House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
Throughout the pandemic, our priority has been to protect the most vulnerable, which is why we spent an additional £7.4 billion last year to strengthen the welfare safety support for working-age people. Our ambition is to help parents return to work as quickly as possible, as there is clear evidence of the importance of having parents in work for reducing the risk of child poverty. That is why we are spending over £30 billion on a comprehensive plan for jobs.
Rushanara Ali [V]
I thank the Minister for his answer, but 60% of kids in my constituency are living in poverty, and over 4.2 million live in poverty across the country. The numbers have gone up by 700,000 since 2010, and the Government’s limited extension to the local support grants does not make up for the cuts to universal credit, which will mean that families are £1,000 a year worse off from September. Is it not time that the Minister reconsidered that decision and made sure that families do not lose £1,000 from September, so that more children are not forced into poverty?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We are wholly committed to supporting families with children. We spent an estimated £111 billion, including £7.4 billion on covid-related measures, on working-age welfare in 2020-21. In addition, as the hon. Lady referenced, we introduced the covid local support grant. We have now extended that grant with an additional £160 million in funding between 21 June and 30 September. That brings the total funding package to £429 million. For the hon. Lady’s constituency—I reference Tower Hamlets London Borough Council—it means an overall funding package of over £3 million.
Richard Burgon
What we have been hearing from the Government is, frankly, rubbish. In Leeds East alone, 11,000 children—that is approaching half of all children—live in poverty. It is not getting better for the children of Harehills, and it is not getting better for the children of Cross Gates, Gipton, Seacroft or anywhere else; it is getting worse. Poverty levels went up by 25% in the five years before the pandemic, and it is going to get worse when £20 of universal credit is taken away from families in October. I dare the Minister today to come to the food banks of Leeds East and tell people in my community why the Tory party thinks that their children should be forced into further poverty this winter.
Will Quince
Recent statistics show that before the covid-19 pandemic, we were in a strong position, with rising incomes and 1.3 million fewer people, including 300,000 fewer children, in absolute poverty, after housing costs, compared with 2010. There were also over 600,000 fewer children in workless households. Our long-term ambition is to support economic recovery across our United Kingdom, and our new plan for jobs is already supporting people to move into and to progress in work.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
In-work poverty has hit a record high and the vast majority of the millions of children in poverty have working parents, but the Government’s response is to cut universal credit this September. There is no sign of an employment Bill to improve conditions at work, and they have also frozen help with housing costs. What is the Government’s plan to tackle in-work poverty? A good way to start would be to cancel that cut to universal credit this September.
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. As our economy improves, we will increasingly focus our support on in-work progression to improve opportunities for those in low-paid work and support them towards financial independence. As part of our comprehensive £30 billion plan for jobs, there is an extra 13,500 work coaches, the kickstart scheme, the restart scheme, SWAP—the sector-based work academy programme—and our in-work progression commission, which will report shortly on the barriers to progression for those on persistent low pay and recommend a strategy for overcoming them.
Jonathan Reynolds
I would remind the Minister that universal credit is an in-work benefit and it is means-tested. If people do progress, they will not be eligible for that support, so it is not an argument for proceeding with that cut in September.
Can I ask the Minister about a significant barrier to work, which is childcare? He will know that soaring childcare costs have to be paid up front, but universal credit is paid in arrears, leaving parents in debt. I recently met the campaign Mums on a Mission, which has been forced to bring legal action to try to make the system work for parents. More people would be able to work the hours they wanted if we got this right, but do Ministers understand just how significant a problem this is?
Will Quince
The hon. Gentleman knows that I will not be able to comment on live litigation, but what I would say is that we do have a comprehensive childcare offer, both as a Government and specifically as a Department. I would also say that, unlike the previous benefit system, in which childcare costs could be up to 70% recoverable, in universal credit the figure is 85%, so it is a far more generous system.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has told the Work and Pensions Committee that cutting £20 a week from universal credit in October will reduce unemployment support to the lowest level for over 30 years at exactly the point when unemployment is being increased by the ending of the furlough scheme, and that it will also pull 400,000 people, including many children, below the poverty line. What assessment will the Minister make of the impact of that cut on child poverty before the cut goes ahead?
Will Quince
The first thing I would say is that the Government have always been clear that the £20 increase to universal credit was a temporary measure to support households most affected by the economic shock of covid-19, and that decisions on whether to extend support would be made as the economic and health picture became clearer. There have been significant positive developments in the public health situation since the increase was first announced, with the vaccine roll-out now significantly gathering pace. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that any look at measures of that kind in terms of forecasting is purely speculative, but it is our expectation that this additional financial support and other direct covid support will end once our economy has opened.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
We have recruited thousands of new work coaches and expanded our jobcentre network through our plan for jobs. That, alongside our successful vaccine roll-out, means that we are seeing more claimants face-to-face in a covid-secure way. We are also delivering additional provision, including job-finding support, job entry targeted support, our £2 billion kickstart scheme and our restart scheme. We have also opened new Department for Work and Pensions youth hubs, expanded the sector-based work academy programme and increased our flexible support fund. Thanks to our work coaches and the plan for jobs, they now have more tools than ever to support claimants back into work.
Gordon Henderson [V]
I welcome the Minister’s response, but my two local jobcentres are seeing a number of people fail to turn up for their appointments with work coaches. That appears to be driven by the lack of sanctions because of the pandemic, so what is my hon. Friend doing to make it easier for jobcentres to use sanctions?
Mims Davies
I am proud that our jobcentres have remained open throughout the pandemic to support the most vulnerable customers. Claimant commitments have continued to be tailored to individual circumstances by work coaches since July last year, meaning that sanctions remain at record low levels as we fully consider individual circumstances before deciding whether to apply a sanction.
Antony Higginbotham
It is really important that young people who are looking for that first break into employment do not pay the heaviest price from the pandemic. That is why the youth hubs, including the one in Burnley, are so welcome. I thank all the local jobcentre staff for the work they have done to set that up. To encourage young people to go and use it, will the Minister confirm what support they will get when they go into the youth hub, and would she like to join me in visiting the one in Burnley, so that we can get as many people through the door as possible?
Mims Davies
I have visited new youth hubs, both physically and virtually, including in Caterham, Rotherham, Liverpool and Winsford, and I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend and the team at Burnley. I know that they are working in partnership with the council, Calico, Burnley Together, the Prince’s Trust, Active Lancashire and Burnley football club. Our youth hubs tailor their support, alongside local partners, to the needs of the community, and that is why they are so important in helping our young people to thrive.
Theo Clarke
Last Friday, I was very pleased to see a young apprentice at a local Staffordshire engineering business whom I had met previously when she was studying at Stafford College. Will my hon. Friend explain what she is planning to do to help the jobcentre in Stafford and how the Government will provide more employment opportunities for young people in Staffordshire to help to level up the west midlands?
Mims Davies
I know that my hon. Friend takes a strong interest in her Jobcentre Plus, as she updated me following her visit. I remind Members that since September 2020, our enhanced DWP youth offer has provided wraparound support for 18 to 24-year-old claimants, providing a 13-week tailored pre-employment course. I am pleased that Stafford JCP is hosting an interactive kickstart event tomorrow; our JCPs do that kind of event and engagement regularly.
Ben Bradley [V]
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all her team are doing to support people back into work. In conversations with my local jobcentre staff this week, they reported very positive progress. They asked what opportunities there might be to consider extending kickstart-style schemes or incentives, so they are able to help out-of-work adults as well as young people. I wonder if my hon. Friend could help me to answer their question.
Mims Davies
I am proud that our plan for jobs supports people, at any age and at any career stage, who are looking for new opportunities through, for example, our sector-based work academy programmes, our enhanced “50 PLUS: Choices” offer, and the new DWP “Train and Progress”, through which people can train for longer into a growing sector using the flexibilities built in within universal credit.
Giles Watling [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for her earlier answers. Before this terrible pandemic hit, I had the opportunity to visit my local jobcentre in Clacton. Its staff are enthusiastic and devoted to their work, but that workload has increased dramatically as our hospitality and tourism sectors have been hit. These sectors are vital to the Clacton economy. Is the Minister taking account of our often overlooked and deprived coastal areas as the Government continue their important work of helping people affected by this terrible pandemic back into work?
Mims Davies
Understanding the needs of every community is key—[Interruption.] I hear the Secretary of State mention Suffolk Coastal. The success of our jobcentres in understanding the local economy and getting local people back into work is key. Our JCPs change lives every day. One recent success story in Clacton was a customer who recently started a kickstart job in wildlife conservation—I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is joining him there at the moment—as a result of the five-week pre-employment course at the DWP.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Disabled people require support to get back into work. Disability is defined in the Equality Act 2010 as
“a physical or mental impairment”
that
“has a substantial and long-term adverse effect”
on their
“ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”
Of the 2 million in the UK with long covid, three in 10 have experienced symptoms lasting longer than a year, including fatigue, difficulty concentrating and shortness of breath. This is resulting in widespread disadvantage and discrimination, and is erecting barriers to employment. Will the Minister commit to recognising long covid as a disability from the point of diagnosis to ensure that workers have support and protection against discrimination in the workplace?
Mims Davies
We always tailor personalised support to individual circumstances. I am proud of what we have done throughout the pandemic, particularly at our JCPs, to keep them open and keep people feeling safe, and to support businesses and workers to feel safe. I recently joined a spot check at the Bootle HQ with the CEO of the Health and Safety Executive. We have done over a quarter of a million checks to make sure that people feel safe at work.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The most recent publication shows the proportion of capped households remains low, at 2.9% of the overall housing benefit and universal credit case load as of February 2021.
Beth Winter [V]
Today is a day of action for the “Right to Food” campaign, which I fully support. I can offer the Minister one possible policy to alleviate food poverty: drop the benefit cap. Food insecurity disproportionately affects families who are also most affected by the cap. The Child Poverty Action Group found that lifting the cap could take 150,000 children out of poverty. Will the Minister please explain her reasoning for not lifting it?
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady will be keen to know that, even in these current times, people moving out of the benefit cap and into work is going in the right direction. There are multiple vacancies in the hospitality, construction, care and logistics sectors. The benefits system provides a crucial safety net for people at their time of need and the benefit cap also provides a strong incentive for claimants to get into work and increase their hours so that the benefit cap does not apply.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Last week, former Work and Pensions Minister Lord Freud described the benefit cap, which is now hitting 120,000 more households than at the beginning of the pandemic, as “ghastly”. Efforts to protect incomes during covid have been undermined as increased universal credit and housing allowance rates led to more families being capped, with numbers rising as the grace period for universal credit expires. If the supposed aim of the benefit cap is for families to go into work and to cut their housing costs by moving, will the Minister explain how families have been supposed to do that in the past 12 months, when neither option was effectively possible?
Mims Davies
I remind hon. Members that the benefit cap is set at the equivalent annual salary of £24,000, or £28,000 in London, which importantly provides fairness between taxpayers in employment and those with working-age support. Claimants can approach their local authority for discretionary housing payments if they need additional support to meet rental costs, or indeed for hardship grants. The hon. Lady should look out for the forthcoming in-work progression report, which will look at all these matters. We should take all this in the round.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
The Department is committed to publishing the outcome of the evaluation, and it will be announced in due course. I understand that the delay has been frustrating, and I remain absolutely committed to delivering an improved benefit system for claimants who are nearing the end of their lives.
Jessica Morden [V]
As the Minister knows, it is nearly two years since the DWP announced its review of the special rules for terminal illness and we are still waiting for it to be published. Last July, the Minister said it would be published shortly; today, he says, “in due course”. In the meantime, many have died while waiting for benefits decisions. How long do we have to wait until the Government scrap the six-month rule?
Justin Tomlinson
I pay tribute to the hon. Member, who has been brilliant at championing the need to make changes, with which the Department agrees as part of its review to raise awareness of support, improve consistency with other services and, crucially, change that six-month rule. We will be able to make changes very, very soon.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Like the review of the special rules for terminal illness, the Government’s disability strategy has been much delayed. After two long years, we are told to expect it “soon”. Disabled people are hoping for radical policies that will improve their lives. However, many fear it will contain warm words and platitudes but no real action. Can the Minister convince us that his strategy will be published with a fanfare and not just a whimper?
Justin Tomlinson
Absolutely. I am grateful to all the stakeholders and those with real-lived experience, including disabled people themselves, who have been working with the Department on: the proposed changes to SRTI; our forthcoming health and disability Green Paper, which will look at both disability benefits and support and disability employment, of which we have delivered record amounts; and our national strategy for disabled people, which has the Prime Minister’s personal support and will, for the first time, bring genuine cross-Government focus to create more inclusivity and remove barriers. All of those are due very soon, and I am confident that they will be well received.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
On 18 March 2003, the UK Government formally recognised that British Sign Language is a language in its own right. Provision for accessing services by users of BSL are already covered by the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty.
Sarah Olney
My constituent Feras Al-Moubayed is engaged in a dispute with a high street bank but has been unsuccessful in his attempts to secure time with a BSL interpreter to sort through and categorise evidence documents for his case. As a result, he has missed several Financial Ombudsman Service deadlines, which has caused considerable stress and anxiety. If the Minister will not commit to bringing forward legislative proposals to provide BSL with a full legal status, will he commit to making more provision available to support people such as Mr Al-Moubayed in my constituency in the interim?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for raising that matter; I encourage her also to raise it with our Treasury colleagues, because it sounds like additional support is needed. On the broad principle, I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), who has a great deal of personal experience in this area, is looking at a potential private Member’s Bill, for which I have offered my full support by hosting a roundtable with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, stakeholders and cross-Government officials to look at how the public sector equality duty and the Equality Act 2010 are or are not providing sufficient support for those who rely on BSL. I welcome all support in that area.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I am delighted to say that we have agreed funding for over 230,000 jobs. What matters, though, is whether young people are starting those jobs. Over 36,000 young people have—nearly doubling since the previous DWP questions—and there are about 100,000 jobs currently live in the system waiting to be filled, so it is a very exciting time for young people to get kickstarted.
Chris Clarkson
Getting young people into these kickstarter positions is hugely important, but it is only a first step, so will my right hon. Friend tell me what support is available to those young people to turn these kickstarter opportunities into permanent roles?
Dr Coffey
One of the key features of the kickstart role is the £1,500 that is given for employability support. Combined with that, there are now over 27,000 work coaches right across Great Britain. What will tend to happen is that those young people, after four months of being on kickstart, will be engaged to see what the next role could be. That could be an apprenticeship or a permanent role, and we are already seeing people get permanent work with their kickstart employers. I particularly pay tribute to Tesco, which has been absolutely amazing in the process so far, and I encourage other employers who are equally standing up to the challenge to continue to try to make sure that every young person gets a chance.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
No assessment has been made. Projecting the impact of an individual policy on poverty levels is complex and inherently speculative. It is difficult to isolate the specific impact of one policy and determine its effect on how many people fall below the poverty threshold, which itself changes over time.
Kirsten Oswald
That is simply not good enough. Ploughing ahead with the scheduled cut to universal credit means ignoring the advice of three Select Committees—the Scottish Affairs Committee, the Work and Pensions Committee and the Lords Economic Affairs Committee—over 100 Tory MPs, former Tory Minister Lord Freud and over 50 anti-poverty charities. In the face of that, how can the UK Government justify cutting £20 a week for millions of families already living on subsistence incomes?
Will Quince
Our expectation is that, as the vaccine is widely rolled out, restrictions will be lifted and our economy will reopen over the next few months. Therefore, the Government’s focus will rightly shift towards supporting people’s incomes by helping them back into work and to increase their earnings through progression as part of our comprehensive plan for jobs. We have consistently shown throughout the crisis that we will continue to assess how best to support individuals and businesses as the situation develops.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
A Joseph Rowntree Foundation report stated that before the pandemic over half of working-age people receiving income-related benefits were already below the poverty line. We are at a critical juncture. This Tory Government can carry out one of the biggest cuts to benefits in decades, bringing the basic level of benefits back to early-1990s levels, or they can provide substantial long-term support to people, so which will it be?
Will Quince
As I said, our expectation is that as the vaccine roll-out gathers pace, as restrictions are eased, as our economy opens up and as our labour market starts to grow again over the next few months, it is absolutely right that our focus shifts towards supporting and empowering people back into work, because we know—all the evidence shows us—that work is the best route of poverty. We will do that through our £30 billion comprehensive plan for jobs.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Levelling up is the Prime Minister’s key priority, making sure that people right across this country have the opportunity to thrive. The way that the Department does that is to work with other Departments, particularly thinking about skills and people going into in-work progression, as well as the use of levers, such things as the flexible support fund, that are aimed at removing barriers for people to take advantage of the opportunities available.
Mr Sheerman [V]
You will know, Mr Speaker, and the Secretary of State should know that Huddersfield is a prosperous, highly skilled area of our country—yes, in Yorkshire and the north of England. Just like our next-door neighbour, Batley and Spen, we are waiting for the promises and the slogans to turn into leadership and change. It is not good enough to talk about a northern powerhouse that never arrives or levelling up that is never delivered. When will we see the high rates of unemployment in our part of West Yorkshire and the high levels of people on social benefits reduced? Bring back prosperity—let’s have some leadership on this, I beg you.
Dr Coffey
I share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition and am very confident that Ryan Stephenson will make an excellent MP in the future to bring that to Batley and Spen. It is important to recognise the wider issues that the hon. Gentleman and his area face. I am sure that we will continue to work with Tracy Brabin following her election as Mayor to ensure we get the skills relevant to those areas, but it will take local leadership as well as the leadership that we offer from the centre.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
The number of working-age adults in working families in absolute poverty before housing costs fell by 300,000 in 2019-20. We have strengthened the welfare system, spending £7.4 billion in 2020-21 on measures such as the universal credit uplift. This is on top of additional support such as the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme.
Fleur Anderson
Wandsworth food bank does an excellent job of helping people in need, but it would like not to exist. Some 56% of the current food bank referrals from my constituents are due to wages being too low; 43% are due to unpredictable work from the gig economy. Many of my constituents in Putney, Southfields and Roehampton are working two or three jobs, and across the country one in six working households are unable to make ends meet. What steps has the Department taken to ensure that work always pays?
Will Quince
The Government are wholly committed to supporting the most vulnerable in our society, spending over £111 billion on working-age benefits in 2020-21, including an additional £7.4 billion in covid-related welfare policy measures. Additionally, my Department’s covid winter grant scheme—now the covid local support grant—has helped those families most in need with the cost of food and other essentials. We take the issue of food insecurity incredibly seriously; that is why we have published data on household food insecurity from the family resources survey for the first time, to get a better understanding of the lived experience of families.
Tony Lloyd [V]
The Minister has made it clear on a number of occasions that the Government believe that the way out of family poverty is to get people into work. What would he honestly say to a child growing up in a family in my constituency whose parents work and who is still living in poverty? What words would he use?
Will Quince
Of course I do not want to see anybody in this country, let alone any child, growing up in poverty. Working-age adults in working families were approximately four times less likely to be in absolute poverty than working-age adults in workless families. A child living in a household where nobody works is five times more likely to be in absolute poverty than a child in a household where every adult is working. As I said, we have to focus on in-work progression and tackling in-work poverty, and we are doing that: we have the In-Work Progression Commission, which will report shortly on the barriers to progression for those in persistent low pay and set out a strategy for overcoming them.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Dr Coffey
As we approach 19 July, we have to have a business-as-usual approach in how we traditionally respond to the needs of our claimants, but I want to stress that, as ever, the claimant commitments are perfectly tailored to different benefit recipients. We also take into account the different vulnerabilities that people face. That is why, just over a year ago, we changed the process so that decisions would be made in a more centralised way to get a consistent approach, recognising that we want to ensure that people fulfil their commitments and the requirements made by DWP in order to continue to receive the benefits that they have.
Marion Fellows
As the DWP resumes face-to-face assessments, we know that more people will be hit with sanctions. We also know that this will disproportionately affect care leavers, as they are more likely to be sanctioned. Beyond scrapping sanctions altogether, will the DWP set up an internal marker and a single point of contact in each jobcentre to assist care-experienced claimants?
Dr Coffey
I will be open: I do not know how the law applies in Scotland. I know that in England and Wales there is a duty on councils to continue to have an element of responsibility for people who have left care until they reach the age of 25. I want to encourage the hon. Lady by saying that, right around the country, our jobcentres and work coaches are mindful of the extra demands, and that we continue to make sure that people’s individual vulnerabilities are accounted for.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
The disability employment gap has narrowed by 0.3 percentage points in the year to March 2021 and now stands at 28.6 percentage points. The Government remain committed to seeing 1 million more disabled people in work by 2027, despite the challenges of covid.
Dr Cameron [V]
MPs, like businesses, must do everything possible to ensure inclusion in employment for people with disabilities, but there is great concern that the employment gap will increase as a result of covid-19. I would like to thank the Department and the Minister for their recent assistance; a quarter of MPs across the House have now signed up as Disability Confident employers following our recent all-party parliamentary group for disability workshop. Could the Minister encourage those MPs who are still considering signing up to do so, so that we can reach our next target of a third of cross-party MPs being Disability Confident employers and ensuring that Parliament is a role model for inclusive workplaces?
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Member has been an absolute superstar in her role as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability. She organised a brilliant event to incentivise, encourage and cajole MPs from across the House to lead by example by signing up to be Disability Confident employers, and we saw a huge increase in the number of MPs who are signed up. She is absolutely right to keep pushing, because collectively we can make a difference, and she has personally led on that.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
The Department has taken huge steps to reduce and minimise fraud and error during the last 12 months. We have introduced a range of measures, including optimising digital capability, expanding our integrated risk and intelligence service and policy functions, developing prepayment risking techniques and introducing a prepayment enhanced checking service for high-risk claims.
Dr Evans
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. Of course, errors are inevitable in such a large system, be they errors with overpayment or underpayment. Apart from trying to stop that, the key thing is to make sure that they are communicated clearly and resolved swiftly, so what is his Department doing to ensure that this is the case?
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we want to see issues resolved as quickly as possible. I would stress that the vast majority—around 95%—of payments are paid correctly, and the Department has processed over 4.3 million new universal credit claims since March 2020. The priority has been to get money to those people who need it desperately as quickly as possible. To do that, we streamlined some of our normal checks, but we are currently revisiting any high-risk claims that we paid during the covid-19 trust and protect period. I would of course be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about this issue in more detail.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
Engaging with charities and training providers is central to our support for young people. This collaborative working includes the co-delivery of our national network of more than 130 new DWP youth hubs, helping us to assist young people to be ready to take up opportunities in growing sectors and move into new kickstart roles.
David Johnston
I am one of those people who do not think it is a good idea for everybody to work from home, because it means that young people do not have older workers that they can observe and chat to, to learn the ropes. However, while a lot of office space sits empty or underoccupied, would my hon. Friend consider encouraging employers to make that space available to charities and training providers in order to train young people in the skills they need?
Mims Davies
I very much understand my colleague’s comments. Supporting young people to thrive and find new opportunities is an important priority for me, and I take his comments on board. This is exactly what we are doing with our new DWP youth hubs. Jobcentre Plus works with employers, training providers and charities to identify local training needs and to ensure that opportunities and suitable outreach are available for all claimants, including young people.
Saqib Bhatti [V]
Careers fairs can be a fantastic way of promoting opportunity in the local area, which is why I plan to host one in my constituency of Meriden in the coming months. Given the strengths of jobcentres and their local relationships, what support can they provide to help make careers fairs such as mine a success?
Mims Davies
Jobcentre staff have a wealth of knowledge of the local labour market, cultivated by working closely with MPs, partners and businesses in their local community. My hon. Friend’s careers fair will be a very welcome addition to the ongoing work of Jobcentre Plus branches in the area, which are inviting employers on a one-to-one basis for kickstart interviews daily. They have virtual group information sessions as well to get young people into work.
Matt Vickers [V]
The Lakota Training Group, set up by Joanne and Paul in Stockton, does incredible work, helping the long-term unemployed to develop the skills and confidence they need to get great jobs—they go above and beyond to change the lives of so many people. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to help training providers such as Lakota continue to help people find work and unleash their full potential?
Mims Davies
I know that my hon. Friend’s local Jobcentre Plus in Stockton has a very important relationship with Lakota and they have been working closely together for a number of years. They are currently offering motivational and employability courses, including “All about you”, which builds on the customer’s skills, confidence and job search techniques and will help us, crucially, to deliver good job outcomes for local people in Stockton.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
Volumes of new PIP claims awarded have remained stable since the introduction of covid-19 restrictions. Official statistics show that since April 2020 some 225,000 new PIP claimants have had awards. Over this period, we have continued to assess all claims on the basis of paper evidence or telephone assessments, where necessary.
Anna McMorrin
One of my constituents who is severely disabled and vulnerable had her personal independence payments removed and lost vital care as a result—that was because medical advice was ignored by the assessors. Another lost his mobility car at the height of the pandemic, leaving him trapped, isolated and suicidal, unable to access vital services. Another had to turn to food banks to survive. They all had rejected applications overturned many months later at tribunal. Four out of five disabled and vulnerable applicants have faced unnecessary barriers to PIP support during covid. I am proud of my team in Cardiff North, who have been there to support my constituents through this traumatic time, but many are not so fortunate. So what is the Minister doing to make sure that assessments are right first time, to avoid this trauma and delay?
Justin Tomlinson
Although the vast majority of assessments—we have had over 4 million PIP assessments —are right first time, there are serious implications for those involved where they are not. As part of the forthcoming health and disability Green Paper we will be looking at claimants’ ability to get good-quality supportive evidence; the role of advocacy; the role of the assessment itself; and further changes on mandatory reconsideration and appeals, building on the holistic changes we brought in that allowed us to nearly the double the successful changes at the mandatory reconsideration stage, rather than have claimants having to go through the long appeal process. The key bit here is that the vast majority of successful appeals are because of additional written or oral evidence at that stage, and we need to make it is easy as possible to get such evidence into the beginning of the application.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
Through our plan for jobs, we are working with employers to deliver sector-based work academy programmes and swaps, and to provide bespoke training and experience, alongside a guaranteed interview for a real job in growing sectors. Additionally, DWP Train and Progress has provided even more flexibility for universal credit claimants to access training for longer, including new skills boot camps led by the Department for Education.
Cherilyn Mackrory [V]
I thank the Minister for her answer. In Truro and Falmouth, and around Cornwall, hospitality businesses are struggling to recruit staff at the moment. Does my hon. Friend agree that UC claimants could be provided with hospitality sector-specific training, and, potentially, with further incentives, to ensure that these vacancies in this hugely important sector are filled?
Mims Davies
I am working strongly with the sector. These are some of the most rewarding, varied and enjoyable roles that there are. It is right that we encourage people to work in hospitality, as well as to enjoy its reopening. In Falmouth, we have created an intensive programme to provide claimants with an interest in hospitality with a set of transferable skills to ensure that they have the skills they need to flourish in this vital sector in beautiful Cornwall.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Mr Speaker, I was really looking forward to answering Question 35, from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), but that is okay.
Dr Coffey
Well, there we are. By the way, Christine, the answer is none.
On the topical statement, on the basis of a successful G7, at which the employers taskforce fed into the discussions about work, I was able to participate in the G20 last week in Italy, as well as work on the OECD in terms of some of the work we want to do to make sure that, as a world, when we build back better we share and collaborate, because we want to make sure that we build back fairer and greener. I am particularly excited about the opportunities to help people with health conditions and disability to re-enter the world of work.
Greg Smith
Increasingly sophisticated digital skills are ever more crucial for those seeking work. With that in mind, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to help all universal credit claimants to improve and strengthen their digital skills as they seek work?
Dr Coffey
I am conscious that digital inclusion is a key part of the skills issue. We are working collaboratively with the DFE, particularly on digital boot camps, and we have even changed the rules of aspects of universal credit to make sure that people can fully participate in extended courses. We will continue to use and signpost people to whatever resources are available.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Public and Commercial Services union has been clear that the rush back to face-to-face assessments poses a serious risk to vulnerable claimants and staff alike. Given those concerns, I was quite surprised to learn that the Secretary of State has not personally met the PCS union in her nearly two years in office. Will she do better than just commend DWP staff for their tireless work throughout the pandemic and actually meet the union that represents those staff to listen to their serious concerns about safety?
Dr Coffey
DWP staff are real staff at the very frontline. We undertake risk assessments for every single jobcentre. Dealing with trade unions is an operational matter that is ably done by senior officials in my Department. I am confident and we know that our workers are keen to get back into the office and to make sure that they encourage people there. Our mission is to try to help people to get back into work and we know that face-to-face interventions are the most successful way to make that happen.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
Dr Coffey
Probably the most obvious element is the £2 billion of funding for the kickstart scheme. Let me give a recent example of where I have seen kickstart work well: a young man in south-west Scotland started off an apprenticeship and was very quickly set aside, and then his confidence was rebuilt by a work coach and he managed to get into a kickstart placement and is now thriving. It is important that our 27,000 work coaches in well over 700 jobcentres already are making sure that young people are at the forefront in respect of the help we are seeking to provide.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
One of Britain’s best-known companies, P&O, has failed to pay £140 million that it owes to the merchant navy pension fund. This debt could cause serious problems for the fund, which has 24,000 members who work in a wide range of firms far beyond P&O. Despite P&O owing this enormous sum, the Government have awarded its parent company two lucrative freeport contracts. Will the Minister explain how on earth the Government allowed this to happen? We are getting used to sleaze and cronyism; is this an example of sleaze and cronyism, or is it sheer, unadulterated incompetence?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Labour party. He will recall that it was the Labour party that set up the Pensions Regulator with operational independence to deal with these matters. He may have forgotten the basis on which the Pensions Regulator was set up, but I have not. It is a matter between the Pensions Regulator and the individual company, but I am sure that he will take that up when he meets the Pensions Regulator.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the rural elements. That is taken into account in the prioritisation of people we may wish to see in face-to-face interventions. We treat every claimant as an individual in trying to help them at this stage, and none more so than in his part of Scotland.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I hugely appreciate the endeavours of all our work coaches, especially and including those in Bolton and Leigh JCPs. The Office for National Statistics says that our new monthly experimental vacancy data suggest that we are almost back to the pre-pandemic level in terms of vacancies; it was over 800,000 in May. Through our Jobcentre Plus provision, we have a wide variety of support available to help employers to fill those vacancies.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I believe that I have written to him—if I have not written to him, I know that I have written to a number of his colleagues on this matter. We do owe a huge debt of gratitude to health and social care workers for the work that they have done over the course of the pandemic. This is not as simple as he suggests. We follow exactly the same treatment of moneys coming into universal credit as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs does and, as a result, that is very difficult to do, which is why we will not be doing it.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
Dr Coffey
First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his knighthood; it is well-deserved given his political and public service.
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have made on this matter. As the House will well know, we are absolutely committed not only to making sure that this is a temporary measure, but to helping people get back into work. We believe that that continues to be the best way, especially as there are vacancies across the country, and we will strain every sinew to help make that happen.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The vast majority of veterans make a successful transition to life outside the armed forces, with around 85% securing employment easily. The DWP provides support to veterans in a number of different ways, including through our voluntary entry to the work and health programme and through our network of hard-working armed forces champions up and down the country. That work complements the resettlement support provided by the Ministry of Defence, sponsored by Career Transition Partnership.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Will Quince
I am afraid I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Lady. I appreciate the question, but the two-child limit is a question of fairness and of putting those who are in receipt of benefits in the same position—facing the same life choices—as those who are not in receipt of benefits.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
Will Quince
I think I have covered this one. As our economy improves, we will increasingly focus our support and work on in-work progression to improve the opportunities for those who are in low-paid work and to support them towards financial independence. The in-work progression commission will report shortly on the barriers to progression for those in persistent low pay. Our plan for jobs—those extra 13,500 work coaches, kickstart, restart, job entry targeted support and the sector-based work academy programme—will make a difference, and of course we have the strategy coming out of the in-work progression commission.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Guy Opperman
As the hon. Lady should be aware, on 16 June we had a pension credit awareness day, working with Age UK, Independent Age, various other charitable organisations and the BBC to get greater uptake of pension credit, and I am pleased to say that pension credit numbers are improving. There is more to do, but we are working with stakeholders to ensure that that does happen.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman is right to praise the staff at Maesteg jobcentre, and I join him in that. This is where the “Plus” is part of Jobcentre Plus. We are conscious that people may need to have many skills, and we continue to try to upskill our work coaches right across the country to make sure they do. It is fair to say that we need to make sure that our work coaches are trained to signpost people to the right services in their area. Many go above and beyond what would normally be expected, and I commend them for doing so.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank the Department and particularly the Harlow jobcentre for the work they have done in supporting vulnerable families during the pandemic. I welcome the kickstart scheme, which will provide a real incentive for employers to employ young people, but will my right hon. Friend work with the Treasury to reform the apprenticeship levy so that big companies can use more of the levy if they employ disadvantaged young apprentices?
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend is right to praise the staff at Harlow jobcentre, and I agree that they do an excellent job. In terms of what could be done with reform of the apprenticeship levy, that is one of the factors we should be considering in ensuring that some of the most disadvantaged young people get that extra foot on the ladder. We are trying to do that in certain ways through kickstart and then to provide elements of a pathway for those young people to make sure they have a longer lasting job, whether they go into an apprenticeship or directly into permanent employment.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Loss of Secret Documents
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to update the House on the leak of classified and sensitive documents from the Ministry of Defence.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
As the House will be aware, a number of Ministry of Defence classified documents were lost by a senior official early last week. Upon realising the loss of documents, the individual self-reported on Tuesday 22 June. The documents lost included a paper that was marked “Secret UK Eyes Only”. The documents were found by a member of the public at a bus stop in Kent. The member of the public then handed the papers to the BBC. The Ministry of Defence has launched a full investigation. The papers have now been recovered from the BBC and are being assessed as I speak to check that all documents missing have been recovered and what mitigation actions might be necessary. The investigation will look at the actions of individuals, including the printing of the papers through to the management of the reported incident, and at the underlying processes for printing and carriage of papers in Defence. The investigation is expected to complete shortly. While the investigation is being conducted, the individual’s access to sensitive material has been suspended. It would be inappropriate to comment on the findings of the investigation while it is still under way.
John Healey
That sensitive MOD documents were found strewn behind a bus stop in Kent last Tuesday morning is certainly embarrassing for Ministers, but it is deeply worrying for those concerned with our national security, so I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. This is not the first time that there have been known leaks based on classified documents from the MOD that have found their way beyond the MOD. In January, it was the assessment of how far short of our fighting strength our infantry battalions are. Early this month, it was personal details of more than 1,000 forces personnel, including special forces, which the Armed Forces Minister has now confirmed to me is also subject to a military police investigation. Are the military police involved in this investigation?
I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that the investigation will look at how and why these highly classified documents were copied and then carried out of the Department. When will it report, and will he publish the findings? He needs to do more to reassure us about the risks involved in the leak. Will he confirm the level of “UK Eyes Only” classification that the document had? Has the inquiry yet ruled out espionage? Were our allies informed immediately, and at what appropriate level?
The Minister mentions ongoing operations. Our frontline forces on HMS Defender were totally professional in dealing with aggressive Russian actions in the Black sea last week, but they must be asking, “What about our back-up at the MOD?” when top secret documents about their mission, ahead of their mission, found their way to the back of this bus stop in Kent. Finally, Ministers need to do more to reassure the public and our forces personnel that they have a grip of their Department, and have taken actions to stop the series of security breaches at the Department.
Jeremy Quin
I will take all those points in turn. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern over the incident. We take the loss of all data and documents very seriously. In direct answer to his question, the MOD police are involved as part of this investigation. On the timing, I have said “shortly”. I hope that it will be in very short order. I hope that it will be as little as a week, but I cannot commit to that in case the investigation finds more stuff that they need to go into. I would hope that it will be a very short process indeed, and that we will be able to inform the House in Defence questions next week, but forgive me, Mr Speaker, if the investigation needs to take longer. We will explain that on Monday if so.
Regarding espionage, again this is clearly a matter for the investigation, but I emphasise to the House that the individual self-reported when he became aware—when the individual became aware—that the documents had been mislaid. We have certainly informed the United States. It is aware of this circumstance. If anything further comes out of the investigation, it will be informed again. The right hon. Gentleman referred to our armed forces’ totally professional conduct in the Black sea last week. He is absolutely right to do so. They behaved absolutely impeccably, and I share his concerns that we must always be providing good back-up and good support to those armed forces.
I assure the House that, as it would expect, there is intense preparation and intense work to ensure that every angle and every analysis is covered before armed forces conduct themselves around the world, but clearly evidence of that should not be forthcoming from the Department. These are secret documents. The investigation will be appropriately conducted, and we will see what we can learn to improve our procedures for the future.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) [V]
One thing that would seem only common sense to anyone finding classified documents is that they should hand them to the police. Can the Minister advise us what the legal position is? Was any official secrets legislation broken by somebody handing these documents to anybody other than the police? Was any official secrets legislation broken by the BBC in not handling them directly to the police but in choosing instead selectively to quote from classified information? Will the Government inquire as to whether the BBC paid any money for the acquisition of these documents from someone who ought to have handed them to the police straightaway?
Jeremy Quin
In an ideal and proper world, the documents should not have been available where they were, so that is where the original fault clearly lies. In the event of documents of this nature being found, clearly one would encourage members of the public to hand them in to the police. In this instance, they were handed in to the BBC. Naturally, I would have preferred the BBC to hand them over immediately and not made reference to them, but it has a job to do, and I recognise that it has behaved responsibly and handed the documents back to the Department. We are analysing that now.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
There was certainly something of Le Carré in the faintly absurd discovery of these soggy documents behind a bus stop in the garden of England. I do not think that we can help but notice the general context. The documents were discovered in the same week in which a more serious security breach—that of confidential CCTV images from a Whitehall Ministry, which leaves many of us unsure and distrustful of the motives of those involved. The whole thing reminds me of one of my favourite Le Carré quotes:
“Cheats, liars and criminals may resist every blandishment while respectable gentlemen have been moved to appalling treasons by watery cabbage in a departmental canteen.”
Does the Minister accept that many of us are worried about these episodes and what they say about the decline of standards in public life? I do not mean the quality of the cabbage served up in the canteen of Main Building.
Jeremy Quin
This is a mistake, it appears. I do not want to prejudge the investigation, but it appears that it is a mistake by an individual. It is important that one gets on top of that mistake, what can be learned and how we can help to ensure that such mistakes do not happen again. I am here to speak about this particular incident—I think that another urgent question follows this one on another issue—but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I know that it is genuinely intended. I am sorry that this incident has happened, and the investigation will be thorough.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Putting aside the particulars of this recent incident, may I ask the Minister of State when the Government will introduce their reform of the Official Secrets Act, particularly on the classification of papers and punishment for those who breach the Act? Given that the Act is over 100 years old, is it not the case that in some situations it is no longer fit for purpose, and that reform needs to come sooner rather than later?
Jeremy Quin
I understand where my right hon. Friend is coming from. This is something that he has mentioned previously in the House. As I recall, there was reference to this in the Queen’s Speech. It is not my direct departmental business, but I understand that it is something that the Government are looking into.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I think that the documents pertained to HMS Defender, which must concern us as much as any other ones. Since Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty and Jellicoe commanded the Grand Fleet and Beatty the battlecruisers, all documents pertaining to what the fleet was doing were kept totally confidential to the Ministry of Defence and never left that building, so I hope that the inquiry will pick up what exactly happened. The morale of our armed services depends on their confidence in this sort of thing not happening. I hope that the Minister accepts that, because the morale of those brave people who defend the country is, above all else, crucial.
Jeremy Quin
On the latter point, I could not agree more fully. The comments I have received from members of the armed forces today reiterate that. It is absolutely vital that they should have confidence in such procedures, which they follow themselves. There are policies and procedures in place under which documents can be taken out of the Department, but they are tightly constrained. It is up to the investigation to find out whether or not they were followed in this case.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Personally, I am rather saddened that the BBC saw fit to publish information that was secret, rather than pass it straight to the police or refer it to the Ministry of Defence. I think that reflects poorly on the BBC, which is, after all, a public service broadcaster. In the past it was normal practice for anyone in the MOD carrying restricted, classified or sensitive documents out of a secure location to do so in an approved briefcase, which was often manacled to the carrier’s wrist. Have such arrangements stopped now?
Jeremy Quin
As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), there are policies and procedures in place as to how documents can be safely taken out of the Department on the rare occasions when that is necessary. I think it is for the investigation to work through whether those procedures were followed in this instance and whether those procedures need to be reformed or improved for the future.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was absolutely right to contrast the exemplary professionalism of our forces on HMS Defender with this unfortunate episode. I understand that the Minister has said that there will be a inquiry that will report as quickly as possible, but will he confirm that when that inquiry reports we will not have to have another urgent question? Will he commit today to a statement on the Floor of the House, so that all the facts that can be publicly known can be discussed, rather than a Minister having to be dragged here for another urgent question?
Jeremy Quin
We will certainly ensure that that information is known to Members. We should ensure that the outcome of the investigation, and certainly whether any further tightening of our procedures is required, are shared with the House.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) [V]
The UK enjoys a strong bilateral relationship with Ukraine, highlighted by the recent trilateral agreement signed on board HMS Defender, but maintaining the highest levels of information security is critical to retaining confidence and credibility with our allies. I am reassured that the Minister’s Department is launching an investigation, but have the Minister and the Secretary of State spoken with our counterparts in the Ukrainian Government, along with our ambassador to Ukraine, to ensure that confidence and credibility with our allies has not been undermined and that Ukraine and the wider region remains uncompromised by this leak?
Jeremy Quin
I would not, as a matter of course, comment on the discussions we hold with our friends and allies overseas, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to refer to the agreement struck last week. It was an important agreement for British shipbuilding and for Babcock, and I look forward to that enhancing the Ukrainian navy in due course.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
This is not the first time such a thing has happened, and I am sure it will not be the last. It is so serious an issue that the BBC chose not to report on various details in the bundle, because it could have endangered the security of service personnel in Afghanistan. What steps have the Government taken to secure the safety of service personnel in Afghanistan and in the Carrier Strike Group?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Lady refers to the BBC choosing not to report, and I think that was right. One would have preferred the BBC to have handed the documents straight over, but it acted responsibly by not relaying information that could have caused problems. We are going through the investigation. We are ensuring that all those documents have been returned, and we will be ensuring that any mitigating actions that need to be taken are put in place.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Given the loss of these sensitive documents, can my hon. Friend confirm that we have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the safety of our serving personnel has not been compromised?
Jeremy Quin
Absolutely; that is an ongoing task. There is intense planning behind all defence engagements and activities. That continues to be the case, and we always ensure that it is the defence, the safety and the security of our defence personnel that is uppermost in our minds.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
After this weekend, with sensitive military documents left at a bus stop and questions over the surveillance of a Secretary of State in his ministerial office, and as we are well aware that adversaries of our country, be they hostile states or terrorists, forever probe our national security for weaknesses, can the Minister tell the House which organisations are involved in the investigation into how documents were compromised in this way?
Jeremy Quin
I have already confirmed that the MOD police are involved in this process, but I can assure the right hon. Lady that all those whose involvement in the investigation is relevant and appropriate will be involved. She is absolutely right to refer to the ongoing threat to our national security in cyber terms as well as in the context of physical documents, and we as a Government ensure that we have the right advice from the right professionals in the right way.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I believe my hon. Friend said that the documents were reported missing last Tuesday, and of course HMS Defender was hassled on Wednesday. The investigation will say whether there was a link between those two incidents, but what it raises in my mind is the information that has come out about the situation in Afghanistan. It is a very tense situation right now, with the Americans withdrawing and the problems we are hearing about. Is the Ministry of Defence now reassessing the plans with our allies, including the Americans? We do not know at the moment what information there may be on the ground in Afghanistan and the security threat that it represents, including for ongoing security issues. Is my hon. Friend having conversations with our allies about potentially needing to reassess the next 12 months in Afghanistan?
Jeremy Quin
I can reassure my right hon. Friend that we constantly update and keep abreast of developments on the ground in Afghanistan and indeed in other theatres, but I would not wish to alarm him. There is an investigation under way that will test what information was in those documents, whether they have been returned and what mitigating actions, if any, need to be taken as a result.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question, and the Minister for his very helpful responses. Recognising that the protection of internal waters may provoke Russian aggression—it may not be very hard to do that—can the Minister confirm that, alongside allies, we will not duck, but rather that we will maintain maritime freedoms in that area? Will the Minister further confirm that those trusted with classified documents will treat such information with the appropriate level of care?
Jeremy Quin
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will not go into the details regarding HMS Defender—that has been the source of a written ministerial statement—but it and its innocent passage may well be the subject of questions at Defence questions next week. I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that maintaining the proper classification and proper secrecy of documents is absolutely critical. That is the purpose of this investigation, and if we need to tighten our procedures, we certainly shall.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. Because of the nature of my constituents, I very rarely speak about defence matters, but I cannot begin to tell the House how angry I am that this civil servant or whoever it was who scattered these papers put the lives of 190 personnel at risk on HMS Defender. If you go to a military funeral, Mr Speaker, you will appreciate, as I am sure you do, how precious our service personnel are. I want the Minister, if he possibly can, to confirm to the House that the punishment for this sort of breach of security will match the risk to those people on HMS Defender as a result of this stupidity and incompetence.
Jeremy Quin
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I can reassure him that we always emphasise the need for safety and security on Defender and other ships in the Royal Navy. As the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said at the outset, they behaved in the most professional and exemplary fashion in conducting their innocent passage in the Black sea. I totally endorse what he says regarding the seriousness of this issue, but he will of course appreciate that the investigation must come first. We need to see the outcome of that investigation before any further consideration as to action should be taken.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
This is not the first time there has been a security breach at the Ministry of Defence; in fact, it is the third time in six months. The Minister said that there are policies and procedures in place for secure documents leaving secure settings, but clearly those policies and procedures are inadequate or not working. Can he reassure the House that those policies and procedures will change as a result of this investigation?
Jeremy Quin
It appears to be a loss of documents rather than a deliberate act, although, as I say, I should not prejudge the investigation. That needs to be determined finally, but the loss of documents was reported by the individual concerned. Above official sensitive level, that is an extremely rare occurrence; no incidents have happened in the last 18 months. I checked over the last 18 months for the loss of documents above that level.
However, the hon. Lady is right that no one should take with equanimity information leaving the MOD in circumstances where it should not leave. The investigation is ongoing. I hope that it will report shortly. We will see whether it has recommendations as to how we can further tighten our procedures or whether this was a case of those procedures not being followed. If there are recommendations, we will take that very seriously and we will certainly share with the House.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. Clearly, one of the concerns here is that, had these materials been on a tablet or some other electronic device, they would have been properly security protected. The fact that the documents were literally that—printed documents —means that they were removed from the Ministry of Defence. I understand completely that we cannot know the circumstances, but can my hon. Friend confirm that there are restrictions in place on taking classified documents out of the Ministry of Defence in this way, and that they will continue to be in place? It seems astonishing that we are in this position.
Jeremy Quin
Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend makes a good point: tablets and electronic devices have password protection and encryption, which, as I understand it, prevent these incidents from happening and provide a greater level of protection. In relation to the physical carrying of paper documents, as I say, there are restrictions in place. There are procedures that should be followed. It is down to the investigation to find out whether they were followed in this instance and whether we need to tighten them up further.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The seriousness of a leak such as this comes not just from classified information being put in the public domain, but from the fact that we know our adversaries will be poring over it to find potential weaknesses, including looking at planned movements of Royal Navy vessels and things like that. Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that all our operations will continue to be in line with international rules, sticking up for the rule of the UN and law of the sea?
Jeremy Quin
Absolutely. Again, that is not the subject of this UQ, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that we will continue to conduct ourselves appropriately and professionally, as the Royal Navy always does and as it did last week in its innocent passage across the Black sea. That is absolutely the case. I sincerely hope that this is not a case of our adversaries having sight of these documents, but that is something that has to be confirmed by the investigation.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
While there have been attempts today to scapegoat the civil servant involved and the BBC, the fact is that whether the civil servant’s actions were caused by carelessness, forgetfulness, malice or whatever, at least one other person had a responsibility to stop that civil servant getting those papers out the door of the MOD, so at least one other person, and possibly a whole chain of precautions, has failed. Will the Minister give an assurance, first of all, that the investigation will not be allowed to become a blame allocation or scapegoating exercise? Will he also assure us that not only will Parliament be advised of the result of the investigation, but that he or one of his colleagues will come back to give a statement and be questioned and held to account by Members of Parliament on the results of that investigation when it is ready?
Jeremy Quin
The investigation is partly to find out what happened and the circumstances behind the mislaying of these documents. I will not prejudge whether others were involved; it just needs to be discovered. I totally take the hon. Gentleman’s point that one should not jump to conclusions. We need to have a proper investigation. As I say, the police are involved. We need to find the conclusions of that. We also need to find out what we need to learn for the future, and I will make certain that the House is advised of the conclusions of the investigation.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Recent incidents would appear to suggest that the MOD has some difficulty in safeguarding the nation’s secrets. Aside from the loss of documents, there would also have had to be a deliberate act in removing pink paper from a secure area. Will the Minister please confirm that when the culprit is proven to be negligent, he or she will be invited to walk the plank?
Jeremy Quin
I understand my hon. and gallant Friend’s concern, which will be shared by other hon. and gallant Members and by his former serving colleagues, but I think it is important that we have the investigation and find out exactly what is at fault. That also includes an examination of our policies and procedures to make certain that they are fit for purpose.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
The Minister recognised in his comments, I think, that revealing this information could have put the safety or even the lives of our serving personnel at risk. In that context, it is not scapegoating to say that if it was human recklessness, it has to be dealt with in a salutary manner—but if there is system failure, Ministers have to look very carefully at themselves and at senior officials to know why it could have taken place. The investigation has to give reassurance that this can never happen again.
Jeremy Quin
I am not going to say whether it is human recklessness, or what it is, until the investigation has reported. As I say, there are quite serious policies and procedures in place; whether they need to be tightened again is a subject for the investigation, and I will be interested to hear what it says. We will take what it says very seriously, I can assure the hon. Gentleman.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The success of all security processes clearly lies with the people who implement them. Is the Minister able to outline what document security training is undertaken at the MOD, who receives it and how often?
Jeremy Quin
There is indeed a security brief; my understanding is that it is mandated to take place for all employees annually and that it includes information on how documents should be properly and professionally handled.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The thing is that the Minister is far too nice and is being far too reasonable. Should we not all be a bit more angry about this? Carelessness is a form of treachery when dealing with documents of the significance to which he has referred in the House. Frankly, I do not understand why the Secretary of State is not here. This is a very, very serious point, and the Government need to make sure that if somebody has acted recklessly and put British service personnel in danger, that person will be expected to resign.
Jeremy Quin
Mr Speaker, you will be very relieved that the Secretary of State is not here, given that he was in contact with someone who has tested positive for covid-19.
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman gets the point. I am sure that the Secretary of State would have wished to be here otherwise, so please do not take it as a lack of interest on his part. He is doing the right and responsible thing. We all want our colleagues to do the right and responsible thing in all circumstances.
Please do not take my desire to hear the results of the investigation to be covering up anything other than serious disquiet, and indeed anger, that this has happened. It should not have happened; these documents should not have been mislaid. I am deeply sorry that that has been the case. We need to see from the investigation the circumstances that led to it and get the full details, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are taking it very seriously.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
This latest breach further demonstrates why the Government are not trusted with data. From the NHS data grab and the Home Office’s loss of 15,000 arrest records to losing details of thousands of covid cases in a track and trace Excel spreadsheet, and now this—how can the Minister reassure the public that breaches of this severity will not happen in future? When will the Government publish details of a more comprehensive and robust investigation into wider security practices?
Jeremy Quin
The irony will not be lost on the hon. Gentleman that, whereas he referred to massive data accumulations through the internet and online services, what we are talking about here is paper documentation being left and mislaid. It is a different scenario. As I say, the investigation will check what happened, why it happened, what we can do to prevent document loss in future and whether there are more measures we need to put in place. Ultimately, however, this is the loss of physical documents. It should not happen. As I said to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) earlier, I did do a trawl and we have no record of documents being mislaid at above official sensitive level in the last 18 months. I hope that this is an extremely rare circumstance, but we still need to learn the lessons.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
This is clearly a “never” event: it should never happen. In the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton), he talked about the training that individuals go through to avoid such events. Of course, they can happen—like a fire or a pandemic can happen. Can my hon. Friend enlighten me on whether there are drills for such never events? If not, will he consider implementing drills to deal with these kinds of fallouts?
Jeremy Quin
There are procedures in place if lost documents are reported. The investigation will certainly check that we took the right actions on the reporting and in the actions that were taken subsequently.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Once again, secret documents have been lost from the Ministry of Defence. Indeed, it is the third major breach in the last six months. The Secretary of State seems to be asleep at the wheel while our nation is becoming the butt end of jokes in the international security community. Will the Minister confirm that the safety of our brave British troops has not been compromised? Can he also advise what conversations have been had with our allies, whose personnel may have been put at risk as a result of this breach?
Jeremy Quin
I have no evidence to suggest that the safety of our personnel has been compromised, but clearly, as I have said, this is an investigation. It will go through the documents. It will ensure that missing documents have now been returned. It will go through the contents of the documents and put in place any mitigations that are needed. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have been in contact with the United States. It is aware of the issue and we will keep it updated if we need to in future.
Mr Speaker
I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Security of Ministers’ Offices and Communications
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Order. Before we come to the next urgent question, I want to say something about the implications for this House of the apparent security breach involving the Department of Health and Social Care. We do not comment on the detail of security arrangements on the Floor of the House. However, I want the House to be reassured that I have directed senior officials to consider what implications there are for security arrangements in the House from the recent event in Whitehall and to take any necessary steps with urgency. I will not take any points of order on this matter.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on security arrangements relating to ministerial offices and communications.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
I appreciate your comments, Mr Speaker, about matters in relation to the House. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for his question and for the chance to address concerns felt across the House about the security of ministerial offices and communications. These are concerns that the Government also take very seriously.
As has been the practice of successive Administrations, the Government do not generally comment on internal security matters. On the specific incident relating to the leak of footage from a security camera to the media, given the public interest in the case I can confirm that the Department of Health and Social Care has launched an investigation that is supported, as appropriate, by the Government security group based in the Cabinet Office. Until the investigation is complete, it would be inappropriate to give further details. I am sorry to hon. Members who will understandably be seeking a lot of details on this matter. It is the case, however, that robust safeguards are in place around the security of Ministers, parliamentarians and Members of devolved legislatures.
My hon. Friend may also want to ask about ministerial communications, which I am happy to go into. Government guidance is that official devices, email accounts and communications applications should be used for communicating classified information. Other forms of electronic communication may be used in the course of conducting Government business, but each Minister is responsible for ensuring that Government information is handled in a secure way. How that is done will depend on the type of information and on the specific circumstances.
Mr Bone
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question and for your comments. I thank the Minister for her response, but it seems to me that the revelations over the weekend that the Secretary of State for Health’s personal office had recording devices in it should be of national concern. If Government and parliamentary offices have recording devices in them—whether audio, visual or both—it is of the utmost concern. Since the disclosure, several Cabinet Ministers have gone on the record to say that they had no knowledge that their offices might be subject to surveillance.
It is totally unacceptable for private conversations between Ministers, civil servants, Members of Parliament and members of the public to be secretly recorded. It also brings into question whether the Wilson doctrine has been broken. Since the premiership of Harold Wilson, it has been a long-standing rule that secret recordings of Members of Parliament by the police, security services or state are outlawed, so I have a number of questions for the Minister on which I hope she will be able to be a little more forthcoming.
First, do the offices of Ministers or Members of Parliament have recording devices in them? If so, who authorised them? Who has access to the recordings? What is the purpose of the recordings? How long are they kept? Has the Wilson doctrine been broken? Are there currently any Members of Parliament under surveillance by the police, intelligence agencies or the state? What measures are taken to ensure that there are no illicit recording devices in ministerial and parliamentary offices? Are they routinely swept for those devices?
Mr Speaker
Before you answer that, Minister, I should say that you have no responsibility for the House. That is a responsibility of the House that I am looking into, but everything else is fair game.
Julia Lopez
I appreciate that clarification, Mr Speaker, which is important.
I wish to assure my hon. Friend that we do endorse the Wilson doctrine, and I agree that it is unacceptable should there be any secret recordings within Government offices. My understanding in this case is that this was a CCTV camera operated by the Department of Health and Social Care, which is why it is being investigated by that Department. We do not believe that there are covert concerns at this moment, but there is an ongoing investigation into this, which, unfortunately, we are going to have to be patient on and wait for the details of. But once that investigation has been completed, notwithstanding the security concerns, we will want to provide him with reassurances on a number of the extremely important questions that he has raised.
My hon. Friend also asked about the extent to which offices are regularly swept. There is an organisation called UK NACE—UK National Authority for Counter Eavesdropping. It is the Government lead for counter-eavesdropping and this includes the technical manipulation of protective security systems, including CCTV. This is an area where it works very closely with the Government Security Group. My understanding is that it takes a risk-based assessment when it comes to sweeping, so in Departments where there are particular security sensitivities and concerns, those sweeps are taking place on a relatively regular basis, but Departments are accountable for the way in which their security is maintained within the Departments. The Cabinet Office plays a supporting role through the Government Security Group, setting out standards to which Departments are expected to adhere.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on securing this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for her opening comments regarding CCTV and the limitations, but, given how little we currently seem to know, will she come back to the House when she does have some answers regarding this?
Incredibly, this is not even the biggest scandal of the day when it comes to ministerial security and communications, and the Minister alluded to this comments. This morning, a Government spokesperson claimed that all Ministers only conduct Government business through their departmental email addresses yet I have, right here, the minutes of a departmental meeting in which senior civil servants report Government contracts being approved from a Minister’s private email address. Who is telling the truth? It is a pity that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster could not be here in person, given his personal experience of the perils of using his private emails to conduct ministerial business and to try and avoid freedom of information laws.
And it goes well beyond one Department. Last week, the Cabinet Office refused to answer my questions about the Prime Minister’s mobile phone. Today, it has been reported that he, too, will not deny using private email addresses. Can the Minister now say from the Dispatch Box, categorically and on the record, that no Minister or Prime Minister has used, or does use, private email for Government business, especially when it involves spending public money?
This morning, the Justice Secretary agreed that private email was a huge security issue. He admitted that this revelation does raise legitimate questions. On this, he is right. Now it is time to answer those questions. Will those involved refer themselves to the Information Commissioner so that a genuinely independent investigation can take place? If any Ministers have used private email for Government business, what action will be taken and what will be done to prevent it from happening again? What steps have been and will be taken to preserve private emails as evidence for the public inquiry into the Government’s mishandling of the covid pandemic?
Our country faces daily threats from hostile foreign states that have already, for example, hacked the private email account of the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). What advice have the Government taken on the security of Ministers’ private email accounts? What does it say about this Government that they will launch an inquiry into leaks of CCTV but not into their own Ministers?
Julia Lopez
I thank the right hon. Lady for her important questions, which I will seek to answer. It is important to understand that Government guidance is that official devices, email accounts and communications applications should be used for communicating classified information. Other forms of electronic communication may be used in the course of conducting Government business. Each Minister is responsible for ensuring that Government information is handled in a secure way, but how that is done will depend on the type of information and on the specific circumstances.
The right hon. Lady asked about the procurement of personal protective equipment, I believe, or a covid contract that was conducted allegedly via a private email address. I am happy to look into that. But there needs to be understanding of the fact that when we were at the height of the pandemic, a huge volume of correspondence was coming to Ministers via their personal email addresses, their parliamentary email addresses and their ministerial email addresses.
Julia Lopez
I am not suggesting that there is something we should not be looking into. My point is that—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could wait for me to finish. Some 15,000 offers of help to secure PPE came in following the Prime Minister’s call for assistance. Obviously people wanted to respond to that call, and then we needed to manage the sheer volume of correspondence. The important thing to note is that when PPE offers did come in, they went through the same eight-stage process, so no matter which way those things were communicated, they went through the same process, and that should provide assurance.
Insofar as there are questions to answer, I want to assure the right hon. Lady that we have conducted a number of internal and external inquiries into this matter. There is the Boardman investigation into contracts and there was a National Audit Office investigation into contracts, so I assure her that this matter has already been looked into. She is absolutely right to ask questions and I am absolutely right to reassure her.
I would add that there have been a number of debates on covid contracts in this House, one of which took place in Westminster Hall. I was on maternity leave at the time of the pandemic. I shared the right hon. Lady’s concerns and wanted to understand what had happened, so I responded to a debate in Westminster Hall on those questions and I set out very candidly some of the concerns and challenges that we faced at the height of the pandemic. A number of hon. Members engaged in that debate and asked very legitimate questions to which I responded to the best of my ability. I am not aware that the right hon. Lady has ever engaged in any of those debates. If she wishes to generate a lot of hue and cry over this, that is understandable from a political point of view, but it is my duty to set out the challenges we faced and the ways we are addressing some of the concerns.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for coming to the Dispatch Box to answer the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). As she will know, the Wilson doctrine covers deliberate surveillance, so what safeguards are there for whistleblowers who may inadvertently discover material that is in the public interest?
Julia Lopez
It is important that a distinction is made between material that was inappropriately sourced and then leaked and people who are trying to raise legitimate concerns that require public transparency. I shall look into the concern that my hon. Friend has raised to make sure that there is no blurring of those two very important and distinct issues.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I will follow your strictures precisely, Mr Speaker—all my questions are about ministerial offices.
Was the former Health Secretary aware, and indeed, was the security officer in his Department aware, of the CCTV camera in his office? Is the Minister aware of similar CCTV cameras in any other ministerial office? Who installs such systems in Ministries and who monitors them and has access to their feeds? Do they record video only or is it sound and vision? Given that there were reports of this footage being touted on Instagram for some time, is it true that staff from private companies manage those systems and monitor the footage? If it is true, who is responsible for vetting, and what is the process for vetting, such staff?
Finally, and most importantly, how confident is the Minister that others—states and non-state actors who would do us harm—have not already compromised other staff or gained direct access to some of these CCTV feeds?
Julia Lopez
Those legitimate concerns will be raised and, I hope, addressed through the Department of Health and Social Care investigation. As I say, the Cabinet Office is there to set the standards, on which we have regular correspondence and engagement with Departments.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points—who installs such machines and so on—that we need to look into via the Department of Health and Social Care investigation. My understanding is that it was a CCTV camera, not a covert device. There are obviously questions to answer about the way in which civil servants are vetted—they do go through stringent vetting processes—and in respect of a risk-based approach as to which Departments need to be more regularly swept. I hope that some of the answers that the hon. Gentleman seeks will be answered by the Department of Health and Social Care investigation into this matter.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
During a pandemic, the position of Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is one of the most safety-critical roles. People should have been able to have the frankest of conversations with him regarding the nation’s health without fear of being recorded. Throughout this awful crisis there have been a number of leaks, with the most notable being the one before the second lockdown in November last year. Will the Minister assure the House that, along with cameras, ministerial offices should not have microphones hidden in them, and that any review of security will ensure that all ministerial offices are checked for them regularly?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for raising an important point. As I have said, sweeps are conducted across Departments. Ultimately, the permanent secretaries of Departments are accountable for security within them, but the Cabinet Office sets out clear guidance and continues to liaise with Departments about how that is adhered to. My hon. Friend raises an important point about covert devices, and we all seek the same reassurances as him on these matters.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Crikey, Mr Speaker—who would be a Minister on a day like today?
I do not want to go into the detail of what happened on the day in question, but it occurs to me that the security camera—I think we are accepting that it was a security camera—must surely to goodness have been pretty covert. I know where the security cameras are in my local high street where I live in the highlands. The more we go into this matter, the odder it gets. The public deserve an absolutely open explanation as to what has happened. If the cameras are covert, or semi-covert, why are they? Why does a Secretary of State not know, on a need-to-know basis, about this sort of thing and where the cameras are?
Julia Lopez
My understanding is that the camera was not covert, but, as I say, the Department of Health and Social Care is conducting an investigation and that will answer some of these questions.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
There is currently a lot of speculation in the newspapers about the implications in respect of foreign powers using these sorts of surveillance tools. Will my hon. Friend confirm that at this stage there is no reason to believe that foreign powers have been involved in respect of this particular camera at the Department of Health and Social Care but that the investigation will look at whether there is any connection?
Julia Lopez
My understanding is that there have been some reports about whether there is anything to be concerned about in relation to covert surveillance; I think some of that is just speculation. I am afraid I cannot comment on security matters, as my hon. Friend will understand, but I assure him that all these questions are being asked within Government to make sure that we have watertight systems.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) [V]
I accept the need for external CCTV coverage to ascertain entry and exit, but have any checks been made to establish whether any other internal offices, where Ministers, MPs or staff could be monitored, have a device installed covertly? Has the country of origin of the device used in this instance been established?
Julia Lopez
I speak on behalf of the Cabinet Office. I asked questions about my own office today and received assurances, and I imagine that Ministers across the Government estate will be asking the same. As I say, the Department of Health and Social Care has launched its own investigation and will be accountable for that.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The leaking of footage from inside private ministerial offices raises two important questions. Why had a camera been installed? If it had been done legitimately, how did the footage come into the public domain? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the matter will be investigated with the urgency it requires?
Julia Lopez
I can provide my hon. Friend with those assurances, as I have provided them to the House this afternoon.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
The Minister did not give a straightforward answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), so I will ask her again: is she confirming that Ministers did use private email addresses to approve contracts and that the Department of Health and Social Care therefore misled the public in its statement denying categorically that that happened? Given just how serious this is, will she agree to refer it to the Information Commissioner so that there is an independent investigation, not another Government whitewash?
Julia Lopez
My understanding is that it is not within the Minister’s power to approve contracts—that goes through the approval of civil servants. I would like to offer the hon. Lady that assurance, but I am happy to look into the particular incident she highlights further if there are concerns that need to be looked into.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Ministers will often need to discuss matters of the highest confidential nature and see highly confidential documents, so does the Minister agree that Ministers should be able to make such decisions in the British interest, without any fear or favour?
Julia Lopez
I quite agree with my hon. Friend. In the decisions we take throughout this pandemic to tighten the system to ensure that there are no concerns, such as those expressed by hon. Members, it is important that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Ministers should have the space to make important national decisions.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) [V]
Does the Minister know whether there are rules common to all Departments on where security cameras can be sited and where they must not be sited?
Julia Lopez
My understanding is that the general policy is that cameras are not sited within Ministers’ offices. I think this situation was an outlier in that regard, and we will have a better understanding of why it occurred once the Department’s investigation is complete.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) [V]
The shadow Secretary of State asked the Minister directly whether any Minister or the Prime Minister used private emails to conduct Government business, and in response the Minister basically repeated the guidelines, which seem to suggest that, yes, Ministers can use a private email and it is up to them to police themselves. Given the stench of cronyism around this Government, can she not see how that answer is completely unacceptable? All this needs to be opened up, and transparency must be the order of the day immediately.
Julia Lopez
My point is that it is not Ministers who make the final decisions on contracts and that important processes are gone through. There may be questions about the direction of email traffic, but the point is that every decision is scrutinised under the same process when it comes to providing covid contracts—if that is the hon. Gentleman’s concern.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) [V]
Although I welcome the Department of Health and Social Care’s rapid investigation, this case raises potentially serious concerns about the security of all private offices. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the Department will work with security teams across Government to protect the privacy and security of all Ministers?
Julia Lopez
As I suggested, the Cabinet Office already works across Government on the standards we expect when it comes to the security of private offices, and Mr Speaker addressed concerns in relation to Parliament.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is not acceptable to have covert surveillance at work for Ministers, Members or anyone else, but the public are entitled to transparency on issues raised about things such as private emails. The Government already have answers to give on donations for the Prime Minister’s flat, peerages to donors, tax breaks by text and unlawful contracts to associates, so does the Minister agree that her Government’s murky dealings are the real sordid affair that the public should see a light shone on?
Julia Lopez
As I say, there have been a number of investigations to look into some of the allegations that have been put to Government over the course of the pandemic, including the National Audit Office’s report. We have conducted our own investigations, because we take seriously some of the allegations that have been put to us. As I say, there are processes in place that people went through. There were a number of other challenges we faced at the height of the pandemic, which I have been candid about in Westminster Hall and in other places, but the public should be assured that their money has been spent with care. As I say, there were challenges we went through, relating to the sheer number of items of correspondence and emails that were coming in. It is not for Ministers to conduct and make decisions on contract awards over private email, and we are happy to look into any concerns in that regard.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
If I understood the Lord Chancellor correctly this morning, he said that when he wants to read a sensitive document, he goes to a separate room in his Department to do so. Could we have a look at what procedures are in place across Government to make sure that Ministers can read sensitive documents safely?
