House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
I want people to be able to get the care they need when they need it and to have the choices they want. I want people to live their life in full and to live independently as part of a community for as long as possible without facing an astronomical care bill. We are committed to social care reform, and we will bring forward proposals this year.
Mr Sharma [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for responding to my initial question. Eleven years into this Tory Government, 10 years on from Dilnot and almost 700 days since the Prime Minister promised
“to fix social care, once and for all”,
looking at it and studying the options is not enough for the four out of five people who say, “We need a solution now.” Is this just another of the Prime Minister’s promises that will not quite materialise?
Sajid Javid
We have already seen substantial increases in adult social care funding, but the Government have said that we want a long-term, sustainable solution, so we will bring forward proposals on that. The hon. Gentleman will know that later today we are debating the Health and Care Bill, which is also about structural reform, so I look forward to seeing him in the Aye Lobby.
Mr Harper
May I just say to the Chancellor—the Secretary of State, rather—that when he brings forward the proposals, will he make sure that he addresses social care for working-age adults, which actually accounts for more than half of public spending? The debate is always focused on older people, and people of working age often get forgotten. The reason for my slip just now is that he will be aware, as a former Chancellor, that the tax burden was at a 50-year high before covid. When he brings forward the proposals, can we not just default to putting up taxes, however they are disguised, but look at overall Government spending, set some priorities and make some choices about what we think is important? Social care is important, but we need to make those choices about overall Government spending.
Sajid Javid
First, my right hon. Friend is right to bring to the House’s attention the way that the Government are also working on social care for working-age people. He is also right to point out—I was thinking about this the other day—that around 55% of total adult social care spending is for working-age adults, and it is important that we continue to provide that support. He will be pleased to know that I am working with the current Chancellor and other Cabinet colleagues on bringing forward a more sustainable long-term plan, and I hope he will support it when it comes forward.
Martin Vickers [V]
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said so far and the moves he is making to deal with the social care issue. One thing that elderly people particularly are worried about when they are in care or in hospital are the recent reports of “Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” orders. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that they will only be put in place with the authority of the patient or their next of kin? Is he making inquiries into recent reports of their widespread use?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the Department commissioned the Care Quality Commission to review the DNACPR decisions that were being made during the first wave of the pandemic. That review was published in March, and the Department then established a new ministerial oversight group that will be responsible for delivery and the required changes that were recommended in the review. We want to ensure adherence to the guidance throughout the system whenever DNACPR orders are used. The first meeting of this new group will take place on 8 June.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. I wondered whether he might be able to clarify something for me. Five days ago, he told the Local Government Association conference that for social care reform,
“we may not be able to announce the whole plan…with all the details there”,
but that he hoped to
“set out…the general sense of direction”.
The general sense of direction! It is two years since the Prime Minister made a clear promise to fix the crisis in social care “once and for all”. Since then, more than 40,000 care home residents have died from covid-19 and 2 million elderly and disabled people have applied for care but had their request turned down. Millions more families and staff have been pushed to breaking point, so may I ask the Secretary of State: what is the plan? When will we see the plan? Will it provide the full details that he and the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) have promised, or does keeping your word mean nothing to anyone in government anymore?
Sajid Javid
I think the hon. Lady may well have misunderstood what I said at the conference; I am not sure she listened to the whole session. It is worth repeating that the Government are absolutely committed to coming forward with a sustainable plan for adult social care and to bringing forward that plan to make sure that every person when they reach old age in our country can have the dignity they deserve. We will bring forward full proposals—a full plan—this year.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
Since the start of the pandemic, we have acted swiftly to reduce the spread of the virus and to keep the public safe. As our vaccine programme progresses, links between cases and hospitalisations weaken, and that means that we are confident we can move forward with step 4, as I set out in the House yesterday.
Steven Bonnar
I thank the Health Secretary for that answer. After the planned changes next week, the Health Secretary is predicting that covid cases will reach 100,000 a day. Research is suggesting that that could result in 3,000 hospital admissions and again put our health services under pressure. What is his response to Dr Mike Ryan of the World Health Organisation, who described the proposals to remove all covid measures and simply let people get infected as “epidemiological stupidity”?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman talks, understandably, about pressure on the NHS, and he will know that the restrictions we have necessarily had in place during the course of this pandemic so far have also led to considerable pressure on the NHS, especially when it comes to non-covid health problems. He may be aware, perhaps for his own constituents, that mental health problems are up, there are many undiagnosed cancer cases, domestic violence is up and child abuse is up. I hope he will agree with me that one of the things we can look forward to as we gradually start removing restrictions is helping people with their many non-covid health problems too.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I also welcome the Secretary of State to his new role. I hope he will soon see that the Department performs best when it follows the scientific advice. This morning, Professor Graham Medley, the chief modeller for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, said of mask wearing that
“if it’s not mandated it probably won’t do any good.”
That advice would explain why, last year, the Government moved from just guidance on mask wearing in May 2020 to making it compulsory on public transport in June and in shops in July. So if the advice is clear and the Government took that advice last year, why on earth are they moving away from it now?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government’s decisions are rightly informed by the best possible scientific advice there is and, as well as that, looking at the data and then taking all of that into account when reaching decisions. The hon. Gentleman asks about masks, and I have answered that question a number of times at the Dispatch Box. I am very happy to repeat that we are moving away from a system of regulation to guidance, but in that guidance, which was published yesterday, we have made it very clear that in certain situations masks will still make sense, and we believe that people will use their common sense and follow that guidance.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
In our manifesto, we committed to building 40 new hospitals by 2030 and to upgrading another 20 hospitals. We are delivering on this commitment, and we now have plans to build 48 new hospitals this decade. We are also delivering improvements across the country to hospital maintenance, eradicating mental health dormitories and improving A&E capacity. Finally, the Department has received a £9.4 billion capital settlement for 2021-22, including the first year of a £5.4 billion multi-year commitment until 2024-25 for new hospitals and hospital upgrades, and £4.2 billion for NHS trusts’ operational capital.
Robbie Moore
Some 83% of the Airedale hospital in my constituency is built from aerated concrete, with the building containing 50,000 aerated concrete panels in its construction, which is five times more than any other hospital in the UK. This building material is known for its structural deficiencies, so can my hon. Friend assure me that when his Department considers new infrastructure projects, schemes with the highest risk profile, such as the Airedale hospital, will be an absolute priority?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner in this House on behalf of his local hospital at Airedale, going the extra mile, I gather from the Keighley News, by committing to run 100k in 10 weeks to raise funds for, among other things, the Friends of Airedale Hospital—I hope, if he has not finished that yet, it is going well.
To my hon. Friend’s substantive point, he raises an important issue. Airedale has been allocated capital investment in the millions for the 2021-22 financial year from a funding budget that is ring-fenced for RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—plank remediation, but I can reassure him that, as we look to set the criteria for the next eight hospitals, safety considerations are highly likely to be one of the key considerations.
Philip Dunne [V]
The Minister will be aware that, in March 2018, Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust was allocated over £300 million to undertake a radical transformation of its acute hospitals at Shrewsbury and Telford. Since then, the trust’s management have been engaged in finalising the strategic business case, but as a consequence of changes to the Green Book and clinical standards the cost will have increased. Will the Minister commit to meet with Shropshire and Telford MPs once the business case is complete to help to ensure that the project can still be delivered?
Edward Argar
NHS E&I and the Department of Health and Social Care wrote to the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust on 19 November last year confirming we remain committed to supporting the scheme. This letter confirmed the allocation remains at £312 million at this time, and of course my right hon. Friend will recall that I committed to approving the request in principle for £6 million of early funding to continue to develop the scheme. It is an important scheme, we want to see it proceed and I am very happy to meet him and fellow Shropshire colleagues.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
In my role as chair of the all-party group for axial spondyloarthritis I have heard from many about the importance of hydrotherapy pools in supporting those living with the condition, but there has been a concern that the reopening of these pools following the pandemic has been jeopardised by space within hospitals being allocated to other functions and a general low level of prioritisation. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we have robust plans in place to reopen as many hydrotherapy pools as possible, and will he consider meeting me to discuss this matter in further detail?
Edward Argar
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the all-party group for their work. He raises an important point: the challenges posed by infection control and the impact of the pandemic on the operation of hospitals. That has had an impact in this space, but I entirely recognise the value and importance of hydrotherapy as a treatment for particular conditions and I will be delighted to meet him.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Of course the number of general and acute beds open across the estate impacts on a trust’s ability to get on top of the elective backlog, which now stands at 5.3 million—a record high—with 336,000 waiting over a year and 7,000 waiting over two years for treatment. On appointment, the Secretary of State promised trusts that they would get everything they need to get through the backlog. So how much will trusts get and when will they get it?
Edward Argar
It is an important question. The Secretary of State has made it clear that tackling the elective backlog is one of his key priorities in his new role. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have already committed £1 billion to helping to tackle the elective backlog. That, of course, comes on top of the record funding of £33.9 billion to ’23-24 for our NHS, but that commitment remains. We will do whatever is necessary to ensure that our NHS can tackle the elective backlog and get those waiting lists down.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but if it is a priority of the new Secretary of State why on Friday were trusts told that the threshold for accessing that elective recovery funding was increasing, effectively making it harder for a trust to access funding at just the time when hospital admissions for covid are increasing and we have trusts, such as in Leeds and Birmingham, cancelling cancer surgery? Surely we should be giving trusts more resources now, not restricting access to the elective recovery fund.
Edward Argar
In terms of the elective recovery fund, we have worked with the NHS to determine the right thresholds and the right premiums for payment for elective activity over and above what we would be expecting in the circumstances. The NHS is doing an amazing job in difficult circumstances, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, with the impact that infection prevention control restrictions have had on the ability of trusts to see the number of people that they normally would. Trusts are taking huge strides to restore services and the ERF is there to help to ensure that they are funded for that activity level so that they can get provision up and above where it needs to be in order to get the waiting lists down.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
We have been clear that the NHS, the price it pays for medicines and the services it provides are off the table in our trade negotiations. No trade agreement has ever affected our ability to keep public services public, nor forced us to pay for more medicines. My Department works closely with the Department for International Trade to ensure that this is reflected in the negotiations of new trade deals.
Ian Lavery [V]
Last week we proudly celebrated the wonderful creation of the NHS—the most cherished of all national institutions—yet grave fears remain about its ultimate privatisation under this Government. If the Government are determined to sign up to the provisions in the trans-Pacific partnership for investor-state dispute settlement, can the Minister at least do one thing today to limit that damage? Will he guarantee that the NHS will be totally exempt from the scope of those ISDS lawsuits and ensure that that exemption is written into the terms of the UK’s accession?
Edward Argar
The Government have been clear in our published approach to negotiations, both on the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and any US trade deal, that protecting the NHS is a fundamental principle of our trade policy. The UK will ensure that the terms we sign up to in any trade negotiation uphold the Government’s manifesto commitment that the NHS, its services and the cost of medicines are not on the table, and that we hold true to our principles underpinning the NHS—of a service available to all at the point of need, free.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
We are committed to halving childhood obesity in England by 2030, and the 2020 strategy takes decisive action to help everybody to achieve and maintain that healthier weight. We have five trailblazer sites working to create a healthy environment for our children. We have laid regulations for out-of-home calorie labelling. We have put £100 million into funding for adult and child weight management, and announced the introduction of some of the toughest advertising restrictions—both on TV and online—regarding children’s exposure to high fat, salt and sugar products. This is about the cumulative effect of several policies.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that wide range of measures. May I also encourage her to work closely with colleagues at the Department for Education and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on an expanded children’s sports and activity plan, both in and out of school, to try to make 60 minutes a day as much a norm as five-a-day fruit and vegetables by bringing in the power of sports clubs and the governing bodies, and finally getting more school facilities available for out-of-hours use?
Jo Churchill
My right hon. Friend’s question is music to my ears. He will be pleased to hear that, last week, along with Ministers from DCMS and the DFE, I was in front of the Lords National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee talking about doing just that—about how we can build on the DFE’s £10.1 million contribution, so that we can unlock the 40% of facilities that lie on school estates and help to get children active for 60 minutes a day. We will be publishing our cross-departmental update to the school sport and activity action plan later this year.
Suzanne Webb
Ultra-processed food is basically high in fat, high in salt and high in sugar, and it is highly addictive. I believe that it plays a significant part in the growing crisis that is obesity. I genuinely believe that it is not food in itself, when one considers all the flavourings and artificial colourings that have to go into it to make it taste like food in the first instance. Does my hon. Friend agree that the food industry needs to play its part in tackling the obesity crisis, and not contribute to it?
Jo Churchill
I do. This is about helping people and caring for people. We know the detrimental effect obesity has on all stages of our lives. It costs personally, in productivity terms, as well as the NHS, being the precursor to diabetes, heart disease, cancer, musculoskeletal conditions and so on. We cannot afford for the country not to tackle this issue. I am encouraged, but want to see business go faster in the reformulation ambition to reduce the salt, sugar and fat in these products.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
We are committed to being transparent about the collection and use of data. We paused the implementation of GP data for planning and research services, and we have had productive discussions with the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Medical Association, health charities and others. We have listened to the concerns and we will respond to them. We will continue to listen and we will take our time. We will show patients and clinicians why they can have full trust and confidence in the programme, where data will only be accessed through a secure environment with the oversight of the Information Commissioner’s Office and the National Data Guardian.
Mr Speaker
Mr Zeichner has withdrawn, so let us go to the SNP spokesperson.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
The Government’s plan to give pharmaceutical firms access to pseudo-anonymised data from GP practices in England is creating public concern and distrust, just like the failed care.data project of 2013. Most patients would be happy to see better communication and information sharing within the NHS, as well as for public health and academic research, but are concerned about commercial access to their data. Will the Minister halt the process to allow time for genuine debate and public consultation?
