the Covenant, continues to work directly with the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust to ensure that all funding programmes in support of veterans’ mental health are fully promoted and accessible to the widest range of eligible, trusted organisations, in order to enhance those services available statutorily.
The Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish (Home Service) Aftercare Service includes provision of mental health support. The Government have committed, as set out in the New Decade New Approach agreement, that the MOD will consider whether this should be widened to cover all veterans living in Northern Ireland. In addition, projects that benefit the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland received over £1.6 million last year from the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust.
I turn to the recommendation of the Committee that work should be undertaken to improve data collection with regard to the numbers of serving personnel and veterans requiring treatment for addiction and other mental health illnesses. I wish to reassure the Committee that the MOD is committed to the mental health and wellbeing of its Service personnel and provides dedicated and comprehensive services, including support for alcohol, drugs and gambling-related disorders. Serving personnel requiring any form of healthcare, including treatment for drug and alcohol addiction, are cared for within the Defence Medical Services establishment.
For those accessing Defence Medical Services care, we already collate and publish statistics on those accessing specialist mental healthcare for substance abuse—alcohol and drugs. These figures are published annually in the mental health official statistics, where we make specific reference to those assessed with alcohol-related substance abuse.
In the strategy for our veterans, the Government committed to improve the collection and analysis of data on veterans’ needs and experiences to inform future policy and services. The Government are developing a veterans’ data strategy which will achieve this across a wide range of topics, such as veterans’ health and wellbeing, mental health, employment, housing and relationships.
Wherever they live in the UK, all veterans are able to receive specialist support if they need it. Each devolved Administration provides support in a way that best suits their region. The majority of veterans access the same healthcare support as the general population through NHS services.
In England, each part of the country now has specialist mental health services designed for Service leavers, ex-Service personnel, Reservists and their families through the recently launched Op COURAGE - the Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Service. This is the new overarching name for the Veterans’ Mental Health Transition, Intervention and Liaison Service, Veterans’ Mental Health Complex Treatment Service and Veterans’ Mental Health High Intensity Service. Op COURAGE provides a single front door to dedicated services for veterans and makes it easier for veterans and their families to get help.
Further, I observe that the Committee touched upon the area of service housing and in its conclusions felt that the Government might wish to consider adding service accommodation to the list of functions to which the duty of due regard under the Armed Forces Covenant applies. While I thank the Committee for its well-intended suggestion, we feel this is unnecessary. The purpose of the Covenant duty is to raise awareness among providers of public services relating to housing, education and healthcare of how service life can disadvantage the Armed Forces Community in accessing those key public services. The MOD is fully aware of the issues impacting the Armed Forces Community and works with other Departments and Devolved Administrations to raise awareness across all service providers. Accommodation forms part of the Secretary of State’s annual statutory report to Parliament on the Covenant and is included in the Armed Forces, Reserves and Families Continuous Attitude Surveys conducted each year.
The provision of high-quality subsidised accommodation remains a fundamental part of the overall MOD offer to Service personnel and their families and is supported by annual improvement programmes and 24/7 repair and maintenance services. Over the last decade, £1.2 billion has been invested in construction and upgrades of MOD Service accommodation. There is continued investment in a range of new-build and renovation projects. All accommodation at the point of occupancy meets the decent homes standard as a minimum, with the vast majority exceeding this. In addition, we are developing the future accommodation model to give Service personnel more choice over where, with whom and how they can live, reflecting modern family life, with entitlement based on need, not rank. This model is currently being piloted at three sites. We recognise that many Service personnel seek stability for their families. A key part of this is helping personnel buy their own home. The Forces Help to Buy Scheme, first launched in 1 April 2014, is open to new applicants until 31 December 2022.
[HCWS109]
Indemnity for the Independent Review into Issues Raised at West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
I have today laid a departmental minute proposing the provision by NHS England and NHS Improvement of an indemnity that is necessary in respect of an NHS England and Improvement non-statutory, independent review of whistleblowing at West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust.
This review follows widely reported events arising from an anonymous letter that was sent in October 2018 to the relative of a patient who had died at the trust. The purpose of the review is:
to consider the appropriateness and impact of the actions taken in response to the issues raised by/connected with the October letter by the trust and other relevant bodies; and
to produce advisory recommendations and learnings.
The indemnity will cover any sums, including any legal or other associated costs, that members of the review team are liable to pay in relation to legal action brought against them by a third party in respect of liabilities arising from any act done, or omission made, honestly and in good faith, when carrying out activities for the purposes of the review. The indemnity will apply to any work carried out from the commencement of the review to its completion in 2021, in accordance with the review terms of reference. The indemnity will cover the contingent liability of any legal action in the run-up to and following the publication of the review report, and for two years after that date. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.
The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before Parliament, a member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
A copy of the attachments can be viewed online at: Written statements - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament
[HCWS110]
Draft Health and Care Data Strategy
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I would like to inform the House that the draft strategy “Data Saves Lives: Reshaping health and social care with data” has been published today by NHSX and builds on the ground-breaking use of data during the pandemic.
Over the last 18 months, when facing this country’s greatest public health emergency for generations, one of the most powerful tools at our disposal has been the power of data. Data helped us to identify those who are most vulnerable to coronavirus and ask them to shield; the NHS covid-19 data store we set up was pivotal to our day-to-day response; and it powered vital research that helped us discover new treatments that saved lives across the world.
Under these proposals to deliver truly patient-centred care, everyone in England will be given better access to their own healthcare records and detailed information about exactly how they are used. Patients will be able to access test results, medications, procedures and care plans from across all parts of the health system. They will be able to have confidence that health and care staff have up-to-date information, regardless of the care setting, so they will no longer have to repeat details unnecessarily. By improving their access to data, people will also be able to manage appointments, refill medications and speak remotely, not just face to face, with health and care staff when needed.
This strategy not only seeks to bring people closer to their data, it will also support the NHS in creating a modernised system. The public need to be confident to share their data with the NHS, which will hold it securely on their behalf. These protections reflect the strict parameters for the use of data and security standards set out by the national data guardian for health and care. Today’s new strategy commits the NHS to going even further with a commitment to publish the first transparency statement setting out how health and care data has been used across the sector by 2022. Modern use of patient data saves lives and maintains the highest levels of privacy. The two goals are complementary, not contradictory.
We are publishing this today in draft form so that we have the opportunity to engage with the public and right across the health and care system. The learning from this will be included in a final version to be published in the early autumn.
I will deposit a copy of the draft strategy in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS111]
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership: Launch of Accession Negotiati
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
The UK will today launch negotiations with 11 countries belonging to a free trade area, in a landmark moment for the UK as an independent trading nation. Joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) hitches the UK to some of the world’s biggest current and future economies populated by half a billion people and with a joint GDP of £9 trillion.
It would secure our businesses and British exports superior access to these dynamic markets, with 65% of the world’s 5.4 billion middle class consumers expected to be in Asia by 2030. UK exports to CPTPP nations would increase by 65% —£37 billion—until 2030 and, in addition to this growth, comparative static analysis shows an additional increase in trade by £3.3 billion as a result of UK accession.
Membership of CPTPP would build on the FTAs we have now signed with 67 countries plus the EU, and opens new markets for our services sectors, lowers tariffs on goods like cars and whisky, and creates new opportunities for UK farmers. The historic trade deal agreed in principle with Australia on 15 June will mean iconic British products will be cheaper to sell into Australia, boosting UK industries that employ 3.5 million across the country. This agreement, and others with CPTPP members including Japan, Singapore and Mexico, are a gateway into the fast-growing Indo-Pacific region and will boost our bid to join CPTPP.
CPTPP members represent 13% of global GDP, growing to 16% if the UK joins. Joining CPTPP would put the UK at the heart of this dynamic group of countries, deepening our ties with some of the world’s biggest and fastest-growing countries, as the world economy increasingly centres on the Pacific region.
Joining CPTPP is expected to boost this growth even further, and that means supporting even more UK jobs. It is an advanced and ambitious agreement which goes deep in areas of UK interest such as services and digital trade.
The Indo-Pacific is the world’s growth engine: home to half the world’s people; 40% of global GDP; and some of the fastest-growing economies that are at the forefront of new global trade arrangements. By entering into a free trade agreement with these countries, the UK can benefit from this growth. Acceding to the CPTPP would help the UK engage more deeply with the region, and help us secure increased trade and investment opportunities, diversify our trading links and supply chains, and embed open trade.
As part of CPTPP, our analysis shows that every nation and region of the UK is expected to benefit. Each region of the UK already exported over £1 billion worth of goods to CPTPP members in 2019, including £3.1 billion from the East Midlands, £2.4 billion from Scotland, and £2 billion from the North West. Membership could deliver a £1.8 billion boost to UK GDP in the long run and to increase take-home pay for British workers by £800 million.
Accession could see 99.9% of UK exports being eligible for tariff-free trade with CPTPP members. Joining would secure lower tariffs for exports such as whisky and cars, which are in high demand in the Pacific region; 65% of the world’s 5.4 billion middle class consumers are expected to be in Asia by 2030.
CPTPP also greatly benefits the UK as the world’s second-largest services exporter. It makes travel easier for businesspeople moving between CPTPP countries, and goes further in areas of key UK interest, with advanced provisions that facilitate digital trade and modern rules on data that would help the UK’s cutting-edge tech sector go global, and enable more financial and professional services markets to be opened up.
CPTPP also sets modern rules for digital trade across all sectors of the economy, supporting UK businesses seeking new opportunities in member markets. Digitally delivered services from the UK to CPTPP, such as making online international bank transfers, selling an e-book from an online marketplace or giving legal advice over Zoom, were worth £18.7 billion in 2019.
The more CPTPP expands, the greater the benefits to the UK. Economies including the Philippines, Thailand, Taiwan, and Republic of Korea have all expressed interest in joining. By having a seat at the table as the first new member, the UK can help shape CPTPP’s future development as it grows.
Today, the Department for International Trade has published four documents, copies of which have been placed in the House Library:
Our outline approach to negotiations, setting out our objectives for the negotiations.
A response to the public consultation on membership of CPTPP, setting out how it has informed our policy.
Our geostrategic vision for trade with the region.
A scoping assessment, providing a preliminary economic assessment of the impact of membership.
On Wednesday 2 June, CPTPP nations agreed to the UK’s bid to begin the accession process to join CPTPP. The UK will continue to work closely with Japan, as this year’s chair of the CPTPP commission, alongside the other CPTPP nations to progress negotiations as quickly as possible. As in all negotiations, we are committed to upholding our high environmental, labour, product and food safety and animal welfare standards in our negotiations with CPTPP member states, as well as protecting the national health service (NHS).
CPTPP has high standards in areas including the environment and labour. Its rules commit members, for example, to protecting the minimum wage, freedom of association, the elimination of forced and child labour and, crucially, enforcing their own laws in these areas. CPTPP also affirms the UK’s right to regulate in our national self-interest, rather than forcing harmonisation on its members, complementing the UK’s system of strong rule of law coupled with the freedom to set our own regulations.
This Government are committed to transparency and will ensure that parliamentarians, UK citizens and businesses have access to information on our trade negotiations. The written ministerial statement of 7 December 2020 set out our transparency and scrutiny commitments, including regular updates to Parliament and engagement with Select Committees, which will apply to the UK’s process of accession to CPTPP.
[HCWS108]
Extending Covid-19 Local Support Measures
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Throughout the covid-19 pandemic, this Government have provided an unprecedented package of support for individuals, families, communities and businesses who need financial help at this critical time.
The Covid-19 Local Support Grant—previously known as the Covid-19 Winter Grant Scheme—has enabled local authorities in England to support families across the country who are struggling with the cost of food and utility bills as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. The scheme has run from 1 December, with a total investment of over £269 million so far. Between 1 December and 16 April, local authorities had made almost 6.3 million awards under the scheme.
The Covid-19 Local Support Grant arrangements will be extended for a final time, with a further investment of £160 million, to cover the period up to 30 September. This temporary support is being extended beyond the planned ending of restrictions, to help families get back on their feet as the economy recovers and the vaccine rollout continues. Well-paid work is the best route out of poverty and that is why we have a plan for jobs.
The Covid-19 Local Support Grant is in addition to the £220 million Holiday Activities and Food (HAF) programme, which has been scaled up to cover the whole of England across the major school holidays in 2021—including this summer. The HAF will provide disadvantaged children across the country with healthy meals and enriching activities.
[HCWS107]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for debate on the following statutory instrument is one hour.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, with a bit of déjà vu and humble apologies, I beg to move that this Committee do consider the draft order. It was laid before Parliament in May and is made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 141 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The draft order is a technical one that corrects drafting errors in an earlier instrument; namely, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2021, which I shall refer to as the earlier order.
The earlier order was debated and approved by both Houses. It aligns the juxtaposed controls regime at the seaports of northern France with the regime in operation at Coquelles for the Channel Tunnel shuttle service and at the Eurostar rail terminals in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. The earlier order replicated the legislative approach taken at the other juxtaposed control locations and enabled all UK immigration legislation to be applied in the UK control zones at the ports of Calais and Dunkirk.
The UK operates border controls at specified ports in France. This allows Border Force officers to conduct checks on passengers and freight destined for the UK. It is a reciprocal arrangement, with French officers completing entry checks at certain ports in the UK on passengers and freight destined for continental Europe. Currently, Border Force conducts juxtaposed immigration controls at the ports of Calais and Dunkirk, with French Police Aux Frontières undertaking Schengen entry checks at the UK port of Dover prior to travel.
The juxtaposed controls in Calais and Dunkirk are provided for at an international level by the 2003 Le Touquet treaty. This was put into effect in the UK by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2003, which I shall hereafter refer to as the 2003 order. The earlier order amended the 2003 order to grant UK Border Force officers working at the juxtaposed ports of Calais and Dunkirk the full range of immigration powers currently available to them under the immigration Acts, and made the necessary modifications to other enactments to ensure that UK immigration controls could function properly in Calais and Dunkirk.
This instrument corrects drafting errors contained in the earlier order relating to modification to Section 2 of the UK Borders Act 2007, which makes provision for the detention at ports power. I shall refer to this as the 2007 Act hereafter. For clarity, the detention at ports power allows suitably trained and designated Border Force officers to detain an individual of any nationality that the officer believes may be liable to arrest pending the arrival of the relevant law enforcement authority.
This instrument makes the necessary amendments to the earlier order and the 2003 order to do two things: first, to make it explicitly clear that the 2007 Act has been extended to the juxtaposed seaports and, as necessary, modified for the purposes of those controls. This instrument reverses a formatting error that set out the modification to the 2007 Act as a stand-alone article rather than a provision to be inserted into the 2003 order. Secondly, to account for recent legislative changes resulting from the end of the transition period reflecting the UK’s departure from the EU, this instrument corrects two further, purely technical minor errors in the modification to the 2007 Act.
To be absolutely clear to the Committee, this instrument does not change the policy content of the earlier order, nor does it make any new changes to the juxtaposed seaports regime. It simply corrects minor drafting errors contained in the earlier order to ensure that the effect of that order is explicitly clear. Again, I must apologise unreservedly to the Committee for the original errors having been made and for the imposition that the correction of these errors is making on it, but it is important they are corrected so that the law is absolutely clear.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for setting out the simple purpose of this order and for her gracious apologies. It is a straightforward matter to correct a formatting error and to clarify the earlier order, and it is clearly necessary; of course, I support that totally. I further appreciate that this order does not alter any policy content and, like the previous order, is not Brexit-related.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask my noble friend about the state of immigration controls in the area of the Channel Tunnel, particularly in the time since the earlier order came into effect, which I believe was at the end of March this year. The earlier order was considered by your Lordships’ House on 2 March 2021.
That order was approved against a background of considerable pressure on the United Kingdom’s borders. Can my noble friend update the Committee on the current situation? Is the pressure any less than it was earlier in the year? Does she have any statistics on the number of incidents at the seaports of northern France involving UK Border Force officials? Further, what do the statistics show about the new powers that were conferred by the earlier order in relation to immigration controls at those seaports of northern France—namely, Calais and Dunkirk? This debate on the amending order provides us with the opportunity of reassurance, hopefully backed up by evidence, that the new powers that were conferred have been useful and indeed necessary in our control of immigration at those ports.
Can I ask my noble friend about the position elsewhere along the east coast of the United Kingdom? I appreciate that this is not within scope of the order, or indeed the earlier order, but to what extent is there similar pressure at Harwich, Felixstowe, Hull and so on, and Aberdeen for that matter, on our immigration controls?
Finally, and again very tangentially to this order—but I have given advance notice of this to my noble friend, which I hope she has received—perhaps I may ask about the future of the Eurostar service. To what extent is that secure? It would be good to hear from my noble friend on this important issue. If she does not have the details to hand, I would be glad to receive a written response to that question.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this SI has been prepared by the Home Office. It clarifies a provision in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2021 relating to the detention at ports power.
Section 141 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 permits an order to be made to provide for a law of England and Wales to have effect, with or without modification, at a juxtaposed control at an EEA port. Pursuant to this, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2003 was made. At present, the juxtaposed controls locations governed by the 2003 order are those at the ports of Calais and Dunkirk in France and, for the French authorities, at the port of Dover in the UK. These juxtaposed controls are provided for under the Le Touquet treaty of 2003.
The order in 2003 did not follow this model and, instead, stipulated a list of specific immigration enactments to be extended to the control zones in French seaports. To align the operation of controls across all juxtaposed locations in line with the operation of controls across the UK, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2021 amended the 2003 order to extend all current immigration enactments, without specificity, to the seaports—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he is simply reading the Explanatory Memorandum, which all noble Lords have. If he has some points to make or questions to ask of the Minister, if he might move on to those, that would be appreciated, I think.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My question is, who has made these errors and what has been the cost of correcting them?
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order. When we debated the substantive order that this order amends on 2 March this year, I complained about the original order’s length and complexity. In her letter dated 20 May to Peers who contributed to that debate, the Minister apologised for the mistakes in the original order. I do not wish to add to her embarrassment, but it reads:
“I am acutely aware of the pressures on Parliament over the past year as a result of the pandemic and EU Exit, and apologise unreservedly for these errors. I can assure you that the department has reviewed its internal processes and has taken proactive steps to prevent such errors from occurring in the future.”
I am acutely aware of the pressures on the Minister over the past year, but we have arrived at a situation where secondary legislation is being neither properly drafted nor properly scrutinised by Parliament.
At the end of her closing statement in the debate on 2 March, the Minister said:
“I hope that I have answered noble Lords’ questions as far as I can today. I will write to noble Lords if I have missed anything out.”
The Minister neither answered my questions at the time —I have read the Hansard of that debate—nor has she written to me as promised, as far as I can ascertain from searching my inbox, as such letters are now delivered only electronically. Specifically, I asked:
“According to the Explanatory Notes, one part of these regulations is to reconcile the regime at the juxtaposed-control seaports in northern France with that for international rail services via the Channel Tunnel. The other part, Article 2, extends all immigration enactments to control zones in France and makes the necessary modifications to other enactments to ensure that UK immigration controls are able to function properly in those control zones.”
But I asked about Belgium:
“Why not Belgium? Are there no international agreements between us and Holland? What steps are being taken to extend arrangements to Belgium and Holland?”
I further asked
“if the arrangements are entirely reciprocal, there appears to be”—
the possibility of—
“double jeopardy where a person could be committing an offence under both British and French law. For example, someone who assaults a French official in a control zone in the UK could be prosecuted both in the UK and in France, were the French to have equivalent legislation to these regulations. If that were the case, who would have precedence in terms of prosecution? Would it depend on whether it was a French national or a British national”
who was the perpetrator?
My concern is enhanced by the addition of Article 12(7) to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2003, which states:
“Any jurisdiction conferred by virtue of this article on any court is without prejudice to any jurisdiction exercisable apart from this article by any French court.”
There was no response. I then asked:
“The regulations appear to significantly expand the enactments having effect in a control zone in France from a specific and limited number of enactments in the 2002 order to all immigration control enactments; the Minister explained that the remit of Border Force officers has expanded since 2002. Even if that is necessary and proportionate, for the sake of clarity should the regulations list those immigration control enhancements so that people know exactly what they are subject to?”
There was no reply.
I also asked:
“The regulations appear to remove the protections provided by the Data Protection Act in relation to data processed in a control zone in France in connection with immigration control. Why is that necessary and proportionate?”—[Official Report, 2/3/21; cols. 1103-09.]
There was no answer.
This is what Parliament has been reduced to. The Government are making mistakes in the drafting of legislation, regulations are so long and complex that it is difficult for parliamentarians to properly scrutinise them, and even when we get the opportunity to hold the Government to account, our questions are ignored, as they were today on the Statement regarding the Daniel Morgan case. I will regret these regulations when they are tabled for approval on the Floor of the House, and I will tell the House why.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
This order corrects errors in the earlier 2021 order of the same name, which we discussed in the House on 2 March. That earlier order extended the current immigration enactments, relating principally to detention at ports powers, including the power to use reasonable force, applicable already to the Channel Tunnel route, to the juxtaposed controls at the ports of Calais and Dunkirk. However, the earlier order set out the required modifications to the UK Borders Act 2007 as a stand-alone article rather than a provision to be inserted in a previous order from 2003, which is needed to modify relevant immigration enactments to ensure that the juxtaposed controls in Calais and Dunkirk operate correctly.
This order we are now debating rectifies the situation and incorporates two additional minor changes. I thank the Minister for her letter of 20 May 2021 explaining the background to, and necessity for, this further order. Can the Minister spell out the actual consequences to date of the earlier order being defective in its drafting? Have powers been used for which it now turns out there has been no proper statutory authority, or has it meant simply that the introduction of the powers in the original order has been delayed? If the new powers on reasonable force have been available at Calais and Dunkirk, on how many occasions have they been used since they came in?
In her letter, the Minister said that
“the department has reviewed its internal processes and has taken proactive steps to prevent such errors from occurring in future”.
Does that mean that the error that did occur was as a result of a deficient process or failure to adhere to a process, rather than being a straightforward mistake or oversight?
In our debate on the earlier order on 2 March, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said that she found herself
“perplexed that the legislation governing borders and border control is spread across such a great many statutory instruments … It is just the sort of legislation that frustrates parliamentarians—and others, presumably—because it relies on so many statutory instruments, orders and regulations, rather than the primary piece of legislation, to introduce the rules.”—[Official Report, 2/3/21; col. 1101.]
I doubt that the noble Baroness would have imagined that her point would be substantiated so powerfully and so quickly by the very fact of our being back just three and a half months later to debate yet another order rectifying an error in the original order of March.
The Explanatory Memorandum to the original order, which this order amends, said:
“Impacts will be monitored through regular collection and analysis of … force data as well as the existing internal review system.”
What exactly are the impacts that will be monitored, and how will the Government assess the impact of this change, in respect of the use of reasonable force, on national security? How many people have been refused entry to the UK coming through French northern Channel ports in the first three months of this year compared with the first three months of last year? Is it expected that this further order, amending the original order, will have any impact on the number of people entering the UK without authority through the northern French ports and any impact on the quantity of goods entering this country that should not be doing so?
What does a power to use “reasonable force” mean in practice? Where Border Force officers on Channel crossing routes already have the powers, on how many occasions per week or per month on average do they have to use these powers? Are Border Force officers who can use reasonable force also armed officers or are they ever armed officers?
Will enabling Border Force officers to use “reasonable force” at the northern French ports mean that fewer officers will need to be deployed or will the change provided for in this order have no impact on staffing levels? Have concerns been raised by the French authorities that our Border Force officers at the northern French ports not having sufficient powers in relation to “reasonable force” increases the workload and the responsibilities of the French authorities?
There are a number of issues affecting our borders and Border Force personnel that the Government have yet to get a grip on, a couple of which I want to raise briefly. Kent County Council has been warning the Home Secretary for some time of its inability to cope with the number of unaccompanied children arriving into its care. Where are the safe routes to replace both Dubs and Dublin III? The removal of safe routes, without replacement, will simply encourage more vulnerable people to seek to enter the UK by irregular routes. While the Government are correcting mistakes today, could they also give us an update on safe routes for unaccompanied children in Europe?
The Government have gone back on an election commitment by cutting their international aid provision. That will do nothing to solve the refugee crisis which leads to people being forced to leave their own homes and seek refuge elsewhere, including by arriving at our own borders. While the Government are looking again at the powers needed at our own borders, will they also take heed of the warnings, including from many Members on their own Benches, of the impact that our aid policy has around the world?
I trust the Government will address the points and questions that I and other noble Lords have raised in their response. One would like to think that this order and the original order will improve national security in a meaningful, necessary and measurable way, and that the orders are not just about either ensuring uniformity across juxtaposed control locations for the sake of it or the Government pursuing other policies which are likely to make the need to used “reasonable force” more likely than ever.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. My noble friend Lord Bourne asked about illegal migration at Calais and Dunkirk. He will know that the UK and France maintain a long-standing relationship in tackling illegal migration at the shared border. As he also knows, the UK and France work to a whole-of-route approach to tackling illegal migration, ensuring intervention at different stages in a migrant’s journey.
Both sides agree on the importance of a continued close dialogue to reduce migratory pressures at the shared border, and we continue to keep requirements under review as part of our ongoing partnership with France. As noble Lords will know, it is a shared problem, and the UK has committed several funding packages to support the work. The Sandhurst treaty, agreed in January 2018, represented an ongoing commitment by both the UK and France to the whole-of-route approach, and last year the Home Secretary and her counterpart agreed measures to make that route unviable. At that time, the UK committed to invest in a €31.4 million package with France as part of a joint action to address illegal migration. This package includes doubling the number of officers patrolling French beaches, bolstering security along the 150-kilometre stretch of coastline, which is regularly targeted by people-smuggling networks, and the provision of an enhanced package of cutting-edge surveillance technology, including drones, radar equipment, optronic binoculars and fixed cameras.
So far this year over 5,000 crossings have been prevented —more than two and a half times the number prevented in 2020 for the same period. The proportion of crossings intercepted in 2021 currently stands at around 52%, up from 46% recorded throughout 2020, and on average, the French have arrested more than 100 facilitators each month since the beginning of the year.
My noble friend asked about migrant numbers. It is difficult to be totally accurate but the migrant population at Grande-Synthe, currently assessed at 400 people, remains steady, although the Calais population is seeing a gradual increase from around 500 to 600 a few weeks ago to 875 more recently, despite the regular clearance operations by local law enforcement. That said, the overall numbers are massively down compared with those seen in advance of the Calais camp clearance, when the local population in Calais alone was in excess of 10,000 migrants, with 3,000 to 4,000 of them at Dunkirk.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the numbers refused entry. I do not have those numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that I had not addressed his specific points, either on the previous statutory instrument, the Question that we had earlier, or indeed the debate we had earlier. I know that I wrote to everyone who spoke in the last debate, but I will check for the noble Lord on his specific points.
On double jeopardy, matters relating to the responsible state as regards offences have been considered and are the subject of a specific set of provisions underpinning the Le Touquet agreement, and we have international arrangements underpinning the rail regime with France, Belgium and the Netherlands, which are incorporated into our domestic law by 1993, 1994 and 2020 orders.
On the point about the drafting complexity, again, I apologise to noble Lords. On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, about whose fault it is, parliamentary draftsmen draw up our laws, and I can only apologise again. They work very hard and it is amazing the amount of stuff that gets through both Houses in impeccable condition.
As to the actual complexity, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was right last time that the order and instrument are technical and complex in nature; both are drafted in line with accepted government practice. The errors did not stem from the complexity of the order but were, as I have explained, the result of human error. As soon as the department was aware of the errors, swift steps were taken to correct them to ensure that the law was made clear. Since they were identified, the department has been proactive in taking steps to improve quality assurance procedures to prevent errors occurring. All I can say, again, is that I apologise for the fact that not only do noble Lords have to listen to me but I have to bring these pieces of secondary legislation for their consideration not once but twice.
On impacts, to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, there is no impact on the reasonable force power; it is just about the detention at ports power. As I said in my opening remarks, the order will make it explicitly clear that Section 2 of the UK Borders Act 2007 has been extended to and modified for the juxtaposed seaports. As part of the earlier order, the Explanatory Memorandum set out that an impact assessment was not conducted. That is correct—the department foresees no significant impacts resulting from the earlier order, given that the intent related to other Border Force control locations. However, it is right that we continue to monitor and analyse the use of force data to draw out and mitigate against any potential unintended impacts.
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, asked about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Sorry, no, it was the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who asked me about that—and, yes, we want to help those who are most in need of our help and not force them to rely on unscrupulous criminals. We do not want journeys to be criminality-facilitated; we want them to be on safe, legal routes. I look forward to debating that legislation with the noble Lord in due course.
On asylum returns, I would say to the noble Lord that the joint political declaration between the UK and EU agreed on 24 December last year noted the intention to engage in bilateral discussions with the most concerned member states to discuss suitable practical arrangements on asylum, family reunion, unaccompanied minors and illegal migration. In accordance with the UK’s and the EU’s respective laws and regulations, we have begun bilateral negotiations, and there are a series of existing routes by which people can come. I look forward to discussing these issues further with noble Lords.
I shall leave it there and will write to noble Lords on any areas of clarification.
Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Customs Safety and Security Procedures (EU Exit) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument is part of the Government’s package to extend the staging in of customs controls in Great Britain. The instrument concerns safety and security declarations and will come into force on 1 July 2021. Noble Lords will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported the regulations as an instrument of interest in its fourth report, published on 10 June 2021.
In June 2020 the Government announced that full customs controls would be introduced in stages in Great Britain after the end of the transition period to allow businesses affected by Covid-19 additional time to meet new customs requirements. In March, after discussion with industry stakeholders, the Government decided to extend the staging in of customs controls to allow businesses additional time to prepare to meet new customs requirements.
The measures in this instrument concern the safety and security declarations aspect of that extension and should be understood in the context of our existing safety and security regime. Safety and security declarations are a standard customs process and are used, along with intelligence from other sources, in the UK’s safety and security regime.
The UK approach to safety and security is guided by the World Customs Organization’s SAFE framework of standards, which is designed to manage the risks associated with the movement of goods between customs territories. Risks in the international supply chain are mitigated by following minimum standards for customs administrations set out in SAFE. This includes the collection and risk assessment of pre-arrival and pre-departure data.
The EU implemented safety and security requirements through the UCC, which has been retained in UK law since the transition period ended on 31 December 2020. While the UK was part of the EU’s safety and security zone, safety and security declarations were required only for goods entering or leaving the EU. Since the transition period ended on 31 December 2020, there has been a requirement for safety and security declarations for goods moved between Great Britain and the EU, as well as the rest of the world.
To give businesses additional time to prepare for new customs requirements, in November 2020 the Government introduced a six-month waiver on the requirement to submit safety and security declarations on goods imported from the EU and other territories from which such declarations were not required before the end of the transition period. This waiver is in place until 30 June 2021.
The Government also introduced a statutory instrument granting time-limited powers to issue a public notice waiving or altering the requirements for safety and security declarations on goods exported from Great Britain. These powers were put in place as a contingency option to mitigate any border disruption as a result of the introduction of the new requirements.