Julia Lopez
As my hon. Friend will be aware, there are different levels of document classification, so procedures are already in place to ensure that Ministers can read such documents in privacy and with great security, but if there are concerns about whether those safeguards are robust enough, we will look into them.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Something really does not add up here. As I understand it, the Minister is saying that the camera in the office of the Secretary of State was not covert. In other words, the Secretary of State knew it was there, yet we have all seen the video. If that is true, he must be the stupidest man on earth. Is the Minister really trying to persuade us that he knew that there was a camera in his office? When he had meetings with other Ministers, were they informed that those meetings were being recorded? Is that really what she is trying to suggest? It blows my mind, this idea.
Julia Lopez
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman’s mind is blown. I am a Cabinet Office Minister who is responsible for overall adherence to Government security rules. When it comes to the placement of the camera in that office, I am afraid that it is for the Department of Health and Social Care to account for itself when it comes to what happened. It is already conducting an investigation, which we will want to look at.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
As a former Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care with the previous Secretary of State, in candidness, no one ever told me that our meetings were being observed. I never asked, it is true, but I was certainly never told. The issue, to my mind, is of course that they were being recorded, but more, who had access to those images? Does the Minister think that things would be made much easier for everyone as the Department of Health and Social Care begins the investigation if the, let us remember, profit-making media organisation involved simply made it clear how it was able to see inside a senior Minister’s office?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for his pointed and important question, and I hope that during the course of the investigation led by the Department that some of these answers will come through so that we can scrutinise them ourselves.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]
The Minister has astonished us all by saying that this was not a covert device, yet we have just heard from a former Health Minister that he did not know about it. The Minister is somehow asking us to believe that the now departed Secretary of State somehow knew about it, but clearly if he did he would not have behaved in the way he did right in front of it, so I think that she is stretching credibility. When I was a Minister, we were not allowed to use our own inboxes or our own private emails for Government business. We were told very, very bluntly at the beginning of our ministerial career that this would not be allowed. Why on earth is it different now?
Julia Lopez
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s question, but I am not asking her to believe anything. I am asking her to have patience while the Department conducts its own investigation into exactly what happened. On the use of emails, there are clear guidelines to which Ministers should adhere, but we have to accept that there was a situation in which we all had to move online, and we all have to account for the way in which we handled ourselves in that period.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
I have lost count of the number of times my colleagues and I have raised issues about the lack of transparency, honesty and integrity under which too many Government Ministers operate. The ministerial code is not worth the paper it is written on. The whole sordid affair follows on from the former Health and Social Care Secretary being found to have acted unlawfully in his disclosure of contracts for personal protective equipment, contracts for mates, and now the revelation of the use of private emails. This, as others have said, smacks of his covering his tracks.
On the cameras, if Ministers were unaware of them, that is nothing short of Big Brother. What other Department buildings have similar cameras of which we are not aware?
Julia Lopez
I think that will form part of the investigation, and it is something that the Government’s security group will actively look into.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
On the use of private emails for Government business, will the Minister confirm the legal position under the Freedom of Information Act? My understanding is that if a public authority—the Secretary of State clearly is a public authority—uses a private email for Government business, that private email and those emails are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and the destruction of any emails in order to prevent them from being disclosed would be a criminal offence. That information will obviously be of some reassurance to people. Is she able to confirm that from the Dispatch Box?
Julia Lopez
Yes, I can confirm that official information held in private email accounts is subject to FOI.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
When the investigation into this matter is concluded, will the Minister come back and tell the House whether this leak has reached the threshold to warrant an investigation by the intelligence agencies?
Julia Lopez
The investigation is being led by the Department of Health and Social Care. The hon. Lady raises an important point about the threshold at which it is subject to security and intelligence investigations. I will get back to her on that, but I hope that we will be able to update the House when the substantial findings have been reported.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Like my good and hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), I joined the Department of Health in moving into this new building, 39 Victoria Street, at the end of 2017. Will the Minister ask the Department to consider in its internal investigation whether the devices were installed as part of the new build or subsequently? Will she also please develop a protocol from the Cabinet Office across Government that all Ministers, and frankly all people working in Government buildings, are notified of any official listening, visual or other sensors in their place of work, so that they are aware of it rather than, as we have been today, surprised by it?
Julia Lopez
Those are very pertinent questions, and ones that I have asked in advance of today and to which we will all want answers. My right hon. Friend makes an important and useful suggestion when it comes to the protocol in relation to CCTV or any other device that might be found in a Minister’s office. I am sure that other Ministers across Government will want that assurance.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State, engaged—at least as we thought—on matters essential to our national security, health and wellbeing is filmed, unbeknownst to him, and that film is leaked to a national newspaper when it could just as well have been a foreign power. I have to say that I find the Minister’s complacency incomprehensible. Can she at least confirm that the Government know where each Government CCTV camera is, who has access to them and whether outsourcing has led to a plethora of private security firms and other contractors having access to the footage?
Julia Lopez
I assure the hon. Lady that I am not complacent. This is a fast-moving situation. We found out about this device on Friday, and I have sought a number of assurances. Some of them cannot be answered at the moment because a live investigation is under way, but these questions are being asked and we do want to understand the situation so that we can assure the House. I am placed in the rather frustrating position of not being able to provide the clarity that people understandably demand on a day like this. I will have to ask the House’s forgiveness while the investigations are under way.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
The truth is that the days when officials asked Ministers for instructions via papers placed in locked red boxes are long gone. The truth of the matter is that officials in Whitehall Departments expect Ministers to be in contact with them 24/7. It can be very difficult for Ministers in those positions to access secure devices to look at things. May I ask the Minister to instruct the Cabinet Office to really challenge the guidance that is given to officials and Ministers about this, so that Ministers are not finding themselves unwittingly having to use private emails, as I found quite often as a Minister in the Department of Health?
Julia Lopez
That is such an important point. We are living in different circumstances where electronic communications mean that we are contacted at all hours of the day on different email accounts, different devices and so on. We are trying to clarify the guidance on this, because this is a situation that we are perhaps not as best prepared for as we should be, but we are not complacent. My hon. Friend also raises the important point that there are lots of different systems across which Ministers have to operate. I had my parliamentary account and my Cabinet Office account, for example, and we also have to engage in meetings across different systems. Trying to move between those systems can provide a real challenge, and this is something that we need to provide clearer guidance to other Departments on.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Government’s lax security has resulted in information and communications ending up in the wrong hands, and the Government’s lax procurement processes via text, private email and a word down the pub have led to billions of pounds of public money ending up in the wrong hands. Sensitive information and public money are neither safe nor secure, so how will the Minister ensure that there is an end to this casual approach to information and communications relating to security and spending? And for the third time, what discussions have taken place with the Information Commissioner over these casual communications since these revelations have come to light?
Julia Lopez
I have not personally discussed this with the Information Commissioner over the weekend. As I say, a number of issues have come to light that we need to be on top of, and I hope to assure the House on these matters in the coming days.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
Our Prime Minister has had to have his phone wrested from him by the security services for conducting Government business by WhatsApp, and now a Health Secretary has been using his Gmail for official purposes. Can the Minister please answer the second question posed by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and confirm to us that it would be a criminal offence for any Minister to destroy communications they have made about Government business on private emails or private messaging apps for the purpose of defeating the ends of justice regarding our freedom of information request or, indeed, defeating the ends of justice in any future inquiry into the covid crisis?
Julia Lopez
As I say, official information held in private email accounts is subject to freedom of information and all the rules and restrictions around that.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
My hon. Friend has said that the ultimate responsibility for security lies with the Department, and that the Cabinet Office sets best practice. Given the importance and sensitivity of security, should we not centralise this to ensure that every Department complies and that there is no aberrant behaviour?
Julia Lopez
The ultimate responsibility is with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary, but it is for the accounting officers to be answerable on these matters for their Departments.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Minister said that this was not a covert device and that it was known about, but then she said that they only found out about it on Friday in a fast-moving situation, so she needs to get her story straight, not least because we have two respected former Ministers in the Department—the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) and the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne)—in the Chamber who knew nothing about these cameras. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) rightly talked about the Wilson doctrine and the importance of monitoring the surveillance of Members of Parliament, so would it not be a good idea if the Prime Minister now made a statement to the House to tell us exactly when he first knew about this device and about the content that was on it?
Julia Lopez
I wish to assure the hon. Member that we maintain the Wilson doctrine and that we wish to ensure that there is no covert surveillance within a Minister’s office. That is extremely important. Some of the questions that people have rightly raised with me this afternoon will want to be answered through the investigation that is under way in the Department of Health, and I am sorry that I cannot provide greater detail on that at the moment.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware, as everyone in this House is, how livid Mr Speaker and many people here were at the leaking of the second lockdown and how Mr Speaker asked for a full investigation into the incident. What has emerged over the weekend has blown all that up. The leaking could have involved a whole number of people who were never even considered as part of that investigation, which, as Mr Speaker has informed us on Privy Council terms, is still ongoing. Will my hon. Friend the Minister liaise with her Department and with the Cabinet Secretary to ensure that any information of who had access to that video footage and covert surveillance of that office is fed into the investigation that Mr Speaker has asked for to find out how things were being leaked to the press before this House knew about them?
Julia Lopez
I thank my right hon. Friend for those very important questions to which we all want answers. I hope that they will be answered as part of this investigation.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Does the Department of Health and Social Care handle its own ministerial office security, or is that done across Whitehall by other organisations such as the police?
Julia Lopez
There is a range of different ways in which security is maintained across the Government estate. Some of those are dealt with by the police, some by Government security, and some by the Departments themselves. The mix of those in this particular instance will be looked into.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
As parliament- arians, we all have sympathy for the Minister being sent here to respond to these questions without many of the answers to them. We had all expected that her boss would be here for these questions, as indeed he would have been had he thought he had the answers to give to them. May I ask her, the next time she meets the Cabinet Secretary, to stress how unsatisfactory this situation is, how dangerous it is to the security of this nation, and that the House demands not only that this situation is never repeated, but that we get the answers that she has been unable to furnish us with today?
Julia Lopez
Those are answers that we will hopefully get once the investigation is complete. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is in Scotland today so he could not be in the House. I share the hon. Gentleman’s anxiety about getting answers, because these are extremely important questions about the security of Ministers’ Offices, which, as a Minister myself, I want some reassurances on.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Is the Minister able to reassure the House that, in considering the findings of the Department of Health and Social Care’s own internal investigation into this matter, she will not rule out considering whether this leak was a breach of the Official Secrets Act?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend, and I shall want an answer to that question.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
First of all, is a Department-led inquiry sufficient for the gravity of this situation? We need to know whether these recordings extend to other Departments, who all this footage is offered to, and who benefited from the release of the footage. We need to understand the security risks of Ministers doing business by private email, as has been said. The Minister cannot just say, “Oh, it’s complicated.” It is simple. We have a parliamentary email address and Ministers should use it—end of story. Also, it is only because of this leak that we have found out about yet another crony appointment that the Government did not bat an eyelid about, so who is taking the lead in investigating all these other matters?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am sorry that I cannot furnish the House with answers on the matter of security on this day, but I hope to be able to do so shortly.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) [V]
I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting the urgent question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). With one Department spreading documents behind a bus stop and another one publishing CCTV, I cannot say that I am terribly surprised if Ministers do not want to use their private offices. Does my hon. Friend, who is doing a very good job at the Dispatch Box, agree that we need a root-and-branch change in the trust and behaviour of the civil service?
Julia Lopez
In so far as there are any questions raised in this entire episode about whether a matter was leaked, there will be questions to be answered in so far as they involve any civil servants, who are vetted when they do their jobs and have to adhere to certain codes themselves.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
May I say to the Minister first of all that this House should take precedence in the priorities of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, not travelling to Scotland?
When I was a Minister, neither parliamentary emails nor private emails were allowed to be used for Government business. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether using private email accounts to discuss sensitive Government business is in breach of the Freedom of Information Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Data Protection Act or the Public Records Act 1958, which place specific requirements on the use of Government information?
Julia Lopez
As I have said, Government guidance is that official devices, email accounts and communications applications should be used for communicating classified information, but other forms of electronic communication may be used in the course of conducting business, and official information that is held in private email accounts is subject to FOI. I hope that that provides the right hon. Lady with assurance.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for coming today to respond to Peter Bone’s urgent question and for responding to 37 parliamentary questions in total. We will now suspend before the statement on covid.
Covid-19 Update
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I would like to congratulate Secretary Sajid Javid on his new appointment.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
I am honoured to have been asked to become Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I understand the responsibility that comes with this job, especially at this critical moment. As someone who has sat on the Front Bench for many years, this past year has been a difficult one. I have been frustrated not to be able to play my part in helping to meet the greatest public health challenge that our country has ever faced, so I am especially proud to have been given this opportunity for public service.
Nothing embodies the spirit of public service more than our national health service and those who work in our social care. I have seen it in my own constituency; I saw it again just this morning at St Thomas’s Hospital, where I met doctors, nurses and volunteers who have moved mountains over this past year. Now, they are helping us vaccinate our way out of this pandemic. I pay tribute to them all, and I pledge to do everything I can to deliver for them and the people of this great country. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the House on this vital mission.
We are making phenomenal progress with our vaccination programme. Vaccination is now open to every adult in the country, 84% of adults have got a jab and 61% of adults have had two doses. This progress has allowed us to safely take the first three steps out of the lockdown and towards the greater freedoms that we can enjoy today. We owe this strong position not only to the NHS, but to everyone who has played their part.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who has worked hard throughout all these testing times. He achieved a great amount in the work that he did, and I know that he will have more to offer in public life. I wish him the very best.
There remains a big task ahead of us to restore our freedoms—freedoms that, save in the gravest of circumstances, no Government should ever wish to curtail. My task is to help to return the economic and cultural life that makes this country so great, while, of course, protecting life and our NHS. That task has been made all the more difficult by the delta variant, which we now know makes up some 95% of new cases in the UK. Not only does it spread more easily, but the evidence points to a higher risk of those who have not been vaccinated needing hospital treatment, compared with the previously dominant alpha variant.
This narrowing of the race between the virus and the vaccine led to this Government’s difficult decision to pause step 4 on our road map until 19 July. We are using this extra time to protect as many people as we can. When the Government took that decision on 14 June, more than 4.3 million over-40s had had a first dose but not a second. The figure is now down to 3.2 million people over 40. We can all be reassured by how many more people are getting the life-saving opportunity that a vaccine offers.
At this two-week review point, I want to update the House on our progress on our road map to freedom. Our aim is that around two thirds of all adults in this country will have had both doses by 19 July. We are bringing forward second doses, and bringing forward our target for first doses too, so we can meet that 19 July goal. Vaccine uptake remains sky-high. We have seen that age is no barrier to enthusiasm for getting the jab: as of this weekend, more than half of adults under 30 have taken up the chance to be vaccinated—including, in the past couple of weeks, all three of my own adult children.
Our vaccines are working, including against the delta variant. The latest modelling from Public Health England shows that they have saved more than 27,000 lives and have prevented more than 7 million people from getting covid-19. We know that, after a single dose of vaccine, the effectiveness is lower against the new delta variant, at around a 33% reduction in symptomatic disease, but two doses of the vaccine are just as effective against hospital admission with the delta variant as with the alpha variant.
The jabs are making a difference in our hospitals, too. In January, people over 65 who were vaccinated earlier in our programme made up the vast majority of hospital admissions; the latest data shows that that group now makes up less than a third. While cases now are ticking up, the number of deaths remains mercifully low, and we will continue to investigate how our vaccines are breaking that link between cases, hospitalisations and deaths. I am also encouraged by new data just today from Oxford University’s mix and match trial, which shows that a mixed schedule of jabs, such as getting the AstraZeneca jab first and the Pfizer second, could give our booster vaccination programme more flexibility and possibly even some better immune responses.
Finally, we continue to see a rise in hospitalisations. Although in line with the kinds of numbers we had anticipated at this point in our road map, the number of people needing hospital treatment for covid-19 has doubled since the start of May. Admissions are most clearly increasing in the north-east and south-west of England, so we have been boosting testing centres and vaccines in those areas and keeping a close watch on the numbers.
I spent my first day as Health Secretary—just yesterday—looking at the data and testing it to the limit. While we decided not to bring forward step 4, we see no reason to go beyond 19 July because, in truth, no date we choose comes with zero risk for covid. We know we cannot simply eliminate it; we have to learn to live with it. We also know that people and businesses need certainty, so we want every step to be irreversible. Make no mistake: the restrictions on our freedoms must come to an end. We owe it to the British people, who have sacrificed so much, to restore their freedoms as quickly as we possibly can, and not to wait a moment longer than we need to.
With the numbers heading in the right direction, all while we protect more and more people each day, 19 July remains our target date. The Prime Minister has called it our terminus date. For me, 19 July is not only the end of the line, but the start of an exciting new journey for our country. At this crucial moment in our fight back against this pandemic, we must keep our resolve and keep on our road map to freedom so that together we can beat this pandemic and build back better. It is a task that I am deeply honoured to lead and one I know will succeed. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Can I just say at the outset that, despite our fierce political differences, my dealings with the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), were always courteous, respectful and professional, and I wish him well in resolving his personal difficulties.
I welcome the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) to his place and thank him for advance sight of his statement. He will find working with the NHS and social care staff both inspirational and rewarding, and I hope he will agree to make arrangements for them to receive a fair pay rise and not the real-terms pay cut that is currently pencilled in.
Today, the Secretary of State has let it be known that the 19 July reopening will effectively go ahead. He told the news this morning that there is “no going back” and that lifting restrictions will be “irreversible”. A word to the wise: I have responded to a lot of these statements these past 15 months, and I remember Ministers telling us there was “nothing in the data” to suggest that 21 June would not go ahead. I remember children returning to school for one day before the January lockdown. I remember, “It will all be over by Christmas”. I remember, “We will send it packing in 12 weeks”.
Well, we have seen around 84,000 cases in the past week—an increase of around 61%. Today, we have seen the highest case rate since January. If these trends continue, we could hit 35,000 to 45,000 cases a day by 19 July. That will mean more long covid—the Secretary of State did not mention more long covid—and it will mean more disruption to schooling. For some, it will mean hospitalisation, and we know that even after two doses, someone can catch and transmit the virus, so what is he going to do to push infections down? Vaccination will do it eventually, but not in the next four weeks.
I want to see an end to restrictions and our constituents want to see an end to restrictions, but I hope the Secretary of State’s confidence today about 19 July does not prove somewhat premature or even, dare I say it, hubristic. Can he confirm that by “irreversible” he is ruling out restrictions this winter? Has he abandoned the plan that the previous Secretary of State and officials were drawing up for restrictions this winter?
Increased infections will impact on the ability of the NHS to provide wider care. Today, the Secretary of State has promised to give the NHS everything it needs to get through the backlog, so will the hospital discharge and support funding be extended beyond this September, or will trusts have to make cuts instead? How does he define getting through the backlog? When will the NHS again guarantee that 95% of patients will start treatment within 18 weeks of referral? We know thousands are waiting too long for cancer care, so when will the NHS meet its cancer target that 96% of patients wait no longer than a month from diagnosis to first treatment? When will he give primary care the resources to meet the challenge of the hidden waiting list of over 7 million patient referrals that we would have expected since March 2020?
Given the pressures on primary care, is it still the Secretary of State’s plan to press ahead with the GP data transfer? To be frank, Mr Deputy Speaker, if the Department cannot keep its CCTV footage secure, how does he expect it to keep our personal data secure? Will we see a plan to fix social care, or is today’s Telegraph correct when it reports that he, the Secretary of State, is of the opinion that we are completely at the wrong stage of a Parliament to launch a new social care strategy? Is that really his view? Given the pressures across the whole of the healthcare service, will he abandon the ill-thought-through top-down reorganisation of the NHS that the previous Secretary of State was set to embark on?
Finally, given the recent questions of propriety around covid contracts, the Secretary of State will understandably want to present himself as a new broom. Can he confirm that he will not use a personal email account to carry out Government business? Can he explain why the social care Minister has been using a personal email account to carry out Government business? Why was the Minister for Innovation, the noble Lord Bethell, using his personal email account to discuss the awarding of Government contracts, and why did he have meetings with a firm that won a contract but not declare it? Can he tell us whether he maintains confidence in that Minister? Is it not time that that particular health Minister was relieved of their ministerial responsibilities as well?
Sajid Javid
First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for what he said about my predecessor.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, he started by rightly pointing out the incredible work that our NHS staff across the country have been doing, even before the pandemic, but especially, I think we would all agree, throughout the pandemic. I heard about that myself this morning during my visit to St Thomas’s Hospital talking to staff—doctors, nurses, consultants—and hearing directly about the challenges they faced at that time but also the challenges they continue to face. I wanted to hear from them what more the Government can do, whether on recruitment or resources, and what more help can be provided. So it remains an absolute priority. Of course, it is absolutely essential that, when the pay settlement process is complete, that is a fair process. Of course, it absolutely will be and it will be a fair pay settlement.
Turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s next question about the timing of the move to step 4, I set out, I think clearly in my statement, the Government’s plan and the rationale for that plan. I point out that what is at the heart of this is the vaccination programme and the excellent work that has been done by many across the country: the volunteers, doctors, and nurses. I visited a vaccination centre today, as well as St Thomas’s Hospital. Excellent work has also been done by the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). More people are getting vaccinated. We are seeing clear evidence that we are breaking the link—this is absolutely crucial—between the number of cases of people getting infected by covid-19 versus those who sadly end up in hospital or even, in some cases, lose their lives. The more evidence we see of that, the more confident it can make us that we will put this pandemic behind us. That is what gives me confidence about the date of 19 July. With all the data I saw yesterday—I sat down and discussed it with the experts and my colleagues—it is very clear that we are heading in the right direction, and I am very confident about that date of 19 July.
The hon. Gentleman rightly asked about the backlog. The focus, for all the right reasons, of the NHS and social care system on dealing with the pandemic has, sadly, seen a significant backlog of cases build up. The Government have already provided record amounts of funding to try to deal with some of that backlog. In total to deal with the pandemic, some £92 billion of extra funding has been put into the NHS and social care system, and much of that is targeted at the backlog. It will be an absolute priority—it was for my predecessor, and it certainly will be for me—to see how quickly we can deal with that and what the best and most efficient way is to do so. Just today, on my visit to St Thomas’ Hospital, I heard some excellent new ideas from people on the frontline. We will certainly be listening to them as we set out further plans.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about social care, and I should warn him not to believe everything he reads in the press—and I think he should know that. Social care remains an absolute priority for this Government, and for me. The Prime Minister himself has rightly made some very clear commitments on social care, and we absolutely intend to meet them. When it comes to reform, of course we are committed to the Bill on NHS and social care reform, which my predecessor has talked about at the Dispatch Box. If hon. Gentleman sits down with me, perhaps I can persuade him a little of the virtues of that Bill, and I am sure I can convince him that it is essential. If, like me, he believes that what matters most are the patients—we want the people who go into hospital feeling unwell to be seen quickly and efficiently and to get better—the people in our social care system, and having better integration, then he will believe in the virtues of that Bill. I hope, eventually, he can come to support the Bill and do the right thing.
Lastly, the hon. Gentleman asked me about my Ministers. I have such a fantastic ministerial team—all and every single one of them. It is not just a question of confidence; it is a group of Ministers who are incredibly talented and who have delivered both in this House and in the Lords. Having led five Departments previously, I have had some considerable experience of working with Ministers, and this is one of the best teams I have ever had.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, my apologies for missing the start of this statement. May I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his post? He will bring experience, ability and integrity to this role, and I have no doubt he will do it with great distinction. He will understand, of course, that in my role I have to scrutinise him, so I want to say to him now that he is welcome to as many seven-hour sessions of the Health and Social Care Committee as he is willing to attend, and we look forward to talking to him there. I do want to wish him well, and I also want to echo his comments about his predecessor. To be Health Secretary in a pandemic is the most difficult job imaginable. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) brought enormous energy and determination to that role, and the country is in his debt.
As the Secretary of State deals with what we hope are the final stages of this pandemic, can I ask him whether he will also be giving thought to how to prepare the NHS and care system for future pandemics, and whether at the top of his list will be putting more resilience into the social care system—not just meeting our manifesto promises on a cap on social care, but making sure that local authorities have long-term stability in funding to ensure they can look after every older person with dignity and respect?
Sajid Javid
First, I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks, and I welcome the scrutiny that he and his Committee will provide. I am not sure about the seven hours bit, but I very much welcome the scrutiny and the intention.
On his question about preparing for future pandemics, a huge amount of work is already going on. Just yesterday, I met the chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency, which will work on much of that. As I think my right hon. Friend knows, in the best part of a year that I have been away from the Front Bench, I spent time as a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School where my project was looking at potential future pandemics. I will put that knowledge, and everything I learnt through the process in doing that preparation, to use.
My right hon. Friend is also right to raise the importance of social care reform and the work that needs to be done, including on sustainable funding. He will remember how in the past we often worked together as Ministers. In these different roles, I look forward to working with him on that same issue of how we provide a long-lasting, sustainable solution to the social care challenge that this country faces. As I said to the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), that remains a huge priority, and I look forward to talking to my right hon. Friend and learning from him, too.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
In welcoming the new Secretary of State to his place and thanking him for advance sight of his statement, I would like to ask how he plans to review or modify current covid policy? The management of any epidemic is not rocket science but infectious diseases 101: avoiding the importation of dangerous variants through border control and quarantine; and stopping the virus spreading from one person to the next. Does he plan to revise the Government’s quarantine and traffic light system to avoid importing more variants, which, like the delta, would threaten the reopening of the domestic economy and society?
On Friday, the National Audit Office released a report on the NHS Test and Trace system, which did not quite get the media coverage one would have expected. One year on, Serco is still reaching only 83% of contacts, while Scotland reaches 98% and Wales 95%. Both of them have used public health and health protection teams from the start. As covid restrictions are eased, a well-functioning test, trace, isolation and support system will be critical to detect and control small clusters and avoid future surges. Therefore, instead of awarding Serco a new contract for more than £300 million, should the opportunity not be taken to reform the system?
It is only isolation that stops the onward spread of the virus, and while the £500 isolation payment is welcome, it is less than the minimum wage, and many are excluded by the eligibility criteria. With no results at all registered for almost 600 million issued lateral flow tests, will the Secretary of State shift some of that funding to provide more generous and accessible financial support for those who are asked to isolate? While vaccines are reducing the likelihood of hospitalisation, cases are rising exponentially. Does he recognise that allowing the current surge to go unchecked would put pressure on the NHS and run the risk of even more infectious or vaccine-resistant variants emerging?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady first talked about the importance of border control, and she was right to do so. That is why the Government have already put in place the so-called traffic light system, with this Department working across Government with the Home Office, Border Force, the Department for Transport and others. The system absolutely needs to be kept under review to ensure that it is doing its job in protecting the people of this country from viruses, and especially from any new variants of covid-19 that may emerge. I can give her reassurance on that.
The hon. Lady also raised Test and Trace. She should know that the NHS Test and Trace system is the largest diagnostic exercise of its kind in British history. We have carried out more than 200 million tests, identified more than 4 million positive cases and found more than 7 million of their contacts. Every time that happens, whether in England, Scotland or any part of the United Kingdom, that breaks the chain of transmission and saves lives.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
May I say how delighted I am to see my right hon. Friend back on the Front Bench? I congratulate him on his appointment to this crucial role, and I welcome his approach, as set out in his statement. He will be an excellent Health Secretary.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that 19 July will mark the end of the road map out of lockdown, that “terminus” means the end of the line, not an interchange, and that it is his intention that all restrictions will be lifted on that date?
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. As she will have heard in my statement, it is absolutely our intention to have step 4 commence on 19 July and to remove restrictions and start returning to normal. She asked me specifically about all restrictions, or which restrictions. It is certainly our intention to remove restrictions, but as we follow the data in the coming days, we will set out more in due course.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
May I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to his place? I look forward to engaging constructively with him on a range of issues.
The Secretary of State will be aware that during the course of the pandemic, well in excess of 40,000 people lost their lives to covid in care homes, and the “protective ring” that his predecessor talked about being in place at the start of the pandemic went in far too late. He will also be aware that two in three unpaid carers looking after loved ones—some 7 million people—have reported their mental health worsening as a result of the pandemic. Will he help his boss to make good on his promise of almost two years ago on social care reform and honour his manifesto pledge to work cross-party on this issue, and meet me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) to urgently start work on it?
Sajid Javid
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about working together. She is absolutely right to say that, especially on something as important as social care, which she is right to raise as a priority for the Government and for this House. She reminded the House that, sadly, so many people in care homes have lost their lives through this pandemic. She will be aware that, even before the pandemic, the Government had pumped billions more into the social care system, and during the pandemic there was a lot of support, but a lot more needs to be done, and I think that is what she rightly gets to. The Government have said that the best way to find a sustainable solution to the country’s social care challenge is for parties to work together and co-operate, and I would happily meet her.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend back to the Government, and I look forward to working with him in the months and years ahead.
The Feilding Palmer Hospital in Lutterworth is the only hospital in my constituency. It was threatened with closure but is now being used as the principal covid vaccination centre in the southern part of my South Leicestershire constituency. Once the Secretary of State has settled into his important role, will he meet me to discuss the important future that I hope to see for that much-valued district hospital?
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue about his local hospital. As a constituency MP, I absolutely understand the importance of local hospitals and having that support in the local community. This hospital in particular has done a great job with vaccinations, and it continues to do a fantastic job. I think that is a very good sign of the contribution that it can potentially continue to make for the local community, and I would very happily meet him.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and, as the Democratic Unionist party health spokesperson in this place, I wish him well, on behalf of my party, in his new role. I have absolutely no doubt that he will do an excellent job.
If we are aiming for progression and moving away from restrictions such as the wearing of masks, may I ask when people will be able to attend worship and sit in churches self-distanced, without wearing a mask, just as diners can sit in a restaurant self-distanced without a mask? If we are going to have parity, then I believe that churches should have parity with restaurants.
Sajid Javid
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I agree with him that as we move towards removing restrictions and step 4, we should take seriously into account what he said about people attending churches and the restrictions that they currently face. That is certainly my intention.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]
The Secretary of State will rightly focus on the immediate challenges of covid, but his Department is also about to make decisions related to integrated care systems, which have potentially enormous long-term implications for the provision of healthcare for my constituents and the constituents of fellow Cheshire MPs. The NHS wants to create a Cheshire-Merseyside ICS, which will not serve the best interests of our residents. Will the Secretary of State meet us urgently to discuss the proposal before it is quietly pushed through?
Sajid Javid
First, I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he personally has done to support the NHS, especially through his work in A&E departments. I also thank others who have contributed in that way. On his particular question, no final decisions have been made on ICSs. I absolutely understand the importance of his point. I want to make sure that we get these things right and, although I understand that he has already met Ministers in the Department, I would happily meet him myself.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to his new role. During the past 10 years, nearly £8 billion has been lost from budgets for adult social care. Too often during the covid pandemic, social care has been an afterthought for Ministers and officials. The results have been all too clear in the tragic levels of mortality in care homes. The social care sector is desperate for investment and reform, so will the new Secretary of State commit today to bringing forward proposals to invest in and reform social care as soon as possible, and at the latest by Christmas this year, as promised?
Sajid Javid
I agree with the hon. Lady on the importance of social care and that it should be a priority for reform, as it is for this Government. I do not agree with her characterisation that under this Government it has not been a priority or her suggestion that there has been under-investment. When in my previous role as the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and certainly as Chancellor, we increased funding a number of times. I think we agree that we need a long-term, sustainable solution—we are not there yet—and that is something the Government are absolutely committed to.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new role, I wish him every success and I support his plan to unlock soon. Will he look at expediting trials of other drugs and treatments that may help covid-19 patients and have been looked at elsewhere? Will he also encourage work on air extraction and cleaning systems, to see what more can be done to stop transmission of the disease, as we are going to have to live with it to some extent?
Sajid Javid
I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome. On his question, I simply say yes, I will.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role. He could begin by launching cross-party work on social care reform by responding to the 2018 report by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee, because three years later we are still waiting for a Government response.
On test and trace specifically, the NAO report on the national system that was published the other day was hardly complimentary. The Secretary of State will be aware, from his previous role as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, of the great professionalism of directors of public health and the work that they do. As the NAO report says, in many cases they are still waiting for up-to-date data to deal with local covid outbreaks. Will the Secretary of State commit to rectifying that situation and ensuring that directors of public health are fully involved in the new model for testing and tracing that will be undertaken from July this year?
Sajid Javid
I think the hon. Gentleman agrees with me on the importance of social care, which we have discussed in the past and will no doubt discuss again going forward. He mentioned the NAO report; if he will allow me, I will take a closer look at that and write to him.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on his new role. Now that thousands of people are allowed to gather together at a football match to shout and cheer as much as they want, is it not time that we allowed congregations in church to sing hymns together?
Sajid Javid
I can tell my right hon. Friend that that is certainly what I would like to see and it is certainly my intention to allow that to happen as soon as possible. When it does, I hope we can sing a hymn together.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State back to the Front Bench. One vector of the current surge in cases has been the rise in cases in schools. On 17 June, we had a quarter of a million pupils away from school. What steps does he think need to be taken to address the decline in the number of tests being carried out in schools? Does he think that the wearing of masks should become mandatory?
Sajid Javid
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue, because it is very important. The point he is rightly making is that when we are asking children not to be in school for those reasons, to try to control infections, it is having a huge knock-on impact on their education, and none of us wants to see that. I have already asked for fresh advice from my Department on this issue and I intend to discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to see what more we can do.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I wholeheartedly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new position. Given his extensive experience, both inside and outside Government, does he agree that the UK’s success post-pandemic will depend on the Department of Health and Social Care working closely with local councils, social care providers, businesses and community representatives to ensure that we protect both lives and livelihoods in the years ahead?
Sajid Javid
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. As someone who has also been the Local Government Secretary and the Business Secretary, I agree with him even more, just directly from that experience.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The new Health Secretary has not been on the Front Bench for a year, but in that time he has been very busy—very busy indeed, lining his own pockets. He has been getting £1,500 per hour for his second job and £1,500 for his third job, all while NHS staff at Seacroft Hospital and St James’s University Hospital in my constituency have been working harder than ever, getting our communities through this covid crisis. Given that he has done very well out of the past year, bagging hundreds of thousands of pounds during a national crisis, would it not be the height of hypocrisy for the new Health Secretary to refuse our NHS staff the pay rise they so clearly deserve?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman is going to have to try a lot harder than that.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place, as others have done. I also welcome his optimistic and confident statement, which is so refreshing and is music to millions of ears. I concur with him when he says that we must learn to live with this virus, which will continue to throw up variants in the years ahead. Many constituents are having trouble actually seeing their GPs. Will he help by persuading some in the profession to return to physical meetings?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. Even before I had this job, that issue came up again and again when I was a constituency MP just like him, and I absolutely understand it. It has especially been raised by older members of my constituency; people have brought this issue up where they are perhaps not as familiar with technology and they want that face-to-face meeting. I have already asked for advice on that and I will write to him on it, if I may.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) [V]
Many constituents have contacted me about GP provision too, particularly the letting of key practices to private US healthcare companies. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to reassure me and my constituents that he intends to keep our NHS public?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady will know that the NHS is one of our greatest public services. In fact, it is one of the greatest public services that any country has, and it is an example to the rest of the world. It is something that we will cherish and continue to support in every possible way.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I warmly welcome the return of my right hon. Friend to the Front Bench. Some services such as maternity were temporarily suspended at Stafford’s County Hospital so that those wards could be used to treat covid-19 patients at the height of the pandemic, but does he agree that it is vital that those services are now returned to the hospital as soon as possible?
Sajid Javid
That is an important issue for many hon. Members. Services, in this case maternity services, were understandably, I think it is fair to say, suspended to deal with the pandemic. As we return to normal, it is important that those services, on which local people rely, begin to return to normal as well. If it is helpful for my hon. Friend, I can certainly set up a meeting for her with my hon. Friend Minister for Health so that she can discuss that in more detail.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Now that the Health and Social Care Secretary is in post, will he break with his predecessor’s outright refusal to deliver the pay rise to NHS staff in England that they deserve? Will he, at a minimum, commit to matching NHS pay rates in Scotland, delivering a pay rise for staff in England, and to providing more money in consequentials to help devolved Governments support NHS staff in devolved nations?
Sajid Javid
The whole House would agree that the Government must absolutely make sure that there is a fair pay settlement for all NHS workers, and that is certainly what there will be.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I am absolutely delighted to see my right hon. Friend back in his rightful place on the Front Bench. There can be no clearer example of the Government’s commitment to recycling. I hope that he will bring his customary consistency in approach to the covid crisis, and tell us whether we are following dates or data. As for the data we get, it is not just about the number of infections—it is about who is infected, what age they are, whether they have pre-existing conditions, and whether they have been offered a vaccine, but have refused. It is not just about hospitalisations and how many people are in hospital. How long have they been hospitalised compared with the figures for previous parts of the pandemic? How many of them require extra care and how many are in intensive care units? We need to understand much better how the Government are reaching their decisions. The British people are not stupid, and Parliament needs to be taken into the Government’s confidence much more. I trust, given the previous examples of how he has conducted himself, that my right hon. Friend can do that.
Sajid Javid
I should first tell my right hon. Friend that I am happy to be recycled. Recycling is something that we are all in favour of. On his important point about data, I saw the data in the Department for the first time yesterday. I saw the detail that it provides and how granular it is. I was impressed with that data, so I can give my right hon. Friend reassurance that the Government are looking at the data, and are absolutely taking it into account. I would also like to find a way to make sure that we can share as much of that data as possible so that others can benefit from it, and I will certainly look at ways in which we can do just that.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Despite the best efforts of our hard-working NHS staff, covid-19 has created a backlog in cancer care. Macmillan estimates that the backlog of people receiving their first cancer treatment stands at 37,000 people across England. One of the key ways in which the Secretary of State can help with the Government’s goal of recovering from the pandemic is ensuring that we have enough well-trained and motivated NHS staff now and in future, so will he commit to addressing the cancer backlog and investing in the NHS workforce to build back better for the future now that he is in post? Will he meet me and Macmillan Cancer Support to discuss this urgent matter?
Sajid Javid
Cancer diagnosis and treatment has remained a top priority, and rightly so, throughout the entire pandemic. Some 2.47 million urgent referrals have been made and over 618,000 people have been treated between March 2020 and April 2021. The hon. Gentleman may also be interested to know that following the “Help Us, Help You” symptom awareness campaign, many of the so-called missing patients are starting to come forward and urgent referrals are rising. That is what we all want to see.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his post and place on record my thanks to his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who was always assiduous in attending the Science and Technology Committee and, indeed, in coming to the Dispatch Box.
Is the Secretary of State aware that Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, one of the heroes of the Oxford vaccine, recently told my Committee that we need to be aware that new variants are likely to infect even the vaccinated, but:
“If…high protection against hospitalisation continues despite spread”
of cases
“in the community, the public health crisis is over”?
What will my right hon. Friend do to inform the public, and perhaps some officials, that we must move from being concerned about the number of cases of covid to focusing squarely on hospitalisation?
Sajid Javid
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. This is a such a crucial point and it is one that I referred to earlier. Of course, cases are not unimportant, but because we now have the vaccine, thankfully, and in this country in particular so many people are getting vaccinated—of course, we want to see more and more people coming forward, but the take-up is excellent, especially compared with other countries—it is the vaccine that is going to break the link between case numbers and hospitalisation. As I said, we are absolutely starting to see that. The indications are very, very positive on this, and I hope that is the kind of news that my right hon. Friend will welcome.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
The Home Office recently updated its visa guidance to say that new international students and those returning to the UK must be here by 27 September or lose their post- study work rights. Around one fifth of our international students are from red list countries. Their arrival risks a surge in demand that will overwhelm the hotel quarantine system. Universities UK, the Confederation of British Industry and others have written to Ministers urging flexibility on visa rules to enable blended learning to continue with phased entry to the UK, so will the Secretary of State urgently meet his successor as Home Secretary to seek this change?
Sajid Javid
I was not aware of this issue. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought it to my attention, and I will certainly raise it with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his challenging new role. One of the big challenges in my area is parents, grandparents and guardians having to deal with children and students from local schools and colleges who have to isolate for sometimes a third or fourth time in the past couple of months as a result of having been a close contact of a positive case. This is having a huge impact on education, mental health and wellbeing, so what extra PCR testing, and what new approach to isolating, can be introduced to help to support local families and children?
Sajid Javid
This is another very important issue. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the impact of the isolation that is demanded of children—understandably so, but it is having an impact on their education, their mental health and in so many other detrimental ways. That is exactly why I have asked for fresh advice on this. I want to see if there is anything more that we can do—any more flexibilities. I am aware that there is a pilot programme in place at the moment that certain local authorities are using whereby tests can be used in lieu of isolation, but I want to see if we can go further, and I will be happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State and wish him well.
In Bexley borough we have some of the highest-performing vaccination teams in the country, and we are all grateful to those involved for their tremendous work. However, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the vaccine roll-out remains his top priority, so that my constituents can be confident that we will defeat this pandemic, ease restrictions and see life return to normality after 19 July?
Sajid Javid
I can certainly confirm that to my right hon. Friend. As he suggests, the vaccine is the best way out of this pandemic. Let me share with him that four fifths of adults have had their first jab and three fifths have had both jabs—that is almost 77 million jabs across the country, with millions more to come. This is going to be our way out of this crisis, I am grateful for the huge amount of work that NHS staff and volunteers are doing in his constituency and throughout the country to achieve that and to get more and more people vaccinated.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
In Newcastle, infection rates are doubling every week and are now at over 400 per 100,000. The Secretary of State may think that that is not important because, thankfully, hospitalisations and deaths are not rising at the same pace, but more and more people are being asked to self-isolate. My constituents want to do the right thing, and the vast majority do, but support is woeful. Does he recognise that that is one reason for higher rates in areas with higher levels of low-paid and insecure work? As a former Chancellor, will he fight for more support, including extending eligibility to anyone without access to workplace sick pay?
Sajid Javid
I could not hear the question entirely, but I think I got the gist of it. Areas that are seeing rising case rates—as I mentioned, some parts of England are seeing particularly high increases—are, as the hon. Lady knows, being given extra support through testing, tracing and other means, including extra financial support. We will absolutely keep under review how much further support can be provided to help with the issues she mentioned.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and warmly welcome his return to the Front Bench. Does he share my concerns regarding this winter, when we predict that an increase in covid hospitalisations may be superimposed on normal NHS winter pressures? Can he confirm that plans and preparations are being put in place now to support our NHS in what may be a very difficult winter indeed?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. I can absolutely confirm that plans are being put in place. A huge amount of work was done by my predecessor and, of course, I will continue that work—just yesterday, I had meetings on winter plans. I can give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance, not just on vaccinations but on dealing with the backlog, that there are plans in place, and in due course I will come to the House and set them out.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) earlier, the Secretary of State said that he is working on a plan for social care and that we are not there yet but that we are getting there. However, the Prime Minister told us that he had a ready-made plan back in July 2019. What has changed? Does that plan exist, or has it been changed?
Sajid Javid
The Prime Minister has a plan, and we are working on the detail of that plan.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) [V]
May I also congratulate the Secretary of State and welcome him to his position? Does his optimism on the end of domestic restrictions extend to those who want to take up international travel again or who work in the industry? Is he also confident that the three fifths he mentioned who have been double-jabbed will be able to go to amber list countries without quarantine? Would he be willing to meet me and other colleagues who share a concern that we need to do more to try to help our industry?
Sajid Javid
First, my hon. Friend will know that, in terms of 19 July and the restrictions that will be removed, we are focusing on domestic restrictions. He knows that, separately, we also take very seriously the border controls, the border restrictions and the so-called traffic light system. In terms of making any further decision on that, he will know that it is kept under constant review on a very regular basis, and it is something that I intend to sit down and discuss with my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary as soon as I can.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s return to the Front Bench. I know from my experience of dealing with him in Government that he is a man of real integrity, which is an essential quality in a Health Secretary at a time like this, so I welcome his appointment.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s tone and his intent to get us back to normal, but let me pick up on his earlier answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). There are those in government, from documents that I have seen, who are preparing the ground for the return of restrictions in the autumn and the winter. Will he rule out the use of lockdowns and restrictions in the winter as a mechanism for managing covid, and look at alternatives to ensure that the NHS is able to deal with us getting back to normal?
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind and warm remarks. I know that he has taken great interest throughout the pandemic in the restrictions in particular, and I absolutely understand why it has been so important to him and others. I am very happy to meet with him to discuss the issues in more detail and listen to his views. He should know that it is my intention, and the Government’s intention, as I have said from day one on this job, to remove all restrictions as quickly as possible.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I give a warm welcome to my right hon. Friend. I wish him very well. I am looking for a change in policy as much as a change in tone. I return him to the subject of education. Estimates suggest that a quarter of a million children are missing school today due to precautionary isolations, the vast majority of them sequential due to the bubbles that they are caught in. Under the current rules, 10 days of isolation is then unavoidable, even with a negative PCR test. Have our young people not suffered enough? Are we really going to continue to do this to ourselves? Is this not an area, given the availability and reliability of testing now, where I might find the change of policy that I am looking for?
Sajid Javid
Other hon. Members have rightly raised this very important issue, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it once again. It is something that I have focused on from day one on the job. That is why I have asked for fresh advice on it. As he knows, that decision was made with the data that was available at the time. Clearly, data is changing all the time, and we must ensure that we keep that under review for exactly the reasons that he has just set out. As I say, I have asked for advice on that and will hopefully be able to say more on it as soon as possible.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for Health for his statement. In his first outing in the new role, he has responded to 31 questions in one hour, so thank you very much.
Point of Order
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last Monday, following Education questions, I raised a point of order querying the Secretary of State’s claim that the Government aimed to roll out tutoring to 6 million pupils. The Secretary of State insisted that that figure was correct; however, at the end of last week, “Schools Week” reported that when it approached Department for Education officials about the figure they contradicted the Secretary of State, saying that the pledge is for 6 million courses, not 6 million pupils. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the light of that discrepancy, and the possibility that the Secretary of State has given incorrect information to the House, can you advise me on what steps I can take to ensure that he comes to the Chamber to clarify the matter, in order that hon. Members can be sure that we have accurate information?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of the point of order, because that allows for a fuller response, which I think is what every Member would like. Although the content of answers to parliamentary questions and contributions is not a matter for the Chair, I must remind the House that the Government’s own ministerial code requires Ministers to correct any inadvertent errors in answers to parliamentary questions at the earliest opportunity. An error has been made in this instance, and I am sure that the Government will seek to correct it as quickly as possible. I know that the Whip on duty will pass this on to the Minister. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the issue, I am sure that the Table Office will be able to further advise her. I now suspend the House for three minutes.
Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill
Monday 28th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 View all Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Liberal Democrats has been selected.
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.
The Bill contains two halves: first, a measure that changes the valuation assumptions that are applied when making business rate determinations in the light of covid-19; and secondly, a measure that will provide for the disqualification of unfit directors of dissolved companies. I will start with the first measure before moving on to the second.
The pandemic has presented significant challenges for businesses in all sectors. Our response has been of a similarly unprecedented scale, with more than £280 billion provided throughout the pandemic to protect millions of jobs and businesses. In this year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced an extra £65 billion of support for 2020-21 and 2021-22. The support we have provided for businesses included 100% business rate relief for all eligible retail, hospitality, leisure and military properties for 2020-21, at a cost of £10 billion. Combined with those eligible for small business rate relief, this means that more than half of ratepayers in England will have paid no rates in 2020-21.
At this year’s Budget, we confirmed a further three-month extension to the full 100% business rate relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, followed by a further nine-month period of relief at 66% subject to the cash cap, at a further cost of £6 billion. That takes the total level of support provided to businesses by Government through relief from business rates since the start of the pandemic to over £16 billion.
That is an important context for the Bill, because as well as helping businesses through the pandemic, it is also important that we support local government with the critical role it has in supporting our communities. A vital part of that is the income that it receives from business rates, so while it is necessary to provide rates relief to businesses, it is important that we do so in a way that is targeted and that ensures that those who can still contribute continue to pay this tax.
With that in mind, clause 1 is concerned with how rateable values should be assessed during the pandemic. A business rates bill is calculated by multiplying the rateable value of the property by the multiplier, or the tax rate, and then applying the reliefs. The rateable value of a property is therefore, broadly speaking, its annual rental value at a set valuation date, which in the current rating list is 1 April 2015. All rateable values should therefore reflect annual rental values at 1 April 2015. This provides a consistent tax base for all businesses.
Of course, it is necessary to update the tax base, which is done at regular revaluations undertaken by the Valuation Office Agency. The next revaluation was originally scheduled for 1 April 2021, based on values at 1 April 2019, but last year we took the step of postponing it to 1 April 2023 to ensure that it better reflected the impact of the pandemic; Parliament approved that change by passing the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021. The Act received cross-party support, for which we were extremely grateful.
Outside those general revaluations, a ratepayer can still submit a challenge to the VOA on their property’s rateable value between revaluations for a number of reasons, such as to correct factual errors or reflect a material change in circumstances. If not satisfied with the outcome of the challenge, the ratepayer can appeal the VOA’s decision to the valuation tribunal. It has been an established principle of the business rates system that a material change in circumstances challenge can be made on the basis of a physical change to a property or its locality. For example, a successful MCC challenge could be made following the partial demolition of a property, or significant roadworks near a property that might affect its value.
However, following the pandemic, the VOA received high numbers of MCC challenges seeking a reduction in rateable value to reflect the impact of the pandemic. Of course, the MCC legislation, as first set out in the Local Government Finance Act 1988, was not designed with covid-19 in mind, and the MCC system has never been used in response to economy-wide impacts or shocks. It has therefore become necessary to clarify, as clause 1 does, the treatment of covid-19 in assessing rateable values.
We have been clear that relying on the MCC system to help businesses that need further support in the light of the pandemic is not the right mechanism. It would mean significant taxpayer support going to businesses with properties such as offices, many of which might be able to operate normally throughout the pandemic, at a time when we have provided significant support to those most affected.
For example, the workforce of a consultancy firm based in central London that was previously entirely office-based is likely to have been working largely from home since the start of the pandemic, but the business itself may have continued to operate throughout. Under the business rates appeal regime, it could have argued that its office space had undergone a material change of circumstances due to the reduced occupancy.
If that business’s appeal had been successful, it would have been awarded a business rates reduction, but it would not have been right for it to have a reduced tax liability on that basis, given that it had not actually suffered an economic impact. Relying on the MCC system to support businesses would also mean resolving disputes through the courts, which could take years and create additional uncertainty both for businesses and for local government, which relies on income from business rates to deliver vital local services.
The Bill will therefore ensure that the coronavirus and the restrictions put in place in response to it cannot be used as the basis for a successful MCC challenge or appeal. It will ensure that changes to the physical state of a property can continue to be reflected in rateable values as and when they occur, irrespective of whether they are a result of the coronavirus, but that the general impact of the pandemic on the property market will not be reflected until the next revaluation in 2023. Until then, all rateable values will continue to be based on the property market as at 1 April 2015. This approach is supported by the Public Accounts Committee, which has welcomed the financial certainty that such a measure gives to councils.
Clause 1 applies in England. Business rates policy is fully devolved, so whether the same legislation is necessary in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland is a matter for their respective Governments, but we have been working closely with the devolved Administrations regarding the Bill. Although the law in Wales is similar to that in England, different legislation applies in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Of course, the impact of the coronavirus may have been different, so whether the devolved Administrations choose to follow the measures set out in clause 1 will depend on the individual circumstances and choices made in those countries.
We have also supported businesses. We have put £16 billion of support into business rates for the pandemic, and we have announced a relief worth an additional £1.5 billion for ratepayers impacted by the pandemic who have not been able to access business rate reliefs. These new reliefs will be administered by local authorities and will be distributed according to which sectors have suffered the most economically, rather than on the basis of temporary falls in property value. This will ensure that support is provided to businesses in England in the fastest and fairest way possible, and we will continue to work with and support councils and local government to enable ratepayers to apply for the new reliefs as soon as possible.
The second part of the Bill deals with the abuse of the process whereby companies are removed from the register and dissolved. The large majority of company directors are responsible, passionate about their businesses and diligent. They act as effective stewards of the companies to which they are appointed, and I pay tribute to the directors who make such a valuable contribution to our economy and who have fought so hard over the past year to ensure their company’s survival, preserving the jobs and livelihoods of so many within their business and beyond.
Unfortunately there are exceptions, and the business community and the wider public must be protected from those individuals who abuse the privilege of limited liability. Those directors who act recklessly, irresponsibly or even criminally should expect to have to answer for their conduct. That means expecting to have their conduct investigated and, if they had done wrong, facing the possibility of being disqualified from acting as a company director for up to 15 years, depending on the severity of their misconduct. Disqualification protects the public from the actions of those who have demonstrated they are unfit to hold the position of a director of a company, and acts as a deterrent to reckless or culpable behaviour.
Evidence to support disqualification action comes from the investigation of companies and the conduct of their directors. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy may investigate live companies through the powers contained in the Companies Act 1985, and also the conduct of the directors of insolvent companies through similar powers in the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. If such investigations reveal evidence that a director’s conduct has fallen below the standards expected of someone in their position, a period of disqualification can be sought, either through a court application or through an under- taking given by the person to the Secretary of State. A period of disqualification protects the business community and the wider public by preventing the person from acting in the promotion, formation or management of a limited company. Breach of a disqualification order is a criminal offence, and an extremely serious matter.
As things stand, though, there is a loophole in the disqualification regime that some irresponsible directors have been able to exploit. It concerns the situation where a company has been dissolved without entering insolvency proceedings. Dissolution should not be used as an alternative to insolvency proceedings, but there is evidence that some directors have been using the process both as a way of fraudulently dodging the payment of company debts and of avoiding insolvency proceedings and the scrutiny of their behaviour that comes with that.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I support the measures that my hon. Friend is taking in the Bill. He mentioned fraud. I take it that the measures he is talking about would not negate the potential for prosecution of fraud where it was demonstrated that a company director had defrauded the taxpayer by means, for example, of a bounce back loan.
Luke Hall
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He is an expert on these matters in this House, and I look forward to working with him as we deliver the Bill.
When a company is dissolved, the only way the conduct of its former directors can be scrutinised is if it is restored to the register, which is a costly process involving court proceedings. The Insolvency Service regularly receives complaints about the conduct of directors when a company has been dissolved, and many such complaints relate to the use of dissolution to dump the debts of one company, only for a new company to start up in the same business, often with the same directors and the same employees, and often even working out of the same premises. The debts dumped in this way are often large tax debts, awards made by employment tribunals or sometimes even debts owed directly to consumers.
The provisions in this Bill will close the loophole and allow the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to investigate the conduct of former directors of dissolved companies and, where public interest criteria are met, to take action to have them disqualified from acting as a company director.
We consulted on this measure back in 2018 and it received a warm welcome from stakeholders. It has now become extremely important that we get it on to the statute book, so that it can support the business community and the wider economy in recovering from the impact of the pandemic.
This new power to investigate and seek disqualification of former directors of dissolved companies forms part of a package of counter-fraud measures seeking to target any fraudulent behaviour relating to bounce back loan schemes through the abuse of the dissolution process and to ensure the responsible use of public funds. Retrospective provisions in the Bill will mean that, when the new provision becomes law, conduct that is happening right now will become subject to investigation and could be used to support future disqualification proceedings even if the company is dissolved.
The Bill fulfils the Government’s commitment to introducing two important measures: it will make changes to the business rate appeals system and provide for the tackling of abuses associated with the process whereby companies are removed from the register and dissolved. These are two distinct areas of policy, but our approach is consistent. We will ensure the continued operation of a coherent framework, deliver certainty, support businesses to thrive, and allow councils to plan for their finances with confidence and continue to deliver the first-class services on which our communities rely. I commend the Bill to the House.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Opposition to the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill. It is a short Bill but one that will have important consequences for many businesses and individuals.
The Opposition recognise the rationale behind the Bill and we do not intend to divide the House on Second Reading, but there are elements of the proposals where the Government need to be clearer about how some of the measures will work in practice and to spell out how all businesses will be supported. Businesses and local authorities have already faced massive uncertainty this year and they should not face more. I welcome the chance to discuss the Bill to ensure that we get the detail right. We will seek further clarification and information and consider tabling amendments as the Bill makes progress.
Clause 1, as we have heard, legislates to ensure that coronavirus cannot be taken as a cause of material change of circumstance for business rates valuations, and therefore prevents rateable values for businesses being altered to take into account the impact of coronavirus. We recognise that the most effective way to provide help for businesses hit by the pandemic is not via the process of application for a material change of circumstances, and that MCCs, in the context of what we hope and trust is a temporary change in circumstances, are not the correct mechanism for determining valuations.
We also acknowledge that the demand of large numbers of appeals could put strain on the system and that the most effective use of the VOA’s time and resource is the upcoming revaluation of business rates. Indeed, as the Minister said, we supported the delay in the next business rate revaluation last year, so that it did not take place in the middle of the pandemic. It is now important that the VOA is able to effectively carry out the revaluation in 2023, so I accept the logic for these measures. It is important that, where businesses have experienced what would normally qualify as an MCC, for example, a physical change of the property or the locality, not related to coronavirus, the property owner will be able to appeal against the 27-list valuation on that basis. I would be grateful if the Minister, in responding, clarified for the record and for the assurances of businesses watching that a material change of circumstance application not related to coronavirus will still be allowed and that this is not a blanket ban on MCC claims.
We welcome in principle the announcement of additional relief to businesses that have not so far benefited from any rate relief. That is a positive step towards supporting businesses, particularly in the supply chain of the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors—businesses that have seen an economic impact but have not received relief so far.
We welcome the relief, but it is unclear how the £1.5 billion figure was calculated and we have real concerns over whether it will be enough to support all those businesses that desperately need it. We are particularly concerned that the figure may not be enough to compensate one sector that has been particularly hard hit, the aviation sector, and large airports. I know that the airports, some of which have submitted applications for MCCs, are concerned that £1.5 billion is nowhere near enough to fairly reflect the impact of the pandemic and to protect jobs and livelihoods across the worst-affected sectors. The aviation sector is united in agreement that the lack of business rates relief adds to the failings of Government to provide meaningful support to the aviation industry throughout this pandemic. If £1.5 billion is demonstrated to be insufficient, can the Minister assure the House that the Government will come forward with further funding when necessary? Will the Government give consideration to a further package of support for airports impacted by coronavirus? Has the Minister undertaken an assessment of the impact that the Bill may have on the operation of national infrastructure such as airports? Was any consideration given to exempting them from the provisions?
We acknowledge that this funding mechanism has the potential to get help to businesses more quickly than via the process of application for MCC, but the Government need to get the funding out to local authorities and businesses as quickly as possible. That is why it is a matter of real concern that the Government have so far failed to give details of how the £1.5 billion will be allocated and spent.
The original announcement of the funding came on 25 March. Three months later, there is no indication of the methodology. In answer to a parliamentary question on 18 May, the Minister said that the guidance on the distribution of the fund will be finalised once the Bill has passed through Parliament. That means it is likely that allocations of the fund will not be made until after the summer recess. That means businesses will not receive payments until September at the earliest, and that is not good enough for businesses and local authorities. Many businesses do not know whether they will qualify for the fund, given that the criteria have yet to be published. There is a genuine risk that some businesses may not survive long enough to benefit if there is not some assurance of support before the autumn.
The delay also puts local authorities in a difficult position. The Government expect them to set up local initiatives to deliver grants, but have not given them details about their individual allocations or national guidance on administering the scheme. I therefore strongly urge the Government to provide businesses and local authorities with the clarity they need by publishing an early release of the indicative funding allocations and the eligibility criteria. It will be important that this funding is kept under review to ensure it is enough to meet demand. Will any new burdens due to administrative or other costs be covered by the Government? Businesses have been through so much uncertainty in the last 18 months, it is unacceptable if the Government are going to add more confusion and delay.
We welcome that the Bill gives local councils the assurance that their income from business rates will remain reasonably stable and predictable for the immediate future. With business rates currently forming such a substantial part of local authority income, a major change could have hit local government finances hard after an exceptionally challenging period with inadequate support from central Government.
From April this year to March 2023, the VOA is conducting the next business rates valuation. We appreciate that managing a large number of MCC appeals at the same time could lead to a need for extra resources for the VOA, but we think there is already a need for extra resources for the VOA. Revaluations of business rates are slow and infrequent, and a wide coalition of business organisations has called for more frequent revaluations for a closer and more accurate link between the actual rate and the state of the economy and businesses’ ability to pay. We understand the need for the next revaluation to be moved to 2023. The VOA should be given the resources it needs to carry out more frequent evaluations.
Clauses 2 and 3 make provision relating to investigation and disqualification of directors of dissolved companies. The Opposition are pleased to see the closing of a legal loophole that for too long has allowed unscrupulous or unfit company directors to evade responsibility. It is right that the Government should have the power to investigate and disqualify directors of dissolved companies. In particular, we know that between January and March this year there were over 170,000 company dissolutions in the UK, a 25% increase compared with the same period in 2020.
That raises the suspicion that dishonest individuals may have tried to exploit this loophole to avoid repaying bounce back loans. The current way to pursue fraudulent activity in relation to dissolved companies—applying to the court to restore the company—is a lengthy and costly process. We agree that it is in the public interest to remove that barrier and deliver more accountability on unfit company directors. I do, however, have a couple of questions for the Minister on the detail.
First, how will additional investigations brought about by the change be funded? Under the Bill, the Insolvency Service can apply to a court to disqualify a director only if the director’s company has been dissolved for less than three years, so it is really important that the Insolvency Service is given the resources to carry out investigations effectively and quickly. The Government need to ensure that a lack of resources does not lead to investigations into directors of dissolved companies coming at the expense of investigations into directors of insolvent ones. Put simply, if the Insolvency Service is not adequately funded, the aims of the Bill will not be met and unfit directors could continue to get away with fraudulent actions.
Secondly, if a director is to be found culpable, how exactly will the Government go about facilitating the repayment they may owe? The disqualification regime in itself does not provide measures for repayment, so can the Minister give any more detail about how the compensation orders will work? In what circumstances might the Government aim to restore the company and begin an insolvency procedure? These are questions that need to be cleared up for the Insolvency Service, the courts and creditors to have clarity over how the Bill will work in practice.
In summary, Labour accepts the overarching measures in the Bill, but we are concerned by some of the lack of detail within. The good intentions of the Bill will not be delivered without proper funding for all the sectors affected. While those issues go unaddressed, we will continue to express those concerns as the Bill makes progress. Uncertainty is not good for businesses. They deserve clarity. The lack of detail on funding is a concern, and measures to hold directors to account will not be successful unless the Insolvency Service is fully funded. I look forward to the Minister addressing those questions in closing the debate. I have no doubt that businesses and local authorities up and down the country will be hoping he does so, too.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called so early in a debate, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am not used to that happening frequently. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I have been involved in business rates as a businessperson for a long time, and I greatly sympathise with businesses that have been hit by coronavirus. We know there is a disproportionate impact on some sectors as compared with others, but I support the Government’s measures here and I will explain why. The Government have put a lot of support in—I think the Minister said it was £16 billion in business rates relief to certain sectors and at least another £10 billion in grants above that. There is £1.5 billion in the Bill for businesses that were not included in those schemes.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who I think will speak next, is flawed. It shows a deep misunderstanding of how the business rates system works. Business rates are not about a business; they are about a property. All business rates are based on a property value. What she is trying to argue is that a business of a different business type, such as a nightclub, should be treated differently in terms of business rates from, for example, a retailer or a bank that might have traded successfully. Asking the Valuation Office Agency to value something on the basis of how a certain business has been hit by coronavirus would turn the business rates system completely upside down, at a time when that would not be particularly helpful.
I understand that more than 300,000 businesses potentially would have taken this route, some of which had not been hit by coronavirus. The amendment would create a huge opportunity—a bonanza—for the legal sector to look at this area and take these things to court. That would ultimately cost the taxpayer a lot of money on many occasions where the businesses concerned had not suffered from coronavirus.
The point is about the material change of circumstance. It is about a permanent change. That is what the measure is there for: a permanent change, as the Minister said, such as a demolition or something that affected all the premises in a locality. This is not about general market conditions. Hopefully, coronavirus will be a temporary thing and the restrictions caused by it will in two or three weeks’ time be long gone. For that reason, I do not support the hon. Lady’s amendment, and I support the Government’s action in terms of a material change of circumstance and restricting the right to take an appeal forward.
Clause 2 concerns former directors of dissolved companies. I absolutely support closing that loophole, too. As the Minister said, often, one sees business owners who will use subterfuge to avoid, for example, the repayment of bounce back loans or the payment of suppliers. That is inappropriate. If there is a direct route to that through going straight to being a dissolved entity, it is absolutely right that we close that loophole.
I listened to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), and he made some very good points about resources for the Insolvency Service. I have worked with it quite a lot on various matters while I have been in this House and it is not the most proactive organisation around. It may be a lack of resources, but certainly there is no point having the regulations if we do not regulate such businesses, and we have to make sure that, if these measures are introduced, the Insolvency Services does hunt down the people who try to avoid their debts, including fraudulently. As I said in my intervention on the Minister, if these debts have been avoided fraudulently, those people should be prosecuted for fraud. As I said in my intervention on the Minister, if these debts have been avoided fraudulently, those people should be prosecuted for fraud. That is another area where we lack resources. The UK has a very poor record on hunting down fraud and financial crime. That is an area where we need to beef up our resources, which would have a huge payback, of course. Consider the relative amounts charged in financial sanctions in the US versus the UK: even accounting for the size of its economy, five to six times more money comes back into the US Treasury through its prosecution of fraud. There would be a big payback for our Treasury if we beefed up resources.
Let me touch briefly on one issue with the Insolvency Service that is not directly related to the Bill but reflects on certain points made by the shadow Minister. I have been trying to get the Insolvency Service to take action against a rogue set of business rates consultants called RVA, who go into unsuspecting small businesses that do not understand that small business rate relief, for example, is freely available; they just need to contact the council and it becomes applicable to their premises and business. They do not understand that, and RVA signs them up to a contract that basically takes 50% of the relief for up to 12 years, for writing one letter to the local authority. That is absolutely wrong. We should close that organisation down now. The Insolvency Service has promised to look at it, but not as proactively as it might.
I will make a wider point on the general issue of insolvency. As many people in this place know, I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking. For some time we have had real concerns about the insolvency profession generally, and its probably unhealthy links with some of the people it gets its work from, not least the high street banks. We are doing an inquiry into that alongside the legal firm Humphries Kerstetter. We are taking evidence now and will produce a report in early September on those conflicts of interest. We have seen lots of cases, including one quite recently with KPMG and HIG where both have been fined a significant amount in a draft judgment.
There are some unhealthy alliances here. We need to remove those conflicts of interest and, as the Government have said they will consider doing at some point, move towards an independent, ombudsman-style regulator for the insolvency profession. That does not exist now; it is pretty much self-regulation, which has been proven time and again not to work. I know that is not particularly a matter for today, but this was a good opportunity to get it on the record.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am pleased to contribute to this debate. I will confine my remarks to clauses 2 and 3, which are the ones that apply in the whole of the UK. The Minister pointed out that clause 1 does not apply directly to Scotland.
The SNP welcomes the provisions to close the loopholes that have been identified, although they do not go nearly far enough. I am a bit concerned that this is the second or third time recently that a Bill has been brought forward to tighten up on director and company misconduct and company fraud, but it is framed so narrowly that it is almost impossible to amend it to widen its scope or improve it further. Although we will not oppose Second Reading tonight, I hope that we are not too far away from a more comprehensive review of companies legislation with a wider scope so that Members with particular changes they want to see are able to put them forward to be debated by the House.