Jo Churchill
The hon. Member and I are both passionate about the use of data to enhance patient care, as she outlined. That is the prize here. We are listening. We are taking our time. The data will only be used for health and care planning and research purposes by organisations that have a legal basis and a legitimate need to use the data. NHS Digital will publish all the details of the data we have shared on our data release register. We want to build confidence. We want to build trust. We are listening, but this is an important agenda that we need to get right to deliver better care for patients.
Dr Whitford
The problem is that the plan to allow commercial access is going to undermine the public trust in improving digitisation within the NHS, and the Minister will be aware of that. The current plans apply only to the NHS in England, but can she guarantee that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 will not be used to force commercial access to patient data from Scotland’s NHS? If so, can she explain why the Department for International Trade is advertising access to the health data of 65 million people, which is the population of the whole UK?
Jo Churchill
I go back to the answer I gave: we do not allow data to be used for commercial purposes. NHS Digital will not approve requests for data where the purpose is for marketing and so on and so forth. The hon. Member would not expect me to respond on behalf of another Department, but I reiterate that we are communicating and building trust. There will be a public information campaign. We will be working across the professions and across research to make sure that access is appropriate and proportionate. In the Health and Care Bill, we will be redoubling our efforts to make sure people have that confidence.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
At the previous health questions, we secured a commitment from the Minister to delay the implementation date for this data grab in order to properly communicate with the public. However, rather than a significant delay so there could be the public information campaign the Minister says she is so keen to have, on the basis set out by the BMA and the Royal College of GPs, what we have instead is a short pause. The Minister says she wants to listen and to build trust, so why on earth is this being snuck out during the summer recess? The reality is that the Government simply have not passed the test for informed consent. Will the Minister take this moment today to stop this process and commit to a proper engagement campaign, rather than running off during recess?
Jo Churchill
I really respect the hon. Gentleman, but nothing is being snuck out. We are not doing a data grab. I refer him to the answer I gave a few moments ago. It is important that we get this right. We have heard the concerns and will respond to them. We will take the appropriate amount of time—even if that means going beyond 1 September—to ensure that we have engaged properly.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
The Government have committed to taking a cautious approach to easing restrictions, guided by the data and not by dates. As I set out in my statement to Parliament yesterday, the decision to lift the remaining measures on 19 July and proceed to step 4 is based on an assessment of the four tests that were set out in the road map.
Karl MᶜCartney [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and welcome him to his new post.
For me and most of my constituents, 19 July cannot come early enough. It is refreshing to see the Secretary of State’s new approach to the wider issues of health provision, and the huge success of our vaccine roll-out has surely ensured that there should and will not be any more lockdowns or restrictions on our civil liberties. Will he assure me that no matter what vested interests have held sway in his Department and across Government in the past 18 months, he is clear that lockdowns and state intervention in the lives of our constituents have gone far enough and need to be curbed?
Sajid Javid
First, I am pleased that my hon. Friend agrees with the decision we have made to proceed with step 4. It sounds like he agrees with the central decision to move from a system of regulation to one of guidance. As he knows, the pandemic is not over, so we are rightly moving forward in a measured way. I am pleased that he agrees with the approach.
James Sunderland
I also welcome yesterday’s step 4 announcement. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Department should embrace a bit more risk by working with the Department for Transport to open up the international travel sector fully? Will he also ensure that GPs return to fully physical appointments and that we open up the full range of dental services?
Sajid Javid
I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that, now that we have begun the process of opening up, more work is being done between my Department and the Department for Transport on international travel. The announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary last week will certainly help and be welcomed by the sector and travellers. On GP access, now that we have started to open up, working together with GPs we can see better direct access, and especially face-to-face access.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
We are committed to the five-year community pharmacy contract and to enabling community pharmacy to deliver more clinical services as well as being the first port of call for minor illnesses. Pharmacists are highly skilled members of the primary care team. We are making good progress with referrals from NHS 111 and general practice, with discharge medicines services from hospitals, and with 96% of pharmacies providing lateral flow tests as well as delivering vaccines. We know that community pharmacies are keen to deliver more, and we should be thinking pharmacy first.
Taiwo Owatemi
I am sure the Minister agrees that pharmacies have gone above and beyond to deliver vital medicines and health advice to patients in their communities during the covid-19 pandemic and that their response underlines the huge potential to grow their already massive contribution to our nation’s health. Pharmacies have proven themselves to be a valuable member of the NHS family, so will she prioritise looking at the potential for pharmacies to provide even better primary care? Will she bring forward a plan to unleash their potential post pandemic?
Jo Churchill
I know that the hon. Lady speaks from experience, having been a clinical pharmacist before she came to this place. That potential needs unleashing. We are working across the profession to make sure that pharmacies are enabled to play a fuller part in the primary care family. We should think pharmacy first when we have minor ailments, and pharmacies should be enabled to do everything they can.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
We can no longer just think of a health system; we have to think about the health and social care system. We want people’s experiences of care to be seamless, which is why we have introduced the Health and Care Bill and will debate its Second Reading today.
Ben Bradley
In order to better integrate and support local services in Nottinghamshire, we would benefit greatly from working with a single integrated care footprint for a simpler and fairer service. A boundary congruous with our county boundary would allow us to offer more equitable care across the whole area. I understand that the decision on the integrated care system boundaries is imminent, so will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the potential benefits?
Sajid Javid
I am aware that several factors are helpful in fostering stronger partnerships between the NHS and local authorities, including alignment of boundaries. My hon. Friend will know that the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), asked NHS England to conduct a boundary review for integrated care systems. That review, which is just being completed, will certainly look at and give advice on the best ICS footprint for alignment. No final decision has yet been made, but it is a priority for me. I would be happy to arrange a meeting for my hon. Friend with Ministers to discuss the matter further.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
My apologies, Mr Speaker; I have lost my voice slightly. I was at Wembley on Sunday night and I have to say that those young lions outperformed. We are so proud of them, and I am certain that in 15 months’ time the nation will get behind them in Qatar and they will outperform again.
I thank the hon. Member for raising this really important question. We are committed to protecting vulnerable children and ensuring that every child receives the best start in life.
Afzal Khan [V]
Children’s and young people’s health has been severely impacted by the pandemic, but it is the mental health impact of lockdown and school closures that is perhaps most concerning. Some 12% of in-patient paediatric beds are now occupied by those admitted because of severe mental health problems. That is double what it was in 2019. Does the Minister agree that children and young people have suffered greatly as a result of lockdown and that their health should now be prioritised in our recovery? If so, what steps will he take to put children at the heart of all policies and implement an overarching child health strategy?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s question. Our mental health recovery action plan will allow us to deliver additional support for 22,500 more children to have access to community health services—I know that the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health would say that community access is incredibly effective—and for 2,000 more children to access eating disorder services. It will also help to increase the coverage of mental health support teams in schools and colleges from 29 to 400 by April 2023. That makes it all the more important, as the Secretary of State has outlined, that we get to step 4: it is critical to delivering the recovery action plan.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
While the Department of Health and Social Care takes a keen interest in any tax situation that may affect patients, any discussions surrounding the VAT treatment of patient transport services would need to be conducted with relevant officials in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Services for the transportation of the sick and injured are exempt from VAT.
Ben Lake
Non-emergency patient transport services provide vital support to those who have no other way of reaching hospital and medical appointments, in addition to those who require specialist transport. An inconsistency in the VAT treatment of providers currently means that some can claim VAT relief while others cannot, despite providing the same services in the same type of vehicles. Would the Minister consider meeting representatives of the sector to better understand the impact and, hopefully, find a way forward?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am very happy for myself and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to meet with others about that. Of course, I cannot comment on specific cases, and I would recommend that the services in question take up their concerns with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as well.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We are working with the United States authorities, with the EU and with other international partners to ensure a safe return to international travel while managing public health risks. We support a global consistent minimum technical standard for covid status notification. Of course, the NHS app with the NHS covid pass is now accepted in 33 countries around the world.
Margaret Ferrier
The continued lack of recognition of vaccination status between the UK and the EU is putting the UK at a competitive disadvantage, according to the Association of British Travel Agents, especially when compared with the steps taken by the EU and the US. Both the US and the EU now have standardised digital ways to prove vaccination status, so will the Minister clarify why there is an ongoing delay in resolving this matter?
Nadhim Zahawi
The European Medicines Agency and our regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, work incredibly closely together, and the EMA has authorised the vaccines that are approved by the MHRA. All vaccines that are authorised and deployed in the UK have been subjected to rigorous checks, including individual batch testing and site inspection. Our two regulators work incredibly closely together and I am confident that we will continue to do so and ensure that any issues are resolved as quickly as possible, working with the manufacturers as well.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
On 2 October last year, we announced 40 new hospitals to be built by 2030 and committed to an open process to confirm a further eight new schemes. Taken together, those 48 schemes should represent the biggest hospital building programme in a generation. As my hon. Friend would expect, my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State is taking a close interest in the detail of this process, and I hope to be able to offer a further update on the selection process for the next eight hospitals very soon.
James Wild
Spending hundreds of millions of pounds patching up buildings long past their planned lifespan—such as the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, which currently has 200 safety props holding up the concrete roof—does not represent value for money. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give to the thousands of my constituents who in recent days have signed a petition for a new hospital to replace the QEH that the Government are looking seriously at the urgent and compelling case for a new fit-for-purpose hospital for staff, patients and visitors?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend’s constituents will know that, in him, they have a doughty champion of their cause and a strong advocate for his hospital. He and I have spoken on many occasions, and I recognise the challenges facing the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which he has been very clear about. The spending review 2020 included £4.2 billion this financial year for NHS operational capital investment to allow hospitals to maintain and refurbish their infrastructure, including a ring-fenced £110 million allocation for the most serious and immediate risk posed by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. My hon. Friend’s hospital has received just over £20 million of that funding to help to mitigate the most urgent RAAC risk, but he will also have heard me say, without prejudging any announcement my right hon. Friend will make about the criteria for the future eight, that safety will be one of the considerations.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
We recognise how much carers do and the huge demands that caring places on them. We have made carers a priority group for covid-19 testing and vaccination, funded carers’ organisations and asked local authorities to meet their duties to identify and support carers. We have also provided guidance and funding through the £1.5 billion infection control fund to support the reopening of day services.
Kerry McCarthy
I have been contacted by a Megan, a young carer in my constituency, and I have been in correspondence with the Minister about the lack of guidance for young carers on the gov.uk website. We got the Government to remove an outdated linked to a Barnardo’s service that had closed at the end of March, but they have not replaced it with anything, which has left a vacuum in where young carers can look for advice and support. Can the Minister ensure that there is adequate, up-to-date information on the gov.uk website and that young carers have somewhere to turn to when they need help and support?
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and her correspondence on this. She makes a very important point and I will make sure of that.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
When the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government went to Germany about four years ago to look at its social care system, we saw that people entitled to public funding for social care could either pay the public authorities or care agencies to deliver it. Alternatively, for a slightly reduced amount of money, they could pay their family members, which meant that the person receiving care got the care they wanted, family members got paid for their efforts and the public purse actually saved some money. In reforming the social care system, would the Minister look at introducing elements of the German system into our system in this country?
Helen Whately
The Secretary of State has already said that we are working on our plans for social care reform, and we will be bringing them forward later this year. Of course, as part of those plans we are considering unpaid carers.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
It is an honour to be here for my first oral questions as the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and I thank the Prime Minister for bringing me back from furlough. I accepted this role because I love my country and the NHS. I know that I join this Department at a pivotal time, and I have three pressing priorities for these critical few months. The first is getting us on the path out of this pandemic. The second is busting the backlog of non-covid services. The third is putting social care on a sustainable footing for the future. I want to draw on what I have learnt during this time of adversity and what we have all learnt together. I want to make this great nation a healthier and fairer place, and I am looking forward to working with all hon. Members in this House.
Mr Speaker
You missed the fourth: a 24-hour accident and emergency unit for Chorley.
Sally-Ann Hart
East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust has the potential to get hundreds of millions in investment as part of the Government’s NHS estate infrastructure improvement plan. Will funding be allocated on a two to three-year basis, so that the NHS can better plan its funding and estates plans? Where funding has been indicated for a longer term, what plans are there to ensure that providers have sufficient resource in the shorter term to address immediate issues, or to support covid or recovery?
Sajid Javid
We have put more and more capital into the NHS. There are always representations from hon. Members, including you, Mr Speaker, for even more capital. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the importance of local healthcare systems, which will need more capital funding as we progress. She will know that we set out our capital plans for this financial year, 2021-22, but she is right to say that multi-year funding will mean that trusts can plan better, and that is a priority; we want the spending review to have more sight and better planning for capital.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Let us consider these words about mental health services:
“prior to 2017, no government invested in or prioritised MH services.”
Those are not my words but the words of the Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries). Indeed, the new Secretary of State was the architect of these cuts, during his time as a Treasury Minister. The unparalleled devastation he left behind has been simply staggering, so does he agree with his Minister? Can he explain to us why 140,000 children were turned away from mental health services last year? Can he explain why a quarter of mental health beds have been cut since 2010? Is he ashamed of his track record?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady will know that the NHS long-term plan that has been set out by this Government is committed to a transformation in mental health services and mental health spending; some £2.3 billion extra is being invested by 2023-24. In addition, she will be aware of the mental healthcare White Paper and the mental health recovery action plan. I hope these are all initiatives she will support.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
May I welcome the Secretary of State to his place? I am sure he will do an excellent job. As he thinks about a 24-hour A&E for Chorley, I hope he will also think about the urgent need for a cancer institute at the Royal Surrey County Hospital as only second on his list.
The Secretary of State will know that this morning the Health and Social Care Committee published a worrying report about the inhumane treatment given to 2,000 people with learning disabilities and autism in in-patient units, often because no community provision was available. When he brings forward his plans for social care, will he make sure that there is adequate funding for local authorities to give care to such people? Will he also make sure that care workers are always paid the minimum wage, including for the time taken to travel between appointments?