Since the beginning of 2021 there have been public notices in force waiving the requirement for safety and security export declarations for two categories of movements. The first category is empty pallets, containers and modes of transport, where they are being moved under a transport contract to places where such movements did not attract a safety and security requirement before the end of the transition period. The second category is all roll-on roll-off movements of goods where an exit summary declaration would otherwise have been required.
As part of the extension to the staging in of customs controls, the instrument we are discussing today will extend the current waiver on the requirement for safety and security declarations for goods imported from the EU and other territories where such declarations would not have been required before the end of the transition period. This means that safety and security entry summary declarations will not be required for these movements until 1 January 2022.
Having listened to businesses’ concerns about the impact of Covid-19 on their ability to meet new customs requirements, this extension to the waiver is being introduced to give them additional time to meet these new requirements. As was the case before the end of the transition period and has been the case during the period of the first waiver, Border Force will undertake intelligence-led risk assessments of goods movements into Great Britain. There is no change to the requirements for entry summary declarations for goods imported from the rest of the world as a result of this instrument. This waiver does not create a significant increase in the security risk to the UK.
In most cases, the data that is risk-assessed in relation to goods leaving Great Britain is contained in a customs export declaration. Where such a declaration is not submitted, a stand-alone safety and security exit summary declaration is required. In response to industry feedback, since the beginning of the year safety and security declaration requirements have been waived for the two categories of movements that I discussed earlier. This has been done by the issuing of public notices, using time-limited powers introduced in December 2020. These allow the commissioners of HMRC to waive or alter the requirement for pre-departure safety and security declarations. The public notice powers that were used to introduce this waiver can be used only with regard to requirements between 1 January 2021 and 30 June 2021. As such, the Government are introducing this instrument to extend this waiver until 30 September 2021. As with imports and exports during the current waiver, Border Force will undertake intelligence-led risk assessments of goods movements out of Great Britain. As such, there is no significant short-term security risk due to the introduction of this waiver.
The Northern Ireland protocol means that there are no safety and security requirements for goods moved between Northern Ireland and the EU, and that Northern Ireland remains aligned with EU customs rules. As such, this instrument does not affect safety and security requirements in Northern Ireland. Goods moved between Northern Ireland and the rest of the world will be subject to existing safety and security requirements. Northern Ireland businesses moving goods into Great Britain benefit from unfettered access and are not required to submit pre-arrival or pre-departure safety and security declarations. Businesses moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are not required to submit pre-departure safety and security declarations.
In conclusion, these temporary waivers from safety and security declaration requirements for goods moved between Great Britain and the EU strike an appropriate balance between supporting businesses affect by Covid-19 and maintaining safety and security. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his thorough explanation of what is happening. There is a problem in considering these changes because two things are muddying the water—Brexit and the Covid-19 crisis.
I am anxious to find out from the Minister how many extra customs officers or officials are being employed now who were not needed before we left the European Union. If additions have been necessary because of Covid, that can be explained as such and we would expect the numbers employed to return to a more normal level afterwards. However, we were led to expect when we were led along the Brexit path that we were going to get economies as a result, and I am most anxious to know how much more money is having to be spent by government in checking things and by the private sector in preparing documentation for examination. Those are pertinent questions that any legislature would ask of its Ministers because we must be clear that public money is being wisely spent.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument, which follows on from several previous regulations relating to new customs procedures. As the Minister has outlined, this instrument extends waivers granted under the previous regulations for up to an extra six months. These waivers cover both imports from the EU, Norway and Switzerland and certain types of movements back to those territories.
It is fair to say that the first six months of our new relationship with the European Union have not operated as smoothly as the Government promised. The reality of new red tape, coupled with challenges resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, had a noticeable impact on trade flows from 1 January.
Although there are signs of improvement in some areas, the data in others remains concerning. Last week, for example, analysis suggested that British food and drink exports fell by £2 billion in the first three months of the year. Sales of dairy products plummeted by a staggering 90%. The Government will be keen to label these as teething problems but those in the industry are less sure. The Food and Drink Federation, for example, argues that these figures are
“a very clear indication of the scale of losses that UK manufacturers face in the longer-term due to new trade barriers with the EU.”
It is worth reflecting on previous debates on this topic. When we debated one instrument in December, we were told that the powers in relation to exports were being granted purely as a contingency. The impression given was that the Government did not expect to use them. Indeed, the Minister said that the waiver would be applied
“only where absolutely necessary to avoid border disruption”.
At the time, I asked whether the Minister envisaged the extension we are debating today. In his response, he said:
“The Government have no plans to extend this contingency beyond the first six months of next year, as we do not anticipate that there will be any risk of disruption, as a result of the safety and security requirements on exports after that period.”—[Official Report, 10/12/20; col. GC 382.]
As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee notes in its fourth report of the Session:
“HM Revenue and Customs explains that these extensions are being introduced in response to feedback from industry that the pressures arising from the pandemic have affected their readiness for the introduction of full customs controls from 1 July 2021”.
While we have no doubt that the pandemic has had an impact on the ability of businesses to adapt, I am not convinced that HMRC’s explanation is complete. We are still hearing complaints about the Government’s new customs phone lines, for example. Ministers are also still being coy about the number of customs agents that have been recruited and whether their self-imposed target of 50,000 personnel has been met. Can the Minister provide an update on these projects? Does he believe that the required capacity will be in place by the end of the year? Is there a possibility that HMRC will decide to grant further extensions into 2022?
Finally, in that December debate we also raised concerns about safety, in light of HMRC’s admission that bringing certain contingency plans into force could have implications for border security. Can the Minister confirm that these matters have been kept under review during the operation of the customs waivers, and whether such risks have become a reality? Have any incidents occurred that the department would consider significant and, if so, will the Minister commit to sharing the details with us?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Committee for this debate. I will seek to address the questions and observations raised, starting with those of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
I acknowledge that there have been some very dramatic movements in trade flows over the last few months, but I suggest that there have been exceptional circumstances, with some stockpiling, and it is hard to get a run rate at the moment. However, overall, we are encouraged by the process so far.
On the noble Lord’s query about the extension of waivers and assurances that we gave last year, we always wanted to have the flexibility to extend. I think the biggest event that has occurred since then which we were not aware of in December is the emergence of the much more virulent strain of Covid. This caused us to extend lockdown and restrict businesses’ ability to operate for longer than we would have hoped at the time.
In terms of the noble Lord’s concerns about the customs phone line, I am pleased to say that the customs and international trade helpline has been working well since the beginning of the year. The helpline has answered 97% of its calls since January, with an average speed of answer of 23 seconds. HMRC is offering this service over the weekend and on weekdays until 10 pm.
On customs agent capacity, the Government do not have a specific target or number of customs agents, because the sector is varied and made up of a number of different business models. For example, in the lead- up to the end of the transition period, we saw large investment in technology by a number of the larger intermediaries, which meant that their ability to handle declarations was well beyond that of simply adding more people. When thinking about readiness, it is helpful to think of the capacity to make declarations instead of the number of staff involved. We know that the intermediary sector has significantly increased this capacity to meet demand following the end of the transition period. The Government helped it to do this by making over £80 million in support available, including flexible grants that can be used for IT and training and recruitment. We are running an intermediary register on GOV.UK at the moment—for example, in the last two weeks, there have been 1,400 views of that page. There are 1,300 intermediaries listed on the register, of whom 93% say they have capacity, 92% say they are able to help small traders, 54% can support SPS checks and 309 can help with roll-on roll-off. We are improving the register all the time following feedback from traders and intermediaries.
The noble Lord asked whether we are likely to grant further extensions. The Government originally intended to introduce the full customs controls by 1 July but, given the impact of the pandemic, they are extending these facilitations to September and December. The Government do not plan to extend these waivers any further. Traders will need to comply with full safety and security declarations on exports from 1 October 2021 and on imports from 1 January 2022.
The noble Lord asked whether the customs issues have been kept under review during the current waiver period. With regard to any risks created by the waivers, Border Force has continued to undertake intelligence-led risk assessments and interventions on imports and exports since the beginning of the year, as it did before the end of the transition period. The noble Lord asked whether any of the risks have become a reality. During the period covered by the waivers, Border Force will continue to do as it has done up until now to protect the security of the UK, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord with figures expanding on the interceptions and work that it has been doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about the cost of the safety and security process. Our EU exit is an opportunity for us to increase the amount of data we collect and thus the range and effectiveness of our interventions and the security of our borders. The collection of safety and security data on movements from the EU will allow Border Force to undertake additional targeting and checks on potentially dangerous goods movements from the UK. While we expect importers to face some increase in costs as a result of safety and security declaration requirements, these can vary depending on the businesses, how much they trade, and whether they use an intermediary. We do not know yet how importers will choose to manage declarations, which is often just one part of a wider customs process, and costs will also depend on factors such as the mode of transport and who the carrier is. Due to this uncertainty, an estimate of the administration burden costs for S&S declarations is not currently available.
Having listened to the feedback from businesses affected by Covid, we are providing them extra time to meet the requirements. This supports efficient customs arrangements and ensures that goods originating in the EU or UK are not subject to tariffs. Therefore, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4.10 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2021
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2021.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument is about providing increased transparency in relation to the imprints on printed election campaign material. To be clear, an imprint is the information on election material which is added to show who is responsible for its production. It helps to ensure transparency about who is campaigning. Imprints underpin public trust in the democratic process and ensure that voters are informed about who is behind an electoral campaign.
I will begin by putting this order in context. It is part of a wider package of measures which will ensure that there is a comprehensive paper imprint regime for candidates and parties in all elections in Northern Ireland. The current imprint regime in Northern Ireland is slightly different and not as comprehensive as that in place in Great Britain or for referendums across the whole of the UK. We do not believe that people in Northern Ireland deserve any less transparency for elections than those in the rest of the UK.
On its own, this order will not deliver the comprehensive cover we are seeking. It is one of two SIs needed to create a coherent regime: this order and a separate commencement order, which will be timed to come into force together. Together they will ensure that the paper imprint regime in Northern Ireland covers parties and candidates in all elections.
This order will make provision in relation to material printed for a specific candidate at local elections. The commencement order will bring into force other measures already on the statute book but not yet commenced for Northern Ireland, which will cover candidates at parliamentary and Assembly elections, and material in relation to parties at all Northern Ireland elections.
I will explain why we are taking these steps now. While the existing imprint regime in Northern Ireland has never been problematic, in recent years the Electoral Commission has highlighted the discrepancy between the regimes in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We undertook to bring forward the change when the legislative timetable allowed. The weight of legislation required for our exit from the EU has delayed these changes but I am delighted to bring them forward now.
It is important to understand that the principle underpinning this measure is ensuring greater transparency for voters. We accept that the Northern Ireland regime should be no less comprehensive than that in Great Britain. All voters, whether in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, should know the origin of election campaign material, who is printing it and on behalf of whom.
On transparency, some of your Lordships may remember that last year the Government brought forward a measure to remove private addresses from ballot papers. On the face of it, this may seem to run counter to those measures which protected the personal data of candidates. However, I reassure your Lordships that the Electoral Commission has produced advice on this matter and there is no requirement for candidates to have personal addresses printed on election material as a result of bringing Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain. A name and PO box address is sufficient for transparency purposes, while protecting personal addresses.
I will now explain what we are changing. The existing regime for Northern Ireland provides that only the name and address of the printer must be included on Northern Ireland election material for candidates. This differs from the regime for Great Britain, which covers material for both candidates and parties, and specifies that in addition to the name and address of the printer it must also include: the name and address of the promoter of the material and the name and address of any person on behalf of whom the material is being published and who is not the promoter.
The promoter of the material is whoever has caused the material to be published. This may be the candidate themselves, their agent or, in the case of a party, the party treasurer, another officer of the party or the party itself, as outlined in the Electoral Commission’s guidance on imprints. The format that imprints should take is, across the UK, subject to Electoral Commission guidelines. While the commission does not take a view on the font of the imprint, this essential information should be clear and legible so that it can be seen by potential voters.
Although the Electoral Commission provides guidance on these matters, it does not enforce the rules. Any concerns about non-compliance with the imprint regime should, as is the case currently, be reported to the police. I should mention that the penalties for non-compliance will not change and the offender is liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to £5,000.
I am happy to tell the Committee that the proposal to close the gap between the Northern Ireland and Great Britain paper imprints regime is fully supported and welcomed by the Electoral Commission. I should also say that as the measures relate in some respects to the publication of personal data, we have, as noble Lords would expect, consulted the Office of the Information Commissioner, which has approved the draft order.
Finally, it is of course the case that much of the election material now seen by voters does not take the slightly old-fashioned form of printed material. Your Lordships will rightly ask how this order address the transparency of the sources of political campaigning online and through digital media. The short answer is that it does not, nor is it intended to. The Government have consulted on the issue of digital imprints and have made clear our intention to bring forward UK-wide legislation to address the issue. This SI is a measure to bring the paper imprints regime into line with that in Great Britain. Digital imprints are a separate issue and will be the subject of separate legislation.
I therefore hope that your Lordships will agree that bringing the paper imprint regime in Northern Ireland in line with the more comprehensive one in Great Britain is a sensible and important step towards modernising elections in Northern Ireland. I hope that your Lordships will support this order. I commend it to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this statutory instrument so clearly and comprehensively. It is not a contentious matter, as he rightly says, although, for Liberals, anything to do with elections, constitutions and electoral processes is always a matter of enormous interest. The Alliance Party, on whose behalf I am speaking today, has been doing that kind of thing for over 50 years—and before that, the Ulster Liberal Party did so. It would be, in Liberal terms and in the Northern Ireland parlance, what one might describe as a traditional route for Liberals.
As I say, the noble Viscount is right in saying that the order is not contentious and the question that it addresses has not been particularly problematic in Northern Ireland. Of course, when we look at elections, there are two issues that we would like to try to address. One is when there has been a problem and the other is when we are able to improve things, even where there has not yet been a problem. For example, in the early days, the Alliance Party and previously the Ulster Liberals campaigned for the single transferable vote system in the polarised context of Northern Ireland. That was an improvement in the situation and has continued to be so.
It is not that printed media have no problems at all. For example, on this side of the water there was recently concern about some newspaper advertising. Who had paid for it? How had it come about? It is always important to ensure that those who pay for any kind of advertising are doing it with appropriate and, indeed, legal funds. That has sometimes been a bit of a concern in Ireland, north and south.
However, as the Minister rightly says, it does seem a little strange at this point to be addressing the question of the printed medium. I do not know about the Minister, but I find that although I get more and more material coming to me, less and less comes through my letterbox—almost all of it is now digital. I have to search out printed material if I want to look at that—or, of course, print it out. The Minister has indicated that it is in the Government’s mind—and I know that there has been the Cabinet Office document, Transparency in Digital Campaigning; the consultation was to be finished by the end of last year, if I recall—so if he is able to say anything about that, that would be helpful.
This whole question of digital campaigning is becoming an increasingly serious issue, not just in Northern Ireland but, truth to tell, globally—not so much because it is putting out a message but because the tactic that is being used, the stratagem that has been devised, is to use social media to deepen polarisation. One can see this being done with armies of bots, directed by artificial intelligence, being employed to pick up messages, amplify them and, through that, create deeper polarisation. We have seen it in this country with referendums as well as elections, and in other countries too. Are the Government addressing this question, not just in principle—knowing who produces something and checking that it comes from appropriate funding sources—but whether the tactics are undermining the process of liberal democracy itself? This is becoming a really quite serious question. It is not an easy one. I would be encouraged if the Minister were to reassure me that the Government are actively addressing this question. It is a matter of very real concern.
I thank the Minister for what he has said. I agree that it is not contentious so far as it goes. The real matters of contention are those things that are not addressed, and I hope that in summing up he may be able to address some of them.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP) [V]
My Lords, we hold today’s debate against the backdrop of a global pandemic which seemingly has new variants monthly and has affected so many lives across the United Kingdom. Our councils and local government can and will play a key role in normalising things and getting this country back to work; in particular, in revitalising and renewing our town centres and shopping areas.
As we discuss local government election changes, I believe we ought first to take a moment to acknowledge those who work on the front lines for local government every day across our nation. I offer my thanks to and praise for front-line and public-facing council workers in Northern Ireland and across these isles. As a former Belfast city councillor for 25 years and former lord mayor of the city, I am all too aware of the hard-working council staff in our towns and cities.
Those council workers and others involved in delivering front-line public services, including volunteers, have done a tremendous, heroic job in supporting communities through the unprecedented and unsettling circumstances of the past year. Public-facing council workers have worked throughout the pandemic, and it is right and proper that we acknowledge their efforts.
In relation to the specifics before us, I welcome the amendments to Schedule 9 and thank the Minister for bringing these regulations before your Lordships’ Committee for consideration. I note that for many of us in Northern Ireland, this is not entirely new information. In many respects, we have been ahead of the game, as it were, specifically in terms of highlighting the relevant details; namely, the published inclusion of names and addresses of election agents and printers on leaflets, flyers, posters and various electoral communications. Even on social media in Northern Ireland local elections, you will often find the election agent’s information emblazoned on infographics and social media posts.
Many candidates and parties in Northern Ireland have carried out these practices for a number of full election cycles. Indeed, during my time on Belfast City Council, I often served as an election agent for local council elections. We always made sure to publish the relevant information on electoral communication and posters. I recall one particular election when I, alongside colleagues, had to remove a batch of recently erected, fresh council election posters and individually affix to each poster the published name and address of the printer alongside the election agent, before they were allowed to be erected once more. I believe that we have been ahead of the game; this has been long-standing practice in Northern Ireland elections. None the less, I welcome these up-to-date clarifications.
I wish to turn to one particular issue which remains a concern to many in Northern Ireland in relation to donations from abroad, using certain electoral and other loopholes. These loopholes enable some parties to bring funds in through another jurisdiction, such as the Irish Republic, without requiring the kinds of registration and thorough checking that apply to funds donated from within the United Kingdom. One example of this can be found in a very recent Times newspaper article, which revealed that a number of Sinn Féin staff in the Republic of Ireland donated part of their salaries to the party in Northern Ireland for approximately three years. The Times report highlighted the long-standing practice that exists whereby Sinn Féin party staff in the Irish Republic switched payments to a bank account belonging to the party in Northern Ireland. This policy was adopted after rules on political donations were changed in the Irish Republic, with lower thresholds imposed in 2013.
Decision-makers in that state banned foreign donations to political parties within their jurisdiction. Here in mainland Britain too, foreign donations to political parties have been banned—but in Northern Ireland there remains a significant loophole as it relates to party donations from other jurisdictions, which have been used by some to fund local elections and their party operations. For an all-island party, this has been a useful alternative route whereby donations may be made from individuals, companies and organisations in the Irish Republic to a party in Northern Ireland.
In recent years we have also seen examples of large donations to the same political organisations in Northern Ireland from Australia, Canada and the United States. The question over the need for regulation in respect of overseas donations to political parties has existed for many years. When we discuss local government electoral changes or mention election cycle donations, one cannot help but question why this particular issue has lingered for so long without a real and focused effort to address it head on. Does the Minister share my view that this is a particular issue of concern, when money from other jurisdictions can be continually used to fund the pursuits of a political entity in one part of this nation—indeed, via the only part of this nation where this loophole remains open?
In previous debates, we have heard about foreign money and, indeed, foreign election interference. I can recall a debate in your Lordships’ House some years ago in respect of American election interference. Is it not time that we addressed this issue of foreign sums of money being used within the realms of our own United Kingdom democracy? I am pleased to support the order before us today.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for the very clear articulation of what this SI says. Reading what we got from the Library and the Northern Ireland Office, I found one or two points where it did not seem quite so clear, and I think that he made a very clear run at telling us what it says. It is also quite nice to speak when the Minister is moving something on Northern Ireland with which I am totally in agreement.
I very much support this order. We should have consistency across the United Kingdom in our elections as far as possible. Sometimes that is not just one-way; of course, Northern Ireland has very sensibly and successfully had photographic ID for elections for a long time, and now the rest of Great Britain is going to follow on that. I think that is very sensible. You do not need a passport or driving licence; the local authority will give you something that shows your identity, which I think is very important. It is not just a case of Northern Ireland always catching up. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, sometimes we are actually ahead in Northern Ireland.
The imprint issue is important, and this has clarified what will happen in the future. I was also going to raise the question of social media, Twitter and Facebook, all of which are being used much more in elections, so I am very pleased that the Minister has mentioned this. I am interested that there is going to be legislation. Could the Minister give us some timings on that? I think this will be more and more of a problem. Having said that, Twitter and Facebook have brought a lot of people into listening to and being interested in politics who maybe did not or were not before, so we have to be careful in judging social media. There are positive aspects of both Facebook and Twitter, but for elections it is important that there is the same amount of scrutiny of who is posting and promoting things. I would support that, and I would like to find out whether there is a date for legislation coming through.
Finally, could the Minister tell us what is now left? What is the not the same in Northern Ireland as in the rest of Great Britain? It would be useful to know whether we will be exactly identical in our election format, procedures and rules after both aspects he mentioned go through.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the explanation of these regulations, which require on the document the name and address of the printer; the name and address of the promoter of the material; and the name and address of any person on behalf of whom the material is being published and who is not the promoter. I presume that this means the name of the candidate; could the Minister confirm that this is the case? We already provide the name and address of the election agent and the printer at all elections throughout the election cycle, and the candidate’s name is already there, so what is required in addition?
I am all for transparency; I want to see election fraud eliminated. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said, we were ahead of the game on this issue, but there was a very good reason for that, because there were high levels of election fraud. That is why the legislation was brought in and why we have photographic ID—which works very well now—and complete registers. In that regard, there is a concern, not necessarily that certain political parties have direct access to the electoral register but that they have additional information on voters. Therefore, the issue of the GDPR comes into play. This has been an issue in Northern Ireland which many of us, as members of political parties, have been subjected to. We have been contacted by people realising that certain parties have information about them. This has also been the case in the Republic of Ireland, and very serious issues have been raised about this matter. Are the Government contemplating any future legislation in that regard?
I do not have an issue with this secondary legislation for an imprint, because it leads to greater levels of transparency. However, like other noble Lords, I would like to know the detail of the future legislation in relation to digital imprints—the information that will be required if you are going to publish on Facebook and Twitter—because Facebook is one of the mediums used greatly by political parties, candidates and elected representatives today to communicate their messages to voters.
One of the more worrying features for me is the major threat to political stability in Northern Ireland due to the ongoing internal difficulties in the DUP. I am glad to see that Jeffrey Donaldson will be the new leader, and I wish him well in his new role. There are also the ongoing challenges presented by the exit from the European Union and, as a consequence, the protocol and those difficult relationships between Britain and Ireland. After all, the UK and Irish Governments are the co-guarantors of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. It is important that they are seen to be working together and do work together in the interests of reconciliation, together with the Northern Ireland Executive and the political parties in Northern Ireland.
I can think of one previous Secretary of State, who is with us in this debate—the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen—who, along with his colleague, the then Secretary of State Mo Mowlam, clearly engineered situations to ensure dialogue between the parties and at an intergovernmental level. I would like to find out from the Minister whether the meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference promised for June is taking place this month. It is vital that high-level direction is given by both Governments, by the Northern Ireland Executive—I hope the difficulties can be ironed out—and by leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland, and that the north-south arrangements and the east-west arrangements operate on an equal basis.
I have concerns that there are, I am told, illegal parades taking place without notification to the Parades Commission, which could be in breach of Covid regulations. It is a time for responsible leadership, and we need to ensure that. Above all, we all need to ensure that the power-sharing arrangements are underpinned, so can the Minister indicate when that high-level British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference will take place? We need to see the commitments in New Decade, New Approach—which all parties and both Governments agreed to, and which heralded the restoration of our political institutions in January last year—implemented in full. Can the Minister indicate what work is being done with the Irish Government to ensure that this will take place?
In summary, I have no problem with this order and look forward to further measures to create greater levels of transparency in the digital area and that of recording information about electors, so that potential electors are protected from any nefarious activity that may or may not be going on.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in a debate in which there is so much agreement and consensus; that is not always the case in our Northern Ireland debates in this House. I add my thanks to the Minister for such a comprehensive explanation of the context of this order, which I found enormously helpful and enlightening.
These Benches very much welcome the introduction of this order. As the Minister said, it will ensure that the imprint regime for local elections in Northern Ireland finally mirrors the regime in place for parliamentary elections in Great Britain. This will go some way to improving transparency and open democracy for elections in Northern Ireland, and this is greatly to be welcomed. As my noble friend Lord Alderdice said, Liberals are always in favour of systems that introduce greater transparency and open democracy.
Improving transparency for voters so that it is clear from the election literature who is campaigning and who is supporting candidates at local government elections is something we have long called for from these Benches over many years. It will also introduce greater accountability for political parties, as well as facilitating legal actions and remedies should these become necessary.
However, it is clear from the Explanatory Memorandum that consultations took place back in 2018—three years ago. The Minister explained that Brexit was the cause of the delay, but perhaps he could say a little more about why this has taken three years to come before us today.
These measures were also a key conclusion in the report of the Independent Commission on Referendums, published in July 2018. Can the Minister say what has happened to the associated recommendations from that report? In particular, the distinguished cross-party group that formed that commission on referendums recommended that
“a searchable repository of online political advertising should be developed, including information on when each advertisement was posted, at whom it was targeted, and how much was spent on it.”
Can the Minister say whether any progress is being made on following those recommendations?
The Minister will know that last month the head of the Electoral Commission Northern Ireland again called on the UK Government to change the law to allow it to publish information relating to political donations and loans which occurred before 1 July 2017. The commission’s most recent research in this area, published in February this year, confirms that the majority of the public agree that this information should be publicly available. I appreciate that this is a little beyond the scope of this order, but in the spirit of openness and transparency which this order promotes, it would be extremely helpful to have an update on this matter from the Government. If the Minister is unable to provide a response today, I would be grateful if he might be able to write to me at a later stage.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this very interesting short debate and to make it clear that the Opposition support this statutory instrument. We do so because it makes elections more transparent and because, obviously, it aligns Northern Ireland with Great Britain.
It is 48 years since I first had the effrontery to ask people to vote for me in an election, and in all those years, imprints have been a very important part of any candidate’s or agent’s job. However, it is worth remembering that it has not been quite that easy in Northern Ireland, and that fraud and intimidation have been features of the electoral system there over the last half a century. Of course, it is changing dramatically, and the law changes with it too. However, I can recall that when I first became a Minister in Northern Ireland in 1997, the then Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland came to see me in my office in London and brought with him a suitcase in which were hundreds of ballot papers, every one of which was fraudulent. He was showing me how they were made fraudulently and how real the problem was in Northern Ireland.
An awful lot has changed since that time, but I emphasise that it has been different. There has been a similar situation with intimidation and political donations —certainly those that came from within Northern Ireland. On both sides of the political divide there, people were frightened to reveal that they had given gifts to various political parties for fear of intimidation and threats. It has not been easy, and it is good that we are catching up with the rest of the United Kingdom with regard to how we deal with elections, but it was different.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, I saw from the notes that the department put out that there was a consultation in Northern Ireland on this change in electoral law and that the majority of people supported it, which I do. However, it would be interesting to know whether the minority who did not do so was substantial and what they said that they did not like about this change. Secondly, a number of noble Lords mentioned the important issue of a digital imprint regime and how the world has changed. For most of us, when we started our political lives, digital electioneering did not exist. Now it is becoming increasingly important. Can the Minister confirm that any change in the law on that, which is necessary, will also cover Northern Ireland?
A number of your Lordships have raised issues of stability. Of course, elections have to operate within political stability and I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, about the need for a meeting of the BIIGC—the sooner the better—and that there should be more meetings with all the political parties in Northern Ireland, including with the new leader of the DUP.
However, I also want to point out that with regard to voter ID in the whole of the United Kingdom, which will come before us in separate legislation, it is not as simple as that. My experience over the years has been that we will have problems in getting older people in particular used to that system. There is something to be said for it and I am not suggesting that there is not, but one has to weigh it against the enormous issue of people deciding not to vote at all if a substantial obstacle is placed in front of them. We must acknowledge that, as well as the fact that Northern Ireland is still different. But that is for another day. I give notice to the Minister that we will be discussing that matter in much greater detail in the months ahead.
However, we support the order and I hope that the regime will start as soon as possible.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I start by thanking your Lordships for their broad support for these measures. As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, it is true that it is difficult to achieve a general consensus on Northern Ireland matters and, in general, we have managed to achieve that this afternoon. However, that is not to say that a number of questions were not raised and I will do my best to answer them all.
However, before I go into that, I want to say a word or two about something raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and some more expansive comments by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. The noble Baroness is right: she mentioned voter ID and it is true that Northern Ireland is a leader here and at the forefront of that measure, leading the way. The noble Lord related the issue to the rest of the United Kingdom and is right to say that there are some challenges. One that he mentioned was about including older people and getting them used to the system. It is good to discuss it and, no doubt, discussions will continue.
Before I go into the substantive issues raised, I want to say one thing about security or intimidation, to address any concerns that the addition of an address to election material may lead to the intimidation of a candidate, printer or promoter—something that I did not really address in my opening remarks. It is vital for our democracy that individuals are able to engage in campaigning in elections without fear of intimidation. I want to be clear that a candidate, for example, is under no obligation to print their home address on any election material. The Electoral Commission provides guidance that the address provided does not need to be a home address; it may be a business address or, as I did say in my opening remarks, even a PO box. These changes will not, therefore, risk intimidation for any candidate and the existing law provides that the printers must already include details on any election material that they produce. However, it is only right that the people of Northern Ireland have the same levels of transparency and clarity in elections as people in Great Britain. Voters have the right to understand who is publishing and promoting election material. This order, combined with the commencement order, will do just that.
This leads nicely into some points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who spoke about digital campaigning. I have noted his comments, which were becoming more expansive, I think, and were supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. He asked whether the tactics were undermining the liberal process. That is a very good point, and I am sure that is a subject for future debate.
On digital imprints, just to reassure the noble Lord, we have consulted, and I promise him and others who have raised this point that comprehensive measures will be included in forthcoming legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked about the timings on this. I am unable to give any timings on this particular legislation at the moment, but I shall check back with officials. If there is anything more that I can add to that I shall, of course, write.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, also alluded to the point that imprint offences are, mercifully, very rare. I inform him that, between 2015 and 2020, only three offences were found to have taken place within the UK, and those were for failing to include an imprint on election campaign material. This perhaps demonstrates how well the current imprint regime in the rest of Great Britain is working. We expect the updated regime in Northern Ireland to work similarly. I hope that that gives some reassurance. It plays well into the point that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made, which is that we do not believe that this is particularly contentious, and I appreciate that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, spoke about political stability. It is very relevant that this point has been raised. I know that the noble Baroness has spoken about this before, and how important it is to have political stability—to state the obvious perhaps—in Northern Ireland. She spoke, quite rightly, about the importance of continuing dialogue and creating agreement between all parties. On current events, I was pleased that the DUP and Sinn Féin nominated First and Deputy First Ministers last Thursday following the Secretary of State’s intensive negotiations with the parties’ leaders. I hope that the UK Government’s commitment to legislate for the balanced culture and language package agreed on in the New Decade, New Approach deal, should the Executive not do so by the end of September, now means that we can move on to much more pressing issues such as healthcare, education and jobs in Northern Ireland. This Government look forward to working with the whole of the Northern Ireland Executive to address those challenges and embrace the opportunities that lie ahead for Northern Ireland.