In effect, the proposals make a slight change to the way in which the directors of a company are allowed to be completely separate from the company itself when things go wrong. The concept of creating a separate legal entity when a limited company is formed is perfectly sound. There were valid reasons for introducing it 150 or 200 years ago, when companies legislation was in its infancy. Many of those reasons are valid today, and we should retain the protection for directors, senior managers and, indeed, shareholders of companies that go to the wall through no fault of their own, through bad luck or misjudgment. But the reasons for protecting company directors do not extend to making it harder to deal with con men, and the occasional con woman, who set out to become millionaires at the cost of other people’s pensions, savings and hard-earned cash.
When there are reasonable grounds to believe that the directors of a company have been guilty of serious misconduct—including criminal misconduct, in some cases—we cannot allow them to delay, reduce or in any way frustrate the result of punitive action just by dissolving the company. That would be like saying that somebody who faces charges under the Road Traffic Acts can get away with it just by scrapping the car. It is not the vehicle that is at fault but the people who were driving the vehicle at the time.
The Government have rightly pointed out that some of the abuses in respect of which they want to tighten up are those carried out by what are called phoenix companies: the directors shut down one company and in essence resurrect the same company, but because they give it a different name, rank and serial number it is legally a different company and all the sins of the previous company are forgotten about.
Directors do not even need to close down the guilty company first: the same abuses can equally well be perpetrated by running two or three—or, in a case I will come to in a moment, 23—parallel companies with exactly the same couple of shareholders and exactly the same couple of directors, and very often no other employees at all. Through a process that is sometimes lengthy, sometimes short, they dump all the liabilities and debts on to one company and shut that one down, while the assets and benefits are hidden away in a separate company, to be shared only by the directors. In those circumstances, surely it is right that the Insolvency Service and other regulators have the unrestricted right to pursue the individual directors, regardless of which company name they hide behind at the time.
It has to be said that if the Government are serious about imposing improved standards of integrity in the City of London, it is unfortunate that they have chosen to present the Bill on the day when one of their own Ministers told the BBC that the standard of integrity in Government conduct by which they want to be judged is what they can get away with electorally. There is a double standard there that is perhaps not directly relevant to this debate, but the Government cannot afford to ignore it.
Let me mention one example of what can go wrong when directors appear to run a company for their own benefit and not for the benefit of those whose money they are supposed to look after. The Nunn McCreesh limited liability partnership was incorporated in August 2012 and dissolved by voluntary strike-off in October 2015. It had only three officers: Phillip Nunn, Patrick McCreesh and a company that they jointly owned called It’s Your Pension Ltd, incorporated in 2013 and dissolved by voluntary strike-off in 2016.
Coincidentally, at the same time that Mr Nunn and Mr McCreesh took the decision to dissolve the limited liability partnership, the Insolvency Service was finding that the LLP had been paid nearly £900,000 for identifying investors for Capita Oak—a name with which Members will be familiar as it was a pension fund that collapsed, taking £120 million of other people’s pensions with it. Capita Oak remains under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office; we do not know whether the part played in the Capita Oak story by Nunn McCreesh and numerous other companies is part of that investigation.
Mr Nunn and Mr McCreesh moved on quickly from their dissolved LLP and set up a whole web of companies —23 at the last count—under the Blackmore brand. Between 2016 and 2019, one of these companies, Blackmore Bond plc, raised £46 million by selling high-risk mini bonds to investors that they knew were completely unsuitable for that type of investment. Blackmore Bond plc went into administration in 2020 and the investors have almost certainly lost all of their £46 million.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman has raised a very interesting case. I am sure he will be aware that the Financial Conduct Authority was warned on numerous occasions about the activities of Blackmore Bond but apparently did nothing about it until it was far too late.
Peter Grant
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was reading through the back of my notes, but he is only about five or six lines ahead of what I was going to say.
I do not know whether Mr Nunn and Mr McCreesh were ever placed under formal investigation, or whether they might still be under investigation, for their part in the Capita Oak story—for obvious reasons, that kind of information is not shared—but surely the fact that they were able to dissolve their company should not make any difference to the investigations to which they can be subjected and the sanctions they should face if they are found guilty of misconduct in their management of Nunn McCreesh LLP or, indeed, any of the umpteen other companies they have run.
Perhaps if, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) indicated a moment ago, the various regulators had communicated with each other more effectively, the Financial Conduct Authority would have heard loud alarm bells ringing when in 2017 it was alerted to the highly questionable sales techniques that Blackmore Bond was using; perhaps if the FCA had made the link to the dodgy practices in relation to Capita Oak that were carried out by a different company under the same ownership and direction, it would have moved faster than it appeared to do; and perhaps, at least, the investors who ploughed £26 million into Blackmore Bond after the FCA was warned about it would have had some warning that the Blackmore Group might have been better named the Black Hole Group, because that is exactly what it became for £46 million of other people’s money.
I described that one scandal out of the many I could have described to remind the House that we are not just looking at a theoretical loophole here; we are looking at regulatory weaknesses that have allowed chancers and charlatans to make well over £1 billion of other people’s pensions and life savings disappear, and that is before we start to look at the business-to-business frauds that have forced small businesses into liquidation, often at massive financial cost to the entrepreneurs who have set them up.
The provisions in clauses 2 and 3 address just one of those weaknesses, and much more is needed. We need a complete reform of Companies House so that, for example, details of the beneficial ownership of Scottish limited partnerships and other secretive company structures have to be published. We have known for years that SLPs have been used to launder millions of pounds of dirty money created by illicit business activities, usually related to organised crime. We need to see action soon to put a stop to that. We need to reinstate the principle of the reverse burden of proof on senior bank managers, for example. When something goes wrong on their watch, rather than it being up to the authorities to prove that they were negligent, can we go back to requiring the bank manager to prove that they were doing the right thing? This reverse burden of proof often applies in other cases of professional misconduct or questions about professional conduct. All our regulators, including the Insolvency Service and the Financial Conduct Authority, need to be adequately resourced to keep up with the almost limitless ingenuity of the criminals they are trying to keep tabs on. That is about not just the amount of money they have, but the degree of training and experience that their people have, so that the person asked to take a decision as to whether somebody is fit to be registered with the FCA has the experience to know what kinds of warning signs to look out for.
Finally, we need legislation that allows us not just to disqualify directors who are guilty of wrongdoing; it should allow the authorities to order them to pay compensation to the victims. In some cases, I will support that on the basis of a civil balance of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities, rather than the much higher bar of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is why so many cases that the Serious Fraud Office takes to court never get as far as a conviction. We welcome the provisions in clauses 2 and 3. If the long title and the scope of this legislation had allowed it, we would have been submitting a significant number of amendments to improve it on Report. I hope the time is not too far away when legislation on the wider issue comes before the House so that directors cannot simply avoid disqualification by scrapping their vehicles.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
A snappy title it is not, but a very important Bill it is, for two very good reasons. I wish to recap by saying that this Government have supported the jobs and livelihoods of the people of this country to the tune of some £400 billion—£300 billion in the past year alone; the last time we exceeded 10% of GDP was in the financial crisis, and before then world war two, and we are still supporting businesses, as we are doing with this Bill. When we are trying to protect the jobs and livelihoods of so many people, there will inevitably be areas of difficulty, yet the Government have always tried to support as many people as possible. The £16 billion-worth of rates relief has been an absolute lifeline for countless businesses, including those that get in touch with me in my constituency and others all around the country. The Government are to be commended for that. Even when businesses are more difficult to support, the discretionary funds for local authorities to be able to target those businesses are also a lifeline, and therefore the £1.5 billon of additional support for businesses whose circumstances have perhaps changed during the pandemic is incredibly important and welcome.
I want to touch on an equally serious matter: we read that potentially 60% of the £46.5 billion that has been lent out through various Government schemes—lent, I might add—might be defaulted on and not repaid. When the Government are the guarantor, I certainly welcome the Treasury taking the necessary steps to mitigate that risk and the retrospective powers to curb that significant problem, putting the parameters in place to deal with directors who might dissolve a company, walk away from their responsibilities and then not just have an effect on many people, such as creditors who are equally trying to get back on their feet, but cheat the taxpayers, who must also get back on their feet. That money is so important for the re-emergence of our economy, and we absolutely have to ensure that our public services can get up again, so any power through legislation, with the legal process in there to mitigate that, is very welcome.
It is worth pointing out that we have to be mindful slightly of not being out of this pandemic, and therefore, in going after directors who default on their responsibilities —I was a director once, and I would never dream of defaulting—we need to be careful to enable businesses to resurge again. We have to make sure that approaches to recoup the money are done in the right way. I am happy that the Exchequer is being protected in this way. I think it is very sensible legislation. We know that when we create something retrospectively it is often because we have moved at speed to protect taxpayers in the first place. This is very welcome legislation, and I back it 100%.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while agreeing that the disqualification regime should be extended to directors of dissolved companies, declines to give a Second Reading to the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill because it retrospectively overrules more than 500,000 business rates appeals made by 170,000 businesses, fails to consult the affected businesses to deliver adequate support, puts business and jobs at risk by delaying the delivery of additional business rates relief, ignores the impact of the pandemic on companies that have been excluded from business rates relief, fails to recognise the impact of the pandemic on jobs and businesses in the supply chain of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from office-based companies to manufacturing firms, severely limits the only route available to tens of thousands of businesses in claiming Government support during the pandemic, sets a troubling precedent for future crises by retrospectively limiting businesses’ right to challenge their business rates bill, fails to bring forward meaningful reforms of the business rates system and risks leading to more job losses and company closures during an economic crisis.”
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for his engagement on the contents of this Bill. The Liberal Democrats are pleased to support the aspects of it that relate to directors’ disqualification. We have seen far too often how individuals and businesses that are owed money can be defrauded by companies being dissolved and the fact that there is a lack of powers to pursue individuals for debts.
The urgency of introducing new legislation to protect against those practices has been sharpened by the large sums loaned to support businesses throughout the pandemic. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, recently conducted an inquiry into the bounce back loan scheme, and concluded that the combined fraud and credit risk of the scheme was between £15 billion and £26 billion. Although it was right for the Government to take the action they took and continue to take to protect businesses from the impact of the pandemic and the lockdown, it is now necessary to ensure that as many of those loans as possible can be repaid and to circumvent any possible actions that might fraudulently avoid repayment.
UK businesses, especially those in the worst hit sectors of retail, hospitality, travel and the creative industries, are beginning to emerge from this pandemic with an enormous debt burden. While I welcome these measures to ensure that UK taxpayers are not defrauded, there remains an enormous question mark over how many business owners who have conducted their affairs honestly and with integrity will face a debt burden for many years to come, and the extent to which that will be a drag on the revival of our economy. I urge the Minister to keep this issue at the top of his priority list and to support our indebted small businesses in whatever way he can.
Many businesses will be dealing with their indebtedness by looking to cut costs wherever they can, which will include reviewing all their existing expenses and exploring whether these can be effectively reduced. For many businesses, this will include applying to the Valuation Office Agency for a review of the rateable value of their business premises. Many businesses will be citing a material change of circumstances resulting from the pandemic and the lockdown as the reason for their application. This is an established route for businesses to appeal against the amount of rates they pay. Major crises or changes in the law, such as the foot and mouth disease outbreak or the smoking ban, have previously been accepted as valid reasons for business rates appeals. Many businesses have had their business model permanently changed by covid, and where that will impact on the valuation of the property they operate from, their ratings appeals deserve consideration by the Valuation Office Agency.
I want to pick up on the comment from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) about my amendment and to reassure him that it is about the market value, as it were, or the underlying value of the business. He cited nightclubs. I can probably count in decades the last time that I was in a nightclub. I do not know whether he has more recent experience, but it is a really good example of an industry that has been really badly impacted by the pandemic. Of course, not just the operating business model of individual nightclub businesses but the underlying value of nightclub premises will have been impacted, and that will be the material change of circumstances that those businesses will be relying on to contest their business rates.
Kevin Hollinrake
Rarely is a property built to be a nightclub. It is a property, which is valued on the basis of its rental value, which leads to the rateable value. That business may change hands and go from being a nightclub to a different kind of business. How could we have a rates system dependent on the business type that occupy premises? That is not how the business rates system works.
Sarah Olney
The hon. Member raises a valuable point. Nevertheless, if a property has always been operated as a nightclub business, a change of use, for example, which may well require an appeal to the local planning authority, still has a measurable impact on the value of that property.
I understand that 170,000 businesses have made 500,000 appeals to the VOA for consideration under covid-related material changes of circumstances. The Bill’s provisions retrospectively overrule covid-19 and Government restrictions as valid reasons for business rates appeals, effectively scrapping all 500,000 appeals. Instead, the Government propose a £1.5 billion fund to support payment of business rates for companies previously left out of business rates support—in other words, all those not in the retail or hospitality sectors, who have had a business rates holiday. However, the fund will not be available until after the Bill has received Royal Assent, and its Second Reading has already been delayed for 10 days, so how much longer will businesses have to wait before being compensated for not having paid a fair amount on their business rates?
There has been a lack of consultation with businesses before introducing the Bill and the proposed fund, and many firms will be left struggling with higher costs as a result. That is a direct threat to employment and to the ability of our economy to recover from the pandemic. I tabled the reasoned amendment outlining the Lib Dems’ opposition to the Bill, but I shall not press it to a vote.
Members of all parties in the House agree on the need for review and reform of the business rates regime. It imposes costs on businesses that they are powerless to control and creates an unfair playing field for businesses that do not trade out of rateable premises. The Government could make the simple move of committing to annual revaluations instead of every five years. With that, those businesses that genuinely qualify for a rating reduction would see those benefits much sooner and we could remove the need for an appeals process to reduce their costs. Every effort should be made to support businesses and to save jobs. Implementing a punitive retrospective change in the law to prevent businesses taking practical action to save on their non-staff costs represents a threat to the economy and jobs. The Government could take practical action today to help businesses, but they prefer to proceed with this Bill, which enshrines a concerning precedent that will cause many businesses to struggle.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I thank the Minister for setting the scene so very well and for answering some of the questions that I had. I will ask a few questions—it is my nature to do so—which perhaps the Minister will be able to answer for me. Rating is a devolved issue and thus the Northern Ireland Assembly will seek to apply the legislation so that businesses in Northern Ireland are on an equal footing with those on the mainland. The Minister referred to that in his introduction, and I appreciate that, although I feel the need to stress once again that the Northern Ireland protocol is in itself putting our businesses not simply on an unequal footing but on a different playing field. That is not the debate for today, but I want to put that on the record.
The fact of the matter is this: for many businesses, the coronavirus aid package for rates was the only thing that kept the creditors away from the door. I thank the Government and Ministers for all that they did to help businesses. If we are being honest and real, we know that is why businesses are in business today, and why—hopefully—they will continue beyond the next period of time. It is important that we give credit where credit is due. The only thing that kept those creditors away was the rates package, but for some people that was not enough, and coronavirus is the final nail in the coffin—we do not know how the future will unfold over the next period—which is lamentable, and we must continue to support our businesses through a difficult time. The news this morning back home was that some of the grant aid would come to an end this Wednesday, so I would be grateful if the Minister gave us an indication of what help will be available beyond the end of this month.
We are all aware in the House that there are some people who will take what was meant for good, to help those who need it, and use it for their benefit outside the realms intended by the grants. There are always people who may abuse the system and turn it to their advantage. I know one honourable man in my constituency—I know many honourable men and honourable women in my constituency, but I will talk about one in particular—who told me that he did not apply for any grants whatsoever and he could continue to trade during the coronavirus outbreak. However, he also told me that he could do with support right now, as the Northern Ireland protocol has increased his price on orders, and prevented him from selling dog treats in his shop, along with other profitable lines. He would wish me, on his behalf, to inquire what help or rates reduction is available with regard to the insidious protocol.
Moving on, it has become clear that in order to help those who need it, we must tighten loopholes used by those who do not need help. The Government have set parameters tonight, and have closed some loopholes, and I am pleased that they have done so. That is why I support the aims of the Bill in closing the loophole with regard to the disqualification of directors. Currently, the power to disqualify directors under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 applies only to directors of companies that have become insolvent. It does not apply to the director of a company that has been dissolved and, as a result, to obtain a disqualification order against a former director of such a company is arduous, time-consuming and costly, as the Secretary of State must apply to the court to restore the dissolved company to the register of companies. The process involves paying various fees, and once the company has been restored to the register, powers under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985 can be used to obtain information and documents that are necessary to investigate the conduct of a director. Finally, a disqualification order can be sought or an undertaking obtained under section 8 of the CDDA on the grounds that disqualification is in the public interest—or section 6 of the CDDA, but only if the restored company is insolvent. Those steps meant that in 2019, out of 529,680 UK company dissolutions, 33 companies were restored to the register in England and Wales so that they could be liquidated instead.
We do not have any idea how many cases were not made for those who abused the system, but I have seen an estimate—perhaps the Minister can give us an indication of the number at the end of the debate—that at most, misconduct occurs in 1% of company dissolutions, or about 5,000 a year. Can the Minister confirm that that is the figure, as I am concerned that the number may rise? Will he set out the steps that will be taken to ensure that it does not, as more insolvencies are expected due to the pandemic and, unfortunately, abuses are feared, in some cases, of the coronavirus loan scheme?
In conclusion, I agree that we should simplify the rules, which should not affect those who have done the right thing. We should give credit to those who did so, and those who want to do the right thing every time. I therefore support clause 2, which relates to sections 6 and 7 of the CDDA, as it will address the problem and close the loophole. The measure is also supported by professional accountancy bodies among others. There is a finite amount of grant aid and support available, so we have to be prudent. As the good book says, every one of us has a duty to be prudent with what we have and to use it correctly, so not one penny of the grant aid and support available should go to the unscrupulous. I support the Bill, and I thank the Government for what they have said tonight.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition and to consider the contributions made by hon. Members. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), for the meeting we had beforehand, in which we were able to discuss aspects of the Bill and issues that have been raised in the debate.
We have had some very positive and helpful contributions, including from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), with whom I have worked closely on mortgage prisoner issues and other areas of financial services regulation. He brought his characteristic clarity to the debate, raising issues including prosecutions for fraud and the resources that are necessary for us to be able to act. The speech by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) was so clear that it did not require an intervention, and I thank him for it. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made the important point that Northern Ireland businesses should remain on the same footing as those in the rest of the UK. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) was right about the debt burden that businesses are facing, which is one reason why the Opposition have called for a flexible debt repayment scheme based on what businesses earn. That continues to be an essential part of how the Government must support businesses going forward.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) outlined at the start, the Bill contains some positive measures and we support its going forward. However, we want it to deliver for businesses and local authorities and to bring justice to unscrupulous company directors, and it also needs to be workable for the Valuation Office Agency and the Insolvency Service. However, there are significant gaps in the detail, which must be addressed if the Bill is to achieve its aim.
Clause 1 rules out covid-related material changes in circumstances in relation to business rates appeals. We understand that assessing thousands of appeals would not be the best use of the Valuation Office Agency’s time when a full revaluation is due to take place in 2023. However, it is vital that this change is coupled with the £1.5 billion relief fund for businesses that have been badly affected by the pandemic but that have so far missed out on business rates reliefs—a point well argued by the Federation of Small Businesses, and I will come back to that point and to concerns that it may not cover everyone. The funding should also support businesses and supply chains that have been unfairly overlooked for so long.
Confirmation that the fund is an alternative to adjustments to rateable values as a result of material changes in circumstances appeals also provides much-needed certainty to local authorities. Since 2013 business rates revenue has formed an increasingly substantial part of local government revenue. While this reliance on business rates is imperfect and longer-term reform is needed, a large fluctuation in income at the tail end of the pandemic would be the last thing that local authorities need, and the Bill makes that less likely.
However, the lack of detail around the £1.5 billion fund is worrying. Since the figure was announced in March, businesses and local authorities have had no further detail on how the amount was calculated, how it will be allocated and who will be eligible, nor is there guidance on how it should be administered. Councils are expected to develop and set up local schemes to deliver this business grant relief, but they cannot start the process until they receive their individual allocations and until the Government publish national guidance setting out the parameters for the scheme.
We are concerned that the allocations will not begin until the Bill has passed through Parliament, meaning that payments are unlikely to be made until September at the earliest. Businesses and local authorities are united in crying out for clarity on the distribution process, for clear and straightforward award criteria and for simplicity and speed in getting the funding out. Waiting until September will mean that many businesses will not survive long enough to benefit, especially in the light of the decision to postpone the next phase of unlocking and the fact that economic measures have not been continuing in lockstep with public health restrictions.
The Government previously said that this grant-based approach was to ensure that relief could be awarded more quickly than if it was sought under a rating appeal, so again, why the delay? I reiterate that the Government must publish an early release of the funding allocations and eligibility criteria, and I urge the Government to work closely with local authorities and the Local Government Association to make sure that that guidance is as clear as possible.
There are also further questions to ask about how the Government calculated the figure of £1.5 billion. What assurances can they give that it will be sufficient to support the businesses that have struggled so much without rates relief during the pandemic? I would be grateful if the Minister could cover that in his closing remarks. While the £1.5 billion discretionary fund has been broadly welcomed, the ruling out of material changes in circumstances rate appeals, as he knows, will have come as a disappointment to many businesses. Have the Government made an assessment of how many are likely to have been affected by the closing off of this avenue and how much they would have been able to claim back otherwise? Did these sums inform the Government’s calculation of the £1.5 billion figure?
The Minister will also be aware of the concerns of airports such as Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester, and the need for a proper deal for aviation, which, so far, the Government have failed to bring forward. Heathrow has continued to pay its £120 million annual business rates bill in full despite the plummeting passenger numbers, so has the Minister undertaken an assessment of the impact that the Bill will have on the operation of pieces of national infrastructure such as airports? Was any consideration given to exempting them from the provisions?
I will make a few comments on the directors disqualification aspects of the Bill in clauses 2 and 3. It has long been known that a small number of directors of companies fraudulently use the dissolution process as a way of avoiding paying back loans, and this has become a particular concern with the covid-19 bounce back loans. With the dramatic increase in the number of company dissolutions this year compared with last year, there are fears that a minority of rogue directors have sought to use this mechanism to avoid repaying state-backed loans. It is therefore right that the Bill aims to close the dissolution loophole, allowing directors who have unscrupulously dissolved their companies to be punished and deterring others from doing this in the future.
Additionally, applying to court to have dissolved companies restored is time-consuming and costly to the public purse. It is right that the Bill removes this hurdle to tackling business corruption, but it is unfortunate that it comes now rather than three years ago, when a Government consultation, which the Minister referred to in his opening remarks, on the Insolvency Service’s powers saw the majority of respondents agree that there was a gap in powers in relation to directors of dissolved companies. If action had been taken more promptly, as I think the Minister would agree, the significant exploitation of the bounce back loan scheme may never have happened in this way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington raised Labour’s concerns about how additional investigations will be funded and the need for adequate resourcing of the VOA and the Insolvency Service. R3, the insolvency and restructuring trade body, has highlighted its members’ concerns that not all their reports to the Insolvency Service are acted on, even where serious breaches of the law are suspected, due to resourcing issues. So how do the Government intend to address this while also ensuring that the Insolvency Service stands ready to take on a potentially even bigger case load?
I would add that if resourcing delays result in investigations going beyond three years since the company is dissolved, and that consequently means that a Government run out of time to apply for a disqualification order against a culpable director, that would be an utterly unjust outcome and an incentive for the phoenixism that we want to see end. It would also surely fail the public interest test, so, finally, will the Minister explicitly clarify whether the Government plan to use compensation orders against disqualified directors? The Government’s approach to this must be made clear so that there is efficiency in returning funds to the public purse and other creditors can be monitored and evaluated properly.
I hope that the Government have been able to take note of the issues raised during this debate. Labour will keep pushing for these vital improvements and particularly for swift guidance and the release of the £1.5 billion relief fund. With many of the hardest-hit businesses yet again facing uncertainty following the extension of covid restrictions, we owe it to them to make this Bill genuinely helpful and not one more thing to worry about.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
This is a Bill of two halves, considering that the football is on at the moment, and the contributions that we have heard from Members throughout the House attest to the importance of each of them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government for opening these proceedings by setting out the context and the background of both elements of the Bill. I am also grateful to all the Members in all parts of the House who have participated in the debate. The points that have been raised are really important and I am glad to have the opportunity to respond, first on business rates and then on the measures relating to the disqualification of unfit directors of dissolved companies.
The House has today supported the point made by hon. Friend that the pandemic has unquestionably had a significant impact on ratepayers. This impact has been felt particularly by those in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, but also by many other businesses that sit elsewhere in the wider economy. That is why since April 2020 the Government have provided £16 billion of business rates relief targeted at ratepayers in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. As announced on 25 March, the Government intend that this will be supplemented by an additional £1.5 billion of relief to be made available to ratepayers who have not been able to benefit from the reliefs already put in place throughout the pandemic. Taken together, that represents an unprecedented package of support that reflects the unique impact of the pandemic on our economy.
These unprecedented circumstances have also tested other aspects of the business rates system, which was created long before covid-19 and was not designed with pandemics in mind. The material change of circumstances process is designed to be used in cases such as localised roadworks. Market-wide economic changes such as those arising from a pandemic can and should be considered only at a comprehensive business rates revaluation. Arguing material change of circumstances cases through the courts could result in years of uncertainty and is unnecessary where we can, as we are doing now, amend the law to ensure that it meets its original intention.
Sarah Olney
On what the Minister has said about the material change of circumstances argument not being appropriate in this case, would it not have been appropriate to have made it clear earlier in the pandemic, perhaps as long as a year ago, that it would not be an appropriate route for businesses looking to reduce their rates payment and not a circumstance that could be cited?
Paul Scully
A lot of messages can go out and have gone out over the past year so that we can flex in our ability to work with businesses. I think I can boil down my relatively long job title to “Minister for unintended consequences”. We are always trying to make sure that we can flex and get clear messages out to businesses. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. We have heard a lot about the £1.5 billion and when the guidance will be out. Clearly that is dependent on the passage of this Bill, but we want to make sure that we can work with the LGA and councils to give the clearest guidance so that they can get the money out as quickly as possible. The argument made by Members on both sides of the House is countered by the fact that by not having to go through so many appeals we can speed up the process and get the money out within weeks rather than, in certain cases, if we had to go through the entire process, years. That is why we can provide certainty to local authorities, which rely on income from business rates to fund their vital local services. It is on that basis that the Public Accounts Committee has welcomed the approach taken by the Government in the Bill.
Members have raised questions relating to when ratepayers will be able to benefit from the £1.5 billion relief that was announced on 25 March. We will work with all areas of local government to deliver the new relief scheme as soon as possible, once the Bill is passed, so that local authorities can set up their local relief scheme. The allocation of the £1.5 billion among local authorities will be made according to which sectors have suffered most economically rather than on the basis of temporary falls in individual property values. That will ensure that the support is provided to businesses in the fastest and the fairest way possible.
Seema Malhotra
Does the Minister have any clarity at all on the timetable so that local authorities know what to expect and when?
Paul Scully
The answer is as soon as possible, once this Bill has passed. I am looking forward to working with the hon. Lady in Committee to make sure that we can work through this as quickly as possible. Clearly, work will be done in consultation and conversation with the LGA and local councils to ensure that we can get comprehensive guidance in place. That is how we have been working over the past 14 months with local authorities on the other grant schemes.
Let me briefly cover a couple of quick points. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) asked whether there will be a blanket ban on MCCs. I can absolutely confirm that there is no blanket ban. On airports, it is a core principle of the business rates system that a material change of circumstances should be used between rate revaluations, so the drop in demand for airports in light of the pandemic is exactly the sort of market-wide economic change affecting property values that can and should only be considered at revaluation. We have been supporting airports with their fixed costs over the past year from the airport and ground operations support scheme. In his recent Budget, the Chancellor announced a further six months of support up to the equivalent of their business rates liability for the first half of the 2021-22 financial year, subject to certain conditions, and a cap per claimant of £4 million.
Paul Scully
I will not give way, but I will happily come back to the hon. Lady if I have not answered her question. I do want to get through a few areas.
Let me quickly turn to the disqualification of directors of dissolved companies. The issue of insolvency funding came up a few times. Clearly, we will be working with the Insolvency Service to ensure that it has the resources to do its job. It employs its finite resources to the maximum effect by prioritising cases in which there has been most harm to the public and the wider marketplace. Clearly, its resources are not limitless.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about insolvencies. Actually, the number of insolvencies has been at a 40-year low over the past few months because, effectively, in many areas, the economy has been held in stasis. That is why it is so important that, having put £352 billion-worth of support into the economy, we now have 352 billion reasons why we have to get the next bit right—why we have to help shape the recovery through these mitigations. We need to make sure that we continue to flex and continue to extend the support. That is why furlough carries on until September and why we have ensured that the winding-up proceedings have been extended for another nine months as well, so that we can get conversations going with landlords and tenants. It is so, so important to continue these measures.
I am glad that we have had broad support for the measures. In terms of compensation, directors can obviously be held personally liable for debt, and where there are breaches, there is disqualification.
Peter Grant
I note the Minister’s comments that directors can be held personally liable, but does he accept that allowing an individual investor or creditor to sue a director at their own risk is very different from a scheme through which the Government or some other body effectively take that legal action on behalf of a group of aggrieved individuals, who individually cannot afford the risk of taking that action?
Paul Scully
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Let me just answer a couple of his points. He talked about corporate governance and audit reform. That is something that we will legislate on as soon as parliamentary time allows. He referenced a Minister saying that we would adhere to standards that we thought that we could get away with. No, that is absolutely not the case. I did not hear that comment, but I suspect what the Minister said and meant was that we are accountable to the electorate. When I heard about that comment, I thought about my own constituency where I know at least one High Court judge, an insolvency practitioner, lawyers, forensic accountants, civil servants—I have them in my own Department never mind my constituency—and journalists and, boy, will they hold me to account at the ballot box, in my local media and in the national media should it be appropriate to do so. That is that standard to which we expect to work as a Government. I am glad that he also mentioned phoenixing, because this will strengthen the phoenixing legislation as well.
I have noted the helpful contributions made by Members across the House, and I am looking forward to working with colleagues in Committee to make sure that we can get this really important legislation for both of these measures through. The scrutiny that has been provided today is, as always, greatly appreciated. I look forward to discussing this Bill with Members throughout its passage, and I commend it to the House.
Sarah Olney
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) 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.
Committee on Standards
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 149A, Ms Mehmuda Mian be appointed as lay member of the Committee on Standards for a period of six years, with immediate effect.
The motion gives the House the opportunity to approve the appointment of Ms Mehmuda Mian as a lay member of the Committee on Standards for a period of six years. I move the motion on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, which concluded that Ms Mian will bring the necessary skills and experience to the Committee’s work that the recruitment process was intended to deliver. Her appointment will also contribute to maintaining a diversity of experience, gender and background among the seven-strong team of lay members.
Ms Mian is a solicitor, with significant non-executive regulatory and governance experience. She is presently a non-executive director of Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and a board member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, both since 2015. She is also a disciplinary committee member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and an associate director of the Lokahi Foundation. In addition, she has previously served as a non-executive director of the Disclosure and Barring Service at the Independent Safeguarding Authority, and is a trustee of the BBC. She had earlier roles as a commissioner at the Independent Police Complaints Commission and as a member of the Police Complaints Authority.
The lay members of the Committee on Standards play an essential role in providing an independent voice to the Committee’s decisions. When lay members were first proposed over a decade ago, the rationale given by the Committee on Standards in Public Life was that it would be a step towards enhancing public acceptance of the robustness and independence of the disciplinary process for Members of Parliament. The independent and impartial status of lay members is therefore critical to maintaining confidence in our process.
The first three lay members of the Committee were appointed in 2012, and the Standing Orders were amended in 2015 to increase the number of lay members to seven. The term of office of the first tranche of lay members came to an end on 30 March 2017, and on 15 March 2017 three further lay members were appointed by the House to replace them. Two of the four lay members recruited in 2016 came to the end of their four-year terms on 18 May 2020; the other two had been appointed for six-year terms. On 10 November 2020, the House appointed one further lay member. The other vacancy remained unfilled.
Today’s motion will restore the full complement of lay members. This debate reflects the House’s important role in approving such appointments. Should the House agree to the appointment of Ms Mian today, I would like to take the opportunity to wish her well as she takes up her new role. I commend the motion to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is vital, given the importance of their work, that lay members of the Committee on Standards are well tested, carefully selected and able to bring extensive experience to the Committee. There has been a thorough and fair recruitment process that attracted a high calibre of applicants. I confirm that, as the Leader of the House said, it was thoroughly scrutinised by the House of Commons Commission, and we support the panel’s decision.
Ms Mian was found to be the best candidate and to be entirely suitable for the important work of the Committee. I was particularly interested in her various scrutiny roles. I hope and believe that she meets with the approval of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chair of the Committee, and I am sure that we will welcome her and value her work. The Commission entirely supports this decision.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
As a recently appointed member of the Committee on Standards, I welcome this appointment. Elected Members of this Parliament are already expected to meet high standards in public life, as defined by the Nolan principles, and to adhere to the House of Commons code of conduct and related rules of the House. It cannot be right for MPs alone to be the sole adjudicators and decision makers on whether other elected Members—who may be friends, political colleagues or indeed political adversaries —may be in breach of the code of conduct. That would, I believe, be totally unacceptable to the public whom we are all elected to represent and serve.
From my limited experience on the Committee, I can say that the contribution of the current lay members is exceptional: they bring a wealth of knowledge, skills and experience of public life at a senior level across a diverse range of sectors. Lay members also bring a fresh perspective that is not clouded by political affiliations or party loyalties. Their independent and impartial status allows them to focus on the circumstances and the evidence in individual cases. They are therefore crucial to maintaining transparency, confidence and trust in the Committee’s work and decision making.
From what I know of Ms Mian from her curriculum vitae, her previous experience and involvement in public life will enhance and complement that of the existing lay members, and she would make an excellent addition to the lay membership of the Committee. I understand that she has been through a thorough and rigorous selection process and is recommended for appointment by those responsible for carrying out that process.
This appointment will bring the number of lay members up to the full complement of seven, equal to the number of MPs on the Committee, and will enhance the diversity of the Committee. I therefore fully support the appointment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Committee on Standards.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May I say that the panel was very ably chaired by Rima Makarem? She herself, as a lay member of the House of Commons Commission, is a clear instance of how much lay members can bring to the way we do our business. It was also clerked very ably by Dr Robin James, the Clerk of our Committee.
Mehmuda has extensive experience. It is good that she has worked in so many different organisations as a committee member, non-executive director and so on. I was particularly impressed that she has been dealing with vets—somehow that seemed particularly appropriate for dealing with Members of Parliament. I was a member of the interview panel. What was really striking was that she showed a really strong sense of fairness, an ability to judge nuance and a capacity to work within a committee on sensitive issues. She did not seem to want to be the chair, either, which I rather liked. She also had a robust understanding of regulation. I am very confident that she will be a magnificent member of the Committee.
I have been the Chair of the Committee for the best part of a year, and the only regret I have is that since 18 May last year we have not had our full complement. For several months we were two down on the lay members, and we have been one down for more than a year. We need not rehearse all those arguments now, but I just hope that when we are replacing the new members, as we will have to do in the future, we can perhaps start this process a bit earlier so that there is no gap. We have an awful lot of work to do, and I very much look forward to welcoming Mehmuda at tomorrow morning’s meeting.
Question put and agreed to.
Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That Marta Phillips, Dr Simon Thurley and Simon Wright be appointed as external members of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body under Part 1, Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019.
The House will be relieved that I do not intend to detain it long. The 90 minutes available for this debate may be more than is necessary, but it may help if I explain that I am bringing this motion forward on behalf of the Sponsor Body. Schedule 1 of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 states that the Sponsor Body must consist of between two and four external members, excluding the chairman. The current external board members were appointed on 1 July 2018, when the Sponsor Body was still in shadow form. Their appointments were confirmed by the House on 24 March 2020, as the body became a statutory organisation. Under the Act, a member must be appointed for a fixed term of not more than three years, although they can be reappointed. Their terms will therefore expire no later than 31 June 2021.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am not going to delay people for long either. I just wonder: we are doing all this appointing of people to the Sponsor Body, but are they ever going to mix a bucket of cement?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think it unlikely that Marta Phillips, Dr Simon Thurley and Simon Wright will mix buckets of cement on the estate of the Palace of Westminster. I am glad to say that work is going on. I have reported already to the House that the fire safety work has taken place and been tested across the estate, and I think that eight miles of pipe have gone in. Preliminary works are under way to make the preparations: Derby Gate is almost completed, and there will be a move of MPs into Richmond House. Many things are happening that will allow the restoration and renewal to take place, so I hope that that gives some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. It is important that we keep up the pace to get to the full restoration and renewal. As for the individual members of the Sponsor Body mixing cement, that may be something they did in the earlier stages of their careers, but I do not think they will be doing it tomorrow.
A recruitment process for external board members has been undertaken by the Sponsor Body in recent months, and the interview panel included the chairman of the Sponsor Board, a parliamentary member of the Sponsor Board and an independent panel member. Following the recruitment process, the Sponsor Body has reappointed three of the four current external board members. I am grateful to all the external members of the Sponsor Board for their work so far. Today’s motion will approve the reappointment of Marta Phillips, Dr Simon Thurley and Simon Wright, and I therefore commend this motion to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
As custodians of this beautiful place, we face serious duties for which almost all of us here are supremely unqualified. The Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority were therefore established in order to bring in the skills and qualities and, above all, the knowledge and experience that we so obviously lack to the essential process of restoration and renewal, untroubled by any political considerations that we may have and aided by the relevant qualities. I understand that the new members to be appointed will bring such qualities. We have to give this magnificent building the love and care that it needs, and in order to do that, we need the right people in the right place at the right time.
Chris Bryant
It is good that Simon Thurley is there, but would not my hon. Friend be surprised if such an eminent historian as Mr Thurley were to support a proposal that the parliamentary archives should be hived off to Kew, probably never to return here again? Is it not important that the parliamentary archives should remain here in Parliament and in Westminster?
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it gives me an opportunity to agree with him most wholeheartedly. There are many other things on which we all have personal preferences that we would like to pronounce on. I, for one, would like to see the restoration of the cloisters to the parliamentary Labour party as soon as possible. For that, we need stonemasons and stonemasonry apprenticeships. If some of those could be allocated to some of my constituents in Bristol West, I would be most happy. I also recommend, to colleagues who have not had the pleasure, receiving a briefing from the parliamentary Sponsor Body engagement staff. I had a wonderful briefing today on the matter of voids. I will never again look at the grills under the Chamber in the same way, Madam Deputy Speaker, knowing what I do now and what it looks like underneath.
The Sponsor Body, of course, does know of what they speak. I am looking forward to seeing them get on with buckets, stonemasonry and whatever else they may need to do in order that we may preserve, enhance and give this building the love it needs to restore it to the fullest possible health and effectivity.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I had not intended to respond, but as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned the archives I would like to say that I entirely agree with him. It is extremely unfortunate that the Victoria Tower, a purpose-built archive, should not continue to be used for that purpose. I am deeply concerned about the lack of engagement there has been with Members of this House about the proposal, which many of us felt was rather sprung upon us. I am delighted to note that there seems to be cross-party consensus, with the shadow Leader of the House in favour of keeping the archive in the Victoria Tower. I hope that that will be taken on board by other authorities.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
East West Rail Route Consultation: North East Bedfordshire
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The purpose of this evening’s Adjournment debate is to discuss the East West Rail consultation and North East Bedfordshire. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the flaws caused by the consultation process for the East West Rail route decision from Bedford to Cambridge. This is not a debate to argue for or against the railway in principle. Nor is it a debate to support or oppose any particular route corridor, or line of route. The purpose of the debate is to expose the significant problems of the consultation, which have created a significant deficit of trust with many of my constituents, and to request the Minister to investigate the many concerns with how the East West Rail project between Bedford and Cambridge is progressing.
As we have seen over the last two decades—indeed, over the last two weeks—people are increasingly sensitive to top-down initiatives that fundamentally change their communities and over which they believe their voice has not been heard. I thank local parish councils and their co-ordinating group BFARe—Bedford for a Re-Consultation—for their forensic analysis in preparing for this debate, and mention that I live near Bedford station. I welcome the Minister, who has been very open with his time and attention to this project. Finally, I thank the chief executive officer of East West Rail, who has today agreed to join me in walking the routes later this month.
The flaws in the consultation are multiple. Individually and collectively, they have broken down the trust of many of my constituents. Let me briefly list the main concerns raised with me. The consultation exercise gives every indication of being purposefully designed to reduce the interest and participation of residents in the area ultimately selected for the route. Critical cost assumptions have escalated wildly and never been open to proper scrutiny, and are facts—facts—that were dramatically changed after the consultation had closed, making the least attractive route the most attractive route. Constituents were not provided with an opportunity to comment on that, giving every impression of its being a fix.
The environmental impact assessment was cursory, falls far short of our net zero expectations and may result in brutal scarring of the Bedfordshire countryside forever. Critical local authority input to the consultation from Bedford Borough Council, upon which the Minister and his Department will rely, was submitted without approval from the council as a whole—a secret plan, containing flaky economic assumptions, airbrushing out references to existing homes that will have to be demolished, and potentially concealing acceptance of additional housing development as the price to be paid for the chosen route.
Finally, there was a failure to account for multiple changes, from covid to an emphasis on freight, a more polluting fuel and still rising costs—changes that risk making this rail line between two leading universities not a shining 21st-century example of global Britain but a polluting white elephant with potentially very significant cost overruns.
The 2019 consultation exercise was not statutory, but as the phrase goes, if something is worth doing, it is worth doing well. That consultation was not done well. Many parish councils on the potential routes were not contacted, including three in my constituency at Colmworth, Staploe and Wilden, all of which are on route E, the current preferred route. Postcards notifying residents of the consultation were sent to only some residents in the affected areas, not to all residents. Coverage of those postcards was variable; some wards received 5% coverage and others 20%, with no explanation for the variance.
Of the responses received to the consultation, fully half were from supporters of a single charity, which obviously made a tremendous effort to consult its members. That raises the question why East West Rail was not able to generate a fraction of that participation. Of all the in-person consultation events, not one was held in the area that was ultimately selected as the preferred route.
Those facts are the foundation for the lack of trust. I have spoken to countless residents who say they found out about the railway only after their opportunity to have their say was done. This is very shaky ground on which to proceed.
In the 2019 consultation documentation, there were five route options, A through E. Routes, A, B, C and D had costs of between £2 billion and £2.6 billion. Route E, the one subsequently chosen, had a substantially higher cost of £3.4 billion, £1 billion more than the average of the others, going into the consultation.
In the documentation released after the consultation, the cost figures for each of the routes A, B, C and D were raised by more than £1.3 billion, with increases of between 50% and 80%, yet the costs for route E were changed by only 9%. No satisfactory explanation has been provided for why East West Rail got the costs so hopelessly wrong on four of the route options and so forensically right on the one that it selected. The consequence was that route E went from being the most expensive to the second cheapest and became the preferred route.
It is clear why many residents feel cheated by a consultation that gives every appearance of having had its numbers fixed after their right to be consulted had ended. Does the Minister agree that the change in cost estimates played a significant role in the route decision process? Does he agree that that change clearly indicates that the consultation was done too early and gave a misleading impression to consultees? Does he worry, as I do, that the Treasury should be highly sceptical of any project cost estimates made in the future by East West Rail?
Two years after the first consultation, there remains considerable mystery about the costs and benefits of each route. As one constituent advises me, these uncertainties and the general lack of financial transparency indicate the clear risk of future cost overruns with a failure to achieve claimed economic benefits. I have asked East West Rail for a detailed session with me and others to unpack the costs and assumptions. Will the Minister nudge East West Rail to grant that meeting?
The Campaign to Protect Rural England for Bedfordshire has stated its firm opposition to the route selected and highlighted severe limitations in the consideration of the environment in the consultation.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I also entered the ballot to speak on behalf of my constituents, but clearly I was not as lucky as the hon. Gentleman. I share his concerns about the environmental impact of East West Rail, which is why I have called for the full electrification of the line. I cannot understand how the Government would even consider building new transport infrastructure into the 2030s without clean energy being the priority. What puzzles me is that route E has been known for at least three years, and the hon. Member—he can correct me if I am wrong—claims to be neutral about routes, but when route E was confirmed in January 2020, he said:
“I am pleased that the government has made this announcement to progress investment in this important rail link.”
Perhaps he can clarify that, and I will come back in.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Gentleman may or may not come back in—I think that is up to me to decide. Having granted him the opportunity to speak on behalf of his constituents, it is rather strange that he took the opportunity to quote—or misquote—my views to try to sow division on this issue. Actually, what he should be doing is speaking up for his constituents whose houses are being demolished as part of this process. That is what I thought he was going to intervene about, but apparently not.
As I was saying, the CPRE has raised a more fundamental point, with which I agree: the detailed assessment of environmental impact is being done right at the end of the process, rather than being front and centre at the start of the process. It rightly asks how a route that is longer and hillier, requiring significant additional construction and carving its way through open countryside, can have a carbon footprint consistent with our net zero targets? As a result, environmental impact is seen as the guise of mitigation rather than as a full part of a proper assessment. We cannot be a Government committed to biodiversity and protection of our natural habitat if we continue this practice. The Minister—indeed, the Prime Minister—has the opportunity with East West Rail to take a stand on this matter. Will the Minister therefore raise these environmental concerns directly with No. 10 and gain its assurance that this project, with all its changes, has the Prime Minister’s endorsement as being fully compliant with his green agenda?
In major project consultations, the opinions and views of local authorities are a crucial input. Local authorities are the voice of local opinion, and they undertake many of the facilitating functions—land acquisition, planning and construction mediation among others. The Minister had every right to expect a local authority to act democratically and sensitively in being that voice and in providing its input to him. Yet that was definitively not the case with Bedford Borough Council’s submission to the 2019 consultation, which was not presented to, debated by or voted on by local councillors. Indeed, not one of the councillors in the wards in my constituency was given that courtesy.
Essentially, the directly elected Mayor of Bedford submitted his secret plan, which added costs, made journey times longer and created an environmentally brutal route. I fully appreciate that the Mayor was committed to a line running through the centre of town rather than to a parkway station, but that personal commitment did not give him or his executive the right to bypass his own council’s scrutiny. He may say that he had that discretion, but my constituents feel duped. And for what? What was the big economic gain for the borough? The council’s own analysis says that the proposal adds just 0.05% to annual economic growth—0.05% is hard to justify to the owners of homes that will have to be demolished.
Further, there are unanswered questions about whether the push for that route required the borough council to accede to additional future housing growth in the borough—essentially, whether the plan was secret because it stored up a development bombshell for rural north Bedfordshire. Will the Minister therefore advise me what significance the input of a local authority has in his Department’s evaluation of rail route options? Will he also allay the fears of my constituents that, in regard to additional housing or development expectations, there was no direct or indirect communication with Bedford borough by his Department or any other Department as a result of the routing of East West Rail through the town centre.
Engineering considerations for the route remain a source of significant contention. A consultancy was hired by the borough council to advise on engineering costs twice in the space of two months. In its first report it stated that the northern routes,
“come at a price of increased construction costs, increased disruption during construction, longer journey times and increased operational costs, as well as increased congestion and other highway costs.”
One month later, it produced a second report, stating that Bedford Borough Council
“has developed its own preliminary Route E design that reduces the cost differential to Route A by nearly half and avoids much of the highway disruption.”
Will the Minister advise me as to whether he was aware of what special engineering source was discovered by the council in that one month? I believe their analysis has proved highly influential with East West Rail, yet these figures from the council have never be made open to external review so that that assumption can be questioned in detail.
A number of changes have been made since the origination of this consultation. It originated in Lord Adonis’s Oxford-Cambridge arc vision, as part and parcel of acceding to the provision of 1 million homes in this region between Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire, including Bedfordshire, yet just a week or two ago the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government confirmed to me that that 1 million homes target is no longer a target. We know that the other project of Lord Adonis’s vision, the expressway, is no longer a long expressway; it has been junked in Buckinghamshire. We know that covid has changed crucial traffic assumptions, with greater working from home and with the opportunity for more office space in London to be converted to residential. We know that the vision for East West Rail has been cascading back in history, from his shining, 21st century, forward-looking vision where we connect two—potentially three—of our great universities to one involving a 19th century fuel of dubious merit. The Government have issued a 10-point plan for net zero, yet in some ways there are concerns that East West Rail now stands directly against those ambitions. As I said, we have more examples to show that people will change lifelong voting intentions to express their discontent with top-down projects that fundamentally change their surroundings.
I support East West Rail—I think it is a good idea, and the vision has its strengths—but what we are now being sold as the vision of East West Rail is not what the original intention was. Worse still, the process of going from that original vision to where we are now has destroyed trust, faith and belief in East West Rail, rather than building it up. People like infrastructure and we talk about it a lot here, but when people think about infrastructure they are talking about improvements to their town centres, about making it easier for them to get access to a GP appointment or about ensuring that their child gets into a good local school; it is not thought of in terms of spatial frameworks, visions for the future by departed technocrats or consultation exercises that treat people like fools. I urge the Minister to take these concerns and priorities seriously, play his part in restoring trust in this process and give the people that rail connection that they want, can understand and believe in.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) on securing this debate on the East West Rail route consultation and the role played by the proposed railway within his constituency. I welcome his support for East West Rail as a concept, at the very least. I know that that is shared by the vast majority of his constituents, because, as he knows, he has instigated meetings where I have met people from a number of parishes and parish council leaders in his constituency and found that the concept of the railway is very much welcomed. However, they do have legitimate questions to ask and I hope I can answer some today. I have listened carefully to his representations about the impact of East West Rail on his constituency and his concerns about this being a fair consultation, and I will try to answer many of them now.
As my hon. Friend will know, a new railway line between Bedford and Cambridge is required to deliver the full East West Rail scheme between Oxford and Cambridge. In that vein, the East West Rail Company held a consultation, as he said, on route options A to E—we like nattily described route options in the rail industry—which was open from 28 January to 11 March 2019. The outcome of that consultation saw the selection by East West Rail of route E as the preferred route option, announced, as my hon. Friend will remember, in January 2020.
The conclusions in respect of route E were reached using a number of assessment factors, such as faster journey times, lower fares and faster road journeys as a result of road users diverting to rail. The higher transport user benefits arise due to route E serving the most households, both within the catchment area around Bedford Midland station and in the growing population in Cambourne.
My hon. Friend mentioned the other recent non-statutory consultation, which included five route alignment options for the Bedford-Cambridge section of East West Rail, as well as the concepts for train service provision and stations between Bletchley and Bedford. The East West Railway Company is currently analysing the responses, and a preferred route alignment option based on the consultation feedback, the application of the assessment factors and ongoing design work will be announced in due course.
My hon. Friend will be aware that both consultations were non-statutory and so were not a legal requirement for the project to continue. Indeed, they were examples of East West Rail trying to ensure that it was listening to the voices of people along the proposed routes. The East West Railway Company genuinely does want to hear from the people affected and use their views to shape the design of the railway. I hope my hon. Friend understands that the new chairman of the East West Railway Company is determined to listen to the views of the people along the route.
There are no fixed rules about the duration of a non-statutory consultation, but the East West Railway Company decided to run the consultation for a period of 10 weeks to provide opportunities for virtual question and answer sessions—given the lack of in-person meetings because of the pandemic—and to try to ensure that people had enough time to respond in a meaningful way.
My Department is content that both consultations met open and fair consultation standards. A range of promotional activity took place for both consultations, including, as my hon. Friend said, the sending of postcards to more than 120,000 households and businesses in the consultation zone for the first consultation, increasing to 270,000 for the recent consultation, to ensure that the virtual nature of the consultation did not mean that people missed out on the chance to take part. Advertisements were placed in key local publications and social media and local print were utilised.
Public consultation has been and continues to be a crucial part of the development of the East West Rail project, which is why the East West Railway Company has made great efforts to speak to as many local people as possible from an early stage. While I am the Minister responsible, the company will continue in that spirit as the project is progressed. Indeed, in my time as the sponsor Minister for the project I have tried to sit in on as many meetings as I can so that I can see exactly what is going on and how people’s views are being reflected.
Richard Fuller
The Minister is absolutely right—he really has been on the front foot in engaging with people, as well as with me directly—but does he recognise that there is a difference between speaking to and listening? One concern that my constituents have is that in respect of some of the options that could really affect things, the conversation has been closed down and their concerns are not being listened to.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I completely get what my hon. Friend says, which is why I have tried my best and, I think, have succeeded in making sure that East West Rail actually listens to people along the route. I hope my hon. Friend will see that reflected in what comes out of the recent consultation as we move forward.
Mohammad Yasin
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is very kind. I will make two points briefly. One is that I have been told there is no chance of rerunning the consultation. Is there any realistic chance of rerunning it, because some people believe it was not run properly? Secondly, will he support the four-track option, rather than the six-track option? The four-track option will avoid the demolition of houses in my constituency.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points. If he would not mind, I would like him to take a little question from me. I believe he supports East West Rail as well, so it is a question of making sure that his constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire are listened to properly, so that those who will be affected by the construction of this new railway, or elements of it, feel that their voices have been listened to, their concerns have been acted upon and everything has been done that can possibly be done to address the concerns.
I hear the point that the hon. Member for Bedford makes about four-tracking. I am no engineer, and I will not promise something that I cannot deliver. Nor will I promise something when I do not know where it is in the planning stages of East West Rail. I will happily go away and talk to East West Rail about it, because I know it is something that it will be considering as an option moving forward.
Richard Fuller
I am encouraged that the Minister wishes to enlist me in support for East West Rail—that is on the concept—but he knows what motivates me, which is: do the numbers add up and does the thing add up logically? I have two fundamental concerns that he has not addressed, and perhaps he will. Why is it right to go into a consultation with a clear set of numbers that go one, two, three, four, five, close the consultation and then present—“Ta-dah!”—we have changed all the numbers around, and now we are going to go with the option that originally went in as being the highest cost and now comes out as being the best option? That does not look right and is not right, and the Minister knows that if things are built on shaky foundations like that, trust is eroded at every further step. Will he therefore please look at that issue again and help East West Rail to try to close the trust deficit on that particular issue?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I will always do everything I possibly can to help my hon. Friend, his constituents and East West Rail to close that deficit gap on trust, as he says. I believe that there is a route through—not a physical route, but we should be using best practice to consult people on projects that will affect them at some point in time. I am also determined to deliver this project at pace and on budget, because there have been huge problems in the past with big rail infrastructure projects that have run over time and people’s lives have been blighted for much, much longer than they ever should have been because of the incapacity to deliver said rail project on time. That is not going to happen with East West Rail, and I will do whatever I can to allay the concerns of my hon. Friend’s constituents. I will happily talk to him separately again about how he believes I can assist in doing that. I am really happy to assist.
Public consultation has been and continues to be a crucial part of the development of this project, which is why the company has made all those efforts to speak to so many people. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bedford were rightly concerned about the impact the project will have on constituents’ homes. It is entirely understood that the proposals will affect people’s homes and businesses, and farms in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire. The East West Railway Company aims to minimise the negative impacts on people’s land and property and mitigate any unavoidable impacts. The East West Railway Company’s recent consultation included proposals for an initial compensation scheme for those affected.
My hon. Friend asked whether I could jog the elbow of the East West Railway Company, so that they can have a meeting on the true cost. He is a good businessman, a good politician and a good representative of his constituents, but he also knows that it is taxpayers’ money funding this project. I know he wants to get the best value he can possibly get, as do I, so I will not just nudge the elbow of the East West Railway Company; I will ensure that meeting happens in short order and that all the documents he requires are made available to him beforehand, so that he can do the preparation work he would like to do to do his job properly.
I completely get the point that my hon. Friend made about the environmental concerns. I am not one to go to No. 10 to ask for something—that is a tad above my pay grade—but I continue to listen to him on the question he is essentially asking: is there evidence that quality environmental assessments have been made on East West Rail? An appraisal was undertaken to assess the comparative environmental sustainability of the route options as part of the process for determining a preferred route option, as described in the preferred route option report. That assessment concluded that the routes by Cambourne—routes, B and E—were broadly comparable and had the
“fewest problematic areas with potential direct impacts on irreplaceable or sensitive features and the lowest likely mitigation effort.”
East West Railway Company will continue to assess the potential environmental effects as part of the route alignment development work. An environmental impact assessment will be undertaken and an environmental statement submitted when East West Railway Company submits its development consent order application to the Planning Inspectorate. It will therefore be going by the letter and in the spirit of the rules and the law.
My hon. Friend asked me about Bedford Borough Council’s representations and the Bedford Mayor’s secret plan. I have no idea whether the Bedford Mayor has a secret plan, but I truly believe he would not have had undue influence over any of the plans for East West Rail. I have asked the question previously, but I will happily go away and ask East West Rail whether it can bring anything to me so that we can either finally put to one side and dismiss what my hon. Friend says, or, if there is something in it, have it out in the open so that everyone can see it. It would then probably be a matter for local politics. However, I do not believe that would be the case, because I do not believe there is anything to see.
My hon. Friend asked about the significance of local authority contributions to the consultation process. I come back again and again to the point that we want everybody and anybody interested and affected by the proposed route alignment and the development of the railway to be involved in its design so that we get the process completely right. I believe there would have been significant conversations between the local authorities along the route and the East West Railway Company; less so, to be honest, with my Department, because that is not necessarily our brief. As he knows, his constituents will have many further opportunities to raise issues for consideration, including in a statutory consultation. In the meantime, anyone who wishes to make representations should contact the East West Railway Company to have their voices heard.
With that, I hope that I have answered a number of my hon. Friend’s points. I am determined that we and East West Rail are as open and transparent as possible with my hon. Friend, with other Members of Parliament in interested areas and with people potentially affected along the individual routes. I hope to have demonstrated by action, not just word, that I truly believe that East West Rail needs to do that. I will continue to turn up at meetings with his parish councillors and others to ensure that that is the case. There will be further opportunities to influence the decisions that will have an effect—hopefully a very positive one—on the lives of his constituents going forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Contracting Out (Functions in Relation to Space) Order 2021
Draft Space Industry Regulations 2021
Draft Space Industry (Appeals) Regulations 2021
Draft Spaceflight Activities (Investigation of Spaceflight Accidents) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
May I remind Members to observe social distancing and sit only in places that are clearly marked? I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee, other than when someone is speaking or exempt. Hansard colleagues will be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Contracting Out (Functions in Relation to Space) Order 2021.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Space Industry Regulations 2021, the draft Space Industry (Appeals) Regulations 2021 and the draft Spaceflight Activities (Investigation of Spaceflight Accidents) Regulations 2021.
Rachel Maclean
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
The draft regulations are made under powers conferred by the Space Industry Act 2018 and create the regulatory conditions to enable commercial space launches to take place from UK spaceports for the first time. The contracting out order will allow the spaceflight regulator to carry out specified regulatory functions under the Outer Space Act 1986, and is made under powers conferred by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. An additional measure subject to the negative procedure—an employment relations statutory instrument—will enable the transfer of staff from the UK Space Agency to the Civil Aviation Authority.
This country runs on satellite technology: from the ability to dial in virtually to parliamentary sittings, to weather forecasting, logistics and the apps on our phones. All those things rely on our ability to interact with space. This country’s future will be determined in space, one way or another, so the question that we must ask is: how much control of that future do we want?
By enabling commercial space launches from UK space- ports, we will secure and develop our digital economy and communications infrastructure, maintain our national security, help to mitigate climate change, bring about the future of transport, including connected and autonomous vehicles, and create thousands of highly skilled jobs throughout the UK in the sectors of the future such as advanced manufacturing, clean energy and aerospace. The draft regulations will create the environment needed to build and secure that future. They pave the way for a sovereign commercial licensing regime that supports safe and sustainable spaceflight activities that will drive research, innovation and entrepreneurship, supporting the unique environment of space.
Through close working among the Departments for Transport and for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the UK Space Agency and the Civil Aviation Authority, the measures will enable launches from 2022. We want to be the first country in Europe to achieve a commercial space launch.
The measures apply to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They will support the Government’s levelling-up agenda by creating high-skill jobs and local opportunities around spaceports such as Shetland Space Centre, Spaceport Cornwall and others throughout the UK with similar aspirations.
We are building from strong foundations, as the UK is already a world leader in small satellite technology, telecommunications, robotics and earth observation. Our industry is developing exciting technologies such as the SABRE engine and Orbex’s launchers, but there is much more that we can do, both on our own and alongside international partners. I want to see our industry thrive by accessing global markets, financing and supply chains, and by attracting new and exciting companies to set up shop in the UK.
By appointing the Civil Aviation Authority as the spaceflight regulator, we will create independent rigour and oversight to match our bold ambitions in space, as well as avoiding any possible conflicts of industry for the UK Space Agency, which is responsible for encouraging and promoting the spaceflight sector through Government grants. Once stood up, the CAA can begin to accept licence applications for spaceflight applications. Such applications can take between six and 18 months to be processed, which reflects the fact that this is relatively uncharted terrain and we want to allow time for industry and the regulator to get things right. I am aware that other space-faring nations have set out shorter application times, but they do not account for a lengthy period of pre-application engagement, which can last from two to five years.
The key issues of insurance and liability were raised by hon. Members and industry stakeholders during the passage of the Bill that became the 2018 Act. Notable concerns were raised about unlimited liability, and the availability and cost of insurance. The Government have listened and taken action to limit operator liability in all operator licences. Following a call for evidence and further research, the Government’s intention is that all operator licences issued under the 2018 Act will contain a limit of operator liability with respect to claims made under sections 34 and 36 of that Act. Operators therefore will not face unlimited liability for actions carried out in compliance with the Act and licensed conditions. The space industry regulations contain the necessary provisions to implement that policy.
The launch liability limits for launch operators will be calculated using the approach of the model insurance requirement. That will tailor the insurance required to the risk of the diverse range of UK launch activities that is expected. The Government believe that that approach will reduce operator costs and ensure that the UK remains competitive.
For orbital operations, insurance requirements and limits of operator liability will mirror those for licences issued under the Outer Space Act 1986, which is €60 million for standard missions. The Government noted the issues raised by the sector in last year’s consultation and we are now undertaking a review to assess insurance models for small satellites proposed by industry and alternative models, operator liability for in-orbit operations and whether a maximum limit for the launch model insurance requirement is appropriate. The review will consider the competitiveness of the UK sector and how to maintain the sustainability of the orbital environment.
The measures will help to position the UK at the forefront of the global space economy and increase access to space for our diverse industry. I am sure that hon. Members share my desire that the UK secures its economic future through space, and I hope that they will join me in supporting the measures, which I commend to the Committee.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
When I won my tightly fought by-election in February 2014, little did I think that I would be coming to Parliament to speak about space exploration—it was not in my stump speech—but it is a great honour to do so as shadow aviation Minister. I should not start a speech with a split infinitive, but this gives the United Kingdom a chance to boldly go into the future with exciting and innovative technology.
Labour welcomes the process of strengthening the Outer Space Act 1986, which was previously deemed to be not rigorous enough to enable the licensing of launches from within the UK. The enhanced regulatory regime under the 2018 Act and the subsequent 2021 space regulations will reduce risk to businesses applying for licences and assure them of consistently fair treatment during the licensing process. Will the Minister confirm that the licensing arrangements are equal to those in countries with similar space industries? She touched on that point in her speech, but it would be great to get a little more detail.
Monitoring the earth from space is crucial as we seek to understand and tackle climate change. The expansion of the UK’s space industry and its capacity will assist with that. I was pleased to read in guidance issued by the Department for Transport last week that the Government would merely make minor clarifications to guidance on the environmental objectives of air quality, noise, the marine environment and climate change. Cornwall and Shetland are special areas, and we want them to be protected.
The draft measures will reassure the wider general public that due diligence has been applied to the programme and those who seek to operate in space. The contracting out of regulatory functions to the CAA is positive, as it has gained knowledge, skills and experience from its current remit, and it can expand that remit and its capability to spaceflight. Will the Minister confirm that additional funding will be available to the CAA to undertake that governance?
The granting of licences will open up new competitive markets, and reduce costs and logistical difficulties for academics and the wider scientific community. It will provide new opportunities for exploration, experimentation and discovery that will stimulate and accelerate future spaceflight and all allied technologies that will make this country a world leader in the field. Can the Minister assure us that the high-quality jobs created by the programme, and the resultant economic prosperity, will be shared evenly across the UK? For example, will the Government ensure that British steel is used in the development of the UK’s space industry? What steps are being taken to ensure that the supply chains that will be necessary for the expansion of the UK space industry address regional inequality? Finally, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that new, high-quality, highly paid and highly skilled jobs will go to the regions?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East for his consideration of and support for the draft measures, and for his helpful and constructive questions.
The hon. Gentleman asked if the insurance and liability regime matches the ambition of other nations. I assure him that our review addresses the UK’s competitiveness. We want to be the first country in Europe to achieve a space launch—from UK soil—and we are confident that the measures will allow us to do that. He asked about the CAA. I assure him that it will be adequately resourced to take on these new functions, and preparations have been going on for some time.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about prosperity and skilled jobs throughout the UK. Of course, that is at the forefront of the Government’s levelling-up agenda, so we are determined to ensure that these jobs—this is already the case—are seen in Cornwall, Scotland, Wales and many other parts of the UK. The supply chains are dynamic and represent enormous opportunities for many businesses of all sizes. This is an exciting time for the UK.
The measures that we are considering will allow for a wide range of new commercial spaceflight technologies: from traditional vertically launched vehicles, to air-launched vehicles, and sub-orbital space planes and balloons. We have endeavoured to produce legislation that is sufficiently flexible to accommodate emerging technological advancements, market opportunities and changes to the international landscape, while keeping safety squarely at the forefront of thinking. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that environmental considerations are vital.
The Department for Transport, the UK Space Agency and the CAA will continue to engage with industry through one-to-one meetings and plenary sessions to help to set out what the industry can do to prepare itself, including in anticipation of conversations with the regulator. In parallel, we are putting in place the necessary legal framework for the proposed transfer of functions and staff to the CAA to ensure that the new regulator has the tools, capability and capacity to regulate. It will be ready to start receiving licence applications once the draft measures come into force and will work closely with all potential applicants—indeed, it is already doing so.
I reiterate that the measures will stimulate a new commercial spaceflight market in the UK, bringing with it an ancillary supply chain, high-skill jobs and opportunities throughout the UK. As well as focusing strongly on safety, they showcase our commitment to our international obligations and the sustainability of the space environment. They will position the UK as Europe’s leading launch destination. I am grateful to hon. Members for their consideration of the measures, and I hope that they will join me in supporting them.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Space Industry Regulations 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Space Industry Regulations 2021.—(Rachel Maclean.)
Draft Space Industry (Appeals) Regulations 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Space Industry (Appeals) Regulations 2021.—(Rachel Maclean.)
Draft Spaceflight Activities (Investigation Of Spaceflight Accidents) Regulations 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Spaceflight Activities (Investigation of Spaceflight Accidents) Regulations 2021.—(Rachel Maclean.)
Draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe 1 metre-plus social distancing and to sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard will be most grateful if Members send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Cttee has considered the draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, for the first time, I think, but hopefully not the last. I will be brief as this is a relatively technical matter.
The draft order was laid in May in exercise of powers conferred by section 141 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. A previous instrument, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2021, which was debated and passed by both Houses a few months ago, unfortunately contained a couple of technical errors, which the draft order corrects.
The UK operates border controls at certain locations outside the UK. These so-called juxtaposed controls are operated at channel tunnel control points on the other side of the channel, and at the seaports of Calais and Dunkirk. The order passed a couple of months ago made the powers exercisable by Border Force officers at the Calais and Dunkirk seaports the same as the powers exercisable by Border Force officers at the channel tunnel juxtaposed control points. It was a very reasonable order, which is why both Houses passed it, but unfortunately a couple of technical errors in its drafting have come to light. First, the provisions were made as a free-standing provisions, when in fact they should be inserted into the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2003. Secondly, there were two erroneous paragraph numbers in the order we passed a few months ago, which we need to change so that the references make sense.
I trust that this set of drafting changes is relatively uncontentious. We debated the substance of the draft order a couple of months ago. On that basis, I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I will not detain the Committee until 6 pm. In fact, my response will be very brief.
The substance of the statutory instrument was debated a few months ago—in fact, I believe I spoke in that Committee—so I will not rehash the arguments. The Opposition support the alignment that that the previous order proposed and note that the corrections in the draft order are necessary, so we will not oppose the draft order and hope that it passes very swiftly.