Sajid Javid
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments and the work that he and other Members do through the Select Committee to scrutinise the work of the Department. He just referred to some of that work, especially in his comments about learning disability and autism, which will remain a huge priority for the Government and certainly for my Department.
My right hon. Friend also rightly raised the issue of care workers and the minimum wage; it is worth pointing out that the Care Act 2014 requires local authorities, when they provide funding, not just to support the minimum wage but to take account of the costs that care workers might incur, such as travelling costs. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend and the members of his Select Committee.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) [V]
Sajid Javid
As the Government have said, we want to make sure that every person in this country has the dignity that they deserve in old age. We have recognised that the current system needs substantial reform. The process of reform has already begun in, for example, the Health and Care Bill that will have its Second Reading tomorrow, but we do need a new, sustainable way to fund care and we will come forward with the plans later this year.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Sajid Javid
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is good news that we can move away from restrictions and towards guidance. On the rationale for the decision he referred to, it is about vaccine effectiveness: we know that for those with both doses, vaccination is estimated to be 78% to 80% effective against symptomatic covid-19. The introduction on 16 August of the changes to which my hon. Friend referred will mean that more people will have been vaccinated and will help to reduce severe illness.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) [V]
Sajid Javid
I want to reassure the hon. Lady—because this is such an important question for so many people across the country—that cancer remains a huge priority for this Government. She is right to refer to the work that Macmillan has done on this issue because, sadly, during the restrictions thousands of people have not come forward in the usual way and their cancer sadly remains undiagnosed. We urge anyone who feels that this is an issue for them: please, go to your GP—please come forward. That is one reason why we have launched the “Help Us, Help You” campaign. We have also provided additional funding for rapid diagnostic centres.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) [V]
Sajid Javid
I think we would all agree in this House that GP practices have done a magnificent job in responding to the pandemic, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all GPs and their staff for the work that they have done and that they continue to do. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of face-to-face access. We can all understand why it changed during the pandemic, but as we open up, we can start to provide more of this, particularly for older people. Over the coming weeks and months, that will be a priority for my Department.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Sajid Javid
As I said in response to an earlier question, this is a huge priority for the Government and, again, I am pleased that the hon. Lady has raised the issue. It is an issue for her constituents and for constituents throughout the country. She referred to the research by Cancer Research UK. I am afraid that it is right: there are thousands of people who did not come forward. We can understand why, so let me say this again as it is so important: for anyone concerned, please do come forward. We have provided additional funding—more than £1 billion—for more diagnostics and we will continue to provide additional support.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) [V]
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this question and the situation of her constituent. What I can say is that we expect clinical commissioning groups to commission fertility services in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, so that there is equitable access across England. We are aware of some variations in access, and we are looking at how we can address that. Very specifically, CCGs should not be using criteria outside that NICE fertility guidance.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. As she has rightly explained, there will be a number of people who, understandably, will be concerned about the move away from regulations to guidance. None the less, there must come a point when we start to remove the restrictions slowly, in a measured way, as we are doing—not least because we want to be able to start dealing much more with all the non-covid health problems that have been created as well. We have provided very clear guidance on masks and it was published yesterday. I hope that the hon. Lady can share that with people who are concerned.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) [V]
Sajid Javid
Yes, I can confirm that. Removing restrictions is not without risk—I accept that—but keeping restrictions is not without cost. As my hon. Friend points out, the restrictions have led to increased domestic violence, child abuse, mental health issues and undiagnosed cancer, which we have heard about today, to name but a few. As we start lifting restrictions, that means that we can better deal with all these major non-covid health problems.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
My hon. Friend rightly raises an issue that I know will be a concern for constituents of all Members of this House. The backlog of treatment—the waiting list—is over 5 million. However, we are making rapid progress with that, and so is the NHS. We are looking at a variety of ways to do that—not just providing the funding needed to do it, but through innovation, accelerator hubs and diagnostic hubs, all designed to get the waiting list down and to get people the treatment they need when they need it. I would be very happy to discuss the specifics of my hon. Friend’s local situation with him outside this place.
Mr Speaker
Wendy Chamberlain was online, so let us go to Wendy. Welcome, Wendy.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]
Sajid Javid
Throughout the pandemic, my predecessor and other Ministers have rightly been working with the devolved Administrations, and of course that work continues; it will remain a priority. I myself have already started weekly meetings with all my counterparts in the devolved Administrations. We discuss a number of issues and keep each other informed, but we also respect that in certain areas, in dealing with this pandemic, we may take a different course.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) [V]
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady understandably talks about the link between case numbers and hospitalisation. She will know that the last time we saw cases at 30,000 and above on a daily basis, we saw a lot more hospitalisations. The reason for the difference now is the vaccine wall of defence. Masks do have an important role to play, but we think that that role can be played by moving from regulation to guidance.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Points of Order
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Select Committee on Home Affairs had been seeking to visit Napier barracks and Tug Haven reception centre for asylum seekers. We approached the Home Office four weeks ago. We had planned to visit today, but we have not received any response from the Home Office, and as a result we are here, not there. Given the importance of this, given the court judgments there have been about Napier barracks, and given our Committee’s ongoing inquiry into this matter, the whole Committee is very concerned about the lack of response and our inability to facilitate this visit. Please can you advise me and the Committee on the responsibilities of the Home Office to work with the Committee to facilitate scrutiny and visits such as these, and on what more we should do to try to get such a visit before the summer recess?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Member and to her Committee colleague, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who I think also has a point of order. I will take that as well, and then I will respond.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful, because I think the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee slightly underplays the urgency of this matter. For the past month, we have been asking to visit Napier. We have been fobbed off numerous times, and I have to say that this is not an isolated incident: increasingly, it is becoming difficult to get responses from Home Office officials and Ministers, never mind to get them in front of us here in a timely fashion.
This particular visit is directly related to some evidence that was given to us by Ministers, which has now turned out to be highly questionable, and which impacts on reviews and reports that we are currently preparing. We wanted very urgently to visit Napier barracks, but that probably cannot now happen before the summer recess. How on earth can we get responses from the Home Office in a timely fashion without Committee members and officials wasting time in constantly chasing them, or having to raise it on the Floor of the House, as the Chair of the Select Committee and others have done on countless occasions?
Mr Speaker
I have repeatedly stressed the importance of Select Committees and the essential scrutiny work that they undertake. I am very happy to do so again. For the Committees’ work to be effective, Departments need to be constructive and helpful when Committees make responsible and reasonable requests, whether they are about finding time for Ministers and officials to give evidence or, in this case, facilitating visits. It is simply unacceptable that the Committee has not had a response to the request made four weeks ago about a visit. That is discourteous to the Committee and, therefore, the House. Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard this exchange. I hope the matter can now be resolved speedily. This is coming not from one side, but from both sides of the House. Select Committees are important for scrutinising the Government’s business. It is important for the Government to recognise that. The sooner this can be fixed, the better; the happier I will be, and so will the House.
Electric Vehicle Charging Points (New Buildings)
Tuesday 13th July 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Electric Vehicle Charging Points (New Buildings) (No. 2) Bill 2021-22 View all Electric Vehicle Charging Points (New Buildings) (No. 2) Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about electric vehicle charging points in new buildings; and for connected purposes.
The UK is one of the leaders—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. In fairness to hon. Members who are speaking, I point out that the cameras pick up Members who are going to their seats and who block the view of the Member speaking. I know that it is important to get people into the Chamber, but this is a ten-minute rule Bill, and there is plenty of time for people to come in. Think of others, please.
Felicity Buchan
The UK is one of the leaders in combating climate change and I am rightly proud of that record. Since 1990, the UK has decarbonised at the fastest rate of any G20 country and of course, we were the first to legislate for net zero by 2050. Last December, we went one step further and said that we would have an interim target of a 68% reduction by 2030. That is rightly an ambitious target and I am glad about that. However, if we are to achieve it, we need to focus on our transport sector.
Transport is the biggest emitter of carbon in the entire country. Last year, it accounted for 29.8% of total emissions. If we look forward to 2035, that is likely to increase as a percentage share. Cars account for 55% of those emissions. If we add in light vans, that increases to almost two thirds. Hence we can see how vital it is that we transition to electric vehicles.
I am glad that the Government have brought forward to 2030 the date when we ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars. That is a huge achievement. However, it is important that we not only set targets but put in place concrete steps to achieve them. That is why I am introducing this ten-minute rule Bill today. It will mandate that all new homes and office buildings should have electric vehicle charging points.
I am delighted that the Bill has the support of two Opposition Members—one from the Scottish National party and one from the Democratic Unionist party—and the support of other colleagues on the Government Benches whom I could not list in the list of sponsors.
The Government did undertake a consultation in 2019 on mandating electric vehicle charging points in new buildings, but we have not yet seen legislation as a result. However, I hope that this Bill is very timely because we should imminently have both the transport decarbonisation plan and the infrastructure strategy plan. I do not want to be too forward, but it would be good to see the Government adopting the thread of the Bill.
Let me set out why I think this is so critically important. Constituents say that their one reservation about buying electric vehicles is concern about the reliability of the infrastructure and the charging network. Because of their concerns about that reliability, they become concerned about range—so-called range anxiety. By mandating that all new-build offices and homes have these charging points, we will be able to address a lot of these concerns. Residential users will know that they can charge their cars overnight, and people, like many in my constituency, who only have on-street parking will have confidence that they can charge their cars at their offices. It will also, importantly, relieve some of the pressure on on-street parking and on the general grid of the charging network.
The Bill is very important from a safety perspective. It is clearly better that people charge their cars at home with proper chargers rather than some of the ad hoc charging methods that we see at the moment, such as extension leads dangling through windows going towards on-street parking. I am glad to say that the Bill has the support of Electrical Safety First. It is way cheaper to install electric charging points at the point of construction rather than retrofitting. The latest data shows that to retrofit an electric vehicle charging point costs £2,040 but to install it from new costs only £976. It is also very important for the uptake of electric vehicles in rural communities. At the moment, inner cities, like my own City of London, do have good uptake, but all new-builds having these charging points will definitely help in rural communities, where 68% of journeys are done by car.
The Bill is also important because it forces developers to buy into net zero. That means that this is in everyone’s mind, because whenever people are in their house or in their office and see an electric vehicle charging point, they realise that the new norm is electric vehicles—because we do need to make it the new norm.
While this Bill does not seek to address all the issues with electric vehicles, we clearly do need a comprehensive and strategic national grid of charging points. We also need to focus on the consumer experience in terms of interoperability. This Bill will go a small way to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, which is critical to meeting our target for net zero and making the world a better place.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Felicity Buchan, Alan Brown, Tracey Crouch, Philip Dunne, Simon Fell, Damian Green, Mrs Pauline Latham, Tim Loughton, Cherilyn Mackrory, Selaine Saxby, Andrew Selous and Jim Shannon present the Bill.
Felicity Buchan accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 October and to be printed (Bill 146).
Mr Speaker
I suspend the House for one minute while necessary arrangements are made for the next business.
International Aid: Treasury Update
Tuesday 13th July 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 July 2021 - (13 Jul 2021)
15:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 333 / Noes: 298 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the next item of business, I wish to remind the House that, on 7 June, I said:
“the House has not…had an opportunity for a decisive vote on maintaining the UK’s commitment to the statutory target of 0.7%. I expect the Government to find a way to have this important matter debated and to allow the House formally to take an effective decision.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2021; Vol. 696, c. 667.]
The Government have now come forward with today’s motion and the written ministerial statements to which it relates.
The motion before us may not be the preferred way of dealing with the issue for some hon. and right hon. Members, in that the formal procedural consequences of voting against the motion are limited and the motion itself is not amendable. However, it facilitates a dedicated debate on the subject, and the written ministerial statement commits the Government very clearly to a certain course of action in the event of today’s motion being negatived. The Government have assured me that they will not resile from such a commitment, which represents a very significant step forward in the House’s ability to scrutinise the Government’s policy on this important matter.
I personally would like to thank the Government Front Bench for enabling this debate to take place, and I thank them for respecting this House.
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Written Ministerial Statement relating to Treasury Update on International Aid, which was made to the House on Monday 12 July.
I believe that, on this vital subject, there is common ground between the Government and hon. Members on both sides of the House, in the sense that we believe in the power of aid to transform millions of lives. That is why we continue to agree that the UK should dedicate 0.7% of our gross national income to official development assistance.
This is not an argument about principle. The only question is when we return to 0.7%. My purpose today is to describe how we propose to achieve this shared goal in an affordable way.
Here we must face the harsh fact that the world is now enduring a catastrophe of a kind that happens only once a century. This pandemic has cast our country into its deepest recession on record, paralysing our national life, threatening the survival of entire sectors of the economy and causing my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to find over £407 billion to safeguard jobs and livelihoods and to support businesses and public services across the United Kingdom. He has managed that task with consummate skill and ingenuity, but everyone will accept that, when we are suddenly compelled to spend £407 billion on sheltering our people from an economic hurricane never experienced in living memory, there must inevitably be consequences for other areas of public spending.
Last year, under the pressure of the emergency, our borrowing increased fivefold to almost £300 billion—more than 14% of GDP, the highest since the second world war. This year, our national debt is climbing towards 100% of GDP, the highest for nearly six decades. The House knows that the Government have been compelled to take wrenching decisions, and the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 expressly provides that fiscal circumstances can allow departure from the 0.7% target.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor for their constructive engagement with those of us who have been profoundly concerned about our departure from the aid target. Will he reconfirm to me and to the House that this is not a fiscal trap, and that the mechanism set out in a written ministerial statement is a genuine and full-hearted attempt to return to our commitment of 0.7% at the very earliest economically sustainable opportunity?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on and expertise in this matter. I know how deeply he cares about this, in common with many other Members across the House, and I can indeed give him that confirmation. The decision that we made was temporary, to reduce our aid budget to 0.5% of national income.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister
With great respect, if the House will allow me, I will make as much progress as I can in this speech, and then allow the, I think, 77 others who wish to contribute to have their say, so I will not take any more interventions.