This brings me to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, about the BIIGC. There is a date in the diary of 24 June for that group to meet in Dublin.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked why this order had not been implemented before—why these changes had not been forthcoming. I cannot really add to what I said in my opening remarks, but I reassure her that, because of the weight of legislation required for our exit from the EU, it really is the case that these changes were delayed. As I said earlier, I am pleased that we are at this point now. It is not that Northern Ireland was entirely without imprint rules. However, the Electoral Commission has felt and has highlighted that the law on imprints in Northern Ireland was less comprehensive than in the rest of the United Kingdom and that it was important that we addressed that properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, said—and he is right—that we should give thanks to those who are in the front line of organising elections. I pay my tribute, too, to those who give so much in terms of public service in this respect. The noble Lord raised a point about foreign donations—Irish donations. Perhaps I can reassure him that all donations to registered Northern Ireland parties from all donors are subject to the rules, and Irish donations are allowed; that respects the Belfast agreement principles. I shall read Hansard but, if he has particular concerns, I shall undertake to write to him on the matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about additional requirements in terms of what we are doing today. I reassure her that, as I think I said in my opening remarks, this includes the name of the printer and the promoter on whose behalf the leaflet is published. This is no more and no less, and I understand that this information is usually made available in Northern Ireland. It sets down the requirement in law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, spoke about transparency, which plays rather well into comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. The question of retrospectively opening up historic records from 2014 remains genuinely difficult at a time when threats to elected representatives are all too common and various measures have been put in place to protect those elected representatives. We must be very careful that nothing we do might lead to intimidation against members of the public who donated to parties. We have always been clear that any movement on this issue must have the support of all the parties in Northern Ireland, but I am not aware that any of them have raised the issue of historic transparency with us since we changed the law to bring reporting requirements into line with the rest of the UK from July 2017.
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, asked about fraud measures in place. I reassure him that they are more stringent in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the UK.
I believe that we are nearing the end of the time, but I hope that I have answered all the questions. However, I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, asked about the consultation. I think I shall write to him on that. He asked about the minority of those who responded to the consultation. I do not have information for him, but I shall endeavour to write.
Again, I appreciate the general support for these regulations, and I beg to move.
Scotland Act 2016 (Social Security) (Consequential Provision) (Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee do consider the Scotland Act 2016 (Social Security) (Consequential Provision) (Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this instrument, which was laid before the House on 17 May 2021. Subject to approval, the regulations will make some necessary legislative changes to prevent overlapping entitlements to the soon-to-be-introduced Scottish child disability payment and UK disability benefits. It will also permit the Department for Work and Pensions to accept the Scottish government appointee arrangements for UK government benefit purposes, thereby reducing the administrative burden for claimants and appointees in dealing with both Governments. I am satisfied that the regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The UK Government are committed to making devolution work and to ensuring the safe and secure transition of powers to the Scottish Government under the Scotland Act 2016. As a result of the devolution of social security powers to the Scottish Parliament under this Act, the Department for Work and Pensions will need to update its legislation from time to time to reflect the introduction of the Scottish Government’s replacement benefits. Section 71 of this Act allows for the necessary legislative amendments, in this case as a result of benefits introduced under the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate these regulations today. They will effect some purely technical changes and prevent overlapping entitlement to and payment of the Scottish child disability payment and UK disability benefits such as disability living allowance for children, personal independence payment and Armed Forces independence payment. It also includes some time-limited overlapping provisions for Northern Ireland. It will enable the Department for Work and Pensions to accept appointees over the age of 18 if they have already been granted appointee status by the Scottish Government. This is a positive change for claimants and staff.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 established the legislative framework for the Scottish Government to introduce new forms of assistance using the social security powers devolved under Section 22 of the Scotland Act 2016. Specifically, Section 31 of the 2018 Act allows the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to provide financial support through their disability assistance for people in Scotland with long-term additional health needs. The Scottish Government have legislated for disability assistance for children and young people, which will be introduced from July 2021. They are calling this child disability payment; I will refer to it as CDP from now on.
I understand that CDP will have residency conditions attached and primarily will be paid only to claimants who live in Scotland. However, as part of their offer the Scottish Government will continue to pay CDP for a period of 13 weeks after a claimant has left Scotland and moved to another part of the UK. This will allow claimants time to sort out new benefit arrangements, should they wish to.
Our intention is to offer a similar facility for those moving to Scotland, though this will not be needed for a few years. What is needed now is a modest legislative amendment to deal with this policy, in order to both support the devolution agenda and strengthen a union that works together in the best interests of our shared citizens.
If these regulations are passed today, they will ensure that there are clear boundaries between entitlement to CDP and entitlement to a similar UK government benefit, and that there is no overlapping provision of entitlement. They will do that by making it clear that entitlement to a relevant UK government benefit will not start until the day after payment of CDP has ended and will reflect the Scottish CDP legislation, which acts in a similar way. This will not only protect the public purse by avoiding double payment but help prevent the need for complicated overpayment calculations and recovery. Furthermore, it is also in the best interests of the claimant, who will have a clear expectation of which Government is responsible for paying their benefits at which point in their claim or award.
The instrument includes provisions on behalf of the Ministry of Defence to ensure that Armed Forces independence payment will similarly not overlap with CDP. Provisions have also been introduced to prevent overlapping entitlement when a claimant moves to Northern Ireland and is in receipt of the 13-week run- on payment from the Scottish Government.
Finally, we recognise that many DWP claimants will also be claimants of the Scottish Government’s devolved provisions. This instrument will make changes to UK government legislation to allow the Department for Work and Pensions to accept that a person over the age of 18 has appointee status if they have already been granted it by the Scottish Government. This removes unnecessary burdens on the claimant, the appointee and the department through effective and proportional collaboration on information shared and used by respective Governments. I commend this instrument to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I recognise the antecedents of the Smith commission, itself deriving from the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, and the following Scottish Acts in 2016 and 2018. I am no expert on the details of this particular SI or social security benefits in general, and I do not know if I am right on this, so maybe my noble friend can clarify it when she speaks at the end, but it seems to me that it does not affect social legislation in Great Britain—or, that is, it affects England and Wales but not Northern Ireland.
My key concern is about the background of the importance of the union—we all know what is happening on the ground at the moment—and a recognition of what the current SNP leadership is all about. This in itself is in contrast to the powers of the Scottish Parliament. For example, it has the power to borrow over and beyond the benefits of the Barnett formula, as I understand it, so there is a double incremental benefit to Scotland as a whole.
What will be the impact on the other three nations that make up the United Kingdom? Is this just a simple implementation agreed by all four parties, with Scotland in the lead? They are doing trials in various cities. Or is it what I would call a ratchet effect, in that they take an initiative which the rest of the union then has to follow? I do not know, and I hope my noble friend can make that absolutely clear for the record when she winds up.
I will now focus particularly on Northern Ireland, and colleagues may wonder why. This is primarily because I was PPS in Northern Ireland from 1979 to 1981 and got to know that part of the UK quite well. I have deep concerns about what is happening on the ground there; they are struggling with the protocol and the aftereffects of Brexit on top of everything else. I would have thought that to have an important part of their social security affected as well—seemingly in the autumn—is just another problem and challenge for them.
I have two implementation points to make. I note that this is to be trialled in Dundee City, Perth and Kinross, and maybe somewhere else, from 26 July. It is thought that there will then be a full national rollout in the autumn. But 26 July is, in effect, the beginning of the summer, and nothing very much will happen in August, so we will really begin to have some test of this in September or October. Normally, to do a proper test, you would do it for at least three months. You would then review it for a month, because there are bound to be some elements of it that are not quite right, particularly if you have to consult the other three nations. Maybe they are not going to consult, but they should. I suggest to my noble friend that she should have a quiet word with her colleague across the border and ask if they are absolutely sure that it should be rolled out in the autumn and why it should not be rolled out from January, when people have had time to look at it, make necessary technical amendments and then implement it accordingly.
The other technical matter I would raise is that it is all very well saying that there is a 13-week change in some of the moves from Scotland to England, Wales or wherever. It never ceases to amaze one, having been a Member of Parliament, but there are families who do move around regularly when they change jobs or if something else happens—
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
This SI is a small step in the long, drawn-out and complicated process of transferring responsibility for some aspects of social security from the UK Government to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government are always vociferous in their demand for more power, despite struggling to use many of the powers they have effectively or, sometimes, at all. That is not to say there cannot be value in administering benefits to meet the needs of beneficiaries in Scotland, but only time will tell whether it delivers a net positive and an affordable outcome.
This statutory instrument is necessary to facilitate the establishment of the Scottish Government’s child disability payment as a replacement for disability living allowance. The aim is to transfer approximately 50,000 recipients of DLA to CDP over 12 months, all being well. The amount of benefit will not change, but the assessment will. There will be no upsides—no political upsides, certainly—if current recipients fall through the net or if any change disadvantages an applicant for CDP compared with the previous DLA arrangement. Concern has already been raised about the altered definition of night-time care under CDP compared with DLA and whether that might disadvantage Scottish claimants. Having said that, my understanding is that this is being jointly administered between the DWP and the Scottish Government, so that should help eliminate such complications.
One positive change that has emerged on the back of consultation is that recipients of CDP will not have to apply for PIP at 16, as is the case with DLA, but can continue on CDP until 18, and then apply for PIP. It would be interesting if the Minister could comment on whether her department considers that beneficial and something that might be applied elsewhere in the UK.
The SI does three things. It ensures that there is no overlap, as the Minister said, between CDP, DLA, PIP and the Armed Forces independence payment; it provides for the continuation of CDP for up to 13 weeks after a recipient moves to another part of the UK, to allow time to apply for the appropriate replacement for CDP; and it allows the Scottish Government’s criteria for appointing someone on behalf of a recipient to be recognised across the UK.
These are practical and sensible measures, and that explains why the Scottish Parliament’s Social Security Committee dealt with it in less than a minute. Nevertheless, if the transfer of some social security benefits from the UK to Scotland is to have purpose, there must be practical and real benefits, rather than just name changes and different administration. The PIP point looks like it might be something for the DWP to consider, so I repeat: can the Minister say whether this might lead to a rethink in her department?
Where will all this lead? Can the Minister indicate how many other Scottish social security SIs she expects in the coming months? The question is: will this lead to the Scottish Government tackling the serious problems of poverty, multiple deprivation and drug abuse that blight Scotland, or will it amount to just relatively small administrative changes that could add to the complexity for those in need without providing transformational benefit?
No doubt the SNP will claim that only independence will unlock the resources needed to turn poverty around, despite the very real risk that Scotland will lack the resources to maintain current benefit levels, let alone improve them. Indeed, if Scotland decided that it was going to pay more generous benefits than the rest of the UK, which it would be entitled to do, we could see some kind of reverse benefit tourism, which would be at the Scottish taxpayers’ expense.
The challenge is to use these social security powers to demonstrate a positive difference in shaping the system to Scotland’s needs, to take account of the different social circumstances and different geography of Scotland. If it is done in that way, it will be beneficial to both Scottish and UK citizens by delivering benefits in a fairer and more efficient way, but whether or not it does, we shall have to wait and watch with interest.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, we are here today because this statutory instrument will make consequential amendments to social security legislation in respect of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to prevent payments of DLA, PIP and AFIP overlapping with the Scottish Government’s child disability payment. The Scottish Government are introducing the CDP, which will replace the disability living allowance for children, currently delivered by the DWP. This new child disability payment will be open in pilot areas for applications from 26 July this year in Dundee City, Perth and Kinross and the Western Isles council.
This is the first application-based disability benefit to be introduced by the Scottish Government, and the pilot will be followed by a full national rollout in the autumn. Families currently getting DLA for children will be transferred automatically to the new Scottish system. People who currently get disability benefits from the DWP will have their awards transferred to the new Scottish system in stages after the new benefits are introduced. We believe that the work will be completed by 2025.
We entered the pandemic with too many people living in poverty, and this poverty is endemic in many parts of the UK, in all the nations and regions. The Scottish Labour shadow Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and Social Security has raised several matters about this issue with the Cabinet Secretary Shona Robison MSP and has asked her to consider making progress on tackling child poverty in Scotland by doubling the Scottish child payment immediately as well as to mitigate the two-child limit in Scotland. Projections show that this would cost just 0.2% of the Scottish Government’s total budget. Further ideas expressed to reduce poverty include removing the full-time study rule in carer’s allowance and moving from the safe and secure transition of disability benefits to transforming eligibility and rate, together with using procurement to enforce the living wage and end zero-hours contracts, bringing housing costs down by capping rent rises, and requiring businesses that get public money to pay the living wage and end zero-hours contracts.
Can the Minister confirm that no one will lose money by stopping any overlap between the DLA, PIP, AFIP and the new child disability payment? Also, is the Minister confident that the 13-week CDP run-on payment will take place? What happens if it does not? Finally, when does the Minister expect the national rollout of CDP to take place? Most importantly, is the DWP ready for it?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. I shall deal with some of the points that noble Lords have raised.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and to some degree the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I would say that all five parties in the Scottish Parliament accepted the Smith commission recommendations on the devolution of social security. The two Governments are now working together to implement them, and this SI is part of that process. In Wales, social security is reserved by virtue of the Wales Act 2017, although the Welsh Government have the power to make payments to people in extreme financial hardship using the discretionary assistance fund. In Northern Ireland, social security is transferred to the Northern Ireland Executive. However, in line with the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the DWP and the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland work closely together with a view to maintaining parity between the two systems.
The Barnett formula is used by the Treasury to calculate the annual block grants for the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive. It calculates funding for devolved public services based on what the UK Government spend on those functions in England. If the devolved Administrations want to spend more on devolved services, they must find the funding from elsewhere in their budgets.
On the evaluation of implementation, which noble Lords have raised, that is a matter for the Scottish Government. The UK Government will, of course, be interested in the iterations of the reserved benefits, given the larger number of people in Scotland receiving benefits from both Governments.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, the DWP currently administers benefits on behalf of the Scottish Government where they are the same as other benefits. However, replacement benefits, such as CDP, will be entirely delivered by Social Security Scotland, which is part of the Scottish Government. We will, of course, follow with interest how the Scottish Government deliver their new benefit and we can, of course, learn from their experience where we both face similar challenges.
On cross-border moves from Scotland to England, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asks what will happen if someone moving from Scotland to England and Wales does not apply to the DWP in time for their claim to be processed before their CDP runs out, and whether they will incur a break in payment. If the claimant is late in making the claim following the move, there is a greater risk that there will be a break in payment. However, arrears will be paid back to either the date of the claim or to the date the run-on ceases, depending on the circumstances. If a claimant delays making an application and their CDP stops before their claim has been made, any new claim can be paid only from the date of that claim.
The DWP and the Scottish Government both have devolution programmes to ensure that all partners are ready in delivery and ready for the implementation. We hope that that working together will continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked about how many more SIs on Scotland are coming. It seems that there are three more statutory instruments on devolution of Scottish Social Security to the Scottish Parliament before the Summer Recess. Further instruments will follow as the Scottish Government make further progress on the replacement of benefits.
The UK Government are working collaboratively with the Scottish Government to ensure that the two systems of social security will operate effectively alongside each other and the required legislation that underpins them is delivered successfully for the people of Scotland and, where relevant, claimants in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This order highlights the importance that the UK Government place on the effective functioning of devolution. I commend this order to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
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 no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief. I call the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to ask the first Oral Question.
Great British Railway Plans
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to integrate (1) HS2, and (2) the East West Rail project, into their Great British Railway plan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, HS2 Ltd and East West Rail Ltd are currently separate from Network Rail and are delivering important additions to our rail network. The Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail is clear that they will retain their current roles and work closely with Great British Railways as it takes over responsibilities for integration.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, but it seems that the statement in the Williams report that it will bring together the rail
“network under single national leadership”
is not correct. The report also states that there will be “a new focus” to deal with
“escalations in cost, gold-plating and over-specification”,
which clearly applies mainly to HS2 as the worst offender. Can the Minister explain why there are plans to remove funding from Northern Powerhouse Rail and give it to the bottomless pit of HS2?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, there are no such plans. In reference to the noble Lord’s statements about HS2 and East West Rail being separate infrastructure managers, I say that there are 13 different infrastructure managers already on the rail network. GBR will obviously work closely with them, as indeed it will have to with Transport for Wales and ScotRail. GBR will be set up to collaborate; that is what we want to see it doing.
Lord Snape (Lab) [V]
My Lords, bearing in mind that the recently issued White Paper stressed the importance of a “guiding mind” so far as the railway industry is concerned in future, is it not completely illogical to leave out HS2 and East West Rail, its two major construction projects? Surely there will be considerable involvement in both projects. Does the Minister not remember John Junor’s famous phrase in the Sunday Express: “Who is in charge of the clattering train?”
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Sadly, I do not remember that from the Express. One of the words that the noble Lord said was absolutely critical: “construction”. HS2 and East West Rail are indeed both in construction at the moment and will be for some time. There is therefore ample time as both become operational railways for them to collaborate with GBR to ensure that all their services interlink.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, what is the place of Scotland in this Great British Railways plan?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
There is a place for Scotland in Great Britain. The Scottish Government will continue to exercise their current powers and to be democratically accountable for them. Great British Railways will continue to own the infrastructure in Scotland, as Network Rail does now. The Government will of course explore options with Transport Scotland to enable the railway in Scotland to benefit from the reforms on the wider network of Great Britain.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
If HS2 is to be managed separately, can the Government guarantee that any of its cost overruns, whether in construction or operation, will not see a bailout from wider rail network funds and that it will be responsible for its own overruns?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I think the noble Baroness has just answered her own question: she stated that HS2 would be separate from Great British Railways. That is the case but in any event, as she pointed out, HS2 is under construction. It will be a while before it is an operating railway and then it will work closely with GBR.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Williams-Shapps report promises welcome expansion and better co-ordination of the railways. The Government also say that they are committed to levelling up the north, so can the Minister explain to us why the proposed new timetable for the east coast main line halves the number of trains from Newcastle to Manchester via Durham and Darlington? It also cuts one-third of the trains to London from Berwick and Darlington. In what sense is this expansion and levelling up?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As it happens, I had a conversation yesterday with all the northern leaders when we met as the northern transport acceleration council. They raised this issue, which is of course one of capacity because there are more services, for example, between Newcastle and London. We have heard the pleas from various areas of the north on the timetabling. We are taking that away and doing what we can, but this is one of the reasons why we need Great British Railways. Timetabling is fiendishly complicated and we need to ensure that local areas are heard and get the services they deserve.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend take this opportunity to rebut the current rumours that Northern Powerhouse Rail is going to be scrapped?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend should not read too much into media reports on the front page of—I think it was—the Yorkshire Post. The Government continue to consider all options for Northern Powerhouse Rail as part of the integrated rail plan. Once that plan is published, we will work with Transport for the North to finalise a business case for Northern Powerhouse Rail. This will need to be consistent with the IRP’s policy and the funding framework.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the East West Rail link, certainly between Oxford and Bletchley, needs to be electrified from the outset because of the heavy freight traffic from Southampton to the west coast main line passing through Bletchley? It would be a crying shame if electrification were postponed until after the passenger service started.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The case for electrification of East West Rail is being considered. A review is being undertaken by EWR Co, looking at all the options, including full electrification along the whole route as well as the various options for partial electrification, including battery-electric hybrid rolling stock.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, what proportion of the existing railway will be used in the building of this east-west extension? What is the latest estimate of the overall cost?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for advance notice of this question, because I too had to get my head around how the existing track and the new track all work together. There are three connection stages. The first one will rely on existing track, which will be upgraded, and the second two will be either small sections of existing track or mostly new track. The cost of connection stage 1 is currently £1.288 billion. We do not know the cost of future connection stages at this time, as of course the new track has not yet been fully scoped.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, assuming that the Northern Powerhouse Rail project, HS3, is not going to be scrapped—some parts of the media have suggested that it will be—will the Minister confirm that HS3 will be part of the integrated railway and Great British Railways, in the same way as other private companies are contracted to run the trains for the service and fares that Great British Railways sets?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Goodness—I think we are a little early in the game to be discussing those sorts of arrangements, but I have answered the question about Northern Powerhouse Rail. The integrated rail plan will be published soon.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, is it not time to slay the urban myth that HS2 will not significantly cut travel times? The London to Birmingham travel time will be reduced by a third, or 30 minutes; the London to Manchester time will be halved to only around an hour. In Japan, growth is much more evenly distributed between the cities because of the Shinkansens; they are not content with existing speeds, but are building new lines. Is that not the global standard to which we need to aspire?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is quite right but HS2 is not just about speed, as I so often need to say in your Lordships’ House. As he mentions, it is about bringing our regions closer together and delivering the capacity that our transport network absolutely needs. HS2 will give us a step change in capacity, while almost halving the time it takes to travel between our largest cities. If we were to do that by refreshing our existing railways, it would cause decades of inconvenience and disruption to passengers.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Child Trust Funds: People with a Learning Disability
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will facilitate access to Child Trust Funds by people with a learning disability.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides a process to obtain legal authority to access matured child trust funds. We are working with stakeholders to examine the case for legislation to enable third-party access to smaller balances without the need to obtain the form of legal authority currently required under the Act. This is a complex issue; we intend to bring forward a proposal for consultation as soon as possible after the Recess.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My noble friend has described as “absolutely unfortunate” the current position, whereby access to child trust funds by those with a learning disability has to be through the Court of Protection. This time-consuming and intimidating process is denying much-needed funds to vulnerable people. While he proposes to change the law, as he has just said, he has told me that this might not happen before December. People should not have to wait that long, so may I urge him to make much faster progress?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, we intend to launch the consultation as soon as possible after the Recess. This is a complex issue: as I have said before in this House, it is not limited to child trust funds. It goes beyond those funds and includes, for example, junior ISAs. We need to ensure that all factors, such as scope, simplicity and security of a small payments process are considered and accounted for. We are engaging with stakeholders across the financial services industry to make sure that the consultation is as smooth and effective as possible.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, may I press the Minister a little further? What plans do the Government have to work with the providers of child trust funds to develop a proactive strategy to advertise the need for parents of children with learning disabilities to apply to the Court of Protection in advance of the young adult’s child trust fund maturing? This is a really urgent matter, and we need the Government to be on the front foot.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right: the focus should be on people applying before the young adult turns 18, at which point the legal position changes. We are engaging with industry providers to make sure that parents are aware of that change. We have put material on the GOV.UK pages, HMRC has also published material and my ministerial colleague Minister Chalk will host a round table on 15 July, bringing together relevant stakeholders to enable us to progress this work further.
Lord Flight (Con)
This is the fourth time that my noble friend Lord Young has asked this question. It is a travesty that children with learning difficulties who are over 18 cannot readily access their child trust fund. The Government need to grasp and solve this problem. I do not see why parents should need a Court of Protection order to access funds on their adult children’s behalf. There is now all the more reason for enacting legal changes to solve this problem, which faces 200,000 children with trust funds who cannot access their cash when they are 18 because of their disability. I do not see the DWP working group readily solving the legal problems here. The crucial need is to be able to access balances without requiring a Court of Protection order. This needs special legislation to achieve. Can the Minister update the House on what the group has achieved?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, people need a court order because, in the Mental Capacity Act, Parliament provided protection for young adults to make sure that their funds—and the funds are theirs, not their parents’—can be accessed only by people with a proper court order. The working group meets monthly, and the next meeting is later this week. It has engaged with people across the industry and, as I said a few moments ago, because of the work of the working group, we are now amending the GOV.UK pages to provide more information to parents in that regard as well.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, should be congratulated on the Mental Capacity Act, which is a precious piece of legislation that protects the most vulnerable? Does he agree that any erosion by creating exceptions to its established processes would fail to ensure long-term provision for the vulnerable person’s welfare as an adult over 18, while increasing the risk of child trust funds being diverted without accountability?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I respectfully agree that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, should be congratulated on his work on the Mental Capacity Act. He described it as
“a vitally important piece of legislation, and one that will make a real difference to the lives of people who may lack mental capacity.”
I respectfully agree. I also congratulate the noble Baroness on hosting a very good briefing event on 17 June. I urge all Members of the House who are interested in this topic to look at the materials from that event, which are available on the Social Care Institute for Excellence website.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, along with the noble Lord, Lord Young, I was at the briefing that was just referred to. What disturbs me most now is the juxtaposing of the rights under the Mental Capacity Act and the rights of young adults to access their own funds. Surely, the 15 July round table that the Minister mentioned should be the jumping-off point for the consultation, if, as he has often said, his officials are working “at pace”? “At pace” surely means that, within the next three weeks, that consultation material could be put together.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, we are putting the consultation material together as quickly as we can. The noble Lord is certainly right that we have to balance the ability of young adults to access their own funds against the importance of the protections given by the Mental Capacity Act to young adults who lack the mental capacity to manage those funds or give instructions to others to do so.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, we have been going at this for a while. Would the Minister agree that a parent who has filled one of these trust funds for someone who is now a young adult should be presumed to have their best interests at heart, unless there is another good reason? Saying that you now have a warning system for those coming up is of no assistance to those who have already matured.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble Lord puts his finger on a problem: the Law Commission in 1995 highlighted the need for a small payments procedure, but that was not picked up in Parliament in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Here we are in 2021, trying to resolve a long-standing legal issue. We need to amend the legislation—otherwise, the Mental Capacity Act is a legal block to people’s ability to obtain funds.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
Could my noble friend the Minister help us to understand how many individuals with cognitive impairments could be supported to grant power of attorney to their parents or carers to manage these moneys in the interim? Can we also have reassurance that never again will policies such as this be introduced without any consideration whatever being given to how they might impact those with learning disabilities?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will pick up the noble Baroness’s second point first. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, explained on a previous occasion, regrettably, no thought was given when these funds were set up to people who could not access them because of mental incapacity. That is why we are having to deal with the point now. We do encourage people to make lasting powers of attorney, for example. The important fact is that we want to encourage young adults and their parents to be aware in advance of the legal position that the young adult will be in when they turn 18; it is a fundamentally different position from the one they were in the day before their 18th birthday.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
It is clear that a lot of people will be prejudiced by the delay. From the Minister’s answers, I take it that the Government have decided to legislate. Why can they not legislate before December?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, we have decided to consult, and that is a very important point. It should not be thought that there is nothing, so to speak, on the other side of the argument. I have received representations from third sector organisations that are very concerned that people with disabilities should retain the protections that the Mental Capacity Act, in which the noble and learned Lord played such an important part, gives them. The consultation will ask for views on how we balance these important, but sometimes opposing, principles.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, this Question raises the wider challenge of inadequate financial literacy for underage and mature individuals with special learning needs. As a parent of young adults now seduced into lock-in accounts by commercial banks, I ask whether there not a public duty that could fall on the Post Office to provide community adult numeracy and financial literacy skills. Should the Government consider investing in designated accounts with higher incentive rates for those less able to grasp the complexities of mortgages, investments and standard banking and thus less able to use the market to make money grow?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I fear that I might be straying from my own ministerial brief if I were to say too much about that. It is important that we recognise that part of education generally is teaching young adults and schoolchildren about how finance and money work. Perhaps fewer people would fall victim to scams if a greater emphasis was placed in the education system on the importance of understanding fairly basic financial concepts.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Human Rights at Sea
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect human rights at sea.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency enforces the Maritime Labour Convention 2006, and the Work in Fishing Convention 2007, to protect the living and working conditions of seafarers and fishermen on UK-registered ships and fishing vessels anywhere in the world, and on non-UK ships and fishing vessels in UK ports and waters.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, as far as it concerns UK-flagged vessels—but she will understand that the crews of vessels of all nations on the high seas, whether they are fishing vessels, freight vessels or cruise liners, can be uniquely vulnerable to intimidation, abuse and a lack of immediate recourse to any judicial authority. To start to counter this, will the Government support the work to establish the Geneva declaration on human rights at sea?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord mentioned that my reply only concerned UK-flagged vessels, but I did also mention vessels at UK ports that are not UK-flagged. The Government are not able to provide formal UK support for the declaration that has been established by the charity of which I believe the noble Lord has been a patron for the last three months, and that has been discussed today. But what I can say is that we are hugely supportive of the existing international frameworks that already exist. The Maritime Labour Convention provides comprehensive rights and protections for the world’s 1.2 million seafarers, and ILO 188, the Work in Fishing Convention, does similar for those who work in fisheries.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Merchant Navy Association. For the benefit of the media outlets which pay particular attention to our House, that is unpaid, as are so many of the duties that so many of us fulfil.
One of the devastating effects of the pandemic has been the impact it has had on tens of thousands of merchant seamen who have been unable to return home after their voyages and have served many months over their maximum limits that were set for safety and welfare. What have the Government done to resolve this problem? Can the Minister explain why a group of British merchant seamen returning to the United Kingdom via Holland with British passports were locked up and berated about Brexit, while those with EU passports were waved through?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that the impact of Covid on seafarers has been critical in some circumstances. We take the welfare of seafarers extremely seriously. The UK was one of the first countries—if not the first—to recognise and declare seafarers as key workers during the pandemic. Once we had done that, we brought together more than a dozen nations for a ministerial summit in July 2020. We managed to galvanise people into action. This ultimately led to the declaration in the UN General Assembly later in the year to call on all states to take action to protect the welfare of seafarers in the pandemic.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in her answer to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the Minister referred to the Geneva declaration on human rights at sea, with which she is obviously familiar. The current draft says:
“There is a profound need for the concept of ‘Human Rights at Sea’ to be accepted globally. It is primarily States that have responsibility for enforcing human rights standards at sea.”