Chris Philp
I thank the shadow Minister for both his support and his brevity.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 27 May. If they are approved and made, they will introduce fees for new permitted development rights that are, or will be, conditional on obtaining prior approval from the local planning authority. Those PDRs relate to, first, allowing existing houses to be extended to provide more living space by constructing additional storeys. That right came into effect on 31 August last year. Secondly, they allow a change of use of properties from commercial, business and service use, or class E, to residential use, or class C3, for which prior approval applications may be omitted from 1 August this year. Finally, they allow for the further development of university buildings under PDRs that came into force on 21 April this year.
As the Committee will be aware, creating more homes and improving the existing housing stock are fundamental in aiding recovery from the pandemic, as is providing our high streets with the flexibility to adapt quickly to changing market conditions. Supporting the creation and expansion of university buildings we believe also offers additional flexibility within the planning process. That aligns with the Government’s objective of ensuring that public service infrastructure provision is world class.
The prior approval process means that, rather than going through a full planning application, a developer must secure the prior approval of the local planning authority for specific planning elements of a development before the work can proceed. That allows for a more efficient and more streamlined planning process, while maintaining local oversight of key planning matters. Where approval is required, certain specific planning considerations must be assessed by the local authority. The matters under consideration here are less than would otherwise have been assessed under a full planning application, but there is still a resource effect for local authorities. That is why we think it is right to introduce a fee to be paid by an applicant when they submit a prior approval application.
The fee should be set at a rate that is less than that for a full planning application, however, because of course the processes that the local authority will have to go through are more streamlined. The fees for each prior approval application that will be introduced by the draft regulations are thus: a fee of £96 for prior approval for the enlargement of an existing dwelling house by the construction of additional storeys; a fee of £100 per proposed dwelling house for prior approval for the change of use from commercial, business and service class E to residential use class C3; and, finally, a fee of £96 for prior approval for the erection, extension or alteration of university buildings.
We believe that these fees strike the right balance between encouraging development and meeting the costs to local authorities of assessing these types of application. The development rights to which the fees relate have already been introduced, and if there were no application fees, the cost of processing related approval applications would have to continue being funded by taxpayers.
We are introducing these fees following consultation on the PDRs that have already been introduced. The responses to the consultation recognised the need for local authorities to effectively scrutinise the implications of the permitted development by way of prior approval. The assessment of prior approval applications requires local planning authority resources and therefore should be subject to the appropriate fee. That is consistent with the approach for other applications for prior approval.
We want to ensure that local authorities and their planning departments are well resourced and have the right skills to take forward our planning reform proposals. That is why, as well as introducing the fees introduced by these regulations, we are committed to reviewing the resources available to local planning authorities as we advance through our reform programme. We will also explore options to introduce a new planning fee structure, to ensure that local planning authorities are properly resourced. The fees introduced by these regulations will provide an important income stream for local authorities to support the delivery of their planning service, which both local people and applicants have a right to expect. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford.
We will not oppose this statutory instrument to introduce new fees for prior approval for some additional permitted development rights that have not already been through this House—those that increase the height of residential homes, those concerning development extensions to universities and those concerning the change of use of commercial buildings to residential use.
Many Members from across this House, as well as many key stakeholders in the planning system, have consistently and articulately opposed the galloping extension of the powers of the permitted development rights system, which I believe started in 2013. However, the Government have persisted. Now that the various PDR changes are law, we cannot argue that additional resources will be required by the local planning authority to assess and process them. Furthermore, this cost should naturally fall on the owner/ developer and not on the council tax payer. It is only right that charges are implemented to address the cost to the local planning authority of assessing changes to buildings that will have a significant impact on future occupants, on neighbours and on the wider community.
I want to take this opportunity to raise a number of wider issues, because many colleagues from all parties in the House share concerns about the extension of the PDR regulations since 2013. We all acknowledge that our planning system is not perfect, but as many Members said in last Monday’s Opposition day debate, the many reforms already introduced or still being considered by the Government are little more than a developers’ and—I would add—a property-owners’ charter.
The process of determining planning applications, as opposed to PDRs, ensures a full and professional assessment of proposals for new buildings, ensures that any change of use or extensions of existing developments are appropriate and provide a healthy environment to live in—one of the primary purposes of the original planning system—and also ensures that public impacts arising from the change are appropriate. These include the use, scale, form and design of a building; access within and around the building; parking and transport; impact on neighbours; impact on the natural and heritage environments; and much more. For future occupants, vital community assets are also considered—shops, schools, open space, transport, and a whole host of other important and necessary services. They must be available nearby or provided through the development, if it is a large one.
Planning is about determining public good, but the PDR system removes the opportunity to make a proper assessment of most, if not all, of those factors. It removes the opportunity for a local authority transparently and accountably to refuse an application that is deemed not to be in the public good.
For the time being, planning applications are subject to public consultation, whereas PDR changes are not. The impact of the PDR changes is already being felt by neighbours of the buildings affected, and our precious town and village centres. The changes affect the viability of key employment activities and the quality of life of future residents of the buildings, especially those who may be stuck out in the middle of an industrial estate.
Another regrettable consequence is local authorities’ loss of ability to negotiate minimum numbers of truly affordable and social rent units in conversions. Property owners are getting off far too lightly. The planning application process has been perfectly capable of responding to challenges in our built environment and delivering the number and affordability of homes we need. It should be improved, not undermined.
Let me move on to the specific issue of fees. Although, as I said, we will not oppose the regulations, the significant expansion of the scope of PDR raises significant challenges and, therefore, costs that LPAs can ill afford. The fee for an upward extension of a home has been set at £96, yet the fee for a planning application for the same extension would be £206. When the Local Government Association conducted a survey in 2018 on PDR changes and potential fees, 85% of local authorities said that the cost of administering each prior approval process was considerably higher than the £96 set by the Government.
When the Government ran a consultation on such changes, the responses were broadly in support of a higher fee. Will the Minister let me know how many of the consultation responses were in favour of a fee larger than £96? I appreciate that he might not have the information to hand today, but he can always reach me by email.
What discussions has the Minister had with local authority leaders about the necessary level of fees? The fees proposed in the regulations are all at or just under £100. Local authorities have said that that is insufficient to reflect the added burden. Although £100 per dwelling would be multiplied by the number of dwellings created in a change of use for commercial buildings, am I correct that £96 would apply to an extension to a university, which could be large and complex, and might have a significant impact on the local area? What representations has the Minister had about that specific aspect of the regulations?
In response to a written question that I tabled, the Government said that an impact assessment of the changes would be done “as soon as possible”. Does the Minister have a date for when that will be published, and will he ensure that I receive a copy when it is?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her broad support for the regulations, which deal with the fee proposals, not the PDR changes that we introduced in 2014. Before I answer her questions, let me say that I respectfully disagree with her regarding the role and importance of permitted development rights, and the homes that they can create. Since 2014, when PDR was introduced, some 72,000 new dwelling places—homes for people—have been built, and they very probably would not have been built without the introduction of PDR.
There are local controls that local authorities can use to ensure that permitted development right changes take place with appropriate prior approvals, such as the aspect of a building, if it is to be upwardly built, the effect on traffic, the issue of flooding or even whether there is, in the case of building upwards, an aerodrome within 2 km of the site of the application. There are therefore measures that we have put in place to ensure that local authorities are able to control permitted development rights properly. We want PDRs to be overwhelmingly focused on brownfield redevelopment. We want brownfield sites in our towns and cities to become vibrant again, and permitted development rights are a means of ensuring that.
I am sure we all want to see shops open on, and people using, high streets up and down the country. One of the ways of saving those high streets is to ensure that people are living on or close to them. People living locally can use the services that are available. A point I have made, which I think was accepted by the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government when I addressed it some days ago—
Ruth Cadbury
We all accept that our towns and cities must be vibrant, and of course people living in town and village centres are a major part of that—and always have been. There have been major pushes over the years to achieve that. However, does the Minister think that the various initiatives to encourage living above shops represent a way to do that and, secondly, agree that the big risk of PDRs to town and village centres is the pockmarking of properties at the heart of the town or village centre, which is a real risk to the spirit and purpose of that centre? It would be far more sensible—this has been done over the years—to use the planning process so that there is both a local plan and a planning application process. That would enable, when appropriate, and if it fits the local criteria, the local authority to allow a change of use to residential for those properties out of the end—in the less viable part of the village centre—and keep the commercial core vibrant.
The Chair
Order. I am sure that, in the Minister’s answer, he will bring us back to the topic of fees.
Christopher Pincher
I certainly will, Mr Efford. To answer the hon. Lady briefly, I am afraid that I disagree with her. Far too many high streets in our country are closed up, or places where there is vape shop after charity shop after tattoo shop—whatever it might be—but they are not vibrant. We need to have people living in those places to make the environment. If the present system worked, we would not be suffering as we are. The changes that we envision—with proper safeguards such as vacancy tests, the ability in conservation areas to control what happens on ground floors, and space footprint controls—will ensure that the right sorts of properties are able to become residential, thereby supporting high streets.
The hon. Lady suggests that people will be somehow stranded in industrial estates, but I suspect that she has not read the PDRs clearly enough, because there are prior approval controls in our PDR proposals affecting the switch from CBS class into residential. They allow local authorities to take account of heavy or industrial areas, noise and other such matters that relate to commercial areas being translated into residential homes.
To answer the hon. Lady’s specific questions about fees, we consulted and spoke to the 674—I think—various bodies that responded to the consultation. We believe that the fees that we have set strike the right balance between ensuring that local authorities receive an appropriate income to pay for the services that they have to execute while undertaking PDRs, and an encouragement to ensure that places are properly developed. The fees are different because of those reasons.
If the hon. Lady looks at the up building PDR on existing free standing buildings that we passed last year, with a fee increase, she will see that we set the fee at £334, not £96. We did that because we thought it was the appropriate level for that type of PDR.
The hon. Lady asks what consultations with local authorities have taken place. There have been very significant and constant consultations with local authorities about not only permitted development rights and fees, but a whole range of matters. I spoke to Nick Forbes, the leader of Newcastle City Council, only today to demonstrate that the Government are committed to identifying issues that local authorities face as we bring forward our planning reforms. He told me that it was the first time in 10 years as a leader that any Minister had spoken to him, and he was very grateful for the call, because we were asking for his advice.
The hon. Lady asked me specifically about university responses to the consultation. With respect, I will respond to her in writing, because I do not have that data in front of me. I think she asked another question about impact assessments, which I will again respond to in writing because I do not have that data in front of me. However, I can confirm that we are absolutely determined to make sure that local authorities have the right level of resources to do the jobs that they have to do. As part of our wider planning reforms, we have committed to undertake a wholesale review of the resourcing available to local planning authorities to make sure they have the wherewithal to do the jobs that we ask them to do. We have also promised that we will look at fee structures as a component of that review, and we believe that through the wider changes that we are undertaking, we will reduce the demand on local authorities and the amount of effort that they are expected to undertake in the execution of their planning duties. That, in itself, will give them more headroom—more resource—to do more of the things that we would like them to do. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Wendy Morton [V]
[Inaudible]—is having on the world’s poorest countries. The FCDO is committed to the global effort to tackle the pandemic. We have made new public commitments worth up to £1.3 billion of ODA to counter the health, humanitarian and socioeconomic impacts of covid-19 and to support the global effort to distribute vaccines equitably, as well as adopting our programmes in 2020 amounting to more than £700 million. As we have heard, the Prime Minister announced at the G7 that the UK will donate 100 million vaccine doses within the next five years, with 5 million of those by the end of September, to ensure global vaccination by the end of 2022.
[Official Report, 15 June 2021, Vol. 697, c. 112.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham).
The correct response should have been.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton) [V]
[Inaudible]—is having on the world’s poorest countries. The FCDO is committed to the global effort to tackle the pandemic. We have made new public commitments worth up to £1.3 billion of ODA to counter the health, humanitarian and socioeconomic impacts of covid-19 and to support the global effort to distribute vaccines equitably, as well as adopting our programmes in 2020 amounting to more than £700 million. As we have heard, the Prime Minister announced at the G7 that the UK will donate 100 million vaccine doses within the next year, with 5 million of those by the end of September, to ensure global vaccination by the end of 2022.
Treasury
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman
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, 22 June 2021, Vol. 697, c. 736.]
Letter of correction from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury:
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley).
The correct response should have been:
Jesse Norman
Let me remind him that, so far, the trader support service has processed something like, I think, 700,000 consignments, 39,000 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.
Education
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vicky Ford
The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) asked about projects for children and young people in her constituency. Well, of course, Leicester was a partner in the HAF programme in 2019, and will return again as a partner in 2021.
[Official Report, 9 June 2021, Vol. 696, c. 1012.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe).
The correct response should have been:
Vicky Ford
The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) asked about projects for children and young people in her constituency. Well, of course, Leicestershire was a partner in the HAF programme in 2019, and will return again as a partner in 2021.
Vicky Ford
I will never forget 2010, the end of the last Labour Government and the last recession, when nearly 1 million 16 to 25-year-olds were not in employment, education or training.
[Official Report, 9 June 2021, Vol. 696, c. 1013.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford).
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
Vicky Ford
I will never forget 2010, the end of the last Labour Government and the last recession, when nearly 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds were not in employment, education or training.
Treasury
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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, 22 June 2021, Vol. 697, c. 751.]
Letter of correction from the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves).
The correct response should have been:
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 mainland Europe other than Norway, and we are doing more.
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
Microchipping of Pets
(2 years, 10 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
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
We are still in the hybrid setting, as hon. Members will have noted. Mr Speaker has asked me to remind all colleagues that they are expected to remain for the entire debate. I also remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on for the duration of the debate and that they will be visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks at their email address, which is westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before using them and before leaving the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn throughout a Westminster Hall debate in the Boothroyd Room. Members who are attending physically and are in the latter stages of the call list should initially use the seats in the Public Gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats there become available. Members can speak from the horseshoe only where there are microphones. There can be no interventions virtually; they can be made only physically. Thank you for your attention.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 300010 and 300025, relating to microchipping of pets.
The laws called for in the petitions are known as Fern’s law and Tuk’s law. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Today we debate an issue that is close to the hearts of many hon. Members and their families, as well as the millions of pet owners around the country. As the proud father to Bella, my cavachon, and Bailey, my cavapoochon, I am horrified by the thought of ever losing them. I did have a scare recently when I was walking Bella in Bathpool park in Kidsgrove for her first birthday. Something spooked her and she ran off, leaving my partner and me frantic as we searched for her. Three and a half hours later, and with the support of the incredible Greyhound Gap team, led by the tenacious Lisa Cartwright, she was found—shaken but well. Pets are more than just animals; they really are members of the family, and when they go missing, the other family members are left devastated.
Before I start, I want to thank all those who have given up their time to help me to prepare for today. I thank the Fern’s Law team, who comprise Debbie Matthews of Vets Get Scanning and the Stolen and Missing Pets Alliance; Dr Daniel Allen of Keele University and Pet Theft Reform; Marc Abraham OBE of the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group and Lucy’s law; Sarah Dixon of Focus On Animal Law and Flop Not Crop; and Freya Woodhall, founder of Let’s Get Willow Home. I also thank Dawn Ashley, Sue Williams and Dominic Dyer, animal welfare campaigners and members of the Tuk’s Law campaign. In addition, I thank all those campaigners who have been working tirelessly to support bereaved pet owners and to bring microchipping to the attention of this place.
I will take the two petitions in turn and try to keep the two clearly separate, as they are on distinct issues, albeit that both relate to microchipping. I will start with Fern’s law. That campaign is calling for it to be made compulsory for veterinary practices to scan a pet when it is presented for the first consultation, or at its yearly check-up. The campaign, known as Vets Get Scanning, was started by Debbie Matthews after her two Yorkshire terriers, Gizmo and Widget, were stolen from her car in 2006. Within the first 24 hours, Debbie found out that the police regarded the theft of her dogs as not important enough to attend the scene, saying, “As it’s only dogs, we won’t come out.” Thankfully, with the help of her father, Sir Bruce Forsyth, Debbie was in a position to launch a major campaign to get her dogs back, and the people who had bought Gizmo and Widget came forward after just one week.
However, for many owners, there is not a happy ending; and sadly, because pet theft is a low-risk, high-reward crime, it is on the rise. The scale of the problem is clear. Roughly 20,000 dogs and cats are listed on DogLost as missing. Debbie named her campaign Fern’s law after a stray cocker-springer spaniel cross who was stolen from her home in Malden, Surrey in April 2013. Fern was reunited with her owners only in 2019. Fern was in a pretty sorry state, having been used for breeding during those six years. After a veterinary check-up, there was evidence that Fern had been taken to a vet for a medical procedure during that time, but because it is not compulsory for vets to scan dogs for microchips when they are first presented, Fern was not reunited with her family for years. That was a missed opportunity. How many other dogs and cats have been lost this way?
It was only when Fern was abandoned and a kind soul brought her to another vet as a stray that she was reunited with her owners. This is one of the contradictions of the issue. It seems that vets are happy to scan dogs brought in as strays, but sold-on and kept-by-finding missing dogs and cats that have a new keeper are not always scanned. It takes the same amount of time to scan a dog brought in as a stray as it does to scan one brought in by an owner, so why cannot vets scan dogs by default?
The other contradiction is that since 2016 it has been compulsory to have a dog microchipped. Microchips are sold to owners as a permanent marker with traceability, as a way to discourage pet theft, and as the best way to be reunited with their pets if they are stolen. But if microchipping is designed to reunite missing pets with their owners, what is the point of having it when it is not compulsory for vets to scan the microchip at a pet’s first veterinary treatment?
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs held a consultation on making cat microchipping compulsory. Once again, however, what is the point if vets and others do not have to scan them? Many missing pets are never reunited with their owners, because it is optional for vets to scan and check microchip registration on the original database to ensure that pets and their owners match. If just one organisation is not committed to scan and check microchip registration, the whole system fails and is not fit for purpose.
The Fern’s law campaigners want legislation to replace the current best practice recommendations from the British Veterinary Association, which, although they have been strengthened, are only optional guidelines. As Marc Abraham OBE said to me:
“Vets are missing a trick by not scanning dogs as standard. It is not a complicated procedure to scan a dog. It does not need to be done by a vet. The receptionist could do it while the owner is waiting in reception.”
It seems like a no-brainer to me and I very much hope that, following its consultation, DEFRA will make it compulsory for veterinarians to check microchips.
I will move on to the next petition, which is about Tuk’s law. It has been started to make it a legal requirement that no healthy animal can be destroyed by a vet without the vet first scanning the animal’s microchip, to confirm that the person requesting euthanasia has the authority to do so and that the dual registration contact detail—that is, an animal rescue and owner—on the microchip is assessed and honoured.
The campaign is named after Tuk, a 16-month-old rescue animal that was euthanised in December 2017. He was not scanned prior to euthanasia and his rescue back-ups were not contacted or notified of his death. This is an important point. Typically, animal rescue organisations microchip pets in their care at the time of carrying out essential healthcare treatments, such as vaccinating, spaying or neutering. This usually occurs when new owners have been found for the pet, so the details registered for the microchips belong to the rescue. Once animals are rehomed, rescues remain a presence in their life, offering rescue back-up to new owners for the duration of the pet’s life. They remain on hand for advice and if owners are no longer able to cope with or care for the pet, the rescue organisation’s contract typically stipulates that the pet returns to its care, and it will then try to find alternative care. Tuk had full rescue back-up details on his microchip, but despite that and despite the fact that he was presented for euthanasia by an individual who was not his registered keeper, he was euthanised.
As I have said, our pets become family members and the thought of what happened to Tuk happening to one of my dogs is truly horrific. The Tuk’s law petitioners shared details with my team of some tragic cases where pets were taken in by neighbours who had them euthanised, simply because they did not like them or the way they behaved. The youngest dog that was mentioned was only six months old.
I am told that 98% of vets have been presented with a healthy pet to be euthanised simply because of their behaviour. Tuk’s law asks for vets to be compelled to scan microchips and contact the registered keeper and rescue back-up when a healthy and treatable animal is presented to them for euthanasia, in order to prevent harrowing cases such as that of Tuk from ever happening again.
I was pleased to hear that progress on this campaign has been made, and the BVA has worked with the campaign and Government to strengthen its guidance to vets. The new guidance, which underpins the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ code of professional conduct, advises that veterinary surgeons should scan for a microchip in dogs prior to euthanasia, where, in their professional judgment, destruction of the dog is not necessary on animal health or welfare grounds.
That is a welcome change, but the Tuk’s law campaigners argue that it does not go far enough. They argue that the new code needs to be publicised and enforced to save the lives of many dogs. The petitioners make it clear that action is needed quickly because there is a ticking time bomb coming down the road.
During the pandemic, we were all required to stay home and—quite reasonably—many people got a pet to help them to cope with the sudden dislocation from their normal lives; I did so myself. However, having a dog that needs walking every day is easy enough when the Government are telling people to stay at home; it is less easy when people need to be in the office again from nine-to-five. It is estimated that close to 1.5 million dogs were adopted or bought during the pandemic. As life returns to normal, many owners will realise that they cannot care for their dogs properly any more. Campaigners are seriously worried that, as a result, many healthy dogs will be brought in for euthanasia.
Dominic Dyer from the Tuk’s law campaign says that the situation is expected to be even worse than the 2008 financial crash, when many families realised they could no longer care for their dog. I recognise that the BVA has concerns about making Tuk’s law a legal requirement; it argues that it could inadvertently create problems not only for the veterinary profession but for the pets and owners that it seeks to protect. However, as Dominic made clear, we are on the cusp of potentially many thousands of dogs being given up by their owners. I am concerned that the current guidelines may not be strong enough.
An issue identified by both sets of petitioners is the need for a centralised database of microchipped pets. Currently, there is a complicated situation of 16 different national pet microchip databases recognised by DEFRA. Most databases offer the availability of a quick microchip database search. The technology already exists to create a centralised database—one only has to consider the centralised database of motor insurance. Dr Sharon Alston was kind enough to share her experience of working on such a system for microchipped animals in Ireland in the build-up to today’s debate. A centralised database would be available to the police, vets, authorities and rescues, for easy access to microchip registration and quick reunifications.
The current system makes it much harder for owners to be reunited with their pets, even in cases where vets scan, but it does work. The BVA also recognises the lack of a centralised database as a key stumbling block for vets trying to reunite lost or stolen dogs, but when Debbie asked the association if a centralised database would be the key to compulsory microchip checks, the answer was no.
On GDPR and reporting scanned missing pets, there would not be a breach for RCVS and BVA if the details are requested by the police as part of an investigation triggered by reports in the microchip database by the veterinary clinic. There seems to be a misconception that the obligation to report to the police falls on vets—it does not. The obligation to report rests on the chipping companies, which will contact the registered keeper.
I have probably gone on for long enough, and I am eager to hear what other Members have to say about the two petitions. All I will add is that Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Kennel Club have given their support to both petitions. I am a supporter of Fern’s law, as someone who firmly believed that every time I took my dogs to the vets they were being scanned and checked. The fact that that is not happening gravely concerns me. My veterinary practice is delighted that I have become educated on that, following the emails I sent to make sure it never happens again.
I would like to believe that vets in any circumstances would already check microchips before euthanising a dog. I believe the vast majority of veterinarians would do such a thing—there is not a mass number of people disobeying the rules and guidance sent to them. Although Tuk’s law should be taken into consideration, I like to believe in the goodness of the human spirit, and that vets are doing the correct and appropriate thing before ever having to do something as hard as putting down an animal, be it one that is sick or one that is well.
I am pleased to see the Minister and the shadow Minister here today, and I look forward to hearing their responses and the outcome of the consultation, hopefully in the very near future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What a pleasure to hear the introduction by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). Whenever I attend a petitions debate in Westminster Hall either he or the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) is introducing a petition, and it is always a pleasure to hear either of them.
I have owned a dog probably all my life. I cannot remember not having a dog, from a very early age in Ballywalter in the 1960s. I remember the first dog we had, and I remember the last dog we had. Dogs are very much part of my life. My mailbox has taken a hit because of this issue, because so many people support the petitions. They may not have even signed the petitions but they support the principle, and it is important that they have that opportunity.
It is not very often that I am No. 2 in a Westminster Hall debate. As a matter of fact, I cannot remember the last time, but I was pleased to see the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) arrive. For a minute, I thought I was going to be the only Opposition Member, so I am pleased to see him in his place.
Although the signatories to the petition in my constituency numbered just 60, many more people have contacted me about this issue. The theft of dogs across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been enormous this year. During the covid-19 pandemic, people have needed to have dogs as pets—that was their contact with the outside. The great thing about a dog is that it will always love you. It always wags its tail. It will always respond to your affection. Even when you are cross, the dog will wag its tail if you turn on the charm again. That is what a dog does.
There are some examples of dog theft in my constituency. Cocker spaniels were making about £300 to £500 last year. This year, they are making anywhere from £1,500 to £2,000, so there has been a criminal aspect, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North referred. I am very conscious that, as they always do, the criminals seem to take advantage of someone’s vulnerability.
Our dogs are our best friends. My dog is the one loving creature in my life that does not disagree with me. He does not huff with me, and he always offers unconditional love. I have often been so grateful for Autumn, my wife’s springer spaniel, when I have come home from an arduous week at Westminster to see the pure joy that the dog has for me. I cannot say that Sandra, my wife, is just as happy to see me on every occasion. I say that in jest, because I know for a fact that she is happy to see me. She might not always express it as forcefully as the dog does, but that is by the way. The bond that comes from my relationship with the dog is unshakeable, and the thought of ever coming home and not seeing that wee tail wagging away is truly a difficult one to consider.
Our dog Autumn was a rescue dog. Someone had unfortunately been bad to it, and we brought it home to our house. The dog has settled in well, and the nervousness and vulnerability that it had at the beginning has gone away, thank goodness. As it is a springer spaniel, I was pleased to take it out shooting with me, so it has now become my hunting dog. It is my wife’s dog, but it is my hunting dog, which I use on occasion during the shooting season.
How much worse is it for those who live alone and whose little cat or dog is their sole companion? I have had distressed constituents who are their wit’s end ringing my office and searching for their lost cat. They cannot get help. When I contact my local council, which is always responsive, compassionate and truly wonderful, it is often unable to help, as it does not have a policy of scanning cats. That has not helped to alleviate families’ distress, which is why I support the petitions that are before us, and I know that other hon. Members will endorse them.
According to figures from Cats Protection, some 2.6 million cats across the UK are not microchipped, representing 26% of all cats. My wife has three cats. At one stage, we had six cats. When three passed away, we did not replace them. My wife has worked in an animal charity for some time, and she now works in a cattery. Cats can roam freely and are known for their inquisitive nature. We have two cats who are house cats, and we have one cat who will hunt night and day. We live on a farm, so we want all the cats to hunt and to keep the rats and mice under control, which can lead to their becoming lost or injured. We have lost quite a few on the road. Without a microchip, an owned cat may never be reunited with its owner. If a cat is sadly killed in the road, a microchip allows the owner to be informed and have closure. If a cat is stolen, a microchip gives the owner the best chance of being reunited. If cats were all microchipped, as with dogs, it would prevent the euthanising of owned and loved cats. That is why I add my voice to the call of the petitions, to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North referred in his introduction.
The all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group has clearly stated that although it is compulsory for the public to microchip dogs, it is only optional for vets, professionals, authorities and rescues to scan and check microchip registration. With new and potentially stolen dogs not being scanned and checked at their first vet consultation, the opportunity to identify and reunite thousands of stolen dogs is being missed. Members have asked lots of questions in relation to this issue, and I know the Government have given commitments. There have been some success stories in certain parts of the country, such as the midlands. It just shows how a dog that is stolen in Kent can very quickly end up in Birmingham, so a network of criminality is in place.
The flawed microchipping system does not provide any peace of mind whatever to families who experience dog or cat theft. The microchipping of all dogs and cats is absolutely essential, and we have a clear opportunity to put that right. Fern’s story and subsequent campaign have highlighted how something that would take a mere minute of a vet’s time could reunite families and bring healing to a devastated heart. For people I know whose dog or cat is the absolute treasure of their lives and their constant companion, not knowing whether their wee pet was roaming sick or in pain would be worse than knowing that they are gone. We can implement reform to take away that uncertainty for many.
As always, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. I am convinced that she understands what we are saying and will respond in a positive way. These simple changes are not onerous and would make great steps in animal welfare. I am proud to have spoken in the debate in support of the hon Gentleman and others who have said that something can be done. The fact is, we must do it now.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Pritchard. May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on his success in bringing this important issue to the public gaze and to Parliament, where we are charged with setting the laws and ensuring that they are properly policed?
I fully agree with the petitions and the sentiment behind them. They are focused on chipping dogs and reading the chips. Currently, it is compulsory to have one’s dog chipped, but it is not compulsory, as I discovered to my surprise during lockdown, to scan those chips. That discovery led me to ask further questions. Many of the people whom my hon. Friend mentioned, including Debbie and others, showed me that it is literally incoherent that we have an obligation on owners to chip but not on vets to scan. What is the point of chipping animals if the honest people in society are the only ones who get them checked? We need that to be made obligatory.
My hon. Friend is quite right that there are between 14 and 16 separate databases, and that we need to ensure that the data is centrally available and read, so that we know who the original owner is and the right people—the people who originally owned the dog—have the say so on the decision about whether a dog is to be put down or not, as my hon. Friend said.
I draw the House’s attention to the Report stage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, for which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) have tabled three new clauses. New clause 14 would require the sale of pet by cheque or bank transfer, basically banning cash sales. New clause 15 would make it compulsory for microchipped pets to be scanned by vets, who must check that the microchip number is registered on an approved database and confirm the correct registered keeper. New clause 16 would make the offence of pet theft a specific category of crime carrying a much more significant fine and/or incarceration.
I want us to come back to the idea that microchipping is important because it is necessary to understand who the owner is. I say that because there has been a staggering increase in crime relating to pets, and dogs in particular. As has been said, during the lockdown, many people who had never had a pet suddenly realised that they had more time on their hands and wanted one, so demand went up. Legitimate supply was unable to keep up for the simple reason that legitimate breeders were unable to put dogs and bitches together to produce legitimate litters, so we were left with the criminal fraternity, which did two things.
First, there was the increase in puppy farms, which is a disgusting state of affairs. A bitch will be stolen from somebody, she will be used constantly to produce young puppies until she is worn out within about six months to a year, and then the criminals have her put down or abandon her on the streets. That is really important. For those who care about this, it is not just a political game; it is very serious, because it is about unnecessary pain and the terrible lives led by animals who are taken by criminals.
Secondly, there has been an enormous increase in dog theft. The BBC reported a 250% increase in dog theft crime in Suffolk alone during the pandemic, comparing the year ending July 2019 and that ending July 2020. The Metropolitan police report the highest number of dog thefts in the country. The number of stolen dogs registered on the DogLost website increased by 170% from 2019 to 2020, and 2020 has been one of the worst years ever for dognapping.
It is bad enough that there is theft, which is a crime, but dog theft is the theft of people’s pets, not just property, and that is where the law falls down again. Pets are more than just property. I might own this chair behind me, but the chair does not greet me in the evening when I come back. It does not console me when there is a problem. It just sits there. A dog is a sentient being and therefore has greater value than just an object, and it is time we brought the law up to speed.
The problem is that prices have rocketed. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North spoke about that earlier. The price has increased by 134% for chows, at £2,000 in October compared with £1,000 the previous March. Pets such as French bulldogs can be more than £5,000 each, and a litter can earn more than £30,000 for those who use them to breed. The problem is not just criminality. Violence is used by criminals to steal dogs to order, so we now have an increase in violent crime.
Here is the problem; it has gone to the gangs. I live in an area of north-east London that has real problems with street gangs. The police work hard on it and so does the local authority. I make no criticism of them. But the gangs now see it as easier, cheaper and less of a problem to steal a pet such as a French bulldog and sell it on for cash rather than try to sell drugs on a street corner, because selling drugs gets them into much greater trouble. It leads to great violence to themselves and therefore becomes a bigger problem. Why would they not steal a valuable pet and sell it? They might get a £250 fine. They are just laughing their heads off.
Dogs are now valuable merchandise. There is no real criminal penalty for stealing one, so why not do it? That is one reason why violent thefts have increased dramatically. What the hell do they care if they smash somebody to the ground, hurt them—normally an elderly person—and take their dog? We have heard stories of people being stamped on, their hands smashed and the dog taken off the lead. Sometimes knives are used. All sorts of stuff goes on, because pets now have a significant cash value.
Cash is key here, which is why we want to ban the use of cash. It had a massive effect on the theft of lead from churches when we introduced a ban on cash for scrap metal. This is another angle of attack. I absolutely support what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said about microchipping. It is, however, only one element of what has to happen with regard to pets. We need to update the law. Far too many people out there are really worried.
I know what goes on in Ministries. I had six years in a Department, so I know what civil servants say: “Oh, Minister, this is really a second-order issue. There are many more important things that we have to focus on. There are all these big things that we have to deal with.” I say there is no greater issue than the thing that affects our constituents’ lives and worries them and that leads to criminality, violence and the loss of the legitimate property of a pet—a dog, a cat or whatever. It is time to make this not a second-order issue, but a first-order issue. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the issue has been kicked around the different Departments. I know that the Lord Chancellor is speaking to people in the next couple of days, so he takes an interest in it. The Home Secretary spoke to me and she took an interest in it, and I know that the Minister’s Department takes an interest in it. Can we please make sure that the Government recognise that whoever owns this problem, we all own it collectively as a Parliament—not even as a Government? We own it because we owe it to our constituents to save them from any further problems, any further violence, and any further threats and the theft of pets.
I am a dog owner myself. Like many others, I would hate the idea of my wife or somebody else being smashed to the ground, beaten up and their pet stolen. My wife has just stepped down as chair of the trustees of the charity Medical Detection Dogs. The charity is currently working on detecting covid, with brilliant and immediate results, as high as any of the tests. These are very valuable animals that save our lives. They sniff aircraft to check there are no bombs or illegal currency, and they come to this place to run around the Benches and tell us that we are safe. They are not items; they are pets that are owned by people, but they are also incredibly powerful and save lives. Now is the time to act. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to relay that back to all the Government Departments. Let’s get on with this, do what is right and help our constituents.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and all the hon. Members who have spoken so passionately on this subject.
The topic is close to my heart. I want to take Members back to the hazy days of 1986. Shadow was our family dog. He was a beautiful Labrador-cross—adorable, a real gentle soul—and we also had his mother, Suzie. One day I remember coming home from school aged 12 and she was missing from our garden. We contacted the police, the animal rescue centres and the council, but she was never found again, so I know what it is like when dogs go missing. As a family, we felt real anguish. As most of us who have pets know, our animals are part of our family. We felt real grief and loss not ever knowing what happened to her. Had microchipping been available then, we would have had a better chance of finding her. I believe it was first introduced into our country in 1989, just three years after we lost our dog.
According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, it is estimated that there are 51 million pets, across 12 million households, across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. With 44% of all households owning pets, including mine—I now have a miniature schnauzer called Godiva and rescue dog called Suzie—we are a nation of animal lovers who cherish our pets, and especially so in my constituency of Morley and Outwood. We have an annual dog show, the fantastic College of Animal Welfare, the RSPCA rescue centre, the Cats Protection rescue centre and the Whitehall Dog Rescue centre, where I got my own rescue dog, Suzie.
Over the course of the past year, we have seen how pets have become indispensable for so many people, especially supporting people when they have physical and mental health challenges. That is one reason that the welfare of our pets matters to us and why responsible dog owners will ensure their pets are microchipped.
The petitions call for two measures to be introduced, as was mentioned earlier: first, that vets must scan microchips of animals brought into them in order to combat pet theft, which we know is on the rise and, secondly, that vets should scan the microchips prior to performing euthanasia on any animal, to ensure that the owner is the person who has brought the pet in and that they are guaranteed to be aware of the situation. I am proud to support both these measures and all the measures that my right hon. and hon. Friends and Members from across the House have spoken about today.
If enacted into law, the measures in these e-petitions will help to reduce the suffering that both animals and their families face. They will ensure that animals can be reunited with the family that cares for them and that families can take comfort in knowing that everything possible has been done to help reunite them with their pets. They will guarantee that owners can fear less and if something has happened to their pets, in the saddest of circumstances, it maximises the chances that they will be there when they say their final goodbye. These measures are pure in their intentions, and I urge the Government to look seriously at them to further strengthen the great work we have already done on animal welfare in recent years.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here under your stewardship, Mr Pritchard, although it will not be so much of a pleasure for my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who brought the debate, because unfortunately he will have to listen to me for the next couple of minutes talking about my own pets. I think it is important to do that, because that is what humanises the debate.
In the nearly 18 months I have been here, this is one of the easiest speeches I have had to give, talking about my pets, Roux and Ada, who are two very silly whippets, the first of whom was bought before the first lockdown. In the same week that Michel Roux died, we got Roux, a grey, very small—very tiny—very meek whippet. She was supposed to be my wife’s dog, while I was away down in Westminster, but of course we went straight into lockdown and Roux joined me, at my feet, at my beck and call. Every single day, during those phone calls, from 6 o’clock in the morning to 11 o’clock at night, dealing with my constituents in the pandemic, Roux was there. My only break was to get her a drink or feed her, to let her out and to take her for a walk. She was my companion.
That of course meant a problem, because that dog was supposed to be my wife’s—so we had to get a second. The second came in the form of Ada, named after Ada Lovelace for two reasons: she has a great big heart—literally, on the side of her chest—and Ada Lovelace has a special place in my constituency. Ada is the complete opposite of the meek Roux; she is tenacious and grunty, and she has only one gear, which is forward. That is problematic. When I go out across the fields of Leicestershire, Ada and Roux head out and leave me for dust. They are not only whippets by name. As people who have a whippet know, they are digital animals—they are either on or off. Most people say of having a whippet, “You don’t own one; you wear one”—they are on the sofa, they are around our neck or lying in our lap. When we take them out, however, it is a different kettle of fish.
I am lucky to have the fields of Desford, Peckleton and Newbold Verdon all at my beck and call, because the dogs love to run across them. The problem is, they will spot children and other dogs on the other side of the fields, and be gone. The good news is that mine are so meek that I am yet to see a dominant display at any point. It usually ends with them rolling over and showing their tummy.
Whippets are fantastic escape artists. They are brilliant at defusing all my ways of keeping them in the garden, from chewing through chicken wire to leaping six-foot fences. That, however, is of course the cut and thrust of what we are talking about: they escape easily and, should they escape, they can disappear; and if they disappear, they can be lost and, unfortunately, lost forever—as we heard, tragically, from my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns).
About 8.5 million dogs in the country are chipped. I like to think that most of them have good homes, so that is at least 8.5 million people looking after them, although of course they are family animals. That is why the debate matters; it cuts through to who we are. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) hinted at that. He gave many stats about how the subject not only is the soft underbelly of the emotional aspect of the UK, but leads to the harder crime aspect.
Given those serious points, I would like to think that if my dogs ever went missing, a vet would scan my dog. We know that the numbers have gone from 58% to 90% when dogs are chipped, but we also know that prices have gone up and that there is puppy profiteering. In my own experience—which with whippets, not the most popular breed—prices doubled in that timeframe. Worse still is puppy smuggling. I know, from when I asked about pet fish and how to protect oneself when buying them, that the Minister is working hard to deal with the issues. Most people are good people, they do their diligent research, but we need the vets and the industry to support our fight in dealing with theft and loss.
I am completely open to the fact that unintended consequences are possible. I would like to see the consultation get underneath what is going on, bringing with the Government the vets, the associations, the rescuers and of course the public, because at heart, as a Parliament, we can all agree, no matter which side of the House we are on, no matter which industry we are in—receiver or carer—that this can be resolved. I would like the Minister to consider that, to provide some dates for when the two measures are likely to come forward and, I hope, be passed.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for securing an important debate.
Pet theft reform is something I have campaigned on for a while now. Indeed, we had a debate on pet theft last year, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt). Many points were made, and I think that the Government are attempting to deal with them in this Parliament. They are trying to tackle this horrific crime, which impacts on our constituents so fundamentally. We need to use every tool available to us, and the two petitions highlight how absolutely crucial the rules on microchipping, databases and scanning are to getting this right. Fern, of Fern’s law, spent six years as a lost dog away from her family. Had a vet been obliged to check her microchip—veterinary treatment had been sought for her in that time—we know she would have made it home more quickly.
Many petitions that come with such popularity from the general public have common sense at their core. Having a single database to identify lost or stolen dog is basic common sense. If a dog is stolen, being able to add a marker to that single database to flag the pet as stolen is common sense. When a dog is sadly presented to be euthanised, we should establish that the correct and rightful owner is the person making that request. There is a further debate to be had about whether euthanising a healthy pet by a vet should be an available option, or whether surrender to a rescue would be a much better way to tackle unwanted pets, because no healthy dog should be euthanised. I know vets have an incredibly difficult time having to euthanise healthy dogs.
Pet theft is utterly barbaric. As we heard from so many people who have spoken, it is an urgent matter that we reform pet theft laws. Every day, I read another story of a devastated owner who has lost a beloved family member. In recent local elections, I heard that this crime has become such a concern to people I met, especially older constituents and female constituents. They are now too nervous to take their dogs out, certainly towards the end of the day. I was talking to them when trying to get dog-walking groups together; obviously, in the pandemic, that has been difficult for people. However, we must deal with this. It is so important to our constituents.
As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), amendments have been tabled to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. New clause 15 would make Fern’s law a reality, and I will support that new clause. We need action now. I spoke to the Lord Chancellor about pet theft a couple of weeks ago, and I have spoken to DEFRA Ministers and to the Home Office, and I am reassured that the Government are absolutely committed to doing this. I welcome the Government’s setting up the pet theft taskforce, which will look at all the issues around pet theft and report in the autumn.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister in advance: I talk to her a lot about various animal welfare issues, and she is a real animal lover. I know that so many people support these reforms. How they happen is not important; whether via amendments to that Bill or a separate Act, it just needs to happen, and it needs to happen immediately, or as quickly as Government time will allow. Finally, I thank everybody who has campaigned for Fern’s law and Tuk’s law and every single person who signs petitions and who writes to their Member of Parliament. It is so important that we are kept informed and that we keep the pressure up to get something done—to get positive action. I thank the Government for listening and reacting to that.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. These two very important petitions essentially deal with the same matter—the fact that there is no legal requirement on veterinarians, local authorities or highways agencies to scan dog or cat microchips in any circumstances, and variations of legal problems that flow from that fact. I will confine my remarks in the main to Tuk’s law, for reasons I will outline in a second. However, I fully support Fern’s law. I will not add to what other hon. Members have said, but I do not think the Minister will be unsuspecting of what I am about to say. Fern’s law asks for it to be made compulsory to scan and check all microchips, to reunite stolen dogs and cats. The request behind Gizmo’s law is that more legislation should be brought in for deceased cats and other pets, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister—she is the most fantastic Minister on such issues—to ensure that Gizmo’s law is given due consideration at the earliest opportunity, which I know I say to the Minister every single time I meet her in and outside the main Chamber. Gizmo’s law is an important part of the animal legislation that I believe the Government should bring forward.
Like many other Members, I am a dog owner. My friend is Bertie, a 16-month-old black lab, and I do not know what I would do without him. Tuk was a 16-month-old rescue dog—the same age as my dog—and, sadly, he was destroyed on 22 December 2017. This debate follows on from that event and that sacrifice. Tuk was not scanned prior to euthanasia, and his rescue back-ups were not contacted or notified of his death, even though he had full rescue back-up registered on his microchip and on the original database. It required only the microchip to be scanned for the rescue back-up to be contacted and for Tuk to be saved, which highlights the importance of the legislation.
I have worked with Sue Williams, Dawn Ashley and Dominic Dyer. I introduced a private Member’s Bill on Tuk’s law, which sadly fell, in the last Session, but I have decided to make my remarks about Tuk’s law their words, because they are the passionate campaigners who have driven the campaign forward. They are the people who have got over 100,000 signatures in their desire to protect animals.
What is a rescue back-up registration on a microchip? As part of the adoption contract, rescue organisations register their details on the original database as a secondary contact. In times of vulnerability, the secondary contact is there to protect the animal from being unnecessarily euthanised and to alert the veterinarian that an alternative is in place.
What is rescue back-up? Once an animal is adopted and rehomed, the rescue remains a presence in their life, offering rescue back-up to the adopter for the duration of the pet’s life. The rescue is available for advice, and should the adopter no longer be able to care for the animal, the rescue will support them and find an alternative new home. For those reasons, I am therefore delighted that Tuk’s law has been included in the Government’s action plan for animals, and I thank the Minister and the Government for that.
I want to point out some of the concerns of the Tuk’s law campaign. I know the Minister is aware of them, but they bear repeating. As ever, the Tuk’s law campaign continues to lobby the Government to ensure that all microchipped details, including the rescue back-up contact details for the rescue organisation, are confirmed on the original database prior to the euthanasia of a healthy or treatable animal. The Tuk’s law campaign also requests that, once confirmed, any identified rescue back-up details, including the rescue organisation’s contact details, are registered on veterinarian practice databases, and that should an animal ever be in a vulnerable position, the veterinarians agree to communicate with the rescue or second contact prior to the euthanasia of the healthy or treatable animal.
Obviously, we have heard that DEFRA, the RCVS and BVA have taken some positive steps to prevent the unnecessary euthanasia of dogs. However, the Tuk’s law campaign is dedicated to ensuring that lives are not unnecessarily lost. The campaigners consider that the commitment in its current form does not go far enough, and they believe that the omission of the word “treatable” in the recent change to the RCVS code of conduct leaves many animals still at risk. Although there is appreciation that the BVA has concerns regarding the levels of intervention that the veterinarian profession is willing to undertake, those steps should be taken when the life of any animal is at risk.
This is a subject that I could speak on for a long time. It is rooted in common sense, legality and the desire of all our constituents to ensure that no healthy animals— like Tuk, Bertie and the pets that right hon. and hon. Members have talked about—are ever in a position, be it through theft or loss, whereby they lose their lives through no fault of their own, even though a rescue back-up is in place to help them, to protect them and to ensure that they continue to be the constant companions that we all value and treasure as part of our everyday lives.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for leading this debate for the Petitions Committee; it is particularly good to see him here. I also thank the Minister, both for being here today and for recently visiting my North West Durham constituency; it was great to see her there.
Spice, Sam, Tess and Cookie were the pets that I grew up with at home when I was a child. It is quite clear that pets are far more than just animals; they are family members, too. That was attested to by my visit to Bishop Ian Ramsey Primary School in Medomsley on Friday, when I spoke to the children in year 6 there about this very issue.
I will not regurgitate too much of the speeches from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), or my hon. Friends the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson), and for Bury North (James Daly), who have all hammered home the key points that need to be made. However, I will pay tribute to the Farplace animal rescue centre in my constituency, which does so much good work.
On Fern’s law, the situation seems pretty clear to me. We have compulsory microchipping, so compulsory scanning is the obvious next step, because without it we do not have compulsory checking and therefore we have a weak system. Without compulsory scanning, how can we possibly move towards the compulsory microchipping of cats? It is an absolute no-brainer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said. Clearly, compulsory scanning should be made obligatory as quickly as possible.
Regarding Tuk’s law, it was particularly nice to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North talking about his own 16-month-old dog, which is the same age that Tuk was when he was put down. It seems absolutely sensible for there to be a compulsory scan before destruction. Although the strengthened guidance is welcome, I would like the Government to consider what else can be done in this space.
As many Members have said, it is quite clear that lockdown has made this issue even more important, with the cost of dogs being driven through the roof over the past few months. Coming out of lockdown, when we might also see the destruction of dogs, is also important. It is quite clear that lockdown has made the situation even worse, which is why it is so important that the Government act. I hope they will speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green about what can possibly be done.
It is also clear that the 16 different databases that currently exist are not fit for purpose. If we have just one system for cars, we should have just one for people’s animals, which mean a lot more to them than their cars or so many other things in their lives.
I will conclude by saying that I really welcome these petitions; they are about issues that are hugely important to many of my constituents. In addition, pet theft has been a major issue. Durham Constabulary has raised it with me personally several times over the last few months during lockdown, so I really hope that we get some action and some positive words about it from the Minister today.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)[V]
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for calling this important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and for setting the scene for us all in such detail at the outset.
Before I begin my contribution, I will declare an interest as the proud owner of Rossi the rescue dog, which won fourth place in the Westminster Dog of the Year contest a few years back; we are so proud of Rossi. I am also the chair of the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group, or APDAWG. Additionally, I wish to thank from the bottom of my heart the 538 constituents of mine who signed the petitions that we are debating today. Like others who have already spoken, I express my thanks to Marc Abraham OBE, to Dr Daniel Allen, and to the Tuk’s law and Fern’s law campaigners, alongside Debbie Matthews, for their invaluable work in campaigning on these important matters.
Finally, I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part today and spoken so passionately on behalf of their constituents, including the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson), and those who spoke about their own pets: the hon. Members for Bosworth (Dr Evans), for North West Durham (Mr Holden), and for Bury North (James Daly), who has done so much already around Tuk’s law, as I am aware; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whose wife is heavily involved in dog welfare and rescue; and the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns), who spoke so poignantly about the loss of her own pet, Shadow, highlighting to us that animals are sentient beings and very much a part of our families.
Last Friday, I was proud to visit the south Lanarkshire rescue centre of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and to speak with the CEO Kirsteen Campbell, alongside Mike Flynn and other staff who work there. Not only was it a privilege to see first-hand the lengths that staff and volunteers go to in order to treat and care for the dogs, cats and other little animals in desperate need of re-homing, it was great to hear so much more about the work it is doing with the Links Group to highlight the link between animal abuse, domestic violence and other social issues, as well as through its education programme. I was interested to hear that local shelters often have to pay the costs of animals seized until their court date, amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds. It has been particularly difficult during the pandemic to raise funds. Much more must be done in legislation on temporary refuge.
In my visit to the SSPCA, it was clear to see the difficulty that it faces in reuniting pets with their rightful owners where their details have not been kept up to date. By acting on the petitions, first by making microchip scanning mandatory for vets at a pet’s first consultation, and secondly by creating a centralised database for microchip companies, the House would take a vital step towards ensuring pets are given every opportunity to be reunited with their owners, wherever they are lost or stolen.
It is impossible to overstate the importance and urgency of the action required. The pandemic has seen a surge in pet ownership, with more than 3 million pets acquired since the start of the first lockdown, mostly cats and dogs. Tragically, the rise in demand has been accompanied by an unprecedented rise in pet theft. Given that 99% of pet owners consider their pets to be family members, yet only one in five stolen pets is ever returned to their family, the current gaps and the distinct and worrying lack of microchip scanning cause immense distress to families and pets across all our constituencies. Compulsory scanning at first visit would also act as a significant deterrent to pet theft, as thieves will be reluctant to sell on stolen pets for fear of compulsory scanning triggering a potential investigation or prosecution.
The real tragedy of the issue is that most of us who have pets assume that a vet’s practice would scan our pet’s microchip should they go missing. The public assume that practice is already in place. A Twitter poll published by Dr Daniel Allen found that almost 4,000 voters —or 98%—expected vets to check their pet’s microchip should they be stolen. We read Government statements and information on microchip websites boasting that microchipping our pets will increase our chances of being reunited with them, and we believe them. Yet, very often, due to gaps in scanning and data collection, that is sadly not the case. One of the most common reasons cited against mandating vets to check pets’ microchips on the first visit is that it would take too long to scan and check microchips, and it is not the vet’s job. However, someone else in the practice could do it, such as a member of the support staff, to ensure that the vet’s time is not taken up.
I welcome the Government’s commitments and their action plan for animal welfare, particularly with regard to the introduction of compulsory cat microchipping and the explicit reference to reforming the current system of collating animal microchip data to prevent instances where pets have been euthanised without the express consent of their rightful owners. I echo the comments of hon. Members, including those of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), that we must give vets every opportunity to succeed in reuniting lost pets with owners, and identify and prosecute instances of pet theft that cause such harm to everyone involved. We must take this issue forward collectively across Parliament. I am sure it has cross-party support and I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for introducing the petition so well. There is good cross-party support from all the hon. Members in the debate for action to be taken. I fear that it will be déjà vu for the Minister, because there have been examples, across a number of animal welfare debates, of Opposition and Government Members all agreeing that action needs to be taken. We also nearly always agree that that action would be relatively simple and low cost, and would have a substantially positive impact on our constituents. That puts the Minister in a bad situation, because she will have to explain why that action still has not happened.
We are facing a relative slew of parliamentary legislation —a real piggery of parliamentary business—around animal welfare at the moment. There is lots of it, but there is a lot missing from it. I want to hear from the Minister about what needs primary legislation, and I want clarification that it will be included in primary legislation. Where items do not need primary legislation—I believe that in this case we do not need primary legislation to take action—secondary legislation should be brought forward swiftly. The danger is that we will all just sit here in this debate and agree, but this issue requires the Government to act.
The petitions are well supported, with 235,000 signatures, including 436 from Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I know that people feel really passionately about this matter. The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill—the flagship piece of animal welfare legislation that the Minister is introducing—offers a chance to tidy up and clear up a number of the remaining animal welfare problems. The Minister has looked carefully at Labour’s animal welfare manifesto and included a number of the points from it in the legislation, and I am grateful to her for doing so. I know that Back-Bench Members from her own party would also be grateful if Ministers listened to their campaigns on this matter.
I am also grateful to the Minister for taking the time last week to sit down with me and the shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team to talk through what is in the Bill and, importantly, what is not, as well as what could be put into it at a later stage. That is really where secondary legislation comes in. Some people watching the debate will not really be excited by secondary legislation, and the truth is that many people in this House are not particularly excited by secondary legislation either, but it does enable the Government, relatively simply, to change the rules on legislation that has already been passed, largely with cross-party support. I encourage the Minister to do that in the two cases before us.
During the debate, a number of right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about the loss of their own pets and what that meant to them. The hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) spoke about the loss of her dog, Shadow, who went missing. As the Minister knows, I had my own experience of that when, as a little boy, I lost my cat, Bumblesnarf—named after Bumblebee from “Transformers” and Snarf from “Thundercats”, obviously—and I did not know where it was, whether it was coming back and whether it was in distress or in pain. Those are common concerns for people right across the country.
Compulsory microchipping makes a lot of sense and is hugely popular among the people we represent, but it would seem to be only part of the solution if we require compulsory microchipping but do not require compulsory checking of the microchip once it is in the animal. Throughout the debate we have effectively, without saying so, made the case that microchipping is good, positive and has real benefits. However, the system has to deliver on the promise that was made, including by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who said way back in April 2016:
“Microchipping will not only reunite people with their lost or stolen pets, but also help to tackle the growing problem of strays roaming the streets and relieve the burden placed on animal charities and local authorities.”
He was right then and he is right now, but the system needs to work from end to end. At the moment, there are sizeable gaps in the system.
Microchipping is a cheap and easy procedure; it is safe for cats, dogs and other animals; and it is permanent and cost-effective. It needs to work, however, and that is why I think the challenge for the Minister is to convince herself, her Government colleagues and her officials that this action is worth taking.
I find myself in the awkward position of agreeing wholeheartedly with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—as an Opposition Member, that is something that I pride myself on not always doing. [Interruption.] I will be talking to myself in the mirror later; do not worry. He raised a fantastic point about first and second-order issues. I do not know of a single voter in Plymouth who would say that animal welfare is anything other than a first-order issue. We, as parliamentarians of any party, need to make that case to Ministers—to use all parliamentary legislative opportunities, including secondary legislation via statutory instruments, to achieve this.
The right hon. Gentleman’s case for amending the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—a Bill that I am not a huge fan of—to include pet theft is a good one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and I have argued for the same thing from Labour’s perspective. Elements of that would have cross-party support, because pet theft is an increasingly difficult and stubborn problem. The pandemic has made it considerably worse; we all recognise the demand for animals and the company that they provide. The legislation needs to be flexible enough to catch up with that demand and the problems that it is causing. There is a real chance to do something on pet theft. I do not have high hopes for a taskforce, but I want to see action. We know what needs to be done—we do not need a delaying tactic to help us to get there slower—and it needs to happen shortly.
There is real support for action on microchipping cats, as we have heard. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) remarked in his speech that 2.6 million owned cats in the UK have still not been microchipped—that is a quarter of all pet cats. Cats, as we know, have a mind of their own. However, if an owner microchips their cat, it is an important aspect of the bond between them, because the owner knows that if the cat keeps going out, they will have the opportunity to be reunited with it. There is a good case for more work to be done on that. There is cross-party support for such action, as the Government’s consultation showed, so it should just happen.
There is also good support for Fern’s law. I do not share the concerns that have been expressed by a number of veterinary colleagues, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. There is always time to ensure that the animal that the vet is dealing with—and its owner—is the one that is supposed to be there, and it is right to take time to scan the animal properly. I notice that in the original response that the petition triggered, the Government said that the area is largely governed by self-regulation and best practice. I spent five years working for ABTA—the Travel Association—so I support self-regulation and industries looking after themselves, but not enough is being done on this. It is reasonable to require veterinary businesses to scan animals that come into their surgeries. I ask the industry to look again at that, because there is strong support for Fern’s law.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson), talked about common sense being at the core of any good policy, and I agree with her. There is real concern about the databases: the fact that there are 16 different databases in this area shows not that the market is working effectively and efficiently, but that we have a broken market and a broken system. Along with those 16 database, which do not often speak to each other, there are bogus websites deliberately set up by scammers to take money off pet owners who want to do the right thing and register their animal. That is not backed up by any certainty that were anything to happen, it would be looked at. I encourage the Minister to look carefully at the databases, because the whole system is not working. She would enjoy cross-party support if she took action in that respect, albeit first recommending that there should be quick action from the companies that are already dealing with the matter. If there is no voluntary action, there should be Government action.
Tuk’s law—that a healthy animal’s microchip must always be scanned before euthanising—is also a no-brainer. That must happen, and there is something obviously wrong with the existing system. I encourage the Minister to look at swiftly implementing Tuk’s law by whatever legislative route she can, whether in secondary or primary legislation.
That leads me briefly to the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly). He and I share a real passion to see Gizmo’s law put into legislation. It is frustrating for him and for me to hear that being skipped over in each and every debate. Heléna Abrahams, Gizmo’s owner, shares our passion for real change. I encourage the Minister not only to continue to listen to the hon Gentleman, but to act on what he says, because it is very sensible.
We also need to talk about the important issue of access to vets. In each of our contributions, we have made the case that access to veterinary care is available and that, when an animal is taken to a vet, a certain action should be taken as a result. However, there are many people who cannot afford access to a vet; it is a luxury that they cannot afford for themselves. We need to look at the affordability of access to veterinary care to ensure that everyone can access the proper services of a vet in this respect. That is another point from Labour’s animal welfare manifesto that I would encourage the Minister to cut and paste. I think that that would be popular.
When it comes to animal welfare, it helps to remember that doing the right thing for animals is almost always in the best interests of humans as well. That is where I think there is strong support from both sides of the House for the measures outlined in these two petitions.
I say to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) that I am a big fan of his Instagram and his pictures of his whippets. There needs to be a parliamentary caucus for parliamentary Lukes—indeed, we have a small one here in this debate.
The issue raised by the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) about the potential increase in the destruction of animals as we come out of lockdown restrictions is another good point. Although it does not easily fit into a solution, it certainly helps to identify an emerging problem that will get bigger and bigger, particularly with more animals potentially presenting with behavioural difficulties because of the on-again, off-again presence of their owners and families.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to set out the positive and cross-party case for action on this matter. I look forward to the Minister giving us—I hope—the good news that she will be taking action and not just delaying that further.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I think is the first time, Mr Pritchard. It is also a great pleasure to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), and all who signed the petitions that led to the debate this afternoon. I reassure everybody that animal welfare is definitely a first-order issue for this Government. We all recognise the valuable contribution that our pets can make to our lives. We have heard this afternoon the sad stories of Shadow and Bumblesnarf, but we have also heard very heart-warming stories—from my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), for example, and, indeed, from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who feels that his dog greets him more warmly than his wife.
Last month, we introduced a Bill to recognise that animals are sentient beings—the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill. Earlier this month, we introduced a Bill that will enhance protection for kept animals—the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill—including through provisions on puppy smuggling and livestock worrying; introduce bans on the export of live animals for slaughter and fattening; and put controls on keeping primates as pets.
I assure everyone that action is being taken. There is a long list of animal welfare issues to get through, and we are working through it. We are keen not to delay. Some of this can be dealt with in primary legislation. Some, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) reminds me—he knows that I am a great fan of secondary legislation—can be dealt with in secondary legislation. Some can be dealt with by non-legislative means. It is important that we use every tool in our toolbox. I know that right hon. and hon. Members are impatient to get this done. It is important that we do that; I am not trying to hold anything up in this respect, but it is also important that we do it properly, that we do it after full consultation with the public and that we bring the members of the veterinary profession with us or encourage them to move with us on this, because, as many hon. Members have said, much depends on them.
We are committed to microchipping. Our action plan for animal welfare reaffirmed that, so compulsory cat microchipping will be coming in. We have consulted on this already. More than 33,000 people took the trouble to respond to the consultation. We are working up the detailed proposals at the moment and we will respond fully on that in the autumn, following which, I am sure, hon. Members will have a great deal to say on our response. And we will definitely be introducing the necessary regulation next year.
The action plan for animal welfare also sets out our ambition to introduce further microchipping reforms in relation to the database systems. On Tuk’s law specifically, steps have already been taken to give greater assurance that the microchip database information is checked whenever a healthy dog is presented for euthanasia. I pay tribute to Sue, Dawn and Dominic, the driving forces behind this campaign, for their tireless efforts to highlight the plight of Tuk and other dogs who were put down when an alternative home might well have been available. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) also mentioned the dark side of domestic abuse that can underlie some of these tragic cases.
We have listened carefully to the campaign’s concerns and worked hard with the veterinary profession to develop an approach that has won approval from all sides. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons amended its guidance in May so that when a healthy dog is presented to be put down, the vet is now required to scan the microchip and check the details on the microchip database. This will enable them to consider whether anyone else has an interest in the animal, such as a rehoming centre that might well be able to prevent the animal from being put down. The guidance underpins the code of professional conduct for vets. Any vet practising in the UK is required to adhere to it. Notification of the change to the guidance was sent to every registered vet and was well publicised in sector publications. I am grateful to the veterinary profession for its positive engagement on this.
I heard, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, that pets obtained during the pandemic might be given up as life returns to normal. I reassure my hon. Friend and other Members that we are monitoring this issue extremely closely as we— hopefully—come out of the pandemic. However, information received only last week from the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes suggests that dog and cat rescue centres have actually seen a decline in animals being given up for adoption and are currently, on average, below 60% full. In brief, we think that we have dealt with this issue by working closely with the veterinary profession, but we will continue to keep the matter closely under review as we come out of the pandemic, as suggested by many Members and the campaign.
On Fern’s law, we recognise the clear emotional upset and trauma that the loss of a much-loved pet can cause, and we will continue to take action on pet theft. We set up the Government’s pet theft taskforce, not at all to kick the issue down the road, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport suggested, but in fact, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) indicated, because this is a multi-departmental issue. My right hon. Friend has, if I may say so, knocked around government for some time now and is aware that we need DEFRA, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office to work together to ensure that this issue is right at the top of the agenda.
The taskforce will report by the end of July. Officials are working on the recommended actions at the moment. In the autumn, following the recommendations of the taskforce, we will work on the legislative and non-legislative measures that can help to deal with pet theft. Items that we are working on include stopping cash payments, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend; creating a new pet theft offence or offences where necessary; and considering measures on the compulsory scanning of microchips. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) said, we need to use every available tool in our response to this.
Fern’s law formed part of the consultation we carried out earlier this year. It is worth reminding colleagues that the compulsory microchipping of dogs was primarily brought in to reduce the number of dogs that needed to be rehomed or put down because their keepers could not be traced. In this, it has been really successful, with an increased reunification rate for strays since its introduction. The routine scanning of strays is clearly helpful, and there is a strong imperative to do that on animal welfare grounds. The veterinary profession already recommends that vets scan cats and dogs on first presentation to make sure that animals are correctly identified when checked against the database, and that the same thing is done at regular check-ups. Where the checks raise a concern that the animal might have been lost or stolen, vets have procedures in place to handle that. All of us have a shared goal to reunite pets with their owners. Vets play an important part in the system, and it will take a whole system approach to deal with it, including but not limited to microchipping animals, effective databases, and keepers ensuring that their details are kept up to date.
I will watch the progress of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green closely. I know that he has been in touch with the Lord Chancellor about it. We are considering the consultation responses on Fern’s law and will put forward our proposals this autumn.
On the calls for a single database, I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), whose constituency I was very pleased to visit. We should recognise that database operators are commercial enterprises that offer a range of services and provide a level of choice for pet owners, but I am sure that significant improvements can be made to the current system to address the issues of concern. Those include considering a single point of access for all databases, which, from the user’s perspective, might be very much like having a single database. We are working on that urgently, and, once again, I will come back to right hon. and hon. Members in the autumn with the response to the consultation. The improvements will help to support the principles behind the scanning campaigns that we have discussed today.
On Gizmo’s legacy—again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), whom I now refer to as Gizmo—colleagues also raised the issue of scanning dead cats killed by the roadside, which is the subject of this campaign. Poor Gizmo was disposed of in landfill without his microchip being scanned and his owner informed. Colleagues know that I myself lost a cat, Twilight—we still have his brother, Midnight—to a road traffic accident, and I have enormous sympathy with the aims of the campaign. All Highways England contracts include a requirement to identify and inform owners of dead cats and dogs found by the roadside. The charity CatsMatter, which does tremendous work with local authorities to encourage scanning, tells me that all but two local authorities—I am happy to name them—have scanning procedures in place. [Interruption.] The two exceptions are, I believe, Tower Hamlets and Westminster. Still more can be done to develop a consistent and effective approach based on best practice across all local authorities. I have superb examples of best practice available to all colleagues who wish to chat to me about it afterwards, and I encourage Members to be in touch with their local authority to check that best practice is carried out across the nation.
I want to reassure hon. Members that we will have more to say on this matter when we respond to the consultation exercise later in the year. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North does not talk about Gizmo in vain. In brief, I hope that you, Mr Pritchard, and colleagues are reassured that the Government are committed to addressing the issues to ensure that the microchipping regime is as effective as it possibly can be.
Jonathan Gullis
Once again, it is a pleasure to participate in a Petitions Committee debate. There is certainly unity among all Members here, and I thank them all for their fantastic contributions. We are proud of our dogs, and we have Westminster dog of the year for those of us who are pet owners. I look forward to knocking the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) off first place with Bella and Bailey. I am delighted to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), while shamelessly smouldering in his Instagram pose, does actually have a fan. [Laughter.] However, hearing from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) that my hon. Friend has a fan means that I have just unfollowed him, because I do not want to be associated with someone whose smouldering look I cannot match and who shamelessly uses pets to get likes on Instagram, which is obviously a trick I need to learn.
Everything—the whole plethora—was really well summed up in this debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who made the point that animals are not just property. They are far more than that. We have all talked about our own experiences and I certainly know Bella and Bailey mean far more to me.
My constituents in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke want to see their area made safer, because sadly a scumbag called Malachy Doherty stole two dogs outside Marks & Spencer and was sentenced to 27 weeks in prison for stealing. I think 27 weeks in prison does not send a strong enough message. His 14-year-old accomplice is sadly still on the run, but hopefully he will be brought before a court soon. I do not want Malachy back in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, quite frankly. I hope he finds a new home, in a tent in a field, maybe, so that he can be surrounded by his animals and maybe they will trample over that tent to remind him of what animals are like. Ultimately, this is the problem we face.
We have a pet theft taskforce, from which we are all waiting to see the results. We have to ensure that there are stricter laws in place and proper consequences for those who do harm to lives. It is now over two years since Freya Woodhall, one of the people from Fern’s law, lost her beloved dog. She told me that her children have sadly had to seek mental health support because of the long-term impact that losing that family member has had on them, which shows that more needs to be done.
I thank the Minister for her contribution. There is an awful lot going through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the moment and I am sure it has been a hectic time, on top of everything that has been going on with the global pandemic, but the sooner we act and the quicker we get these things done, the quicker that maintains public confidence in the Government, in which I have full confidence. It shows that we are listening to our constituents. Dealing with pet theft, microchipping and scanning of animals may seem small to some Members of Parliament, but it goes a massively long way to improving lives and outcomes. As Members of Parliament, this work is far more important in helping our constituents from day to day than other things that we might think are much grander when we are in the Chamber talking about convoluted issues. This is the bread-and-butter stuff that I was elected by the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke to change and deliver on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) talked about Shadow and Suzie, which touched us all. My thoughts are with her. The fact that it was so long ago, yet has stayed with her, shows how important that is. The Government have introduced a Bill on animal sentience, and that plays into what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said about animals being more than just pets. We have to take into account the distress that is caused to these animals when they are taken.