In the teeth of this crisis, amid all the other calls on our resources, we can take pride in the fact that the UK will still invest at least £10 billion in aid this year—more, as a share of our GDP, than Canada, Japan, Italy and the United States. It would be a travesty if hon. Members were to give the impression that the UK is somehow retreating from the field of international development or lacking in global solidarity. As I speak, this country is playing a vital role in the biggest and fastest global vaccination programme in history. We helped to create COVAX, the coalition to vaccinate the developing world, and we have invested over half a billion pounds in this crucial effort, which has so far distributed more than 100 million doses to 135 countries.
The Government’s agreement with Oxford University and AstraZeneca succeeded in producing the world’s most popular vaccine, with over 500 million doses released to the world, mainly to low and middle-income countries, saving lives every hour of every day. The UK’s expertise and resources have been central to the global response to the emergency, discovering both the vaccine and the first life-saving treatment for covid. We have secured agreement from our friends in the G7 to provide a billion vaccines to protect the world by the end of next year, and 100 million will come from the UK. We are the third biggest sovereign donor to the World Health Organisation, and the top donor to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which vaccinates children against killer diseases.
We are devoting £11.6 billion, double our previous commitment, to helping developing countries to deal with climate change, including by protecting their forests and introducing green energy. I can tell the House that this vital investment will be protected.
When it comes to addressing one of the world’s gravest injustices—the tragedy that millions of girls are denied the chance to go to school—the UK has pledged more than any other country, £430 million, to the Global Partnership for Education, in addition to the £400 million that we will spend on girls’ education this year.
Later this month, I will co-host a summit of the partnership in London with President Kenyatta of Kenya. Wherever civil wars are displacing millions or threatening to inflict famine in Syria, Yemen, Ethiopia or elsewhere, the UK is responding with over £900 million of help this year, making our country the third-largest bilateral humanitarian donor in the world. It bears repeating that we are doing this in the midst of a terrible crisis, when our public finances are under greater strain than ever before in peacetime history and every pound we spend in aid has to be borrowed. It represents not our money, but money we are taking from future generations.
Last year, we dissolved the old divide between aid and diplomacy that once ran through the entire Whitehall machine, by creating the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. In doing so, my objective was to ensure that every diplomat in our service was actuated by the mission and vision of our finest development officials, and that our aid was better in tune with our national values and our desire to be a force for good in the world. So I can assure any hon. Member who wishes to make the case for aid that they are, when it comes to me or to anyone in the Government, preaching to the converted. We shall act on that conviction by returning to 0.7% as soon as two vital tests have been satisfied. The first is that the UK is no longer borrowing to cover current or day-to-day expenditure. The second is that public debt, excluding the Bank of England, is falling as a share of GDP.
The Prime Minister
I am just coming to the end. The moment the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts show that both of those conditions will sustainably be met, from the point at which they are met we will willingly restore our aid budget to 0.7%.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister
Plenty of people want to speak in this debate. The Government will of course review the situation every year and place a statement before this House in accordance with the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015. But as we conduct that annual review, we will fervently wish to find that our conditions have been satisfied. This is one debate where the Government and hon. Members from across the House share the same objective—
The Prime Minister
I am sure the right hon. Lady will have plenty of time later on.
As I was saying, we share the same objective and the same fundamental convictions. We all believe in the principle that aid can transform lives, and by voting for this motion, hon. Members will provide certainty for our aid budget and an affordable path back to 0.7%, while also allowing for investment in other priorities, including the NHS, schools and the police. As soon as circumstances allow and the tests are met, we will return to the target that unites us, and I commend this motion to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, and hon. Members from across the House for ensuring that this debate took place today. In particular, I thank the right hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I think they are the “lefty” propagandists that the Prime Minister was talking about a couple of weeks ago. I have to say that if the Prime Minister had confidence in the arguments he is making to this House, he would have given way to them a moment ago so that his arguments could be tested. He does not have confidence in them, otherwise he would have done so—that is obvious already. However, we do welcome the chance to debate this motion.
The motion is broad and, if I may say so, from this Prime Minister it is typically slippery. The House should have had the opportunity for a straight up/down vote on whether to approve or reject the Government’s cut to overseas aid to 0.5%. This motion does not do that. But the Chancellor’s written ministerial statement is clear: if the motion is carried, the cut in overseas aid to 0.5% will effectively carry on indefinitely. I will expand on that point in just a moment—[Interruption.] I will expand on that point and take interventions on it.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
I am going to develop that argument. When I get to it, I will give way so that that argument can be tested, in the usual way. But if the motion is rejected,
“the Government would consequently return to spending 0.7% of GNI on international aid in the next calendar year”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 4WS.]
Let me be clear: Labour will vote to reject this motion tonight and to return overseas aid to 0.7% of GNI.
Keir Starmer
I am going to summarise my argument—[Interruption.] I am going make my argument, and when I get to the relevant part, I will take interventions.
The case that we make is this: first, that the cut is wrong, because investing 0.7% on international aid is in Britain’s national interest; secondly, because the economic criteria set out by the Chancellor would lead to an indefinite cut that is likely to last beyond this Parliament; and, thirdly, because it matters that this House keeps its word to the voters who elected us. Every Member here—every Member here—was elected on a manifesto to retain the 0.7% target, and it matters that we keep our promises to the world’s poorest, particularly at such a time of global uncertainty.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I agree with him about keeping promises, and Conservative Members were also elected to keep fiscal promises to reduce our debt and not to borrow for day-to-day spending. I hope in his remarks he will set out, given that he is not going to support this motion, which areas of spending he is going to cut to pay for it or which taxes he is going to raise. If he does not do either of those things, then I am afraid his promises and his vote today are hollow, and no one will believe him.
Keir Starmer
I have to say that it is a bit rich from someone who may break the manifesto commitment to say that the vote today and the words today are hollow, but just to take that straight on, it is a false economy, I am afraid. Cutting aid will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy. Development aid—we all know this—reduces conflict, disease and people fleeing from their homes. It is a false economy to pretend that this is some sort of cut that does not have consequences.
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a House of Commons speech, not a partisan speech. Can I ask him what I would have asked the Prime Minister if the Prime Minister had given way? First, will he confirm that the cut we are discussing today is 1% of the borrowing the Prime Minister described that he quite rightly sanctioned last year? Secondly, will he underline the fact that this was an all-party promise made at the general election by every single one of us, and we really should not break our promises to the poorest in this terrible way?
Keir Starmer
Yes and yes. It was not ambivalent in the manifestos and it was not conditional; it was clear.
On the first part of the argument—the national interest—British aid saves lives, it builds a more secure world, and it promotes democracy and British soft power. For the last 20 years, that has been the political consensus across this House. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown first set the goal of the UK reaching the 0.7% target—[Interruption.] I am making a speech to the House and for the House. David Cameron and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead made it a reality, and we acknowledge that in the right way. It has been supported—[Interruption.] The chuntering is all very well, but this has been a cross-party position for 20 years, and successive Prime Ministers have kept to the commitment. Every other living Prime Minister thinks this is wrong; there is only one Prime Minister who is prepared to do this, and he is sitting there, on the Front Bench. I acknowledge what those on the Benches opposite did in relation to this—the previous Prime Minister is sitting opposite. I am openly acknowledging that, and it has been supported by all parties, and rightly so. As the sixth richest country in the world, Britain has a moral obligation to help the world’s poorest, and our aid budget has done that with fantastic results.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
I will in a moment.
This has been providing education for women and girls; fighting poverty; providing sanitation, healthcare and vaccines; building resilience and infrastructure; and doing incredible post-conflict and reconstruction work, where I think Britain does a better job than anyone else, so it has real results. Let us be clear what these cuts would mean: 1 million girls losing out on schooling; nearly 3 million women and children going without life-saving nutrition; 5.6 million children left unvaccinated; an estimated 100,000 deaths worldwide. [Interruption] The Prime Minister says “Rubbish”; that is the human toll of the choices the Government are making, and it is not rubbish.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The case being made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that the Prime Minister is making a promise he will not keep, but what did Tony Blair and Gordon Brown do? They made a promise but they never, ever spent 0.7% of GDP on aid, and therefore the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s speech lacks all moral force.
Keir Starmer
They more than doubled it; they set the goal, and then successive Prime Ministers implemented that goal. That is such a weak argument—11 years into this Government that is such a weak argument. When I was Director of Public Prosecutions, which has a five-year term, the very idea that I could turn around four or five years into the role and say it was somebody else’s fault five, 10, 15, 20 years ago—I have always found such an argument particularly weak. This is such a bad argument but it is used all the time. They have been in power for 11 years; either take responsibility for what you are doing or give up.
Our overseas aid budget goes beyond that moral obligation: it also helps build a more stable world and keeps us safer in the UK. In Afghanistan aid has supported improvements in security, in governance, in economic development and in rights for women and girls, yet, despite all the challenges that that country now faces and the security and terrorist threats that that poses to the UK—we know about those, and the previous Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Maidenhead knows about them—UK aid to Afghanistan is being cut from £192.3 million to £38.2 million. That is Afghanistan. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister chunters, but they are actually the Government figures. In Yemen, where there is the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world, UK aid has been cut by nearly 60%; in Syria, the Government are slashing aid by around 50%; and for the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh there is a cut of 42%. All of those decisions will create more refugees, more instability and more people having to flee their homes.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the words of General James Mattis, the former United States Defence Secretary? When President Trump proposed cutting overseas aid, General Mattis said, “Fine, cut it, but you will have to give me, the Defence Secretary, more money to buy more bullets.”
Keir Starmer
I am aware of that, and it exposes the false economy argument in the Prime Minister’s case.
This cut will also reduce UK influence just when it is needed most, and of course it risks leaving a vacuum that other countries—China and Russia, for example—will fill. At a time when Britain will host COP26 and has hosted the G7 we should be using every means at our disposal to create a fairer and safer world, but we are the only G7 country that is cutting our aid budget—the only G7 country. That is not the vision of global Britain that those of us on the Labour Benches want to see, and I do not think it is the vision of global Britain that many on the Benches opposite want to see either.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
All of us in this House long to see our aid commitments re-established at 0.7% of national income, but the Leader of the Opposition will nevertheless appreciate that we continue to be one of the most generous foreign aid donors. He is making a good point about the 0.7%, but can he explain why, in all the Labour years of Labour Government, they averaged 0.36% of national income on overseas aid?
Keir Starmer
They doubled it, actually.
Let me turn to my second point, which has already been debated: the economic argument behind the Government’s position. The Prime Minister and Chancellor say that these cuts are unavoidable because of the pandemic and the economic consequences we now find ourselves in, but the whole point of the 0.7% target is that it is relative to the UK’s economic success or challenges: it rises when we grow and falls when we experience economic shock like the pandemic. Nobody in this House is arguing for overseas aid to be maintained at the pre-pandemic level during the downturn in strict terms. We all recognise that a contracting economy means a relative contraction in our aid budget, but the Chancellor and Prime Minister are asking the House to agree to go beyond that, to impose a new target of 0.5% and to create entirely new criteria for ever returning to 0.7%. In effect, the Chancellor is proposing a double lock against reverting to 0.7%. The written ministerial statement makes it clear that Britain will go back to 0.7% only when public debt is falling as a percentage of GDP and there is a “current budget surplus”.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?
Keir Starmer
Let me make this point, and the Prime Minister can intervene if he wants. On the former point, the Office for Budget Responsibility does not predict public debt falling as a percentage of GDP until 2024 or 2025 at the earliest. If the Prime Minister wants to intervene, I am ready. That would mean returning to 0.7% will not happen in any year in this Parliament. I am clear about that. Does anyone want to intervene? That is the OBR’s prediction.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for allowing me to intervene. Perhaps he can help in ascertaining when those targets would have been met in the past 20 years.
Keir Starmer
Well, that is a very good point. I think it is once in 20 years. However, there are two points here and, if there is a contrary argument, the Prime Minister can make it. On the first point, the OBR does not predict a fall in debt as a percentage of GDP until 2024 to 2025. Therefore, anybody voting tonight who is pretending to themselves that the cut is temporary and will be changed in a year or two is not looking at the facts. If anybody wants to say they have better statistics and the OBR has got it completely wrong, please do so—that includes the Prime Minister.
On the second point, the OBR does not forecast a current surplus for its entire forecast period. In fact, there is no expected timeline for that criterion to be met at all. What the Chancellor is setting out is not a temporary cut in overseas aid; it is an indefinite cut. Let me remind the House that only, I think, five times in the past 30 years has a current budget surplus been run—four of them, I might add, were under a Labour Government and one under the Conservatives—so the chances of those criteria being met under a Conservative Chancellor are remote at best. All the more so, because the statement creates an artificial £4.3 billion fiscal penalty for any Chancellor who seeks to rebalance the Budget. So this is an indefinite cut—it is not going to be reversed next year or the year after—and, however much the Prime Minister shakes his head, there is no contrary argument.
This is not just about economic necessity; a political choice is being made. Not only is it against our national interest but it further erodes trust in our politics. That brings me to my third point: trust. There is now a central divide in British politics and across the world between those who value truth, integrity and honesty and those who bask in breaking them. We were all elected on manifestos that committed to the 0.7% target. I am proud to have stood on that commitment and I know that many hon. Members across the House are as well.
Keir Starmer
I will in just a moment. Let me quote page 53 of the Conservative manifesto, which says:
“We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development”.
Do not shake your head, Prime Minister—it is there in black and white. As Conservative Members have said, that is not equivocal or conditional. It was a clear promise to voters and it should be honoured. If it is not, where does that leave us? There are already countless examples of the Prime Minister breaking his promises, such as: no hard border in the Irish Sea; no cuts to our armed forces; and an already-prepared plan for social care—the list is endless. That matters. It matters to the British people that they can trust a Prime Minister to honour a clear commitment. It matters to our reputation around the globe that the word of the British Government will hold in good times and bad.