Does the Minister agree with those two statements?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I can certainly agree that states predominantly have the responsibility for enforcing and making sure that human rights at sea are indeed followed. Of course, the Government share the concern about human rights abuses at sea. We work incredibly hard with our international partners through the UN organisations responsible for those human rights and with the IMO and the ILO—the International Labour Organization—which are able to set international law that applies to seafarers.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, more than 20,000 refugees fleeing conflict in the Middle East have drowned in the last six years, many as a direct result of bombing and missile attacks by countries such as Britain, America and Russia pursuing so-called strategic interests. Does the Minister agree that we have a moral responsibility to look to the welfare and care of innocent civilians trying to escape by sea to a better life?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As the noble Lord will be aware, the Government have good relationships with many countries in the Middle East and we work very closely with them in order to minimise the loss of life at sea.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s move to declare seafarers as key workers. It was an important first step. Will Ministers go even further and consider making the United Kingdom an international hub for the vaccination of seafarers of all nationalities to ensure that global trade, which is important to us and the rest of the world, can continue to proceed?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a really good point. I am aware that visiting seafarers are able to get vaccinated. I will write to her with further details on our vaccination programme for seafarers.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned all the mechanisms in terms of laws and international conventions, but compliance with those requires port state control to stop a ship that is breaking those rules. What is she doing with her colleagues in the FCO and other departments to ensure that the mechanisms for compliance are strengthened globally so that the welfare of seafarers is better protected?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
In terms of what the UK is doing, in the first instance, we are showing leadership in the area. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency makes well over 1,000 stops every year in UK ports to check that vessels and the seafarers on them are in compliance with both international and domestic law. Where we find things that are not in compliance, we are able to share that information with other ports around the world. We continue to discuss enforcement with our international partners because it is important that these international laws, which have been agreed, are enforced effectively.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I recall as a young student of law, many years ago, the late-19th century case of R v Dudley and Stephens. This involved a shipwreck that caused a number of sailors to take to a lifeboat. As a result of hunger and thirst, they alleged that it was necessary to kill and eat the young cabin boy in order to survive. The common law defence of necessity succeeded at their trial but was reversed on appeal. Does the Minister think that, if the facts were repeated today, the cabin boy’s human rights to life would still trump those of the starving crew?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Oh, my Lords, with modern standards for lifeboats and search and rescue, I would very much hope that such a situation would not arise today. The shipwrecked seafarers would be rescued long before any decisions would need to be taken on who to eat. Modern-day search and rescue services are equipped with an astonishing range of technologies that aid both in alerting the rescue services that there is an issue and in locating persons in distress or potential distress.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
Nautilus International has stated that some crews in ships registered under flags of convenience, including Panama, are having their internet access restricted to maybe 25 megabytes a month. Does the Minister agree on the importance of internet access to the welfare of effective and motivated crews, especially when they have been away for a very long time? What action will the Government take to ensure that all ships entering UK ports provide unlimited broadband on their ships all the way through their voyage?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue. I will write to him with any further details of conversations that are ongoing where limits on broadband might be detrimental to a seafarer’s mental health.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
Can the Minister indicate what joint action can be taken internationally, through the G7 and G20 groups of nations, to eliminate abuses against fishermen—a need that has been recognised by many fish producer organisations, as many of these fishers contribute significantly to our local coastal communities? Many of these people come from eastern Europe and the Philippines and make a major contribution to the catching and processing sectors within the fishing industry.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The UK is fully committed to the welfare of all seafarers and, of course, fishermen. We will continue to work with our international partners to raise standards. We also recognise the difficulty of upholding human rights for those working away from home and beyond the normal authorities ashore. Sometimes, jurisdictional complexities can exist. This is why we welcome things such as the Responsible Fishing Vessel Standard, which is operated by Global Seafood Assurances. This provides commercial incentives to those operating fishing vessels to meet and maintain good standards of safety and employment.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the fourth Oral Question.
Law Enforcement Agencies: Duty of Candour
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to implement the recommendation in The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel (HC 11), published on 15 June, that there should be “a statutory duty of candour, to be owed by all law enforcement agencies to those whom they serve, subject to protection of national security and relevant data protection legislation”.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel recommends legislating for a duty of candour, which is a proposal put forward by the Hillsborough families. The Government are considering this as part of their response to Bishop James Jones’s report on the Hillsborough families’ experiences. The Government wish to engage with the families before publishing this response.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
That is potentially very good news. However, the independent panel highlighted obstruction and a lack of co-operation by the Metropolitan Police that
“placed its concern for its own reputation above the public interest.”
Who do the Government believe should be held accountable for that misconduct?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, first, I extend my deepest sympathies to the family of Daniel Morgan. Regarding who should be held accountable, the Home Secretary has asked the Metropolitan Police Service to account for the findings in the report. She has also asked HMICFRS to ask the chief inspector what steps the inspectorate can take to provide assurance on the issues raised in the report.
Baroness O'Loan (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Daniel Morgan panel. Is the Minister aware that the panel identified the abstraction of vast amounts of police material by the senior investigating officer of the last investigation, much of which he then disseminated to journalists and others for the purpose of broadcasting and writing a book about the murder? It included sensitive and secret material, the dissemination of which involves potentially significant risk to those identified and could undermine any future prosecution. Given this, does the Minister agree that the police must ensure that their policies and procedures to prevent such behaviour are effective and implemented, and that the creation of the duty of candour in matters such as this is vital for the integrity and effectiveness of policing?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness and I thank her for the work she has done to bring forward this report, which I am sure will be a source of learning for both the Government and the Metropolitan Police. Regarding the policies and procedures and what has changed since the murder of Daniel Morgan, as the noble Baroness probably knows, a code of ethics for the police was introduced in 2014, and in 2020 the standards of professional behaviour were changed to clarify that failure to co-operate with investigations and inquiries could constitute misconduct. Much has changed for the better since the murder of Daniel Morgan, but, as the noble Baroness says, this is by no means the end of this very long story.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my policing interests in the register. I campaigned for a duty of candour in the NHS. My review, Changing Prisons, Saving Lives, recommended a similar duty for the offender management service. So, of course, it is right that a similar duty should be placed on police. However, the Minister said that everything must wait for the response from the commissioner, the review by Her Majesty’s inspectorate and a full response to the Hillsborough inquiry. But this is a free-standing issue—a duty of candour could be introduced now. What is the Home Office waiting for? Will the Minister make a clear commitment to legislating on this today?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is important to answer the noble Lord’s questions. The Home Secretary is keen to speak to the family before taking such measures forward. There were trials going on until recently. The families are very important in helping the Home Secretary on what steps to take forward.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, in March 2011 the then acting Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Tim Godwin, said of the Daniel Morgan murder:
“The MPS has accepted that police corruption in the original investigation was a significant factor in this failure.”
When the independent panel asked the Metropolitan Police to explain what the corruption mentioned in this and other admissions of corruption consisted of, it replied that
“any clarity required would have to be provided by those officers themselves.”
Tim Godwin did not join the Metropolitan Police until 1999, so he must have been briefed by the Metropolitan Police on what to say. Even now, the Metropolitan Police refuses to be open and transparent. How can the Home Secretary allow this to continue?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the Home Secretary fully expects the Metropolitan Police to respond positively to this report and to set out publicly the clear steps it intends to take to avoid making the same mistakes again. She has written to the Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner setting out her expectations and she will update the House on progress following a response from the Metropolitan Police and others.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
This absolutely terrible and shocking incident adds to the legacy of the damaged trust of all aggrieved Hillsborough families and others in the police. It is devastating for the Morgan family, who fought so hard to get the truth; it is painful for the communities the police serve; and it is painful for the vast majority of officers, who serve with integrity. It is plain to see just how urgent the need is to get this statutory duty of candour in place. Notwithstanding what the Minister has already told the House, what work has begun to get that recommendation implemented? When will the duty be in place and how will it be enforced, thereby earning and maintaining public confidence in the police? This is urgent, and we want the Government to move as quickly as possible.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I say to the noble Lord that I agree with pretty much everything he says. This work is urgent. I know that work is progressing at pace and that the Home Secretary wants to speak to the family before making further progress on it.
Lord Lexden (Con)
In light of the Morgan inquiry, what action has the Metropolitan Police taken in recent years to root out crime and corruption from its ranks? How many police officers have been prosecuted, suspended, forced to resign or retire early or sacked for corrupt behaviour since the current Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police took up her post?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I did not hear all of my noble friend’s question, but I think he was talking about police officers being prosecuted, suspended, forced to resign or sacked. Between December 2017, when the police barred list was established, and 2020, a total of 117 officers and 18 special constables from the Metropolitan Police service were dismissed and added to the police barred list. The College of Policing breaks this down by category, but there is no single category for corruption. We do not intend to collect data on police suspensions, as that is obviously a matter for individual chief officers, but I can tell my noble friend that the Home Office is currently amending its data collection on police misconduct and we intend to publish data in greater detail from this autumn.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, although the duty of candour has to be organised in ways that do not compromise either national security or police intelligence gathering against serious crime, is it not very important to move in this direction? We have had police officers making a small industry out of selling information to the media, while other police officers were withholding information essential to discovering what had happened in this dreadful murder case.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
What is also important to recognise, as I said to the noble Baroness, is how things have changed. It is 34 years ago; that is an awfully long time for the family to have had to wait, but there has been the introduction of a code of ethics for the police, and Section 35 of the Inquiries Act 2005 makes it an offence to commit acts that have the effect of distorting, altering or preventing evidence being given. I understand that this is obviously not a statutory inquiry, but clear standards of professional conduct for the police have been introduced in relatively recent years.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
First, I wish to pay tribute to the family of Daniel Morgan. It is only as a result of their utter determination to see justice done that the independent panel was finally set up, 26 years after Daniel’s horrific murder. Now, 34 years after his murder, we have its report, revealing appalling truths relating to the various police investigations that would never otherwise have been so comprehensively and forensically exposed; truths which make clear why still nobody has been brought to justice for Daniel’s murder, and probably never will be. The delay of eight years in completing and publishing the panel’s report only made matters even harder for the family, but it is to be hoped that its findings, justifying their determined stance, will provide some solace.
I wish to express our appreciation as well for the hard work done by the panel and for its report, and not least for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. It does not seem that the work it did, with the barriers it faced, involved an exactly smooth and stress-free process. The report is devastating in what it reveals about the conduct, role, approach and competence of the Metropolitan Police Service, which was found by the panel to have concealed or denied failings for the sake of its public image. It was found that this was dishonesty on the part of an organisation for reputational benefit and constituted a form of institutional corruption.
It is a conclusion that has already been abruptly rejected by the MPS as continuing to still apply, even though it has still to meet the Home Secretary’s requirement for the commissioner to submit a report setting out the Metropolitan Police Service’s response to the findings and recommendations of the independent panel. Would the Government say, first, when that MPS response has to be with the Home Secretary, and, secondly, if that written response from the MPS will be placed before Parliament, unamended and unredacted?
The overwhelming majority of MPS officers and staff will be gutted by the findings of the report. Certainly, my involvement with the MPS, as a participant in the parliamentary police scheme, left me with nothing but admiration for the way MPS officers and staff under- take their work on our behalf.
When the panel was set up by the then Home Secretary in 2013, it was expected to complete its work within 12 months of relevant documentation being made available. Instead, it took eight years, with the last relevant material not being forthcoming from the Metropolitan Police until March this year. The panel was not set up under the Inquiries Act, which would have given it statutory powers in relation to its investigation—not least over non co-operation—including powers over timely disclosure of documents and compelling people to appear before it to give evidence. The report is very blunt about the attitude of the Metropolitan Police Service towards the panel, saying that, at times, the force treated panel members as though they were litigants in a case against them. Can the Government say why the panel was left to carry out its work with one arm tied behind its back, as far as its powers were concerned? Would the Government also say if the Home Office was aware of the difficulties the panel was having in carrying out its work with the Metropolitan Police Service, and, if so, when did it become aware and what action did any Home Secretary then take, bearing in mind that the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the police service?
That brings me on to a further statement in the panel report, on page 1138, which says:
“The relationship with the different officials who have been Senior Sponsor … since 2013 has been positive, but the relationship with the Home Office as a department has been more challenging.”
Would the Government say in their response whether the Home Office was aware of the specific issues of concern in relation to the Home Office, referred to on page 1138 of the report, and, if so, what action was taken to resolve them and then to ensure that no similar situation could arise again? One would have thought, bearing in mind that the panel was established in 2013 by the then Home Secretary, that the Home Office would have given its full backing and support to the panel. Clearly, that was not the case.
The Home Secretary told the Commons that she was asking the Inspectorate of Constabulary to look into the issues raised by the independent panel’s report. What are the exact terms of reference that have been given on this to the inspectorate?
The Home Secretary also said that she would return to update Parliament on progress made on the recommendations in the report, which include a duty of candour, greater protection for whistleblowers, more effective vetting procedures and adequate provision of resources to deal with corruption, once she had
“received responses from the Metropolitan Police and others.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/21; col.128]
Would the Government spell out exactly who “and others” covers, and whether that means the Home Secretary does not intend to return to the Commons with an update until she has received a response from all those, however many they may be, covered by “and others”?
Will oral updates to Parliament be given at regular intervals on progress being made in the light of the panel recommendations and other responses? One of the panel recommendations is a statutory duty of candour. Will the Government confirm that that recommendation, along with others about a requirement for co-operation from public bodies, will be implemented in time for the inquiry into the Covid pandemic?
Finally, would the Government say what further action they intend to take to provide justice for Daniel Morgan and his family? They are the ones who have been denied justice for 34 years. Public trust and confidence in our police are crucial, not least for policing by consent. The Government need to ensure that this kind of appalling episode can never happen again. Will the Government confirm that that is their objective in considering the findings and recommendations of the panel report, and that regular oral updates will be given to Parliament on how and to what timescale that objective is being delivered?
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, on her report and her patience. I apologise to the Morgan family for the way an organisation I was part of for over 30 years has conducted itself. The only points I wish to make are that this report chimes exactly with my professional and personal experience, that this report needs to be taken seriously, and that urgent action needs to be taken as a result. The Metropolitan Police puts its own reputation before openness, honesty and the pursuit of justice, and those who are telling the truth are ostracised and forced out.
Let me give noble Lords another example. In 2005, as a police officer holding the fourth highest rank in the Metropolitan Police, I gave evidence to the Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiry into whether the Metropolitan Police has misled the family of Jean Charles de Menezes after he was mistakenly shot and killed by the police following the London bombings. The then commissioner had told the media that both he and all those advising him believed for 24 hours after the shooting that Jean Charles de Menezes was a suicide bomber, when, in fact, five hours after the shooting, his closest advisers had told me that Jean Charles de Menezes was innocent. Noble Lords will recall the trial of the Metropolitan Police for health and safety breaches, where the Met digitally altered the image of the suspect it was pursuing to make it look more like de Menezes and claimed mistaken identity.
After an uneasy truce of about 18 months, I was side- lined from being in day-to-day charge of 20,000 officers to overseeing a project with 20 officers because the commissioner had lost confidence in me. He had done so because I told the truth. As a police inspector, I was told that I was too honest to be a senior police officer, and 20 years later I found out that that was true. That was the culture of the Metropolitan Police then, and this report tells us that it is the culture of the Metropolitan Police now. It highlights various types of corruption, including what it describes as “incontrovertibly corrupt behaviour”, such as selling stories to press contacts and planting false evidence.
Research that I saw when I was a serving police officer showed that when there were surges in recruitment, as there was 30 years after the end of the Second World War and again 30 years later, there were significant increases in misconduct in those cohorts of recruits, increasing in seriousness as they secured important investigative positions within the organisation. The usual peak for misconduct was between 10 to 15 years’ service. In the early 2000s the peak was between nought and two years’ service. The report is right to highlight vetting systems, but this is nothing new. Why have the Government not taken action to address this recurring problem in the police service?
The report also highlights what it describes as a form of institutional corruption, failings in police investigations, unjustified reassurances rather than candour and a culture of obfuscation. The panel describes hurdles placed in its path, such as a refusal to recognise the necessity to have access to the HOLMES computer database, limiting access to the most sensitive information and even failing to provide a copy of the London homicide manual. It set out how murder investigations should have been conducted at the time of Daniel Morgan’s murder, and its existence was not even revealed to the panel until December 2020.
The Metropolitan Police were able to claim repeatedly that the initial Daniel Morgan murder investigation was in accordance with the standards of investigation at the time by concealing the manual that proved that it was not investigated in accordance with the standards of investigation at that time. This is how the Metropolitan Police acts now, under its current leadership. This is not just about a few corrupt police officers who thwarted a murder investigation in 1987 or even the further corruption identified after a subsequent investigation; this is about a culture that enables corruption to thrive. The kind of institutional corruption identified in this report is not some kind of academic construct, an isolated incident of a few corrupt officers. It is the tip of an iceberg that threatens to undermine policing by consent in this country. That is a matter for the Government and the Home Secretary, and it must be urgently addressed.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I again join the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, not only in paying tribute to the family of Daniel Morgan but in their appreciation of the work of the panel.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked when the Metropolitan Police Service will respond to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary has undertaken to update the House by the end of the year, so the answer to his question is “swiftly”. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the obstruction in obtaining documentation. On the production of documentation and the funding required to carry out the work of the panel, the Home Secretary feels that the money and resources were sufficient to carry out the investigation. To date, some £16 million has been spent on this investigation.
On the relationship with the Home Office, I do not think that it has been smooth sailing. The previous Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Theresa May, set up the inquiry and it was never the intention that the relationship with the Home Office should be difficult. The Home Office has tried to assist the panel in whatever way it can.
I do not have to hand the terms of reference for the inspectorate, but I assume that that they would have been set up for the precise reason of ensuring that there is a full inspection. On the point of the term “and others”, I presume that one of the “and others” is the IOPC. On the duty of candour to be taken forward, as I said earlier, the Home Secretary will want to speak to the family and to progress matters after that.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, whether the Government will ensure that such a tragedy and miscarriage of justice never happen again and that the police cannot get away with impunity. I said earlier that Section 35 of the Inquiries Act 2005 makes it an offence to commit acts that are intended to have the effect of distorting, altering or preventing evidence being given to a statutory inquiry, although this was not a statutory inquiry, and I understand that. However, it is an offence intentionally to suppress, conceal or destroy a relevant document.
On recent measures, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, talked about historic failings. The investigations may be historic, but police corruption is something that the Government have focused on. The introduction of the code of ethics in 2014 went some way towards correcting it, as did the establishment in 2015 of a specific criminal offence of police corruption. I recall, because I took the legislation through the House, that measures to ensure that officers cannot resign or retire to evade accountability were brought in in 2017, as well as a barred list to prevent dismissed officers rejoining policing.
There are also last year’s reforms to ensure that misconduct investigations are more transparent and swift. Much work has been done by national policing to tackle corruption, particularly through the national action plan on abuse of a position for a sexual purpose. I know that HMICFRS is currently undertaking a follow-up inspection of all forces’ counter-corruption and vetting capabilities and, as I may have said earlier, the Home Secretary has asked HMICFRS to ensure an urgent focus on the Metropolitan Police Service.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
We come now to the 20 minutes allocated to Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I refer again to my policing interests as set out in the register. The finding of institutional corruption is uniquely serious, but two issues are being conflated. The first is the corrupt relationships that undoubtedly existed between police officers, criminal groups and the news media that frustrated a proper investigation of the murder of Daniel Morgan. When I chaired the Metropolitan Police Authority, there was a system of integrity-testing police officers on an intelligence-led basis, but also randomly. My understanding is that the latter was phased out during Boris Johnson’s mayoralty. Does the Minister agree that this was unwise?
The second issue is the culture of defensiveness. The Daniel Morgan report suggests that such a culture is just as significant now as it was when I first raised the need for a further investigation into the 1987 murder and was told by the then commissioner that there was no point as the case was 15 years old, the Met had changed and a fresh investigation would only undermine the reputation of the police. Openness and accountability are essential, so will the Government lead by example?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord because the sound was not very good, but I understood that he sees a culture that has not changed over many years, particularly one of defensiveness. The report makes it clear that there were significant failings in the Met and that the force put its reputation first, ahead of its duty to the public.
The vast majority of Metropolitan police officers, who work tirelessly to keep us safe and often put themselves in the way of danger, cannot be forgotten. They uphold the highest standards expected of them. Lessons need to be learned and the Home Secretary has decided that she wants a clear and transparent response from the commissioner, as the noble Lord says.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the report calls for police officers to be required to register membership of the Freemasons with their chief constable. This is a modest requirement compared to the recommendation of the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, 24 years ago, that a register should be publicly available. A voluntary declaration, not even seen by the public, is inadequate to remove any perception of conflict of loyalty and ensure trust in the police. When will the Government act at least to make it mandatory to declare membership of the Freemasons, if not for that to be publicly available?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The panel is clear that it did not find any evidence that freemasonry had any effect on the investigations. The Code of Ethics, published by the College of Policing, makes it clear that the police must remain impartial and that membership of groups or societies must not cause a conflict of interest or impact an officer’s duty to discharge their duties effectively.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, at Chapter 10, Paragraph 470, there is a quote that
“‘the corruption of freemasonry influenced every attempt at seeking the truth in the initial Morgan criminal investigation and subsequent enquiries’.”
Later, there are some figures on the voluntary database, where 96% of judges, 88% of magistrates, but
“only 37% of police … declared whether or not they were Freemasons”.
The recommendation actually says:
“All police officers and police staff should be obliged to register in confidence”.
They are not asked, but are obliged to do so. Later on, it says:
“The ‘rotten apple approach’ to dealing with corruption does not meet the needs of a police service seeking to minimise, and even prevent corruption”.
Is it not time at least to accept the recommendation that police officers should be obliged to register whether they are Freemasons?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank my noble friend. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, on the definition of freemasonry, the Code of Ethics published by the College of Policing makes it clear that the police must remain impartial and that membership of groups or societies must not cause a conflict of interest or impact an officer’s ability to discharge their duties effectively. As I said earlier, the panel is clear that it found no evidence that freemasonry had any effect on the investigations.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, a statutory duty of candour is a necessary first step in checking institutionalised corruption through the sunlight of transparency, candour and frankness. That point was made strongly by the 2013 Francis report, the 2015 Harris review, the 2015 Report of the Morecambe Bay Investigation and the 2017 Jones report on the Hillsborough tragedy, which specifically called for the establishment of a duty of candour for police officers. Can the Minister explain why the Government have ignored such calls? Secondly, if the Government are sincere about creating such a duty, they can easily and speedily adopt the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, which was tabled in March 2017 by former MP Andy Burnham. There we are—we have ready-made legislation. What prevents the Government adopting it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord may not have been here for an earlier question, but I said that the Home Secretary is very keen to speak to the families before publishing our response on this duty.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, senior police officers, who abhor the corrupt relationships with criminals that are fully illustrated in this report, still find it difficult to accept that they may be guilty of institutional corruption. Is it not important to make it clear that the culture of cover-up, delay and denial is indeed a form of institutional corruption, which makes space for criminal corruption and leads the victims of corruption to believe that there is neither point nor prospect in trying to challenge the police about it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I said, the Home Secretary has written to the commissioner to set out her expectations and has explained that she is taking personal responsibility to make sure that progress is made on the issues outlined in this report. She has also brought forward a review of the IOPC and its governance structures, as well as asking HMICFRS to consider how it feels it can best focus on the issues raised.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the family of Daniel Morgan and to the late Paul Flynn MP, who pursued this matter relentlessly on behalf of the family. The failure of the Metropolitan Police to identify and prosecute any person or persons responsible for Daniel Morgan’s death is deeply regrettable, and I extend my heartfelt sympathy to his family. This was clearly a failure of investigative leadership and of others at the top of the organisation.
The Metropolitan Police has been accused in this report of being institutionally corrupt. By definition, an institution consists of those people within it. I was one of them for 32 years, so let me state clearly that I was not corrupt, neither were the tens of thousands of police officers and support staff who I had the privilege of working with over those years. I do not accept, and neither do my former colleagues—including the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner—that there is any evidence whatever of systematic corruption in the Metropolitan Police, now or previously. The report has failed miserably to substantiate this general allegation, which frankly is a slur on the reputation of those police officers who have so diligently pursued terrorists and organised criminals and who daily face the dangers of policing this great capital. Sadly, I fear the report will be remembered solely for this unfortunate misrepresentation. I ask the Minister to join me in rejecting the baseless allegation of institutional corruption.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
If I can, I will echo the words of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. As I said earlier, thousands of police officers patrol the streets of Greater London, putting themselves in danger and helping the lives of the members of the public whom they serve. The Home Secretary is looking into the institutional defensiveness that goes hand in glove with this report, but it is important to remember that we owe an absolute debt of gratitude to the thousands of police officers who keep us safe.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for achieving something incredibly difficult that has taken so long largely because she did not have the powers of the Inquiries Act 2005. Can the Minister explain the issue of the Freemasons? The report says:
“The Panel has not seen evidence that Masonic channels were corruptly used in connection with either the commission of the murder or to subvert the police investigations.”
Of course, the Freemasons are very good at hiding everything, particularly from women, so the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, probably had a more difficult job, as would the Minister. Who is monitoring and enforcing what the police are doing? The police code of ethics may be better, but who is checking on it? I am afraid, on the evidence that I have seen, that I have to conclude that there is significant corruption in the Metropolitan Police.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I repeat, as the noble Lord said, that the panel is clear that it found no evidence that freemasonry had any effect on the investigations, and I refer noble Lords to the code of ethics. It might help the noble Lord to know that HMICFRS is currently undertaking a follow-up inspection of all forces’ counter-corruption and vetting capabilities. The Home Secretary has asked HMICFRS to ensure an urgent focus on the Metropolitan Police.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, surely the people who should be most angry and outraged by this report are the vast majority of police officers, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred, because they have been betrayed by these institutional failings. This is not a historic report; it is a current report. I understand that the College of Policing has drawn up a number of key action points for police forces to counter corruption. Will the Home Secretary inquire of chief constables and police and crime commissioners what action they have taken in response to those suggestions from the College of Policing? Does she share the report’s sense of urgency that something must be done very quickly?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with everything that the noble Lord said. The Home Secretary definitely shares that urgency, seeing as she will be coming back to report HMICFRS’s findings towards the end of the year. It is worth pointing out now the work that national policing has done to tackle corruption, and that forces are periodically inspected on anti-corruption capabilities by HMICFRS—including this year. That does not take away from the report itself, which clearly shows that certain individuals are sadly lacking in that area.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I offer my sympathies to the family of the late Daniel Morgan and pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for her report. Both the Minister and the Statement refer to the “periodic review” of the Independent Office for Police Conduct that will take place. Can she outline the timeframe for that review? How long will it take? In looking at governance structures, will it look at the issue that will deal with a form of institutional corruption, which the panel’s report high- lighted?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
There was due to be a review of the IOPC at the end of this year, and the Home Secretary is bringing it forward to start as soon as practicable in the next few weeks.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has said that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police placed “hurdles” in the way of the panel’s work, prolonging it by years. The commissioner has said that she gave “maximum co-operation” to the panel. Who are we to believe? Will Sir Tom Winsor, in the course of his inquiries, tell us the truth about these two irreconcilable statements? It is not unsurprising that the Morgan family has been unable to accept the apology of the Metropolitan Police, whose sincerity must be open to doubt.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I can understand the feelings of the Morgan family; it has been a devastating 34 years for them. Clearly, this review has covered more than one commissioner; it has been in train for the last eight years. I cannot say whether the commissioner gave full support to the inquiry but, certainly, some of the following investigations will look into it, particularly that of the HMICFRS.
Arrangement of Business
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. For Committee on the Professional Qualifications Bill, I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including those 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 groups are binding. A participant wishing 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.
Professional Qualifications Bill [HL]
Tuesday 22nd June 2021
(3 years, 6 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-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (17 Jun 2021)
Baroness Noakes
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a regulator of a regulated profession if—(a) the regulator oversees the regulation of a regulated profession carried out by another person or persons,(b) the regulator is satisfied that the information required by this section is available on the website of that other person or persons, and(c) the regulator’s website states where the information may be found.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes provision for a regulator which does not regulate a profession directly but oversees the regulation carried out by other professional bodies.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 45 I will speak also to Amendment 46 in my name. I shall also speak to Amendments 63 and 68 in this group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, to which I have added my name.
Amendments 45 and 46 both deal with the position of regulators that oversee the regulation of a regulated profession but do not carry out that regulation themselves. This typically arises where a regulator oversees a number of professional bodies, each of which provides qualifications for, and regulate those who practise, the profession. An example of this is the Financial Reporting Council, which oversees regulated auditors, but wholly or partly through the work done by several professional accountancy bodies. Those professional bodies qualify and regulate the accountants within their membership, not all of whom are regulated auditors. I will not attempt a technical description of the medical and dental professions, but the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council sit over the top of various other bodies and medical colleges to which individuals belong, and I suspect that similar issues arise.
Clause 8 requires the regulator to publish information on requirements to practise. My Amendment 45 is intended to ensure that, if the information is displayed on another website, the regulator need not gather and load up that information on its own website but can signpost where to find it. For example, the FRC could signpost information on the websites of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the corresponding bodies in Ireland and Scotland, as well as the other bodies which have recognised audit qualifications. Anything else is just bureaucracy for the sake of it and is inefficient.
Clause 9 places a duty on a regulator to provide information to a regulator in another part of the UK. My Amendment 46 says that if someone else holds the information, they should seek to get the information provided by that other person. A regulator may have information about individuals in relation to the particular regulated profession but may not have information relating to the broader context of an individual’s membership of a professional body—for example, a full disciplinary or complaint record. Gathering information only for the purpose of sharing it with another UK regulator would again be duplicative and inefficient.
Since the amendments in this group were tabled, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and I have received an extraordinary letter from the Minister that is relevant to all the amendments in this group. This was one of my noble friend’s Sunday missives, which we have all learned to love during the passage of this Bill. Noble Lords may recall that I initially asked for a list of the bodies covered by the Bill. I received a letter, dated 23 March, listing 160 regulated professions. The Minister said at the time that this was a list of the regulated professions that BEIS considered fell within the Bill’s definition. Last Sunday’s letter claimed that the earlier list was “indicative”—although he did not say that at the time—and a new list was attached. The new list has over 250 professions and nearly 60 regulators.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, it is nice to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Clearly, she and I were doing the same thing on Sunday afternoon; when everyone else was out enjoying the rain, we were sitting at our computers waiting for letters from the Minister. When I have finished speaking to Amendments 63 and 68, I am sure that, if he were to indicate the Government’s willingness in principle to accept them, the House would give him leave to give such an indication and save us from having to go through the whole group.
In respect of Amendments 45 and 46, respectively moved and tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, it is clearly right that an arm’s-length regulator, which now also includes the Legal Services Board, should not have the same legal requirements to provide regulators’ information to the assistance centre, and nor should it be caught by the other requirements that apply to front- line regulators.
As we have heard, 160 professions were originally caught by this legislation; as late as the Minister’s letter to me of 18 June, it was still 160 professions. The first time round, of course, it was the 57 varieties in the letter to the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Garden, on 24 May. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, even the new list is “indicative”, although we were not told that the first list was indicative. I received the Minister’s letter at 2.16 pm on Sunday afternoon with some amusement because, as the noble Baroness said, we now have 60 regulators and about 200 professions. As I think she indicated, you really could not make it up.
Legislation has been drafted without the department even knowing which bodies are covered. It has then had to correct or revise it quickly afterwards to add, for example, recognised supervisory bodies, because it has just realised that the Companies Act and the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations include them. As we heard, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has been added. We had specifically been told on 5 June, and again as late as 18 June, that the ICAEW was not included; we now find that it is. As the Minister’s letter was not private, I shared a copy of it with the ICAEW. It emailed to say that
“it feels like government seem to be rushing through this legislation without having thought through the detail of the Bill and its consequences, and parliamentarians”—
I think that means us—
“are now having to try and fix this. For the list of regulators and professions affected by this Bill to have changed so substantially while the legislation is being scrutinised … does not help give certainty on such an important and wide-ranging legislative measure—a point hopefully the Minister would recognise.”
I mentioned the Legal Services Board, which is now included in the list when it was not before, but the list still lists the Law Society of England and Wales as the regulator of solicitors. I would have thought that it would be more appropriate for the Solicitors Regulation Authority to be listed. The SRA has written to me, to say:
“We would support the SRA being named on the face of the bill”.
It is rather surprised that the Law Society is mentioned. That was undoubtedly correct under the Legal Services Act 2007, but it should now be the SRA because it has recently been established as a legal entity. Clearly, even what we had on Sunday still needs correcting, and it needs correcting now, rather than at some point in the future.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, the Minister’s letter says that the Government are still testing the list, and will make it public only after that. That really is not sufficient. The Government should not only know which bodies will be covered but have consulted them prior to drafting the Bill. It is no good finding out now that new regulators have not had the chance to put their pennyworth in, and that their specific remit, structure and the way they work clearly cannot have been considered because they have not been consulted.