Sadly, some animals are so distressed that they end up having health ailments or are so scared that they quake when walking along. I was told by Dr Daniel Allen that when people are reunited with pets, the pet is never the same. In fact, they can end up dying from heart strain due to the disgusting attempts to breed them day in, day out, as well as suffering from the abuse of living in those terrible conditions.
We love our pets and our animals. We always want to do much more. I have no doubt this is an easy win for the Government. We are united across the House. All we are waiting for is the ability to walk through the Division Lobby or to give regulations a nod through a statutory instrument. Whatever is needed, let us get this thing done quickly and give confidence to pet owners across the United Kingdom. I look forward to seeing the Minister bring those recommendations forward in the autumn.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 300010 and 300025, relating to microchipping of pets.
Black History and Cultural Diversity in the Curriculum
(2 years, 10 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
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 324092, relating to Black history and cultural diversity in the curriculum.
This petition calls on the Government to teach Britain’s colonial past as part of the UK’s compulsory curriculum, and it has received over 240,000 signatures. The petition was started by Esmie Jikiemi-Pearson and arrived on the parliamentary website on 10 June 2020. Within 48 hours, it had reached the threshold of 100,000 signatures. The speed at which the petition met the threshold for debate shows the strength of feeling across our country that change is necessary and urgent. Multiple petitions cover similar subjects, and the Petitions Committee has taken on this issue as one of our key projects for the year.
The creators of the petition, which calls to add education on diversity and racism to all school curriculums and to make the UK curriculum more inclusive of black, Asian and minority ethnic history, have also given evidence to the Committee. Holding hearings in partnership with the Women and Equalities Committee, we have heard from a wide variety of sources in this field, from the Education Minister to schoolchildren. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Petitions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), for her commitment to the review. I am so pleased that the petitions have rightfully gained support from the public, which has allowed the Committee to investigate an area that I have long been passionate about: diversifying and improving our teaching of history in this country.
I must declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on archives and history, and I am also an honorary fellow of University of Wales Trinity Saint David. I am passionate about history and, above all, the way it is taught. It amazes me that we are so narrow in our curriculum. When I did GCSE history many years ago, we studied Adolf Hitler’s Germany, crime and punishment, which was mainly about Jack the Ripper, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. That was it. I then did my A-levels, when we did the Tudors and the civil war—Oliver Cromwell, Charles I and all that. Our curriculum is just far too narrow. It is easy for the Government to point to the option of teaching topic 3—“Ideas, political power, industry and empire: Britain, 1745 to 1901”—at key stage 3. However, it is not mandatory; it is only one of many topics that can be chosen by schools and teachers. It is clear that the signatories to the petition do not feel that this is enough, and I must agree with them.
The Committee found that 45% of primary school teachers and 64% of secondary school teachers who responded to our survey disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that:
“The National Curriculum ensures that students in my school experience a balanced range of ethnically and culturally diverse role models.”
Our inquiry has also shown that, far too often, subjects are not being taught because teachers lack confidence and, above all, proper training. One in four teachers told us that they lack confidence and the ability to develop their pupils’ understanding of black history and cultural diversity, with 86% calling for specialised in-school training to help address this. It is leaving students unprepared when they reach degree level, which continues a cycle of a lack of confidence within the subject.
Dr Deana Heath, who teaches southern Asian and imperial colonial history at the University of Liverpool, said: “I face an uphill struggle at the start of each new academic year. Many of the undergraduates who greet me know virtually nothing about any of the subjects I teach.” Although some black and BAME history is now taught in schools, it is far too narrow in scope. Most students’ experience of racial history up until A-level is incredibly American-centric. Students learn about American slavery and the black civil rights movement. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and even my great hero, Muhammed Ali, are now studied at GCSE by many pupils. However, very little black British history is taught.
When students learn about the transatlantic slave trade, Britain’s role is often simplified or is just a small part of their study. Few secondary school students learn about British slave plantations or slave ships. Even fewer learn how British involvement in the global slave trade shaped domestic economics, politics, empire building and industrialisation. Black British history has largely been forgotten in the UK curriculum, even though there have been black Britons since Roman times.
A student might have a chance to learn about the Montgomery bus boycotts in Alabama, but often does not learn about the history of bus boycotts much closer to home. In Bristol in 1963, there was a successful bus boycott for the Bristol Omnibus Company’s refusal to hire black or Asian bus crews. Many in the UK will know the name Rosa Parks, but not enough know the name Paul Stephenson. On the same day in 1963 that Martin Luther King gave his iconic “I have a dream” speech from the steps of Washington, the British Omnibus Company announced that there would be no more discrimination in the employment of bus crews.
I suspect we feel more comfortable looking at discrimination perpetuated by America than we do taking a closer look at our own history. We cannot continue to whitewash the UK’s past. Students must be taught a nuanced and honest view of British history. British and European history studied at GCSE and A-level all too often seems to be the history of white powerful men. History curriculums, especially until university, are too frequently studies of monarchs, politicians and military leaders. That creates an often Eurocentric white male, upper or middle class view of history and knowledge. That is not a full history of Britain, Europe or the world.
The roles of working classes, minorities, women and all those who have been underrepresented have not been granted the historical significance they deserve. Not only is teaching such a narrow view of history a disservice to the subject; it makes it far less accessible. Students in British secondary schools often feel too far removed from the Churchills, Napoleons or Henry VIIIs. A diverse curriculum is necessary to write new entry points in history—a new standpoint from which we can understand our past and the world we currently live in.
The few women featured in the curriculum are either painted as exceptions to their sex, such as Florence Nightingale, radical, such as the suffragettes, or are monarchs such as Elizabeth I and Victoria. Very few non-white women are mentioned in history textbooks for secondary school students. Mary Seacole is one of other the very few. Studies of women such as Seacole must be encouraged, to recognise the diversity of Britain’s past and the importance of such diversity, but unfortunately that has taken too long.
William Howard Russell, a war correspondent for The Times, wrote in 1857 that he hoped England would not forget Seacole as
“one who nursed her sick, who sought out her wounded to aid and succour them, and who performed the last offices for some of her illustrious dead.”
Yet it seems that exactly that happened for many years, In 2016, a statue of Seacole was erected across the road from this place. When the lockdown measures are lifted, I urge everybody to go over and see the wonderful statute to that wonderful woman. It took 12 years to raise the funds required and should be a symbol of pride in a black British heroine. Unfortunately, even the little act of posting a photograph of me with the statue on Twitter resulted in some terrible abuse about the role of Mary Seacole. That has no place in society. It amazes me that somebody who did so much for the people she looked after would be questioned about whether she was a nurse. That has to stop. Mary Seacole should be celebrated as an influential figure in British history. Her story, and the racism she faced, ought to be taught widely in history curriculums. We also must make sure that she does not stand alone. The history of Britain is incredibly diverse, and the curriculum should reflect that. It is not enough to pick one figure from history. The diversity of Britain and the way that attitudes to and experiences of race, sex, sexuality, disability or class have shaped history are vital to our understanding of today.
Ultimately, it all matters because of the impact it has on young people. A report from Paul Campbell, a lecturer in sociology at the University of Leicester, found:
“The lack of a sufficiently diverse or decolonised curriculum and faculty meant it was often difficult for black students to be able to connect content and assessments directly to their own lived realities”.
He found the students were multiply disadvantaged and
“have to work harder than their peers to connect with assessment and curriculum content.”
The lack of diversity in our curriculum can be found throughout our education system; although the petition is focused on history, it is equally true of the likes of English literature and other subjects. The Black Curriculum, one of the leading charities in this field, says that its aim is to provide a sense of belonging and identity to young people across the UK. To me, that is the whole point of the debate. It is our duty to get this right so that all students see themselves represented in education.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing the debate. Previously—I believe it was the year before last—no subject of parliamentary petitions had received more signatories than black history being taught as part of our national curriculum. That has certainly continued with this petition. I am not surprised, because when it comes to black history, we are not given a complete picture. When it comes to British history, we are not given a complete picture, because black history, and the history of our past slavery and colonialism, are often missing. How can we truly understand this country as it is if we do not address those issues?
Like most people who have grown up in the UK over the past century, I never learned very much about that, and what I did was self-taught. The majority of the information we can find is about the US civil rights struggle. These international perspectives are important, but it was far too long before I discovered the UK’s own rich civil rights history and all the information related to our role in the slave trade and colonialism. I want children in our country to learn about these things and why our country is the way it is today; about why they may, if they are black, Asian or from an ethnic minority, experience discrimination; and about important figures such as William Cuffay, Mary Seacole, CLR James, Claudia Jones, Olive Morris and so many more. I cannot stress enough how damaging it is not to see oneself reflected in what we learn and what we learn about our history. Our Government seem quite obsessed at the moment with patriotism and having children sing certain songs in schools and so on. However, when someone is constantly made to feel like they do not belong, because of rhetoric around immigration, and when that is reinforced by what they learn—or rather, what they do not learn—that can be extremely damaging.
My first black relative born in the UK was actually born in 1806, in Twyford in Winchester. His name was Thomas Birch Freeman. He was the son of a freed slave and a maid and went on to become a Methodist minister. He eventually settled in Ghana but often travelled between Ghana, Nigeria and the UK. When I read about his history, I do not hear how strange it was for a black man to be walking around in the UK at that time. Black people have been part of this country for hundreds of years, but far too often people today are made to feel as if it is very recent—in the past 50 or 60 years—and that they are still very much migrants.
We also know that history is always written by the victors, and that is one obvious explanation for the status quo, in terms of what we learn at the moment. The historical amnesia surrounding our country’s own civil rights struggle and the slavery and colonialism that came before has a pretty blatant function in our political discourse. However, obscuring the past victories of the oppressed and marginalised does not help to prevent history from being repeated.
People often refer to this sort of teaching as decolonising our curriculum, but it is important to note that it is every bit as much about class as it is about race. In school, we have other notable gaps in our history lessons about struggles that were ended—for example, the miners’ strikes, the poll tax riots and the accomplishments of trade unions. The attempt to put the history of slavery and colonialism and black civil rights in the UK into the curriculum is an attempt to put the history of the working class into the curriculum. That is key.
I worry that there is an ideological reason behind resisting this change, despite the fact that we can see in this petition and previous ones just how many people want this change to be made to the curriculum. If working-class kids learn about movements for change and about just how much power they have as citizens, what is to prevent them from recognising parallels between past events and what is going on in the present, and—even more important—from mounting effective challenges and bringing about change?
We know that black history is usually confined to a month. That month is really a means to an end. That end has to be giving everybody a clear picture of our collective past. That is why we cannot keep confining black history to just that one month. Too great a burden falls on busy teachers, who often—I know this from information given to the Women and Equalities Committee—do not feel confident about teaching certain subjects, and there is not much support from the Government for them. The Government should take a lead from the brilliant teachers who do all the work themselves, and organisations such as the Black Curriculum, the Coalition of Anti-Racist Educators and the Black Educators Alliance.
It feels like subjects to do with issues of race are treated completely differently from other subjects, which is wrong. When someone wants to talk about race, it is treated as if they are taking away from talking about something else, which itself is the essence of racism. Far too often, the idea that we should teach slavery and colonialism in schools is dismissed as nonsense; we hear that all that it does is reinforce the idea that at some point people in our country did something wrong, in the process it takes children away from learning other more important things. I cannot understand why some people cannot see just how important it is for people to learn about these issues, so that they are not repeated and so that we understand where discrimination comes from.
Confronting the history of slavery and empire is not about recrimination. We need to address our shameful past to understand why we are living our shameful present, and eventually—hopefully—to change what we see and move to a future of equality. To do that, we need to understand that the process starts with education, because nobody is born racist; it is in what we learn. If racism is ignorance—I am sure that all Members would agree that it is—what is education if not the absence or ending of ignorance? I believe that if we teach these very important parts of our history, it will change our discourse, change the rhetoric and change some of the shameful things that we hear about now.
I wholeheartedly support this petition. I hope that the Government take on board yet another petition that is very clear about what we need to see in our curriculum.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)[V]
Children have to be taught prejudice, I agree. We know that it does not come naturally to them. We all know, too, that the best way to deal with discrimination and promote inclusion is through education, yet for much of our history prejudice was instilled at school. Children were taught that one religion was better than another, they were taught harmful myths about gay people, and they were explicitly taught that the white race was superior to other races and that colonialism had a benign, civilising influence on foreign, faraway peoples who could only benefit from our interference. That was all bile, instilled in children and taken forward into adulthood. Those were horrible views that were entrenched.
Since then, the teaching curriculum has moved on, but does it do enough to address lasting legacies? According to research by the Diana Award, an anti-bullying campaign, almost one third of children have heard racist comments at school, with most having experienced it by their 13th birthday. Prejudice may no longer be taught, but are its root causes being addressed sufficiently? Here, black history is surely key.
“When I was brought up, I was taught in American history books that Africa had no history and that neither had I. I was a savage about whom the least said the better, who had been saved by Europe and who had been brought to America. Of course, I believed it. I didn’t have much choice. These were the only books there were.”
The late, great James Baldwin said that at the Cambridge Union in 1965. When I was at school in the 1970s, we were taught that Europeans discovered America, Australia and New Zealand, and they were barren wildernesses before our arrival. Although we knew about the evils of slavery, until recently, few of us understood how deeply immersed Scotland was in the trade. We had wiped the dark period from our collective national memory, but our streets held the clues, with Wilson Street, Plantation Street, Jamaica Street and Buchanan Street in Glasgow alone.
We do far too little to learn about and teach our legacy. That is why I have welcomed the debate about statues and context. It is an opportunity for all, whatever our backgrounds, to reflect on the physical legacy that surrounds us. It is an opportunity to engage with the public. Whether it is the Cecil Rhodes statue at Oriel College, Oxford, or the Edward Colston statue in Bristol, we as nations on these islands have, as one writer put it, begun to search our souls.
That is why I was so disappointed, I confess, to read about the UK Culture Secretary’s intervention at the Museum of the Home in Shoreditch. Formerly the Geffrye Museum, it was renamed in the light of Sir Robert Geffrye’s record as a slaver. The museum went on to consult visitors and local people about whether they wanted Geffrye’s statue to remain at the entrance or brought indoors and contextualised. More than 2,000 people responded, and the majority supported removal and context, but the Secretary of State stepped in and overruled the museum director, threatening her with a budget cut if she honoured the results of the consultation. That is a deeply inappropriate intervention by a politician in a museum’s legitimate work, and it would be unthinkable for a Culture Secretary in Cardiff or Edinburgh, where academic and curator freedom are respected, to do the same. The right-wing press and some politicians try to present the debate as about pride in our history versus national shame, but that is far too crude. We must attempt to put into context the actions of Britain abroad and the effect they had on other nations and peoples.
Inextricably linked to this debate is the history of people of colour in the UK and the massively undervalued contribution that they have made over many centuries. Teaching a history that is disproportionately white, or that whitewashes our crimes, means two things: not only do children of colour have fewer role models or people with whom they can identify, but it entrenches the stereotype that white people exclusively made our nations what they are today.
The next generation shows so much promise. They are more accepting of diversity than our generation. They are far more aware of racism, sexism and homophobia. Let us help them by teaching history that accurately reflects our role in the world, how we got here, and how every group contributed to the countries we are today.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to and congratulate the almost 270,000 people who signed the important petition that led to this debate, including hundreds of Leicester East residents.
Across the world, racism and the far right are on the rise. It has never been more important that we learn from the history of racial oppression and end the injustices that exist to this day. With the Black Lives Matter movement, we have rightly seen renewed public calls for our schools to teach the true, brutal history of the British empire and the legacy of imperialism, colonialism and racism that continue to have a generational impact today.
The national curriculum currently omits the vast contribution that black people have made to the UK and the ongoing legacy of Britain’s imperial legacy. In reality, black history is taught in only 10% of all schools. To remedy this, the Government must pick up the calls from the National Education Union for a review of the curriculum and teacher training, and the strategy to make new entrants to the teaching profession significantly more diverse over the next four years. These are not new plans. In 1999, the Stephen Lawrence inquiry called for changes to the national curriculum to help tackle and combat racism in our institutions, including making black history mandatory. I support the mandatory teaching of history, specifically including black histories on the national curriculum in key stages 1 to 4.
I congratulate the Welsh Government on making black history mandatory in all their schools. They understand that by taking on the events of the past we can forge the future. As argued by the Runnymede Trust, the national curriculum should apply to all schools, regardless of status, to prevent some from opting out. Currently, free schools and academies do not need to follow the national curriculum.
The need for these improvements to the curriculum were underlined in March 2020, when the Windrush lessons learned review recommended that the Government
“tell the stories of empire, Windrush and its legacy”
Research by Teach First found that many pupils in UK schools will not have studied any novels or plays by authors who are not white. This shows how much more needs to be done to ensure that all pupils access a diverse curriculum.
When we reflect on the Black Lives Matter movement, it is crucial to recognise that the United Kingdom has been central to the historical subjugation of black people. It is estimated that until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, Britain transported some 3.1 million Africans—around 25% of all slaves—to its colonies. When the British Empire did abolish slavery in 1807, it provided 46,000 slave owners with today’s equivalent of £17 billion, 40% of its national budget. The British Government only paid off its obligations to former slave-owning families and organisations in 2015. Until then, black British taxpayers were among those who paid to compensate those that imprisoned our ancestors. They are among those still paying the price today, with the slow and inadequate support offered to victims of racialised state violence, including the Grenfell Tower disaster and the Windrush generation.
Present day global inequalities remain permanently shaped by the horrors of extractive colonialism and racialised subordination. Former colonial powers must begin to recognise and repair the historical damage upon which their prosperity was built. One example is the unacceptable instances of appalling murder and violence at the hands of the British state that have been erased from present-day memory of empire.
Nowhere is this clearer than in Kenya. There is a collective amnesia in the United Kingdom regarding British torture camps in 1950s Kenya. This is recent history. Members of the Kikuyu tribe were systematically tortured, starved, beaten, mistreated and raped, and the Sotik people were massacred, with 1,800 men, women and children murdered in a colonial land-grab. Across Kenya, Africa and other regions forced to endure the injustice of colonialism, indigenous communities were systematically alienated from their rightful lands. Yet these massacres have been airbrushed from British history.
The brutality of modern racism in the UK cannot be separated from this history. This perverse legacy continues to affect us in all walks of life, from police use of force to unfair immigration detentions to the disproportionate number of black children who go to bed hungry. If we are to end the scourge of institutional racism and the destructive legacy of colonialism, it is vital that children and young people are taught this true history. It is therefore essential that the Government abandon its crusade against the reality of institutional racism.
This Administration is underpinned by a deep and troubling broader political project that is designed to divide working-class communities against each other and to distract from the real causes of inequality and injustice. The Government must recognise that they risk being on the wrong side of history. They must abandon their divisive culture wars and commit to introducing an accurate and diverse curriculum.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
History is written by the winners. However uncomfortable and however painful it is, we have a responsibility to confront the whole history of our nation, not only the things that are easy to celebrate. We must learn from the parts about which we are disturbed and ashamed. Most importantly, we need to recognise that the history of the transatlantic slave trade has thrown a very long shadow and that we are still living with the legacy of the injustices committed both long ago and not so long ago. Learning from our past should create a better future. We cannot hope to reach a place of true racial equality without having the difficult conversations about our colonial past.
Education is a valuable tool to empower young people to make change happen. We have a duty to ensure that the next generation better understands historical injustices and the way in which those injustices still play out in our society today. Teaching black history and the histories of other ethnicities and cultures adds an important layer to our overall understanding. That does not mean erasing someone else’s history—far from it. Including more in our history books can only be enriching. I find it hard to understand why some people feel threatened by that.
Last Friday evening, I had the honour of chairing a discussion panel exploring Bath Abbey’s historical connections with slavery and Empire. The event coincided with the abbey’s exhibition on the same topic—I encourage anyone visiting Bath to see that fascinating exhibition. Bath Abbey has more monuments than any other parish church in our country. Some of those monuments praise the achievements of people connected with the slave trade. I commend Bath Abbey for bravely confronting the legacy of its history and demonstrating how we should respond sensitively today.
The speakers at that moving and thought-provoking event last Friday taught us so much. Two speakers recounted their and their parents’ lived experiences of arriving in the UK from the Commonwealth and the indignities they were subjected to. Sadly, they were not alone. Irvin Campbell, chairman of local charity Stand Against Racism and Inequality, told us that the only time black history was mentioned when he was a pupil was when the diagram of a slave ship was shown. The richness of black history has been left out of our school curriculum. We need to rectify that. Irvin taught me to use the term “enslaved”, instead of slave. To call someone a slave robs them of their innate dignity. He has spoken in schools about the proud history of African culture, their kings and queens, and he has watched young people swell with pride as they learn about their history.
Education has a hugely important role to play in ending institutional racism and in closing inequalities in the UK. Our curriculum must be broadened and, where those topics are covered, reviewed. We must ensure that teachers have the resources and training they need to deliver an honest, open and inclusive curriculum, so that we see real progress in schools. One of our Bath Abbey speakers read a poem by Steve Turner, which still echoes in my mind:
“History repeats itself.
Has to.
No-one listens.”
Let us have the courage to share all our collective history. In doing so, we have the opportunity to show that we listen and that—maybe—history does not repeat itself.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for introducing this important debate.
The people of Manchester, Gorton care deeply about diversity in education, as shown by the fact that over 1,000 of them signed the petition. The strength of feeling on this issue in Manchester and right across the country must be a signal to the Government that now is the time for a truly radical overhaul of the national curriculum, and that we must ensure it considers the histories, lives and experiences of all people.
Towards the end of last year, working in collaboration with The Black Curriculum, I launched a new diverse curriculum charter for schools across my constituency. The charter is backed by Manchester City Council, the Runnymede Trust, Kids of Colour, Impact Reformation and the Equality Act Review, as well as a host of trade unions. The charter was developed off the back of the many conversations that I had following the eruption of the global Black Lives Matter protests and the wider concerns about systemic racism in our country that were raised last year.
Racism is still a fact of life, and young people across the UK are still growing up in a society that is plagued by inequality. Education has the power to change lives, and it holds the key to raising a new and truly anti-racist generation of young people. That is why it is so important to ensure that the curriculum reflects the experiences of all people in our society. Too often, the current curriculum omits or misrepresents the contributions of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in Britain. We gloss over colonialism and depict racism as an historical artefact rather than a current and lived reality. In doing so, we fail our young people.
There has been fantastic enthusiasm in Manchester, Gorton for the diverse curriculum charter, and many schools have already undertaken important work in addressing diversity and inclusivity in their curriculum. Although such enthusiasm and drive from local schools is incredibly welcome, we must be under no illusion that this is enough. Without concerted Government action to embed diversity and anti-racism at every level of our education system, all our children will miss out on learning about the wonderful richness of our society.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for securing the debate, after 270,000 people signed the petition. It is a credit to them that we are having the debate.
I will start by quoting the Minister for School Standards, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb). He is not present, but we have been upgraded with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who is a fellow Sussex MP. Back in 2014, the Minister for School Standards said the following when he spoke to the Association of School and College Leaders on the importance of the curriculum:
“We all know the cliché of older generations asking their children, or grandchildren, ‘don’t they teach you that at school?’ We were determined to allow the children of tomorrow to answer such inquisitions, ‘yes, in fact, they do’.”
We should think very carefully before constructing a curriculum that is based on the schooling of yesteryear. Let us not forget that it was a Conservative Government who passed section 28, which banned the teaching of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues in schools, until it was repealed by the last Labour Government. Just because some things were taught in the past does not mean that the same things should be taught in the same way today. For that reason, it is essential that we keep the curriculum under continual review and that we ask ourselves some simple questions. Is the curriculum equipping our kids with the knowledge and tools that they need to prosper once they leave school? Is it preparing our children for life and building tolerant citizens who embody the values that we as a country aspire to? And does it reflect the brilliant and diverse history of our country, avoiding narrow interpretations of our national story at the expense of a bigger, more significant truth?
As today’s petition makes clear, generations of young people are leaving school without an informed and balanced understanding of our past. There is no requirement for schools to teach our colonial history. Nor are they required to recognise the role it has played in perpetuating barriers to many black and minority ethnic people enjoying all of the opportunities that life in modern Britain offers. Not only is that holding people back; it is a moral scar on our society that is failing to heal. The Labour party would introduce such a requirement, building a diverse curriculum, including content focused on Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism. In Labour-run Wales, the Government have already committed to introducing that from September 2022, which shows what Labour in power can do and is doing.
However, this is not about trashing Britain’s history; it is about celebrating it. As the author of today’s petition states,
“By educating on the events of the past, we can forge a better future.”
The Labour party believes that a diverse and complete curriculum is one of the best tools that we have in our armoury to build the future that we all want to see: a just future, a fair future, and a future in which every individual, regardless of their race and ethnicity, feels as though they have a stake in the country that we all call home.
How can a young person benefit by missing out on learning about the Bristol bus boycott in 1963; or the 15,204 men who served in the British West Indies Regiment in the first world war; or Mary Prince, the first black woman in British history to write an autobiography; or Mary Seacole, the historic nurse from the Crimean war; or Walter Tull, the Tottenham Hotspur striker and first mixed-race heritage infantry officer in a regular British Army regiment? Yet research by Teach First has found that pupils could complete their entire GCSEs without studying a single work by a non-white author. Teaching about black scientists, authors and change makers will inspire a new generation. After all,
“You can’t be what you can’t see.”
The murder of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement were watershed moments that demanded real change. That need for change was accelerated by covid. Baroness Lawrence’s report for Labour highlighted how black, Asian and minority ethnic people have been left over-exposed, under-protected and overlooked throughout the pandemic. Instead, the Government contented themselves with publishing an insulting document, downplaying the role of institutional racism and constructing a false binary between race and class.
The Tories want to tell us that they are interested in ending class and regional inequalities, but in reality they are not interested in ending inequality at all. After all, it was not white privilege that closed thousands of Sure Starts, early years and youth centres; it was Tory cuts. As for the 9% fall in real-terms funding for schools, and policies leading to record levels of child poverty and food bank use, the Conservatives did all of that on their own as well. No amount of cultural provocation can hide the facts.
Labour is listening to the lived experience of black, Asian and minority ethnic people. We will introduce a race equality Act to tackle racism at its root, including through proper education about our colonial past, and we will implement the reviews that the Government have failed to implement, both from Macpherson and the Windrush lessons learned review, which called for action on education, but it has been conspicuously absent. The Government will hide their lack of interest in tackling racism behind any cloak they can. Only Labour can tackle racism root and branch, and that must begin with the breadth of information and sensitive teaching that we offer our young people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the many people who signed the petition, and I also congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing the debate. Like him, we welcome the increased debate about black history in the curriculum, and I thank all Members who have contributed to today’s debate. We welcome the opportunity to respond on this matter, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has done on previous occasions.
This country has a lot to be proud of, and children should learn all aspects of our shared history, both the good and the bad. We must teach about the contributions of people of all ethnicities, both men and women, who have made this the great nation that it is today. The shared history of our country is one that is outward looking: a nation that has influenced the world and, in turn, been influenced by people from all over the world. It is those people who have built the culturally rich country that we have today—a true example of a melting pot. A great example of this was commemorated last Tuesday on 22 June, when communities across the country marked national Windrush day. The third national day celebrated and commemorated the Windrush community, and the nation paid tribute to the outstanding contribution of the Windrush generation and their descendants.
The national curriculum enables teaching that includes black and ethnic minority voices and experiences. A shared British history can and should be taught, whether it is events such as the Bristol bus boycott, which many Members have mentioned today and which had a national impact, or the global impact of those soldiers from across the former empire who fought in both world wars. The theme “ideas, political power, industry and empire: Britain, 1745-1901” is statutory—I want to make sure that is on the record—but the topics within the theme are not. We believe that schools and teachers should use the flexibility they have in the curriculum to develop a more detailed, knowledge-rich curriculum to teach their pupils in an inclusive manner. It is knowledge that works to unite people and our nation by revealing the rich, interwoven tapestry of our history and enabling all pupils to see themselves in our history.
It is positive that teachers and schools are responding directly to the renewed attention on history teaching. These debates help to encourage that attention and ensure knowledge-based subject teaching—which, by the way, has changed a lot since many of us were at school. A number of Members referred to their history teaching, but I think it is fair to say it has moved on a lot since then. As a recent survey of history teachers by the Historical Association has shown, many more history teachers are reflecting in their teaching commitments to develop more content on black and diverse histories. That change at the school level will help pupils to gain more breadth and depth in their understanding of history.
The Government believe that all children and young people should acquire a firm grasp of history, including how different events and periods relate to each other. That is why history is compulsory for maintained schools from key stages 1 to 3, and it is why academies are also expected to teach a curriculum that is as broad and ambitious as the national curriculum. The Government have also strongly promoted the study of history to age 16 by including GCSE history in the EBacc measure for all state-funded secondary schools in England. Since the introduction of the EBacc, we have seen entries to history GCSE increase by a third since 2010.
The reformed history curriculum includes teaching pupils the core knowledge of our past, enabling pupils to know and understand the history of Britain from its first settlers to the development of the institutions that help define our national life today. It also sets an expectation that pupils ask perceptive questions, sift arguments, and develop perspective and judgment. It teaches pupils to understand how different types of historical sources are used to make historical claims, and discern how and why contrasting arguments and interpretations of the past have been constructed.
The curriculum does not set out how curriculum subjects, or topics within the subjects, should be taught. We believe that teachers should be able to use their own knowledge and expertise to determine how they teach pupils, and to make choices about what they teach. Teachers have freedom over the precise details, so that they can teach lessons that are right for their pupils, and they should use teaching materials that suit their pupils’ needs.
At the same time, the teaching of any issue in schools should be consistent with the principles of balance and objectivity. We believe that good teaching of history should always include the contribution of black and minority ethnic people to Britain’s history, as well as the study of different countries and cultures around the world. The history curriculum has the flexibility to give teachers the opportunity to teach about that across the spectrum of themes and eras set out in the curriculum.
To support that, the curriculum includes a number of examples that could be covered at different stages and that are drawn from the history of both this country and the wider world. The examples include, at key stage 1, teaching about the lives of key black and minority ethnic historical figures, such as Mary Seacole—she has been mentioned many times today—and Rosa Parks. The key stage 2 curriculum suggests that teachers could explore the topics of ancient Sumer, the Indus valley, ancient Egypt and the Shang dynasty of ancient China, as part of the required teaching on early civilisations. It also requires the study of a non-European society that provides contrast with British history.
At key stage 3, as part of the statutory teaching of the overarching theme of Britain from 1745 to 1901, topics could include Britain’s transatlantic slave trade, its effects and its eventual abolition. That could include teaching about the successful slave-led rebellions and challenges that led to the abolishment of slavery—for example, the Haitian revolution. For the UK, it could include the role played by slaves and former slaves, such as James Somerset, with regard to the Somerset ruling, and Olaudah Equiano, as well as the abolition movement and the development of the British empire.
Peter Kyle
I realise that the Minister is speaking for a colleague at the moment, but would she say that it is fair to set as the aspiration for her Department, once all the changes to the framework have gone through, that within a very short amount of time we should never have a student going through the entire educational process—as is happening right now—without ever having read a book or a text that was authored by a black or non-white author?
Gillian Keegan
Of course we want a broad variety of reading in particular—it is very important—and a wide range of books are available now in all our schools. I am sure that the hon. Member goes into as many schools in his constituency as I do in mine, and we see the broad range of books, but we cannot be taking away the teacher’s role here. Teachers want to be able to come up with their own curriculum and to be able to choose the materials. There is a broad range of materials. Obviously we have the statutory themes, but within that it is up to teachers; they are empowered to decide at what point they teach things and introduce many of the black authors that we have now on the curriculum. It is up to them to decide at what point they want to introduce that; it certainly is not for me to set out what all the teachers in our 20,000-odd schools should be doing.
In the theme about challenges for Britain, Europe and the wider world from 1901 to the present day, the end of empire can be taught. For key stage 4, the Department sets out that GCSE history specifications produced by the exam boards should develop and extend pupils’ knowledge and understanding of specified key events, periods and societies in local, British and wider world history, and of the wide diversity of human experience. The GCSE in history should include at least one British depth study and at least one European or wider world depth study from the three specified eras.
There is significant scope for the teaching of black history within these. Two exam boards, OCR—Oxford, Cambridge and the RSA—and AQA, provide options to study migration in Britain and how this country’s history has been shaped by the black and ethnic minority communities in the past. Also, Pearson announced last year a new migration thematic study option, which will be available to teach this September. Therefore, the sector is responding and there are many organisations that support the sector with the production of these materials.
Many of the issues discussed today are matters that can also be taught in other curriculum subjects. As part of a broad and balanced curriculum, pupils should be taught about different societies and how different groups have contributed to the development of Britain, including the voices and experience of black and ethnic minority people. Across citizenship, English, personal, social, health and economic education, arts, music and geography, teachers have opportunities to explore black and ethnic minority history with their pupils, helping to build understanding and tolerance.
We cannot shy away from the major part that this country played in the slave trade, which children need to be aware of and understand. However, the UK also has a tremendous history that we should be proud of, standing up for freedom and tolerance around the world.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the Minister for giving way, and we have a little time to debate this issue. Does the Minister agree that a lot of why we are debating this is that a profound sense of injustice lives on as a legacy of the injustices that have been committed in the past and continue to this day, which people from ethnic minority backgrounds want to be debated on a moral basis? I speak as somebody of a German background. The most atrocious inhumanities in the name of “race” have been committed by Germans. In my school days, we needed to learn that and to feel the pain, disgust and shame at what our people in Germany—my people—had committed. Do the people discussing this issue today not want the British people to also understand and do that?
Gillian Keegan
I find it very difficult to compare what we are talking about today to the holocaust, if I am honest. However, we cannot shy from the major part that this country played in the slave trade, and it is important that children are aware of that. In a lot of the debate and discussions we are having, there is a lot of movement in this area. Teachers are very much learning about new materials and embracing the opportunity to do so as well. However, the UK also has a tremendous history that we should be rightly proud of.
Wera Hobhouse
Mr Gray, may I just correct that? I am not comparing the holocaust—
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. Is the hon. Lady seeking to make a point of order? Or does she seek to intervene on the Minister? Does the Minister wish to give way to the hon. Lady?
Wera Hobhouse
I am so sorry, Mr Gray, but I want to put on the record that I do not compare anything to the holocaust.
Gillian Keegan
I agree that it is very good to put that on the record.
As I say, we should be proud of the UK’s tremendous history of standing up for freedom and tolerance around the world, from Magna Carta to our ongoing commitment to individual rights, civil liberties and freedoms. Our rich and diverse cultural heritage has been created by Britons from all over the world and has been globally influenced. It is through this rich heritage of arts and culture that we continue to have instant global recognition, from Shakespeare to Zadie Smith. Black and ethnic minority Britons have played a fundamental part in our island’s story, from the black Tudors to the Commonwealth soldiers who served with such distinction in the world wars. It is absolutely right that our curriculum ensures that children have the opportunity to learn about them at school.
I want to turn to tackling discrimination and intolerance, which a couple of hon. Members mentioned. On this matter, I say first that there is no place for racial inequality in our society or in our education system. The Department for Education is absolutely committed to an inclusive education system that recognises and embraces diversity and supports all pupils and students to tackle racism and to have the knowledge and tools to do so. Since 2016, we have provided more than £3.5 million to organisations, including the Anne Frank Trust, to prevent bullying. We are currently running a procurement exercise to fund activity in 2021 and 2022 to make sure that schools have the right support in place to prevent bullying of all pupils, including those with protected characteristics.
Our preventing and tackling bullying guidance sets out that schools should develop a consistent approach to monitoring bullying incidents and evaluating the effectiveness of their approaches. It also points schools to organisations that provide support for tackling bullying related to race, religion and nationality. Within and beyond their curriculum, schools are required actively to promote fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance for all those of different faiths and beliefs.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islwyn for raising this important matter. I welcome the opportunity to set out how black history and diversity is already supported within and beyond the national curriculum. I am confident that our schools will continue to educate children to become tolerant and culturally and historically knowledgeable citizens who embrace the values of modern Britain, and of whom we should be proud.
Chris Evans
This has been a fantastic debate, and I pay tribute to all Members who have taken part. One thing that I have always felt about history is that it is the story of people’s lives and their shared experience. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) for their very moving speeches.
I hope the Minister will listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) said about the pilot scheme on black and ethnic minority history being run there. I hope that that can be rolled out across the country. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) for his passionate speech, and I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her speech about how, in her area, they have bravely taken on Britain’s colonial past and the extremes that that history has thrown up. I also thank her for her wider campaigning in Parliament.
I pay tribute to the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for his succinct, passionate and wide-ranging speech that brought in everything that encompasses black history and the experience not just of ethnic minorities but of the working class in the last 30 years. I also thank the Minister, whom I have known since 2017, when we served together on the Public Accounts Committee, for stepping in at the last minute in place of the Minister who should have responded. She gave a very constructive and informative speech. To be honest, I was quite hopeful from the end of her speech that we can come to some arrangement with the Government to bring black history to the fore in schools. She said that the Government really get that, and there is consensus around the issue, so we can really improve the teaching of history.
Ultimately, as I said in my speech, I am passionate about history and about the way it is taught. For too long, it has been seen as a dry subject, when really, it can be brought to life because it is about the lives people have lived. The way history is taught is now more important than ever. So many people deny that so many things happened, and with the rise of fake news, it is very important that we stick to the facts and that everybody’s voices are heard on our experiences of growing up in the country that we call Britain.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 324092, relating to Black history and cultural diversity in the curriculum.
Written Statements
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Events Research Programme
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
On 25 June, the Government published a report on the first phase of its groundbreaking and science-led events research programme (ERP) which is furthering our understanding of how the risk of covid-19 transmission can be reduced at large events.
The study gathered data on behaviour, movement, ventilation and testing and has shown that with mitigating factors, such as social distancing at pinch points, face coverings and staggered entry and exit times, events can be conducted more safely at increased capacities, while maintaining a lower risk of transmission.
The ERP was commissioned by the Prime Minister in February 2021 as part of the Government’s roadmap out of lockdown.
The aim of the review was to build an evidence base to inform how the public could return as safely as possible to attend events such as sport, theatre, live music and business events by conducting pilots across a range of settings and sectors. These have been run in a structured, scientifically and ethically robust way to enable events in the programme to happen at a scale not previously tested since the start of the pandemic.
Phase 1 of the programme involved a total of 58,000 participants at venues across the country including Liverpool, Sheffield and London. It was supported by event organisers, local authority and public health teams, national and local government officials and nine scientific research teams from five UK universities. The work was overseen by an independently-chaired science and ethics board.
The findings in this report will help to inform both Government and industry on how they can seek to mitigate covid-19 transmission risk ahead of step 4 of the roadmap.
A full copy of the report can be found on gov.uk. A copy of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS127]
Events Research Programme: Compensation for Event Organisers
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of all members of this House to bring to their attention the departmental minute issued today that provides the House with notice of a series of small contingent liabilities created by my Department. This is in relation to a policy to compensate event organisers participating in phase 3 of the events research programme in the event of their cancellation if public health concerns were to give rise.
The world-leading events research programme conducted 14 pilot events across two phases since April to inform decisions around the safe removal of social distancing at step 4 of the road map up to 20 June 2021. Following the delay to step 4, the Government will now run a third phase. This will provide the opportunity to gather and generate stronger data that consolidates our evidence base in order to safely get spectators back to events when restrictions are able to lift, including trialling the practical use of certification at a range of events.
The Government will provide compensation on a discretionary basis to event organisers should a pilot event be cancelled due to public health reasons.
This compensation will be capped at £300,000 per event and will cover costs incurred in relation to participation in the programme only (e.g. admission of spectators), recognising the fact that these events would have taken place in line with road map restrictions should the programme not exist. For events that have been put on specifically as part of the programme (i.e. would not otherwise have gone ahead), the Government will compensate organisers in full should an event be cancelled, but this will also be capped at £300,000.
The Government do not intend to cancel any event in the programme, however public safety comes first and therefore it is prudent to provide this assurance to the organisers assisting the Government in reopening the economy.
A copy of the departmental minute is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS129]
Tourism in England: Temporary Campsite Capacity
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
As England opens up and more Britons seek to go on holiday there over the summer, the Government want to support domestic tourism. To do this, we will encourage greater temporary campsite capacity over the summer through updated guidance.
Last year the Government introduced a temporary permitted development right which allows for the temporary use of land as a commercial campsite for up to 56 days, without the need to apply for planning permission. This allows businesses across the tourism and hospitality sectors to establish temporary “pop-up” campsites on their land to meet additional demand. We would like to see more of these businesses taking advantage of this opportunity over the summer, so we will encourage local planning authorities to take a flexible and proportionate approach to the enforcement of planning controls, including restrictions through planning conditions on existing campsites, which may limit the temporary extension of commercial campsites for leisure use over this holiday season. This builds on my previous statement made to the House on 14 July 2020.
Paragraph 58 of the national planning policy framework already emphasises that planning enforcement is a discretionary activity and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.
The purpose of this written ministerial statement, which comes into effect immediately, is therefore to make clear that, in considering the exercise of their discretion over enforcement, local planning authorities should take a positive approach to their engagement with commercial campsites for leisure use to ensure planning controls are not a barrier to local tourism and hospitality’s economic recovery.
In particular, unless legal obligations dictate otherwise, local authorities should not seek to undertake enforcement action against potential breaches of planning control in relation to temporary commercial campsites for leisure use which do not have an adverse impact on amenity, public health and safety or the environment.
This statement does not apply to other forms of campsites, including those for domestic use, and this statement does not stop local authorities taking appropriate action where there are significant adverse impacts on amenity, public health and safety or the environment. This position should not stop enforcement action against unauthorised encampments (such as tents or caravans) on land which the occupiers do not have permission of the landowner to camp upon, nor for non-commercial activity such as a personal dwelling.
Furthermore, this statement does not remove the legal requirement for campsite licenses under section 269 of the Public Health Act 1936. The Government will work with local authorities to facilitate a quick licensing process this summer, and authorities are encouraged to expedite new applications for licences to provide certainty for applicants.
This written ministerial statement only covers England and expires on 31 October 2021.
[HCWS128]
UK-Singapore Digital Economy Agreement
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Today, the Government will launch negotiations with Singapore towards a bilateral digital trade agreement, the UK-Singapore digital economy agreement (DEA).
Singapore and the UK are both global leaders in the digital economy, and our bilateral trade was worth £17 billion in 2019, with 70% of services exports digitally delivered.
This new, ambitious agreement will aim to remove barriers to digital trade and enable UK exporters to expand into high-tech markets. It is part of the Government’s strategy to place the UK at the centre of a network of modern free trade agreements with dynamic countries, and to enhance our status as a global hub for services and digital trade.
The UK is the first European country to start negotiations on a digital trade agreement. This is an opportunity for the UK to take the lead in shaping these agreements, and grow our influence on global rules in areas of UK strength such as digital and services. It reflects how the UK is becoming more flexible, more nimble and less defensive in our approach to trade.
The UK is already one of the world’s biggest exporters of services, with remotely delivered services exports worth £207 billion in 2019 alone. International digital trade is now a key driver of productivity and business growth in the UK. It allows British businesses to reach a wider consumer base by selling online, to trade more efficiently and cost-effectively by streamlining shipping, logistics and other trading processes, and to connect and grow their workforce across different regions of the world—sharing the benefits of prosperity.
The DEA can expand the UK’s access to Singapore’s digital economy—worth an estimated £9.4 billion in 2019. Negotiations will focus on:
Securing open digital markets for exporters, allowing them to expand into new markets and sell traditional products in new ways.
Ensuring free and trusted cross-border data flows, while upholding high standards of personal data protection.
Cutting red tape for UK businesses by promoting digital trading systems such as digital customs and border procedures that will save time and money when exporting.
Upholding online consumer rights and protecting businesses’ valuable intellectual property, like source code and cryptography.
Deepening our co-operation on future growth sectors such as FinTech and LawTech, while working with Singapore to strengthen our collective cybersecurity capabilities and keep our countries safe.
Strengthening our trading relationship with Singapore is also part of the Government’s wider trade strategy, which aims to deepen links with one of the fastest growing regions of the world, partnering with countries who believe in free and fair trade.
The DEA can create new opportunities as a gateway to the Asia-Pacific region for tech, high-end services, and digital trade, ultimately supporting and creating high-value jobs across the United Kingdom and helping the country build back better from covid.
[HCWS124]
Probation Reform
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
This Government are committed to cutting crime, by improving how we protect the public from serious offenders and by tackling repeat offending. On 26 June we took a key step forward in delivering those aims with the launch of a new unified probation service for England and Wales. The additional investment of an extra £155 million both last year and this year has been key to making these changes happen.
The new service brings together staff from the previous National Probation Service (NPS) and 21 community rehabilitation companies (CRCs). It will strengthen public protection by bringing together management of offenders of all levels of risk into one organisation. It will deliver visible punishment and reparation to communities through an overhauled approach to unpaid work. And it will strengthen rehabilitation by delivering improved better accredited programmes and other rehabilitative interventions, alongside commissioning specialist services from other organisations. New national standards for probation will set out expectations for how offenders are managed in order to reduce repeat offending and to ensure the public are protected.
I am grateful for the hard work and professionalism of probation staff in supporting the transition to the new service, as a result of which we have successfully transferred nearly 8,000 staff and nearly 200 buildings to the new organisation and rolled out IT equipment for staff transferring.
Investment of £195 million has now been awarded to 26 organisations across England and Wales to provide those specialist services, addressing needs relating to accommodation, education, training and employment, services which help offenders with personal issues such as mental health problems and women’s services.
Having completed the transition to the new organisation, my priority is now to deliver improvements in the services probation delivers. Key work to do so includes improving sentence management by recruiting a record 1,000 new trainees last year and a further 1,500 officers this financial year to supervise offenders and help cut crime. This will reduce the average case load size for probation officers so that the public can be better protected.
Other key work includes ensuring more support for victims of crime by extending and enhancing the service offered to victims. Creating a new framework for unpaid work placements will increase the value they bring to society, by cleaning up the environment and supporting communities, giving back to the communities they live in through litter picking, clearing fly tipping, removing graffiti and maintaining public spaces.
Further investment in digital services will help modernise the service, speeding up processes and helping to underpin and reinforce excellent standards of practice. I will improve support for offenders for issues like education, substance misuse and mental health issues to reduce the risk of them reoffending. Securing additional rehabilitative services to build on the contracts already implemented will help cut crime.
It is particularly impressive that we have been able to ensure readiness for transition, given the pressures faced as a result of the global pandemic. Unification represents an example of excellent delivery—a major, very complex Government project delivered on time, to budget against unprecedented global challenges and we are proud of the scale of that achievement. Our progress in delivering these crucial reforms will ensure a joined-up and improved probation service that is able to make a significant contribution to this Government’s mission to cut crime. We are determined that the probation service will simultaneously offer more support to those turning their backs on crime, while using every available tool to protect the public from those who are intent on continuing to commit crime.
[HCWS126]
Spaceflight Regulator: Environmental Objectives
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
On Friday 25 June, I published the Government’s response to the consultation on environmental objectives and guidance that the Government are setting for the regulator when exercising its spaceflight functions under the Space Industry Act 2018.
This Government are committed to growing the space industry in the UK and cementing our leading role in this sector by unlocking a new era in commercial spaceflight across the UK. The Government’s ambitious support for safe and sustainable spaceflight activities will drive research, innovation and entrepreneurship, exploiting the unique environment of space. The environmental objectives and guidance, along with the space industry regulations, and other instruments covering accident investigation and appeals, will pave the way for a new licensing regime for commercial spaceflight activities from UK. This will feed into our emerging national space strategy as we develop our priorities for levelling up the UK and promote the growth of this thriving sector in the long term.
The environmental objectives demonstrate the importance this Government attach to balancing the mitigation of potentially negative environmental impacts of spaceflight activities with enhancing the strong contributions that commercial spaceflight can make to both the economy and our local and global efforts to monitor the environment. The objectives and guidance build on the Space Industry Act 2018 requirements for applicants for a launch or spaceport licence to submit an assessment of environmental effects as part of their application. The objectives and guidance set out clearly how the Government expect the spaceflight regulator will take account of these assessments when deciding licence applications and setting licence conditions.
The Government welcome the thoughtful and detailed responses received to the consultation from industry, environmental professional bodies and other stakeholders. The response I am sharing today sets out the ways we have adjusted the draft guidance to reflect the suggestions and recommendations made through the consultation process. We believe that this collaborative approach will not only strengthen the licensing regime we are implementing, but also demonstrate the Government’s ongoing commitment to growing this exciting sector whilst ensuring that the most significant environmental impacts are mitigated and that growth of this sector is consistent with the Government’s wider sustainable development goals.
Next steps
My Department has worked closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the UK Space Agency and Civil Aviation Authority to legislate for a wide range of new commercial spaceflight technologies, including traditional vertically launched vehicles, air-launched vehicles and sub-orbital spaceplanes and balloons. The Government’s aim is to have in place all the necessary secondary legislation and supporting guidance before the summer recess to enable the regulator to begin receiving and assessing applications.
[HCWS125]
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.
Covid-19: Hospital Patient Referrals
Baroness McDonagh
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the proportion of hospital patients referred to residential accommodation during the pandemic that were tested for COVID-19 prior to discharge.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady McDonagh, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, there was limited testing capacity in March and early April 2020 and this was prioritised to those with symptoms. On 15 April 2020, the adult social care action plan instituted a policy of testing for all patients prior to discharge to a care home. All clinical guidance issued by the department, Public Health England and the NHS received clinical sign-off, following the best scientific advice available at the time.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I want to understand whether the deaths in care homes, which were absolutely tragic, were down to the incompetence of the Government or just a disregard for the elderly. We all understand the need to free up acute beds in hospitals and it has been long understood that the safe way to do that is through isolation. If that was known by the care homes, were the individuals Covid positive or not being tested? Can the noble Baroness agree to publish all the emails, letters and other correspondence with the care home sector so that we can all see what the Government were doing at a particular time during the pandemic?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, prior to the publication of the Government’s hospital discharge service requirements on 19 March last year, engagement was sought from, for example, NHS England, Public Health England, Care England and the Local Government Association—I could go on. I am not sure about the practicalities of everything that the noble Lord requested, but I reassure him that proper engagement has been undertaken with the sector throughout the pandemic.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I think that this Question is asking what proportion of those referred to residential accommodation were tested for Covid-19 and, therefore, what proportion were not. The Question is not asking what proportion of those tested were positive and negative—and testing should be required of all care home staff. When hospital discharge guidance was released on 19 March, why was there no requirement to test people for Covid-19 before release and, if positive, to segregate them from those testing negative? However, 30% of those tested for Covid-19 while in hospital did not receive their results when they left. This was particularly problematic for care homes, given the transmission risk. Why did 30% of those tested while in hospital not receive their test results before they left?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has asked a number of questions. The policy shifted post 15 April and that was based on our understanding of asymptomatic transmission. It was also based on the availability of testing capacity at the time. Prior to that date, those who were symptomatic were tested and every effort was made to ensure that those results were also passed on to the care homes so that they could take the appropriate action needed.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, given the awful experiences that residents of care homes had when they were deprived of all contact with their loved ones while patients were being discharged from hospital without having been tested, could the Minister assure the House that there is absolutely no prospect now of patients being transferred from hospital into care homes without having been fully tested and fully vaccinated?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I can absolutely make that assurance in the case of testing. In the case of vaccination, there may be individual circumstances for a patient that make vaccination not appropriate at that point—for example, if you are symptomatic with Covid, you may not then be vaccinated. If you test positive, you are not discharged into a care home setting; you are discharged into an approved setting that has the right processes in place so that you can get the care that you need while being appropriately isolated.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, while the Minister is doing a really excellent job at answering these questions, it does raise the question as to why the Minister responsible—the noble Lord, Lord Bethell—is in hiding. Is it because, unlike the noble Baroness, he is one of the guilty people responsible for the care home scandal, or is it because of his links with Gina Coladangelo?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, given the number of times my noble friend has appeared at this Dispatch Box to answer questions from noble Lords during this pandemic, the noble Lord’s question is without any merit. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that he will see my noble friend at this Dispatch Box two or three times tomorrow.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, in recent weeks, Ministers have quoted from the Public Health England report published in May, which claimed that only 1.6% of outbreaks in care homes potentially came as a result of hospitals discharging patients who had Covid—this despite the report having been widely criticised by independent experts in the sector as presenting an unrecognisable picture of the impact that hospital discharges in the absence of testing had had. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, said that he was not aware that the report was being revised. Will the noble Baroness now commit to investigating this issue properly and publishing the outcome?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will absolutely take that point away. My understanding is that there is the Public Health England report, while a number of other retrospective studies in Scotland and Wales have looked specifically at the impact of discharge policies. Although there has been a slight variation in the policies implemented across the four nations and the evidence is not as yet conclusive, the studies have indicated that discharge policies were not responsible for a significant number of outbreaks in care homes in the UK. We look at a number of pieces of evidence and we always look to make sure that that evidence is up to date. I will take back the noble Baroness’s specific point on the revision of that data and see what I can write to her in response.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, we know that the Government’s interpretation of throwing a protective ring around care homes is not what most of us would see as protection, nor was there upfront recognition from the start of the pandemic of the vulnerability of care home residents. The extra resources from the infection control fund have been crucial in helping care homes to keep going and deal with their extra PPE, staffing and huge administrative costs, but it runs out on Wednesday, as the Minister will know, with only an obscure notice on the government website on 15 June to announce its demise. What are care homes to do now with their ever-escalating costs, infections increasing and a minority of care home workers not vaccinated?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we continue to support the social care sector in its efforts to control infections. The noble Baroness raised the question of vaccinations, which will be crucial in protecting care homes. We have laid the statutory instrument that will require all members of staff working in CQC-approved care homes to get their vaccination.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
Can the Minister confirm that this was an error, because care homes were not properly staffed or equipped?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I do not agree with that assessment of the situation. We have been providing support to care homes since the start of this pandemic, including ensuring that proper staffing is in place to help with, for example, infection control methods.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
What consideration have the Government made of utilising currently unused NHS land and buildings for care accommodation? This type of hospital accommodation, similar to that in Scandinavia and other parts of continental Europe, has been a better solution than discharging hospital patients into care homes and other residential accommodation, especially given the challenges of testing for Covid-19 in early 2020.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, in our response to the pandemic, we have introduced a policy of designated settings, where if someone in hospital who is otherwise ready to be discharged tests positive for Covid, they can be discharged to a designated setting. More broadly, the noble Baroness is right: the use of step-down accommodation can be very useful in discharging people from hospital to social care. The point about NHS land is, I am sure, one that we will want to take away.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, going back to last March, was any assessment at all made of the disastrous policy of discharging patients with Covid into care homes? If it was, will the Minister publish that assessment?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am aware of the Public Health England report to which noble Lords referred earlier and of reports in Scotland and Wales that have been published. Those are the reports that I am aware of and they have all been published.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, SAGE minutes from the end of January 2020 identified that asymptomatic cases were emerging, so why, out of half a million tests carried out until mid-April 2020, were the vast majority of the 25,000 people discharged from hospital to care homes not tested?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, while there was an acknowledgement of the potential risk of asymptomatic transmission, there was no scientific consensus on the matter. In fact, the WHO did not recognise asymptomatic testing for a number of weeks after that point. However, the first group prioritised for asymptomatic testing was those who were going to be discharged into care home settings.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come the second Oral Question.
Arctic: Security and Co-operation
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of security concerns about Russian military build-up in the Arctic; and what progress was made at the meeting of the Arctic Ministerial Council in Reykjavik in May to ensure co-operation on Arctic issues.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the integrated review states that the UK’s primary Arctic objective is to maintain high co-operation and low tension, as an Arctic Council observer. We welcome the commitment to maintaining peace, stability and constructive co-operation made by all Arctic states in Reykjavik in May. Russia, as an Arctic nation, has significant presence in the region. However, we are concerned by Russia’s expanding Arctic military footprint.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, the NATO Secretary-General recently said that Russia is trying to control the traffic travelling through the new sea lanes in the Arctic as they are opened up by melting ice. He also said that NATO should assert its rights to freedom of navigation in the area. In the light of the events last week in the Black Sea, what steps are the Government taking to assert the right of freedom of navigation in the Arctic? Does the fact that Russia now chairs the Arctic Council for the next two years help or hinder co-operation on Arctic issues?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend is quite right that we have seen increased levels of activity, and it is right that we work with key partners to ensure that a peaceful, stable and well-governed Arctic underpins all our policy. That is a priority for the UK Government, and we support the legal frameworks in the Arctic and the Arctic Council. I assure my noble friend that we are working with NATO and other partners to respond to events in the Arctic, as it is in everyone’s interest to keep the Arctic peaceful and co-operative. Of course, recent events have demonstrated the need to stand up for the laws underpinned by UNCLOS.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, few institutions exist to manage the new security risks of civilian and military activity in the Arctic. The Arctic Council and other effective forums either forbid or do not touch on security, and since 2014 the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable has excluded Russia. Major Arctic players are nuclear powers and adversaries, with multiple facilities and nuclear armaments there. Russian and European Governments have called for the creation of a new dialogue among Defence Ministers, and Presidents Putin and Biden discussed how they can ensure that the Arctic remains a region of co-operation, not conflict. Where do our Government stand on the need for inclusive discussions on security, and what are we doing, if anything, to advance that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is important to retain dialogue with all key partners and key players involved in the Arctic, and as an observer at the Arctic Council we have strongly claimed and talked of the importance of convening all Arctic states inclusively for retaining a peaceful, stable and well-governed Arctic. We attend the Arctic Council ministerial meeting and we are looking to work constructively with Russia under its stewardship, particularly as we look at wider issues beyond security in the lead-up to COP 26. However, I hear what the noble Lord says, and I can assure him that we are working with key international partners to ensure that the Arctic remains a peaceful and stable part of the world.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, can I press the Minister a little further? Last week, the leaders of France and Germany were calling for the European Union to engage more closely with Russia. Do Her Majesty’s Government believe that, in the context of the Arctic, we should be working more closely with Russia, or do we need to view Russian build-up in the Arctic with suspicion?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I have already said, we are concerned by the recent increase in activity by Russia in the Arctic region. However, I assure the noble Baroness that we look forward to working with all Arctic states, including Russia, particularly on important issues such as environmental protection and sustainable development, during the Russian chairmanship of the Arctic Council during 2021 to 2023. However, security remains a concern, and we will continue to work with partners in defence and in NATO.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, the Government are to be commended for the robust stance taken last week in sanctioning HMS “Defender” to passage, perfectly legitimately, through the international separation zone waters past Crimea, and for us not to succumb to Russian bullying and lying. Does the Minister agree that we should be acting in a similarly robust way in the north, allowing our warships to operate in international waters in the Arctic and the Barents Sea and not allowing Russia to claim such waters as their private seas by default—which will be doubly important as the north-eastern passage to the Far East becomes more accessible? I feel that the Minister’s answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, was not sufficiently robust on that matter.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
I assure the noble and gallant Lord that we recognise that—if I may be robust—the actions that we took in the waters that we believe to be the territorial waters of Ukraine demonstrated how we stand very firm in ensuring the right to sea passage, ensuring that the traffic separation schemes that operate are equally recognised. Equally, we will continue to exercise the right of innocent passage in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea wherever that may take place. As the noble and gallant Lord will be aware, that is enshrined in Article 19 of that law and we will seek to uphold it. Our recent activities in Ukrainian territorial waters show the robustness of our approach in this regard.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, modelling has shown that the Arctic sea ice could well disappear by the summer of 2035; certainly, the sea lanes will be completely different from what we currently have. Where most of us see a disaster, global powers see that as an opportunity to secure security, political and commercial interests. Can the Minister say exactly what our policy now is, looking back at the 2018 UK Policy Towards the Arctic paper, which said that we should be exploring commercial opportunities too? How does that rest with the recent Arctic Council ministerial meeting?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
The noble Lord is quite right to point towards the 2018 Arctic policy framework. We remain very committed to its core principles of respect, co-operation and leadership. Equally, however, as I have already alluded to, with temperatures rising three times as fast in the Arctic, we also believe that it is important that we focus on the Arctic, as we will at COP 26, to ensure not only that the Arctic remains a peaceful, stable and well-governed part of the world but that we also seek to tackle the important issues of climate and shared biodiversity. The current statistics are quite concerning, with sea level temperatures in the Arctic rising three times as fast as those in the rest of the world. As a near neighbour, we need to be interested and engaged.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister just said about climate. The NATO Secretary-General identified climate change as a crisis multiplier, referring not least to the Russian attempt to define the northern sea route as an historically shaped national transportation corridor. There is a clear intention not just to take control of the route but of course to exploit the Arctic, with plans for huge oil extraction, which will only add to the problems of climate change. Can the Minister reinforce the pressure on all states with an interest in the Arctic not to worsen the climate crisis that we are facing by exploiting oil reserves that previously have been unexploitable?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the points made by the noble Lord, and we will be working with key partners to ensure that the very areas that he just highlighted remain a key part of our focus in the build-up and planning for COP 26 when we discuss issues in and around the Arctic region.
Lord Walney (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it was good to see the recent defence Command Paper commit the UK to funding the next generation of nuclear submarines, which will give the Royal Navy vital capability in this region into the latter half of the century. Is the Minister in a position to confirm, as reportedly set out in recent RN planning papers, that these submarines are expected to incorporate the Atlantis hybrid underwater capability concept, based on a crewed mother ship in tandem with remote autonomous uncrewed platforms?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will ask my colleagues from the Ministry of Defence to write specifically to the noble Lord on that question.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I was deeply privileged to be on board HMS “Trenchant” as she broke up through the ice in the Arctic in 2019, an event that marked the return of the Royal Navy to underwater operations under the ice after an absence of some 10 years. Given that only last week the Russian Navy launched its latest submarine, increasing its inventory in the area, can my noble friend simply reassure me that we will now maintain this under-the-ice capability?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend speaks with great insight and experience of this matter, and I can give him that assurance. We are of course very proud of the Royal Navy’s sub-surface capabilities, which is why the defence Command Paper emphasises our commitment and ambition in this area. My noble friend will know better than me from his previous experience that the sensitivities of submarine operations mean that I cannot go further. However, I hope my reassurance satisfies him with regard to our commitment in this important area.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
North of England: Rapid Mass Transport System
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the construction of an underground Maglev rapid mass transport system between cities in the north of England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have thoroughly investigated whether our forthcoming major investment in connectivity between northern cities should be maglev rather than rail. We concluded that rail remains the best option for a number of reasons, the most important being that new conventional rail infrastructure can better be integrated into the existing network.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, maglev is a great British invention increasingly deployed in Asia for high-speed travel. As our world-beating British tunnelling engineers have shown, constructing railways in-tunnel can be cheaper than constructing them on the surface, provided that it stays in-tunnel. However, it seems that every proposal for maglev that comes from the Department for Transport is rebuffed. Can my noble friend explain why her department is so wedded to a 200 year-old technology that, when constructed on the surface, can both cost more and be very annoying for local voters?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am sure all noble Lords will agree that, just because something is old, that does not mean it is useless. We must look at all technologies, and that is precisely what we do. My noble friend makes an important point in saying that systems around the world use this, but just one operational high-speed system does so at the moment: the Shanghai City maglev. There are many others operating at lower speeds—that is, less than 100 mph—and obviously, there is one in construction in Japan, but it is coming up against some cost pressures.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Will the Minister give a clear commitment on behalf of the Government to Northern Powerhouse Rail as part of the integrated rail plan?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I can reassure the noble Lord that the Government are considering all options as part of the integrated rail plan and of course, Northern Powerhouse Rail is a very important part of that. Once the IRP is published, Transport for the North will submit a business case consistent with policy and the funding framework.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My noble friend’s idea of an underground magnetic railway between northern cities certainly has a strong attraction, especially following Elon Musk’s proposal for 1,000 mph trains in the United States, and especially coming from a former deputy chair of Transport for London. However, as Transport for the North has said, our aims in the north should be to improve the frequency, capacity, speed and resilience of our transport system. Can my noble friend go a little further in telling us, in a realistic way, how the Government intend to facilitate those aims in the near future?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government are working extremely hard on setting out plans as to how we will improve connectivity in the north. As I mentioned previously, the integrated rail plan will be published soon and will bring together the benefits of not just High Speed 2 but Northern Powerhouse Rail and other very significant projects across the north. Of course, our investment in traditional rail and upgrading and improving our current lines also continues.
Lord Beith (LD) [V]
My Lords, what the north-east needs is not an underground line but investment in the East Coast Main Line, which, according to LNER, does not have the capacity even to accommodate the service that it provided up to 2019. How can it be consistent with government policy to halve the daytime service from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London and the major cities, reducing it to a two-hour gap between trains with a longer journey time? This is the railway going backwards, is it not?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I accept that there are capacity constraints on the East Coast Main Line, which is why we are investing more than £1.2 billion to upgrade it. On 11 June, LNER launched a consultation on the new proposed timetable for the East Coast Main Line from May 2022. I encourage all noble Lords who have an interest in the East Coast Main Line to respond to it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, if it is concluded that what we really need is a strategic rail link between not just Leeds and Manchester but Middlesbrough and Liverpool and all major towns in between to improve connectivity and boost productivity, how likely is that to happen and how much money will the Government allocate to it?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I can reassure my noble friend that we are of course looking at connectivity across the regions. A number of urban centres need to be connected, and it is really important that we make sure that towns and villages are connected via local transport to those point-to-point systems.
Lord Birt (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have long been a supporter of improving our strategic rail network, but I now wonder whether we face a mid to long-term future in which electric vehicles incorporating artificial intelligence within intelligent connected road networks will become the de facto mode of speedy, seamless door-to-door travel. Is the Department for Transport contemplating and investigating this possibility?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I suspect that it will not be an either/or situation in the future, as indeed it is not now. We are actively considering opportunities for automation and AI. We want to see the safe development and deployment of self-driving vehicles. The Government have the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles, which is looking at developing regulations, investing in innovation and skills and engaging with the public, because it is important that we take them with us.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it still strikes me as ironic that, although the UK invented maglev, Asia has made far greater and more imaginative use of this high-speed technology. I worry about us being too risk-averse in refusing to keep it on the table. Can I press the Minister perhaps less on the sci-fi possibilities of innovative technology solutions—although I do find them exciting—and more on the concrete plans to bring about high-speed connectivity between northern cities, which is crucial for levelling up? Can the Minister assure us that urgency and speed will be deployed rather than emulating HS2, which has to be the slowest high-speed project in the world? Surely the cost challenges of maglev in Japan are not worse than those of HS2 here.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I, too, am extremely excited by technology. The noble Baroness said that there has been widespread take-up of maglev technology across Asia, but that is not the case. The high-speed system is up and running in Shanghai at the moment, but China has now decided to invest in conventional rail rather than rolling out a large number of high-speed maglev systems. As I have mentioned many times, the Government are considering connectivity across the north and this will be set out in the integrated rail plan.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Can the Minister confirm in the light of her earlier answers that the Government do not know when the Northern Powerhouse Rail project, first promised by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in 2014, will be approved, when its route plan will be made clear or when its promised infrastructure work will actually start? Assuming that is so—I think the Minister has been telling us that—can she at least assure us that work on the construction of Northern Powerhouse Rail will take priority over the start of work on the Prime Minister’s latest project: the construction of a new royal yacht?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I think that that is a rather extreme assessment of what I have said so far. I reiterate that the integrated rail plan must come first. Without it, it is pointless having a plan for Northern Powerhouse Rail because, of course, the whole point is that everything has to be integrated. As I said previously, we will work with Transport for the North, which will submit the business case for Northern Powerhouse Rail. Once we have received that, we will be able to set out how the project will go forward.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
Does the Minister acknowledge that continued speculation about the future of Northern Powerhouse Rail and the issuing of new timetables by the East Coast Main Line, which reduced rail links for northern cities, simply serves to undermine confidence in government promises to level up and therefore reduces the likelihood of private sector investment in northern cities?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The absolute priority for this Government is to get it right. Endless amounts of pressure—questions such as “When will it be published?”—is probably not particularly helpful and leads to an awful lot of speculation. As I have said previously, we are taking due consideration of what stakeholders are saying and we are working very hard to come up with a robust, deliverable plan. That is exactly what this Government are going to do.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is right about the Shanghai maglev, which I have been on. It is very fast and very noisy, but the technology, and therefore the costs, are very tight, because the track has to be kept within plus or minus half a millimetre in both directions, vertical and horizontal. She is absolutely right to reject it and I hope that the Government stick to their promises.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Now we are all very jealous—I too would love to go on that maglev. The noble Lord makes an important point: it is not just about the cost of infrastructure, but of operation, because it has a very high electricity consumption and can therefore be more costly to operate. I know that the Japanese system will be using superconducting electromagnetics, which should be cheaper but, although maglev has some great applications, it is not applicable everywhere.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Marriage and Religious Weddings
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made towards their commitment in the Integrated Communities Strategy Green Paper, published on 14 March 2018, to “explore the legal and practical challenges of limited reform relating to the law on marriage and religious weddings”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, the law regulating legal marriage ceremonies developed over 150 years without systematic reform, so any changes present both legal and practical challenges. That is why the Law Commission is reviewing the law and will report later this year. A separate Nuffield Foundation study, also due to report this year, will investigate why marriage ceremonies occur outside the legal framework in England and Wales. The Government will consider both reports carefully.