Today, the House has the chance to stand up for a better kind of politics for the national interest, to do what we know is right and to honour our commitments to the world’s poorest. When the Division is called, Labour MPs will do so, and I am sure that others on the Conservative Benches will do so. I urge all Members to do so.
Mr Speaker
Order. I just remind all Members that there is a three-minute limit.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Government for enabling this debate today.
I stood on a manifesto commitment to maintain international aid funding at 0.7% of gross national income—and not just that, because we said:
“We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development”.
Early last year, the pandemic hit. It had an immediate negative effect on the economy, yet in September 2020, when that effect on the economy had been seen, when public spending was increasing and when the Government were already borrowing hundreds of billions of pounds, they confirmed in their response to the fourth report of the International Development Committee that they would honour that manifesto commitment, saying:
“a commitment enshrined in law and one to which the new Department”—
the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—
“will honour its responsibilities.”
The Government went on to say that investing that 0.7% was at the heart of the vision of the Government’s integrated review for the UK
“as an active, internationalist, problem-solving and burden-sharing nation.”
Where is that vision now, as the Government turn their back on some of the poorest in the world?
With GNI falling, our funding for aid was falling in any case. To reduce it from 0.7% to 0.5% is a double blow. This is not about palaces for dictators and vanity projects; it is about what cuts to funding mean: fewer girls will be educated, more girls and boys will become slaves, more children will go hungry and more of the poorest people in the world will die.
The Government have promised what they see as a compromise, and I am grateful to the Chancellor for speaking to me last night. I asked how long it would take before the tests are met and we return to 0.7%. I was told, “Four to five years, but it could be sooner, because the economy is recovering so well.” If the motion is defeated tonight, it will be 0.7% from January next year. The Government appear to be saying to us, “We cannot afford 0.7% next year because the economy is doing so badly, but actually the economy is doing so well that we could very well be able to restore 0.7% very soon”. The Government cannot have it both ways.
I certainly doubt whether the tests will ever be met in five years’ time. Meeting them depends not only on a significant recovery in the economy—the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting trend growth of less than 2%—but on the Government reining in their inclination to continue to increase public spending. We are told that there will be dire consequences for tax and public spending if this motion is defeated. We have borrowed £400 billion—where are the dire warnings about that? It seems that £4 billion is really bad news; £400 billion—who cares?
Finally, as has been pointed out, the two tests have only been met in one calendar year in the past 20 years. I have been in this House for nearly a quarter of a century. During that time, I have never voted against a three-line Whip from my party. As Prime Minister, I suffered at the hands of rebels. I know what it is like to see party colleagues voting against their Government. We made a promise to the poorest people in the world. The Government have broken that promise. This motion means that promise may be broken for years to come. With deep regret, I will vote against the motion today.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
There is not a single nation on the planet that has escaped the devastation of this global pandemic, and there is not a single person who is pretending that the challenge of recovery from covid is easy. We also know that it has been the poorest of our own society who have been hit the hardest over the past 18 months. Tragically, that has been replicated across the globe. Inequality has widened. Millions have been pushed into poverty. Development gains have been reversed, and it is the poorest and most vulnerable in our societies who are dying.
We therefore need a global recovery that builds forward better, creates a fairer, more inclusive and more sustainable world and ultimately honours the millions who have lost or are losing their lives to this terrible pandemic. In order to do that, the wealthiest countries in the world, of which the UK is one, must step up to tackle the great challenges facing humanity, not step away. However, it is with the deepest regret that this UK Government’s callous cut to the aid budget is not only jeopardising those efforts, but will mean that the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world will pay the ultimate price. Make no mistake: these cuts will cost lives.
The UK Government are making a desperate effort to stress the economic necessity of cutting aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI. They are desperate to talk about fiscal tests, borrowing levels and tax receipts, but they do not want to address the questions that put them to shame. How many children will go without an education? How many girls will be forced into unwanted marriages and teenage pregnancies? Ultimately, how many individuals will die needlessly because of this Government’s decision? Those are questions that the Government have run away from, just as they have run away from this debate and this vote for the past six months.
It should simply never have come to this. This Parliament should have had a vote on the aid cut before it was implemented, but instead the Government pressed ahead with international austerity on the backs of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Without consultation with those most in need, without any impact assessment and without any debate in this Parliament, the Government made their decision based on a Treasury spreadsheet. With a stroke of a pen, they signed the death sentence—a policy that will lead to 1 million children’s excess deaths.
Those who are considering voting in favour of the motion should reflect on these questions. Are they building forward and leaving no one behind in a global strategy against covid? Are they honouring the millions who are losing their lives and the many more millions who will lose their livelihoods as a result of the pandemic? Are they happy to sign that death sentence?
Let us look at a few examples of the life-saving aid programmes that have been curtailed or cancelled, with horrifying consequences right now. Yemen is the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, where 20 million people are suffering from hunger and malnutrition. Many of them face famine after years of war. Despite that, the UK Government have slashed their humanitarian funding to the country by more than 60%. The UN Secretary-General put it bluntly:
“Millions of Yemeni children, women and men desperately need aid to live. Cutting aid is a death sentence.”
Given that 400,000 children under five might starve to death in Yemen alone this year, how on earth can this Government defend themselves?
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about Yemen, although it should be acknowledged that the UK gave aid to Yemen well in excess of what we had budgeted for, and that we have a very generous record. Does he agree that it is not only a question of emergency aid? If we are to find peace in that country, we will need to give aid for its reconstruction to keep it out of civil war and famine again, so it is entirely the wrong time not to step up with the money necessary for a lasting peace.
Chris Law
I agree with every point that the hon. Member makes. It is important for our national security and in our national interest to be stepping up at this point, not stepping away.
The UK Government’s funding to the United Nations Population Fund, which provides contraceptives and reproductive health supplies globally, is being cut by a staggering 85%. Yes, Mr Speaker, you heard that correctly: 85%. The UNFPA has stated:
“These cuts will be devastating for women and girls and their families across the world.”
The money being withheld by this Government would have helped to prevent a quarter of a million child and maternal deaths, nearly 15 million unintended pregnancies and more than 4 million unsafe abortions.
A third example, which just shows how ridiculous the cuts are, is that tens of thousands of people are likely to die needlessly because nearly 300 million doses of medicine for the treatment of neglected diseases in Africa are at risk of expiring following the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s announcement that it is almost entirely withdrawing its allocated funding. So far, the UK Government have not confirmed that the expiring medicines will be distributed urgently rather than destroyed. What an utter folly—an absence of simple human decency. Hon. Members voting on the motion must tell their constituents that, because these are the simple facts.
Those are just three examples that cover women’s reproductive rights, disease prevention and urgent humanitarian assistance, but cuts are happening across the board. Programmes to eradicate poverty, to prevent conflict or even to combat climate change—in the year that we will host COP26 in Glasgow—are all suffering a similar fate. Each budget reduced, each project scaled back and each programme cancelled results in a loss of hard-fought progress, a loss of expertise and, fundamentally, a loss of trust. This so-called temporary measure will inflict long-term damage and long-term pain and suffering, which is why the cut must be urgently reversed. The Government are pretending that there is no other option than to cut from 0.7% to 0.5%, but we know that that is not the case. In fact, it is blatantly not the case.
It must have been a complete humiliation for the UK Government when they hosted the G7 summit in Cornwall last month, which should have been a moment of pride in demonstrating our shared collective values. This House may ask why. It is because every other G7 country has recognised the necessity of helping those in urgent need at this time of unprecedented volatility and increased aid spending.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, but would he acknowledge that those countries may have raised spending from a much lower level and that we shall still be the third highest in the G7?
Chris Law
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. This is not a question of pride that we are still giving very generously—that we will be the third most generous. We are the sixth wealthiest nation. We keep talking about global Britain, but we are actually a shrinking Britain with these cuts. We are actually losing our soft power. You are going against national security. You are going against our collective national interest right across this House, with every party that is here today.
Sadly, because of these brutal cuts by the UK Government, the massive increase in spending—to come back to the hon. Gentleman’s point— by Germany was effectively cancelled out. Within these islands, I should also add, the Scottish Government have increased their international aid budget by 50%. That puts this House, frankly, at shame with this motion.
It is simply a matter of political priorities, and this Chancellor and this Prime Minister have shown where their priorities lie. Let us not kid ourselves that this is being spent on health, welfare and education at home because it clearly is not. The Chancellor chose to take money away from preventing famine and malnutrition, conflict prevention, and protecting our planet and marginalised communities from the devastating effects of climate change. Instead—I am glad to see the Chancellor in his place—he chose to spend the money on enhanced cyberweapons, AI-enabled drones and, the biggest folly of all, increased stockpiles of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, after he delivered a windfall for the defence budget—in the very same month the cut from 0.7% to 0.5% was announced.
If that is not an act of national shame, let us look at the icing on the cake. The Prime Minister, who is no longer in his place—he should be embarrassed when I read this—believes that spending upwards of £200 million on a shiny brand new royal yacht, Britannia 2.0, is more important than using lifesaving aid to deliver a more just, peaceful and secure world. That is despite the fact of the royal family’s complete displeasure. Mr Speaker, how un-British could that be?
Mr Speaker
Order. Normally, we do not bring the royal family into our debates. They are outside our debates. Those are the rules of the House.
Chris Law
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I raised it only because it is on the record elsewhere.
Even every former living Prime Minister has opposed this cut and continues to do so. The simple fact is that aid spending has always been in the Prime Minister’s sights, ever since he described it as
“spending huge sums of British taxpayers’ money as though we were some independent Scandinavian NGO”
and
“shovelling money out the door”.
He has now chosen to go against a decades-long cross-party consensus, breaking his own manifesto promise and that of all his Conservative colleagues as he is dragged far right by the UK Independence party and the Brexit party, and implementing their promises to cut aid instead.
This will likely herald a new decade of austerity. Let us call it austerity 2.0. We all know what the first decade was like. There is nothing temporary about this motion. This is not global Britain; this is a nasty, short, poor, brutish and, most of all, very little Britain. Across this House, we all stood on a manifesto commitment to protect the 0.7% spend on international development. That is, for those who are not very good at maths, 7p in every £10. When I describe that to children in primary schools I visit and to young people in my constituency, they are surprised at how little we spend as the sixth wealthiest nation in the world and they are right to be so.
Today, we have an opportunity to reaffirm our values, rather than be led into voting to balance the imaginary books on the backs of the world’s poorest. We must all keep to our word to deliver on our promises to our fellow global citizens who are the most marginalised and vulnerable people on earth. If covid has taught us anything, it is that we all share in the same struggles and challenges, but also the hopes and dreams of a better future, working together as one planet and one community. Now more than ever before we must step up to support our global community, not step away. There is no honour for those who have suffered as a result of this pandemic in stepping away. There is no meaning in the phrase “building back better” if we turn our backs. For those who decide to vote for this immoral motion today, there is no place for you to hide. When asked the question, “Why did you vote for this?” by your own children, friends and family and, equally importantly, constituents, it will be an indelible mark against your opportunity to do the right thing here today and you will have to live with it for the rest of your time in this House.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my interests, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Government have done the right thing today in ensuring that this House has a vote on this matter, and thank you, Mr Speaker, for standing up for Parliament in that respect. There is a straight choice here, as was outlined by the Leader of the House yesterday in his statement. It is between rejecting this motion, in which case the Government will restore the 0.7% from next year—that was the olive branch that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I suggested—and accepting this so-called “Treasury compromise”. I tell the House that it is no compromise at all; it is a fiscal trap for the unwary.
First, it is quite possible that these conditions will never be met. We do not need to look in the crystal ball—we can read the book. It is indisputably the case that there has been only one occasion in the past two decades—in 2001—when these conditions would have been met. If we look at what the OBR has said, we see that it is incredibly clear that the debt to GDP measure will not fall until 2024-25 and day-to-day debt will not fall until 2025-26. Given that the 0.7% goes up and down with our economic performance, a very important point is that the 0.7% policy protects us in that respect.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend not accept that the OBR has exaggerated the gloom on the debt and deficit, particularly in the last two years? It exaggerated it by £50 billion for last year between November and March, so why on earth does he believe the OBR’s gloomy figures now? I am sure we are going to get the deficit down.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is looking in the crystal ball, but I have read in the book: in the past 20 years, this would have happened on just one occasion. So a vote for the Government tonight is a vote to end our 0.7 commitment.
Anthony Mangnall
I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but does it say something when every economic and political commentator has said that this new mechanism will not see the 0.7% return in the way that it should and that this is a cop-out of the highest order?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, this is a trap for the unwary and a tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s silver tongue. So I shall certainly be voting against this motion and against the Government today. I shall do so with absolute conviction and profound disappointment. This is only the third time since I was elected in 1987 that I have voted against the Government, and on one of those occasions I was in the company of the Prime Minister in the Lobby. It is never easy to rebel and I thank those who have stood with us to support our manifesto. We should not be breaking our promise in this way. We should certainly not be seeking to balance the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world. I am incredibly proud to have been a member of a Conservative Administration who declined to do that even with the austerity that we faced.
For goodness sake, this is 1% of the borrowing that the Chancellor rightly made last year to shore up our country from covid. It is a tiny figure and it is the only cut that he has announced. That will have an enormous impact on our role in the world and, above all, on the huge number of people who will be severely damaged, maimed, blinded, as often happens, or indeed who will die as a result of the cuts. I remind the House that the cuts include a 25% cut to girls’ education, which is a top priority of our Prime Minister and this Administration. For neglected tropical diseases—thank goodness, the philanthropists have stepped in for one year only to protect the British taxpayers’ investment—we have cut aid by 90%. In Yemen, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, we have cut it by 60%, which is literally the equivalent of taking food away from starving people. This is what we are doing to the world’s poorest. This is how we are trashing our international reputation. We are the only country in the G7 that is cutting in the middle of a pandemic. Everyone else is increasing. This is a decision that we do not need to make. Since we started this campaign, there has been a 9% increase in support across our country for the Government’s policies. It is, to coin a phrase, worse than a crime; it is a mistake.