I think that the noble Baroness and I both agree that it is also not adequate, even when the list is finalised, simply to have it available somewhere in the ether once the Bill is enacted. How are professions regulated by these bodies, or indeed foreign professionals who might want to be authorised here, to know whether the Bill covers them and whether it covers a list of regulators? Saying that there is a list on GOV.UK is insufficient, because who would know to look there to see whether there was a list of regulators covered by the Bill?
This is a powerful Bill. It will enable a Minister to mandate a supposedly independent regulator to put certain processes in place—our Delegated Powers Committee calls it a Henry VIII power. These professions are regulated in law but supposedly with an arm’s-length approach, up till now, as to how they gain and retain their professional standing. A new law would give powers to Ministers over these professional regulators. How can it be possible that those regulators are not listed in the Bill? Of course it must be possible to add or subtract regulators as they change their titles or merge—the sort of thing that happens over time—but it cannot be right to add in a new regulator at the whim of a Minister with no by your leave from Parliament and no mention in legislation.
Amendment 63 would therefore add in a reference to a schedule listing the regulators covered by the Bill, and Amendment 68 comprises that proposed new schedule. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested, given that it was a copy-and-paste, it is not now as accurate as I thought it was when I tabled the amendment. That is not my fault; the list was from the Minister’s original letter. Unless the Minister will now accept the amendment in principle, the amendment I will table on Report will be the corrected version. Perhaps by then the Minister will have been able to confirm that all statutory bodies covered by the Bill have been identified and consulted, and to provide us with a list of which of those 60 regulators do not already have the power to recognise overseas qualifications and therefore might not even need the Minister’s authorisation, as allowed for in the Bill. As I said, if the Minister will indicate now that he accepts this in principle, then I am sure that we can shortcut this.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I have been a Member of a Parliament—either the Scottish Parliament or this Parliament—for nearly 18 years now. I cannot remember a government proposal for legislation that is so catch-all and which would have powers to amend primary legislation with whatever it wants, by whoever it wants, whenever it sees fit. For the Government not to know who the Bill will apply to while it goes through Parliament is unacceptable. Therefore, although I support all the amendments in the group, I also support the call for the Government to take their foot off the accelerator and pause, so that not just Parliament but the Government themselves can properly scrutinise who will be impacted by the Bill.
In many respects we have an indicative Bill, not an indicative list of bodies. We should not have indicative Bills presented to us. If the Government want to do this properly, there are well-established measures for presenting draft Bills. A draft Bill would probably have fleshed out all these aspects, and allowed those groups to indicate whether or not they will be part of the framework, whether they want to be part of it, or whether they desperately do not want to be. At least we would have known. When I say “we”, I want to be all-inclusive, and I include the Minister—he would have known as well.
It is not just a question of whether the Government know which regulators and regulated professions will be in the framework. The impact assessment also includes a number of those that will not be in the framework, which is equally important. Do the Government also know this list? Otherwise, there might be some horrible kind of purgatory, where some of these bodies do not know whether they are on the way to legislation, and so are in a holding pattern, or whether they will not be part of it.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 45 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes, which makes provision for a regulator that does not regulate the profession directly but oversees the regulation carried out by other professional bodies. This refers precisely to the British Association of Snowsport Instructors, to which I referred at length at Second Reading. I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, on her excellent Amendment 63. I will speak in favour of it because it recognises:
“The appropriate national authority or the Secretary of State may by regulations amend”
the schedule,
“so as to insert additional regulators.”
These will not necessarily be regulators of regulated professionals by statute but may be regulators such as the British Association of Snowsport Instructors.
I highlight this case because I have received a letter, distributed in May by the department of the economy in the Canton du Valais in Switzerland. That canton has more mountainous regions than any other in the Alps, including many famous ski resorts such as Crans-Montana, Zermatt and Morzine-Avoriaz, to name but a few. The letter, sent by the department to ski instructors in Switzerland, said:
“The enforcement of Brexit on 1 January 2021 will mean major changes in the hiring of British nationals. We would like to inform you of the following changes to your sector of activity. As of 1 January 2021, British nationals can no longer avail themselves of the agreement on the free movement of persons. They are therefore subject to the foreign nationals and integration Act (AIA), its ordinance (AOA) and its directives (AIA directives). This implies that the employment of British nationals is strictly reserved for highly qualified persons and must meet the strict conditions of the applicable law. Thus, according to the LEI guidelines, the hiring of snow sports teachers can only be done for qualified teachers, provided that there is an exchange agreement between a partner in the country of origin and a Swiss institution. In addition, the teachers must come from non-EU EFTA countries where there is a long tradition of the activity in question. Therefore, it will not be possible to hire British nationals as ski instructors. The recruitment of ski instructors will have to be done at Swiss level, or within the European Union countries. The Foreign Labour Section team is at your disposal for any further information. Please take note of the above. Our best regards”.
That is a massive blow, announced in May, for all British ski instructors who have done so much over many generations to develop the sport of skiing, both in Switzerland and in Europe. It is also wrong. It says that the ski instructors should come
“from countries where there is a long tradition of the activity in question”—
but, of course, the country with the longest tradition of activity in Swiss-based skiing is the United Kingdom. It was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who introduced skiing to Switzerland after returning from one of his skiing trips in Norway. He brought with him some skis, and he felt that Switzerland was the perfect terrain for such activity.
This is extremely serious for the future of not just British ski instructors but all those who support them. Seasonal businesses and the travel industry have argued the case very strongly that most people who go skiing in the Alps are supported. When they go on holiday, they tend to book through a British company, to be met at the resort by a British representative and, often, to be looked after by British staff—cooks, cleaners and ski instructors, as well as water sports instructors elsewhere in Europe and bar staff. This is all at risk. So the UK outbound tourism industry is facing a crisis in this sector post Covid. Thousands of young people—some 25,000 UK young people support outbound tourism—are also at risk.
It is exceptionally important to cover the second point, but I appreciate that it is the first point, on the British Association of Ski Instructors, that is most pertinent to this set of amendments. Not only does it effectively regulate all ski instructors in the United Kingdom but, through its hard work and diligence with international regulators—many of whom are supported in law in their respective countries—it is in a position whereby, as a result of the situation in which we currently find ourselves, it is not given the support by government that is absolutely necessary to remedy this.
Of course, when we were looking at the previous clause, Clause 7, on the assistance centre, there was an opportunity to put a great deal of effort, time and commitment behind securing the interests of those people as we go forward. I would argue that it is very urgent. If that sort of letter is circulating within the Alps, we need to act now.
I very much hope that one of two things might happen. The Minister is a Whitgift-educated man, and Whitgift is an outstanding centre of sporting excellence. I am sure that he wants to go back there with his head held high, having defended the interests of ski instructors in this country. Either he can use his extraordinary powers of negotiating skill to return pretty swiftly to Brussels to sort out this problem—and, in the case of Switzerland, negotiate with his counterparts there—or he can give a commitment that he will strengthen the assistance centre to make sure that this is a priority for the help given by the assistance centre. There was much debate and uncertainty about whether the resources behind the assistance centre would be adequate when the Committee looked into that in detail. Alternatively, he can accept the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lady Noakes. Those are the three options.
I very much hope that the Minister will recognise the importance of this issue, which is now critical and urgent, and in so doing be able to give a very clear commitment to the Committee today that he intends to take this forward. I hope that he will underline the urgency in the same way that I have tried to do for the Committee this afternoon.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 45 and 46, but I support all of the amendments in this group. Before I do so, I thank the Minister for the correspondence that I received like everyone else—I made a lot of fuss about it in the previous Committee meeting, and I am grateful now that I am receiving this correspondence.
I shall speak mainly about the medical profession, because I know that best. Although the regulator, which is the General Medical Council, is responsible for all areas of training and certification, the GMC delegates quite a lot of its responsibilities to other bodies. Therefore, information about the different aspects and different levels of training is available from the bodies that deliver the education and training. For instance, it is mostly the universities that deliver undergraduate training. They all follow a core curriculum set by the General Medical Council, but in addition most universities also provide some medical training that will be different from other universities. For instance, my university, the University of Dundee, puts more emphasis on primary care, as well as meeting all the requirements of the core training set by the General Medical Council. The regulator has the information about core training and also publishes information on the universities, but it is the individual universities that will have the information about their particular training in medicine.
For specialist training, again the regulator is the General Medical Council, but all specialist training is delivered by colleges and faculties—I declare an interest as a fellow of several colleges. It is the colleges that write the curriculum and the training, which is approved by the General Medical Council, and they make sure that the training is conducted according to the agreement. At the completion of specialist training, which may take several years, it is the General Medical Council that issues a certificate of completion of training and puts the doctor on the specialist register.
Some doctors may take higher degrees, such as a doctorate in medicine or a PhD; these are totally controlled by the universities that issue those degrees. The regulator has no role there, although in 99% of cases the degrees will relate to some aspect of medicine, whether that be research or clinical science. Following the completion of all this training, it is the regulator, the GMC, that is responsible for the revalidation that every doctor has to undergo every five years. That, too, is delivered and checked by professional bodies such as the colleges, but it is the regulator, the GMC, that is responsible for making sure that it approves the revalidation certificate.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Patel. I too wish to support all the amendments in this group, but I shall particularly mention Amendments 45 and 46, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I like these amendments because they are directed precisely to an issue which affects two of the regulatory functions that I had when I was Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, as I mentioned at Second Reading.
The word “regulator” is defined in Clause 16 as meaning a
“a person having functions under legislation that relate to the regulation of the profession in the United Kingdom”—
a broad definition. The Lord President is such a person. But he does not exercise those functions on his own. His function, in essence, is to supervise or oversee the other regulator which in each case is the professional body itself. The definition does not draw that distinction, but it is relevant to what Clauses 8 and 9 require the regulators to do. The information to which Clause 8 refers is held by the professional bodies, not by the Lord President.
Amendment 45 addresses itself exactly to the function that the Lord President can perform, which is to ensure that the professional body does what Clause 8 requires. That makes very good sense. There is no need for him to duplicate what the professional bodies are asked to do—which, if the Bill remains as it is, would be its effect. All that is needed is to identify what the Lord President should do as overseer to ensure that the information is made available. The same is true as regards Clause 9. Here too duplication of what the professional body is being asked to do is unnecessary. What Amendment 46 requires of the Lord President is just the kind of thing that he does frequently throughout the year to ensure that the professional body is doing what it is required to do.
For these reasons, I am grateful—indeed very grateful —to the noble Baroness for bringing these amendments forward. I do not need to comment, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, gave, on Amendments 63 and 68. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the amendments to which I have been speaking make very good sense and will improve the Bill, which in its present form is, for reasons I have hinted at, highly unsatisfactory. I hope that he will feel able to accept them.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of a profession, as listed in the register of interests. I support Amendment 63, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayter. It is entirely reasonable that it should be clear to which professions this legislation should apply—in addition to architects, who get their own bit in the Bill—so I commend my noble friend’s diligent work.
However, I have a question about what counts as a regulated profession. I know this issue comes up under Clause 16, but it is clearly important in the context of the amendment. Clause 16 tells us that
“‘regulated profession’ means a profession that is regulated by law in the United Kingdom”
and draws our attention to Clause 16(3), which says:
“For the purposes of this Act, a profession is regulated by law in the United Kingdom … if by reason of legislation … individuals are entitled to practise the profession in the United Kingdom … or … individuals are entitled to practise the profession in the United Kingdom, or in that part of it, only if … they have certain qualifications or experience, or … they meet an alternative condition or requirement.”
All that tells us, in effect, is that a regulated profession is a profession that is regulated by law. I find this difficult without a comprehensive index of all the legislation that might be caught by that definition, particularly given the open-ended Clause 16(3)(b)(ii) at the end about meeting
“an alternative condition or requirement”.
So this question is relevant to the amendment. Could the Minister tell us a bit more about what is envisaged might be covered by that part of the definition?
Let us start from the other end. What professions might be covered by the Bill and is there a useful definition that covers them? My noble friend Lady Hayter has helpfully provided us all with a list. The list is interesting in itself, making clear the extraordinary hodge-podge nature of the Bill. Clearly, it is not a list based on a rational assessment of the needs for legal recognition; it is probably a combination of historical accidents. My question is: how do I, other noble Lords and, most relevant, the Government really know which professions are covered by the Bill, given the breadth of the requirement to meet an “alternative condition or requirement”?
How do we know there is not buried somewhere in past legislation a condition or requirement that applies before an individual can practise their profession? I mentioned this issue at Second Reading. Here is an example: there are requirements in the legislation covering both pensions and life insurance that an actuary can sign off on certain statutory reports only if they have been approved by the relevant government Minister—invariably, the Secretary of State. Does that count as regulation? If so, should various Secretaries of State be included in the list of regulators? Perhaps the Minister could address this issue. I do not ambitiously expect an immediate response, but a considered response would be helpful.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I support my noble friend Lady Noakes in her two amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in her Amendments 63 and 68. The first list that I saw was the one produced informally by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which I was delighted to see and took as gospel. Now we have had two or three iterations of it. While that may cause us some confusion and bemusement, one has to look to the professions and the regulators that are required to regulate them. I start from a simple premise: I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. I understand what the faculty does, along with the corresponding regulator in England and the Law Society of Scotland—that is, the regulators for their respective professions.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has leapt to the cause that I supported on the question of why pig farmers were chosen for special treatment under the Bill. If I may pause on the completeness of the list, I am not even sure that all the professions listed on pages 20 and 21 of the impact assessment—which I know the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, thinks is no longer entirely up to date—are covered in the new list. It is difficult to see whether
“Chief engineer class I fishing vessel”
and
“Deck officer class II fishing vessel”
have simply been renamed in the list that we received on Sunday afternoon or whether they are the same in the impact assessment and the latest letter. What causes me some concern and confusion, in the light of the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is the foot- note to table 4 on page 20 of the impact assessment:
“European Commissions’ Regulated Professions Database. It should be noted that recognition decisions are captured at the generic profession level and not the specific profession level. Some generic professions listed may therefore include specific professions which do have alternate routes and/or which may be likely to be included in the new framework. This table is therefore likely to overstate the recognition decision numbers of the specific professions without alternate routes and which are not likely to be included in the new framework.”
Now I am even more confused than before.
In the light of the forensic work that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis has done in this regard, I am still not entirely convinced as to why pig farmers are included, and producers of chickens for meat production only are included. Does that mean that overseeing egg-producing chickens is not deemed to be a profession and is therefore not regulated for the purposes of the Bill? I go back to what I said when this issue was first raised on the second day of Committee: could my noble friend please state the legal basis for including pig farmers? Has it been correctly identified by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis? I would like to understand, when I meet them at Thirsk auction mart, whether they are included or not. Are egg-producing chickens included or only those for meat production? Perhaps more importantly, on what basis are beef and lamb producers and producers of chickens for other purposes not included? Is that a permanent exclusion or could it be revisited, and might they be included at a later date?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, was being very restrained when he said that this is an unsatisfactory situation. We have to accept that the Bill before us is perhaps not fit for purpose and that we need to do other work on it. I do not think that, hand on heart, we can allow it to go forward to Report and eventually leave the House in this form, because we would not be serving well the professions or indeed their regulators if we did. So I support Amendments 45, 46, 63 and 68 and particularly the call from my noble friend Lady Noakes to pause the legislation at this stage so that we can do the work that, undoubtedly, my noble friend and his department would be delighted to do.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. Before talking about the amendments specifically, I want to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I support his point, but the ski instructors of Great Britain are not alone in having their route to working in the EU cut off. We should look at the overall economic impact of this. Research by Make UK, which represents the UK’s manufacturing industry, shows that 61% of manufacturers regularly send their employees to the EU to follow up their manufacturing work with service work. Almost all of those have qualifications that until now have been recognised in the EU, but that is no longer the case. So this is a huge economic issue, not just for ski instructors and their families but for the entire manufacturing and indeed service sector of this country. The noble Lord has hit on a point, but it is actually a much bigger point overall.
Lord Fox (LD)
This is not funny, because the Government are trying to micromanage the skills of this country, and it is truly absurd that we should be debating this and a shame that the Government have got themselves into this position. This letter is indicative of a failure of precision and a lack of detail. The Minister stood up and said that the Government need the Henry VIII powers because they are unable to foresee the future. They actually need these powers because they are unable to describe the present and need this to retrospectively fill in the gaps that the Bill will almost certainly leave because of that lack of precision and the failure to understand the detail.
I am sure the Minister’s ambition when he first heard about the Bill was to take it through this House as quickly as possible and get on with what he considers to be the other more important parts of his job. It is clear that the Bill came before him very late in the drafting process, by his own admission. But it is now very hard to see how anything we can do to the Bill makes it fit to leave your Lordships’ House. The comments from all Benches about having a hard, long look at this before it goes any further are very wise advice to the Minister.
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 noble Lords for the comments in this debate, which, as they may imagine, I have listened to with a certain lack of enjoyment. If I may, I will come back to the substance of that later.
I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for their Amendments 45, 46, 63 and 68, which concern the regulators that the Bill applies to, as well as the duties on those regulators to publish information. I will start with Amendment 45, which concerns Clause 8 and the duty of a regulator to publish information on requirements to practise. We might remind ourselves of the purposes of this clause. Clause 8 is first and foremost about increasing transparency. It does this by requiring regulators of professions in all parts of the UK to publish information on the entry and practice requirements of professions. This is in direct response to our evidence-gathering. We found a complex regulatory landscape—I think the whole Committee would agree with that—which is difficult for professionals and aspiring professionals to navigate. Some regulators already publish the information listed in Clause 8, and those that do not should be able to prepare it within the six months of lead time set out in the commencement provisions relating to the clause.
The amendment’s explanatory statement by my noble friend Lady Noakes helpfully clarifies that “persons” means “professional bodies”, but I remind the Committee that many professional bodies regulate on a voluntary basis and not by law. The core principle of the Bill—I will come back to this again later—is that it applies to those regulators which are regulated by law in whole or part. The Bill does not apply to many of them because they regulate on a voluntary basis and so fall outside the duty to publish information under Clause 8. The amendment could create new burdens on bodies not covered by law in any other way.
Moreover, Clause 8 already makes provision, where there is more than one regulator involved in the regulation of a profession, for just one to publish the transparency information required. My noble friend Lady Noakes is seeking to provide for a similar effect with her amendment to a wider group of organisations in this space but, with all due respect, it is not necessary.
Amendment 46 concerns Clause 9 and the duty of a regulator to provide information when requested to a corresponding regulator in another part of the UK. This information helps regulators to check things like fitness to practise when a professional moves between jurisdictions within the UK. The amendment would apply these provisions to “another person or persons”—suggested in the explanatory statement to be professional bodies. Once again, this blurring of the nature of the bodies to which the Bill applies is unhelpful. Indeed, in this case it creates risks.
The clause places a specific duty on a defined regulator to make sure that important information is shared when requested. This might be critical to protect the public from harm. This amendment creates ambiguity around which body must fulfil the duty. It also introduces “must seek to ensure” into the provision. I do not believe this is enough. If there is more than one regulator or professional body involved in regulating a profession, then the law must be clear on who must provide the relevant information; it should be the regulator of the specific professional activity regulated in law. This is important to make sure necessary checks are done on professionals in a timely way. This clause is particularly important where a professional activity is regulated by different regulators in different parts of the UK. At our last count, the number of “corresponding” regulators this amendment would apply to was around 25. The provision in the clause is important, but any burden arising from it will be very limited.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for her Amendments 63 and 68, which seek to remove the definition of when a profession is regulated by law in Clause 16 and add a schedule listing the regulators to which the Bill applies. I think we have all learned things through the passage of this Bill. In particular, I have learned that a definition which was apparently clear-cut on when
“a profession is regulated by law”
has taken this amount of time to establish.
As the noble Baroness said, the list in the proposed schedule in her amendment is the same as the list of professions and regulators in the letter which I placed in the House of Lords Library on 24 May. Actually, I indicated at that time that this was not the final list:
“The following table is comprised of over 160 professions and more than 50 regulators that BEIS consider fall within this definition”—
the definition regulated by law—
“and is the product of engagement with other departments, regulators and external organisations. Please note that BEIS are still conducting assurance work to confirm the professions and regulators to which the Bill will apply … The list below should be considered indicative only.”
I think that was the appropriate health warning to put on that letter. A very detailed exercise has been going on across Whitehall to confirm who is covered by law, which, as I said earlier, one would have thought it would be straightforward to find out. A very detailed exercise has been going on to update that letter, which was indicative, and to make the letter I have now sent as accurate as possible—although even that letter may still need some updating around the margin going forward.
In order to achieve this list, we have had to work with a large number of government departments and the regulators. This thorough mapping of the landscape of regulated professions has not been done properly, I have written down here, “for far too long”. I wonder whether it has ever been done properly at all before now. Yet this list of regulators regulated by law was the list to which the European Union regulations applied. What has come to light, frankly, during this process, is that not all regulators have a copy of the list of the professions which they regulate. The list of professions attached to this list has come from the regulators and, quite rightly and properly, the GMC drew attention to the fact that some extra medical professions needed to be included in the list. Furthermore, not all departments had full visibility of which regulators that fell under their purview were covered by law.
I accept, without reservation, that it is not good enough that these lists have been incomplete and that noble Lords must have felt they were playing a game of blind man’s buff in trying to see who the Bill applies to. Of course, as a Minister on the Front Bench, it has been uncomfortable to sit here and listen to the quite reasonable points made by my noble friend Lady Noakes, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and others.
This list must be put into good shape. By the mere act of our working through this Bill and unearthing these matters—in the way that our House is here to do—we are doing a good job. The landscape is complex, but by the time we have finished the Bill, I believe we will have learned all there is to learn about regulated activities, and this rather technical matter about which regulators and professions are covered by law.
Since the first letter, there have been, as I have mentioned, some changes to the indicative list, with some more regulators coming on to it. We have now identified close to 60 regulators—I think it is 55 or 56 —and more than 190 professions as falling within the ambit of the Bill. I placed an updated list in the House of Lords Library yesterday. I thought noble Lords would congratulate me on working at the weekend on a Bill as important as this; I now have almost perfect knowledge of when noble Lords eat their lunch on a Sunday. I have asked my officials to keep the list under review as they continue their work with national authorities and regulators. Certainly, I would not want to be the Minister who took this Bill forward without knowing to whom it applied. I will, of course, inform noble Lords if further updates are made.
Actually, the vast majority of the professions and regulators contained in the indicative letter I shared on 20 June are the same as those I shared in the indicative letter of 23 May. As I said, we have done further work with departments to assess where existing legislation will mean that the Bill applies to certain professions and to determine the relevant regulators. This is detailed work that has drawn on expertise from many departments.
In answer to the point of my noble friend Lady McIntosh about animals—the virtual zoo to which she referred—whether or not an animal or a farmer falls under regulations that are governed by law is a matter for legislation that is owned by Defra, which at certain times in the past must have considered it appropriate to put an animal or an activity into its statutes. It is not something that I or my department have taken a value judgment on in relation to the list that should be included in the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I have received two requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. I will call them in that order.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, on the Australian point, I think the Statement on the Australian agreement will be repeated in this House, and I will pursue that aspect with the Minister there; so he has advance notice. What he just said at the Dispatch Box does not tally with what he sent me in letters, with accompanying documentation, about services and the recognition of professional qualifications. My questions to the Minister are on the back of this.
This place will scrutinise legislation but also the Government’s proposals. We have no proposals from the Government to scrutinise because they have not brought forward proposals on what they want to do with some of these powers, so we are struggling. On the specific point of the list, it is not just the regulator bodies that should be on a list. The list is meaningful if we know what the bodies are with regards to the professional qualifications.
On the regulated professions database, the entry for pig farmers shows that they are regulated by legislation. No one has ever denied that is the case because anybody involved in livestock maintenance or husbandry in this country operates under the welfare of farmed animals regulations. On the database, there are the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations, the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Regulations—there is no reference to any for Scotland on the list—the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Wales) Regulations, and the Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations (Northern Ireland). Further down it has a box:
“Qualification level: NA—Not applicable”.
If the Bill is about recognising professional qualifications for someone wanting to become a pig farmer in any component part of the United Kingdom, and there are no applicable qualifications for it, why is it on this list? We know that a farmer is regulated by laws, and lots of them, but that is irrelevant for the purposes of the Bill. It is of concern because, if it is in the Bill, it will fall foul of all the different requirements under the Bill.
I want to ask a second question with regard to the list and say why it has to be meaningful. Incidentally, we have raised farriers previously; the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, did so. Farriers remain on the list, so I looked up the Farriers Registration Council. It says that the route to be a farrier is through an apprenticeship; there is no qualification route as an automatic mechanism which can be recognised by someone else. All the professions under the list which have apprenticeship routes are not covered by Clause 1, so where would they be covered? That is the concern that this list generates. It is not just about what is or is not on it; what does it mean by being on it?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that. Surely this is why we are going to have the assistance centre and why we are going to require regulators to publish on their websites what it takes to become a member of their profession. I say to the noble Lord that an apprenticeship is a qualification, and if the requirement to become a farrier is that you have to be an apprentice, it is quite right that the farriers should put that on their website. It should say how one goes about being an apprentice; it should not be something known only to a favoured few. Boys or girls who wish to become a farrier should have a place to go and find out how to do it.
The Bill will open up, for the first time, for this list of professions—which nobody has pulled together and done the work on—whether you have to have qualifications or apprenticeships to do them. It will make that publicly accessible, and that will be a good thing in encouraging our people—young, middle-aged and old—to a route if they want to qualify and join these professions.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I think I am in even greater despair now than I was before the Minister responded. Is this a “better regulation” Bill or is it about recognising incoming professionals from other countries, who can then have the right to practise here?
I find some of the Minister’s words extraordinary: he said that he felt uncomfortable, that he has apologised and that he has eaten humble pie. I thought he was leading up to saying, “And therefore we will, if you don’t mind, put your amendments to one side and come up with our own words”. I thought he was leading up to saying, “Actually, you’ve got it right”. Because he also said that—I am not very good at writing quickly, so I may not have got it quite right—as a Minister, he needs to know to whom the Bill applies. But so do the professions: the farriers, the pig farmers and the chicken farmers, abroad or here, need to know, because this is all about bringing people here from another country. It is not about our sixth-formers wanting to know, if they want to become a professional, whether they should do an apprenticeship, go to university or go to a college of further education. It is not about that.
I think it was this Government who set up the Better Regulation Task Force, or maybe it was ours. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Hunt will help me.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I am assured that we had one of those, so I cannot even blame this Government. But we do have a Better Regulation Task Force, so if there is no list of regulators at the moment, what on earth has that task force been doing in all the time that it existed under a Labour Government and for the 11 years that it has existed under a Conservative Government? That is exactly the sort of job it should be doing.
If we really need a list of regulators, so that young people can know whether to go to an apprenticeship or get their articles—that is what they used to be called, but I do not think they do those any more; the noble Lord, Lord Palmer would remember—I would understand that. But that is not what this Bill is about. It is about giving powers to a Minister to say to a regulator: “You will do something to accept people coming from another country to use the qualifications they have obtained”—whether by apprenticeship or by degree, or by sitting next to Harry or whatever—“to come here”, either because we have a skills shortage or because we are signing a deal with Australia, or wherever. That is what the Bill is about. It is not about helping our sixth-formers know where to get a job.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. Of course, it goes without saying that I always listen to the noble Baroness’s comments very carefully and take them away for consideration. The best advice I can give her about what this Bill is about and what is covered is to refer her to the Explanatory Memorandum on the Bill.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Well, my Lords, that rather took my breath away—and doubtless the breath of everyone else involved in this Committee. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will want to reconsider his advice to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on that point and perhaps write to her.
I certainly want to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has been an extremely important one. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for his ingenuity in bringing forward the very real issues related to British ski instructors under BASI, but I do not think that they quite fit in this group of amendments. Nevertheless, it was good to have those issues raised again.
I will deal with my two amendments first. My noble friend said that the amendments were not necessary. I do not think he was listening to what I said about the accountancy, auditing and other related professions such as insolvency practitioners, what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said about the medical profession, or what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said about the legal profession in Scotland. People who understand about professions think that this is important.
My noble friend said that this is not necessary. Of course, it is not necessary: the burden of my argument was not that this is necessary but that it is not desirable to require regulators who do not, by the nature of what they are doing, hold lots of information, to duplicate that information within their systems and on their websites. I hope that my noble friend will look carefully at what other noble Lords have said. I am happy if he ignores me, but if he would listen to what other noble Lords have said on these issues, he will see that there are some very real problems in there. The fact that a regulator might need to point to what is on a professional regulator’s website or to information that a professional body has, rather than the regulator, does not seem to me to be an impediment, nor does it muddy up his precious concept that this Bill applies only to professions regulated by law. I therefore hope he will think about that again before we get to Report, because otherwise I think I shall probably bring these back at that stage.
We obviously had a lot of discussion on the list, and it is clear that it is still very much a work in progress, as my noble friend the Minister has said. I was really quite surprised to find the concept of some form of regulation being equal to professional qualifications. I never thought that this Bill was about an activity being regulated, but that now seems to have come within the purview of this Bill. It has changed for me the concept of what this Bill is supposed to be about.
I do not think the list is complete. For example, under “Professional business services and administrators of oaths” the only regulator that is cited is the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Actually, I did not know that chartered accountants were administrators of oaths, but I will bet you a penny to a pound that there are many other professional bodies that are regulated for the administration of oaths and it is not just the ICAEW. So we might say that even this latest list is perhaps not worth the paper that I have printed it out on.
It is not just about the completeness of the list; it actually goes to the heart of this Bill. BEIS did not consult on this Bill or any policy proposals. All it did was issue a rather strange call for evidence, some of the replies to which were really rather thin, and it then worked out its own policy and put out a statement of policy at the same time that it published the Bill. We have been aware for some time that a number of the professional bodies have been behind the pace on whether they are covered by the Bill and how it will affect them. Some are not even particularly well aware of it. My noble friend said that his officials were now reaching out to all these other bodies that they are now starting to bring within the net of the Bill, but that does not take the place of proper consultation on what is in this Bill, how it applies to a number of professional activities and whether we actually have a solution that is robust and deals with all the practical issues that arise with respect to professional bodies. As we have heard, each of the major professions has its own set of idiosyncrasies, and that is quite likely to continue.
My own view, and I think that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is that we will need a list on the face of the Bill for all the reasons that she said a few minutes ago. It is not enough to have a definition-based approach, and I was glad that my noble friend said that he would consider that further. We will return to all of these issues again at Report, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of the question whether Clause 9 should stand part of the Bill. Anyone wishing to press this to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to pose some general questions on Clause 9. Taking up my noble friend the Minister’s invitation to read the Explanatory Memorandum, I am looking at the relevant paragraphs as a starting point. Clause 9 is entitled “Duty of regulator to provide information to regulator in another part of UK”. First, how wide is this duty, and how many regulators does my noble friend believe will fall within the remit of Clause 9? Being more familiar with the law and the legal profession than any other, I am obviously aware that the legal profession has devolved regulators in other parts of the four nations, but how many professions fall into that category? My other concern is that my understanding is that surely this would be happening anyway, so is why Clause 9 needed in that regard?