Baroness Cox (CB) [V]
My Lords, I remain deeply concerned, because there has been no evidence of any meaningful progress since I first raised these issues over 10 years ago. As the Muslim Women’s Advisory Council told me recently, although the plight of many Muslim women in this country is well-known,
“their cry for help is ignored.”
The Government have continually failed
“to enshrine the rights of Muslim women who do not yet have the protection of legal marriage.”
Will the Minister at last give an assurance that legislation will be introduced, as a matter of great urgency, to ensure that religious marriages are also legally registered?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am aware of the noble Baroness’s work in this area and the Private Members’ Bills she has brought forward in the past. The offence set out in her Private Member’s Bill is one of the potential options on which we are working, but any change in practice must be based on the facts on the ground. We are doing work with the Nuffield Foundation, the Law Commission is looking at this area and we have met with Aina Khan from Register Our Marriage. While I cannot give an assurance on legislation, I can give an assurance that this has a high priority and we are looking at it with real care.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill, now an Act, your Lordships discussed how best to protect migrant victims of abuse. Will the Minister assure me that any reforms, such as those being discussed here today, will safeguard migrant women and children, who are often particularly vulnerable?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right that the position of migrant women and their children, in particular, is of real concern. As we saw in the domestic abuse debates, those groups can be subject to particular intimidation and abuse. We will, therefore, consider their position in any legislation.
Viscount Bridgeman (Con) [V]
My Lords, a Channel 4 survey found that six in 10 Muslim women, who had had traditional Islamic weddings in Britain, are not legally married—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Of these, over a quarter— 28%—are not aware that they do not have the same rights they would with a legally recognised marriage. Does the Minister not agree that this is an issue of equal rights for women? May I press him on how the Government will safeguard the rights of Muslim women and ensure that the rule of law is upheld?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right: if you are not legally married, under the law of England and Wales, you have a significantly disadvantageous position on divorce and on death. The position is simple: there is only one law in this country, the law of England and Wales. That proposition can be traced back to Jeremiah’s letter to the Babylonian exiles. There is no separate system of law in this country.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of the National Commission on Forced Marriage. I ask the Minister to bear in mind that any relaxing of the requirements of marriage might have the unintended consequence of not identifying a potential forced marriage.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I respectfully agree with the noble and learned Baroness that, in seeking to update marriage law, we must ensure that we do not weaken forced marriage safeguards. Indeed, we criminalised that in 2014. I know that the Law Commission is looking at these issues most carefully.
Can I just clarify my previous answer, before the Advocate-General for Scotland has a go at me? When I said “this country”, I was referring to the law of England and Wales; the law of Scotland is a separate matter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the 2015 review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, said that, as of 2015, there were up to 100,000 sharia marriages in the UK,
“many of which are not recognised under UK laws and leave women without full legal rights upon divorce.”
Her review warned that this was worrying in a group with lower levels of female employment and English language. Crucially, the noble Baroness said:
“The potential for women … to find themselves in what they believe to be a binding commitment, be economically and socially dependent on their spouse, and yet have no legal marriage status, is worryingly high.”
The Minister said that this issue is a very high priority. That report was six years ago. When did it become a high priority and what have the Government done in those six years?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord knows that it is a high priority, because this is one of the issues that both the Law Commission and the Nuffield Foundation are looking at. We have also looked at the sharia review. As I have said, our position is that we want to make sure that people are properly protected, though I would suggest that it is as much a matter of education as it is of legislation.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, numerous independent reports, including those commissioned by the Government, have confirmed that some sharia councils embed discrimination against women, including against those women who use sharia council services on matters of marriage and divorce. Given that countless women are suffering as a result, may I press my noble friend the Minister for an assurance that we will see government legislation sooner rather than later?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, people may choose to abide by the interpretation and application of sharia principles if they wish to do so—that is a matter of religious freedom—provided that their actions do not conflict with the national law. But, importantly, all individuals retain the right to seek a remedy through the English courts in the event of a dispute. For these purposes, the law of England and Wales in relation to the inheritance of property will prevail. We are looking at legislation, and I will of course update the House and my noble friend as and when we reach a decision.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the words of a Christian hymn that
“New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth”,
and that religion and religious teachings should be interpreted in the context of today’s times and the recognition of full gender equality? Does he agree that the Government’s continuing reluctance to stand up for the rights of Muslim women and girls is not only a betrayal of government responsibility but an insult to the fair name of Islam?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I think the theological point put to me will take an answer that is probably longer than the allotted time, but I am happy to consider it further. However, I reject the proposition that we are not concerned about the rights of Muslim women and girls. The history of the work in this area, whether on forced marriage or indeed the matters we are discussing this afternoon, would indicate the opposite.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I do not think anybody could dispute my noble friend’s personal commitment, but this is taking a very long time. Can he tell the House what line the Government will take on the Private Member’s Bill from the other place which suggests that the minimum age for marriage should be 18?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I think my noble friend will have seen my letter to various groups on that point. Marriage at 16 and 17 has the significant risk of people being forced into marriages and their life chances reducing. Therefore, my noble friend can take it from me that we will be looking very carefully at the Bill introduced by the Member for Bromsgrove, who now appears to be otherwise occupied.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am sure the Minister believes that there should be equality among religions in relation to divorce, and that the law should bring justice to women who are mistreated by religious husbands and religious courts. So will he ensure changes to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, so that the court can refuse to finalise a civil divorce until an Islamic religious divorce has been obtained, if unfair pressure is being used in the religious proceedings? This would bring Islamic divorce in line with the Jewish get.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the premise behind the question of the noble Baroness is that the bars to effective relief are the same in Judaism and Islam, but that is not in fact the case. As I understand it, it is significantly easier for a woman to obtain a divorce in Islam than it is for a woman to facilitate or obtain a divorce in Orthodox Judaism. Therefore, the Act that the noble Baroness refers to—I believe it is Section 10A—would not have the same advantageous effect in Islamic marriages as it does in Orthodox Jewish marriages.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
NHS Test and Trace
Lord Scriven
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the NHS Test and Trace system.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, NHS Test and Trace currently provides 6.5 million virus tests each week, with more than 80% of in-person test results received within 24 hours. It successfully traces 92% of positive cases and 90% of their identified contacts, with more than 80% of contacts reached within 48 hours of someone reporting symptoms. Test and trace is continuously improving the speed and reach of its services and further enhancing the role of local authorities in community testing and contact tracing.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Innova lateral flow test purchased by the Government without open competition at a cost of more than £3 billion was last week described by the US Food & Drug Administration as not proven; it said it should be thrown in the bin. Why do the Government still maintain that the Innova lateral flow test is effective, safe and offers value for money to the British taxpayer?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Innova test has gone through the rigorous Porton Down assessment process that the UK uses for coronavirus testing approved by the MHRA, the independent regulator for medicines and medical devices in the UK. I reassure the noble Lord that there is rigorous assurance work in the lab and in the field to ensure that Innova tests consistently perform to the required standard.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister go back to her department and the Department for Education to see whether we can get some consistency in the advice given by directors of public health in relation to sending children home when someone in the year group or the bubble—whatever advice might be given at any time—tests positive? There are some quarter of a million young people out of education today because of the varying advice. It would be good if we could sort this out.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I will take up that point with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education. We are piloting a programme of daily lateral flow tests as opposed to self-isolation; perhaps that might help avoid such situations in future.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, given the challenges we have of speed, confidence, reach and public compliance, we need a comprehensive and independent assessment of why the rate of tests registered has been low and to make improvements to the system, so that the UK Health Security Agency can be strongly resourced to face down future threats and viruses?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I believe my noble friend may be referring to the low rate of registration for lateral flow tests issued for asymptomatic testing. That is something we are looking at very carefully. Around 40% of people say they have taken tests but not registered the results. NHS Test and Trace is taking steps to improve the registration of test results by streamlining the reporting process and improving communications about the importance of reporting results.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, test and trace can work only if those who are told that they should isolate do indeed isolate. I believe that companies are now being paid to send people to knock on doors to check whether people are at home as they should be. One report stated that the hit rate was 40% success. Can the Minister tell us the current rate of success on that sort of check?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I do not have data for those who might be physically checked in their home, but the ONS conducts surveys of those who have been asked to isolate, which show a higher compliance rate of about 80%. The Government’s focus in ensuring isolation is to provide the right incentives and support for people to isolate, including, for example, the £500 self-isolation payment for those on low incomes. We take enforcement measures, but we seek to persuade and then enforce.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I refer the Minister back to her answer to my noble friend Lord Scriven. The American FDA pointed out that the previous analysis pointed to Innova providing false statistics. What new evidence do the Government have that the FDA is wrong?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, my understanding is that the Innova test has passed the UK’s assessment process and that ongoing assurance work is conducted in labs and in the field to ensure that the tests consistently perform to the required standard. My understanding is also that the latest evidence suggests that Innova lateral flow devices have a specificity of around 99.97%.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, this morning it was announced that Serco had been awarded a new contract with the Department of Health and Social Care worth up to £322 million to continue providing Covid test-and-trace services. Will the Minister justify this just days after the NAO review found that 600 million tests were unaccounted for, and that the £22 billion scheme was still missing targets and was wracked with problems? Can the Minister explain why more taxpayers’ money is being handed out to what has been found to be an ineffective and inefficient company instead of supporting local public health teams to do this work?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, more than 80% of the budget for test and trace goes towards the testing part of that programme. That has proved highly effective. The programme is working to increase its partnership with local authorities and local directors of public health. We are also reducing our reliance on private sector contractors by around 17%, but we recognise the work that those partners have done with us in building up the system over the past year and continue to work with them where it is in the best interests of the country.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, the latest variant is pretty mild—deaths have gone right down—but we are spending billions of pounds on this, while huge waiting lists are building up in the NHS. Is it not about time that this programme was wound down and the money spent on the millions of delayed operations and procedures?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we are looking at the evidence in relation to the variant and the effectiveness of the vaccine against it all the time. I assure my noble friend that additional resources have already gone into the NHS to catch up on those waiting lists that have grown because of the pandemic. If we were to get this wrong and there were increased hospital admissions due to Covid, we would not be able to make the progress that he and we all want to see on tackling those waiting lists.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB) [V]
My Lords, the recent National Audit Office evaluation of the track and trace performance revealed that the programme is still not as effective as promised and relies heavily on the use of expensive management consultants. Does the Minister agree that more independent medtech and diagnostic providers should be incorporated into the test and trace programme to meet demand, and can she elaborate on the cost-benefit analysis?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the test and trace programme seeks to partner with all organisations that can help its effectiveness: the private sector, public health authorities in local areas and the NHS. SAGE recommends that an effective contact-tracing service should trace 80% of contacts within 48 to 72 hours of someone reporting symptoms and ordering the test. Test and trace has achieved the 72-hour standard since January 2021 and the more stretching 48-hour standard since March this year.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I follow the line of questioning of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. According to the NAO, test and trace
“is responsible for … public compliance”—
but it has no targets for increasing the number of symptomatic people coming forward for testing, the uptake of lateral flow tests or compliance with self-isolation. All three are vital to the success of the scheme. Why are there no targets?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, test and trace is working to improve performance across all those areas, in particular through the community testing programme. Local directors of public health are playing a leading role in targeting testing to those parts of their local communities where it will have the greatest impact. In addition, all 314 local authorities in England have local tracing partnerships working with test and trace to improve performance in those areas.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, to return to my noble friend Lady Thornton’s question, economy, efficiency and effectiveness are the National Audit Office’s and the Public Accounts Committee’s measures of confidence in public expenditure. On economy, do the Government regard the £22 billion budget of track and trace as good value for money? On efficiency, is a response rate of 14% on 700 million kits an efficient use of resource? And on effectiveness, do not European calls for the quarantining of UK tourists suggest a total lack of confidence in our tracing systems here in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that the Government allocated £22 billion to test and trace in the last financial year. As I said, more than 80% of that has been allocated to testing. He is absolutely right that we have sought opportunities to drive down costs where possible and free up resources. We have taken a number of steps to reduce costs, including through commercial negotiations with suppliers, which have released £2.2 billion of savings, and technological advancements. A further £6 billion of savings were achieved by lower demand, changing priorities and deferred activities during the national lockdown from December to March.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this pandemic is far from over. We also know that testing has to go hand in hand with tracing to be effective. The Minister mentioned local authorities playing a vital part. Is she satisfied that what we have at the moment is a sustainable system of sufficient support for our directors of public health, to marshal us for future demands in a way that is both effective and responsive to the communities they serve?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we have recently increased the resources available to local authorities—for example, in the amount of money they have for discretionary payments to support those who are self-isolating. The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the importance of partnership in this work, and in particular the role of local authorities and directors of public health, to ensure that the uptake of testing is as high as we need it to be. We find that, once people are tested, they do tend to self-isolate.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister say how many firms of management consultants have been employed on the test and trace system since it began? Were they all appointed by competitive tender, and what evidence is there that this is money well spent?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I believe that all the processes in setting up test and trace will have followed the relevant guidance on both the use of private-sector consultants and how the processes for tendering should take place, and I am sure that we will continue to ensure that that is the case.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, research has shown that many people will not co-operate with test and trace because those on low income or in insecure employment fear the loss of vital income when isolating. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of this in delta hotspots?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we are continually working with local authorities to understand, for example, the uptake of the support payments available to those on low incomes who need to self-isolate. One of the challenges we have found is low awareness of the support available. We are working with local authorities, particularly in hotspots, to see what we can do to improve the communication of that available support—not just financial support but social support for those who may then need to isolate.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 13, Clauses 16 to 25, Clauses 14 and 15, Clauses 26 to 28, Title.
Environment Bill
Monday 28th June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-IV(Rev) Revised fourth marshalled list for Committee - (28 Jun 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw an amendment. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice to be accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Clause 16: Policy statement on environmental principles
Amendment 73
“(1A) In exercising their functions and carrying out their duties under this Act, the Secretary of State and all public bodies and authorities must adhere to the environmental principles.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is my pleasure to open the debate, especially on this group of essential amendments, which really goes to the heart of making the Bill fit for purpose. We must all know that the Bill currently just does not have any bite. We will have all these lovely environmental principles floating around, but no real duties on the Government other than having “due regard”. “Due regard” is a get-out clause. Ministers can easily have “due regard” for something and then make a completely opposing decision, and they know it. That is why they have chosen this wording. It is weaselly, squirming and not worthy of any Government who take the environment seriously.
My Amendment 73 would rectify this by requiring Ministers, public bodies and authorities to all stick to the environmental principles. This would be a clear requirement, so when they do not stick to them those decisions would be judicially reviewable. That is how things should be. It is a simple amendment that would give real clarity, because we all know what the environmental principles are.
My Amendment 75 would flesh out the environmental principles so that they reflect a much broader set of principles, written in simple, understandable language. For example, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle would actually be explained and defined. It would also add things such as using the “best available scientific knowledge”, the principles of public participation and the principle of “sustainability” to take into account the health of present generations and the needs of future generations.
Taken together, these amendments would create an accessible blueprint for our country and for the planet. They would set out the clear environmental principles on which our future would be founded, and require—not simply invite—the Government to implement those principles in all areas of policy. This is the type of legislation that a Green Government would implement, these are the principles that we would apply and these are the ways in which we would make ourselves accountable to Parliament, to the courts, and to future generations. I beg to move.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I have two amendments in the group. Their aim, rather like those of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is to enable the Government to ensure that the environmental principles do the job we need them to do, making sure that environmental considerations are at the heart of decision-making. Indeed, the Explanatory Notes say of the principles:
“The principles work together to legally oblige policy-makers to consider choosing policy options which cause the least environmental harm.”
I am sure we would all welcome that, but, as the noble Baroness rightly said, there are far too many caveats and exceptions in this list. My Amendments 76 and 78 refer to four of them, and I would like to spend a little time drawing them out.
The first is alluded to in the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which is that public bodies are excluded. The policy statement on environmental principles applies only to Ministers. We know that public bodies, of which there are well over 350 in addition to all the local authorities in this country, do the lion’s share of pushing forward government policy throughout the country. It is therefore an omission of some magnitude that only Ministers of the Crown have to pay due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. It seems to me that we would want all public bodies, such as Homes England and other bodies, to take account of this policy statement that the Government intend to prepare.
The second issue about which I have concern is the excessive use of the word proportionality by the Government as a caveat. If the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, were here I am sure that I would agree with him that there are times and places when the use of “proportionate” is correct. I feel comfortable with Clause 16(2) saying:
“A ‘policy statement on environmental principles’ is a statement explaining how the environmental principles should be interpreted and proportionately applied by Ministers … when making policy.”
However, by the time we get to Clause 18, there is a disproportionate use of the word “disproportionate”, which my amendment seeks to remove. It is again trying to curtail the application of the consideration of the environmental benefit.
Those are two areas, but the two I really wish to concentrate on are the exceptions of the MoD and the Treasury having to take due regard of the policy statement. As I said at Second Reading, the MoD has 2% of the land use in our country. It has a third of our SSSIs, which accounts, in this time of football interest, to more than 110,000 football pitches’ worth of the most protected land in its purview and control.
Last year, when the National Audit Office did a review of the MoD that looked at its “taking account of” environmental issues, it said that environmental protection was “a Cinderella service” in the MoD. As it stands, given all these SSSIs on MoD land at the moment, we have to ask: if the Government are going to meet their 25-year environment plan, which says that they want to have 75% of protected sites in a favourable condition by 2042, how are we going to achieve that if the MoD is not involved? At the moment, 52% of the MoD’s sites are not in a favourable condition.
I do not wish Members of the House to think that I do not think very highly of the MoD or its job of national security, because I do. It has proved that it can do a sterling job of environmental protection. I know this because last year, on MoD land near me in Pirbright, it found a very rare and endangered spider called the great fox-spider. It is instances like that, of which there are a number around the country, that show that national security and conservation and environmental protection can go hand in hand.
However, I do not understand why there is this blanket exemption for the MoD to have due regard to the policy statement. The Minister in the other place, Rebecca Pow, said in Committee:
“it is fundamental to the protection of our country that the exemptions for armed forces, defence and national security are maintained.”
That is not an explanation but merely a statement. She went on:
“The exemptions relate to highly sensitive matters that are vital for the protection of our realm”.—[Official Report, Commons, Environment Bill Committee, 3/11/20; col. 969.]
Again, that does not explain what those highly sensitive matters are.
Since I was not very clear what the Minister was trying to get at last November, I wrote and asked the MoD. I received a very eloquent reply in February from the Minister, Jeremy Quin, from which I quote:
“the Department remains committed to its duty to conserve biodiversity and delivering on the extended duty to ‘enhance’ biodiversity within the Environment Bill. These duties are not altered by the focused defence disapplication in the Bill.”
I question what Mr Quin is saying there. This is not a focused disapplication, and I ask the Minister here: if there are good and focused reasons why the MoD needs a specific disapplication, then we are all reasonable people and I am sure we will be happy to see that expressed in the Bill, but as it stands it is not a focused disapplication.
My second point is that the MoD is subject to the climate change obligations as outlined in the Climate Change Act. Indeed, the Climate Change Committee regularly offers structured advice to the MoD on how it is applying its climate change targets. So if it is good enough for the MoD to “have regard to” the obligations of the Climate Change Act, why is it not good enough that the MoD must take due regard of the policy statement on environmental principles?
Finally, although I am probably going on too long, the other issue I am extremely concerned about is the Treasury’s exclusion from the need to have due regard to the environmental policy statement. That means that consideration of departmental budgets and tax spending, which we know are fundamental to delivering the environmental gains, are outwith the consideration of the statement. In the Government’s response to the Dasgupta review—a day in Committee cannot go by without someone mentioning it—the Government agreed with Dasgupta that nature is a macroeconomic consideration and spelled out in some detail what they were doing to align national expenditure with climate and environmental goals. They quoted the duty on Ministers to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles but, perhaps not surprisingly, they did not mention the disapplication for the Treasury. Perhaps the Minister might wish to comment on the discrepancy between the Government’s response to the Dasgupta review and the statement.
I feel strongly that public bodies need to be included within the scope of the policy statement and that the MoD in particular needs to be in scope unless there are very tightly defined exceptions. Excluding the Treasury and all the commitments to departmental spending rides a coach and horses through this measure and frankly, the Government’s aim to deliver the environmental considerations at the heart of policy and decision-making will be wasted.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to speak to this small group of amendments. I shall speak particularly to my Amendment 77A but before I do, I would be interested in probing my noble friend on the relationship between Clause 16, on environmental principles, and Clause 45, on environmental law. I have another amendment asking that we write the Aarhus convention into the Bill, so I am interested in how the principles relate to the law in the context of this ground-breaking Bill.
My second point relates to government Amendments 80, 298 and 299. I hope he will look carefully at Amendment 80A in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and Amendment 81 from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as there may be nuances relating to Scotland and Wales that the government amendments should consider.
In speaking to Amendment 77A, I am extremely grateful to the Bar Council for briefing me and bringing to my attention that the phrase “due regard to” is inappropriate here and should, as the amendment says, be replaced by “ensure compliance with”. The background to this is that the concept of “due regard” has come before the courts a number of times, so guidance is available on the exercise of due regard by public authorities. This is in the context of public bodies making decisions—concerning equality legislation, for example—rather than making policy, as proposed in the Bill before us.
I shall give a couple of examples. Lord Dyson’s description of “due regard” in R (Baker) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in 2008 has been paraphrased as
“regard that is appropriate in all the particular circumstances in which the public authority concerned is carrying out its function as a public authority.”
The courts have otherwise considered those circumstances where a public body is required to have regard alone to the policy or government guidance. On the one hand, strength may be given to the terms as set out by the High Court in the case of Royal Mail Group Plc v The Postal Services Commission 2007, in which it was held in the context of a decision under the Postal Services Act 2000 to impose a penalty on the licence holder that must have regard to a policy statement, that:
“The obligation to have regard to the policy recognises that there may be circumstances when it does not have to be applied to the letter but … there must be very good reasons indeed for not applying it.”
There is another example, in the context of planning law, where a similar conclusion may be drawn—the case of Simpson v Edinburgh Corporation.
I submit to the Minister that the requirement in Clause 18 of the Environment Bill is currently for a Minister to
“have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles”,
not simply the environmental principles, when making policy, not when making decisions. From that follow a number of qualifications to that requirement, based on the significance of any environmental benefit or the proportion or disproportion of environmental benefit from the policy itself.
I argue that the use of the term “have due regard” in Clause 18 creates a potential tension between the Government’s clear entitlement to promulgate policy and to express their policy “in unqualified terms” subject to the
“basic tests of reason and good faith”,
as was argued in SSCLG v West Berkshire, and the rule as applied in Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, which is that a statutory discretion must be deployed to promote the policy and objects of the Act and the significance of having a set of environmental principles enshrined in statute in the first place. To that end, a clearer duty to “ensure compliance with” or “ensure accordance with”, as opposed to “have regard to”, would help to avoid confusion, leave the promulgation of policy open to debate in the courts and give greater recognition to the importance of the principles.
I know that, in the context of previous Bills, we have had cause to discuss the context of “have due regard to”. I am arguing for the importance of leaving the courts with a power to impose a financial penalty, as in this case, upon an unsuccessful body—including, for example, statutory undertakings such as sewerage and water undertakers—which has been found to be in breach of environmental law. It is extremely important that, in the context of what we are asking the OEP to do in the remit of the Bill, it be given real teeth when holding public bodies to account and mirror the pre-existing power, previously exercised by the European Commission and which it is now intended that the body of the OEP should fulfil post Brexit.
The requirement that the breach be severe to justify a financial penalty is noted. It is assumed that this is to ensure that a financial penalty be the exception rather than the rule, but this would also be in the context that the OEP’s power to apply for an environmental review is already on the condition that it considers the authority’s failure to comply to be serious. To that end, it might be less open for debate as to whether it is severe or serious if the court’s discretion were wider, and therefore based upon all the circumstances of the case, but to be exercised where those circumstances are exceptional.
In the circumstances before us, “have due regard to” is not appropriate. I would like to replace it in the Bill with the words: “ensure compliance with”. That would give the OEP greater clarity and, should it be subject to judicial review, it would be easier for the courts to clarify in those circumstances. I hope that my noble friend will look sympathetically on probing Amendment 77A.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted as always to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and well understand the points that she has made. I hope that the Minister will listen to them. I support the assertions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in moving Amendment 73, but my amendments relating to Wales deal with a somewhat different aspect of these policies.
There is a somewhat bizarre linking of issues in the way that they have come together in this debate. We are where we are because of how Clauses 16 to 18 are formulated and the manner in which the Government have tried to ensure that provisions relating to environmental principles do not fall foul of devolved competences in Wales. That is absolutely fair enough but it is far from clear to me, as I suspect it is to the proposers of Amendment 78, what exactly the Government are trying to do. I have tabled Amendments 79 and 81 to try to tease out exactly what their intention is, and I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for highlighting Amendment 81.
As things stand, in making policy that may impact on Wales, the provision is that the Minister must not have due regard to policy statements on environmental principles to the extent that they relate to Wales, whether or not those spheres of environmental policy are devolved. If the Bill has no application whatever to Wales then, as for Scotland and Northern Ireland, Chapter 1 should be excluded from any applicability to Wales. But the Government have insisted on making Chapter 1 applicable in certain circumstances to Wales. On a superficial reading, it would seem that the Government insist that a Westminster Minister will have some powers relating to Wales, although we do not know exactly what they may be. But whatever they are, in applying those policies in Wales, the Minister shall not have regard to environmental principles, though in relation to similar responsibilities in England he will need to have regard to those principles.
The issue of environmental principles is a very important dimension of the Bill and we must be clear about the way in which it applies or does not apply to Wales. It may be that the Minister will look again at the wording of these clauses before Report and, if necessary, bring forward further amendments on the Government’s behalf to clarify the situation. I certainly look forward to hearing his response to this debate.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, as always, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I am speaking about devolution as well, but devolution in relation to Scotland is the topic that I wish to concentrate on. I will speak to Amendment 80, which is the first of the three government amendments in this group, and to my amendment to that amendment, which is Amendment 80A. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for what she said about them.
If your Lordships will forgive me, I need to take a little time to explain which problem Amendment 80 seeks to deal with. Both these amendments in fact address the legislative competence of Section 14(2) of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. That subsection states that UK Ministers must have regard to the guiding principles which are set out in Section 13 of that Scottish Act. Those principles are derived from the equivalent principles provided for in the EU legislation, which Scotland has decided to adopt. The UK Ministers are told by subsection (2) that they must have regard to them in making policies extending to Scotland. Amendment 80 seeks to qualify that provision by saying that it
“does not apply to policies so far as relating to reserved matters.”
In other words, it seeks to amend the Scottish Act by saying that it does not apply to environmental policies made by the Secretary of State under the provisions of this Bill. Your Lordships are being asked to accept that amendment and I am afraid that this raises a question of law.
The question is whether the direction by the Scottish Parliament to UK Ministers, which we are being asked to qualify in this way, is compatible with the devolution settlement as set out in the Scotland Act 1998. Its wording seems to assume that, in this context, the distinction between what is devolved to the Scottish Parliament—and thus within its legislative competence—and what is reserved to Westminster with regard to the environment can be determined entirely by the geographical area to which the policies relate. In other words, it assumes that environmental policies directed to what happens in Scotland, whatever their subject matter, must be for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Ministers.
The problem, however, is that a provision in an Act of the Scottish Parliament is outside the competence of the Parliament if it relates to reserved matters. Guidance from the Supreme Court tells us that the phrase “relates to” requires one to consider the purpose of the provision under challenge. If its relationship to a reserved matter is merely loose or inconsequential, it will not be outside competence. Speaking for myself, I do not see how a direction to Ministers of the kind contained in Section 14(2), with regard to which environmental policies they must have regard, could be said to be loose or inconsequential. In other words, it seems that the Scottish Parliament’s competence in regard to environmental matters is determined by the subject matter of the reserved matters, not by the geographical area to which they relate.
Environmental policies with regard to energy and transport, perhaps the most important examples in this context, are therefore for Westminster and not for Holyrood. That extends to things such as the transmission, distribution and supply of electricity; restrictions on navigation, fishing and other activities in connection with offshore installations; the provision and regulation of rail services; and the regulation of aviation and air transport. These activities happen within Scotland but the statute says that they are reserved matters. This means that the making of environmental policies that are to be applied to them must be left to Westminster.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I rise to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I completely agree with her that to “have due regard” to environmental principles is absolutely not enough and we have to insert the words that we must “adhere” to them.
The fact that environmental protection is not yet integrated into all other policy areas makes it impossible for us to reach our net-zero targets. The fact that, for instance, it does not apply to the Treasury leads the cynic in me to say, “Why on earth did they commission the extraordinary review—the Dasgupta review, which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referenced in her excellent speech? Is it just a cynical operation so we have some good window-dressing leading up to the COP?” Otherwise, why leave the Treasury out? It is, at the end of the day, probably the most important government department to ensure that we carry this out.
I want to speak quickly and specifically about the integration principle a bit more. I have spoken here before about the absurdity of putting houses up on the edge of Knepp, the rewilding estate. Just this morning I read the Times:
“More than 60,000 oak, beech and other native trees planted to celebrate the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee are to be chopped down … to build up to 4,000 homes.”
This is on military land at the Prince William of Gloucester barracks in Grantham. It has been commissioned by Homes England—another body referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. The Government are apparently eating up their own plans.
The point about these trees is that 88,000 of them were planted between 2012 and 2013 to celebrate the Jubilee, and, as anyone will know, this means that the trees are just coming into their maximum moment to be wonderful carbon sinks. It is a fantastic time for trees. The trees were planted by a group of people in the area, including 15 year-old Call McLelland, who yesterday asked what kind of message this sends out to people. He said:
“I planted a tree at the Grantham Diamond Jubilee Wood with my family when I was seven years old. I can remember looking forward to seeing the trees fully grown and feeling we’d done something worthwhile … I would be devastated”
if this goes ahead.
We cannot have this; we must have consistency. These environmental principles are here for a point. Do we want to lose people like Call—the people we are going to need? I will point out to the Government what happened to them in Amersham recently. People do not like it; they have woken up, and they care about the land and biodiversity. We have targets to meet and integration is where we have to start.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and to thank her for putting that important case study on our record. I rise to speak chiefly to Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, to which I have also attached my name, as have the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Young of Old Scone.
Before I get to it, my noble friend Lady Jones has already covered the amendments opening this group and they have been powerfully supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, but I want to briefly address Amendments 77A, 79 and 80A, because those three amendments—as we have just heard very powerfully, in the case of 77A from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—are about the need for the OEP to have teeth. Her important change does that, and this is something I suspect we will be discussing for a good part of the rest of the day. To the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I say that of course Wales needs equal protection from the environmental principles that are applied in England. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, clearly identified a really important issue. I would like to offer support to all of those.
I will come specifically to Amendment 78. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, did a great job of introducing this. We are talking a great deal about security at the moment and I want to focus on two elements of this amendment, addressing the Armed Forces and defence policy, and also a little bit on the Treasury—as others have already. When we heard the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, read out the letter from the Minister in the other place, it seemed that we have that great catch-out, security: “Oh, it’s security—we can’t question any of that.” Well, I point noble Lords to the recent integrated review and its foreword, written by the Prime Minister, which says:
“In 2021 and beyond, Her Majesty’s Government will make tackling climate change and biodiversity loss its number one international priority.”
It further points out that
“the UN Security Council recently held its first ever high-level meeting on the impact of climate change on peace and security.”
So we should not be saying, “Here’s security and here’s the environment and security’s going to overrule the environment”. We are talking about the same thing here. The Government say that they grasp this, but I think it is very clear from the wording that they do not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referred to the fact that the MoD has so many SSSI sites. That is really not surprising, when the MoD controls nearly 2% of the UK. Looking at what that is, 82% is training areas and firing ranges, which we might think are natural sources of biodiversity and natural spaces where there is a great deal of nature—and similarly with the 4% that is airfields.
It is useful to note that the Armed Forces themselves regard this as really important. Noble Lords might be aware of the sanctuary awards, which are awarded every year within the defence sector, aiming to showcase sustainability efforts across defence. Last year, the silver otter trophy went to the Chicksands historic walled garden project, which brings us back to an earlier debate about heritage being included in “nature”. I also note that the sustainable business award was won by the Portsmouth naval base’s Princess Royal Jetty and Victory Jetty project, which aimed to create sustainable moorings in Portsmouth. It would be well if we saw the same thing happening in Oman, where we built a large new military base without any environmental assessment at all. None the less, we are doing this here in the UK. It is really important that we get the Government to see that security and the environment are not in opposition to each other but joined up.
On that point, I apologise to noble Lords because I will mention something that I have mentioned many times before. When we come to the Treasury not being covered by the Bill, let us look at New Zealand: the New Zealand Treasury puts at its absolute heart a living standards framework informed by the sustainable development goals, putting the environment, economy and security together. If the Government want to be world-leading, we need all aspects of their activities, and particularly the Treasury’s activities, covered by the Bill.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 76 tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Young of Old Scone. The whole Bill legislates on the way in which we look after, and improve where possible, the environment, both natural and manmade. I looked at the government website over the weekend and saw that, currently, it lists 20 non-ministerial departments and no fewer than 414 agencies and other public bodies, plus 13 public corporations. These public authorities—I assume that we must add to them the local authorities in a certain sense—control almost every aspect of our lives.
The Bill is, in a certain sense, a framework Bill, from which will come many pieces of secondary legislation and various policy decisions. Clause 18(1) requires a Minister, when making policy, to
“have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles”.
Given the large number of public authorities that make policy, it seems to me both logical and necessary that they should also have regard to the statement on environmental principles. Having listened to the debate this afternoon, I am not sure that the words “must adhere” are not better than “have due regard”, but that is a matter on which I am sure the Minister will comment.
However, the point of Amendment 76 is to add “public authorities” to the organisms of government that must take account of these principles. Therefore, I look forward to the response of the Minister on why this amendment is not one that the Government could and should accept.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I note that—and am honoured to be—listed twice on the speakers’ list for both this and a future group today. I assure the House that I will not speak twice.
I support much but not all of Amendment 73 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Boycott. It certainly increases rigour by adding a requirement that
“the Secretary of State and all public bodies ... must adhere to the environmental principles”,
rather than just having
“due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, rightly doubts the efficacy of “have due regard”.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support the Government’s approach on this. Requiring a policy statement on environmental principles is the right approach. Obviously, government must follow the principles, but to make this explicit in the way proposed in the lead amendment would provide scope for mischief-makers and single-issue enthusiasts doggedly to pursue matters in the courts and elsewhere, to the detriment of efficiency and the overall public interest.
The Bill does not and cannot go into the necessary detail, so it seems to me that Amendment 73 would create sweeping requirements and huge uncertainty. For example, how could you prove that environmental protection was integrated into the making of all policies? How could you prove that the polluter pays principle was respected—and in every public body, as now suggested? I am afraid that this is virtue signalling, and it is unenforceable. We have too much repetitive legislation moving in the direction of vague promises and, therefore, storing up decades of trouble for perhaps a favourable headline today. On a Bill so important for the future of our country, I feel that it is time to call a halt.
I have another concern, which is the reference to the precautionary principle in Clause 16. As I think we will hear in due course from my noble friend Lord Trenchard, the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform, set up by the Prime Minister on 2 February, is set to recommend that this principle should not be carried over from EU law. What is my noble friend the Minister’s response to this? Can he kindly explain why the precautionary principle needs to be included in the list of environmental principles?
The basic difficulty of the precautionary principle is obvious. It provides no mechanism for determining how precautionary we need to be. It can always be argued that, however precautionary it is proposed we should be, we should be even more so. Should the chance of death from a new medicine be less than one in a million, or one in a billion? We have no means of deciding. Human progress has also been characterised by innovation, from the wheel and wheat yields to the internet. The precautionary principle could put the latest innovations at risk and, I fear, ensure that they are not invented here in Britain. The list in Clause 16(5) seems more than adequate for environmental protection without this extra principle.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I agree with everything that she said.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Boycott, seek in Amendment 73 that, in preparing his policy statement on environmental principles, the Secretary of State
“must adhere to the environmental principles.”
Clause 16(2) already commits him to explain how the principles should be interpreted and proportionately applied. I therefore rather doubt that this amendment is necessary. The principles already carry great authority, as they are included within the nine environmental principles contained in the withdrawal Act. Four of these were included in the Lisbon treaty and are the same principles—with the addition of the integration principle—that are the subject of the Government’s consultation launched on 10 March and included in the Bill.
It is disappointing that, even though the Prime Minister has welcomed the report of the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform, published on 16 June, this landmark Bill is being introduced on the assumption that our environmental regulatory regime will basically stay the same as it has been under the EU. The task force, under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith, recognises that our departure from the EU provides a one-off opportunity to set a bold, new regulatory framework and proposes the adoption of a proportionality principle to replace the EU’s precautionary principle which, as the report points out, has led to innovations being
“stifled due to an excessive caution”.
It continues by saying that, freed from the precautionary principle, the UK should
“actively support research into and commercial adoption by UK farmers … of gene edited crops, particularly those which help the transition away from agrochemicals to naturally occurring biological resilience.”
It is disappointing that the precautionary principle has found its way into the Bill and that the Government have proposed it as one of the five principles on which future environmental policy is based. It is of some limited comfort that it has been downgraded from its number one position in the Lisbon treaty to the fifth of five in the draft policy statement on which the Government are consulting. Interestingly, Clause 16 of the Bill places it third out of five.
Last Wednesday evening, I tabled Amendment 75A, to replace the “precautionary principle” with the “proportionality principle” in Clause 16(5)(c). It was accepted on Thursday morning, but only for the fourth Marshalled List, which is of course pointless because it will be by-passed by the time that list is finalised tomorrow.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in her Amendment 75, seeks to increase the number of environmental principles to which, following her Amendment 73, not only the Secretary of State but all public bodies and authorities are compelled to adhere. The counter-innovative precautionary principle makes it into her list at number three out of no fewer than 12, some of which are very broadly drawn. Her amendment would have the reverse effect from the objective of the Government to simplify and clarify our very bureaucratic regulatory rulebook.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in Amendment 76, would require all public authorities to have regard to the policy statement on environmental policies. I am not sure that this amendment is necessary but, if it were adopted, it would certainly provide another good reason why the environmental principles should be simple and clear.
I am unable to support Amendment 77A, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which would I think put the Crown in a very difficult position. The precise definition of what is in compliance with the principles as drafted and what is not is very subjective.
I am also unable to accept Amendment 78, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, because the exception for the Armed Forces is very important. There may be other exceptions regarding resource allocation that the Government may reasonably need to rely on.
I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response on the amendments regarding the devolved authorities and their powers. I just say, however, that I regret that this United Kingdom Parliament cannot legislate for the whole country on such high-level matters as environmental principles. Politicians in the four home nations will constantly try to adopt slight differences in policy to show their power and for their own political purposes. I have listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on this matter, but I very much hope that my noble friend, through the UKIM Act and otherwise, will find a sensible way through to a common position. I certainly look forward to hearing his rationale for Amendments 80, 298 and 299, which I am inclined to support.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is the first opportunity that I have had to speak on the Bill, since I was unable to take part at Second Reading. Perhaps I should begin by assuring noble Lords that I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech on this group of amendments, even though they are wide-ranging. I simply say that, through the course of the Bill, I hope to take an interest in the key issues of air and water quality, biodiversity and waste management. I also wish to raise again, where appropriate, the issue of access to the countryside, concerned as I am about the 38,000 miles or so of permissive access that have been lost with the closure of the CAP-funded stewardship schemes. In speaking today, I should perhaps also point out a non-financial interest that I have, namely that I am president of the Northumberland National Park Foundation.
Regarding the amendments in front of us, I support those in the names of my noble friends Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Young of Old Scone, who spoke a few moments ago. I also broadly agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Parminter, on the importance of the environmental principles and stating what they are, as well as on embedding environmental principles at all stages in the work of government and public bodies and authorities.
I shall comment briefly on the amendments that relate to devolution, although I understand and rather sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that this seems a rather strange marriage of amendments in this particular group. I support full respect for the devolution settlement, but I hope none the less that there will be proper and full consultation and, indeed, willingness—despite political differences—to learn from each other in the relationships between the devolved authorities.
I read with interest the letter the Minister sent to all of us at the end of last week, addressing some of the points that had been raised in the debate last Wednesday regarding environmental principles and the devolution settlement. In explaining the position, he talked about policies that were tailored to each of the nations, and while I broadly accept what he said, I would like to make the point, which echoes something the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, that environment issues cross borders. I am particularly sensitive to that, living in Northumberland, where the countryside and agriculture are similar on each side of border. On a recent, wonderful hike in the Cheviot hills, I concluded that nobody had explained to the wandering sheep exactly where the border was and certainly had not explained that they might be subject to different rules on each side of the border.
The hill agriculture and countryside in the north of England—Northumberland, Cumbria, the Yorkshire Dales, for example—are very similar to areas in Wales and Scotland. Therefore, as well as co-operation across borders and the importance of sharing with and learning from each other, I hope the Minister’s policy for England will take fully into account the huge countryside and environmental differences and variety within England. Perhaps he can reassure me on this point.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments in this group that aim to strengthen the role of environmental principles, including Amendments 73, 75, 76, 77 and 78. When we started out on this journey towards an environment Bill, we were told it would be a non-regression Bill. I thought the idea was not only to maintain but to strengthen environmental protections after leaving the European Union. Yet Clauses 16 to 18, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, explained so clearly, appear to weaken environmental protection in at least three ways: first, by weakening the legal effect of the environmental principles—since instead of acting in accord with the principles, there is only a much weaker duty to “have regard” to them; secondly, by introducing proportionality in the application of the principles, suggesting that they may be compromised for other priorities; and thirdly, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, by exempting many public authorities, including two government departments that were specifically referred to.
I shall focus on Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and others, and on Clause 16(2). Can the Minister explain why he considers the introduction of proportionality necessary, when the precautionary principle, according to the High Court, already includes proportionality? I strongly disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and I hope this example will help to explain why there is no need to replace a precautionary principle with a proportionality principle.
I refer to the High Court judgment of 28 May 2021 in the case of Natural England applying the precautionary principle in relation to nitrogen loads in the Solent. In his decision in favour of Natural England, Mr Justice Jay said that Mr Elvin, who was representing Natural England
“also submitted that the precautionary principle embodies both proportionality and a degree of inherent flexibility to reflect the nature of the harmful outcome. … If all that Mr Elvin was submitting was that in some circumstances it would be close to impossible to obtain precise scientific data and consequently it may be appropriate, as well as proportionate, to draw from generic data and experience in analogous situations, I would agree with him. … But that is the whole point of the precautionary principle: the uncertainty is addressed by applying precautionary rates to variables, and in that manner reasonable scientific certainty as to the absence of a predicated adverse outcome will be achieved, the notional burden of proof being on the person advancing the proposal.”
There is no need for a principle of proportionality according to the High Court; the precautionary principle includes proportionality. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this example.
Finally, I refer to the extended list of environmental principles in Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. One principle in the extended list is the
“use of the best available scientific knowledge.”
I do not understand why that is not in the Government’s list, because it is surely uncontroversial that the best scientific evidence should be used to make determinations about environmental matters. Good science is particularly important since many key scientific matters—the safety of certain pesticides, for example—are hotly contested. It is important that we have a good understanding of where the certainties and uncertainties in the science lie. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support some of the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others. I support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who just spoke about the importance of the list of environmental principles contained in Amendment 75.
We are in danger of having a debate over a more detailed list, that some noble Lords have said may be unenforceable, and a higher-level list which, sadly, many people would say was a bit like motherhood and apple pie and probably unenforceable for that reason. I think the list in Amendment 75 is extremely good. But, as other noble Lords have said, environmental interests can conflict with commercial interests, even if they are hidden by something that is called “environment.” A debate can sometimes use pretty abstruse environmental information to put forward an argument that is not necessarily compliant with everything that should be on this list.
I was involved in the Aarhus convention some years ago, and that seems to sum this up. It is a great shame we do not have it and it has to go back in here if this amendment is accepted; it is about public participation and how to extract information from Governments and public bodies wishing to hide it until it is too late to cause any problems. It is very important to put this in more detail in the environmental principles.
I am also concerned about exemptions. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone mentioned the example about trees, which was quite frightening. Some friends from Plymouth who live next to one of the muddy creeks said that the MoD turned up with a jack-up barge a few weeks ago. They asked, “What is this jack-up barge doing? This is mud, which is quite environmentally friendly—there are lots of birds, fish and everything else,”. The MoD said, “We are going to put a large pylon in to help the submarines go into one of the docks in Plymouth.” My friends asked, “Shouldn’t you have told anybody? Shouldn’t you have told the local council? Shouldn’t you have consulted the residents along this little muddy creek?”
They ended up having three public meetings about this, with the top brass of the Navy turning up with an ever-increasing number of stripes on their arms to say how important this particular pylon was. They said in reply, “Anybody who knows anything about pilotage or moving big ships knows that you do not need this anyway, so why are you doing it? You’re supposed to be the experts”. We can go into the navigation issues, but that does not really matter. The point is that this is another example of the MoD trampling over people. If my friends had not phoned up those at the council and asked whether they knew about this—oh no they did not—it would have gone ahead, and they would have had a great big pylon in the middle of a rather nice creek which was quite happy as it was.
Unfortunately, the MoD has a reputation for not always consulting and not always thinking about whether something is really necessary. My view on so much of this is that we say it is necessary for A, B or C—and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that we have to move forwards, or something like that—but we must occasionally think “Can we do without it?” We do not have to go back to the horse and cart, but life and the environment might be much better if we did do without it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, pointed out in her earlier speech, she has been listed twice. I will not call her a second time, but will instead call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. This is a very extensive group of amendments which, quite rightly, places the responsibility for the environmental principles on all public bodies and authorities. Amendment 75 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, removes these environmental principles and substitutes a far more extensive set to ensure that biodiversity, climate change and human health are all part of the consideration of the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Parminter seeks in Amendment 78, again quite rightly, to put the environmental principles at the heart of government and has expanded on the wish to include all government departments within the scope of the Bill. It is a nonsense, as we have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, eloquently say, to allow the MoD and the Treasury to be excused from the need to take responsibility for what happens to the planet. We cannot have highly influential policymakers ignoring the efforts that the rest of the country is making to improve our environment for future generations, especially where this includes SSSIs, as my noble friend Lady Parminter said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised the knotty issue of ensuring the Minister “must ensure compliance with” and not only “have due regard to”. The Minister can have due regard to the comments your Lordships are making this afternoon, but he does not have to comply with them, no matter how passionately our arguments are put. He can have due regard, take note of what we say and then completely ignore it. I am not suggesting that the Minister will do this, but it shows that, unless compliance is in the Bill, there will be little confidence that it will make the difference we are all looking for.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, gave us a very powerful example of where environmental principles should be upheld by all government departments. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, urged the Government to adopt the New Zealand Treasury model, where the environment is at the heart of its policies. I regret that we cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, but I note that she is chair of the Select Committee on planning, and so can understand where she is coming from. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, also gave a very powerful example of the precautionary principle where it affected Natural England.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, make the case for the involvement of, and consultation with, Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Senedd respectively with regard to environmental principles and reserved matters. The devolved Administrations cannot be ignored, although the Bill makes it clear that it relates only to England. Unless we have a holistic approach across the whole of GB, we will see piecemeal policies and uneven progress on vital matters. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope we will not have to bring these issues back on Report, because I can tell from the level of enthusiasm and passion we have heard in this debate that, unless we get a satisfactory response, we will go around them again.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate, with some excellent speeches. I hope the Minister is clear about the concerns of the majority of those who have spoken. I will speak particularly to Amendments 76 and 77 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and to Amendment 78 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. We also support the other amendments in this group that aim to improve the application of environmental principles and address the proportionality limitations and exemptions currently in the Bill.
The Bill enshrines important principles in law, as we have heard, but the clauses on these principles are largely unchanged from previous drafts, despite very clear evidence from pre-legislative scrutiny of the need for them to be strengthened. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, these are the principles a green Government would wish to implement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, we must have consistency. Other noble Lords have spoken about the importance of the principles and the inadequacy of just having to “have due regard”. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rightly reminded your Lordships’ House that we were expecting a Bill of non-regression.
Amendment 76 seeks to drive consideration of the environmental impacts of policy-making throughout all governmental bodies. Amendment 77 ensures that a Minister must, when making policy, directly apply the environmental principles in effect at that time. Environmental principles have been binding on all public authorities, including in individual administrative decisions, but this legal obligation on all public authorities will be undermined by the Bill. The impact of the principles has extended deeply and routinely into administrative decision-making, often having a binding effect on the public bodies directly delivering measures, including, for example, in respect of GMOs, pesticides, waste regulation and water regulation. As my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone clearly laid out, it is vital that the duty applies to all public authorities. The principles must be taken account of in the formation of policy, implementation, public authority decision-making and many other stages of environmental management.
We have heard concerns about the impact on our devolved Administrations from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for example, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, talked about the Scottish legislation. I draw the Minister’s attention to Section 14 of the Scottish continuity Act, which requires Scottish Ministers to have direct and due regard to the guiding principles on the environment in developing policies, including proposals for legislation. It also places additional requirements on public authorities to have direct and due regard to the principles when carrying out strategic environmental assessments of plans, policies and programmes. Can the Minister explain why he believes the Government’s approach here will have a better outcome for the environment?
Clause 16 of this Bill requires the Secretary of State to prepare a policy statement on environmental principles, but only Ministers, and not public authorities, must have due regard to this statement, and this requirement does not apply to decision-making. Furthermore, Clause 18 brings in a number of wide-ranging exemptions, as we have heard, seeming to absolve the Treasury, the MoD and those spending resources in government from having to consider the principles at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, clearly explained why this is very problematic. It is important to establish a principle that no area of government should be exempted from its responsibilities to the environment.
Amendment 78 removes the proportionality limitations and exemptions for the Armed Forces for defence policy, tax, spending and resources. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, introduced her amendment on this extremely clearly, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, explained further why it is particularly important to include the MoD.
However, in considering the exemptions for the Armed Forces and defence policy, we do not want to impede the work of our Armed Forces or compromise our safety and security in any way. Were these exemptions to be confined or constricted to decisions relating to urgent military or national security matters, it could perhaps be considered reasonable. However, the clause is not drafted in this way; rather, it is a blanket exclusion for the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces from complying with environmental principles at all, as set out in the Bill.
We are in a climate emergency. There is no time to wait around for the good will of departments to take action and certainly not those with those such significant spending, carbon emissions and land ownership. In response to media coverage of concerns about the wide exclusions in the Bill, Defra offered some clarification on spending, including:
“It is not an exemption for any policy that requires spending.”
However, these wide exemptions remain in the legislation, meaning that policymakers are less likely to apply the policy statement in relation to the policy on defence and financial matters without explicit instruction to do otherwise.
The truth is that Clause 18 is a blank cheque for Ministers to invoke if they decide under certain circumstances not to be bound by environmental protection. I look forward to the Minister’s consideration and response.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this important subject.
I start with Amendment 75 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The Government’s view is that the current list of five environmental principles will work to protect the environment. The principles outlined in the Bill have significant case law and history so their meaning and application is clearly understood and defined. These five principles are also consistent with those agreed through the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement. If we were to increase the number of principles to those outlined in the noble Baroness’s amendment, this would create confusion, leading to ineffective application of the principles for policymakers and an uncertain impact on future policy-making
Amendment 78 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, deals with proportionality and exemptions for tax and spending, the Armed Forces and defence policy. Environmental principles will be embedded at the heart of policy development across government, but there will be times when action is not proportionate. As such, it is right that Ministers are able to reject a policy change where this is considered legally disproportionate—for example, where a policy change would be very costly and the environmental benefit insignificant. I do not believe that this is an unreasonable position. If the exemption to act proportionately were removed, Ministers would be required to prioritise environmental concerns even where they incurred significant and disproportionate cost to society and where the gains were nevertheless insignificant.
Similarly, exempting some limited areas from the duty to “have due regard” provides flexibility with respect to the nation’s finances, defence and national security. In relation to defence and national security, removing the exemption in the Bill could restrict our response to urgent threats. Policy decisions concerning defence are often made rapidly, or even in real time, where there is an urgent need to achieve operational imperatives. The Government wish to retain that agility.
Let me add now rather than later, in relation to the point made by the noble Baroness about land—in particular, SSSIs, which are currently owned by the MoD—that the exemptions do not apply in any respect to SSSIs. There should be no change in status for land that is protected in law as a consequence of its designation as an SSSI or anything else. As it happens, the MoD is meeting its national target in relation to SSSIs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, gave an example of trees planted on MoD land for a special purpose but which now face a threat. Given that this is a live planning matter there is a limit to what I can say, but she will not be surprised to hear that neither I nor—I am quite certain—my colleagues would want to see such trees grubbed up. The Bill adds protections for trees, through strengthening the Forestry Act as well as through other measures, which we have discussed, and will continue to discuss in Committee. In addition, Defra and MHCLG are currently working closely together to work out how we can boost protections for trees in various ways, including through the new designation of “long-established woodlands”.
Taxation, spending and allocation of resources are excluded from the remit of the principles of the office for environmental protection to provide for maximum flexibility in respect of the nation’s finances. For example, at fiscal events and spending reviews, decisions must be taken with consideration to a wide range of policy priorities, such as sustainable economic growth, macroeconomic and financial stability and sustainable levels of debt. These macroeconomic issues are too remote from the environmental principles for them to be directly applicable. However, I emphasise that this is not an exemption for any policy that requires spending. For example, if in future the Department for Transport were given funding from the Treasury to achieve a particular transport aim, the programme in question would still have to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement in policy and decision-making.
As regards Amendment 76 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, given that it is central government that sets the overall strategy and approach for any key decisions taken by other public bodies, it is not necessary to extend the environmental principles duty to cover these public authorities. The application of the environmental principles policy statement by Ministers will mean that the environmental protection promoted by the principles will filter down into local policy and strategic decisions. This means, for example, that in the case of a planning application for a village pub, the decision will be made in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, which will in future be set by Ministers having had due regard to the policy statement. It would therefore be unreasonable, and create unnecessary duplication, for the local authority to also have due regard to the principles policy statement—as well as in considering a planning application in the case of that village pub. We need to try to avoid imposing excessive and unnecessary burdens on public authorities. That is why we have taken the approach that we have.
I turn to Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 73 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Requirements to apply the principles directly via a duty through the policy statement would risk inconsistency in their interpretation and application by Ministers. It could result in the principles being applied either too stringently or ineffectively. Placing a legal duty on the environmental principles policy statement offers greater clarity for policymakers because the policy statement will set out specific details on the application and interpretation of the principles. By comparison, a similar requirement in the EU framework is opaque and effectively impossible for anyone to legally challenge. The extent of the EU requirement to consider the principles—the manner in which it has actually impacted EU environmental policy—is an unknown. Our policy statement, with more detail and more context, will mean better and clearer application of the environmental principles to policy-making.
I hope that it will also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, if I clarify that Clause 46 already provides through a definition that policy includes proposals for legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I believe—I apologise if it was not her—mentioned the Aarhus convention. I know that we will be debating that issue in some detail in a later group of amendments, so I will leave my comments until then.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 77A in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. By placing a statutory duty on Ministers of the Crown to “have due regard” to the policy statement, the Government are ensuring that the application and interpretation of the five environmental principles is consistent across government policy-making. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the Clause 18 duty is amenable to judicial review. It provides flexibility for the policy statement to be considered with substance, rigour and an open mind. The due regard duty is used in other high-profile areas, such as in the case of the public sector equality duty, and has been shown to have significant effect to catalyse a change in behaviour. There is also extensive case law and, notably, the Brown principles setting out what this duty means in practice. The practical effect of these principles is that a duty to ensure compliance with the policy statement as proposed in the amendment would not add any additional benefit or clarity. However, such a duty would add unnecessary burdens and inflexibility for policymakers compared to the due regard duty as the clause stands.
To address the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I say that our approach is not designed to replicate the EU framework; it is designed to provide a more effective process. Our approach goes further than the EU by ensuring that Ministers across government are legally obliged to consider the principles in all policy development where it impacts on the environment. In the EU, the principles apply only in the development of policy that is specifically environmental. In addition, the environmental principles listed in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union do not apply directly to, and therefore are not legally binding on, member states. Rather, they apply when the EU makes environmental policy. Under our membership of the EU, there was no legal obligation for the UK or any other member state to use these principles when making environmental policy unless they featured in domestic law. That clearly changes with, I hope, the introduction of the Bill. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I think he could not be more wrong on the point of regression in relation to our previous status under the European Union.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received two requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I will call them in that order.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said about the precautionary principle, because this is hugely important to conservation and land management. I note that my noble friend the Minister did not respond specifically to the question he posed. While he is considering an answer to that, I am going to ask him a couple of questions too. How will the precautionary principle be interpreted by government? Will it be on the basis of a hazard approach or of a risk approach? The two are very different. It has to be a balanced approach; I think the courts have indicated that this is the right way forward. He will know that the precautionary principle, depending on how you interpret it, can stop some vital research. His department, Defra, has been guilty of stopping research because it used the precautionary principle. If we are trying to help biodiversity and conservation, we must be allowed to carry out sensible, controlled research to try to get to the right answer. If he is going to use—it is probably the wrong word—political bias against a particular aspect and say, “You cannot do research into that area”, then we are not being of any benefit to conservation or land management.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, on the first question, I felt that I answered the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in some detail—indeed, in more detail than any other point raised—and I do not want to have to repeat what I said on non-regression. On my noble friend’s question about the precautionary principle, the principles have significant case law and history, as I said. Their meaning and application are clearly understood and defined, and none of them represents a leap into the unknown. The Government’s approach to the precautionary principle includes a proportionate and risk-focused application, respecting the balance with social, economic and other considerations. This was provided for in the draft policy statement which noble Lords will have seen. In response to my noble friend’s question, I say that our view is that the principle should not hinder innovation due to novelty but should instead support innovative policy approaches by providing policy-makers with the tools that they need in order to balance risk.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, given all the respect and affection in which I hold him, I am slightly dismayed that my noble friend actually played back at me that “having regard to” worked perfectly well in equalities policy. I actually quoted case law at him. If I may, I would like to submit the case law I have to him so that his legal team can look at it. But I just make a plea: we are about to come on to the office for environmental protection. We are hoping to replicate at national level, throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, very stringent penalties for infringement of environmental policy or principles, such as a chemical spillage or other contamination of water. That is why—I am sure he would agree—we want the fewest referrals possible to any court under a judicial review, we want to be absolutely clear and we need to ensure compliance and have the possibility of financial penalties being imposed, rather than just a very mealy-mouthed “have regard to”.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend. I think she offered to submit other examples in case law, and I look forward to seeing what she has to say. I am also willing, if she is willing to speak to me, to talk details in due course.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, even the ones who have disagreed broadly because, although it is not good for my temper, it is good to see just how far the Government will go in trying to block all these common-sense amendments. I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, was excellent on her amendment, and I hope that we can do something more on Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, sort of implied a threat, which is completely contrary to her gentle nature—but, obviously, a threat is what the Government will understand. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also talked about too many caveats and too many exceptions, and of course that is absolutely right. We have to make sure that the MoD does not do things such as cutting up hundreds of trees that were planted in honour of the Queen or putting pylons in muddy rivers where they are not needed. This is exactly the sort of organisation that needs some environmental principles. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her support; it is always good to have her support across the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, talked about the other Governments, and I support what they said completely. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her support and for signing the amendment. It is incredibly important that we work across the Chamber and cross-party, so I look forward to working with her on this in the future.
It is always good to hear from my noble friend Lady Bennett, who is much more clinical and knowledgeable than I am. She wields a scimitar much better than I do; I am far too friendly for your Lordships, really. She made a point about security and the environment being linked, and we see this in almost every area. There are places in the world that have been growing our pineapples and bananas that will not be able to in the future, when they have droughts and all sorts of intemperate weather. This means they will be under threat, so we may have to move around. We cannot divorce these things—in fact, you cannot divorce any topic—from the environment.
I did not quite pick up what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, was saying, but I think he was supporting us and I thank him. If I got that wrong, he can see me afterwards. Of course, I am always grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, yes, of course there will be things we cannot do because of the precautionary principle. This goes for the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, as well: if it is bad for the environment, it is probably not a good idea to do it. We can use lots of other areas for innovation, and Greens love innovation. We love using technology where it fits—if it fits all the criteria we are talking about, for the well-being of humanity and of the planet.
I did not agree with anything said by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, but that is the norm.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Quin; that was a calm exposition agreeing with Amendments 73 and 76, which is very valuable. Of course, it is fantastic to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on anything. He pointed out that this was meant to be a non-regression Bill but, quite honestly, when the Minister said that it is, I choked. I started coughing because it is so patently untrue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, sounds so reasonable. I wish I had some of her reasonableness when, at the same time, she is very tough. That is fantastic.
In dismissing this list, the Minister talked about how the current principles are based on case law and so on. The Government have already lost so many cases because they do not understand environmental principles. In fact, the stronger the basket, the structure, we can have around every single government department, the better it will be for all of us. I am sure we will fight over that many times.
Are the exclusions of the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury necessary for agility? I do not think so. That sounds like the sort of argument that could easily be dismissed, so I would be interested to see where the Minister got it from. It does not risk confusion if we have more; in fact, it clarifies things to have better and clearer principles. I argue that the amendments in this group are vital and that the Government will have a tough job to convince us otherwise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(4) Subsection (1) applies to policy relating to Scotland only so far as relating to reserved matters.(5) Section 14(2) of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 (asp 4) (UK Ministers must have regard to guiding principles on the environment in making policies extending to Scotland) does not apply to policies so far as relating to reserved matters.(6) In this section “reserved matters” has the same meaning as in the Scotland Act 1998.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Clause 138, page 123, line 22, apply the provisions about the policy statement on environmental principles to reserved matters in Scotland, and provide that section 14(2) of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 does not apply to such matters.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I shall take that intervention as inadvertent—although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has reappeared.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
I am not quite sure whether I am audible or not. I just want to thank the Minister for his kind remarks about my support for Amendment 80. As far as my Amendment 80A is concerned, I hope he will reflect carefully on what I said and perhaps come back with something on Report but, for the time being, that amendment is not moved.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we come now to the group consisting of Amendment 81A. Anyone wishing to press this to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 19: Statements about Bills containing new environmental law
Amendment 81A
Lord Hope of Craighead
“(1A) The purpose of this section is to ensure that the effects of the provision on the level of environmental protection under existing environmental law are considered before the Bill is introduced.”
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I hope I can be heard. Amendment 81A is a probing amendment, for reasons that I hope to explain. Clause 19 provides for the making of statements about Bills containing new environment law before the Bill’s Second Reading. According to paragraph 22 of the Explanatory Notes, these are to be statements setting out “the effect” of the new primary environmental law on existing levels of environmental protection provided for by environmental law, but the wording of the clause does not quite say that. All it requires is a statement by the Minister that the Bill contains a provision which, if enacted, would be environmental law and would not have the effect of reducing the level of protection provided for under existing environmental law, or that the Minister is unable to make that statement. There the matter lies. How great the reduction would be and in what respects, if he or she is unable to make the statement, is another matter, which the clause does not mention or require to be considered.
A requirement of the limited kind that this clause describes seems to be breaking new ground, although something similar is to be found in Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires Ministers to make a statement of compatibility. That provision was seen, when the Human Rights Bill was introduced, to serve three purposes. First, it would have the salutary effect of focusing the Government’s mind on the question of whether the proposed legislation would be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Secondly, it would provide information to Members of Parliament which might be relevant to their debates and discussions. Thirdly, it might affect the judicial interpretation of any legislation that was passed.
The third purpose was soon negatived when the Law Lords sitting in this House made it clear that it was for the courts and not a Minister to say whether the legislation would be compatible with the convention. The second does not seem to have been borne out in practice, as I cannot recall any case where the significance or otherwise of the Minister’s statement has been debated in this House. That may be because it has no legal significance. I hope that the first salutary purpose is still there, and that these statements, which appear without fail in every Bill, are not a mere formality because the matter has been considered.
So the question is: what is the purpose of the requirement in Clause 19? It cannot bind the courts, as it is for them and not the Minister to say whether the provision would be environmental law, should that issue ever arise in legal proceedings. I can see some prospect of its having the salutary effect of requiring the Government to address the question, focused on in Clause 19(3), of whether the level of environmental protection provided by existing environmental law would be reduced. That would be a good thing and very welcome, but do we need a provision in this Bill for that to happen? What would happen if, as it turns out, the statement the Minister made was wrong, if the Bill is amended in a way that might affect what the Minister said or if the Minister is unable to make the statement? The clause does not address these issues at all.
If, on the other hand, the making of a statement of the kind referred to in Clause 19(4) is to provide an opportunity for debate, what purpose would that debate have if the Government nevertheless wish the House to proceed with the Bill and will enforce their wish? The clause does not provide for any kind of sanction or remedy. It can be said that there is some value in drawing the matter to the attention of the House, but does it really add anything to what would be likely to happen anyway when the Bill came under scrutiny?
There is one other point worth mentioning. The phrase “existing environmental law” is defined in Clause 19(8), in relation to a statement under the clause, as meaning
“environmental law existing at the time that the Bill … is introduced into the House”.
However, that definition does not say what it is or where it is to be found. For that purpose, one has to go to Clause 45. The very broad definition that this clause provides is
“any legislative provision … that … is mainly concerned with environmental protection”—
which, for this purpose, includes devolved legislative provisions as well.
This is quite a package. It is unlike Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, where the convention itself and its precisely grouped surrounding case law is the point of reference. Given the extensive legislative background against which the Bill is likely to have been drafted, it may be quite difficult for a Minister to make such a statement with any conviction that everything has been turned over correctly and would stand up to scrutiny. That is why it might be wiser, to avoid any misunderstanding and any potential mishaps due to the difficulty of searching the ever-expanding reach of legislation in this field, to make it clear that the purpose of the clause is limited to what is indicated in my amendment.
In any event, it would be helpful if the Minister were to make it clear, for the assistance of all those to whose functions it is directed, what exactly the purpose is of this clause. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 81A, which I have co-signed. I support entirely the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in moving it.
I want to raise a very narrow point with my noble friend the Minister. It relates to the second part of Clause 19(8). Subsection (8) states:
“‘Existing environmental law’, in relation to a statement under this section, means environmental law existing at the time that the Bill to which the statement relates is introduced into the House in question, whether or not the environmental law is in force.”
This posed quite a question at the time of the withdrawal Act and the subsequent statutory instruments on retained EU law, particularly as the water framework directive was being considered and revised. Unfortunately, we had an empty-chair policy at the time, so were not at the council meetings when this was discussed, but it begs the question of which water framework directive, for example, is now enshrined in UK law. Is it the one that we previously agreed to or is it the one that was subsequently revised at the time of our departure from the European Union?