May I say, finally, in humble respect to my own party, that some of us have seen this movie before? It took us 23 years—until 2015—to achieve an overall majority by wiping out the Liberal Democrat seats, and to achieve it we secured the support of decent, internationalist, pro-development spending people, who saw from our time of austerity that we would stand by this promise. The former Brexit Secretary—my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis)—and I visited Chesham and Amersham. May I say that our much-loved former colleague, Cheryl Gillan, would have been voting with us on this issue tonight? Anyone who thinks that this issue is not affecting our party’s reputation is living in cloud cuckoo land. Chesham and Amersham has the biggest Christian Aid group in the country.
There is an unpleasant odour wafting out from under my party’s front door. This is not who we are. This is not what global Britain is. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against this motion.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
It does not show respect for the House to ask us to take such a significant decision with little notice, little explanation and no clarity about the consequences of today’s vote. It does not show respect for communities in the poorest parts of the world when this Government are willing to play games with their lives and livelihoods in this way. The Government present the motion as giving Parliament an opportunity to have a say on when and how the UK will return to spending 0.7% of GNI on aid. But today is not really about the 0.7% target, the cuts or the livelihoods that are already being affected by our reduced spending. It is about exerting pressure on Government Back Benchers who have been brave enough to call out what the Government are doing. Basically the Government are saying, “Back this or you will be blamed when taxes rise or spending falls”—things that will likely happen because of the pandemic anyway.
Today is yet another example of this Government’s complete lack of regard for parliamentary scrutiny, and they have form. There is a pattern of this Government withholding information until the last minute and then only making the most basic details available. Let us be clear: the Government have not brought forward a substantive motion for this debate. The motion that they have tabled is made in neutral terms—a device that was intended to allow the House to debate an issue without coming to a view. They claim that this debate is binding. It is not our procedures that make it binding; it is their political choice. This is a knee-jerk reaction dreamt up between last Thursday and yesterday in the face of growing criticism of this Government.
Yesterday’s written ministerial statement talks of returning to 0.7 % only when we are not borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt is falling. On their own, each of those tests is a high hurdle. When combined, these conditions become incredibly strict. Since the 0.7% target was introduced in 2013, these tests have been met only once. They explicitly link ODA spending to policy decisions made by other Government Departments on tax and spending. This double lock could lead to an indefinite cut in aid spending, and, of course, the tests do nothing to prevent the Government from dropping lower than the 0.5%.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the UK’s economy is forecast to return to pre-pandemic levels in the second quarter of 2020—faster than originally thought. If a return to economic normality is getting closer, why the need to introduce these extra tests before returning to 0.7%? They are just added roadblocks artfully placed by the Treasury on the track back to the legally mandated level of 0.7%. Fundamentally, the statement paints aid spending as an either/or choice; we are spending either on domestic public services or on international aid. It is an artificial choice that MPs are being forced to make. This is a breathtakingly cynical manoeuvre and the House must not fall for it.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I consider myself an economic Thatcherite, yet when I come to choose between money and lives, I always choose lives. This House should remember—this should be at the forefront of every Member’s mind today—that this is a vote where we are choosing whether or not to intervene to save lives. That is the key issue, not the monetary issue, which I will return to in a second.
The Government argue that this is a policy the United Kingdom cannot afford, but while we have heard about this being a small fraction of our borrowing, we should remember that it is an even smaller fraction of our spending. We spend, in a non-covid year, at least £800 billion; the £3.5 billion saving we are talking about is less than 0.5% of that. That is what the Treasury tells us is the critical, overwhelming measure that forces us to do something that has such dramatic consequences.
The Chancellor might say, as his press spokesman did in the course of last week, “Well, you find the money from somewhere else”—saying that to a past Public Accounts Committee Chairman is very dangerous for a Chancellor. We were in Chesham and Amersham a week or two ago, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said, and Cheryl Gillan would have said to the Chancellor, “Well why don’t you just cancel HS2?” That is between £100 billion and £200 billion; it would pay for 25 to 50 years of this shortfall. It is really that simple.
So I do not really accept what the Chancellor is saying—that the only place, indeed the best place, for savings to be found is cutting aid, which will cost lives. Such a choice is morally reprehensible. Let us be clear about that—morally reprehensible.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly good point, but has he also noticed that, in the Chancellor’s outstanding policy on spending announced last November, the cut that he is referring to—this cut of 1% of the borrowing on covid last year—is the only cut that has been announced?
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend is right. The prioritising of this cut makes it even more morally reprehensible. Indeed, at the same time, as I think the spokesman for the SNP, the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), said, we are increasing spending on defence. I happen to agree with increasing spending on defence, but I do not agree with cutting spending on things that will lead to the need for more defence because of migration, civil wars and the rest of it.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the Leader of the Opposition have pointed out, the Government’s proposed double lock on returning to 0.7% is deceptive. It is designed to look reasonable. However, in fact, none of the people who have spoken so far has actually stated the full case. Although we say that the condition has been met only once since 1990, under a Conservative Government, and has never been met, really—well, it was once, just about—since the 0.7% policy was put in place, it has actually never been met since 1970, because the wording is not “a current budget surplus” but
“a sustainable current budget surplus”.
All the current budget surpluses we have been talking about so far have been for one year—and frankly, the one under us in 2018 lasted about 10 nanoseconds; it was a very tiny surplus. In practice, we have not had a sustainable current surplus since the 1970s, so I am afraid that, under the actual wording in the statement, we are not looking at 0.7% for a very long time indeed. We heard the Leader of the Opposition say it would be years, possibly decades, possibly never, and I think he is right about that.
Even if the conditions were to be met, the proposal will do nothing to deal with the crises that are caused by the policy already, right now. The Government argue that the cuts are temporary, but death is never temporary—and this will cause deaths.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Since Ministers announced that the UK was going to be the only G7 country to cut its aid this year, despite all the other countries facing the same fiscal pressures, there is not one Member of this House who is not now aware of the consequences of the decision that Ministers have taken—a cut of 85% in the support that we give to the United Nations Population Fund to prevent maternal and child death and unwanted pregnancy; a cut of 95% to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, at the very moment when the world is closer than it has ever been to eradicating that dreadful disease; and a cut of 50% in the support we give to the humanitarian mine action programme, which stops people losing their arms, their legs and their lives to unexploded ordnance. It is a very long list, and every one of those things harms our reputation and does not help us to persuade others, because other countries judge us not by what we say, but by what we do.
The choice before the House today is a very stark one: do we act to put this right, or do we accept the double lock that has been proposed? I urge the House to reject it, because there is a principle here. What is it about the level of Government spending on helping the world’s poorest people that means that it alone is going to be subject to these tests? No other area of Government expenditure is: just this one. If this is about protecting the public finances, why is this area of Government expenditure—the money we spend on getting children into school, or on vaccinating children so they do not die of diseases that our children do not die of—being singled out? I have great admiration for the OBR, but determining the level of our international aid spending is not part of its responsibility. It is the Government’s responsibility, it is a political responsibility, and Ministers should not try to pass the buck on to someone else, especially since the latest OBR forecast makes clear that it is exceedingly unlikely that the two tests would be met in the next five years.
Mr Harper
Can I just pick the right hon. Gentleman up on that point about other areas of expenditure? The Treasury and the Chancellor have set out these tests—promises that are in our manifesto, and which we mean to keep. The comprehensive spending review is taking place this year, and it seems to me that we will be judging all other areas of Government expenditure by these same measures. I see the Chancellor nodding, so it seems to me that we are being very consistent here, and it is important that we keep our promises about our fiscal responsibilities as well as getting back on track to meet our aid responsibilities.
Hilary Benn
I am afraid that I take a different view of the Government’s consistency from the right hon. Gentleman’s, because they have chosen quite specifically, knowingly and deliberately to break a cast-iron promise to the world’s poorest people that was also contained in that manifesto. As I said in my last contribution on this subject, most of those people probably have no idea that this House made that commitment together, but the Government have chosen to break it, and the choice we are making today is whether we think that is right or wrong.
The Chancellor might think that the double lock is a way out of this political problem, but I do not think it is, because the issue before us has not gone away. It is just the same as it was on the day when the original cut was announced, and the question before us is whether it is right—morally, practically or politically—to break our word to the world’s poorest people. I would argue that it is not: it is wrong in principle and it is harmful in practice, as we have heard from excellent speeches made by Conservative Members. It is not who we are; it is not the country that we should aspire to be; and I ask the House to reject this motion so that we can restore aid to 0.7% and keep the promise that we made to the people of this country and the people of the world.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I rise really very sadly today, because like everybody else I stood on a manifesto that said that we would honour that 0.7% commitment, and I was there when we voted on it originally. The people we are trying to protect have already been hit, because our economy declined at the beginning of the covid pandemic. They will continue to be hit by this reduction to 0.5%, because 0.7% of a figure is a lot more than 0.5%. The amount has gone down hugely already, and people are suffering.
If we take a random family with two parents and maybe six children, four of whom are boys and two of whom are girls, the girls will be the ones who have less food and who would benefit from the nutritional programmes that we provide, but we will not be providing those programmes. The girls would normally get less food, because boys are prioritised in many families, and the boys would probably go to school, whereas the girls would not be able to go to school because they would not have the funding to enable them to afford it. The Prime Minister has stood so often on the promise that he will educate all girls with 12 years of quality education. Well, no matter how he protests, that is not going to happen now.
I feel that we are letting down the poorest people in the world. We are devastating their futures for £4 billion, which, as we have heard, is 1% of what has already been borrowed. It is not a lot of money. We have borrowed that money and, as has been said by many, the people who we should be benefiting will not benefit. They will not have malaria treatments, they will not have the neglected tropical disease treatments and they will not have all the help they need. Especially, they will have earlier marriages and younger pregnancies because we are cutting the devastating figure of 85% of the family planning budget and the abortion budget. That is going to devastate many girls. Many girls will die in early childbirth because of this decision by the Government.
I find it shocking that this Government are doing this. We are a Conservative Government, and we decided to spend the 0.7%. We legislated for it, and now we are letting the very poorest people down. I do not see how anybody who has heard the speeches today could in all conscience vote to support what the Government want to do with the double lock, because we will never get back to 0.7%.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank Members from across the House for their perseverance on this issue. When the Government announced last summer that the Department for International Development would merge with the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I and my fellow Liberal Democrats warned of the risk to overseas development assistance and funding. I asked an urgent question to the Foreign Secretary I wrote to the Secretary of State for International Development on those very issues. The Secretary of State said at the time:
“We are committed to the 0.7% of GNI commitment…We want the aid budget and the development know-how and expertise that we have in DFID—it has done a fantastic job…at the beating heart of our international decision-making processes.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 947.]
But here we are, just one year later. With the Government having claimed just last week that the opportunity to vote on this cut to ODA spending had been lost by a Division not being called in the recent estimates day debate, I wonder what has caused them to change their mind and bring forward today’s debate at such short notice.
Economic circumstances caused by covid are not the fault of the world’s poorest, and we and the many charities and NGOs that contacted me in advance of today’s debate know that the poorest will be hardest hit by these cuts. The reality of the covid pandemic is that no one is safe until everyone is safe. At the heart of this is the sharing of urgently needed vaccines around the world, but it is not only that. We know that global inequalities and poverty mean that people around the world cannot take precautions to protect themselves. We cannot expect those without access to clean water—785 million at the last count in 2017—to be able to wash their hands for 20 seconds.
Slashing development spending is deeply harmful to the notion of global Britain and to us at home. The cuts to this funding also mean cuts to spending within the UK, a fact that I think is sometimes lost. ODA funding goes to many places, including our universities that are doing research into how best to tackle the entrenched causes of global inequality and how to support developing countries to be self-sufficient. St Andrews University in my constituency is looking at up to 50% cuts to some of its active projects, which will impact on the poorest today. These cuts harm not only those in need around the world but our own research and innovation industries, which are vital to our response to Brexit and to facing the climate crisis.
Turning to the Government’s update, the fiscal tests for development spending presented today are the height of cynicism. They are designed never to be met. As others have said, we have met these tests only once in this century. Conservative MPs must know that supporting today’s motion means not returning to 0.7% in this Parliament, and that means that every one of them who supports the Government today will be breaking their manifesto promise for five years in a row. It is a straight choice: do we return to 0.7%, as we were all elected to this place to do, or do we fail to be the global leader on this issue that the UK has been to this point?
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am delighted to be called, and I pay enormous tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is sitting on the Front Bench today. The Chancellor demonstrated during his career before reaching this place that we can do well by doing good. In working for the Children’s Investment Fund Management, he proved that finance and capitalism can support the world’s poorest and change lives, but he will also recognise that even an impressive fund such as that is built on a stable platform created by Governments and guaranteed by organisations, international bodies and others. I am very sorry but for that reason I will not be able to support him today, because that platform is so important. That confidence and ability to rely on a stable platform for the future is essential. Instead of that continuity and that guarantee of an enduring future, we are sadly going back towards the yo-yo policy. That is not just bad because of the variability; it is bad because it costs more and delivers less. Frankly, it is inefficient, it is an error and it undermines our capability.
Nobody in this House is more passionate about global Britain or Britain’s place in the world than me. Nobody believes more that we should have a place at every table and a voice in every room. But we need to know that we are no longer buying that with gunboats; we are buying it with the aid and the effectiveness that we bring.
Anthony Mangnall
My hon. and gallant Friend is making an impressive speech. He talks about global Britain; the point of global Britain is diplomacy, trade, aid and defence. Those four things are interconnected with one another: if we reduce one, that has an impact on all. That will be detrimental to everything from the integrated review to our outside approach.
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend is completely correct. Of course, the reality is that we are not living in a vacuum—we are not taking these decisions with nobody watching. Our friends are watching and our rivals are watching. As we make this decision, as we change our policy on Afghanistan, and as we buy different seats at various UN tables through our diplomacy in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and South America, we know that we are changing the rules by which we live. We are literally changing the standards of our modern world through how we buy support, develop allies and partner around the world.