If it is some consolation to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I am also struggling to understand the background and the need for this Bill. Perhaps I have a different starting point to the noble Baroness: my starting point was that I was full of admiration and thought it was the right thing for the Government to recognise professional qualifications from EU countries, EEA countries and Switzerland, but I was hoping—as I have mentioned before during the passage of this Bill—that we would have reciprocal rights negotiated. I repeat my disappointment that, having shown them an open door, that was not reciprocated by the other nations to which this Bill applies.
Harking back to the last debate on the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I am disappointed that my noble friend the Minister was not able to point to the Defra legislation regulating the profession of pig farming and chicken producing for the production of meat only. Given that we have left the European Union—everyone keeps telling me we have, and that we are in this brave new world where we no longer rely on it—how on earth is it that we are relying on the European Commission database in this regard? That seems completely perverse.
My noble friend referred to this as a “technical matter”, but I do not see it as just that. To me, it goes to the heart of this part of the Bill: which professions are to be regulated by law, particularly in the context of Clause 9, which causes a regulator to
“provide information to regulator in another part of UK”?
The Law Society of Scotland briefing states:
“The provisions in this clause seem reasonable for the most part. However, the terms of clause 9(3) and (4) raise some questions. Clause 9(3) provides that a disclosure of information does not breach ‘…(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed)’. This provision sits uneasily alongside clause 9(4).
Clause 9(4) provides that ‘Nothing in the section requires the making of a disclosure which contravenes the data protection legislation (save that the duty imposed by this section is to be taken into account in determining whether any disclosure contravenes that legislation)’.
These provisions lack clarity. The duty under clause 9 can be taken into account when considering if a disclosure contravenes data protection law. Why should it not simply be that compliance with clause 9 is a defence to an accusation that data protection law has been contravened?”
I realise that we discussed that earlier in the debate.
I will also look at the impact assessment and raise the issue of costs. Paragraph 131 of the impact assessment states:
“In total, we are aware of 32 regulators operating in different parts of the UK, which regulate 20 professions, which may be affected by the information-sharing provision upon commencement. These professions are care managers (adult care home, domiciliary, residential child-care)”
and a whole host of others. It goes on to state:
“22 of the regulators are public sector, and we”—
the Government—
“are treating the other 10 as businesses.”
It then states in table 19 that, at 2019 prices, the total annual cost to “collect & share data” is £2,380. For businesses, the
“Ongoing direct costs of collecting/sharing data to regulators treated as public sector”,
at 2019 prices, are deemed to be £4,759. However, the
“Transitional direct costs to regulators treated as public sector for collecting/sharing data”
are deemed to be £38,076, and the
“Transitional direct costs to regulators treated as businesses for collecting/sharing data”
are deemed to be £19,000-plus, at 2019 prices. Could my noble friend confirm that those figures are still correct, or will they now be revised as the indicative list keeps growing, as we have heard this afternoon?
Given those few remarks, I believe that it would be immensely helpful to take some time between the completion of Committee, which will hopefully be today, and Report, so that my noble friend the Minister can call and chair a round table—I hope that noble Lords may also find this appealing and wish to participate—with the regulators covered by Clause 9 before we reach Report. I would find it immensely helpful to know which professions we are dealing with and which will fall within the remit, and to understand entirely how they feel Clause 9 and other provisions in the Bill will relate to them.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, while I sought to amend Clause 9 in the last group of amendments to avoid unnecessary burdens resulting from it, I could not work out why it was needed. When I searched the documents accompanying the Bill, I could not find an explanation of why it is needed. It has not been needed, to date, for people who practise within the United Kingdom and I cannot conceive of the circumstances in which it would be needed going forward.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to explain specifically why Clause 9 is needed, rather than making generalisations such as, “If a regulator needs to have information, this facilitates the sharing of it”. What problem is Clause 9 trying to solve? That is what I am trying to get to the bottom of.
The impact statement relating to Clause 9 is pretty unsatisfactory. It seems to be based on one regulator alone answering a question, with some costs and benefits then being extrapolated from three or four regulators that answered a completely different question. This borders on the absurd, and I do not know how my noble friend the Minister managed to pluck up the courage to put his signature on the front page. If he can help me by explaining how he acquired the courage to sign off on the costs and benefits that accompany Clause 9, I am sure that that would be of value to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, has been forced to withdraw, owing to a connection problem—I am sure that we can all sympathise with that—so I call the Minister to reply.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions on Clause 9. In answer to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, we are not relying on EU data to work out the coverage. As we discussed at length earlier, the EU data is incomplete, which is why it has been necessary to go back to departments and source regulators to try to complete it. On her point about round tables, I would be more than happy to do that, and I will ask officials to work out with me what series of round tables would be useful and whom they would involve.
In answer to my noble friend Lady Noakes, I will have another look at the impact assessment to make sure that it still fully represents the situation, and I will write to her and other noble Lords if I feel that it does not.
Several noble Lords have previously commented positively on the commitment to ensuring the sharing of information between equivalent regulators in the UK. Of course, I am in complete agreement with that; that is why I believe that this clause is so important. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has indicated that she intends to oppose this clause, but I hope to convince her to support its inclusion in the Bill.
Let us remind ourselves that the clause’s purpose is to ensure that regulators in one part of the UK provide relevant information about individuals who have been recognised in that part of the UK to regulators of a corresponding regulated profession in another part of the UK, where required. This is important. Although existing voluntary arrangements work well in certain cases, in answer to the point made by my noble friend Lady Noakes, they do not always work well, I am told, and this Bill’s provisions will ensure consistency. They will give greater confidence to regulators that they can access necessary information where required and pass it on to the corresponding regulator to ensure that a professional is qualified to practise in that part of the UK. I do not think that the fact that it may work smoothly now with some regulators takes away the need for it to be made to work smoothly with all regulators.
To put a little more context around the discussion, noble Lords have spoken a number of times during debates on the Bill about certain professions falling within devolved competence. Some of the professions have different regulators in different parts of the UK, of course. If a professional whose qualifications are recognised in one part of the UK wishes to practise in another, and his profession is one of those that falls within devolved competence, it follows that the regulator in the second part of the UK will need to consider whether that professional is rightly qualified to practise in their jurisdiction. To that end, the regulator will need to access information about the individual’s qualifications, experience, fitness to practise and, if applicable, any evidence of malpractice. This is why, during the application process for recognition but also beyond—such as if a malpractice case comes to light following recognition—these regulators find themselves needing to share information.
As I have said, I understand and acknowledge that, in several cases, this kind of information sharing already takes place, such as in the teaching profession, where the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland, the Education Workforce Council and the Teaching Regulation Agency all share information with each other. However, although there are existing sharing obligations in some sector-specific legislation, this differs between professions. It can even vary within professions. So, again in answer to my noble friend, this clause therefore brings consistency.
Let me be clear also that I do not believe that this is unnecessary red tape. It does not put an unreasonable duty on regulators. The information required to be shared in this clause is limited to information held by the regulator about the individual and would not require a regulator to procure information it does not already hold. The information sharing that this clause requires of regulators delivers many of the purposes of regulation that your Lordships’ House has highlighted during these debates, such as protecting consumers and public health, by making known to regulators those individuals who have not upheld our high regulatory standards.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering brought to the attention of the House that legal services and systems of course have distinct natures in the different parts of the UK. She suggested that
“there are sufficient differences between these legal systems to warrant an exclusion from the provisions that create greater regulatory integration of other professions between the UK’s composite parts”.—[Official Report, 9/6/21; col. 1481.]
I want to be clear that this clause already recognises that professions are regulated differently in different parts of the UK. Indeed, its very purpose is not to undermine this but to ensure that information flows effectively when there is a need to do this. To exclude legal professions would not only confuse the scope of the Bill but exclude from this clause the range of legal regulators that for the most part regulate separately across the UK and will therefore require information on professionals whom they do not regulate.
I hope that I can assure noble Lords completely that legal regulators will still operate completely autonomously to make decisions about who practises within their jurisdiction. My officials have engaged closely with legal regulators and the Ministry of Justice in developing these proposals. The Bar Standards Board, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives were content to be included in this clause specifically.
As my noble friend acknowledged, the Law Society of Scotland described the provisions in it as
“reasonable for the most part.”
Its specific concerns were around data protection—my noble friend Lady McIntosh reiterated that today—which we fully considered in an amendment that we debated on day 2, to the satisfaction of the House. The clause is explicit that the information required to be shared does not require any disclosures that would contravene data protection legislation. This should help the Law Society of Scotland in that regard.
The provision in the clause is required for the good reasons I have set out here, but the extent of concern around its potential impact is perhaps not. As I noted in my comments on Amendment 46—this is in direct response to my noble friend Lady McIntosh—we estimate that the number of corresponding regulators covered by this amendment is around 25.
Clause 9 will facilitate and support greater co-operation across the union and give confidence to regulators, professionals and consumers that professions are regulated appropriately and effectively across our United Kingdom. It gives a legal underpinning to co-operation that already works well in some cases but at the moment ultimately relies on good will. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her opposition to this clause standing part of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I have received requests to speak from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I first call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in her request for a round table with regulators between Committee and Report. That would be very helpful indeed.
I just want to ask the Minister about Clause 9. I remind the House of my membership of the GMC board. The Minister will know that, particularly in the health sector, there are regulators that currently regulate for the whole of the United Kingdom, but the devolved Administrations could decide to take over regulatory authority if they wished under the legislation that led to the devolved Administrations; that is particularly the case in relation to Scotland. That being so, will this clause apply to the interrelationship between the regulators in both countries? If the answer is yes, that makes the case for this clause because, clearly, one of the issues relates particularly to the National Health Service. Although it is run by four different government departments, none the less it has some UK-wide characteristics. The key one I believe is an ethos, but secondly there is the ability of staff in the NHS from the different countries to cross the border without any problem in relation to qualifications.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. Again, I repeat that I am very happy to hold round tables on this, as necessary.
On the noble Lord’s particular point, if a new separate regulator was set up that fell within the definition of a corresponding regulator for the purposes of this Bill, Clause 9 would automatically apply to it and the information sharing would happen in that way.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am getting more confused; I am Confused of Wherever. When we set out on our journey on this Bill, the Minister was clear that this was about the mutual recognition of qualifications between different regulatory countries and repealing certain aspects as a result of Brexit. Since then, in the debate on a previous group, the Minister talked about recruiting people into skills, which was not in the initial remit, and now we seem to have strayed firmly into the territory of the internal market Act. Most of the people in this Chamber sat through the happy hours of the then internal market Bill, which was there to do the things that the Minister has just talked about. It seems to me that we are conflating lots of different objectives, the reason being that, once again, if you read the title of the Bill, it can be almost anything you want, and, because of the Henry VIII powers, you can do almost anything you want. Things keep changing. The furniture keeps getting moved. So can the Minister please reassert the focus of this Bill so that I can perhaps knuckle down under his iron will and we can get through it?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. When I earlier impolitely snapped at the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and said to read the Explanatory Memorandum, I was not saying that with any disrespect. This Bill, as we have just acknowledged, is about professional qualifications. It has a broad long title and one sees from the Explanatory Memorandum that it covers a number of matters that affect regulators and professional qualifications, additional to the mere mutual recognition of professional qualifications from overseas. You could easily say that Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4, allowing recognition arrangements, are the heart of the Bill. But at the same time, as I said—and we have obviously not tried to hide this, as it is stated in the Bill—it covers various other matters in relation to regulators in the United Kingdom.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the point from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the internal market Act remains valid. An entire part of that Act, Part 3, relates to professional qualifications. Under this Bill, a UK resident will be someone who, under a trade agreement, is entitled to practise. Under the internal market Act, that qualification is automatically recognised in another part of the UK, other than for those professions that are excluded. Can the Minister be very clear? Where does Clause 9 sit in relation to the internal market Act, given that that Act requires automatic recognition for a person’s qualifications in another part of the United Kingdom? Is it not just more bureaucracy, as has been suggested?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The way I see it is that the UKIM Act introduced a principle of automatic recognition of professional qualifications gained in one part of the UK, as well as provisions for the equal treatment of individuals who obtain their qualifications in a particular UK nation and those who obtain theirs in other parts of the UK. Clause 9 merely supports professionals as they seek recognition in another part of the UK by providing a legislative underpinning to information shared by regulators with their counterparts in another part of the UK. This is entirely about information sharing. It is not about the recognition of professional qualifications.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken at various stages of the debate. I want to clarify at the outset—and I am sorry if I was not clear—that I was in no way calling for an exclusion of the legal profession. I clearly stated that my experience is most familiar with the legal profession because I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. I simply asked how many regulators will be covered by Clause 9, and my noble friend was kind enough to answer that he thinks 25 regulators will be covered by it. I asked for specific examples of where the Government think Clause 9 provides a solution to a particular problem.
I have to say that, from the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Purvis, I am even more confused now than I was at the beginning of the debate as to the relationship of this clause to this Bill and the relationship of this clause to the internal market Act, which I sat through and contributed to on this specific theme. If anything, my noble friend has confirmed my understanding, and that of my noble friend Lady Noakes. I am most grateful again for her eloquence in stating her own view as to why Clause 9 is perhaps not necessary. My understanding is that the regulators are already communicating in the way that they should.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made an argument as to why Clause 9 might be needed in one specific aspect, but I think that would have been covered in any event under the relevant provisions of the internal market Act.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to debate this. I would just like to add a word of caution to my noble friend the Minister. The Explanatory Memorandum is not entirely clear in every particular. I refer to Clause 3 —not that we are debating that at the moment— and particularly paragraph 32 on page 6, which I think raises more questions than could possibly be answered.
This is something that I will keep under review for the next stage. I am not entirely convinced as to why Clause 9 is in this Bill, but, for the moment, I will not press my objection.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of the question that Clause 13 stand part of the Bill. Anyone wishing to press this to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in introducing this debate, I would like to apologise to my noble friend. I do not think that I was a member of the Better Regulation Task Force. I was the deregulation Minister in the Department of Health for a glorious period of four years, during which time we got rid of a few regulations—but I put through four major Bills to make up for that. Having done that, I was promoted, and I became a Better Regulation Minister in the DWP, the MoJ, Defra and finally DECC, where we were regularly hauled across to Downing Street to be given an absolute bollocking by the Prime Minister for why we were not doing enough to deregulate. Of course, for the other three months, we were called across and asked why we were not doing more to legislate to deal with a specific concern of Downing Street. Life does not change much. This Government talk a lot about deregulation but, my goodness me, they do not half like regulations when it comes to giving Ministers powers. That is really what I would like to explore in this stand part debate.
Clearly, we have had a very illuminating debate this afternoon. Despite the best intentions of the Minister, there is a sense of unease about the Bill, its rationale, the professions to be covered and its drafting. I say to the Minister that I would particularly note the comments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, when he talked about the unsatisfactory nature of the Bill. Coming from him, those were very telling comments indeed.
My own concern, as I have said, is about the extensive powers being given to Ministers throughout this Bill, and Clause 13 is an example. Clause 13(1)(a), taken together with the definition of legislation in Clause 16(1), means that the powers to which the Delegated Powers Committee has drawn the attention of the House in its report are Henry VIII powers. The powers conferred by Clause 5(2), Clause 6(1) and Clause 10(4) are also Henry VIII powers.
This is just one example of the increasing trend for Ministers to take powers unto themselves without adequate justification or explanation. I know that the Minister has sent a supplementary memorandum to the Delegated Powers Committee, and that we have had amendments to Clause 1, which have been very welcome. But it is noticeable that the Delegated Powers Committee, having considered that, says in its follow-up report that it none the less wishes to continue
“to press the Minister to provide … a much fuller explanation about the provision that could be made in regulations under clause 1; and”—
here it seems to me is the nub—
“full justification for all such provision—including that which amends primary legislation—being made by statutory instrument instead of by primary legislation with its attendant scrutiny.”
I do not want to repeat what I said at Second Reading or in our earlier debates, but the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee must be seen in parallel with the reports of the Delegated Powers Committee. It complains about the number of pieces of legislation that have been introduced, partly in response to the pandemic but partly because of our withdrawal from the EU, which are extraordinary in the powers they give to Ministers. In this Bill so far, the Minister has very courteously defended the use of these Henry VIII powers on what I would call technocratic grounds—in other words, “We need the powers because they are demand-led, and demand will change over time.”
As we have heard today, it is not possible at this moment for the Government to state explicitly where these powers will be used or what organisations or qualifications they will apply to. The Minister has explained the process he is still going through, but you could make the same arguments for any piece of legislation. The question I put to him is this: are we not seeing a general trend towards continuously bringing skeletal Bills in which extensive powers are given to Ministers and of which Parliament has very little opportunity to really go into the details?
The Minister has relied on the need for this Bill in relation to the specific needs of the different regulators, but he has not responded to the constitutional issues raised by it. I have instituted this debate to allow him to do so.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, to add to what my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has said, I will concentrate mainly on Henry VIII powers, which apply to other clauses in the Bill, not just Clause 13.
Henry VIII clauses allow Ministers to amend or repeal provisions in an Act of Parliament using secondary legislation. I tried to look up what the laws might say about Henry VIII powers being adopted. For those not familiar with them, Halsbury’s Laws of England provides the following description:
“As a general rule, primary legislation amends other primary legislation but leaves subordinate legislation to amend itself; subordinate legislation frequently amends other subordinate legislation, but mostly does not amend primary legislation.
Powers conferred by statute cannot be assigned without statutory authority, and whether they can be delegated depends on the construction of the statute. It will be assumed by the courts that Parliament does not delegate legislative or other power unless it does so by express provision or unavoidable implication; and provisions conferring power will be construed strictly against the person on whom the power is conferred.
An Act of Parliament may contain a power to make subordinate legislation which in turn can amend the enabling Act or another piece of primary legislation. The clause of the Bill containing such a provision allowing primary legislation to be amended by secondary legislation is commonly termed a ‘Henry VIII clause’ and the power itself is likewise called a ‘Henry VIII power’”—
terms familiar to us all. It goes on:
“The normal principles of statutory construction apply to Henry VIII powers but the courts will apply a restrictive interpretation if there is any doubt as to the scope of the power.”
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who is speaking on this group, may wish to comment on that.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I fully support my noble friend Lord Hunt and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I will look at the wording of the clause; I might be slightly more inclined to consider giving the Government these powers if I understood better what the clause is getting at. I admire and sympathise with the parliamentary draftsperson; I understand that there is a massive amount of custom and practice, but what does the wording of this clause actually provide? We know what the Government are trying to do—take all the power—but we should at least try to provide something vaguely comprehensible.
Let us look at the wording. Subsection (1)(a) says that you cannot modify the legislation; under subsection (1)(b) you can
“make different provision for different purposes”;
and under subsection (1)(c) you can
“make supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision.”
That is just a word salad. I assume that there are good definitions of all these words, which make them distinct, but I struggle to understand what they are.
Subsection (2) says that, under Section 8, there is no power to modify legislation. Does that mean that you can still make different provisions for different purposes under Section 8, or does the word “modify” encompass everything in one? Subsection (3) gives us even more words: “amend, repeal or revoke”.
I really hope we can get an understanding of what the real powers that can be exercised under this clause mean and what the distinctions are between all these different ways of expressing what to me—a lay person—seem essentially to be the same objectives.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and his analysis of Clause 13. I do not wish to add to it, because each of the words used in that clause is deliberately used by parliamentary draftsmen for purposes that, at the moment, I do not fully understand. My objection to the clause—this is why I support the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Patel—is that this is yet another piece of framework legislation with extensive Henry VIII powers, unclear as they are, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, pointed out. There are occasions when one can see a justification for Henry VIII clauses or wide regulatory powers, but we have to ask about the context, and the context of this Bill is the professions, however broadly we define them. It is essential that professions be regulated under a structure approved in detail by Parliament, simply because we must be certain, first, of the quality of the professions, and secondly, of the scope of the restrictions. Thirdly, we must be certain that the professions are completely independent of government interference, given the reliance the Government place on them and the need for them to be steadfast in their independence and independent advice and statements to government.
The debate earlier this afternoon on Amendment 45 showed the fallacy of trying to do what the Government propose. It is only because this Bill—framework though it is and vague though it is—has been fully subjected to parliamentary scrutiny that some of the really difficult issues and the lack of preparation have come out. I dread to think what will happen when we move to looking at the way the Bill is to operate under regulations. It is clear, then, that the regulations will not subject to detailed parliamentary scrutiny. What can be worse than passing what I regret to say, with due deference to parliamentary counsel, for whom I have the highest respect and have had the pleasure of working with on many occasions, is a wholly unsatisfactory and poorly prepared Bill? But a draftsman is not to be blamed for that. The blame lies with those who give the draftsman instructions.
This is the kind of Bill on which Parliament must now take a stand. We should not be legislating without good primary legislation that sets out the detail, so that we are sure how the regulatory powers are to be used. We should curtail the use of these powers in relation to matters of great importance to the prosperity and health of the nation, and that is the independence of the profession.
I therefore warmly support the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Patel, in this regard. I have not added to what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said about Henry VIII powers because I do not think I could have improved upon his eloquent explanation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, first, it was churlish of me not to thank my noble friend the Minister for his enthusiastic embracing of the idea of a round table in connection with Clause 9; for that I am extremely grateful to him. I am also grateful that he asked us again to refer to the Explanatory Memorandum in relation to Clause 13, in addition to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in moving this amendment. The EM states that the powers under Clause 13
“may be used to modify legislation, including, where relevant, Acts of Parliament.”
Again, an Act of Parliament is being amended not by another Act, but simply by regulation.
Every Government like to govern by regulation and every Opposition would prefer things to be on the face of the Bill—that is just a fact of life to which I am becoming accustomed, having only served as a shadow Minister, not the real thing. But I would like to take this opportunity to ask my noble friend the Minister one specific question. Clause 13 as drafted is silent on any requirement to consult on these regulations. What consultation will there be, and at what stage might draft regulations be passed to the regulators as well as the relevant devolved Administrations? It is extremely important that they see them at the earliest possible stage.
Could my noble friend also put my mind at rest regarding an issue that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to in connection with Clause 9: the potential conflict between regulators of a devolved nation and regulators in another devolved nation or, indeed, the “mothership”—the English regulator? Might that situation arise under Clause 13? How would my noble friend aim to prevent that arising?
Lord Fox (LD)
I am grateful for the speeches we have heard so far. I am a cosignatory to this amendment and I would like to associate myself completely with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Patel. However, if they will excuse me, I would like to single out the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, which were a clear, clarion call as to what we need to do with this clause: take it out. If we do not, we will let a Bill leave your Lordships’ House with so much power vested in the Minister and the department.
We are still struggling with what this Bill is for. If, as the Minister says, the first four clauses are its beating heart, then if things change, these issues can be picked up in primary legislation. Secretary of State Fox was very clear: trade deals will be brought to Parliament and debated as primary legislation. If and when the Government renege on that, perhaps it would be a problem of their own creating, but to leave this Henry VIII clause in the Bill is to pass too much untrammelled power going forward. I am sure that every department wants that ability not to have to worry about what Parliament says when it is making regulations and primary legislation, but your Lordships are here to stand up against things like that. We should remember the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, as we move forward to Report.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt referred to “unease” about the Bill. I would put it slightly stronger: the “worry” about the Bill is threefold. First, as we have been hearing, it is badly thought out, badly drafted and not subject to proper consultation. Secondly, it is powerful: it allows statutory bodies—ones we thought autonomous —to have their roles, structures and working practices altered, not at their request to a Minister but to comply with government policy. Thirdly, as we have just been hearing, these changes to statutory bodies will be imposed by secondary legislation.
Hence, it is entirely legitimate to ask questions about Clause 13. Again, it is about whether there are two parts to the Bill. I have been focused on the idea that the Bill is about recognising international qualifications, but we are hearing from the various trade talks that the Government will indeed want to add professional services into the mix. As we have said before, this will often be really welcome and will be prioritised, I hope, in some of the trade talks—but only where it is judged good for our professions and not where it is imposed in a deal for something else.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I note that the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Fox and Lord Patel, have stated their intention to oppose that Clause 13 stands part of the Bill. The purpose of Clause 13 is to clarify and set out the parameters of the delegated powers in the Bill. Without it, there would be uncertainty about the limits of the powers in the Bill. Appropriate national authorities could have more, not less, discretion over how they make regulations under this Bill. For example, without Clause 13, the limits placed on the power to make regulations in Clause 10, which can amend the duty to provide information to overseas regulators, would no longer apply. The regulation-making powers could potentially be interpreted more broadly. On this point, the DPRRC observed that the power in Clause 10, which is described in Clause 13 as presently drafted, was an appropriate use of delegated powers. I do not believe that introducing uncertainty in the use of the powers under the Bill is the outcome noble Lords are seeking to achieve.
The debate, rightly and properly, has often returned to the DPRRC’s report on the Bill and its recommendations about the broad powers in the Bill. I respect and understand the points made by the DPRRC and by noble Lords during the Committee proceedings. I particularly noted the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in this regard, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. The challenge we face, and I know I have said this previously, is that the existing legislative frameworks across numerous regulators include a mixture of primary and secondary legislation, so national authorities may require the ability to amend both primary and secondary legislation. I recognise the concern that noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Purvis of Tweed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, have about the Henry VIII powers and the important comments made by the DPRRC. I will ensure that on Report I give as full an explanation as I can of why I believe those powers are necessary. I will not attempt to answer the legal points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, now. If I may, rather than doing it from the Dispatch Box, I will write to him, copied to other noble Lords present today.
I believe that if we are to move forward and put some greater coherence into the legislation surrounding professional regulators regulated by law in the UK this is the only route open to us. It allows us to provide for the implementation of international agreements of professional qualifications or to introduce routes to recognise qualifications from around the world in areas of unmet demand. The powers have also been designed to allow for flexibility to meet future needs. Of course I understand that noble Lords are worried about anybody at this Dispatch Box using the word “flexibility”. This is why I will have to explain as fully as possible how these powers will be used.
These future needs may be the terms of future trade agreements or changes in demand for professions in the UK. Clause 13, as drafted, allows appropriate national authorities to act expediently and in a proportionate manner through statutory instruments. These statutory instruments will of course be held to the rigorous scrutiny of the appropriate legislative process and will be informed by intensive engagement and, I can absolutely ensure my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, consultation with interested parties. Regulations made under this Bill—and I know this was a concern of the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox—will not cut across reforms to specific professions where they are also being taken forward. For example, DHSC’s consultation on proposals to modernise the legislation of healthcare professional regulators closed last week. If legislative changes are needed as a consequence of that reform programme, the intention is to use the existing powers under health legislation.
I hope that I have offered some reassurance about the intention behind the delegated powers in the Bill and I will, of course, continue to reflect on the points raised during the debate. I will see what I can do further to explain the rationale for these powers, but I do not believe that removing Clause 13 would address the concerns raised. I hope that the noble Lords feel able to withdraw their opposition to Clause 13 standing part of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received one request, so far, to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that we will have more information on Report, but we have been asking some questions of concern since Second Reading, so I think the very least the Minister and the Government can do before we start Report, and indeed before the deadline for amendments on Report, is to provide information. Otherwise, it is pointless once we are on Report.
My question follows up a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on trade deals to which the Minister referred. In an earlier group, in response to a question I had about legal services in the Australia deal, the Minister categorical ruled out that there would be mutual recognition of lawyers in the Australia deal to try to allay my fears that it would override the internal market Bill. The attachment in the Minister’s letter to me, which is about the agreement in principle, has a specific paragraph:
“Legal services provisions which will both guarantee that UK and Australian lawyers can advise clients and provide arbitration, mediation and conciliation services in the other country’s territory using their original qualifications and title”.
If that is not a new agreement on professional qualifications that will have to be implemented by this legislation, in which the Minister is intending to using a Henry VIII power rather than primary legislation under previous commitments, how on earth can we trust any other commitments about intent from the Dispatch Box?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for that. I really believe that we have to wait until we see the detailed text of the Australia FTA, which will be subject to proper scrutiny. I think if there is one thing that the noble Lord and I agree on, it is the need for proper scrutiny of free trade agreements once the text is available. Trying to debate these free trade agreements purely on the basis of brief references to what they say is not something that I believe either he or I would feel is satisfactory.
Coming back to his earlier point, I will communicate with noble Lords as fully as can before Report on the matters to which he referred.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received one further request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend had to say about returning to this issue on Report. When we do, given that, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, it is our anticipation that future free trade agreements will be implemented in primary legislation, would my noble friend at that time also give us a guarantee that, where there is a choice between using primary legislation to make the necessary legislative changes to implement an international recognition agreement and using a power under this Bill, the Government will use the former to allow this House to scrutinise it in more detail?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that comment. As we know, these questions are difficult to answer in the abstract. What I can say is that, where primary legislation is needed, it will be used. I do not think that it is reasonable to ask me to define which aspects will be covered by primary legislation at this stage for agreements that have not yet been finalised.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has proven to be a very interesting debate, and it has moved us on a little. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, was very clear about why we are concerned about the use of Henry VIII clauses. He should take the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, saying that he could not better his words as a pretty good compliment.
It seems to me that there are two things here. The first is the actual wording of Clause 13. My noble friend Lord Davies did a great service when he went through it. I reread it and, frankly, found it very hard to understand. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, also says that he does not fully understand Clause 13, I suspect that that means that no one does, except perhaps one parliamentary counsel and possibly an official in the noble Lord’s department who issued the instructions. The fact is that this is poor legislation if it is almost impossible to work through what this clause actually means.
At heart, this is not just an academic debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, put his finger on it when he said that at the heart of this is the independence of our professions. One of the great successes that we in the UK enjoy, both in terms of prestige and financially, is the way in which many of our senior professions are viewed globally. The independence of those professions is one reason why that is so. That is what makes the Bill so important and why we are all rather worried about the current situation with it.
My noble friend Lady Hayter said that, if we leave it as it is, we are leaving any changes in the future without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked for draft regulations; I do not think that she received an answer to that, but it was a very important point.
The Minister has promised a full explanation on Report, which we will now get earlier, but he needs to come forward with changes to the Bill because it will clearly not get through after its current process through your Lordships’ House. There is a question for noble Lords generally about what to do with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked a pertinent question in relation to trade deals and the Government’s preference for primary or secondary legislation. The Minister answered him very carefully by saying that there would be primary legislation when needed, which is not quite the answer that I think the noble Lord was seeking. Of course, he had an earlier amendment that seeks to deal with this in one way; I have a sunset clause, which is another way of dealing with the problems in the Bill. There may be other approaches, but, between now and Report, we have to do something to protect the independence of our professions and Parliament’s role in scrutinising the provisions in the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 56A. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear during the debate.
Clause 14: Authority by whom regulations may be made
Amendment 56A
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I start by apologising to the House, as I wrongly said previously that nursing associates are not regulated. Actually, the Nursing and Midwifery Council now holds the register of those who meet those criteria.
In moving Amendment 56A, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd for his support. We have already had a discussion about exactly which regulators are affected by this Bill. There are two regulating bodies based in Wales that this legislation would affect: the Education Workforce Council and Social Care Wales. There is no valid reason whatever that the Westminster Government should have a say over these bodies, as they operate in wholly devolved areas.