The second and last question that I have for my noble friend the Minister relates to a jolly good read which I commend to him: the 22nd and final report of the European Union Committee, Beyond Brexit: Food, Environment, Energy and Health. It was adopted by the European Union Sub-Committee, on which I was privileged to serve. In paragraph 148, the report sets out that the trade and co-operation agreement
“negotiated by the Government will affect the policy choices available to devolved administrations and legislatures in areas of devolved competence including the environment.”
That perhaps relates more to the previous amendment, Amendment 80A, but also to the amendment before us now.
The report goes on:
“There are already diverging environment and climate change goals across the UK, which could indicate challenges ahead. We urge the Government to address any concerns raised by the devolved administrations regarding the TCA’s environment and climate change provisions—via the Common Frameworks programme or other routes—as fully and promptly as possible.”
Scotland has now set up its equivalent to the office for environmental protection, the name of which escapes me completely—I think it is Environment Services Scotland—so it has an operation that is already up and running. We will not have ours in place until July. Have any issues already arisen in this regard, as we are slightly later in our programme than we would have hoped to be? Also, have any of these issues been identified and raised under the common frameworks programme? That is in addition to my earlier question about, for example, the water framework directive.
With those few remarks, I am delighted to lend my support to Amendment 81A.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I understood that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, had withdrawn from this debate—but she is shaking her head at me, so I assume that she wishes to speak. I think I should make it clear that her name is listed as having withdrawn; however, I will call her now.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Thank you. There was an administrative snafu, which I understood had been sorted out. I apologise. I did not mean to withdraw from this debate and thought that it had been fixed.
I will be very brief anyway. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for this amendment. I wish to speak to it briefly to highlight the way in which it helps to stress and shows the interaction between this Bill and so many other Bills, and the fact that the environment is now part of everything we do and there will be environmental impacts on all legislation.
What we are talking about here is a way of finding joined-up government, so that we do not have the siloed thinking that says, “This is environment and this is security and this is education”. My understanding of what the noble Lords who tabled this amendment are trying to do is get a functional way to do this—and it is very important that we do, so I thank them for their efforts. We need to make sure that Clause 19 really works for the future operation of the law and of government.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and to agree with her on this occasion—at least in some respects.
I have much sympathy with this amendment, for an important reason. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering seem to be asking that Her Majesty’s Government ensure that the effects of this provision on environmental protection under existing environmental law are considered before any Bill is introduced, rather than rushed out for Second Reading. If this new vetting procedure for all our Bills can be justified and agreed, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in thinking that it would be better to have it done earlier, so that it informs policy on the Bill in question and can be studied before Second Reading. Indeed, I would like to see the same for other impact assessments.
Following on from earlier questions, could I also understand—simply, if possible—how the system will work? Does my noble friend see a parallel with human rights statements? As I recall from my time on the Front Bench, the relevant policy Minister studies these, talking to his or her legal team, then signs and deposits them in Parliament, where they can be considered by the relevant committees. It would be good to understand whether that is what is envisaged and possible here.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. After what was a fruitcake of amendments, we are now on a fairly simple Madeira cake—but it is no less welcome. I am grateful to be noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his forensic approach and for tabling this probing amendment. We need to be absolutely clear what is the purpose of this clause if we are to ensure that the Bill helps parliamentarians in future—including Select Committees, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned—properly to scrutinise the effects of proposed legislation to ensure that it is compatible with the Government’s environmental goals. So we welcome the approach of this probing amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, shall be quite brief. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for tabling this amendment. As he says, it is probing and, as ever, he set out very eloquently the reason why it is important. I have listened carefully to his analysis and very much agree with what he said.
As we discussed in the previous group, throughout consideration of the EU withdrawal Bill, we were reassured that environmental protection would be at least as good as that which we enjoyed in the EU. However, it is already clear that the wording in this Bill on environmental principles is a weakened version of what has gone before, particularly in the need to have only “due regard” to the policy statement. The academic experts giving evidence on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the previous version of the Bill concluded that
“the Bill does not maintain the legal status of environmental principles as they have come to apply through EU law.”
Now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is rightly raising the issue of making new environmental law, as set out in Clause 19. His amendment would require that the level of environmental protection under existing environmental law should be clearly spelled out before it is possible to say, in Clause 19(3), that any new legislation will not reduce the level of environmental protection under existing law. It would remove any ambiguity and provide a double lock on protections for future environmental legislation.
At the same time, we should acknowledge that regression often happens by stealth, and can occur at a number of levels, not just in primary legislation. For example, it could appear in secondary legislation or in the detailed policy proposals that precede it. Therefore, ideally, the scope of this provision should include secondary legislation as well. It would also make sense for a statement of this nature to be published at a much earlier stage, as part of any consultation or before a new Bill was introduced. As we have discussed in other contexts, we need accurate baseline evidence, including about the impact of existing legislation, before we can assess the effectiveness of any measures proposed in any new legislation.
So we share the concerns that the noble and learned Lord has raised in this amendment and very much hope that the Minister will feel able to take these issues on board and give a positive response.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his Amendment 81A. It summarises in many respects the purpose behind Clause 19 very well. The clause is aimed at delivering accountability through transparency. It guarantees that effects on the level of environmental protection are considered before a Bill is introduced and will ensure that the environment will receive the close attention and appropriate consideration it deserves in the policy-making process.
I should like to provide some more detail how it will work in practice, in response also to questions raised by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. The statement under Clause 19 will take the form of a short, written statement in any new Bill that contains a provision that, if enacted, would be environmental law. The statement would confirm that the Minister was of the view that the Bill contains an environmental provision, and would set out that the Minister believed that the existing levels of environmental protection would not be reduced.
Bills are accompanied by a range of documentation to aid Parliament in its scrutiny of legislation, including the Explanatory Notes and Delegated Powers Memorandum. These are produced by convention, rather than being required by legislation. Clause 19 is designed to ensure that Parliament has the necessary information so that it can properly scrutinise legislation that affects the environment. The Government will consider what arrangements may be appropriate for specific Bills. I assure noble Lords that we will engage with the authorities in both Houses prior to implementation. As Clause 19 is straightforward in its purpose and current wording, I do not think it is necessary to reiterate it in the Bill.
I should also like to take this time to respond to colleagues in the devolved Administrations who have requested some reassurances on the implementation of this clause. Incidentally, the organisation that my noble friend Lady McIntosh referenced is called Environment Standards Scotland. The statement under Clause 19 will take into account the extensive discussions held with the devolved Administrations throughout the development of any new Bill that includes provisions with implications for them. Engagement with the devolved Administrations will be in accordance with the memorandum of understanding on devolution, or any arrangement that replaces it, and the practices outlined in the devolution guidance notes. My noble friend also asked about working with the devolved Administrations, and I hope I have addressed her concerns.
Once again, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his amendment and beg him to withdraw it.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I must thank the Minister for his very helpful remarks, which have reassured me and, I hope, other noble Lords, that there is real purpose behind the clause. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said, the clause really must be made to work, and I think he has explained how, given the information that will be revealed, it will indeed achieve that purpose.
Part of my concern was that perhaps the Government are taking on too much, because one should not underestimate the increasing reach of environmental law, but it is very important that the reach should be carefully considered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, we want to be really sure that the matter is carefully thought about before the Bill is introduced, and I am reassured by the Minister saying that that indeed is the purpose of the clause and that the clause will achieve it.
For those reasons, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 82. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 82
“Office of Commissioner for Environmental Protection
(1) The office of Commissioner for Environmental Protection is established.(2) It is for Her Majesty by Letters Patent to appoint a person to be Commissioner for Environmental Protection.(3) Her Majesty’s power is exercisable on an address of the House of Commons. (4) It is for the Prime Minister to move the motion for the address.(5) To do so the Prime Minister must have the agreement of the person who chairs the Environment Audit Committee.(6) The person appointed holds office for 10 years, and may not be appointed again.(7) The Commissioner for Environmental Protection is by that name to be a corporation sole.(8) The Commissioner for Environmental Protection is to be an officer of the House of Commons.(9) But section 4(4) of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 (which provides for the application of provisions of that Act to staff employed in or for the purposes of the House of Commons) does not apply in relation to the office of Commissioner for Environmental Protection.(10) The person who is Commissioner for Environmental Protection may not be a member of the House of Lords.(11) The Commissioner for Environmental Protection is not to be regarded—(a) as the servant or agent of the Crown, or(b) as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.(12) The person who is Commissioner for Environmental Protection may not hold any other office or position to which a person may be appointed, or recommended for appointment, by or on behalf of the Crown.(13) Before a person is appointed as Commissioner for Environmental Protection, remuneration arrangements are to be made in relation to the person jointly by the Prime Minister and the person who chairs the Committee of Public Accounts.(14) The Commissioner for Environmental Protection may resign from office by giving written notice to the Prime Minister.(15) Her Majesty may remove the Commissioner for Environmental Protection from office on an address of both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to help secure the independence of the OEP by making its chief executive a separate office holder appointed by the House of Commons. It is modelled on provision made for the Comptroller and Auditor General under the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I know this group of amendments is unlikely to find favour with Defra. While I normally contribute to our debates in this House in what I hope is a dispassionate, calm manner, I have to say that on this occasion, I feel quite passionate about this issue. I am what I would describe as “a very cross Bencher”.
In the early days of Brexit planning, we were promised that we would have as near a replication of the EU environmental oversight of our organisations as is possible. At the time, Michael Gove, the then Secretary of State, was reported as saying that he thought that putting Defra in charge of the OEP would not be suitable. As ever, he was right.
The OEP will be at the centre of our country’s new environmental future post Brexit. We all have great hopes and expectations for it—some, I suspect, possibly too high. But within all our ambitions to secure a cleaner, more sustainable and more biodiverse future, I cannot stress how important it is that we get the OEP right—and at the moment it looks as though it will be a mere tool of the very body it should be overseeing.
I know that the EU regime we are leaving could not possibly be the same as any domestic arrangement we might replace it with, but, as I say, in the early days we were promised “an equally effective regime”. So it is worth reiterating what various ex-Ministers have said: namely, that in the past, the mere threat of the EU Commission taking action against the Government had departmental Ministers and Secretaries of State quaking in their shoes. And you can understand why. As an example of the punishments doled out by the ECJ, at the behest of the Commission, in 2014 Italy was fined €40 million, with an additional fine of €42.8 million every six months that the issue of dumping illegal waste remained unresolved—as I believe it did for at least one six-month period. Again, in 2015, Italy was fined €20 million and a further €120,000 each and every day that the region of Campania failed to resolve its waste-management problems.
The interesting thing about that last case is that it was the Italian Government who were fined, not the regional council of Campania, which was at fault. I say this because when Professor Macrory—who I see has now joined the shadow OEP board—gave evidence to our Lords environment committee last year or the year before, he emphasised that the Commission infringement proceedings were always directed at Governments, even if the breach was by another public body. He argued that, if possible, this should be replicated post Brexit, with the OEP’s enforcement powers being directed solely against Secretaries of State. But of course, that would be impossible under the current proposed arrangements, because it would mean the Defra Secretary of State taking himself to court.
In this context, it is worth remembering that the EU Commission took the UK to court for infringement 34 times in total and won 30 times. There is no reason to suppose that the frequency of infringements by UK public bodies will not continue into the future. Why would that change? Our institutions remain as fallible and, dare I say it, as underfunded as ever. But now, the Secretary of State will stand between the OEP and the infringing body, rather than taking the hit, as he or she should.
I must repeat what I said at Second Reading: this has nothing at all to do with our trust in the present Ministers, in whom I recognise a total commitment to the environment, but we have to think what will happen if, in the future, we find ourselves with a disinterested, or maybe just incompetent, Secretary of State and an overcontrolling department. The decisions that we make in this Bill could still be affecting the governance of our environment in 40, 50 or even 60 years’ time. So I say again: the auditing and bringing to book for environmental rule-breaking by our relevant public bodies, the most important of whom are within the Defra family, is unlikely to happen when Defra gives the guidance to, and controls the budget of, the OEP.
Let me tell you a story. I had a friend who was a regional director of MAFF in the 1980s. He had a farming neighbour who had a grouch about some MAFF policy—I am afraid I cannot quite remember exactly what it was—and he asked my friend to help him write a letter to the Secretary of State. Of course, in those days he was called not the Secretary of State but the Minister of Agriculture. Anyway, in due course the Minister, having received the letter—largely written by my friend—sent it down to my friend, the regional director, and asked him to draft a reply to him, refuting the farmer’s complaint. So my friend, no doubt employing his best departmental penmanship, wrote the reply for the Minister to send to the farmer. And then, of course, the farmer brought the Minister’s letter to my friend, asking him to help draft a further response for him to send back to the Minister. And so he did. Rather like someone playing chess against himself, he ended up having quite a long, rather enjoyable, correspondence with himself over several months, writing letters for both sides of the argument.
You can see where this is going, because that is precisely what will happen when, for instance, the OEP is threatening the Environment Agency with proceedings. The Secretary of State may not be actually writing the correspondence, but you can bet that he will be monitoring it and ensuring that, in whatever is said by either side, no blame could possibly fall on either him or his department. We know for sure that many of the current failings of the Environment Agency and Natural England are a direct result of them being starved of funds by Defra—and, also, incidentally, being subtly indirectly controlled by that department. So much for Professor Macrory’s wish that the buck should always stop with the Secretary of State.
Just last week, I was talking to an organisation about our rivers, and it was saying that it is lawlessness out there, because no one is monitoring, inspecting or enforcing the rules on our rivers, since the Environment Agency has been starved of funds in this respect. That is what it said, and when you read the evidence given to the Environmental Audit Committee last month, it is clear that it is right. The buck should stop with the Secretary of State, or at least his department, and he should definitely not be the one controlling the buck.
That brings me to the Minister’s claim, in his admirably full letter to us all last week—for which I thank him very much—that the OEP will be a non-departmental body. I am afraid that, in my view, the phrase “non-departmental body” is widely overused and wrongly applied in today’s political world. As an ex-chair of the Countryside Agency, I can say that it was not always thus—at least, it was not when I reported to the Department of the Environment, before we came under the control of Defra—but in the modern political climate of total control from the centre, free-speaking bodies within Government are no longer tolerated.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Cameron. Like him, I am very much a “cross”-Bencher in this case. I have been looking through the Second Reading document and would say that there are many cross Lords, all across this Chamber and wherever they are beaming in from, who also completely agree with what he says about the necessary independence of the OEP.
It is extremely chilling to read Defra’s power under Clause 24 to issue guidance on how the OEP should behave and what it should do. At the end of the day, it is the department for the environment but also agriculture and food. Those two areas make up such a massive part of the climate change agenda, how we use our land and how we will reclaim our biodiversity for the future of this whole country. The thought that advice on the levels of control should be given in that department seems quite absurd but also very sinister. Either this is really cowardly or it is an agenda that wants to conceal.
My noble friend Lord Cameron pointed out various cases in which big fines have been able to be issued. Will the Government really be able to fine themselves for transgressions relating to chemicals, the use of neonicotinoids and all the things the EU can cope with at the moment?
Earlier this afternoon I spoke about the grubbing up of trees at the barracks near Grantham. When the Minister answered us, he said that neither he nor his colleagues wanted to see any of these grubbed up. I have used the intervening time to look up the remit of Homes England. This is what its website says—it is such a good quote:
“We’re the government’s housing accelerator. We have the appetite, influence, expertise and resources to drive positive market change.”
If you scroll down to look at what it is responsible for and its priorities, there is not one mention of the word “environment”, climate change or care and attention to how we live. I wonder how this will work out if a case is brought by those children—by Callum McLelland, the 15 year-old who planted a tree when he was seven. If he decides to bring a case, will Defra say, “We don’t want this case”?
I also point out that, like my noble friend Lord Cameron, I do not doubt for a second the authenticity and sincerity of the current holders of the office, both in this Chamber and in the other place. I know they mean what they say and do their best, but this is statute that has to stand for ever. It will probably stand when we are all dead.
For instance, I would like to bring to noble Lords’ attention the situation with the recent Australian trade deal. As I understand it, Defra did not approve of it, but it was overridden by the department for trade. We will accept animals into this country such as sheep that have been subjected to the practice of mulesing. If any noble Lords do not know what that is, it is the process of ripping the skin off a lamb’s backside so that it forms scar tissue and then is not vulnerable to flies. The department for trade won.
Government is complicated and messy. There are lobbyists, and a lot of money is being thrown around. The Tory council of Horsham, where Knepp is threatened by 3,500 houses—this was in the Sunday Times eight days ago—has received £600,000 from these developers. There is much going on like this. We need an agency that can stand up to it, act quickly and with independence and that does not have to run to the Minister and say, “Is it okay if I do it?” Please support my noble friend Lord Cameron’s excellent amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to support and speak to the amendments in this group. As we are considering in detail a number of amendments relating to both the independence of the OEP and its budget, resources and staffing, I will keep my comments on this group limited to parliamentary oversight and scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and I served together on the EU Environment Sub-Committee, and I think he is the sole survivor of that committee to now be on the Environment and Climate Change Committee. He carries the candle for us all in that regard. I am grateful to him for tabling these amendments and agree entirely that we were promised oversight as near as possible equivalent to and as effective as that which pertained through our membership of the European Union, and that my right honourable friend Michael Gove, in the other place, said that it would be inappropriate for Defra to be in charge in the way that, it has now become apparent, it will be.
On balance, I prefer the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, which would ensure that appointments would not be made without the consent of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee. On a number of occasions during my tenure as chair of the EFRA Committee, we conducted pre-appointment hearings. I do not know whether there was a pre-appointment hearing in this case, but we know that Dame Glenys Stacey is now in place. My first question to my noble friend is: was there such a pre-appointment hearing? Was it carried out by one, the other or both of those committees? I think I am right in saying that Amendment 85 breaks new ground in suggesting that the other non-executive members of the OEP would also face a pre-appointment hearing. I do not know whether that has ever happened before.
The reason why the amendments are so welcome, particularly Amendment 85, is that it gives us the opportunity to ask my noble friend to set out precisely what the parliamentary oversight of the OEP will be. I argue very forcefully not just for a pre-appointment hearing by the two committees in the other place but for opportunities to have the chair of the OEP, Dame Glenys Stacey, in annually for a full review of its work.
It is important to ask my noble friend one last question. When we were preparing the report to which I referred earlier, Beyond Brexit: Food, Environment, Energy and Health, the Secretary of State told the EU sub-committee—he is quoted at paragraph 162 of the report—the following:
“It is important to note that the chair of the OEP, Dame Glenys Stacey, has already been appointed and is in post … It is already able to receive complaints. Until it has its full legal powers, there is a limit to what it can do to act on those complaints. If the European Union wanted to have dialogue with the OEP for the purposes of that part of the agreement, which really is only about cooperating and sharing, there would be nothing to prevent that from happening in this early stage.”
I would go further and press my noble friend to ensure that there is an obligation, particularly in the early stages while the OEP is being set up and finding its feet, to have regular contacts with the European Commission to find out its exact approach. It may take a different view, but it would be helpful to have at least some background in this regard. It is my certain understanding that Environmental Standards Scotland has already had such contact. It would be highly regressive and retrograde if the OEP, representing England, did not replicate that.
I am also concerned—I hope my noble friend will put my mind at rest—that it should not be in any shape or form admissible or possible for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to lean on the independent chair of the OEP and suggest that she not take up a complaint, were she minded to do so. According to my current understanding of the OEP’s composition and independence, the situation in that regard is by no means certain. I commend these amendments, and in particular I have great sympathy with Amendment 85.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, introduced his amendments extremely well. There is not much I can add except to say that it is widely recognised across the House that the office for environmental protection is not currently fit for purpose—it is too weak and easily ignored. It is therefore pretty much a done deal that your Lordships’ House will amend this Bill to strengthen the OEP. I hope that when we do, we can come up with the strongest possible options.
The OEP needs status as well, which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, pointed out. The amendments would give it that status and, more importantly, they would help to ensure the independence of the office, establishing the commissioner by letters patent from the head of state, which would prevent the Government meddling. That is the sort of level of ambition that we should be setting for our environmental watchdog. Parliament is also the proper place for the OEP to be accountable to. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about exactly how that will happen was quite useful.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, before I turn to the amendments in this grouping, I refer to a comment that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made in relation to the grouping including Amendment 73 when he pointed out that the Minister had not actually answered my question. In his reply the Minister said he had answered it, but I will just repeat the question which he did not answer—I do not expect him to answer it right now but I hope he will at some point. I said: “Can the Minister explain why he considers the introduction of proportionality necessary, when the precautionary principle, according to the High Court, already includes proportionality?” I then went on to quote in detail the judgment of 28 May 2021 from the High Court. I therefore hope that at some point the Minister will respond to that question.
I support all the amendments in the group including Amendment 82 and I am especially grateful to my noble friends Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lady Boycott for leading us into what is perhaps the core debate of the Bill: the role and nature of the office for environmental protection. As has already been said, this is the first of a series of amendment groupings that we will discuss in the coming hours which deal with the independence and enforcement role of the OEP.
The Government promised us a strong and independent OEP and, as we have already heard, many of us feel that we have been short-changed. I remind your Lordships of a score line: 25-0. This is not the forecast for the England-Germany game tomorrow but the number of speakers at Second Reading who expressed concerns about the OEP not having enough independence or teeth—25—versus those who thought it had too much of both: zero. There is no doubt about the strength of feeling across the House on this matter. As others have already spoken with great force and clarity on the issues, I wish to add only one personal anecdote, relating to ministerial involvement in appointments. This is particularly relevant to Amendment 85 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
A few years ago, when I was chair of the Adaptation Committee of the Climate Change Committee, I went through the standard appointments procedure to select two new committee members. The selection panel was chaired by a Defra senior civil servant and included the requisite independent member. The panel unanimously agreed on the two best candidates. The then Secretary of State rejected both candidates because she did not think they had the right profile to serve on the committee.
If we are to have confidence in the genuine independence of the office for environmental protection, there has to be some transparency and independence about the recruitment, not just of the chair but of board members, as proposed in Amendment 85. I therefore hope that the Minister will take that amendment and the other amendments in this grouping seriously and that he will respond appropriately.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, while I do not support every detail of Amendment 82 and tend to prefer Amendment 85, the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington makes a very important point of principle, which I support. The independence of the office for environmental protection is crucial if it is to have public confidence. As the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, said in its report on the Bill:
“It is essential that such an important public body be independent of the government.”
It is true that paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 states:
“In exercising functions in respect of the OEP, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect its independence.”
The question is whether the provision in Schedule 1 is sufficient and appropriate to ensure that independence. I very much doubt that it is sufficient, which is why I said what I said at the beginning of this intervention.
The amendment, which provides for the appointment of a commissioner who is to be the chief executive of the OEP, would be well worth considering as an additional safeguard for the composition of this very important body, as indeed the alternative suggestion in Amendment 85 would be.
The provisions of Clause 24 about guidance by the Secretary of State to which the OEP must have regard in
“preparing its enforcement policy, and … exercising its enforcement functions”
are worth bearing in mind, because they show how important it is that it should be seen to be independent when, as will so often happen, a government proposal raises environmental concerns. The words “have regard to” are not the same as “must follow”. They leave room for independent thought and judgment. It is that aspect of independence which is so important, and why the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Cameron is so well worth considering carefully in this debate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone has withdrawn, as she is listed twice on this list and will not be speaking in either place, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
Lord Cormack (Con)
A few moments ago the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to this as the core amendment of the Bill. In many ways it is, because the success of the Bill depends upon having a totally independent, vigorous, courageous person who can stand up to any Minister and who has the authority to call the Government properly to account for infringements of an environmental nature. One thinks of the debate we had last week about the pollution of rivers and the ability to fine—the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in his admirable introduction to his amendment talked about the swingeing fines that have been imposed upon Italy, among other countries.
If the Bill is truly to become a landmark Act of Parliament—again I use those words, which have been used so often—it has to stand the test of time. We are not legislating for the next five years or even for the next 25 years—a figure that has cropped up before. We are legislating to lay the foundations for an environmental system that our grandchildren—in the case of some of us, our great-grandchildren—will depend upon. We cannot be fobbed off with the answer that this is more or less another function of the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has spelled out many things—I do not agree with all of them—which are of great importance to us all.
I have some doubts about appointing a person for 10 years; I would prefer the electoral cycle of five years, although emphatically not to coincide with a general election. I would be entirely happy with an appointment for five years, to be renewed for another five years, but not longer. So I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on the overall length, but we have to be a little cautious about appointing any individual for a 10-year period. Things can go wrong, and it can be very difficult to get rid of people who are not fulfilling their function.
This is a minor point, but I also think we should not rule out Members of your Lordships’ House. We have a number of people who are highly accomplished and who could fulfil such a role. Of course it would be necessary to stand down from active membership of the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, did, but we have provision for that. It is possible to take leave of absence, and if anybody is appointed to a very important position, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Ashton and Lady Amos, were, they do not function as a Member of the House during that period. To rule out somebody by virtue of his or her membership of the House is wrong and unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, hit on many other important points. There has to be a degree of independence. He talked about the Comptroller and Auditor-General as an example on which he has drawn. There has to be independence and vigour and strength—it is crucial.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in her inimitable way, talked about Report. I say to my noble friend, not in any spirit of threat, that there must be meetings with Members of your Lordships’ House between now and Report, otherwise the Government will get a lot of egg on their face and the possibility of a 1 November deadline will vanish. I do not say that in a threatening spirit and, in particular, I say it in no spirit of animosity towards any of the Ministers concerned, either my noble friend or those in the other place. A number of people, including the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Krebs, have made that point this afternoon. We are not expressing doubt in their sincerity or wisdom, but we are saying that if they are creating something for generations to come, they have to bear certain things in mind. We do not need recent examples to remind us that Ministers do not always end in a blaze of glory.
This is a core amendment. It is something that I, and I am sure others, would like to sit down and discuss with my noble friend before Report. If we can reach agreement by compromise or discussion, it is always better than dividing the House, because if any Bill deserves—needs—the support of Members in all parts of your Lordships’ House, it is this one. The environment we are talking about is ours and, far more important than that, we are legislating for the environment of our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and beyond, otherwise there is that fear of extinction, about which we talked the other day.
I support the spirit of all these amendments and very much hope that we will be able to come to a collective decision that will enhance the Bill and make it a Bill that has real teeth, with a body created by it that has real teeth and can deal with real problems in a vigorous way.
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very happy to support Amendment 82. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for dealing with it so comprehensively that I feel there is little more for me to say.
I speak to support the view that the office of environmental protection must not only have teeth but must be totally independent from all strands of government. There are many good reasons for this. Independence is, in a way, self-explanatory and a good thing in itself, but it is even more important to spell out that it must be independent of government when the judgments it will have to make may well be on cases in which a government department is involved. Additionally, I suspect there may be environmental transgressions, such as on effluent disposal, where much tougher punishments are required, and in some cases present legislation may be adequate but it is simply not being enforced correctly. The culprits may well have links to the Government, or the Government may, for various reasons, not be prepared to take as strong a line as they should.
In summary, it has been described as a core part of the Bill. I am not too sure what significant difference to the protection of our environment the creation of this office will have. I suspect much will depend on the approach and, more importantly, the resolve of the person appointed to the task. By giving it true independence, we can at least give it the best possible start.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, when the office of environmental protection was mooted, I hoped it would be on the same basis as the Climate Change Committee, and be totally independent of government. When that was not the case, I hoped that the structure of the Bill would be that advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and that that part of the Bill should be within the remit of the Climate Change Committee, which is sufficiently independent.
I remember when I was a Minister, and that was many blue moons ago now, being quite irritated at times by the interference of Brussels. We had perhaps some of the best civil servants in the whole of the EU then; my advice was excellent, and I thought that what we were doing was right. But on reflection, perhaps we were not that right. I remember I once lost a Division and went to the Leader, the late Lord Whitelaw, and said to him, “Willie, I’m terribly sorry, I lost that amendment”. He looked at me and said, “Malcolm, perhaps they were right”. Perhaps the Government are wrong on this occasion. As I see it, the problem is that Defra will remain judge and jury, and there is a route for disaster.
I shall give two examples. One example is the water authorities, which I helped to privatise in the mid-1980s. My friend, the late Lord Ridley of Liddesdale, made a revolutionary change in policy by taking control of pollution away from the water authorities and handing it to the National Rivers Authority. The water authorities were outraged, but it was right. What went wrong was that the NRA was amalgamated into the Environment Agency, and the money for the Environment Agency was reduced so that the controller of the polluting companies did not exercise the brake that was needed. We talked about that a couple of days ago.
The other government department that is a classic example of judge and jury is the Forestry Commission. I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench agrees that the Forestry Commission has been an utter disaster for this country. It has cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money and planted the wrong trees in the wrong places with the wrong policy. I hope that that is beginning to change. I have been banging on in this House on that for more than 50 years, but at long last I am being proved right.
I would really like the OEP to be seen to be independent. Not only does it have to be independent, which it is not under the Bill—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said, the schedule is not strong enough—it has to be seen to be independent. My noble friend Lord Cormack was right: this is better done by negotiation. The Government will get defeated on Report on this, but it would be far better if we got an amendment that we could all sign up to, because that would send a message to everybody who will be affected by the Bill—which is the whole of the country—that there is unanimity in Parliament that that is the right way forward. At the moment, as I said to my noble friend when he was kind enough to have a meeting with me, I am unhappy with the OEP. I am not quite certain what the right amendment is, but I know that there is one out there if we all make an effort to get it right.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there has been near unanimity in condemnation of what is currently in the schedule to deliver a really independent body of the kind we want. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said in a formidable opening address on the group, we want to create the same degree of fear, almost, in public bodies that the possibility of the European Commission intervening and fining this country provided before Brexit. What is envisaged in the Bill goes nowhere near that.
Frankly, we know that there are precedents for what happens to so-called independent bodies. I had expected to speak after my noble friend Lady Young and just before my noble friend Lord Rooker. It is instructive that one was the chief executive of the Environment Agency and the other the chair of the Food Standards Agency. When the Environment Agency was first set up in the 1990s, to which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, just referred, there was a lot of talk about independence, but in fact it became part of the Defra family. Its independence was limited by successive Governments over the whole of that period. Under the coalition Government, it was restricted from briefing parliamentarians or engaging in anything that amounted to a campaign in the eyes of the then Government. Subsequently, of course, its funding has been seriously cut. The Environment Agency is doing an effective job on limited resources, but it is not independent of government.
The other example is the Food Standards Agency. The FSA is a non-departmental body, but as soon as it started straying into areas of interest to the Department of Health on diet, health advice and well-being, those functions were taken off it and ploughed back into the Department of Health. It was right to take it out of its origins in MAFF, but in practice it was never completely independent of government, much though the efforts of my noble friend Lord Rooker and others tried to make it so.
We want a truly independent body on the environment to face up to the immense challenge of climate change and biodiversity diminution. This is not it. I agreed with pretty much every word that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. I do not entirely agree with his amendment—like others, I prefer the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch—but, as recent speakers said, the Government really do need to take notice of the overwhelming view of the Committee that this will not do. To be truly independent, the OEP needs not just a formal position and designation as a non-departmental body; it needs powers, which are insufficient in the Bill; it needs provision for how its composition is established, which is not fully in this Bill; and it needs powers of enforcement, which we will consider later in Committee and which are, at the moment, clearly completely inadequate to the task.
This is the central part of the Bill. The Government have to think again. If they can come up with a better proposition then let us seriously consider it, but what is in the Bill at the moment is not adequate. None of us believes that it is, and I doubt whether the Government themselves—and the Minister in particular, if I may say so—really believe that it is. Let us think again and try to get something better before the Bill completes its course.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I agree on the importance of this part of the Bill. Indeed, it is the only part of the Bill that I dealt with at Second Reading, on governance issues. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, introduced Amendment 82 very well. We might argue, but as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, somewhere there is an alternative to what is in the Bill. We just have to find it, because the Minister and his advisers will appreciate that this will not get through the House.
I sat on the environment sub-committee of the Lords EU Committee for a few years. The early promises about the governance gap are not being filled with this Bill. I will not quote again the article that Michael Gove wrote in November 2017, when he was Defra Secretary of State, accepting the fact that there is a gap, but I will refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to, which is the 30 out of 34 wins by the European Court of Justice on environmental issues. You have to ask yourself about this: it won on 30 out of 34 cases. That meant that the UK Government were refusing to do something that caused them to be taken to court. Both parties were involved, by the way. The UK Government did not want to do something—whether it was cleaning up the beaches, making water safer, it does not matter: they did not want to do it. But the European Court of Justice and the Commission took the case to the court, and the court decided, “Yes, you will”, in 30 cases out of 34. When I checked, the other four were undecided.
I know from my own experience inside the department that the threat of infraction meant that you got cracking, talked to the Treasury and said, “Look, we ought to do this. Can we have a few more quid or move some budgets around to satisfy this? Otherwise, we’ll be penalised with a bigger fine than what this will cost us.” That is what actually happened in some cases. I know from experience that this is the way that it works.
I also know, of course, that Defra loves control. In my first two years as a Minister, from 1997 to 1999, I was at MAFF. I was then at Defra from 2006 to 2008—the same department, basically. The point that I am making is that the culture was the same; it was about control. This probably would not happen, but it would be very interesting to have some interviews—exit interviews would be the wrong thing—with people who are no longer serving on some of the bodies, particularly Natural England and the Environment Agency, as to what happened. I know to my certain knowledge that Defra leant on Natural England.
When we were setting up the Food Standards Agency in 1998 and 1999—I might add that my noble friend Lord Whitty was wrong on this, as it is a non-ministerial department with a different structure from a non-departmental public body—I discovered, because of the capacity and willingness of Defra civil servants to adhere to the policy of the Government, that there was an attempt at the highest levels in Defra to convert that agency to an executive agency of MAFF. The department wanted to keep control, even with all the problems we had in setting up the agency. Despite the report from Philip James and the manifesto commitments, they still thought at the last minute that they could keep it as an executive agency. It would have been the ultimate control, if you like, of having an executive agency compared to a non-ministerial department.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak from these Benches in favour of the amendments in this group and to commend the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for their excellent and powerful introduction of them. If I may paraphrase Oscar Wilde, I say to the Minister that for the Government to provoke the crossness of one Cross-Bencher is in itself careless, but to provoke the crossness of two is surely dangerous, particularly if those Cross-Benchers are as reasonable and thoughtful as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. It is not just the Cross-Benchers who are cross; noble Lords have heard from across the House a rejection of the approach that the Government have taken.
One of the reasons for the crossness is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and many others have said, we were promised a strong and independent office for environmental protection. The then Secretary for State for Defra, Michael Gove, said in a speech on 16 July 2019,
“we have to create … a new Office for Environmental Responsibility to hold government to account.”
He went on to say:
“There is obvious merit in their argument that any body which is designed to hold the Government to account is independent of ministerial interference.”
He promised:
“An Act that combines … comprehensive objectives with strong enforcement powers”,
but the OEP currently has no such independence. It has no strong enforcement powers; its members will be appointed, and its budget set, by the Government. It will be subject to the guidance from the Secretary of State on enforcement—the Secretary of State who should be subject to that enforcement—and its effectiveness will be undermined by the constraints placed on judicial enforcement.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said at Second Reading, the office for environmental protection
“has not only to be independent but to be seen to be independent. As currently set up, it is neither”.—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1206.]
That is why the amendments in his name and that of the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Young of Old Scone, are so important. As we have heard, Amendment 82 puts it beyond doubt that the OEP would be accountable to Parliament, rather than to the very Minister and Government who may be subject to its enforcement powers. It would do so by making it clear that the CEO is to be the commissioner of environmental protection.
Amendment 85, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Young of Old Scone, seeks to provide a greater degree of scrutiny and independent involvement in appointments to the OEP through the Defra committee and the Environmental Audit Committee. I may have misunderstood, but I did not see a conflict between the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, because my understanding is that hers relates specifically to non-executive members, whereas the noble Lord’s first amendment relates to the chief executive in the role of commissioner of environmental protection.
Amendment 91 would provide a means of securing financial independence for the OEP through a role for the Public Accounts Committee. We have heard how important that is. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, cited the experience of the Environment Agency and how significantly its budget has been cut; as a result, its enforcement powers in many regards have disappeared.
Together, these amendments seek to tackle many of the deficiencies in the Bill as it stands and which, at the moment, fatally undermine the independence of the OEP. I hope the Government will consider them carefully, but I fear that, at the moment, they simply do not understand the concept of independence. In Committee in the other place, Leo Docherty, who was then the assistant Government Whip speaking for the Government, had this to say:
“The operational independence of the OEP … should not impede the”
ability of the
“Secretary of State in exercising appropriate scrutiny and oversight of the OEP.”
But it is the OEP that should be exercising scrutiny and accountability over the Minister, so that in itself undermines the case. He went on to say:
“Requiring the Secretary of State to actively protect the OEP’s independence at all times would be incompatible with … ministerial accountability”.—[Official Report, Commons, Environment Bill Committee, 5/11/20; col. 316.]
I hope the Minister can explain those two rather extraordinary statements. If that is the Government’s position then it is quite clear that there is no independence for this office at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, impressed upon us the need for bold action rather than settling for politics as the art of the possible. To me, politics is the art of making possible what seems impossible. If this seems impossible in Committee, I hope that, by the time we get to Report, it will seem not only eminently possible but absolutely necessary.
I ask the Minister to put aside his ministerial brief and endorse independence of mind both for himself and for the OEP, possibly by backing these amendments, or another form of them if they need to be improved, but certainly by backing the principles behind them and by supporting the arguments that have been made by noble Lords with such cogency and passion.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have had an excellent debate. I feel as if I have had a master class from some very experienced practitioners on how government really works and what it is like to be on the inside of some of these decisions.
I shall speak to Amendment 85 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for setting out so comprehensively the case for enhancing the status and autonomy of the CEO of the OEP. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has said, those of us who know the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, know it is very unusual for him to be a cross Cross-Bencher, and it is a sign that we should sit up and take notice when he shows so much passion about the issue.
This is the beginning of a debate about the OEP’s lack of true independence which we will have in different forms over the next few groups of amendments. It has been hugely informative to have had insight from previous Ministers and chairs of NDPBs, who know how Ministers’ powers are really exercised behind the public face.
Our amendment is simple but important. It would amend Schedule 1, which sets out the detailed appointment arrangements for the OEP. I very much welcome the support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and other noble Lords. It would require the chair and other non-executive members of the OEP to be appointed by the Secretary of State only with the consent of the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. That would prevent in years to come the Secretary of State having complete control over non-executive appointments to the OEP. As Schedule 1 stands, there is a worrying cascade of power from the top. The Secretary of State appoints the chair, and then the Secretary of State and the chair appoint the remainder of the non-executives. So in a future scenario, the Secretary of State would only have to appoint a compliant chair to exert undue influence over all the other appointments to the board.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for this important debate. Before I get into the points raised, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and all members of the Constitution Committee for their recent report on the Bill’s measures. My officials and I will review their recommendations and will issue an official government response in due course.
In the coming days, we will debate the OEP in detail in numerous groupings, including those on guidance—an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—and on fines, which were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Whitty. We will also debate it in the group on finance and the group on enforcement, led by Amendment 104. All these issues will be covered in detail.
I will make one or two points on comparisons with the EU. The OEP will be able to liaise directly with the public body in question to investigate and resolve alleged breaches of environmental law. The EU cannot liaise directly with public bodies; only member state Governments can. It can take years for cases to reach resolution through the EU infractions system; our framework will resolve issues more quickly. The OEP can apply for a range of judicial review remedies, such as mandatory and quashing orders, subject to the safeguards we have already discussed. The Court of Justice of the European Union cannot issue these remedies to member states; the only mechanism available to it to ensure compliance with its judgments is the threat of fines several years later. We have the vastly stronger mechanism of mandatory court judgments.
The OEP is being established with a dedicated purpose to monitor the implementation of, and enforce compliance with, environmental law, holding public authorities to account. It is designed specifically for our domestic context, as a non-departmental public body, following the constitutional framework of other public bodies with a watchdog function over government, such as the Committee on Climate Change, which I think most noble Lords who have discussed it would agree has been enormously effective and actually lacks the kind of teeth that the OEP is being given.
Therefore, I reiterate our commitment to delivering an independent body to hold government and other bodies to account. As announced on 7 June, the first non-executive board members have been appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the chair designate, Dame Glenys Stacey, and they will soon be available to be involved in activities to support the OEP and any interim arrangements. Notwithstanding the warning that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I thoroughly recommend looking at this list of appointees because noble Lords will see the depth of expertise that is already forming within the OEP. This demonstrates a commitment to ensuring that it will be a formidable independent organisation, with environmental protection at its heart.
Turning to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, the Bill grants the Secretary of State no power to interfere in the OEP’s decision-making on specific or individual cases. The Secretary of State cannot tell the OEP what to do in a way that undermines its discretion and obligation to reach its own decisions. There is of course plenty of room for legitimate debate around the measures that may or not be required to improve the OEP in various ways, but I think that even its sharpest critics would balk at the idea that it is merely another function of the Secretary of State, as one noble Lord put it. This is far removed from the reality, and I encourage noble Lords to really go through the detail of the Bill relating to the OEP. Nor can it reasonably be said that, as currently proposed and structured, it will be anything like judge and jury—a point made by my noble friend Lord Caithness said. Again, I encourage noble Lords to actually examine the Bill in relation to the formation of the OEP.
Turning to specific amendments, I begin with Amendment 85 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I reassure her that there is already a proper role for Parliament in the public appointments process for significant posts, which is to scrutinise the actions of Ministers in making appointments. She will know—as does my noble friend Lady McIntosh—that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee jointly carried out a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the OEP chair and confirmed her suitability for the role. We would of course similarly expect the Secretary of State to duly consider any recommendations made by the committees in relation to the appointment of future chairs.
The Government do not believe it necessary to prescribe a particular role for Parliament in scrutinising the appointments of other non-executive members. The OEP chair has been and will in future be consulted on this, as required by paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable and responsible to Parliament for public appointments and they should retain the ability to make the final choice. The amendment would reverse this and is unnecessary, given the important role that Parliament already plays.
I turn to the amendments of noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I assure him that the Government are committed to establishing the OEP as an independent body, and the provisions in the Bill allow us to do this. The OEP will be established as a non-departmental public body, and we believe that this is the best model to achieve a balance of independence, value for money and accountability. For example, the Climate Change Committee is also a non-departmental public body, as is the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but, in the case of the former, I do not believe that there is any requirement on the Secretary of State to have due regard for its independence.
The OEP will be governed by non-executive members, who will appoint the chief executive as per long-established practice. These members will go through the appropriate appointments process, which is regulated by Her Majesty’s Commissioner for Public Appointments.
My concern is that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, could create significant confusion regarding what is a well-established model, leading to a significant delay in getting the OEP up and running. For instance, the chief executive, if there were one, would be subject to a completely different appointment process from the rest of the board and, crucially, the chair, blurring accountability structures both within and outside the organisation.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on his Amendment 91, that several provisions in the Bill already ensure that the funding of the OEP is safeguarded. First, paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 states that the Secretary of State must provide such funding as is considered “reasonably sufficient”. This is a novel provision, intended to work in conjunction with the duty on the OEP to provide to Parliament an assessment of whether it received sufficient funding. Ministers will be held to account if it is deemed that the funding is not sufficient. The OEP may also submit to a Select Committee any evidence that it believes makes a case for additional funding.
The Government have committed to a ring-fenced multiannual funding envelope within the remits of the spending review, which will be regularly reviewed. For added transparency and to enable further parliamentary scrutiny, the OEP’s budget will be set out as a separate line in Defra’s supply estimate.
I hope that this is not outside protocol, but I will answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that I did not answer in the previous debate. He is right that proportionality is an element of the precautionary principle; nevertheless, it is important that proportionality be also applied across all of the five other wider principles in the Bill, not just the precautionary principle. I apologise for not having made that clearer earlier.
I hope that this extensive package reassures the noble Lord, and that he withdraws his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I get the impression from that short reply that the Minister does not understand the gravity of what was said around the Chamber. I understand that we are coming back to this issue and Clause 24 on another occasion, but in his description of the OEP’s relationship to the Secretary of State he asked Members to “examine the Bill”. I am looking at Clause 24, which says:
“The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in section 22(6) (OEP’s enforcement policy).”
If that were not bad enough, the next sentence is:
“The OEP must have regard to the guidance in … preparing its enforcement policy, and ... exercising its enforcement functions.”
That drives a coach and horses through what he has said.
I come back to his point about the Climate Change Committee. Whatever the arguments are about it—and we all believe it is a hugely fantastic organisation for this country—it does not have an enforcement role in terms of the Government; the OEP does, and that is the big difference. Perhaps he could give those items more attention.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for this question, which relates to ministerial interference in the OEP. Ministers cannot set its programme of activity or in any way improperly influence its decision-making. The Bill does not provide Ministers with powers of direction over the OEP; it requires the OEP to act objectively and impartially and to have regard to the need to act transparently. If it does not, it is breaking the law. The OEP will be free to consider and highlight any instances where is a suspicion of any kind of improper ministerial interference in its decisions.
I know that we will be coming to the issue of ministerial guidance—although I forget which group of amendments it is in—but I will say that the OEP is under no duty to follow guidance if it feels that the guidance is in any sense improper. Indeed, it would be illegal for a Minister to suggest guidance that undermines the independence of the OEP. As I say, we will be coming to this later on and I hope that I will able to address some of the noble Lord’s concerns more completely then.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—this core debate as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, described it. Noble Lords from all sides of the Committee seem to support the principle of what our amendment proposes. It was not quite 25-0 as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, put it, but I think it was 13-0. This is clearly a matter of passion for a lot of people. I am sorry that we could hear the passion of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, because I know that she has had to go to the dentist, which is why she has excused herself. I am sure that we all wish her a very comfortable evening.
I am also quite glad that some noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Whitty, to be specific—spoke about the details contained in my amendments, and quite right too. As I explained, the words come directly from the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011. With the Bill Office, we decided not to change any of the words. I wish that we could have been discussing the technical detail of my amendment in the form of further amendments to my amendment—that would have been nice. If we did that, we would have got past the first hurdle of getting the principle of these amendments and gone on to, as it were, the Government’s playing field.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said in what I thought was a very powerful speech, we cannot replicate what we had in the EU. Maybe my amendments are not precisely what we need, but we do need a body that can hold the Government to account, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said and, in particular, hold the family of Defra to account. I note the Minister’s point about the speed of rectification under the OEP compared with the EU, but that is not what we are discussing; it is the OEP’s perceived and actual independence that is the crucial factor.
In answer to the Minister, we have examined the Bill and we have found it wanting in that respect. He spoke very fast and I have to say that I did not catch every point that he made. I will examine what he said in detail later, but there was nothing that, on the surface, I found very convincing. I still think that leaving the OEP within the control of Defra—the ultimate control, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, described it—is the equivalent of a batsman being in charge of their own LBW decision. There will be times when the decision is so obvious that, if they were not to walk, there would be riots in the stands. But there would be many more times when the batsman would stand obdurately at the crease because it suits the interests of their own team. I still believe that the OEP, like cricket umpires, should be independent. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we come now to the group beginning with Amendment 89. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 89
“(7) A person is to be considered unable or unfit to carry out the member’s functions under sub-paragraph (6) if the Secretary of State is satisfied as regards any of the following matters—(a) that he member has becomes insolvent;(b) that he member has been convicted of a criminal offence;(c) that the member is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member or is unsuitable to continue as a member.”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is to define the meaning of “unable or unfit” in Schedule 1, sub-paragraph 5(6).
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to move Amendment 89 and speak to Amendment 90. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, for his support. I also thank the Law Society of Scotland for suggesting that this was worthy of probing by way of an amendment at this stage. It follows on from the little debate we have just had.
As my noble friend the Minister said in summing up the last group of amendments—and as Schedule 1 very clearly sets out—the appointment of a chief executive is to be by non-executive members of the OEP and the other executive members are to be appointed by the OEP. There are regrettably, and unusually, a couple of typos in the amendment on the Marshalled List. Clearly, it should not state that “he member” but “the member” has become insolvent or has been convicted of a criminal offence. I just mention that in the rare event that the Committee might want to adopt the two amendments, which—I hasten to add—I do not intend to press at this stage.
I have tabled these two amendments to introduce a definition for being unable or unfit to remain a member. This would give greater legal certainty as to the circumstances in which a person may be removed from office as a non-executive member of the OEP. As present, the Bill does not provide further detail as to the basis for determining whether a member is unable or unfit to carry out their functions. The amendment specifies that this would be the case when a member becomes insolvent or has been convicted of a criminal offence. The amendment is intended to bring greater specificity to the provisions of the Bill while still providing sufficiently wide scope to take account of other circumstances where the individual is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member or is unsuitable to continue as a member. I understand that there are similar appointee-removal processes in relation to other bodies, such as the Scottish Police Services Authority, set up under the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006, and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, set up under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007.
On Amendment 90, where prior notice should be given for the removal of such a person, it is intended that the Secretary of State would consult with the chair of the OEP in this regard. This would impose a duty, which I understand is currently not in the Bill, on the Secretary of State to consult with the chair of the OEP prior to giving notice to remove a non-executive member from office. The reason for this is that the consultation provides for an additional layer of scrutiny; the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult with the chair of the OEP will help to ensure openness and transparency regarding the Secretary of State’s actions.
Does any procedure exist that I am not currently aware of whereby such a person deemed unfit can be disqualified from holding office in these arrangements? What procedure is intended other than what I have set out in Amendments 89 and 90? With those few words, I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I had thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, intended to speak, but she is not in her place. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thought I understood the intention of my noble friend Lady McIntosh in these amendments and I tried hard to understand her explanation, but I am not certain that I fully understood and I too look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister will have to say.
Some discretion should be given to the Secretary of State, even in the case of a person who may have been insolvent or convicted of a criminal offence possibly decades ago. As noble Lords are aware, many of those who have been convicted of a criminal offence and punished for it have often gone on to make a positive contribution to society years later. It would set a bad precedent to legislate that they should be for ever denied opportunities for which they might otherwise be considered.
Regarding Amendment 90, I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would not consult with the chairman of the OEP prior to removing a non-executive member from the board. If the Secretary of State does not have the kind of relationship with the chairman where they are in regular contact on the operations of the OEP and the composition of the board, it would surely follow that either the chairman or the Secretary of State was in the wrong job. I do not think that such prescriptive details as my noble friend proposes should be included in the Bill.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, mine is a very brief point which goes in the opposite direction to the noble Viscount’s. On the previous amendment, we discussed the method of appointment of non-executive directors and the role of parliamentary committees. Surely, at least in respect of the final version, if the Secretary of State considers a non-executive director to be unfit there should at least be a consultation with the chairs of the parliamentary and Commons committees who were party to his or her original selection.
It seems lopsided that we have more or less agreed in principle for parliamentary engagement in the appointment, but that the Secretary of State could on the face of it, taking sub-paragraph (6)(c) as it stands, make a decision against a member of the OEP because they thought they were not doing the job properly. When we have parliamentary scrutiny, that judgment should at least be shared by the chair of the appropriate committee. That is my sole point on this group of amendments.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I was very happy to support and sign this amendment, which has been explained by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. It is a specific proposal and has been brought to our attention by the Law Society of Scotland as something it feels is consistent with similar circumstances in other public bodies, such as those she mentioned. Trying to define what makes a person unfit gives some clarity and specificity to such a situation, in contrast to a general catch-all that is left to some extent to the discretion of the Minister.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said that he thought a conviction was not necessarily appropriate as a disqualification. This is stretching a point, but it seems to me that the Secretary of State still has discretion and what the amendment seeks to do is to say that in normal circumstances, and probably in most circumstances, a conviction, whether it happens while the member is in office—especially if it happens in office—or prior and has not been disclosed, would be a valid reason to remove someone. Similarly, becoming insolvent while being a member of the board is another reason that is clear and understood.
The purpose of the amendment is to add some clarity, without in any way preventing the Secretary of State from arguing other reasons as to why a member has become unfit. It is not suggesting these are the only two definitions, but they are generally accepted as significant ones that have been identified in other bodies—particularly in Scotland, which is why the Law Society of Scotland has recommended it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, it is interesting to hear the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, introduce her amendments because at present the Bill does not give detail on what happens if a member becomes unfit, is found unsuitable or is simply not satisfactory as a member of the committee. It strikes me that we need proper clarity in this, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, said.
It was interesting to hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said about the amendment preventing anyone who had ever been found guilty of a criminal offence at any time in their life being on the committee. I agree that it is harsh but I am not sure, having looked at the amendments, if that is their intention. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, said, the Secretary of State would still have discretion over that. If that means that situation could be avoided, I see no issues with it, but I agree that we would not want to have a blanket ban on anyone who maybe had a small conviction many years ago when they were young but had been a perfectly good citizen since.
It is also interesting how this fits with the Government’s Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies, which clearly
“expects all holders of public office to work to the highest personal and professional standards.”
We know that there are clear codes of conduct set out for all members of such boards to adhere to. Section 5.8 of that code says:
“You must inform the sponsor department of the body of any bankruptcy, current police investigation, unspent criminal conviction or disqualification as a company director in advance of appointment, or should any such instances occur during your appointment.”
This completely ties in with what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, was saying: that the issue would be if you had not declared such a thing at the time of your appointment. On that basis, it would be helpful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this area because, now I have listened to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, I think that we need some clarity.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I hope I went some way at least towards reassuring noble Lords about the robust process for appointing the chair, board members and non-executive directors of the OEP earlier. I would like to provide additional assurance in relation to Amendments 89 and 90 from my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
We have carefully designed the OEP for it to effectively deliver its functions in England and over reserved matters. We have designed the appointment and removal processes of OEP members to retain the right balance between ministerial accountability and operational independence. Should it become apparent that a non-executive member of the OEP were unable or unfit to carry out their duties as a member of the OEP board, we would expect this important development to be a subject of significant discussion between the Secretary of State and the OEP chair. As such, it is not necessary to prescribe this on the face of the Bill.
Additionally, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, Schedule 1 already sets out the grounds for the removal of a non-executive board member in the unlikely event of them being unable or unfit to carry out their functions. Greater detail on these matters is better dealt with in the terms of appointment for individual non-executive members rather than on the face of the Bill. Should the Secretary of State act disproportionately in the termination of a non-executive member, they will be held to account and scrutinised by Parliament.
I hope that this reassures my noble friend, and I beg her to withdraw the amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to have this little debate and to all those who have contributed. Obviously, I am disappointed that I was not clear enough for my noble friend Lord Trenchard, but I am delighted that, in some way, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, addressed his concerns ably and effectively. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, put it very well by saying that there is a need for greater clarity, and it was a professional body—the Law Society of Scotland—that first proposed these amendments.
I take my noble friend’s point that this level of detail was perhaps never intended to be on the face of the Bill, but it would be interesting to know what sort of template there was and, for example, how “disproportionately” would be considered. Clearly, common sense will dictate what disqualifies one from office. Because of some historic misdemeanour that is not of any great consequence, it would be unfortunate to lose a person who would be a good member of the board.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this, and I am grateful to my noble friend for putting my mind at rest in summing up. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we come now to the group beginning with Amendment 92. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 92
“(3) The OEP must as soon as practicable prepare a budget for the following five financial years, and then a budget every five financial years thereafter.(4) The OEP must—(a) arrange for the budget to be laid before Parliament, and(b) publish it.(5) The budget must—(a) include—(i) an estimate as respects resource requirements;(ii) the proposed amount of funding required; (b) be accompanied by information as to the OEP’s projected work plan for the next five financial years.(6) The OEP may revise the budget at any time (and sub-paragraph (4) applies to any revised budget).(7) Before preparing or revising the budget, the OEP must consult the Secretary of State and such persons as it considers appropriate.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment has the effect of introducing a requirement for the OEP to prepare a five-year budget which is subject to consultation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful again to have the opportunity to press and probe my noble friend further on the matter of the OEP’s budget. I have followed his advice and read the relevant paragraphs in Schedule 1, which is the relevant schedule here. I would just like to make the case for why I believe that a requirement to prepare a five-year budget, which is subject to consultation and review, is needed.
We spoke earlier of what level of parliamentary scrutiny there would be, and it would be opportune, perhaps when there is an annual hearing of the two Select Committees—the Environmental Audit Committee and the EFRA Committee—to take evidence from the chairman of the OEP. But if there was a five-year rolling budget, there would be much more meat on the bones, and it would show what direction, focus and priorities the OEP was going to have.
The reason that this is such a key part of the Bill, and why I seek to probe through Amendment 92—which Amendment 93, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Young of Old Scone, is not dissimilar to—is that, if the OEP is going to do its job effectively, it needs to be properly funded to carry out its role. I remember the arguments that we put passionately and consistently through the course of the Trade Bill, as it then was, that the Trade and Agriculture Commission should have a proper budget, be properly resourced and have an office and staff independent of the department. Where the Bill says that
“The Secretary of State must pay to the OEP such sums as the Secretary of State considers are reasonably sufficient”,
each of us would have a view as to what “reasonably sufficient” might be.
On the need for a wider budget, I know that research grants—for example, in other aspects of agriculture—run for some three years, and after the end of the first and second years, the whole of the next year is spent wondering whether the same level of budget will be available. I believe that a five-year period is ideal, as it is neither too short nor too long. It will help to ensure that the resource requirements are adequately met with sufficient advance notice and that the proposed funding is clearly identified and published as we go through each five-year period. It can only help Defra when we come, such as in this year, to the strategic spending review, to know precisely what the commitments will be.
The purpose of Amendment 92 is to ensure that there will be a five-year budget that is subject to consultation, and it will go some way to ensuring that the OEP is sufficiently funded and resourced to carry out the work that we all hope it will do. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to be a co-signatory of Amendment 92, and I am pleased to support the case that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has just made. However, I can certainly also support the case for a provision for budget review, as incorporated into the otherwise similar Amendment 93. But that is the specific difference that I think adds something to what is proposed.
As the debate on the independence of the OEP progresses, its resources and budgetary process will be significant to both how independent and how effective it is going to be. These amendments are trying to probe, in some detail, what the budgetary process could and should be because, to be effective, the OEP needs the necessary resources to carry out functions and to respond to the dynamics of what is an inevitably changing situation with environmental issues. Members have been talking about us legislating for 40, 50 or 60 years ahead, yet the dynamic of rapid change on the environment means that we need to be rapid in our responses, and the mechanism needs to be able to adopt that.
It is also important to reinforce the fact that the OEP’s job is to support Parliament and, though it is based in Defra, to be as independent as possible. So, again, these amendments are designed to try and ensure that it is able to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, it takes over EU responsibilities in this respect but, obviously, not in a way that was possible when we were in the EU, because its impact is entirely domestic. It is clearly distinct from the Environment Agency, but there is likely to be an interaction between the two organisations. Again, it is important that both sides are aware of the resources, the budgets and the responsibilities that they have.
These amendments set out the framework, and it would be helpful if the Minister could give some indication of what the Government believe the budget is likely to be and what staffing and resources are envisaged for the OEP. The interim board is up and running so, presumably, some serious discussions and proposals are emerging at this stage. It is proposed in these amendments that there should be a five-year budget that addresses the resource requirements and the funding and also sets out a work plan for that five-year period so that both Parliament and those who will be impacted by the work will be aware of how the OEP is going about its business and how effective its reach is likely to be.
There is absolutely a sensible reason why there should be reviews as necessary, but there should be at least one review during a five-year period. Five years is a long time when we are facing the environmental changes that are bearing down on us.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, very briefly, the Bill does not require the Secretary of State to pay. Subsection (1) requires him to pay what he thinks is reasonable, which is not altered by this. I see the benefit of a five-year budget, but the key point is to have it published. That way, the Select Committees and the National Audit Office can check on performance. Looking at proposed new subsection (5) and its detail about the work pattern, if they do not deliver an effective framework that is economic, they will be called to account by the Public Accounts Committee. The NAO needs to know what their plan for the budget was to start with.
So the key issue in this amendment is for the budget to be laid before Parliament and published. Publishing the budget is unusual for non-departmental public bodies. Non-ministerial departments are different, because their budget is separated out, and outsiders can check whether the funds are being cut. It is not always possible to do that with executive bodies and non-departmental public bodies. Publishing it means that the NAO and the Select Committees in the other place can check whether or not the Secretary of State paid them what they thought was necessary to do the work they planned to do. If the work is not done, someone needs to find out why; it is much easier to do that if you had a published budget to start with.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, in speaking briefly in support of this group of amendments, I refer back to the budget of Natural England. I seek absolute assurance from the Minister that the OEP will not suffer the same fate as Natural England has.
Between 2010 and 2020, Natural England’s budget was cut by almost two-thirds. In a letter to the chair of the Environmental Audit Committee in another place, dated 2 November 2020, the chair of Natural England, Tony Juniper, wrote:
“Natural England’s current funding is below the level required to deliver all of our statutory duties to a good standard. That in itself presents several key risks including increased legal challenge, lost opportunities for environmental enhancement and the wider effect that presents on wellbeing.”
He went on to list the areas of work that had been curtailed or reduced as a result of the funding cuts. These included land use planning, species recovery, wildlife licensing, national nature reserves, SSSIs, landscapes, agri-environment, evidence gathering and partnership funding, for instance for community-based initiatives with parish councils.
The Secretary of State acknowledged to the Environmental Audit Committee that the cuts had been severe and, in May this year, Natural England had an increase of 47% in its budget. In spite of this increase, Natural England’s budget for 2020-21 of £198 million is still below the £265 million it received in 2008-09. In going into this example in some detail, my point is that we certainly do not want to find the OEP, in five or 10 years’ time, in the same state as Natural England has found itself, with the consequent damage to our environment.
To repeat what I started with, I very much hope, therefore, that the Minister will confirm that the OEP, with a long-term settlement, will have sufficient resources to carry out its job; and, importantly, that when there are cuts to government expenditure across the board, which there will no doubt have to be to pay the huge bill that we have racked up as a result of the Covid pandemic, the OEP will be one of the protected areas and will not just take a salami slice along with everybody else.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, after my remarks a moment ago on the independence of the OEP, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I strongly support the principle that the OEP should have as much financial independence as possible and that I therefore support these amendments.
Funding is vital. I note that the correspondence from Natural England that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, just read out could equally be replicated in correspondence from, I suspect, the Environment Agency to Defra, because the same incredible cut—up to 70%, I believe—has happened to the Environment Agency. So funding is absolutely vital for the proper operation of all these NDPBs. In my view, the OEP’s budget should not be at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Defra.
I believe that the public at large will take a great deal of interest in the work of the OEP—if not, they certainly should do—so anything that makes the OEP’s finances more transparent to the public, more long-term and more the business of Parliament rather than at the whim of the department gets my approval.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.
I support the amendments in this group. It is worthy of note that the Government have agreed that,
“to ensure its financial independence, the OEP will be provided with a five year indicative budget which is formally ring fenced by HM Treasury within any given Spending Review period.”
However, it needs to be much more concrete than that.
This is comparable with how some other bodies are given long-term financial certainty; for example, the Treasury has made a similar commitment for the OBR. In its letter to the OBR setting out a multiannual funding commitment, the Treasury noted that this approach
“supports the OBR’s independence and ability to manage its resources effectively in the medium term. This approach for independent fiscal institutions is consistent with international best practice, strengthening institutional independence through delegated budgetary autonomy.”
The Government have said that they will make this commitment on the OEP in Parliament; I would like to see the Minister make it to your Lordships’ House today in his response to this group of amendments.
It would also be helpful if the Minister could clarify that the Government’s position remains as set out in their response to the EFRA Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny, which stated:
“In order to ensure its financial independence, the OEP will be provided with a five year indicative budget which is formally ring fenced by HM Treasury within any given Spending Review period.”
This was repeated in the Government’s Environmental Governance Factsheet, which was published in March 2020. However, since that time, the Government appear to have wavered on the commitment for the long-term budget to be for five years, leaving such matters to political rather than legislative commitments.
As per Amendment 93, I urge the Minister to confirm that the Government remain committed to providing the OEP with a five-year indicative budget. That must be enshrined in legislation. In such circumstances, I support Amendments 93 and 92, which would require the OEP to prepare a five-year indicative budget that would be subject to public consultation, and allow it to request in-budget increases.
If the OEP is to work strategically, it will require financial security enshrined in legislation. A binding commitment to provide a multi-annual budget would help to avoid the slow but significant funding decline that many of Defra’s arm’s-length bodies have suffered over recent years and provide certainty of ongoing funding levels.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support both amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has indicated that hers is a probing amendment. We support the need for a clear statement of the financial independence of the OEP because, by that means, we can be clear that it has sufficient funds for its function.
I very much support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about the need for its budgeting to be published. Parliamentarians have often had to rely on other opportunities, such as that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, when the chair of Natural England made public comments at a Select Committee down the other end, or charities getting information by FoI about the funding shortfalls of the Environment Agency. That should not be the way we have to find out about the budgets of these important bodies. That information should be available to parliamentarians; it should be published and we should all be able to see it clearly.
I echo my colleague, my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie. In his remarks at the end, I hope the Minister will say more about the current budget for the OEP. I know it is in its interim phase, and I understand that its first board meeting will be this week. It has been suggested that, in its initial year, staffing levels will be around 25 members. Clearly, that will not be its final staff resource level, but if the Minister could indicate the scale of OEP staffing next year, that would give us a clearer idea of the capacity of this critical body to deliver the functions we all need. I hope he will say a few words about scaling up the budget of the body for next year.
In closing, I agree with other Members on the principle that a five-year budget associated with a work plan be published and put in the Bill.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and Amendment 93 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Both are similar in nature and one could assume that we, on the Labour Benches, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, have been sharing our homework. I thank the noble Baroness for moving her amendment so eloquently and reiterate the case she made for the OEP to have flexibility and longevity when setting budgets.
In June 2018, the Government recognised the value of multi-annual budgets. In announcing a five-year settlement for the NHS, the Government emphasised that this long-term funding commitment means the NHS has the financial security to develop a 10-year plan. If the OEP is to work strategically, it too will require a similar level of security. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, made the same point, looking at comparable bodies and the way they have operated in taking a long-term approach.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I very much hope so. I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for tabling Amendments 92 and 93. I agree, of course, that it is important for the OEP to have certainty regarding its level of funding on a multi-annual basis That is why the Government have committed to providing a multi-annual indicative budget for the OEP, ring-fenced within each spending review period. For transparency, the OEP’s budget will also be given a separate line in Defra’s supply estimate, which will be laid before Parliament to allow for parliamentary scrutiny. This is, nevertheless, an administrative matter, so it is not appropriate to put it on the face of the Bill.
There is also a need to retain flexibility, both initially in light of delays to the Bill due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and should the process for allocating public body budgets ever be reformed at a future date. It is worth pointing out that other bodies with multi-annual funding commitments—the Office for Budget Responsibility, for example—do not have this set out in legislation. The Bill does provide several safeguards on OEP funding. These include a duty on the Secretary of State to fund the OEP sufficiently; in conjunction, the OEP will provide an annual assessment to Parliament of whether it has received sufficient funding. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the OEP has been given £8 million for its interim stage for this business year.
I hope that this reassures noble Lords and ask them to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to all who have spoken, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, for lending his support in co-signing the amendment.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; if you look at paragraph 12 of Schedule 1, it really is not very forthcoming. It just talks about paying
“such sums as the Secretary of State considers … reasonably sufficient to enable the OEP to carry out its functions”,
and then talks of
“subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may determine”
if there is further assistance by way of grants or loans. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Khan, that both amendments deal with a potential revision; I think the difference in Amendment 93 is if any additional funds are required. To a certain extent, I think that is already addressed in the schedule.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, is right that we need to equip the OEP to be in a position to respond rapidly to what we are asking it to do. I am not in a position to say whether £8 million seems low. It does not seem particularly high for its first year, but it depends on whether it is for half a year, assuming that the organisation really only comes into swing properly on 1 July, this week. Perhaps my noble friend could confirm whether it is six, nine or 12 months—I think we are going to have a penalty fine for anybody whose mobile phone goes off in the Chamber, as that one has just done.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, is absolutely right. I am grateful that my noble friend confirmed that it is an indicative budget, but we do need greater clarity to enable the OEP to do its work, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, gave about how out of kilter the Natural England budget is. Obviously, that has not been a blow to Tony Juniper in making these points, because he has gone from strength to strength. I do not think people should be shy of criticising the funding—not the Government themselves—where that is due.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said, both in this debate and the previous one, that it is not just the OEP and Natural England that are being kept short of funds. What worries me very much is the fact that the Environment Agency is on the record as saying that it does not have sufficient funds to inspect the rivers. If we are not inspecting the rivers, how is the OEP going to impose the penalties that we wish it to?