As Members have said, this debate is of course about the world’s poorest, but it is not just about the world’s poorest. Fundamentally, it is about Britain and how we protect ourselves. How do we shape this world? How do we get the standards that make sure that British businesses succeed, British finance shapes the world and British rules are those that the world lives by? We do that by making sure that we win the votes at the UN by making sure that we have the voices around the table—the voices of the Foreign Ministers of countries around the world. We can do it; I know that because we have done it. For 20 years we have won debates, shaped arguments and defended our position. We have done it by doing well and by doing good—exactly as the Chancellor demonstrated in his pre-political career.
I can understand why the Government might say that these targets—these ambitions—are too high and that they wish to set a different spending limit, but that is not the argument they are making. The argument that the Government are making is the Augustinian argument: “Lord, make me chaste—but not just yet.” If you wish to be holy, choose sanctity; if you wish not to be, be frank with what you are choosing.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) [V]
That was a great speech and it is a pleasure to follow it.
The House does not need a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury to lay out how today’s motion is a con job, but I shall explain it anyway. The Red Book published at the most recent Budget shows that public sector net debt will not fall until 2024 at the earliest, but there is no way that a Chancellor or Chief Secretary would ever make a judgment about whether it was falling sustainably on one year alone, which means that this cut is now forecast to stretch way into the next Parliament. Yet the sums we are talking about are just 0.14% of the national debt stock. This comes at a time when we are putting up defence spending by £24 billion yet cutting aid spending by £4 billion. We are boasting about our soft power superpower status and then slashing into the budget that delivers that soft power. A country’s values are judged by its budget, and this aid cut tells us everything we need to know about this Government’s priorities.
The second point is that this aid cut will cost lives and it will cost livelihoods. The Prime Minister sailed into the G7 very proud of his declaration that he wanted to jab the world and make sure that, by the end of next year, the world would be safe from covid. However, by the end of the G7, the IMF said that we were about $23 billion short of what we needed for a global vaccination programme. This aid cut will not help that; it will hurt that effort to jab the world.
Moreover, we have a significant problem now getting the world back on its feet after this pandemic. The IMF thinks that we need about $200 billion extra in spending to protect the world against covid and $250 billion of extra investment—climate-friendly investment—to help safeguard the recovery. How will this aid cut help with that great global project that we must attend to in the years ahead? It will not; it will damage the world’s efforts to get there and it will damage our efforts to help persuade others to get to that big target.
It is 36 years to the day since we celebrated Live Aid, an example of how we in this country set out to lead the world to help the world’s poorest. On this day of all days the Government are set to surrender that leadership. We cannot have a rules-based order if we have a Prime Minister who continues to shred the rules. This is a renegade act by a renegade Government and I will be voting against the motion tonight.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
There are, I think, two primary arguments for opposing the Government this afternoon. The first is that the 0.7% overseas aid target was a manifesto commitment. That is a serious point, though the electorate will appreciate that the expectations on which those manifestos were based have changed substantially since covid-19.
The second is that the target is in statute in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015. That is true, but the Act also envisages and allows for circumstances in which the Government might not meet the target in any given year, including the impact on public borrowing, and Parliament cannot stop the Government doing so. The Act, at section 3(1), is very clear about that. We have the right only to be informed of how and why the target is to be missed. As far as I can tell, nobody is proposing to amend the 2015 Act, so it will remain unchanged whatever the vote this afternoon.
I welcome the Government’s clarification that they are not seeking unilaterally to change the statutory target, but rather to miss it. Those are different things, and the former would, in my view, be both wrong and unlawful, but we either trust the Government or we do not. If we do not trust the Government—and we are here because a large number of Members do not—why would we trust them to keep the 0.7% commitment beyond next year when the Act so clearly allows them to decide not to? Transparent, externally judged criteria, arguably at least, would leave those of us who want to see the preservation of aid spending in a stronger position than under the 2015 Act alone, which applies what are in truth fairly loose shackles to Government on aid spending and leaves it entirely to Government to decide when to escape them, and that cannot help provide the certainty that the aid sector rightly seeks.
I believe in the merits of overseas aid spending and I have used many of the arguments made so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who deserves huge credit for extracting the compromises that the Government have already made. Those arguments, though, must in the end persuade the public whose money we are spending. As Conservatives, we also argue that high public debt is bad for our long-term capacity to support the vulnerable everywhere. Enduring public support for aid spending may well depend on the public recognising that we have apportioned the financial burden of the covid crisis fairly, and not protected aid spending to the detriment of other areas of spending that they may find at least as deserving. I think the Government are now trying to strike that balance. Recognising though I do the strength of the arguments made by many on both sides of this House in the course of this debate, it is important and necessary to give the Government credit for that effort.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Government’s decision to renege on their international obligations rides roughshod over those ring-fenced commitments and puts at risk the lives of millions across the globe. That is not in our national interest, and it is certainly not in our national security interest, and that is before taking into consideration our moral duty as a nation to alleviate global poverty.
Damningly, several former Prime Ministers, who proudly upheld our country’s aid commitments, have voiced their concerns about this Government’s handling of their international aid obligations. Indeed, we heard earlier that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has committed to voting against a three-line Conservative Whip for the first time ever, so powerfully does she feel about this issue.
When the right hon. Lady spoke in this debate, she was crystal clear on what the aid cuts would mean, “fewer girls will be educated, more girls and boys will become slaves, more children will go hungry and more of the poorest people in the world will die.” A damning indictment from a former Conservative Prime Minister.
The UK has a long and proud track record of stepping up to support those in need. We cannot abandon our responsibilities to those around the world who are most poverty-stricken, least of all in a global pandemic. The UK is currently the only G7 country to commit in legislation to spending 0.7% of gross national income on international development, a target set by the United Nations, and it is the second largest international development donor behind only the US. That is right and proper, and it is a fact.
The extended families of many of my Ilford South constituents directly benefit from UK aid, lifting millions out of illiteracy and poverty and providing so much support to some of the poorest communities around the globe, including in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka.
However, instead of leading by example, this Government are now, shamefully, the only G7 Government to cut their aid budget this year. There can be no clearer argument against cutting aid than the devastating impact on the covid response. In April this year, when the delta variant was ravaging India, vital coronavirus research centres—including a project tracking variants in India—had their funding reduced by up to 70%, prompting the project lead to say that the cut would not only make vital projects unviable but would, in effect, kill them dead.
In May, the Tropical Health and Education Trust criticised the UK Government for slashing £48 million in global healthcare funding as part of their wider cuts. Indeed, the NHS’s plans to donate 6 million items of personal protective equipment to healthcare workers fighting new variants across the world were held up, yet again preventing the containment of the virus.
We have a duty to act, and we must do so now before it is too late for millions who rely on direct aid. This is not about giving a man a fish to feed himself but about giving him a net to provide for himself. It is about our historic obligation to lift up the global south using our nation’s far greater resources.
I welcome the actions of Conservative Members who will join us today in voting against this callous and awful manoeuvre by the Government.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
This is a very difficult debate, because all of us, on both sides of the House, know what good UK aid spending does. We are all proud of what we have been able to achieve with our aid spending. It does not just help in and of itself; it also helps the British taxpayer and British people because, by investing in areas like education, vaccination and supporting local economies, we stop some of those problems washing up on British shores.
We understand that but, when we get underneath all this, it is really about competing political necessities and competing political choices. On the one hand, as we come out of the covid pandemic—we know how many hundreds of billions of pounds have been spent—we have a real need, as a responsible Government in fiscal terms, to get our day-to-day spending back in balance and to ensure that our debt ends up falling as a percentage of GDP. That will enable the public spending to support all the vulnerable people in this country—all British taxpayers everywhere—as well as the poorest people in the world through aid spending. At the same time, there is a need to help the poorest people in the world. That is the balance that we are trying to strike, and I believe that the Government have struck the right one.
Some hon. Members have talked about the fiscal tests the Government have set, and they somehow suggest that the tests have been met only once in the past 20 years. I have looked at it, and both tests were met in 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2018-19. If I am right, although the Chancellor may correct me if I am wrong, underlying debt fell for four years in a row before the pandemic, so it is not true that, somehow, these are impossible tests.
Even if hon. Members do not believe me, the key thing, and this is why I respect and accept this compromise position, is that these are transparent and clear criteria. Everybody knows what they are. We can judge them independently, and the OBR, which we all know and trust, is perfectly capable of doing so. Finally, what is important is not just how much money is spent but how we spend it. What I would like to see in our aid budget is more of that money, not just with multinationals, which do a lot of good work, but for smaller charities working on the ground such as Harpenden Spotlight on Africa, which is based in my constituency and does fantastic work in rural Uganda. Having seen the work that it does on the ground, working with bigger multinationals and the Ugandan Government, I know that such charities can do fantastic things, and I would like to see the spend that we have, at 0.5% temporarily, go more towards some of those grassroots organisations so that we can spend our money even more effectively and get more for what we are doing.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I would like to say that it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, but that would not be true. I am appalled that we are having to vote on this proposal at all. This cut to our international aid budget reflects badly on all of us, not just the Government, and portrays the UK as inward-looking and self-serving.
This is a Tory manifesto promise that will be broken, and broken very publicly, as the whole world is watching. I wonder how the Prime Minister can have the bottle to attend COP26 and call on other countries to raise finances for climate action, given that he is in charge of a Government who are cutting their own contribution—surely the ultimate act of hypocrisy.
If overseas aid funding was going to finance vanity projects, trips to the moon or high-flying, cutting-edge dodgy ventures, I could begin to understand the reasoning behind the decision, but none of the projects fall into those categories. They are basic health and social care projects that benefit millions of people across poorer countries on our planet. It funds basic projects such as polio eradication, sexual health advice, the clearing of landmines, education programmes, the provision of clean water and sanitation, and the prevention of sexual exploitation of women and girls. The money funds training programmes such as the NHS overseas training scheme, which trains 78,000 healthcare workers in Nepal, Uganda, Ethiopia, Bangladesh and Myanmar.
Many projects will now come to an end, affecting lives in countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Somaliland, Nigeria and many more. By cutting funding to those numerous projects the Government will cause many unnecessary deaths, which is a scandal. We must highlight that callous approach today. Before Government Members say, “Oh, it is just Labour Members whingeing again”, let us have a look at the people who are calling for a reversal of the cuts: Tory Ministers such as Ruth Davidson; Baroness Sugg, who resigned from the Government in November over the cuts; and the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma).
World leaders have condemned the cuts, including Samantha Power, head of the United States Agency for International Development, and Malala, who calls on the Prime Minister to keep his promise of helping 40 million girls go to school, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who describes the Chancellor’s decision as “shameful and wrong”. Interestingly, every living former Prime Minister is opposed to the plan. These are big hitters, and their condemnation is clear. I therefore urge the current Prime Minister and the Chancellor to think again, go back to the drawing board, and plan a different route that does not disadvantage millions of people in countries less affluent than our own. This is not fair and it is not right. I want to be very clear: I will vote against the Government’s plan to cut the overseas aid budget by £4 billion this year, and I urge Government Members to do the same, because the world is watching.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
I am pleased that the House has an opportunity both to debate and to determine this question. I have always defended our aid budget, and I do not think that we should search for economies at the expense of the most vulnerable globally and at the expense of our own reputation and influence globally.
I do not need to rehearse the case for ODA spending, which funds the vaccination of 55 million people; saves an incredible 10 million children from hunger; and helps to provide 50 million people with the means to climb out of poverty. I do not need to describe its soft-power benefits: the influence for Britain culturally, diplomatically, and politically; its symbolic significance; and its demonstration of leadership. I could not, therefore, support the reduction of that spending when the return to 0.7% is effectively at the whim or under the control of the Government. No matter how strong the intention to raise it again, events are always likely to overtake and overcome good intentions.
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the conversations that we have had in recent days. Given the uncertainty in the economy, I entirely understand his reluctance to offer a date for the restoration of the 0.7%. However, a set of conditions would provide a pathway, governed by objective circumstances, to a solution. Ceding control of the mechanism to the OBR and basing it on conditions that were met as recently as 2018-19—and forecasted by the OBR in 2018-19 and in 2020 to be met in the following financial year—would provide that pathway back to our manifesto commitment and our duty to the world.
The Treasury is effectively outsourcing its spending decisions to the OBR and the state of the public finances. I do not believe that that has happened before and it provides us with the certainty we need that the cut is temporary and that our commitment to 0.7% will be upheld. It also ensures that our public finances are protected. That not only gives us a route back, but ensures that the current position is transitory, so I will support the motion. The worth of a commitment is whether it is upheld in the face of challenges, and the motion allows us to meet our challenges and our commitments.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
There is no economic or moral justification for cutting overseas aid from the richest to the poorest at this most desperate time in the eye of the pandemic storm, which spreads death, disease and hunger like a wildfire through developing nations. Let us imagine looking at our children starving in front of us, huddled in a tent in the blistering heat of Afghanistan, Yemen or Syria, as we think about the cars, houses, fridges and Netflix that people have in the west. Let us imagine looking at our daughters who could help create a better world with an education but will not get one, or our parents who have just died from covid. We can help alleviate such poverty, ignorance and disease by reinstating the aid budget. As host of the G7 and COP26, we should take moral leadership.
Let us be clear: we can afford to help those in greatest need more, not less because the cost of UK borrowing is down, not up, since the pandemic. Why? Global interest rates are down, so our borrowing costs are down—from £37 billion in 2019-20 to £23 billion in 2020-21. That is a saving of £14 billion in spending on debt interest for the UK, but aid spending is still being cut by £4.4 billion. The Prime Minister has just said that every pound we spend on aid has to be borrowed. We can afford more aid now because our borrowing and debt interest costs are massively down. Now is the time to invest and to build back better out of the pandemic in the developing world, and to invest in climate change adaptation, with new green industries that will help all our environments.