The letter previously referred to, which was sent by the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Noakes, concerning the professions and regulators within scope of the Bill, exemplifies a key concern that my amendment tries to address. The letter failed to clarify that the Education Workforce Council is a Wales-only regulator, but also failed even to mention Social Care Wales. This was clearly a mistake, as we have now heard, and I hope it has been corrected, but it also flags a wider issue: Wales and Welsh bodies are clearly an afterthought for this Government when considering this Bill.
In its current state, I fail to see how the Welsh Government would recommend that the Senedd consent to the Bill, unless a number of issues are satisfactorily resolved. Clauses 1, 3 to 6, 8 and 10 confer various regulation-making powers for different purposes on the “appropriate national authority”. Of particular and cross-cutting concern to all these clauses is the way “appropriate national authority” has been defined by Clause 14. This means that the powers of the Welsh Ministers, along with those of the other devolved Governments, are exercisable concurrently by the Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor. Hence, the Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor could make provision, through regulations, on matters that fall within devolved competence.
In addition, as we have heard, Clause 13 contains provisions that mean that the powers to make regulations, conferred by Clauses 1 to 6, include powers to modify primary legislation, such as UK Acts of Parliament and Senedd Acts, as well as secondary legislation. The combination of concurrent functions and Henry VIII powers means that the Secretary of State could exercise these regulation-making powers to amend Senedd Acts and regulations made by Welsh Ministers. While Ministers may claim they do not intend to use these concurrent powers in areas of devolved competence, the wording of the Bill does not reflect this sentiment. The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor would be able to exercise these powers in devolved areas without requiring any consultation with, or consent from, Welsh Ministers. That is clearly unacceptable.
Clause 14(5) requires Welsh Ministers, when exercising the regulation-making powers in the Bill, to obtain the consent of a Minister of the Crown when such regulations would, if made in an Act of the Senedd, require the Minister of the Crown to consent under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006. This effectively imports the restrictions imposed by paragraphs 8 to 11 of Schedule 7B to the 2006 Act into the regulation-making process. This restriction is unique to Welsh Ministers’ powers; Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers are not subject to a corresponding restriction. However, it is not without precedent—a similar restriction was imposed by the Fisheries Act 2020.
What does this mean in practice? It means that the Welsh Ministers would, when making regulations using the powers conferred by this Bill, need to obtain the consent of a Minister of the Crown in certain circumstances, including where, for example, the regulations modified or removed a function exercisable by a reserved authority. Further, the removal of this provision via a future Act of the Senedd would also engage the Minister of the Crown’s consent requirements. Again, this is not a suitable state of affairs. Therefore, I must question whether some of these powers are even necessary.
For example, the power conferred by Clause 1 enables the “appropriate national authority” to make regulations that require specified regulators to consider and assess whether qualifications and experience gained outside the UK should be treated as if they were specified UK qualifications for the purposes of practising that profession in the UK. Both the Education Workforce Council and Social Care Wales already have powers enshrined by Welsh Ministers in Welsh legislation to recognise international qualifications and determine whether they are equivalent to UK qualifications, so I ask the Minister why the Bill now gives powers to override this. The solution, I suggest, is simply to accept my amendment.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I shall take a moment to express my concern about the chaotic state of this Bill. I will not waste more of the time of this House by repeating what the noble Baroness said, but the omission of the social care regulator from the Minister’s letter was such an obvious error. I cannot help thinking that a lot of work still needs to be done to make this Bill ready to pass into legislation.
As the noble Baroness has said, as the Bill is drafted, the regulator confers a suite of regulation-making powers on the appropriate national authority. Welsh Ministers are that authority for the devolved professions and have a right to be fully recognised as that, not to have to ask for permission from the UK Government nor to have their existing powers overridden by this legislation. According to the Bill, those powers are to be exercised concurrently with the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor, who could legislate in devolved areas and, as the Bill stands, would not need the consent of Welsh Ministers on those regulations.
It is worth adding that the situation in Wales is always slightly more complex, because of the nature of Welsh devolution; it started from a bad place, has moved forward significantly in gaining clarity and logic, but is not 100% there yet. There are areas where Welsh Ministers have some Executive powers that are not reflected in the legislative powers of the Senedd, and that has to be recognised.
The reassurance that we received from the noble Lord the Minister—I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, will respond to this group of amendments—that the power to override Welsh Ministers would not normally be taken is of no great reassurance to us, because the UK Government have said that in the past and then overridden the decision of the Senedd or the wishes of Welsh government Ministers.
This is a serious issue for the Government and this Bill. I warn them that, as the Bill stands, the Government will not get consent from the devolved Administrations or the Senedd in Wales. They have to take that into account as, to get this on to the statute book, they must start by overriding Welsh Ministers and Senedd powers.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, the issue on which I speak will be brief and parallels what I said earlier on Clause 13. It is important to keep this Bill as defined as possible. This amendment tries to do that by forcing the Government to explain why the relatively simple issues on Wales cannot be dealt with in the Bill. If there is a real need for the consent of Ministers of the Crown for Welsh Ministers to exercise powers, can a reason be given?
As the Minister knows from her own experience, the Welsh devolution settlement is extremely complicated, and all this part of the Bill does is make it even more complicated again. I can see no reason why the consent of Ministers of the Crown is required for just two regulators in Wales. Therefore, if there is no real need for these powers, this clause should not be in the Bill. Otherwise, I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I hope the Government can explain why this clause is needed and, if there is no satisfactory explanation, remove it.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, in the face of such Welsh expertise, I rise apprehensively as an Englishwoman to add my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lady Randerson, and to support Wales and the Welsh Assembly. We all recognise that the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly have different powers, remits and terms of reference. However, it seems strange that the Welsh Assembly is the only one to require the consent of a Minister of the Crown before being able to act, whereas the others do not. If devolution is truly to mean that the different nations have mastery over their countries, this surely cannot be necessary. The noble Baroness has already pointed out that Wales has prestigious bodies which could undertake these tasks.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I really do not want to add to what has been said because it is slightly strange that the UK Government will have to consent to regulations made by a Welsh Minister. I am sure the Minister will say, “But the Welsh Government saw this and did not object.” Can she tell us exactly what discussions took place with the Welsh Government, and what assurances they were offered if they did nod it through, which I think is unlikely? What assurances were they given to allay their fears about it?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Hoffwn ddiolch i bawb a siaradodd yn y dadl byr ond bwysig hon. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short but very important debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for her amendment, which relates to Clause 14 and the Welsh Minister’s powers to make regulations under the Bill. I note that it is supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. The amendment would remove the subsections within Clause 14 whereby a Minister of the Crown’s consent would be required before any provision is made by Welsh Ministers in regulations that would, if contained in an Act of Senedd Cymru, require such consent.
First, I reiterate that the Government fully respect the devolution settlements. Devolved matters should normally be for the devolved Administrations to legislate on. It is hard to conceive of a scenario where this would not be adhered to. I remind noble Lords that the Government are seeking legislative consent to the Bill in line with the Sewel convention. The conditions in Clause 14 that the amendment would strip out are entirely in line with the devolution settlements. To deviate from the agreed position under the Welsh devolution settlement purely for the purposes of regulations made under the Bill would be inappropriate and unnecessary.
On the concurrent powers in the Bill, some professions are regulated on a UK-wide basis, and the regulation of some professions is entirely at devolved level. The Bill will apply to the entirety of the UK and, in line with the devolution settlements, allow the devolved Administrations to make regulations within devolved competence. The inclusion of concurrent powers ensures that professions which fall within devolved competence but are regulated on a UK-wide basis can be dealt with under the Bill by the relevant appropriate national authority. Of course, we shall always consult the relevant devolved Administration before these powers are used in devolved areas.
In answer to the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, officials met the Education Workforce Council at the end of April and are meeting the social care regulators next week to discuss the Bill. Social Care Wales was on the first indicative list and came off the second one following clarification from departments. As noble Lords know, the Education Workforce Council was on both lists. Because we are meeting the regulators so shortly, I will agree to write to noble Lords and update them on the progress of those discussions when they have actually happened. To that end, I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I think I should start by saying “Diolch yn fawr iawn” to the Minister for her reply.
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for supporting me and the noble and learned Lord, Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in this amendment. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, and for her interpretation when she described it as “any passing Minister” being able to make some power, which is how it did feel when I read this in the Bill.
As has been said, the devolution settlement is indeed very complicated, and the problem is that the Bill appears to worsen those complications. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, really put her finger on it in explaining what is, in some ways, the delicate nature of all this. I look forward to having a written reply from the Minister, because this is very complicated indeed. I do not think that we have clarified it adequately and, following that letter, I may well want to come back to it on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 58. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 15: Parliamentary procedure for making regulations
Amendment 58
Baroness Randerson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean all regulations made under the Act are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 58 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. This is about as modest an amendment as one could possibly imagine. It simply requires that all regulations that flow from the Bill are made by the affirmative procedure. The Government have acknowledged that most of the substantive changes to the law envisaged by the Bill are to be made by delegated powers.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has drawn our attention to what it sees as significant problems with the Bill in respect of the constitutional principles involved. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, drew our attention to this issue earlier in our debates this afternoon. For instance, the DPRRC draws attention to the Henry VIII power in Clause 1, which gives the Government power to amend primary legislation to make provision about a wide range of issues, including details of the approach to assessing applications from overseas applicants, guidance to regulators on how to assess them, fees to be paid and appeals.
The Government’s excuse is that these changes are to be demand-led, but the DPRRC does not regard that as a justification for Henry VIII powers. Paragraph 20 of its report points out that when those powers will be executed by affirmative procedure, that in itself will provide minimal scrutiny. Paragraph 23 points out that
“Ministers will have no duty to consult before making regulations.”
Clause 3 of the Bill gives Ministers powers to make regulations in connection with the implementation of international recognition agreements—another Henry VIII power and, this time, not subject to any conditions. We can already see the reality of this principle with the very broad agreement made between the UK and Australia in the recent trade deal, which specifies mutual recognition of professional qualifications in some detail.
The Constitution Committee makes the point that there is a long-standing constitutional convention that international agreements that change UK law require an Act of Parliament, so the DPRRC considers that Clause 3 should be removed from the Bill. Clause 4 also contains a Henry VIII power on authorising a regulator to recognise an overseas regulator. I go through this because I am pointing out that, in the face of this barrage of criticism from those in this House whose job is to safeguard the constitutional integrity of the UK, it is a very small request in this amendment that the blizzard of regulations that we can expect to flow from this Bill should be made by the affirmative procedure.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest, having in prior years been a long-standing member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that its report on the Bill and the use of secondary legislation makes telling and worrying reading. Before I cover that, I place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Grimstone for his response to my speech earlier and the constructive way in which he handled that. Also, it is important for the Committee to place on record that he has sought to catch the mood of the House rather than to counter it by speaking “note rote”. That is a notable parliamentary and diplomatic skill, and he has done it more capably than many Ministers that I have heard in nearly 40 years in both Houses. However, as he knows, that does not negate the challenges that the Government face with this Bill on its passage through the House.
Most of the substantive changes to this Bill are envisaged to be undertaken by the Executive. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, there is a creeping growth of secondary legislation. Some of it is understood in the context of the huge number of statutory instruments following Brexit, but both Houses need to review and reverse that process, otherwise we will be in a situation where the balance of power between the Executive and the legislature is out of kilter. Parliament must be consulted. My noble friend Lord Grimstone said that many of the Bill’s aspects would be under rigorous scrutiny with interested parties; it is even more important that they are under rigorous scrutiny with Parliament.
The noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Patel, when talking about Henry VIII powers, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, on the lack of detailed parliamentary scrutiny, made eloquent contributions to what is relevant not only to the very light-touch but important amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Sanderson but to the wider use of secondary legislation, because there is a significant difference between negative and affirmative resolution. With negative, there is no requirement to approve the SIs for them to become law, and with the affirmative, there is a far higher degree of scrutiny sought, with the three forms of high and appropriate scrutiny that are well known to every Member of the House. That is why, wherever possible, Parliament should insist that as much as possible is on the face of the Bill, and why resorting to secondary legislation should be kept to an absolute minimum. It is with those comments in mind and made that I believe, not only in the context of Amendment 58 but throughout the Bill, that we need to return on Report to make sure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny throughout.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 60 in my noble friend’s name, and I will speak to Amendments 65,66 and 67 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fox. This is a very short debate which in many respects reinforces points made in other groups, but it can be divided into two areas: first, the necessity of avoiding, where at all possible, using secondary legislation to amend primary legislation, as the previous group have indicated; and, secondly, to have an argument about pausing not just the Bill but the implementation of an Act before the Government have their policy ducks in a row.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
This has been an interesting debate, especially for those of us who are only just beginning to get to grips with the whole process of affirmative and negative procedures. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her explanation and the clarity with which she gave her understanding of why she has put forward the amendment. Clearly the Minister needs to explain why a distinction has been drawn and why the Government believe it is necessary.
As we have heard, Clause 15 states:
“Regulations under this Act are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure where they contain provision amending, repealing or revoking primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation”—
otherwise, regulations are negative. Amendment 58, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Bennett, seeks to ensure that all regulations made under the Act will be subject to the affirmative procedure. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, stated, the Delegated Powers Committee has raised similar concerns, stating, for example, that the power in Clause 10(4), which is subject only to the negative procedure, was “inappropriate”.
There seems to be a recurring theme throughout the discussions and debates that we are having as we go through these procedures: namely, that we must ensure that Parliament is not sidelined and that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny can take place. How many negative SIs does the Minister expect to come before Parliament in the first year after Royal Assent?
On Amendments 65, 66 and 67, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Fox, for putting forward the idea of one-year delay to revoking retained EU legislation, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his detailed explanation of why that could be an attractive route to follow. I would like the Minister to explain whether this was ever considered. Indeed, would it give the regulators time to raise funds to cover any additional costs, or—to return to the theme of unease around so many areas of the Bill—is the Minister only worried about how a one-year delay could affect the UK’s pursuit of trade agreements?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for their proposed amendments. As we have heard in this debate, the amendments concern parliamentary procedure for regulations made under the Bill and, separately, the timings for the revocation of relevant retained EU law. I note the concerns raised by almost all noble Lords who have participated in this debate about the use of delegated powers.
The Government have carefully considered the powers in the Bill and consider that they are necessary and justified. It would be unfeasible to specify in the Bill detailed amendments to a large number of pieces of primary and secondary legislation. In respect of certain policies, there is a need for flexibility to make changes over time. For example, the Bill takes a power to implement international agreements so far as they relate to the recognition of professional qualifications, the content and timing of which will depend on the outcome of trade negotiations.
On trade negotiations, I reiterate that the UK’s offer to potential trade partners on the recognition of professional qualifications depends on many factors, including the size of the potential market for the export of professional services. On the concerns addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I reiterate my noble friend’s comments about the status of the Australian trade deal. I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, but I feel that we should probably wait for the final text to be issued.
I will start with Amendment 58, which I note the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, supports. The amendment would have the effect that all regulations made under the Bill would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Clause 15 sets out the parliamentary procedure for how regulations under the Bill should be made. The clause already provides that any regulation amending, repealing or revoking primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation is subject to the affirmative procedure. It is right that Parliament has the appropriate scrutiny of such regulations.
The clause goes on to set out that the negative procedure should be used for other, more technical regulations. Further, as an additional safeguard, the Bill provides that regulations subject to the negative procedure may be made also subject to the affirmative procedure where required. For example, regulations made under Clause 10(4), in relation to the duty placed on UK regulators under that clause to provide requested information to their overseas counterparts, would be made under the negative procedure. Those regulations may make provision in connection with that duty—for example, in relation to the timeframe in which the duty is to be complied with. The negative procedure is clearly more fitting in these instances and will provide an appropriate scrutiny for such measures.
I turn to Amendments 65, 66 and 67, which propose a minimum of 12 months before revoking relevant retained EU law. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for tabling these amendments, and I note that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, supports them. We have already discussed at length the core professionals whose qualifications and experience have been gained overseas, reflecting our status outside the EU single market and our global outlook. Clauses 5 and 6 play a key role in doing that. The details of those clauses were addressed on day 2 of Committee, so I will not repeat them now, but I will repeat what my noble friend the Minister said about the timing of commencement regulations for these clauses and his assurance to noble Lords that the Government have no intention of rushing this.
The Government will consider carefully when to implement commencement regulations to revoke the EU-derived system under Clause 5(1). In order to support a coherent legislative framework while making sure that decisions are taken at the right time for the professions affected, there will need to be appropriate prior engagement with the devolved Administrations, regulators and other interested parties. Likewise, Clause 6 provides for the revocation of other retained EU law by the appropriate national authority, and I would expect there to be appropriate engagement from all such authorities with regulators. As a result, I am confident that the Bill will come into force in an orderly manner with no surprises for regulators, and that it will not bring with it such wholesale changes for which the regulators would need a year to prepare if regulations were to be made before that period had elapsed. I hope that has allayed some of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that we were passing legislation before we had our policy ducks in a row.
I hope my explanations on these points have provided appropriate reassurance and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn. Lastly, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, but perhaps I could write to her with specific answers to her questions.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. To sum up the situation on the affirmative versus the negative procedure, the reality is that negative instruments slip through this House almost unnoticed. The occasional one might catch the eye of an eagle-eyed Peer who might raise it and turn it into an affirmative procedure, but the vast majority slip through. The procedure is intended for routine things such as renewals year on year, not the kind of procedure envisaged in this legislation. At least we get the opportunity to debate affirmative instruments, although that is done on an “accept it or reject it” basis. We cannot amend them, and it is therefore a pretty blunt instrument. Noble Lords know that the number of affirmative instruments rejected by this House is extremely small.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, for his acceptance that he has to provide greater clarity in response to our criticisms. The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, also indicated that she will write in response to the specific questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. My noble friend Lord Purvis pointed out a lack of clarity about how and why this legislation will operate.
I noted the Minister’s comments about the Australian trade deal. The announcement sets out in detail the issues that will be covered, but not exactly how they will be covered. I read it with great interest. The two Prime Ministers stood there in person and announced it proudly. Is the Minister now saying that this is just a rough sketch of what might be and that we should not rely on this as the brave new future announced to us only a week or so ago?
I conclude by saying that the Bill has come to us far too soon. That view is probably shared by many noble Lords across the Committee. There has been a lack of consultation with the devolved Administrations and the regulators and a lack of research. It shows. The Bill was conceived with absolutely no understanding of the complexity of this process. Going back to Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Garden and I warned that the process of agreeing the mutual recognition of qualifications will take years. We have been arguing about how we set up a system to do that. It has nothing to do with the process of making the agreement on mutual recognition. We are in the calm before the storm on this.
We have a situation where there is uncertainty about who the regulators actually are and there is no recognition of how long it takes to agree the qualifications. This is a truly terrible Bill. I do not say that because I disagree with the principle behind the need for mutual recognition of qualifications. We need to have it, but we have a Bill that has not decided what it is about, how it will do it and why it will have to do it. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that it is bordering on the absurd, so I urge Ministers to go back to their department to have a long and honest conversation and then either withdraw the Bill and put it out of its misery or at the very least have a delay before Report to give them the opportunity to recharge their batteries and consider what they really want from the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Expiry
(1) The appropriate national authority may not make regulations under this Act after a period of four years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(2) Any regulations made under this Act expire on the day after that period.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I will carry on with the theme of the previous debate, which was very interesting in relation to statutory instruments and how far they afford us an opportunity to scrutinise provisions in the Bill.
I believe one solution to the challenges facing the Bill is to sunset the whole Bill. I am putting this forward as a proposition for discussion now between Committee and Report. It is not the only solution. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, also had an interesting amendment earlier which seeks to deal with the issue in a slightly different way, but nonetheless is worthy of consideration.
The Government’s defence, if you like, of parliamentary scrutiny is that the orders that come as a result of the use of the Act, when enacted, will come before Parliament in the form of statutory instruments, and most of them will be affirmative. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked what that means in practice. Since the Second World War, five statutory instruments have been defeated in your Lordships’ House. We also had the debate on tax credits in 2015 where we agreed two amendments to the Motion to approve the tax credit regulations. They sought essentially to delay consideration of the regulations until certain conditions were met. The Government were very cross about that, but the fact is that they decided not to proceed and one can say that the Lords defeated that statutory instrument, so six since the Second World War.
The Minister says, “Ah, but Parliament can debate them and scrutinise them in relation to an affirmative instrument”, and I accept that most will be affirmative, it means nothing. All we get is an hour’s debate, at most. We can put a regret Motion down, but what does that mean? Ministers take no account of regret Motions. It makes us feel better because we have a vote and defeat the Government, but it is meaningless.
This is the whole problem with the parliamentary appraisal of secondary legislation. It was not really considered when the Parliament Act was first introduced. We have an absolute veto, but because it is an absolute veto we feel very reluctant to use it. In effect we have no leverage whatsoever. As the noble Baroness said, apart from the imaginative use of the 2015 regulations, we cannot amend statutory instruments either. My suggestion is that the only way to deal with this, if the whole of the Bill needs to go forward, is a sunset clause.
Sunset clauses, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, reminded us on the second day in Committee, are not unknown to the Minister, who has just taken through the Trade Act, which has sunset provisions. The power there, I gather, is for five years, with an option for another five years through regulation. It simply ensures that if changes are made in that period, Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise them again through debating further primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked for some form of comparable treatment in this Bill, and the Minister said that there is a difference, in that the trade agreements in the Trade Act are rollover agreements, many of which will be replaced in due course by other agreements. He argued that what we are talking about in this Bill are mutual recognition agreements rather than rollover agreements, and that there is a distinct difference. Up to a point, Minister, up to a point. It strikes me that there are some parallels. We currently have a status quo in relation to the existing regulation of professional qualifications. In time, we can expect more mutual recognition agreements to come forward and, as with the Trade Act, surely it is not unreasonable for Parliament to be able to scrutinise them properly and in primary legislation after a period of years.
Sunset clauses provide an expiry date for legislation and are used in circumstances where it is felt that Parliament should be given time to decide on its merits —again, after a fixed period. This is certainly one avenue we need to explore if the Bill is to be taken any further. I beg to move.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which would insert a sunset clause into the Bill. Why do I say that? Because many of its clauses, as we have already discussed, take Henry VIII powers and the intent of those clauses is not quite clear. The sunset clause overview states that a such a clause provides an expiry date for legislation:
“Sunset clauses are included in legislation when it is felt that Parliament should have the chance to decide on its merits again after a fixed period.”
Sunset clauses let Parliament reassess the legislation at a later date, once it is clear how it has been used in practice and how suitable it is to the policy challenge at hand.
The introduction of a sunset clause is also a useful method of reaching political compromise. It is clear from our discussions that we do not quite agree with a lot of the clauses. Reaching political compromise in the case of a controversial or sensitive provision allows the Government to make the provision they need for the time being, while building in a statutory guarantee of review of and parliamentary control over the Bill. In that respect, it is also good for the Government: they get their Bill through but it includes a sunset clause to allow Parliament greater scrutiny.
I was interested to see the guidance on the use of sunset clauses. The Government published guidance, through BEIS, on the better regulation framework in March 2020. This was written for government departments and explains how the better regulation system should operate. Section 1.5 of the guidance provides the following information on the use of review and sunset clauses:
“At an early stage in policy development,
government departments
“will need to consider whether either a statutory review clause is required or a sunset clause is appropriate … Sunset clauses are not a requirement, but a tool for policy makers to use where they are deemed appropriate and impose an automatic expiry of the measure on a specified date … and ensure scrutiny of the decision on whether or not to renew the regulation.”
On that basis, a sunset clause is the ideal way to deal with this Bill and the powers it takes through its different clauses, and I therefore support it.
Lord Fox (LD)
Once again, my Lords, I find myself following the wise words of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Patel. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referenced the Trade Act. Students of the Trade Act will have heard me make a speech about secondary legislation on at least two occasions and I am not going to repeat it, but—spoiler alert—it was very similar to the speech the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, gave. The key element both of us brought out was the complete lack of government jeopardy when it comes to secondary legislation. In other words: it is essentially a bet that cannot be lost. What they are betting with is the right governance of a very important thing.
After several trailers from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we come to this amendment. He has trailed this several times and the sunset clause is one way of putting some insurance into this Bill. What we would really like is for the Bill to leave this House not needing a sunset clause; that has to be the objective. This is very much a second-order or third-order solution to something sub-optimal. In that respect, I am not enthusiastic; I am somewhat reluctantly drawn to supporting this clause because we have to put in some element of insurance if we cannot get this right. I hope that, by hook or by crook, we can get the Bill right and perhaps not need a sunset clause, but in the meantime, we should keep that option open.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for tabling Amendment 59. A four-year sunset clause is an interesting proposal, given the wider concerns that keep coming up throughout these debates: how quickly the Bill has been put together, the lack of thinking through of all the elements, and the concerns just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Have the Government considered a mechanism for reviewing the Act’s effectiveness and, if so, what sort of review is the Minister proposing? I hope he will acknowledge the lack of confidence that has been expressed from all sides of this Chamber. I finish by asking the Minister to explain why the Bill’s provisions should last longer than four years, without a review mechanism.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for the views he expressed.
The amendment would impose a time limit of four years on appropriate national authorities making regulations under this Bill, once enacted, and regulations already made under the powers in the Bill would expire the day after that four-year period is completed. Of course, this is familiar to many as a sunset clause. However, sunset clauses are typically insurance policies against powers that, at some point in the future, may be no longer suitable to deliver the policy aims which required the legislation to be made.
The Trade Act, which we have heard referred to by a number of noble Lords, with its rollover of international agreements to be replaced in due course, is an example of legislation in which a sunset clause that can be renewed by Parliament is appropriate. However, this Bill and the delegated powers within it are drafted deliberately to endure, futureproof the legislation and provide flexibility to make necessary changes over time. I even like to think of the Bill as having a sunrise —not sunset—effect because it is intended to help our professionals enter new markets and deliver a global Britain, having ended the one-sided, EU-derived temporary arrangements. I therefore feel that a sunset provision is at odds with the purpose of the Bill.
Returning to debate a new professional qualifications Bill in four years’ time because this Bill no longer provides for that flexibility, would, I respectfully suggest, not be the best use of the expertise of this House. Of course, I have nothing against such clauses where they are appropriately used, but inclusion here would undermine the ability of the UK Government and devolved Administrations to respond swiftly to changing demands for services. It would potentially thwart the implementation of future regulator recognition agreements, which, as we know, may not in reality be implemented for some years after a free trade agreement is agreed.
There is also a risk that in providing for the expiry of regulations made under Clause 3 to implement international agreements, the UK may be left without provision upholding the commitments that we have made under those agreements, thereby placing us in breach of their terms. As I remarked to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, on day two in Committee, I believe that sunset clauses would not be appropriate in these circumstances. By sunsetting, we limit the opportunity for service trade and constrain regulators’ abilities to exploit opportunities with their international counterparts, for example through Clause 4.
The powers in the Bill are designed to support a flexible response as the regulatory landscape evolves over time. Curtailing the ability to do that through a time limit would put us into regulatory limbo rather than preparing us for the future. We know that the Bill will allow the UK to replace the interim system of recognition currently in operation. Stripping away regulation that the Bill creates to replace the EU system would only create a new gap.
Finally, if the intent behind this amendment is indeed to mitigate any potential misuse of powers, I reiterate that the powers detailed in the Bill are carefully tailored to its requirements; they are focused on a specific purpose. I believe that the reason why some noble Lords are arguing for a sunset clause is that they think it is a rotten Bill: “If we are not able to kill it off now, why not do so in four years’ time?” I prefer to share the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Fox—I was pleased to hear him state it so clearly—that the Bill should leave our House in good shape, do what it is intended to do and be fit for purpose. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will agree that a sunset clause is not appropriate and will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The Minister is an eternal optimist and I liked his description of the Bill as a sunrise Bill. I say at once that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that a sunset clause is not to be desired. The aim is to reach some consensus on the way forward. My reading is that the Minister is not going to get the Bill through at the moment, as it will be heavily amended on Report. This is a House of Lords starter Bill so the Parliament Act does not apply, and—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
No, I do not think that it applies to Lords starters; it applies to Commons starters.
Rather than just repeating the reasons why the Government need the clauses as they are, I hope they will start to negotiate because that is the way to get through this. There are ways in which the Bill can be amended to modify the executive provisions, but the Government have to be prepared to move. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Patel, was very wise in repeating to the Minister the wise words of his own better regulation advice on where sunset clauses can be appropriate. My noble friend Lady Blake asked where there will be a review mechanism at all if there is no sunset point.
Ultimately, it seems that we have reached a crunch position where the House is unhappy and will vote to take chunks out of the Bill, one way or another, unless we can reach a satisfactory solution. Clearly, the Bill is a Lords starter for one reason: it is a Bill on which we should be able to come together because at heart we all want to see professional qualifications in this country maintaining independence, a very high standard and interchangeability with other countries, where that is appropriate. Although noble Lords may have some doubts about this Bill, I do not think there is any argument about the intent of where the Government seek to go. We now need to see movement from the Government. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Saving: autonomy of regulators
Nothing in this Act affects the autonomy of regulators to act in the interests of their profession, including but not limited to the ability to—(a) set and maintain professional standards.(b) set requirements to practise a profession. (c) determine who is fit to practise.(d) set requirements for having insurance. (e) set the training requirements (including requirements about gaining experience).(f) determine appropriate levels of flexibility in assessment practices;(g) determine to make a regulator recognition agreement.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I apologise for my response during my noble friend Lord Hunt’s comments. Is it not wonderful that you learn something new every day? I had not realised that a Lords starter is not subject to the Parliament Act. I was just preparing something for a meeting I have tomorrow saying how the Bill was a Lords starter because that is normal for a noncontentious Bill. That is presumably why noncontentious Bills are put here.
However, with a final flourish, Amendment 60B is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Fox. It basically sums up the deep concerns we share about the Bill’s potential to undermine the independent standard-setting and public interest duties of what we have seen as autonomous regulators. As the Minister will recognise, everything in this amendment is what he promised in Committee. I am not suggesting that the department made up its position as the Bill went along. In this amendment we have simply brought things together to make the Government’s position, as the Minister has stated, much clearer and easy to read, so because of that, I think the Minister will have no issue at all with the amendment and will probably want to accept it.
As the amendment is all things that the Minister has been saying, I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments—he is familiar with all of them—save to say that a Bill to compel regulators either to enter negotiations with an overseas regulator or put in place a process for recognising the qualifications of applicants trained abroad to fulfil a promise made by the Government in a trade deal or to fill a skills shortage defined by a Minister is not compatible with a regulator’s independence if it is carried out by diktat rather than at the regulator’s request. I completely understand that if there is a deal and particular professions would like to have the mutual recognition of qualifications, they may find they do not have the powers and may come to the Minister saying “Look, our statute does not allow for it. Please can you do the necessary?” I quite understand that that power might need to exist but it should come from them, not from the imposition of the Minister.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we started Committee with an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Fox. It sought to establish at the very outset of the Bill the principle that nothing in it would have a negative impact on the autonomy of our regulators. I am glad that we are able to say—well, not quite “We told you so”, but certainly the fact is that we have learned little in Committee that has meant that the case is not even stronger, so reassurance needs to be provided in the Bill.