I believe this has been a very useful debate. We might want to consider how to address this, if it is necessary, going forward. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We come now to the group beginning with Amendment 94. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 94
Lord Krebs
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes the independence of the OEP an absolute requirement.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will move Amendment 94 on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who will speak later in the group. I will speak also to Amendments 98 and 99, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and myself; Amendment 100, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson; and Clause 24 stand part, in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Parminter.
All these amendments concern the independence of the OEP, a topic we have already debated at some length, in particular in relation to the group beginning with Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Amendment 94 in this group would make the independence of the OEP an absolute requirement, rather than something that the Secretary of State merely has to “have regard to”. Amendment 98 would remove the requirement for the OEP to have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, and Amendment 99 would require the OEP to explain why it did not follow the guidance. Amendment 100 and the opposition to Clause 24 standing part both aim, in different ways, to ensure that the OEP is as fully independent as possible, exactly in the spirit of the group beginning with Amendment 82.
I will focus on the contention that Clause 24 should not stand part, which is at the heart of many of the concerns expressed in these amendments. In some ways, Amendments 94, 98 and 99 could be seen as important sticking plaster, but a more comprehensive way of dealing with the concerns expressed in these amendments would be to remove Clause 24 altogether. Clause 24 empowers the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the office for environmental protection on its enforcement policy, including how it should determine whether a failure to comply with the law is serious. However, the clause does not define what constitutes serious, nor the areas in which the Secretary of State should not give guidance to the OEP. It does not say whether the Secretary of State should issue guidance on a specific case, for instance the development of a new nuclear power station, or on general principles, such as the transparent use of evidence, and it does not say when and how often the Secretary of State may issue guidance. Therefore, it is hard to judge how wide-ranging the guidance will be, how often it will be given and whether it will be used to constrain the independence of the OEP.
After Second Reading, the letter from the Minister attempted to reassure us that the guidance powers would not compromise the independence of the OEP, and I thought I heard him say earlier this afternoon—but I may be wrong—that there would be no need for the OEP to follow the guidance. In that case, how do the Government justify the inclusion of Clause 24 at all? Well, according to the Secretary of State in a recent radio interview, it is to avoid the OEP becoming an “unaccountable regulator” or “making it up as it goes along”. If this is the case, it suggests to me a lack of trust in the OEP chair and board, as well as a wish to control the way it operates.
The Government may well argue that this is a fairly standard clause, and although it is true that similar powers to issue guidance do exist for some public bodies, including Natural England and the Climate Change Committee, there is a crucial difference between these bodies and the office for environmental protection—because, as we have heard many times today, the OEP has responsibility for enforcing potential breaches of the law by public bodies, including Ministers, which most other non-departmental public bodies do not have.
A better comparison might be with the Information Commissioner's Office, which is not subject to similar guidance in its enforcement function. Another comparison is the Food Standards Agency, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, explained, is a non-ministerial government department accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. By coincidence, Section 24—the same number—of the Food Standards Act 1999 covers the situation in which the FSA is deemed to have gone off the rails. It allows the Secretary of State to intervene only if the Food Standards Agency has seriously failed to fulfil its duties or international obligations. The Secretary of State may then give direction for remedying the failure. Otherwise, the Food Standards Agency is not subject to ministerial guidance.
As noble Lords will be aware, I was the first chair of the Food Standards Agency, and in a later period the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was also chair. During my five and a half years Health Ministers considered invoking Section 24 on one occasion: when the manufacturers of natural sausage casings made from sheep’s intestines claimed incorrectly that we had not given them the statutory notice period before introducing a ban on their use because of the potential risk that they might contain the infected agent that causes BSE. So, in five and a half years, there was one use of it, which was very rapidly resolved, and the Secretary of State did not need to issue any instruction.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, continuing the theme of great minds thinking alike, apparently the requests for a clause stand part debate landed at exactly the same moment and there was the equivalent of tossing a coin to see whose name would appear. I am delighted to support the clause stand part debate and to go a little further in my Amendment 100.
My question to my noble friend at the outset is this: does he not accept that, for the OEP to do all that I am sure he, the Government and all of us would wish it to do, it must be seen to be independent, not just of the Government but of other organisations, such as Natural England and, to a certain extent, the Environment Agency? I am still not entirely clear what the relationship of the OEP and the Environment Agency and these other bodies will be. The question I keep asking, to which I hope one day to get an answer, is this: to who would a farmer, whether a landowner, a tenant or an owner-occupier, go to seek advice? Would it be Natural England, the Environment Agency or the OEP? That is not entirely clear.
I could never be cross with my noble friend, so I would not like to be described as a cross Back-Bencher, but I find it inappropriate that Clause 24 appears in the terms that it does. It is discretionary. It simply states that:
“The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in section 22(6) (OEP’s enforcement policy).”
It then goes on:
“The OEP must have regard to the guidance in … preparing its enforcement policy, and … exercising its enforcement functions.”
This reverts to the point I made earlier, when I set out my concern that it might be the case that a Secretary of State—or, heaven forfend, a junior Minister—might lean on members of the OEP to ensure that a particular enforcement does not go ahead. That would be utterly inappropriate. It then goes on to say that
“The Secretary of State may revise the guidance at any time”
but
“must lay before Parliament, and publish, the guidance (and any revised guidance).”
I am not quite sure which body would be scrutinising that in that situation. Later, it sets out the OEP’s enforcement functions.
At this point, I just say that I do not believe there is a place for Clause 24 in the Bill, and I look forward to some very strong justification or proposed changes that my noble friend might make when he sums up this little debate.
Just before I address my Amendment 100, I want to support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. They also go to the heart of parliamentary scrutiny, which we discussed a little earlier. I endorse those amendments; they are entirely appropriate.
Amendment 100 would go a little further than just leaving out Clause 24 and would insert a new clause specifically stating that
“In performing its functions, the OEP is not subject to the direction or control of the Secretary of State or any member of Her Majesty’s Government.”
I cannot put it in any stronger terms than that it would be entirely inappropriate for that to happen. This debate is a good opportunity to cast beyond doubt the independence of the OEP, not just, as I said, from government but in its dealing with other bodies which have a role to play in the environment. We want to give it the greatest authority we possibly can. I would argue that we leave out Clause 24 but insert my wording in Amendment 100.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I support the amendments in this group and wish to speak in particular to the amendments in my name: Amendments 117 and 118, relating to Northern Ireland.
Schedule 3 makes provision for the functions of the office of environmental protection in its activities in Northern Ireland. Along with many organisations, including Greener UK, I support the inclusion of Northern Ireland within the remit of the office of environmental protection. These provisions are broadly parallel to those in Part 1 and Schedule 1 that relate to England. I raised this specific point during Second Reading, some three weeks ago.
Extensive regulatory dysfunction and unacceptable levels of disregard for environmental law have resulted in substantial degradation of the environment in Northern Ireland, with significant economic and social costs. The independence of the OEP in Northern Ireland is therefore vital. The lack of an independent environmental regulator, despite the fact that it was first recommended in 1992 by a House of Commons Environment Select Committee report—nothing has ever happened in that regard—has meant historically weak environmental governance, which means that the OEP must have a cast-iron constitution and culture of independence from the outset. The need for independent oversight is exemplified in the case of designated sites, such as protected sites. In some cases, it is quite dismal in our areas of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
In this context I have a concern about a broad power for DAERA, the department in Northern Ireland, to issue guidance to the OEP that it must have regard to when preparing its enforcement policy or exercising its enforcement functions in Northern Ireland. This will affect the OEP’s ability to perform its role independently and does not take sufficient account of the particular political circumstances and context of Northern Ireland, including the mandatory power-sharing nature of the Northern Ireland Executive—hence Amendment 117.
There is concern about the timetable for appointing the Northern Ireland member of the OEP board. There must be no further delay in appointing that member, and the appointment process should be progressed as quickly as possible. I hope the Minister will pursue that with his equivalent colleague in the Northern Ireland Executive.
Those problems concerning the guidance power for DAERA should be removed from the Bill, and Amendment 117 would do that. There are three particular areas of concern. In line with the Ministerial Code, cross-cutting and controversial matters must be brought to the Northern Ireland Executive—and guidance from the DAERA Minister to the OEP on its enforcement policy and functions would qualify as both cross-cutting and controversial. Therefore, what is the procedure for bringing this guidance to the Executive before it is issued by DAERA? As a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, about 13 years ago, I knew what that meant, but I just want to clarify that.
Secondly, ministerial appointments in Northern Ireland are managed through the d’Hondt system, under which the largest parties are allocated multiple departments. What mechanisms will be put in place to minimise the risk that a current or future DAERA Minister could use the guidance power to advise the OEP in relation to enforcement or potential non-compliance on environmental law relating to either a department of a similar affiliation or one allocated to an opposing party? Given its wide scope and the lack of transparency in how it will be prepared, the guidance could in theory be used for political benefit—a risk that does not appear to be considered by Defra or DAERA in designing this power.
As a public authority, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency will fall within the remit of the OEP. If DAERA exercised its power to issue guidance in relation to enforcement matters involving the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, that would further cloud Northern Ireland’s already difficult environmental governance and could result in blurred areas of accountability.
Amendment 118 would require the appointment of the Northern Ireland board to be made with the consent of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly. To engender the greatest level of stakeholder trust and buy-in to the OEP, Northern Ireland must be—and must be perceived to be—embedded within it from the start. The appointment of a dedicated Northern Ireland board member will help ensure that Northern Ireland’s nuances, including geopolitical, biogeographic and societal, are properly accounted for in the OEP’s policies and activities. It will also establish trust and credibility.
In this context, can the Minister ask DAERA to clarify the timescale for the appointment process? I note that the first interim board meeting of the OEP is expected to be held this Thursday, 1 July.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and to hear from her about the situation in Northern Ireland, with its beauty and diversity of flora and fauna. These amendments relate to the issue of the independence of the office for environmental protection, which was much debated at Second Reading. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and, like him, I hope the Minister can reassure us.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. We often agree but on this occasion I have to say that we do not. I shall speak briefly because the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, introduced so eloquently the amendment to which I put my name, concerning Clause 24 stand part. It would remove this clause, which would give the Secretary of State the right to give guidance to the OEP that it must have regard to in preparing its enforcement policy.
I do not want to repeat points that have already been made, so I shall merely congratulate the Select Committee on the Constitution, which is very ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and refer to two points that it made. The committee said that:
“Guidance is a poor substitute for clear rules”,
and it is correct in saying so. That goes very much to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs: when it is guidance, it is hard for us to judge how wide-ranging or how constricting it will be to the independence of the OEP, but it could be very wide-ranging and that is one of the reasons why I am concerned.
The Constitution Committee also said:
“The power to issue guidance on the OEP’s enforcement powers could call into question how independent it will be.”
For me, that is the nub of the issue: it is about the public perception of how independent this new watchdog will be. At a time when there is increasing concern about public confidence in public institutions and indeed in politicians, we need to ensure that this new body is seen to be not just as independent as we would wish it to be but as independent as it needs to be.
It is not acceptable for the Minister to say, “Oh, we’d only use this guidance as a last resort”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, we have a very independent-minded interim chair of the OEP at the moment; however, that may not be the case in future. Irrespective of that, we need to be clear that it has to be set down in statute that this is an independent body with the power to set its own enforcement policy. I am afraid that any indication that the Government can somehow meddle by looking into matters in other bodies within the Defra family just does not cut the mustard. I therefore feel very strongly that Clause 24 needs to be removed.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, the Minister would be well advised to pay attention to what the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, said. The Northern Ireland situation is not a coalition; it is a power-sharing Executive. The parties carve up the ministries. I had one year as a Minister when there was direct rule. I had planning and the environment among other responsibilities and duties. I discovered that most of the political parties there do not believe in planning. They would like a bungalow in every field. That is the situation: if you fly over Northern Ireland, have a look at it. Imagine a bungalow in every field, with the waste and everything else. “If you own land, you can do what you want with it”: that is what I was told. So it is a really sensitive issue to get the wrong person at the wrong time. It would be terrible to meet without someone representing Northern Ireland, but we should be aware of the way the d’Hondt system allows the parties to control the ministries.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I heard the Minister say that there is no requirement to follow the guidance. I wrote it down at the time. That is interesting. I would love to be a fly on the wall the day the department’s lawyer goes to see the Minister and says, “Well, Minister, it only says you ‘must have regard’. You want to do this, that and the other and do your own thing, but it actually says you ‘must have regard’. Here’s all the reasons why you have to have regard to what the Secretary of State says.” Before you know it, there will be a threat of malfeasance on the office, because it has gone against having regard to a sufficient extent of what the Minister said.
How do you measure “have regard”? I realise that I will be followed by lawyers; I am not a lawyer, but I have been there when the lawyers have come in and said, “You can’t do this because you’ve got to take account of this, that and the other.” That is the pattern: it is the way advice to Ministers from the department’s lawyers works. I am not criticising or complaining about it; I am just saying that that is the way it works. So, if it is not clear in the legislation to start with, we are building up trouble. There are therefore good grounds for taking Clause 24 out of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, reminded me that in February 2017 I too had the privilege of being on the EU sub-committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, when we arrived at this. I remember doing fringe meetings at the Labour Party conference the year before when the sector was waking up to the fact of the governance gap. As I said at Second Reading—I will not read it all out—Michael Gove had woken up to it by 13 November 2017, when he said that there has to be mechanism to replace what we are losing because of Brexit. He went on to say we would have
“a new, world-leading body to … hold the powerful to account. It will be independent of government, able to speak its mind freely.”
That was not a speech; that was a published article, authored on GOV.UK.
My final point is this. I know that it is easy and people will say that we have unaccountable agencies and this, that and the other, but sometimes they are a comfort blanket to Ministers. Situations arise in society where the public do not believe what they are told by Ministers. Going back to the time before I entered government, that was the situation regarding food safety: a collapse in confidence in what people were told by Ministers. That is one of the reasons a semi-independent body was set up, so that Ministers do not have to go on telly and say, “The food’s safe—please eat it”. People did not believe them. The technical people, the scientists and those who are qualified to have a view go on when there is such a situation—the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is aware of that, having set up the agency.
I was originally partly responsible for some of the legislation that set it up; I certainly never forecast that I would be the chair. However, the fact is that these bodies are useful in certain circumstances because the public have a trust in them. It is important that the public have that trust; I will not start to imagine what kind of environmental problems there would be where there is public uproar and where Ministers find it very useful to have an expert body that is able to speak to the public and engender their confidence. Believe you me, I am giving this away for free. It can be a bonus for Ministers, and they ought to wake up to that fact.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 100, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh; Amendment 117, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick; and the stand part debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Krebs, which would restore the position as it was when the Bill entered the Commons, with Clause 24 not standing part.
The conflict of interest which I shall suggest is presented by Clause 24 arises in the specific context of the OEP’s enforcement functions in Clauses 31 to 40, on which I have a number of amendments and on which I will focus now. Each of those functions, from starting an investigation, to issuing information notices and decision notices, to applying to the courts for environmental or judicial review, depends on an assessment by the OEP that a failure to comply with environmental law is serious, and, in the case of an application for judicial review, that it must be necessary to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or to human health.
While those assessments may be for the OEP, Clause 24, read with Clause 22(6), allows Defra to frame the processes by which the OEP assesses the seriousness of environmental damage, the seriousness of damage to human health and the seriousness of law breaking for which Defra and other public authorities are responsible. As if those instruments were not blunt enough, Defra is given a further power to guide the OEP on how it prioritises cases. This guidance will presumably be additional to and more prescriptive than the guidance that we are asked to endorse in Clause 22(7). To the response that ministerial guidance will not impinge on the independence of the OEP, I would say: what is the point of guidance, if not influence? Why should the OEP not be trusted to work out its own priorities? And why should Defra have influence over the preparation of enforcement policy and the “exercise of enforcement functions”, to quote the Bill, that are specifically designed to be used against it?
As a former independent reviewer, although in a small way and in a very different field, I have reflected quite a bit on the risk of regulatory capture. This is usually thought of as a subtle and insidious process. It does not require the express approval of the legislature: the fertile soil of insufficient institutional independence, on which your Lordships have heard so much already, may be all that is needed for regulatory capture to germinate and to take hold. That is why Clause 24 is so unusual in the context of a body charged with enforcement. It actually signals regulatory capture on the face of the Bill.
The compromise Amendments 98 and 99—sticking plasters, as my noble friend Lord Krebs described them—would reduce the strength of that signal but would still leave the guidance power in place against a background of less than total institutional independence. For that reason, and with respect to those who put them forward, my enthusiasm for these compromises is limited. The Government’s first thoughts were best: the Bill is better without Clause 24.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We appear not to have the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support the messages being delivered in this group of amendments. Above all, I support the stand part question opposing Clause 24, to which I would have added my name if there had been room. I strongly support the powerful speeches given on it by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and—as ever—the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, with his great experience on this matter.
My basic position is that I would support any amendment which reduced the influence of Defra and its Secretary of State on the workings of the OEP. I know that sounds harsh, and I repeat my point that this does not denote any mistrust of the current officials in Defra, and certainly not its Secretary of State or Ministers. However, we have to ensure that the workings of the OEP over decades to come, as stressed by many, are completely independent of the bodies on which it is supposed to keep a watchful eye. That definitely includes Defra and its wider family. It must be independent and be seen to be independent, so the idea that the Secretary of State of Defra should be giving guidance to the OEP on how it exercises its enforcement policies must be wrong. I have yet to meet anyone who, in their heart of hearts, does not agree with that statement, with the perhaps unique exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who gave the impression of not having listened very closely to the previous debates.
Our whole constitution is based on checks and balances, yet what we have here is the equivalent of the potential accused being able to influence the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service. This must be very wrong. It would be a travesty of proper governance if Clause 24 were to remain in the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Thank you, Deputy Chairman. My Lords, I offer support for all these amendments, but particularly on whether Clause 24 should stand part. Opposing it is the obvious way forward here. I want to pick up on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who was not entirely consistent in suggesting that we should not worry about how the Bill was structured because there is a strong person as the first head of the OEP, Dame Glenys Stacey. However, then she said, “But we don’t want it too independent because then it might get too strong and dynamic, and take too much control”. That really highlighted the issue.
Many people are saying “Isn’t it great that we have that person as the first chair of the OEP?”, but structures should not depend on individuals. Those individuals change; they go to different places as roles change over time. Often when we talk about what is in the Bill the Government tell us, “Trust us, we don’t have any ill intentions”, but the point is not who the current Minister is or what the Government of the moment’s intentions are. We are setting up something new and important here, which is likely to continue for decades. We are talking here about the environmental review process and the OEP being able to state what the remedies for that are. There has been a lot of talk about carrots and sticks, and soft and hard powers. These things are really quite subtle and need to be used with great independence to have real force over long periods.
We have heard a lot of comparisons with other government bodies, such as the National Audit Office, the Electoral Commission and the Office for Budget Responsibility, all of which have stronger levels of independence. They have real independence from Ministers and departmental structures. It is quite telling that two of them are financial structures. When we talk about spending money, we have to have some independent oversight of that; but when we talk about the environment, somehow it is good enough to leave it with Ministers and the Government. It is a question of what we regard as important and what we really value and guard. That is what we are looking for.
I think it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who quoted the Secretary of State as saying, “If we do not have these controls, there is a risk of making it up as it goes along.” Surely that is the point. The OEP needs to create new structures, not to be directed by the Minister in those structures.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry, speaking just before the break, asked a very important question: what is the point of having guidance if there is no impact? We are being told that the Minister can provide some advice, some offering, but if that is not going to have an impact, why does it need to be in the Bill and why does it need to be given? We think about spending government money very carefully with real independent oversight. When we are looking after our environment, our natural world, and tackling the climate emergency, we need that same kind of independent oversight.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I cannot help feeling that there is an air of unreality about this debate. Everyone on all sides agrees about the need to preserve the independence of the OEP. The Government’s position is set out quite clearly in paragraph 17 of Schedule 1, to which I referred earlier today. The phrase is “must have regard:
“the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect its independence.”
As my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich said, there is much to be said for the view that it is no business of the Secretary of State to give guidance on these matters and that Clause 24 should not be there so that the OEP can make up its own mind about the policies it needs to follow. Much depends on the meaning and choice of words, so let us reflect for a moment on that.
Is it really being suggested, as I think someone mentioned earlier, that Clause 24 can live with paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 because there is no requirement to follow the guidance that has been talked about in Clause 24? Do the words of Clause 24 really have that meaning? Does the phrase “must have regard” change its meaning according to the context in which those words are found? As I have mentioned, paragraph 17 contains the same formula. Are we really to read it as imposing no requirement to have regard to protect the independence of the OEP? That would be an astonishing position to take and I am sure the Minister will not be taking it, but if it means what it appears to mean, the word “must” imposing an obligation that must be fulfilled, why not so in Clause 24?
I hope that the Minister was listening very carefully to what I said in the debate about Section 14(2) of the Scottish continuity Act. It is difficult for me, far away, looking through a lens, as I am, to observe closely what the Minister is doing to know whether he really was listening very carefully. I very much hope he was, and his closing words suggest that he was, and I am glad of that. He will have noticed that the reason why I was supporting him was because of the meaning that I gave to the phrase
“Ministers of the Crown must … have due regard”
in Section 14 of the Scottish Act to Scottish environmental policies. I made it clear in my remarks that it was because I read those words as giving a direction to UK Ministers, imposing an obligation on them, that I felt that Amendment 80 had to be supported because it was correcting a mistake in the Scottish legislation. If I had been told that there was no requirement on UK Ministers to follow these policies, the position would have been quite different. One cannot pick and choose. The words in each context are perfectly clear and they must have the same meaning.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that, as worded, Clause 24 “drives a coach and horses” through paragraph 17. I must confess that, taking the words according to their ordinary meaning, that seems to be absolutely right. So I agree with my noble friend Lord Anderson that the Bill would be much better without Clause 24, but, if it is to remain, its wording must surely be adjusted so as to preserve the independence of the OEP, which the Secretary of State is, I suggest, under an obligation—in terms of paragraph 17—to do.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have not taken part directly in these important debates around the OEP, mainly because of the fear of repetition. There are many noble Lords far wiser and more eloquent than me to discuss this. However, I share many of the concerns that we have heard around the funding and, as we are now discussing, the independence of the OEP. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take on board the serious concerns of many around the Committee, including myself. I hope that he and his officials will consult with noble Lords before coming back with the Bill on Report. If he does not, he may find himself in rather more difficulties than I would like. There are lingering doubts about this.
There have been some very wise words. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said that it was important for the OEP to be seen to be independent. The problem is that there is distrust on both sides. The Government’s position will be that they are distrustful, fearing that a strongly independent OEP will run riot and cause many problems—although we would probably argue that, if that is what is necessary, that is what will have to happen. Others think that the Government’s intentions are to make sure that that does not happen and so are curtailing the power of the OEP.
As I have often discovered since I arrived in this House, I take on board the very wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I say to the Government that it is just possible that having a strongly independent OEP could help, because the public will not necessarily believe a government Minister. If the OEP were not seen to be independent enough, when it made a decision that the public did not like and went against them, they would consider it a government stitch-up. However, if there were a strongly independent OEP, they would have to accept that it was an independent decision.
I hope that this can be resolved because this is a very important part of the Bill. If we are to have faith in how the legislation works, we need that strongly independent OEP.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I start by quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who said that the OEP was “adequate”. Remembering that word, I will quote Michael Gove, who said in July 2019, when he was Environment Secretary and the Bill started its oh-so-slow process—procession, we should say—through Parliament:
“The measures in our Environment Bill will position the UK as a world leader, ensuring that after EU Exit environmental ambition and accountability are placed more clearly than ever before at the heart of government.”
Is that a description of “adequate”? I think not.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for introducing this suite of amendments—including Amendments 94, 98 and 99 in my name—and the question on Clause 24 stand part, to which I have added my name.
Continuing the theme from the earlier grouping, all of these amendments focus on the need for the OEP to have guaranteed independence and not to be under the direction of the Secretary of State in how it carries out its enforcement policy. I was really disappointed in the Minister’s response to the earlier debate. It did not feel to me as though he had listened to the strength and weight of the arguments or, indeed, answered many of the points put to him. I hope that he will engage more in the arguments that have been put forward in the debate today, if not now then certainly before Report.
I am very grateful to everyone who has added to the chorus of concern about the wording of Clause 24, which is really what we are talking about today. Of course, this clause has history. It was added only as an afterthought to the Bill at the Commons Committee Stage; it is almost as if the Government got cold feet. We got a flavour of why that might be—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, quoted the Secretary of State on the Today programme last year when he said that the Government did not want “unaccountable regulators” who
“make it up as they go along”,
“change their remit” or “change their approach entirely”. So, a huge suspicion hangs over this body. As the noble Lord said, it is as if Clause 24 is a continuing manifestation of the Government’s reluctance to create the OEP in the first place.
This, of course, was before Dame Glenys and her team were appointed. I hope that the Government have relaxed a little since then but, given their obvious competence, why do we still need Clause 24? The Minister will claim that there are other precedents for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to public bodies, and it is true that there are examples where this is the case. However, it is not the case with, for example, the Committee on Climate Change; the Climate Change Act specifically says that the Secretary of State cannot
“direct the Committee as to the content of any advice or report”.
The critical issue with the OEP is that it has enforcement powers against public bodies, including government, who are potentially breaching the law, and with the power to take government to court. A better comparison would be with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which enforces breaches of the law on human rights and equality—and cannot be directed by Ministers.
We can swap different examples of precedents, but it is more important that we do the right thing for what is a new and relatively unique organisation. Of course, one reason that it has special status is that it is taking over powers of enforcement previously carried out by the European Commission, which certainly would not have tolerated direction from the Government and did a huge amount to maintain environmental standards across the EU. As noble Lords have said, we were promised during the lengthy debates on the EU withdrawal Bill that we would have a UK body with equivalent powers to the Commission. To allow Clause 24 to remain would be a serious breach of those promises. We believe that it represents a fundamental undermining of the independence of the OEP.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I welcomed the Minister’s letter, but unlike her, I did not find it quite so enlightening. In his letter of 10 June, the Minister said:
“Although the Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on its enforcement policy, they will need to exercise this power consistently with their duty to have regard to the need to protect the OEP’s independence.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, it seems that these two requirements represent a contradiction at the heart of the Bill. This was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. You cannot have it both ways: being able to give direction while respecting its independence. One might say it would be a lawyer’s dream to try to sort it out. My noble friend Lord Rooker said he would like to hear the legal argument about the meaning of “having regard to” the Minister’s guidance and sit in as a fly on the wall. How do you measure “have regard to”? As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, quite rightly said, what is the point of having guidance if not to exert influence?
We believe that it would send a strong signal to Parliament and stakeholders if the Government agreed to remove this clause. It is ultimately a matter of trust; it would demonstrate the Government’s confidence in the new leadership of the OEP, and I therefore hope the Minister will agree to reconsider this wording and remove this clause.
My Amendment 94 would have the effect of making the independence of the OEP an absolute requirement, rather than one that Ministers are merely required to have regard to. Amendments 98 and 99 would make any guidance from the Secretary of State discretionary. But to return to the main point: we do not believe the guidance should be there in the first place. The helpful Amendment 100 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, approaches the need for OEP independence in a separate but equally valid way, continuing to underline the main point at issue.
Finally, I welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Her Amendment 117 mirrors our concern to ensure OEP independence. It would remove the wide-ranging power for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to issue guidance to the OEP. Amendment 118 revisits the question that she has posed before about how and when the appointment of the dedicated Northern Ireland board member will be made. I hope the Minister can answer this point today. Quite rightly, her amendment requires it to be made with the consent of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is a similar point to our Amendment 85, which we debated in an earlier group.
I hope that the Minister has carefully listened to this debate. There are important principles in these amendments, and they will not go away, as noble Lords have stressed on a number of occasions. I hope that he will feel able to take these issues away and give some assurance that we will not be back repeating these debates on Report, as he can probably predict what the outcome of that would be.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I will begin by addressing the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
On Amendment 94, the Government are committed to ensuring the OEP’s operational independence. This is precisely why we have included in paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 the duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to protect the OEP’s independence. The actions of the Secretary of State in exercising functions in relation to the OEP will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way.
However, the OEP itself is not an elected body. It is the Secretary of State, as an elected representative of the Government, who is ultimately accountable to Parliament for the OEP’s use of public money. Ministerial accountability is one of the Government’s key principles of good corporate governance. Ensuring the OEP’s operational independence must therefore be balanced with allowing appropriate levels of scrutiny. The amendment suggested by the noble Baroness would prevent Defra, as the OEP’s parent department, exercising vital functions of public accountability, including carrying out accounting officer responsibilities.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their excellent contributions to this debate; it is the second major debate we have had today about the independence of the OEP. I emphasise again to the Minister the strength of feeling around the Committee, not just among the cross Cross-Benchers, in which I join my noble friends Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lady Boycott, but from all groups.
The Minister did a valiant job in trying to defend the position of leaving Clause 24 in the Bill and in rejecting the other amendments, but it felt rather less than convincing and I do not think that we have yet fully dealt with some of the key points that were raised by contributions. For example, my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead and my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich made important points. My noble and learned friend Lord Hope talked about the fundamental contradiction in the Bill and how the words are really important, and my noble friend Lord Anderson asked what the point of guidance is if not to influence. So I really do not think that we are out of the mire yet on this issue.
I will not go through all the contributions, because there were so many important points made in the excellent summing up by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. But I want to reflect on something that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, which was sort of, “Be careful what you wish for”—if you are a Minister and you want to have influence and control over a supposedly independent body, it may come back to bite you. I will give a personal anecdote. When I started to set up the Food Standards Agency, the then Secretary of State for Health said to me, “John, I am in a nightmare situation. I have no control over you, but I have to take responsibility for you in accounting to Parliament”, to which I said, “No, you have the dream scenario: if things go well, you take the credit; if things go badly, you blame me”. So it is not all downsides to give the OEP greater independence, although the Minister seemed to feel that it would be.
Without delaying your Lordships further, because the hour is late, I again thank all those who have contributed, and the Minister for his response. I am sure that we have not resolved this and that we will come back to the matter of OEP independence when we come to consider the Bill at the next stage. But, as in earlier debates, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, emphasised that we ought to be able to find a compromise. I hope that, between now and Report, we can have further conversations and find out whether there is a way of avoiding confrontation at a later stage. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 95. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 22: Principal objective of the OEP and exercise of its functions
Amendment 95
(b) how the OEP intends to co-operate with devolved environmental governance bodies.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the OEP’s strategy must set out how the OEP intends to co-operate with devolved environmental governance bodies (as defined in Clause 46 of the Bill).
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Amendment 95 creates a duty for the OEP to set out in its strategy how it intends to interact with devolved environmental governance bodies, as defined in the Bill. It will promote co-operation between the OEP and devolved environmental governance bodies, and respect the devolution settlements by imposing this duty on the OEP only. Government Amendment 95 complements other measures in this Bill that enable the OEP to share relevant information with equivalent bodies and require it to consult them on any matters relevant to their functions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has outlined the importance of consultation with devolved counterparts in previous debates, and I hope that this government amendment will therefore be welcomed by him, in particular. This is a crucial addition to these other measures, which together will ensure that the OEP and devolved bodies can co-ordinate their functions effectively for the benefit of our environment across the union.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 96 in my name has nothing to do with Amendment 95 but, for the convenience of the Whips’ Office, has been grouped with it.
In this legislation and many other policies, we aim to accomplish substantial changes in people’s behaviour. Particularly when it comes to keeping the heat down, we are faced with immediate disbenefits—things we are asking of people to make their lives worse or different. Therefore, we need to find a way of taking people with us, of explaining to and sharing decisions with them, to have their confidence and mean that they, with us, will take the decisions we need to take. The fundamentals of this are that we should be telling the truth, being transparent and trusting the public. Those are the virtues that I would like to see inculcated into the OEP.
The amendment asks that we gather research and information, because it is hard to find what you want if you are an ordinary member of the public or someone trying to put together an understanding that would allow them to critique government policy, to end up as an informed supporter or to offer helpful suggestions. Secondly, we should make it open, because far too much vital information is hidden behind paywalls. Thirdly, we should make it clear how the evidence supports government policies because, that way, people can see why they should be lining up behind the Government.
Absent that, we will get a lot of policies that sound nice but whose outcomes are suboptimal, and we will lose public support. Take an easy example: recycling. We all sort of want to do it but, when the council turns up outside my door, it smashes the glass into the paper. How is that recycled? Is it recycled or does it just go off to the incinerator? What is the truth? What is actually happening to justify all the effort that I have put in to separating one lot of rubbish from another? I cannot find the answer to that, but it ought to be easy.
Take another example: plant-based diets. We are told they save lives, alleviate hunger, reduce climate change, save water and minimise land use. That makes sense; there are obvious reasons to cut out the middle cow, go straight to the source of the energy and process it ourselves. That way, we ought to have much less impact on the planet. I have been indulging in an experiment, because my daughter went vegan at Christmas, and I record my thanks to Yotam Ottolenghi for making that a process that I have been able to endure.
However, you soon come to notice that milk from a cow is 90p a litre and milk from an oat is £1.80 a litre. If the plant-based diet arguments were right, it ought to be 45p a litre. Some of the difference may be down to rapacious Swedish capitalists outfoxing socially minded British supermarkets, but not that much. The problem is that we are not being offered information on the whole system costs; we are being offered information that cherry-picks things and leads us to make suboptimal decisions.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, in addressing the amendment put forward by my noble friend the Minister, the Committee has today listened to some skilful analysis of the devolution situation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I await his comments on this amendment with some interest.
I want to probe my noble friend the Minister a little more on one aspect of what he sees as the content of his amendment, which refers to
“how the OEP intends to co-operate with devolved environmental governance bodies.”
Like some of your Lordships, I sat in the House as we debated Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act in 1998. The argument ended up being not to reserve the environment to Westminster, but there was still the oversight of all the EU’s environmental legislation to fall back on. That is the situation we face at the moment.
The Government are working on the problems that this now presents. I understand that they have hopes of a legislative consent Motion for their ideas. We foresaw some of this when we debated the Trade Bill in January. The Government were prepared to admit that one route to achieving agreements was to have a number of framework agreements. How many frameworks do the Government expect to have in relation to the environment, and what mechanism are they using to reach agreement on any of them? Are they working on any of these? If so, what stage have they reached? I wonder whether my noble friend could give us some details either now or in writing.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I will make a couple of brief points in relation to Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. First, a system exists that I think would meet what the noble Lord is asking for: I refer, of course, to the guidelines developed by Lord May of Oxford when he was the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser. These guidelines have three core principles governing the use of evidence in policy-making, which is partly what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was talking about. They are: first, seek a wide range of expert opinion; secondly, recognise uncertainties in the evidence; and thirdly, openness and transparency in the use of evidence. These guidelines will be especially important for the OEP because many, if not most, of the environmental issues that it will deal with will be ones where the evidence is contested. People will have strongly held opposing views, or they will claim that the evidence is incomplete or that there is uncertainty.
The answer to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is for the OEP to follow the Government Chief Scientific Adviser’s guidelines. At the same time, the OEP may wish to follow the example of many other public bodies in conducting as much of its business as possible in public meetings so that the decision-making processes can be directly observed and the evidence, as it is being evaluated, can be studied by the public. Does the Minister agree that it would be valuable if the OEP operated under the guidelines set out by the Chief Scientific Adviser?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. As always, his contribution has made a useful addition to the debate and he has put down a useful specific question.
I rise to speak in favour of the ideas and aims behind the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, although I come at this from a somewhat different direction. The noble Lord suggested that this was the way the Government, or the OEP, could lead the public; I suggest that we look at it from the other way around. On many environmental issues, whether you look at the climate strikers or last year’s people’s assembly on the climate, the public have in fact been leading and pushing companies and the Government to act. It is very helpful to the public to have available the information and published material, but rather than thinking about this as us leading the public, let us see it in other terms: as more of a partnership.
This amendment also takes us back to some of our debates on the Agriculture Bill, when we talked about the lack of agricultural extension and of independent advice to farmers. Indeed, a group of farmers I talked to last week were bemoaning the lack of independent advice available to farmers. A great deal of the information that might be collected and put together by the office for environmental protection would also be of great use to farmers. I think here of what the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said on the last group of amendments about regulatory capture. We want this to be available.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, a lot of research is behind paywalls. We are lucky enough in your Lordships’ House to have the wonderful Library; we can ask it to get anything we want, but that is not available to the public. It is a great pity that far too much publicly funded research is still hidden behind paywalls. The research that guides the OEP should be publicly available.
Finally, I turn to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about oat milk. I remind him that the practical reality of our economy is that a great many externalised costs are not paid by the producers or sellers of a product and are therefore not reflected in the price tag. Many farmers are barely being paid, or not being paid, the production costs of their milk, reflecting the economic power of the supermarkets. I also point out that you can of course make your own oat milk, which would cut out the middle person, save you a great deal of money and cut out a great deal of packaging as well.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Minister invited me to welcome government amendment 95, which of course I do and I imagine that, if he were here, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would do the same. It is particularly encouraging, if I may say so, that this amendment comes from the Government. It has not been necessary for me or the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to struggle to get an amendment in these terms through the House. It is an example of a welcome and increasing recognition throughout government at Westminster that the devolved Administrations really do matter and need to be respected as equal partners in the various endeavours we are engaged in to maintain the integrity and standing of our country. That is particularly so in relation to the environment, where we are so dependent upon each other.
I am grateful to the Government for taking the initiative. This is a welcome amendment and it has my full support.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
I want to make a couple of points about information. Before I was into food, I was a journalist all my life, and I am very aware of how information gets into newspapers; probably 50% of the stories in the press at the moment come from PR companies. Meanwhile, a great many of our APPGs are sponsored by corporate interests that want to tell a particular story. About two years ago I was invited to sit on an obesity taskforce that was set up by an APPG. It was not until we were at the last meeting that we realised the whole thing had in fact been sponsored by Danone. A bunch of us took our names off the report at that point because you do not want to be associated with someone who is actually causing the problem.
I come back to what has been debated in the main today: the independence of the OEP and the type of information that it agrees to have. The issue of the oat milk tells the entire story. This is a company that wants to sell a lot and make a lot, so it tells a story. Whose information are we going to believe? It is incredibly important to remember that the situation with climate change is changing all the time, so all sorts of voices can get pre-eminence and the ones with a lot of money and deep pockets can buy their way into influence and buy and sponsor research. We all know the stories of what happened with the tobacco industry, and the same has been true of the fossil fuel industry. To have unbiased, genuine information from a setup like the OEP, which is genuinely independent, is vital because otherwise, we will always be prey to the types of commercial interests that got us into this problem in the first place.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I shall speak to government Amendment 95 and Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
We welcome Amendment 95, which will require the OEP to set out a clear strategy of co-operation between itself and the devolved governance bodies. The 2021 Scottish continuity Act established Environmental Standards Scotland to carry out oversight functions in Scotland broadly similar to those of the OEP. Furthermore, the Welsh Government have committed to establishing a commission for the environment, independent from the Welsh Government, which will oversee the implementation of environment law in Wales.
Devolution is one of the UK’s greatest strengths but it also presents some practical challenges, which is no doubt one of the reasons why noble Lords have tabled devolution-focused amendments throughout the Bill. Partnership and collective working in matters of common interest has to be the way forward. The Minister outlined the rationale behind Amendment 95 and spoke to some wider devolution considerations in his introduction, but what other steps does his department plan to take to ensure that we strike the right balance between respecting devolved competence and ensuring a joined-up approach to tackling the climate and ecological emergency?
Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, requests the inclusion of a truth and openness policy in the OEP’s overarching strategy, and the noble Lord used the words “taking people with us”. Several colleagues have referenced the need for evidence-based policy-making in other debates on the Bill, and this amendment offers an interesting approach to ensuring that high-quality data, research and information is available not only to decision-makers in Whitehall but also to the public. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, looked at this issue; he mentioned evidence in policy-making and considered a policy of the OEP using the guidelines established by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser.
We are all alive to the fact that addressing climate change is going to require changes and sacrifices in our lifestyles, but if we are to achieve the level of buy-in that we need, the public must be able to have confidence in the policy-making process and the decisions taken by Ministers. While this goes slightly beyond the scope of Amendment 96, I wonder if the Minister could confirm whether he has had any conversations with counterparts at DCMS regarding their efforts, through the Online Safety Bill and other initiatives, to target disinformation on climate change?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions.
Although I welcome the commitment to transparency of my noble friend Lord Lucas, Amendment 96 would effectively cause the OEP to become a data bank. This would weaken its ability to focus on its principal objective of contributing to environmental protection and to the improvement of the natural environment. The OEP cannot simply publish commercially held data, nor can it ignore the sensitivity and confidentiality of certain data which may inform policy-making and make it public. It will be subject to clear requirements set out in existing law, such as the Data Protection Act 2018, which govern access to and protection of information. I highlight that the Bill explicitly sets out that the OEP must have regard to the need to act transparently. However, there may be occasions when the OEP cannot be transparent and make information publicly available, such as during the investigation of a complaint.
The Government support making environmental data open and public where possible: for instance, through DATA.GOV.UK. Defra is also developing a new interactive dashboard to improve access to the open data used in the 25-year environment plan outcome indicator framework. Defra published an update on 11 June which I encourage any noble Lords interested in this area to view.
My noble friend questioned the discrepancy in cost between cows’ milk and oat milk. Although I cannot pretend to know the absolute details, I can remind him that the thesis of the Dasgupta review was reconciling our economy with nature, learning to value valuable things and adding costs to pollution, waste and plunder. That is not the case today, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made very clear in her speech earlier; unfortunately, the consumer often pays twice, over the counter and then through their taxes, or perhaps through a damaged environment. If products reflected the true costs of production, I suspect that the price system would be very different across most products today.
I was asked by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose to write to him about—I have to remind myself what I promised; I am now promising to write him about something and I cannot remember what it was. Yes, it was about the framework agreements that we have made with the devolved Administrations. I will take him up on that offer and I will write to him as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked whether I believed that the OEP should follow the guidelines and guidance of the chief scientific adviser. It is certainly the case that the two should be working very closely together. Whether that relationship should be formalised is a different issue—I suspect probably not. However, I would expect that relationship to be a close one.
Finally, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his kind comments about this amendment.
So I hope I have reassured the noble Lord and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I have had one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of the reasons why he cannot go down the road that I would like him to go down. I suspect that, after I have studied them, I will fully accept them. However, it seems to me that, one way or another, we have to find a way to empower ordinary people to make these decisions and not leave this as something which is happening to them—particularly if, at the end of the day, we will be asking them to pay more for things or to not have things that they have at the moment.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I simply say that I very strongly agree, and that will remain a focus of the Government.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 97. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 97
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(ba) how the OEP intends to determine whether the protected provisions of the REACH Regulation set out in Schedule 20 are being upheld,(bb) how the OEP intends to exercise its enforcement functions where a breach of obligation is found to have occurred under paragraph (ba),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the OEP’s strategy to consider (a) how it will ensure that protected provisions of the REACH Regulation (including the principle that animal testing should only be used as a last resort) are being upheld, and (b) how its enforcement functions may be applied in the case of breaches of protected provisions.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to propose Amendment 97, which—like Amendment 289, which I will also speak to—is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I also give our strong support to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Environmental groups, animal rights charities, health campaigners and the chemicals industry all remain concerned that the Government’s plans for UK REACH put the environment, human and animal health and business interests at risk. The CHEM Trust has specific concerns about whether the Government accept industry proposals for deregulating UK REACH, on which I understand a decision is imminent. Are the Government looking to amend the Environment Bill to allow this, and does the Minister agree that this would effectively make it harder to prevent the chemical pollution of our water, air and the wider environment?
I turn to our Amendment 97. Schedule 20 of the Bill protects the principle of animal testing “as a last resort” and the principle of the promotion of non-animal alternatives. Our Amendment 97 would require the OEP’s strategy to consider, first, how it will ensure that the protected provisions of the REACH regulation, including the principle that animal testing should be used only “as a last resort”, are being upheld—and, secondly, how its enforcement functions may be applied in the case of breaches of protected provisions.
EU REACH requires companies to share data and thus avoid unnecessary animal testing. Under it, animal testing is to be avoided in favour of alternative methods, and tests involving the use of animals can be carried out only “as a last resort”. However, a major challenge in making sure that animal testing has only been used as a last resort and that the promotion of alternatives is applied in EU REACH has been the failure of oversight and enforcement. The European Chemicals Agency, responsible for the EU chemicals testing legislation, has been judged in the past, by the independent EU ombudsman, to be lacking in appropriate action to ensure that the number of animal tests carried out is minimised. This judgment has been acknowledged, as was the agency’s duty to review and prohibit animal tests more effectively in the future. This amendment seeks to ensure that oversight and enforcement of these important principles are included in the remit of the OEP, thus strengthening UK REACH by applying the lessons learned from EU REACH.
However, EU REACH has also minimised animal tests through data sharing and other measures—something that was heavily promoted by the British delegation when REACH was initially created. According to Home Office figures, in 2019, 3.4 million procedures involving living animals were carried out in Great Britain—all, by statutory definition, with the potential to cause
“pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm”.
Importantly, the 2019 figures show a decrease of 3% on the previous year, which is also the lowest number since 2007. So we must not jeopardise this progress.
Many people are deeply concerned about the use of animals in experiments, with 74% of the public agreeing that more needs to be done to find alternatives. Therefore, the regulation of animal research and testing is a significant issue for the UK. The Government must ensure that the public can have confidence that legislation governing the use of animals in science is applied rigorously.
I have talked previously in your Lordships’ House about my concerns that, under UK REACH, the HSE’s lack of access to the full chemical safety data currently held by EU REACH could lead to duplicate animal testing. The Chemical Business Association has said that British businesses do not normally own the testing data required for registrations under UK REACH; it is held by a consortium of European countries. To reuse the data, companies may need to obtain permission from the consortium and would likely have to pay for the extension of rights. If this cannot be obtained, tests may have to be redone to establish safety information, which could involve repeat animal testing.
In the case of new animal tests, a testing proposal must first be submitted and approved, but we have yet to discover what stance the UK authorities, led by the HSE, will take in interpreting the principle of using animal testing only as a last resort. Now that we have left the EU, it is important that domestic accountability is strengthened. We should be seeking to ensure that our standards are the best in the world, while working to influence the EU and other trading partners to raise animal welfare standards.
Amendment 289 would establish a mechanism for reviewing the performance of the HSE in relation to its expanded responsibilities under UK REACH. We have tabled this amendment because the Government have so far failed to demonstrate that the HSE, as the chemical regulator in the UK, will be equipped with the necessary skills and capabilities that at least match what has been provided by the European Chemicals Agency. It is worth reminding your Lordships’ House that the UK chemicals industry has a turnover of £32 billion and represents a workforce of 102,000, so it is imperative that this highly skilled industry is protected. In creating the new UK REACH, the Government have shown insufficient understanding of how chemicals are managed in complex supply chains, with analysis of neither the cost of setting up the new regime nor the additional cost to business. As currently set up, we will worryingly not have the same level of protection from harmful chemicals that we currently enjoy.
Can the Minister set out how the new system will be staffed and resourced to ensure current levels of protection continue, and how that system will be reviewed on its performance and capabilities? Assuming that it will be reviewed, how often will this take place? Who will carry out the review, what will it cover and what action will be taken to remedy any failings or concerns? We need a regulatory system that provides the same levels of protection for human health and the environment that we enjoyed under EU REACH, otherwise critical decisions on chemicals will be made by a body with little experience and with layers of accountability and scientific expertise stripped away.
In a previous debate on this issue, the Minister said he agreed with me that the Health and Safety Executive’s ability to take on the task of the agency is essential to the success of UK REACH, so does he also agree that there needs to be a mechanism to review the agency’s performance to ensure that it is taking on the task to the required standard in order to have confidence that its responsibilities are being properly discharged? There must not be any repeat animal tests, so what guarantees can the Minister give—he is a strong supporter of animal welfare—and how confident is he that this can be ensured and will not just be an undeliverable promise?
The last time I raised this issue with the Minister, he recognised that there are concerns about the duplication of animal testing and, as reassurance, he gave the fact that the last resort principle is enshrined in the Bill as a protective provision. I do not believe that it is a cast-iron guarantee against unnecessary duplicate testing, but if he genuinely believes that the Bill is strong enough and that UK REACH will be capable of working effectively in this area, can he explain exactly how these protective provisions will be upheld and what will happen if any breaches of these provisions are found to have taken place? I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I support Amendments 97 and 289, to which she spoke so comprehensively. I shall speak also to Amendments 277, 281, 282, 294, 295, 296 and 297 in my name.
These amendments are all about REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. REACH was introduced in the EU in 2006 and was not carried over into UK law at the point of Brexit, as were a large number of other EU laws. By mid-2019, some 24,660 animal tests had been performed for EU REACH purposes, equating to an estimated 6 million animals. While it has in the past been necessary to test chemicals on animals, it is not necessary to repeatedly duplicate tests for the same or very similar chemicals over and again. Testing should be kept to an absolute minimum, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, have indicated that they do not wish to speak on this group of amendments. I therefore call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is an interesting group. I will stick to talking about Amendment 281 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Nowadays, there is widespread recognition that animal testing is wrong and should be avoided. The expansion and development of human society has had huge impacts on all sorts of other species. Disruption to their lifestyles has been accidental and deliberate, and has resulted in suffering, death, and even extinction. Millions of animals are still abused every year in experiments that cause great pain and suffering. This is despite significant differences between the physiology of animals and humans, which can mean these experiments are ineffective or even pointless. I am sure that noble Lords know that biomedical researchers have often excluded women from clinical trials, even for drugs only for women, so how much worse to try to model on animals. A lot of non-animal technologies can be used instead, as can human tissue.
We must also not forget the harmful use of animals in education, where millions more animals are killed specifically for dissection and other educational experiments. Just as we would never think of killing a human so that trainee doctors can learn about anatomy, we should not be killing animals for people to learn. Again, technology can replace much of the need for using real animal specimens in education, but where dead animals are necessary, they can be sourced from animals that have died naturally or have been euthanised for humane reasons.
This is all about shining a light on our exploitation of other species and choosing a different course for our future. Hopefully, we are advanced enough to move beyond these barbaric practices and move positively forwards as stewards of the natural world.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Guess what—I am going to argue the opposite.
Dame Sarah Gilbert received a well-deserved standing ovation at Wimbledon today for her pioneering work on vaccines. I echo those cheers and that standing ovation, but I note that that achievement required experimentation on monkeys and mice. I oppose these amendments—a whole range from Amendments 97 to 297 and in between —because, in one way or another, they seek to make animal testing ever more regulated. There is even an inference, by positing it in an animal welfare context and with this emphasis on the last resort, that this vital part of scientific research is somehow a necessary evil that should be abolished and is morally dubious.
The UK system of regulating animal testing and experiments is already the tightest in the world, and researchers complain that they can obtain licences only if they clearly demonstrate that there are no alternatives. Some have to wait so long to secure approval for small amendments to research licences that the research becomes outdated and has to be abandoned. The whole field is too heavily bureaucratised; certainly, no more bureaucracy is needed. I am worried already about the Bill, without it being tightened up by these amendments.
I have long felt queasy about the “reduce” and “replace” elements of the three Rs. Endless attempts at placing restrictions on the types or numbers of animals used in experiments can, I fear, only stifle medical and human safety progress, with their positive benefits for humanity. For the record, and I know this is medical research but I want to remind people of the kind of benefits we mean, the use of dogs to extract insulin to treat diabetes, the experiments on armadillos that helped develop a cure for leprosy, and the wonder drug levodopa used on people with Parkinson’s—if you know anyone who has had that disease and taken that drug, you will know what a wonderful gain it is—would not have been developed without the insights gained from research involving animals. Think of a world without pacemakers, heart transplants, open-heart surgery, safe anaesthetics, polio vaccines and cancer treatments that mean survival rates have doubled over the last 40 years. So many people alive today—in fact, so many in this Chamber—are here only because of the role of animal research in the battle against nature and natural diseases. That is even before we talk about Covid vaccines.
Reducing the use of animals in testing or medical science would be a backwards step. The truth is that, if we are to fully understand and find more treatments for Covid-19, we will need to do more animal research, not less—not reduce the number of animals, but use multiple species. There will be lots of failed experiments, which some will say is a waste, but that is what will eventually mean that we find answers and cures. As outlined in Nature magazine recently:
“Monkeys and mice tell researchers different things about infection, shedding light on factors such as … the immune system or how the virus spreads.”
Whatever the testing is for, we have to say that this is one result of human ingenuity, of life-saving problem-solvers, and it should be celebrated and encouraged.
Instead, there is a faintly misanthropic whiff to this constant demand to reduce animal research, as well as a focus on animal welfare rather than human welfare. We all know how animal rights activists have adopted anthropomorphic language to discredit animal research: mice are “tortured”, pigs are “sacrificed” and dogs are “mutilated”—we have heard about “barbarity” today. This leads to a narrative of scientists portrayed as though they get perverse pleasure from sadistically experimenting on animals.
I am not trying to sugar-coat vivisection or this kind of testing. I know that it involves gore and, ultimately, destroying animals. But this is not wanton animal cruelty; it is driven by a desire to save human life and have a safer society. That is why I have so objected over the years to the way that these scientists and researchers, and the research institutions and the chemical and pharmaceutical companies, whether private or public, have been vilified and harassed—named and shamed in a culture of fear. These scientists and researchers should have nothing to be ashamed of; indeed, I want not only to reject these amendments but to go on the offensive about the moral good of research on animals. If Sarah Gilbert deserves a standing ovation, so do they. I rather feel as if these amendments are a bit of a dispiriting slow handclap.
Let us not get muddled up here. We should not allow rhetoric about animal welfare to stand in the way of human welfare and the alleviation of human suffering or making the world safer. Some may think this human-centric and unsympathetic to animals but, rather, I am rather worried about affording a moral equivalence between animals and humans. I refute the caricature that this equates to indifference to animals.
As it pays attention to wildlife and with its focus on biodiversity, the Bill inevitably also has a focus on animal protection policies. That means our gaze is on animals, but we must resist seeing issues through an animal rights framework that upgrades and exaggerates the capacity of animals, while logically and philosophically down- grading and diminishing the agency and consciousness of humans—capacities that animals do not possess. This careless interchangeability between human and animal rights and capacities has been raised as a problem in relation to the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill by a number of noble Lords.
I hope that the Minister and the Government will reject these amendments and, without rehearsing Cartesian dualism, note that it is precisely human consciousness that allows us to legislate for how we should better organise our relationship with the natural world. It also allows us so much progress and scientific innovation, so necessary to much in the Bill and vital to post-Covid prosperity and health.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I listened to that speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, with great interest. It was a Second Reading speech for the animal sentience Bill, but I do not know that it argues against any of these amendments, which are just about avoiding the use of animal testing except as a last resort. I do not see that contribution as entirely relevant to the Bill, but I am sure it will be repeated in that other Second Reading later in the year.
I take a particular interest in UK REACH because, when I had the privilege of chairing the EU Environment Sub-Committee, we did a number of reports on REACH. Of course, it is not UK REACH at all; it is called that, but it is actually “GB REACH” because Northern Ireland is still part of the single market. UK REACH does not apply to the Province.
With that clarification, I welcome the speeches of all the noble Baronesses and was very pleased to add my name to the first amendment. However, I want to come to something a little deeper and test the Minister on it. We can talk about animal testing being a last resort but also change the bar of where that last resort is. That is probably far more important than this amendment, although I support it absolutely. Duplication of this testing is necessary because of the existence of UK REACH. Given the hard Brexit that we had and the decision to come out of the single market, we had no alternative. Even if we had wanted it, the EU Commission and Mr Barnier would not have liked or allowed it. However, that will cost British business—this is undisputed by the Government—£10 billion, or something like that.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, this debate was always going to raise great passions and I understand the different views on each side of the debate. I thank noble Lords for their contributions, and reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that the Government agree that the operation of UK REACH should be transparent and accountable.
This is why under Clause 29(3) the OEP may give advice to a Minister on any proposed changes to environmental law, including any relevant amendments to the REACH regulation. This advice would be published and the OEP could comment if it thought the Government were seeking to inappropriately amend a protected provision. The Bill protects key provisions relating to the fundamental principles of REACH. I urge noble Lords to look at the very long list in Schedule 20 on page 250 of the Bill. I am sure they have done; this is explicitly outlined.
The Government will not change what REACH sets out to achieve, including a high level of protection of human health and the environment, which is set out in Article 1. Any breach of these provisions’ protected status could be subject to legal challenge, including by the OEP. In addition, any proposed amendment to the REACH regulation must be consulted on, ensuring transparency in the process. Therefore, the Government do not consider this amendment to be necessary.
I turn to Amendment 289, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I hope it reassures the noble Baroness to know that the aims of this amendment are already achieved in Article 117 of REACH, which sets up a rolling programme of reports. Although it is not a protected provision, it is part of UK REACH and it requires reports from the Health and Safety Executive and the Secretary of State in the operation of REACH every five years, starting in 2022 and 2023 respectively. The Health and Safety Executive must publish a report on the operation of UK REACH by April 2022. The Secretary of State must then publish a general report by April 2023. These duties then recur every five years. The Secretary of State’s report must cover the Health and Safety Executive, as the UK agency, and progress towards the development of alternative test methods, including funding provided for that purpose.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about the duplication of testing—as indeed did a number of noble Lords. The Government are very keen to avoid the need for duplication or repeats of animal tests carried out for the purposes of EU REACH. That is why we will recognise the validity of data generated by any animal testing already done. Industry and the Health and Safety Executive must follow the “last resort” principle, so any proposal to carry out an animal test must be given rigorous scrutiny before it goes ahead. Before developing a new alternative for testing for a particular hazard, it is necessary to see whether one is even feasible. An alternative then needs to be developed and scientifically validated. This is done through the OECD to encourage the widest adoption.
On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the Government share her aim of avoiding unnecessary animal testing, which is why we have enshrined the “last resort” principle as a protected provision in Schedule 20 to the Bill.
On Amendments 277 and 282 specifically, the concept of “read across” from one chemical to a similar one is already encouraged and widely practised in REACH, but it needs to be considered in each case whether it is appropriate and not applied in a blanket manner. For example, reading across from a less to a more dangerous chemical could result in risks to human health or the environment going unidentified. The Bill ensures that amendments to UK REACH are carefully considered through consultation, drawing on the scientific expertise in the Health and Safety Executive and acting with the consent of the devolved Administrations on devolved matters. The Government believe that we should follow those good practices right from the beginning.
On Amendment 281, the powers in Schedule 20 to the Bill to amend UK REACH would enable such targets to be built if that was felt to be appropriate. Any amendments would have to be consulted on and consistent with the aims and principles of UK REACH, as set out in Article 1. The Government consider that this would be the better route if we concluded that targets were desirable.
There is also an important practical issue. There is an accepted scientific process for developing new test methods. Before developing a new alternative for testing of a particular hazard, as I said, it is necessary to see whether one is even feasible. The alternative then needs to be developed and scientifically validated. This process is done through the OECD to encourage the widest adoption.
On Amendment 296, the Government agree that the HSE, as the UK REACH agency, must operate in a transparent manner, including on matters connected to animal welfare. That is why the general duty in Article 109 to adopt rules about transparency has been included among the protected provisions listed in this schedule. But the Government do not believe it would be appropriate to use the protected provisions to freeze the detailed processes that REACH lays down, such as the publication and consultation arrangements contained in Article 40(2).
Similarly, on Amendment 294, Article 13 already contains the powers we need to amend the REACH annexes to replace animal tests with alternatives where appropriate, and the Government do not think it would be sensible to freeze those processes by fixing them in primary legislation.
On Amendment 295, the Government agree with the aim that companies should share data on chemicals to avoid duplicate animal testing and to reduce costs. However, the articles affected by this amendment contain prescriptive detail, such as the speed at which companies should pass information to each other. Again, the Government believe we should continue to be flexible and not remove that possibility by including them as protected provisions.
Finally, regarding Amendment 297, while it may be appropriate to amend the REACH annexes in the future to follow evolving scientific consensus on animal testing, the power to amend them is already contained within REACH itself. It is therefore unnecessary to add an overlapping power in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked me about the resource adequacy of the HSE. It has 130 extra staff and the Environment Agency has had considerable increases in its resources. Defra continues to add resources to both. Probably one demonstration that that resource is adequate is that 9,000 grandfathered registrations have already been notified on to the UK system and 5,000 chemical substances are on it so far. The next deadline is 300 days, which is 28 October, when chemicals not manufactured in Great Britain would come on to the system. I think the consensus is that progress has been even better than we expected.
On enforcement and oversight, UK members of the European Chemicals Agency’s committees frequently pressed the agency to be more rigorous in avoiding the use of animal tests, and we shall work with the Health and Safety Executive to ensure good enforcement of that principle within UK REACH. I add that the use of cell cultures has grown hugely in the past few years and taken over some of the primary testing of animals. Most animal testing is now restricted to medical research and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, stated, it is a strongly regulated market; you no longer see beagles forced to smoke cigarettes. Also, the cost of keeping animals, fortunately, makes keeping them for testing almost prohibitive, in many circumstances.
It always makes me anxious coming to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, because I know what a specialist he is in this field and have read a number of his contributions to SI debates in the past. On his first point, although EU REACH still applies to Northern Ireland, and he is absolutely right that the domestic REACH system regulates the Great Britain market, it also contains some provisions that apply to Northern Ireland businesses to facilitate their access to Great Britain.
On chemicals and the EU trade and co-operation agreement, the Government welcome the friendly co-operation the EU and UK have had on chemicals regulation, which the chemicals annexe will support. The UK’s proposal for a chemicals annexe included an arrangement to share REACH registration data. We worked closely with industry in the UK and EU in developing this proposal but, unfortunately, it was not possible to reach agreement in this area. As the noble Lord will understand, the EU was not prepared to discuss the UK’s data-sharing ask.
UK REACH will retain the fundamental approach and key principles of EU REACH, and the Government are keeping the transition as simple as possible. We have extended the deadlines for businesses to provide all the registration data needed to comply with UK REACH. In trying to minimise the costs and burdens on chemicals businesses, we have developed these grace-period provisions, grandfathering and downstream user import notifications to minimise disruption to businesses and supply chains. We will keep all these timeframes under review. On the TCA, we asked to share information between companies, but this was not included, as the noble Lord will know. On that basis, I ask noble Lords to withdraw or not move their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for that excellent reply and information but, as we are in Committee, I would like to press the Government on their current view of divergence in regulation, because it has a huge effect on this industry. I also want to take this time to correct myself, in that the cost to the industry is £1 billion and not £10 billion—so we have already saved £9 billion this evening.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I think the current estimate of costs is actually significantly less than £1 billion. I have come to the exhaustive end of my notes on that specific question so, if the noble Lord does not mind, I will write to him.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken the trouble to take part in this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for their support for our amendment and stress again our support for theirs. This is an important issue and it is good that we have been able to work together on it. I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, mentioned the importance of non-animal technologies and those that are in development; we need to push further on this issue.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was in many ways not particularly relevant to the amendments, but I want to say a few things about it. I do not understand why it is wrong to have strict regulation of animal testing and I cannot believe that anybody would support unnecessary duplicate testing, whatever their position on the issue; I agree with her that we do not need unnecessary bureaucracy. The amendment talks about enforcement if protected provisions are seen to have been breached. Why would you want to vote against that? Why is it not right that breaches of protected provisions should be enforced?
It is not a binary decision to be for animal welfare or for human welfare. I am for both, and I hope that everybody would be for both. Let us not get into an argument that you cannot have animal welfare if you are going to have human health; that is just a nonsense.
I thank the Minister for her very thorough response on what is quite a complicated issue. I also feel for her in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, as he has so much knowledge in this area. However, there are still some questions to be answered and I would like time to consider her quite detailed reassurances on this matter. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 103. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 29: Advising on changes to environmental law etc
Amendment 103
Baroness Parminter
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure the OEP can offer advice to Ministers on matters they consider relevant to their remit.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I shall try to be brief but I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 103 and 104, which relate to the Bill’s definition of “environmental law”. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Teverson.
Amendment 103 is about the matters on which the OEP can give advice to the Government, unasked. It is clear in the Bill that the Secretary of State can ask the OEP for advice about
“any proposed change to environmental law, or … any other matter relating to the natural environment”
but, conversely, the OEP can give advice only on
“any changes to environmental law”
and does not have the additional option to provide advice unasked on other matters relating to the natural environment.
This is important because of the definition of “environmental law” in the Bill. Indeed, it is important to look at what the Explanatory Notes say about what constitutes environmental law in Clause 45, because they seem to exclude some issues that I think most noble Lords would wish the OEP to be able to advise the Secretary of State on, unasked. Paragraph 381 of the Explanatory Notes—I think it is 381; I am getting to the stage where I need glasses at this time of the evening—on the definition of “environmental law”, states:
“Another example is planning legislation. Whilst provisions concerning environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment are clearly concerned with environmental protection as set out in clause 42 … most other areas of planning legislation are not mainly concerned with environmental protection, and therefore will not fall within the definition.”
So, according to the Explanatory Notes, environmental law does not include the majority of planning legislation. That is really significant because we are expecting shortly what will no doubt be a very controversial new Bill on planning. According to the Explanatory Notes, the OEP can give advice only on environmental law, and planning is excluded from the definition of “environmental law”.
Equally—I have raised this in past sessions with the Minister, for which I am grateful—the Climate Change Committee can give advice on planning matters freely and without being asked, as it did so well in the case of the impact of the Cumbrian coal mine in driving a coach and horses through our net-zero targets. Again, as I read it, the definition in the Explanatory Notes seems to suggest that the OEP could not give such advice unasked. However, the Minister confirmed to me in those meetings, through his civil servants, that I am wrong in making that presumption. I have therefore tabled this amendment to give him the chance to put on the record tonight—I would like this to be said specifically—that the OEP can give advice, unasked for, on environmental law matters, including planning provisions and major planning applications. This needs to go on the record because, if it does not, there is a worrying lacuna and the only way to get around it is to accept my amendment, which basically would give the OEP the right to advise the Secretary of State on
“environmental law, or … any other matter relating to the natural environment”—
a replica of the Secretary of State’s position in terms of asking the OEP for advice.
My second, slightly shorter, amendment also concerns the definition of “environmental law”, which is absolutely key in governing the OEP’s functions. This matters in the context of Amendment 114, which would remove some broad carve-outs for disclosing information—including the old chestnuts of defence and spending.
I have three issues with the definition of environmental law, which my Amendment 114 seeks to address. The current definition removes legislative provisions dealing with funding and resource allocation from the OEP. That means that the OEP cannot offer advice to the Government on these matters. We know that, in the past, there have been significant concerns over environmental health indicators flatlining due to funding. Indeed, in December last year, the issue was exposed in relation to funding cuts to the EA of 80%. But, as it stands, this definition removes those provisions of information about funding and resource allocation from the ambit of the OEP.
Secondly, again, the Armed Forces are outwith the ambit of the OEP and, as I made clear in the debate on Amendment 78, this is a worrying gap. It is not just about the enforcement of the law; we know that the CCC was able to offer advice to the Armed Forces on meeting climate goals and, again, the OEP would be unable to do this under the current definition in the Bill of environmental law.
Thirdly, the way the clause is drafted suggests that the OEP goes beyond matters overlapping with the Information Commissioner’s Office, which oversees and enforces public authorities’ compliance with the Environmental Information Regulations. It seems to me that that clause excludes from the remit of the OEP important obligations such as the disclosure duties of keeping registers and record keeping to uphold environmental law. An example of such an obligation is those under the Control of Pesticides Regulations, whereby users have to keep records of pesticides they use for five years and make them available to relevant authorities upon request.
In summing up, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether obligations such as those would, under this clause’s definition, fall outwith the OEP’s scope. If there are genuine concerns about the overlap between the OEP and the ICO, why is there not a memorandum of understanding in the same way as has been proposed for the OEP and the CCC? That would seem to be a reasonable response, whereas what we have here is almost a sort of belt-and-braces approach, which goes beyond what is appropriate. So I hope that, in responding, the Minister will clarify the matters I raise in regard to Amendment 103 and ensuring that planning can be something on which free advice can be given, and that on Amendment 114 he will give some clarity about why the definition is as it is.