The powers in Clause 1 could be extensive when it comes to individual applications. The powers in Clause 4 could be forced on a regulator. The powers in Clause 3 could implement elements of trade agreements on regulators in all four parts of the United Kingdom with little scrutiny or accountability. In reverse order, on the trade side, during the debate on the previous group, the Minister sought to give the impression that the regulatory powers were needed to implement trade agreements and the professional qualifications elements of those agreements because, without those powers, we would not able to implement international agreements and therefore may need to act urgently. Clearly, I have not been following in Committee because, by definition, these regulators are statutory. If the Government’s statement that a treaty would be implemented by primary legislation is correct, that would be the vehicle—when that treaty is being implemented—to make changes to any of the legislation of those regulators. I simply cannot understand why a Henry VIII power is necessary for that.
On forcing the regulators to enter into mutual recognition agreements, if the Government are saying that this measure is purely enabling, there is a degree of merit in that. However, in Committee, we have heard that such enabling could go beyond and add extra pressure. In Clause 1, the powers on the application process are extensive. Whether we have a declarative statement at the outset or the protections that would be brought about by this amendment, there will have to be protections. If the Government genuinely want to avoid a situation where this Bill either must be paused or does not progress at all—my understanding is that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is absolutely correct that Bills starting in this place are not subject to the Parliament Act and that the Minister therefore has to be nicer to us—they must provide reassurance. That can happen now only through much greater detail about the organisations and regulators that will be impacted by this, as well as about certain areas of draft regulations along the lines of what the Government would really want to use these powers for. Without meaningful reassurances, this Bill has significant difficulties.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I need to say very little, other than that I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, have said. I know my noble friend has heard the strength of feeling in Committee, about the importance of regulator autonomy. I think there is agreement in Committee, though not necessarily yet with my noble friend the Minister, that something needs to be in the Bill to recognise that.
I hope that by the time we get to Report, if indeed there is a Report stage on this Bill, the Government will have taken ownership of the issue, because I am afraid that if they do not the House will.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I have gone through the entire Committee session in complete agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Not a scintilla of difference has come between us all day. The fact that this amendment is signed by such a broad group of people indicates two things. One is that there is broad hope that we can get a Bill out of this process that we can live with. Also, this is the essential building block that has to start the process of creating a Bill that this House is much more comfortable with. As we have heard, the Minister has spoken time after time about the autonomy of the regulator. He cannot be faulted in the number of times he has said it. However, at no point is that autonomy echoed in the words of the Bill. That is what this amendment, very simply, seeks to do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, put it, it is to take the Minister’s words and to put them into the Bill. Without that insurance, as my noble friend Lord Purvis explained, that are plenty of ways that autonomy can be eroded and, indeed, set to one side.
My noble friend Lady Randerson, speaking to a previous group, explained that mutual recognition of qualifications takes years. It does not take years if it rides in on the back of a free trade agreement and overrides the rights and autonomy of our regulators. That is the fear that runs through all the people trying to correct this Bill. This amendment, or something that the Government pick up and make their own, is one way of starting the process of having the dialogue that will help the Bill make further progress.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for her amendment, which sets out the autonomy of regulators to act in the interests of their profession. I note that the amendment is supported by my noble friend Lady Noakes and others. Of course, I commend their commitment to upholding regulator autonomy, and it will come as no surprise that I support their intent here. I was told before I joined your Lordships’ House that understanding the mood of the House was an important requisite if a Minister was to have a chance of even modest success in his role. I do not think that anybody who has listened to our debates on this matter could be in any doubt about the mood of the Committee on this topic.
I spoke at length on regulator autonomy on days one and two of Committee, saying, in particular, that regulatory autonomy is, and has always been, a priority in this Bill. Throughout the Bill’s development and following its introduction, the Government have engaged closely with a wide range of regulators—even the newly discovered ones—to make sure that their autonomy is upheld throughout the Bill. We will of course continue to do so, not just during the Bill’s passage but in its implementation. Subject to the usual channels, I believe that we may now have time available to us before the Bill moves to Report stage to make sure that process is fully and conclusively completed.
This is why of course we listened even before the Bill started its passage through the House, and tabled our amendments to Clause 1: to ensure, in that case, regulatory autonomy over decisions about who practises a profession and flexibility in assessment practices, in line with the rigorous standards set by regulators. I think noble Lords will recognise now that the overall effect of Clause 1, as amended, will be to ensure that regulators can use a full range of approaches to make their determinations about knowledge and skills, and it preserves their ability to set further conditions, such as those set out in the amendment. I am pleased that, through discussion, we were able to get both the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council to welcome this. The proposed new clause would also specify that regulators are able to determine whether to make a regulator recognition agreement. Perhaps I may humbly say that Clause 4 is already the means of achieving this.
Clause 3 ensures that, where the UK has international agreements on the recognition of professional qualifications, these can be implemented. The principle of autonomy will be a key priority in reaching these agreements. Of course, I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that there will be a number of future free trade agreements that will require primary legislation to implement them. Equally, there may be some, for example the Swiss mobility agreement—not a full free trade agreement but one that acts within the spirit of the Bill—which may not need primary legislation. That is why it has been important to have this flexibility.
Agreements under Clause 4 are entirely regulator-led. The appropriate national authority may grant regulators the power only to enter into agreements, not to dictate what agreements to enter into. It is for the regulator to decide whether it wishes to enter into a recognition agreement with its counterparts overseas, and the terms of any agreement. I hope that I have conveyed through this, and my previous comments, that the Bill protects and values the autonomy of regulators. But of course, I go back to my earlier comments: the strength of feeling expressed by Members of this House has not gone unheard. I have listened carefully to the points made and I will continue to consider the importance of regulatory autonomy and to ensure that this is respected.
I would still highlight that the Bill, as drafted and amended by the Government, does give powers to regulators where they need them. If the Bill can be improved through scrutiny, who would not want it to be? However, the Bill is already consistent with the intended effects of the amendment, so I suggest that there is no need for an additional clause. I therefore ask that this amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for their support for this. If I have understood the Minister correctly, he said, “Don’t worry about it because it’s all in the Bill, so it isn’t necessary”. But if it is all in the Bill, there is no harm in it. Given the concerns that we have had, I see nothing wrong with the reassurance, as I mentioned at an earlier stage. Sometimes, when things are tested, perhaps in courts afterwards, a very clear statement of intent and reassurance can work wonders—even more than a ministerial statement from the Dispatch Box. Therefore, it would not be right to say that it is not needed. If it is an extra bit, that seems to me a welcome addition.
However, I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that he has listened to everything we have said and will think about this. I will give away a small secret, just within these four walls: there is no date, as yet, in July for Report, so it may well be that we have until September, which should give the Ministers and their drafters plenty of time. It would obviously be better if any amendments that we agree with could come in their names, because they tend to be drafted better than ours, and it is also much easier to have a discussion and agree.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Before I go on to the next group, it is perhaps worth saying to those who wish to speak after the Minister that the earlier they can inform us, the more likely it is that the message can be passed directly on. I am afraid that I was not able to call the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as I had to apply the same rules that I applied to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for the same reason.
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 61. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make this clear in the debate. I call the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.
Clause 16: Interpretation
Amendment 61
Member’s explanatory statement
See explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Palmer of Childs Hill to page 13, line 19.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, it is my great pleasure to speak here in the graveyard spot on this Bill to the amendments in my name. I thank the Minister for his letter of 20 June concerning the professions and regulators to which this Bill applies. It would have been a bit more helpful to have had it earlier.
It seems that BEIS has recognised the point I made in my amendments that the ICAEW and other accountancy professional bodies are in the scope of the Professional Qualifications Bill, owing to their role as recognised supervisory bodies for the purposes of statutory audit, insolvency, probate and administration of oaths. This has been referred to by many noble Lords from around the Chamber during the course of this Bill. As this addresses the point made in my amendments regarding the rationale for including the ICAEW, of which I am a member, in the scope of the legislation, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge when he replies that it helped to review the actual impact of the Bill, as his letter helped me in making this speech.
It feels like the Government are rushing through this legislation without having thought through the detail of the Bill and its consequences. Noble Lords are now having to try to fix this. For the list of regulators and professions affected by this Bill to have changed so substantially while the legislation is being scrutinised by your Lordships’ House does not help give certainty on such an important and wide-ranging legislative measure.
Between this Bill’s conclusion in the House of Lords and it eventually beginning to go through the lower Chamber—and eventually when it comes to Report—it is vital that BEIS takes stock of this legislation, reviews its intended and unintended consequences, and engages with those regulators and professional bodies in scope to iron out any remaining concerns. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said earlier in this debate that there needs to be a pause to the Bill. There needs to be a certain something which does not just carry on as we are now.
A remaining concern—and my last words on this—is on the need for the regulation of accountants and tax advisers. At present, anyone can set themselves up to give this service—and maybe they should. I hope that the Government will consider whether any regulation in some form is required. After all, where pig farmers go, accountants should surely follow. I beg leave to move the amendment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, has tabled these amendments, which I know were suggested by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, so I felt somewhat obligated to speak on the amendment. I know that the ICAEW is pretty keen to be included in the Bill’s scope. As the noble Lord explained, its wish has been granted to some extent, but only for certain aspects where it regulates professions. The noble Lord’s amendments would actually go considerably further by making chartered accountancy a regulated profession. Amendment 64 names the ICAEW as the “chartered accountancy regulator”, thus relegating all the other chartered accountancy bodies to also-rans. If the noble Lord was even thinking about pressing his amendment, I would strongly oppose it. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will resist it.
The inclusion of chartered accountancy is not logical. The ICAEW already enters into mutual recognition agreements, so Clauses 3 and 4 would have no relevance whatever. I cannot believe that the Government would ever make a determination under Clause 2 that there is a problem with meeting a demand for accountants’ services. There is no shortage of accountants.
The ICAEW’s rather grandiose briefing to me said that it wanted to be in the Bill so that there could be
“a debate on the role of the profession in shaping global business practice, reporting and governance”.
In other words, the ICAEW wants to be seen as important. Legislation should not be used to support the egos of anybody, let alone professional bodies.
Right at the end of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, raised whether the provision of accountancy and tax advisory services should be regulated. That is pure protectionism and not something I would ever support, even for my own profession of accountancy. I know that the noble Lord will not press his amendments, but if he does I hope that my noble friend the Minister will strongly resist them.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, my sister is not a chartered accountant, but she is an accountant. I do not know whether that is an interest to declare, but I should note that.
Unsurprisingly, I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said. In fact, when the noble Lord first raised the possibility of this with me, I was really interested, but we were both quite surprised that somebody actually wanted to be regulated. As someone who has worked very much on the consumer side, I have tried to get people regulated and on the whole they have resisted. However, that falls apart, because we have now discovered in the letter that the ICAEW will be there.
Earlier, I read out the note that I had had from the ICAEW as a result of the Minister’s letter on Sunday, saying that it seemed as if the Government were “rushing through the legislation”. I did not quote this, but I will say it now:
“Between this Bill’s conclusion in the House of Lords and it beginning to go through the lower chamber, it is vital that BEIS take stock of this legislation, review its intended – and unintended – consequences, and engage with those regulators and professional bodies in scope to iron out any remaining concerns.”
As I said on the previous group, I hope that we will use the time between now and Report, rather than between now and when the Bill arrives in the other House, but it sounds as though the ICAEW and the other accountancy bodies have not yet had a discussion with departmental officials. I hope that that can be put in hand. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm, although maybe not at this moment, that those meetings have taken place so that, as the ICAEW says, any intended or unintended consequences are fully understood and any problems can be ironed out. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that that will take place.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for his amendments. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the Government’s thinking on whether the chartered accountancy profession is one to which the Bill applies, as well as the situation in respect of other chartered professions. I hope that noble Lords have noted, as I have responded to this, that we have been listening to their concerns and that we are looking to engage and make improvements where we can. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that officials are already in discussion with the ICAEW.
As a short digression, I have to say that it is nice to hear regulators are now clamouring to join the bandwagon of this Bill. I hope that marks a turning point for us. I will be going home with a spring in my step this evening, having heard that.
I should begin by acknowledging that the UK’s chartered accountancy bodies set the highest standards with their qualifications and require continuous professional development, rightly. As a result, the UK’s accounting sector is highly respected and valued both domestically and across the world. We are rightly proud of it.
I would also like to highlight that, as we have heard from noble Lords, the ICAEW is a regulator to which the Bill applies, by virtue of its role as a regulator of auditors, insolvency practitioners and some other distinct specialisms. The professional activity of audit is regulated in statute by the ICAEW and the other recognised supervisory bodies for audit, all overseen by the Financial Reporting Council. We continue to deepen our understanding of these relationships as a result of the mapping work that I described much earlier today.
One of the objectives of this Bill is to revoke the current EU-derived system for recognising professional qualifications and experience gained overseas. We are taking away this prescriptive system and leaving it to our autonomous regulators to decide what recognition arrangements they require. If our regulators need help to create recognition routes to meet demand, or to agree reciprocal agreements with overseas counterparts, we can use the powers in this Bill to give them what they need.
Chartered titles are, in general, a form of self-regulation. Chartered accountancy is not a profession regulated in law, and there are no statutory impediments to the chartered bodies having whichever international recognition routes they deem appropriate. So there is simply no need for government intervention under this Bill to help chartered bodies set up recognition routes or international recognition arrangements for professional activities not regulated in law. Indeed, the ICAEW already has many overseas members and international agreements relating to accountancy. Therefore, the profession of chartered accountancy does not need to be included among those professions to which the Bill applies.
This is true of all voluntarily regulated professions. Professional bodies for those professions continue to reign with autonomy over their unilateral recognition routes and over the formation of the content of recognition agreements with overseas counterparts. So, I repeat: they do not need any help under the powers of this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured by this explanation, and I ask that he withdraw the amendment.
We are now reaching the end of the 27th grouping, which marks the end of the Committee stage for this Bill. I would like to express my sincere thanks to all noble Lords for their excellent and insightful contributions. I think it is fair to say that Ministers and officials have learned things from these insightful contributions. I will be reflecting on all the points made. If the noble Baroness would like to tell me where she will be for her summer holiday, I will make sure that the letters are delivered to her expeditiously.
I look forward to continuing to discuss this Bill with noble Lords. I will hold further round tables; I, and officials, will meet further with regulators; I will meet with the devolved Administrations; and I will do this before we return for Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Before saying that there are no requests to speak after the Minister, I will just confirm this time that there are no such requests. No? Excellent—I therefore call the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister understands the mood of the House, which has been very clear over the course of our proceedings on the Bill. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Hayter, for contributing on these amendments, which noble Lords will appreciate were put down at a very early stage of the Bill, on the basis of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales indicating to me—but not to everybody—that it wished to be named in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, quite rightly said that it is not the only accountancy body. I raised this with the ICAEW, which said that it did not at this late stage want to be seen as speaking for all the other bodies but to test the water on behalf of the accountancy profession.
Noble Lords made the point that there is no shortage of accountants, but inclusion in the Bill does not necessarily mean shortage—I am not sure whether there is a shortage of pig farmers but nevertheless they are in the Bill; therefore, there is an argument for this. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, quite rightly said that some accountants feel that they need to be seen in, and part of, the Bill, but they have come very to it very late. I hope that this can be ironed out.
I thank the Minister for replying positively to many of the points that concerned me and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
End-to-end Rape Review
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
The issue about the extent to which rape is properly prosecuted in this country is now a real one. The Lord Chancellor rightly apologised for the lack of prosecutions, yet did nothing to deal with the problem properly. He announced a sum of money, in the region of £150 million, most of which went to refuges. Refuges are very worth while but will not deal with the problem of the lamentably low rate of convictions for rape. The average amount of extra expenditure on rape cases, if one applies it to the number of rape cases the Government estimated last year, is £15 a case.
Why have the Government not made more resources available, if their apology is serious? Why have they not rolled out Section 28, which allows for victims of rape to give evidence as soon as possible after the crime has been committed and for their evidence to be recorded?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
I congratulate the authors, researchers and statisticians who have contributed so much to this comprehensive and excellent review. I trust that the Government will fully resource its recommendations, but agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that there is no sign of it so far.
I focus on one of the review’s findings—namely that, in 57% of all adult rape cases, the victim feels unable to pursue their complaint. Given that in 90% of cases the victim knows the perpetrator—as a member or friend of the family, fellow student or worker, friend or acquaintance—that may not be too surprising. I strongly suspect that very few of those withdrawals concern the small minority of cases where the perpetrator is unknown. I am interested to know whether the Minister has a figure for the percentage of withdrawals in cases of stranger rape.
So, what are the reasons for disengagement by the victim? First, there is delay. Giving evidence is always a stressful experience, as I know well. Standing exposed in a witness box with one’s honesty, accuracy of recollection and motives challenged is not pleasant. Giving evidence about intimate sexual encounters must be agonising and overwhelmingly stressful. Only those with a high degree of courage and persistence can be expected to stay the course without considerable support. I very much welcome the pilot schemes for the recording of evidence and cross-examination early, well before trial. How soon can those pilots be evaluated and rolled out? Months, if not years, of waiting for a trial must disincentivise victims pursuing their case.
Secondly, there is the intrusion into privacy. In January 2018, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, introduced a debate on this topic. I suggested an algorithm which would require the defence to co-operate by setting out their case in a defence statement and, at that point, indicating keywords for the search of mobile phones. The revised Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure, published in 2020, set out such a system and it is now operational. The review recognises the importance of privacy by its requirement that mobile phones be returned within 24 hours. If that is done, I hope this disincentive to reporting rape will be removed.
Thirdly, we come to sentencing. I am not convinced that longer and longer sentences have any benefit. The review points out that the minimum sentence guideline is now six years and that the average term served for rape is nine years. This increase in sentencing coincides with a decrease in convictions. So many cases depend upon consent, without these days, in England and Wales, any need for corroboration. The lack of consent by the victim must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that is the highest degree of proof.
A victim, already oppressed by delay in bringing a case to court, must generally also contemplate the destruction of the life of an offender whom she knows and may even love. That may also be a potent reason for her to disengage from the case. That there should be a substantial and significant sentence of imprisonment for rape is not in doubt, but excessive increases year on year may have unexpected consequences to the detriment of justice.
Ultimately, the jurors are the judges. Acquittals reflect societal attitudes. At the moment, judges seek hard to dispel the myths and prejudices of the past, with lengthy exhortations and directions to the jury—but attitudes begin in the classroom, and we must train teachers to inculcate respect for others and, above all, the meaning and parameters of consent.
In the last few years, we have developed teams of specialised investigators and prosecutors, special measures for court hearings and victim support services. All these are steps in the right direction but have manifestly had no impact on the rate of convictions. We must try harder. We will support the Government further in implementing the policies that are set out in this review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I turn first to the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. First, I should repeat the apology that the Lord Chancellor gave in the other place yesterday, setting out by reference the reasons why he gave it, given the time.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said, it is not right to criticise the Government’s response to the rape review for lacking in ambition. On the contrary, we have set out clear ambitions for rape cases with the police and the CPS, and we have set out actions against which they, and we, can be held to account. We want to return the volume of trials for rape to pre-2016 levels, with corresponding expectations for police referrals and cases charged. We want to ensure that no victim is left without a phone—noble Lords will appreciate how important the data found on phones these days can be in these prosecutions—for more than 24 hours. We should not underestimate how difficult it can be for a victim to hand over her—it is invariably her—phone and to know that it will be looked at. We will also publish updates every six months, detailing our progress against our expectations, with scorecards monitoring progress against key metrics, including timeliness and victim engagement in each part of the system. That will enable us to provide information on a regional and local level, to see where things are working well and where there is room for improvement.
I turn to the other substantive point that the noble and learned Lord made, about Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, which enables people to have their cross-examination recorded in advance. The pilots of this provision have focused on complainants for sexual and modern slavery offences. We are extending them from three to six Crown Courts. I want to increase the availability of Section 28, but we need to do this properly. This is a radical departure from the normal court process, where evidence is given at the same time, in front of the jury. The pilots enable us to understand the impacts of this way of giving evidence—not only the impact on the evidence itself but the operational impacts on the courts, because they have to set out, and set up, a bespoke hearing for such evidence to be given.
Although we have some experience of this working for vulnerable victims, primarily children, victims who can be intimidated or are subject to distress, such as victims of rape and sexual violence, are in a different category. That is why we need to look at the pilots and see how it works in practice before we roll it out nationally, if that is what we do.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The reasons for complainants’ withdrawals are complex, regardless of whether the victim knows the perpetrator. I do not have specific data for withdrawal in stranger-rape cases, but what we do know is that in all cases, good-quality support is a key factor in maintaining victim engagement with the process. That is why we are funding more ISVAs, and we will consider putting that on a statutory basis. As for delay and prerecording cross-examination, I think I have dealt with that point already.
As I said earlier, we recognise that a lack of privacy can be a deterrent and that having your phone gone through can be a very distressing process. We want to ensure that the focus is on the alleged perpetrator and investigating them, rather than on investigating the alleged victim. That is why we do not want to see victims without their phones for long periods of time, and only information that is necessary for an investigation will be asked for. In addition to new guidance for police and information for the public, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will clarify the power used to extract information from victims’ devices and will include privacy safeguards.
As to sentencing, I must disagree with the point made by the noble Lord. Rape is a very serious offence and merits a significant sentence. I take issue with his proposition that there have been excessive increases. On the contrary, I suggest that the sentences for rape, which ultimately are a matter for the judiciary, are entirely appropriate for the very serious nature of that crime.
However, I agree with the noble Lord’s point about the importance of education. A tackling violence against women and girls strategy is forthcoming. It will focus on prevention, recognising the importance of education for preventing violence against women and girls. If I may say so, from my own knowledge of what is being taught to my children in secondary school today, the education given to children today in areas such as consent and sexual relationships is far improved and much better than it was years ago. That is a very important part of the process, and I agree with the noble Lord that education is a key component in this debate.
On that note, I echo another point that the Lord Chancellor made yesterday in the other place: we will work across party lines when it comes to this issue. I therefore welcome the noble Lord’s concluding remarks, in which he indicated that he too would be prepared to work on that basis.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
We come to the 20 minutes for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers are brief, in order that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is much to support in this review. I am pleased that the Government have been so candid in their assessment of what is a totally unacceptable situation, but I do not doubt their commitment to trying to rectify it.
It is particularly encouraging to see that the report is committed to implementing an offender-centred police process. Putting victims and their character at the centre of the investigation, rather than the suspect and his behaviour, is one of the biggest reasons why so many cases fall down and have “NFA” stamped on them. We have to try to change the culture of questioning the victim’s behaviour and focus instead on perpetrators and why they are doing this. In my view, this approach should always have been the norm. Will the Minister commit the Government to a further funding stream and ensure that this approach is rolled out across forces as quickly as possible?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, on funding, we have invested record amounts in support for victims in the last 18 months. We spent more than £70 million on rape and domestic abuse services in the financial year 2020-21, and £27 million on the expansion of the independent sexual violence adviser service—ISVA —which I mentioned earlier. The data is extraordinary, showing that a victim is 49% more likely to stay engaged with the process and see their complaint through to its conclusion if they have that support. That is why we will be consulting on a statutory underpinning for the ISVA role.
My noble friend used the phrase—if I have taken a correct note—“totally unacceptable” to describe the current position. I do not dissent from that. I also agree with her, as I said earlier, that we need to have more focus on investigating the perpetrator and less on investigating the victim.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Peers, while I welcome the publication of this rape review and the Government’s apology for the failings on rape—and an apology from the Government is to be welcomed—there is very little consolation for the women who have been failed, including the many victims whose cases have not been progressed by the Crown Prosecution Service.
A few days ago, I heard on Woman’s Hour about the case of a woman who had been raped and went to the police, who dealt with her case very well—but the CPS refused to prosecute, as it said that the recording from the CCTV had shown her holding hands with her rapist. Can anyone imagine what this woman felt after all she had been through? Would the Minister agree with me that this should never have happened and that cases like this do nothing to encourage rape victims to come forward?
The review mentioned £70 million spent over the past 18 months on domestic abuse and rape services. Can the Minister say how much of that £70 million is to support victims of rape and how much is allocated to victims of domestic abuse—which is vital but has nothing to do with improving victims’ experience of the criminal justice system or improving rape convictions? Can the Minister explain how much of this funding is to support rape victims in getting justice?
The charity Refuge has called for a total overhaul of the rape criminal justice system—both the police and the CPS—and has said that it cannot accept such monumental failings any more.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
Thank you. So could the Government urgently provide adequate sustainable funding for specialist rape services, which have been very seriously eroded in the last few years?
I do hope this review will produce positive results for victims and ensure that rapists are answerable for their crime.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, we can certainly agree on the last point. The focus of the criminal justice system is indeed to make sure that rapists are answerable for their crimes—and they are heinous crimes.
I obviously cannot comment on the particular instance that the noble Baroness mentioned. Of course, the CPS is quite properly an independent agency; decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute cannot and must not be taken by Ministers. But what I can tell the noble Baroness and the House is that the CPS is committed to reversing the negative trend in prosecution volumes seen over recent years. The CPS and the police are putting together a joint plan. The CPS is itself committed to a range of actions to drive forward improvement. This includes consulting and publishing revised rape legal guidance, including new content on challenging rape myths and stereotypes. From what I heard of the example given by the noble Baroness, that is a good instance of “rape myth”, and it behoves everybody engaged in this debate to make sure that the public know the facts and are not distracted by myths.
The noble Baroness asked me a couple of precise questions on funding—in particular, the division of the £70 million figure as between rape victims and domestic abuse. May I please write to her on that point, together with the other point on funding which she put to me?
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
The Statement says that Operation Soteria will transform how the police and CPS handle investigations into rape and sexual offences, and the Operation Bluestone pilot in Avon and Somerset has shown that there is an effective way of working. Can the Minister say if it is true that Operation Soteria will involve only four police forces and has funding for only one year? This is hardly a universal rollout of a new culture of transforming rape services. Can he say when it will be rolled out and properly funded across the country? Victims and victims’ organisations have rightly made it clear that not one day should be lost.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it is not only Operation Soteria that we need to focus on. As part of Operation Soteria, we are working with pathfinder police forces to test the latest technology, including advanced analytics such as machine learning, to, for example, get data off phones as quickly as possible. We will certainly make sure that all police forces have access to the best technology available, so that all victims around the country can see the improvement that the Lord Chancellor and I—indeed, the whole Government—want to see in rape prosecutions. That will involve work not only with the police but with the CPS.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is much in this report that I could talk about and there are many questions but because of time and other speakers, I shall be brief. While I have the greatest respect for the Secretary of State for Justice, the right honourable Robert Buckland, I think this is a shameful report containing nothing that we did not know many years ago. As the former Victims Commissioner for more than seven years, I have met hundreds of victims of rape who have no confidence and would not expect other victims to go through the system. However, saying that, I am very happy to read about the role of ISVA as advocates to help victims of sexual abuse and rape. Their role is very important, so will the Minister say how they are going to be funded? Is it going to be through the Home Office, or does a costly fee have to be paid to become an ISVA? Can we have them as registered intermediaries so that they collect CPD credits and are professional right the way through? That will entail an advocate for the victims law later in the year.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to mention the victims Bill, which is an important element in this debate. Of course, with her background, she is a strong advocate for victims in this area. She is absolutely right to focus on confidence. We want to make sure that victims have the confidence to go to the police, to stay engaged with the process and to give evidence. That is why all these issues, whether data from phones or Section 28, are all part of making sure that victims stay engaged with the process. On funding, as I mentioned there will be a consultation about statutory footing for ISVAs and I will refer her to that in due course.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I make a plea. There are a number of 70-plus year-old men who, following controversial sex offence trials, languish in prison, ill and with disabilities. They are no risk to society and, during the pandemic, their CCRC case reviews are, legally, access and procedurally problematic. Why not let them home under monitored conditions and free space for people who are a real danger to society? John McGuinn of Darwen in Lancashire is one of them. He is a celebrated case and I appeal on his behalf and that of others.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure it is right or proper for me to comment on individual cases from the Dispatch Box. There is a proper procedure for people who seek probation or to have sentences served outside a formal prison, and I think it would be unwise and probably improper of me to say any more on the subject than that.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the heinous crime of rape, including marital rape, violates trust and dignity as well as physical and mental well-being. There cannot be consent to rape, which violates the most fundamental, basic right to say no. Victims must be believed. I worry how many other victims are not reporting.
This report reinforces what we and women’s rights organisations know. As my noble friend Lady Newlove said so eloquently, women’s organisations have repeatedly called on the Government time and again for action, funding, services and training, including for police officers. Indeed, we have failed hundreds of thousands of women victims and survivors, with the Government fully aware of all the facts contained in this report. Given what the Minister said on the need for education, are the Government further considering the resource implications of the report alongside a public information and education campaign? Knowing also that sexual violence and the abuse of children is prevalent in schools, are they considering working with all communities to state that sexual violence is against the law, that we take this as being of the utmost seriousness and that we are as committed to eradicating this pandemic of sexual violence as we are to erasing Covid, both nationally and globally?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am very happy to accept the two adjectives used by the noble Baroness: “serious” and “committed”. That is exactly what we are. She is right to say that there are resource implications. There are resource implications in what I said about mobile phone data and Section 28, but we want to make sure that the criminal justice system delivers for victims of rape. Obviously, as the Lord Chancellor said yesterday, resources are a necessary part of that.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the review and the Government’s commitment on this issue. One of the current problems that rape victims face is severe court backlogs, which cause victims to withdraw before their case is completed. Section 28 would be a valuable tool in combating this problem. Allowing victims to pre-record evidence would help them to stay in the justice process as they could be cross-examined on evidence much earlier. Greater use of this is being piloted, but we have already had pilots for several years. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us when the Government hope to see Section 28 in use across all Crown Courts?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am reluctant to give a date for that because we really have to see how it works out in the courts in which it is being piloted. I have already explained that its use in cases of rape and sexual violence raises different issues from its use in the case of vulnerable witnesses in, for example, domestic abuse and children’s cases. With respect to the delays, we now have more jury courtrooms available than we did before the pandemic. We have Nightingale courts to provide more space as well. As the Lord Chancellor has said, we are running the criminal justice system hot this year; there is no limit to the number of sitting days in the criminal justice system this year.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend Lady Helic, would my noble friend the Minister consider putting it out to the police and crime commissioners to create strategies that work across their police forces to measure the progress being made by their local police authorities on responding to victims’ needs? I also refer to the critical issue of children who have been groomed and been victims of multiple rapes during the grooming process. If justice has been served, can we make sure that those young people get the support, both physically and mentally, that they will need long after they have had their time in court?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right to focus on the importance of PCCs in this area. Although, as I have said, the scorecards which we intend to bring in will look at local and regional data, the role of the PCCs in this regard is also very important because they are the people on the ground and they have the relationship with the local police force. Her second point is also extremely important. Victim support does not stop when there is a conviction or a sentencing. Support for victims has to carry on because we know that, for the reasons that my noble friend has said, victims are in need of support often for a considerable time after the perpetrator has been convicted of and sentenced for the crime.