In a low interest world, now is the time to borrow and invest. A cut of £1 million in aid could be reinstated and service a debt of £100 million in investment. Only the G7 can borrow at such low interest rates; developing nations cannot. It is no use saying that we cannot afford it this year due to the pandemic and that maybe we will reinstate money in future years. We can afford it this year, and now is when the money is needed most. If savings were needed—and they are not—they should be made after the pandemic, when the poorest are back on their feet, not in their darkest hour of need.
We know the politics of popular nationalism. We know that 7.6 million people in the UK are in hunger, so of course people are saying that charity begins at home. But that hunger is unnecessary too and we should not give other G7 nations an excuse to cut their aid. We need more aid, not less. Britain is better than this. Let us make the world better. Let us reinstate our aid budget now.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I am glad to see the Chancellor in his place; I have a couple of specific questions for him on science policy.
First, in the context of this debate, I am very proud of our leadership and our contribution to supporting people right across the world. I voted enthusiastically for the Act of Parliament that brought the 0.7% commitment into law. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for his work on that Act, but, in so doing, he will know that it specifically anticipated circumstances in which, temporarily, the 0.7% target may not be met, including
“any substantial change in gross national income”
and/or
“fiscal circumstances…in particular, the likely impact of…the target on taxation, public spending and public borrowing”.
It is hard not to consider that the circumstances that we are experiencing fall plumb into line with what the framers of the legislation and those who supported it had in mind.
Mr Mitchell
I was involved in the drafting of the Act and I do not believe that that is what we intended with those clauses. Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Governor of the Bank of England has said that the economy will have been restored to pre-covid levels by next month? Does he not think that that is a very significant indicator of why we should not be doing what the Government would like us to do today?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I quite agree that that is an encouraging assessment, not least for the prospects of our returning to the 0.7%.
I studied very carefully the Hansard transcripts of the debate, and some of the criticism was that the criteria might be insufficiently precise, so the innovation of establishing in advance and giving to the Office for Budget Responsibility the trigger for the return is a sensible course. Indeed, this mirrors, more or less, the fiscal rules that were once called the fiscal mandate that were in place at the time that the Act was originally adopted. I want the target back, and I hope, as the Governor does, that that will be sooner rather than later, and that the Chancellor will be able to confirm that it is his firm intention, as I think is clear from what he said in the written statement.
My questions on science are twofold. First, the science budget is, very importantly, increasing from about £9 billion a year in 2017 to £22 billion a year from 2024-25. That includes, as it always has done, official development assistance. Will the Chancellor specifically reiterate the commitment to achieving that £22 billion by 2024-25? Secondly, will he reassure me on a report I read that the 0.5% limit on ODA could somehow prevent us from engaging in international scientific research projects that we were perfectly willing to fund because they are excellent and are justified as part of the budget that is rising to £22 billion? We all know that science is inherently international. The best science is global and the best teams are often international teams, so it would be a great concern if the 0.5% target would in any way be a cap on international collaboration. Knowing my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s commitment to science and technology, I cannot believe that that is his intention. His commitment to the £22 billion budget and his reassurance that the target will not be a cap will be very important in establishing that the science aspect can continue, and that this is, in effect, the removal of a ring-fence rather than a limitation on international scientific research.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Prime Minister told the House earlier that there was common ground in the House. I think he is right, but I suspect, having listened to contributions from the Conservative Benches, that he is not standing on that common ground. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for the courage that he and other Conservative Members have shown in standing up for this issue consistently, and also standing up for their manifesto, along with the rest of us. The Government have a good story to tell on this issue if they wanted to—on Gavi, for example, and on their support for education for women and girls. I wonder why they do not want to tell this story to the country. I think it is because too many of them are ashamed of it and because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they are playing to a gallery but playing to the wrong gallery. It is a dangerous game that they are playing.
The proposals before the House today are myopic and mean-minded. They are mean-minded because we can see that this is a trick—a fiscal trap. We were promised a straight up-and-down vote but we were not given one; instead we were given this little twisting mechanism. It is mean-minded, too, because, as we have heard, it will cost lives to make these cuts, and because they are already a cut to what would have been a smaller cake anyway. The money had already gone down and to cut it further is simply mean. With any of these programmes we cannot simply turn the taps on, then off and then back on again. The damage that will be done to British overseas aid programmes will carry on long after we restore the 0.7%, if, under this proposed mechanism, we ever do restore it.
This cut will set programmes back. It will set research and development back, including for my constituents. I have a constituent who works in water purification and another who works in localised energy matters. These cuts will have an effect overseas, but let us be clear: they will have effects in this country as well, in terms of innovation and our ability to take technologies across the world. They will have effects in areas such as the polio eradication programme. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has said, cuts of 95% will set that programme back. The cut is myopic, for the reasons already set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat): it will damage British soft power, with the British Council telling me that it will lose 15% to 20% of staff and will be unable to carry out programmes in the countries where we need to be influencing; and it will affect our strategic position, as the Leader of the Opposition has said.
Overseas aid is a moral issue, but if we cannot look at it like that, let us be clear: our adversaries, Russia and China, and our enemies, al-Qaeda and Islamic State, will fill the gap if we do not, and this will simply make matters worse in the long run. This is a short-sighted, short-termist cut. It is mean-minded. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for his leadership, and I will not be accepting this motion tonight.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
I start by acknowledging the excellent speeches made by a number of hon. Members who have so passionately set out the case for official development assistance. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) eloquently and characteristically passionately made the case for the ODA budget. In normal times I would be with him in this debate, but today I support the Government’s decision.
I am a big believer in the role of international aid and how it shows the world what we stand for as a nation. Our role on the global stage is amplified by our magnanimity through international aid, and in a world with ever-increasing threats our ODA budget represents a tool through which the UK can demonstrate its generosity, moral strength, friendship and nobility. When considering this, one can understand why it evokes so much passion from Members in all parts of the House, Indeed, many of my constituents have spoken to me about the importance they attach to the ODA budget, but time and time again they have said to me, “We know it has been a difficult time. We know we must manage the economy. We know we must pay the bills.” As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already said, we cannot ignore the state our economy is in, after the worst crisis since the last two world wars. Having borrowed more than £300 billion, the equivalent of 14.3% of our GDP, it is clear that difficult decisions have to be made.
In that context, I understand why the Government have had to make this temporary cut, but it must be temporary. With the clarity offered by the Treasury, I believe it will be. Of course we must repair our economy—that is not a controversial thing; it is simply what is expected of us by the British people. We will also continue to spend almost £10 billion as part of the ODA budget if this cut is to go through. The British people also expect strong public services and efficiency from government, so difficult decisions are inevitable and they obviously have to be made. We also continue to demonstrate our soft power through other means, with the distribution of the vaccine being an excellent example. The Government’s investment meant that there were 500 million doses available to 168 countries, all distributed at no profit. By the end of the year, we will have distributed 3 billion doses—this is British ingenuity and British generosity.
Finally, in a world of finite resources and increasing strains on our economy, we must make sure that our ODA is being deployed effectively, and projects should be subject to the highest levels of scrutiny. In other words, not just how much we spend, but how we spend that money should be important—outcomes matter. The effectiveness of the budget should not be measured purely in monetary terms; we should measure it against robust targets, which are set to achieve our objectives and ultimately make the world a better place.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
I am enormously proud of our record of supporting the most vulnerable and using aid to make our people and those around the world safer, but we have suffered the biggest recession in 300 years. That is not a situation that we could have predicted when I fought the election on our manifesto promises, yet the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 explicitly anticipated this sort of crisis where a departure from targets is necessary.
If I had been asked during the election whether I would reconsider the 0.7% commitment, I would have said, “Yes, but only in the very darkest of times,” and if the last year or so has not been the darkest of times, then what is? Since my election, we have faced an enormous number of difficult choices. In Rutland and Melton those difficult choices and dark times have looked like this: the Government having to support 17,900 jobs through furlough and 4,500 individuals, and underwrite nearly £123 million in loans—that is almost half of all employee jobs in Rutland and Melton that we had to save. That support was necessary, but the costs pose real risks for the future, too.
Even with the reduction in UK aid, we remain the second largest donor in the G7. The taxes of residents of Rutland and Melton will continue to go towards saving lives, disaster relief, peacekeeping, and tackling climate change. We should be proud of that, and I hope that the reorganisation of the FCDO can augment our capacity to respond to crises outside of the ODA budget through the new conflict centre.
But today in the Chamber hon. Members have criticised the Government by arguing that other G7 countries are not temporarily reducing their ODA budgets, yet in 2020 we were one of only two G7 countries to meet that target and we are the only one to do it every year since 2013. Perhaps it is because those countries have not met their commitments in normal times that they do not now need to make a temporary reduction; indeed, they had no plans in the first place to meet the 0.7% they promised.
With this temporary reduction, we will still exceed the funding provided by every country bar one; we will remain one the most generous countries in the world. This is a temporary measure that recognises the fiscal duty we have to our children. It recognises that we will still stand by those most in need, and the Government have defined the fiscal circumstances in which we will return to 0.7%. This does not diminish our country, and, while this is a difficult decision, it is the right one for now because we have faced the darkest of times.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The Scottish National party opposes these cuts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) eloquently outlined. We are committed to our 0.7% manifesto commitment. Some 98.2% of the votes cast in the Sterling election in 2019 went to parties committed to the 0.7%, so I am representing my party and my constituency in the stance we have taken.
I pay tribute to and warmly praise a number of Members on the Government Benches; we have heard some refreshing blasts of integrity throughout this discussion. This is too important for Punch and Judy politics.
There are just three points I would make, because this is a well-trodden path at this point in the debate. First, the 0.7% figure is a Government manifesto commitment made barely 18 months ago. Secondly, yes, covid has changed everything of course, but it has changed everything for everybody else as well, and to use covid as a pretext for this cut when the developing world is also dealing with covid and the effects of the economic impact is reprehensible.
Thirdly, the cut is out of step with the rest of the world. The UK is the outlier in this; other countries are increasing, not decreasing, their aid spending. The UK remains, as we have heard, a significant donor of international aid—I applaud that, I welcome that, I acknowledge that—but this is a broken promise to the poorest people in the world at the worst possible time, and it flies in the face of the global consensus. Canada is increasing its spend by 28% while the UK is decreasing its by 25%, and France is increasing its spend by 36%, Italy by 13%, the US by 39.4% and Germany by 6%. It is the UK that is out of step.
Global Britain is clearly not the SNP’s project, but we are engaged in this because we do not want to see the poorest in the world let down. We want to try to rectify a mistake and to see Scottish taxes—or, more realistically, Scottish debt—go to effective purposes rather than where this Government might take them. We are entirely unconvinced by the Government’s compromise proposal; we think that to present this as an arithmetic formula is to misrepresent this issue entirely. Estimates and numbers are arguable of course, but, as has been acknowledged throughout this debate, only once in the last 20 years have the criteria foreseen within the Government’s mechanism been met. We fear this is a formula to entrench the cuts, not to bring the spending back.
Now, of course the books need to be balanced, and I feel for the Government in that task, but the difference between 0.5% and 0.7% is barely 1% of the global sum. For a Government who have spent money on increasing defence spending and nuclear capacity, blown £1.3 billion on a needless stamp duty freeze and yet—worse—are talking about a royal yacht, I think the priorities are wrong. I do hope that a significant number of Conservative Members will join the coalition to put this right.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith).
I have been speaking to my constituents in Derbyshire Dales who are, by and large, generous and kind-spirited people. I have listened carefully to their views and, following those discussions, I will be voting for the motion as it provides certainty and a clearly outlined path for our international spending to get back to our 0.7% manifesto commitment while delivering responsible public finances and allowing us to maintain a high level of spending on other priorities at home such as the NHS, schools and the police. It also delivers on our manifesto promises for responsible public finances.
At 0.5%, the UK is spending more than £10 billion on overseas aid this year. That is a phenomenal amount of money. Let us not forget that we are one of the most generous, kindest and biggest spenders in the world. I remind those who wish unfairly to characterise the Government as somehow mean or uncaring that Conservative Governments have consistently spent more on international aid than Labour. Under Labour Governments between 1997 and 2009, the average spend on overseas aid was just 0.36% The Opposition are therefore hardly in a position to lecture the Government on overseas spending. The Leader of the Opposition may find those arguments helpful in court, but they do not work here. Once again, the Opposition are totally out of tune with the British population.
We believe that, given the unusual time that the Government have had with the covid pandemic, we must balance spending. The Government have spent more than £400 billion on keeping the nation safe, keeping our families secure and preserving jobs and livelihoods. That has given the people of my constituency a way forward in frightening and worrying times. On behalf of the people of Derbyshire Dales, I thank the Government for their support. They are kind, not mean.
We must not forget that, as my adult sons remind me regularly, every pound we spend on international aid is borrowed from our future generations. As a mother of four adult children, and representing many families in Derbyshire Dales, I have a duty to help restore the public finances to some sort of responsible level. For those reasons, I have no hesitation in supporting this sound motion.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
We had a 20-year cross-party consensus that we should meet the UN’s target of 0.7% of GNI on aid. I very much regret that that consensus has been lost. Of course, when GDP goes down, our aid budget will go down, but the pandemic is no justification for reducing the proportion of national income committed to international aid.
In a fine speech, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) referred to the strength of Christian Aid in Chesham and Amersham. As a Treasury Minister in the late 1990s, I saw the churches play the key role in securing that cross-party consensus. They were the instigators of Jubilee 2000 ahead of the millennium and the key supporters of Make Poverty History afterwards. Those campaigns led to the historic 2005 Gleneagles deal in which $40 billion of debts owed by 18 highly indebted poor countries were written off. The idea of cancelling unpayable debts inspired people and drew them together. Rooted in teaching in the Bible, it had a dramatic impact on Government policy and on the lives of millions.
Last month, I joined MPs on a virtual trip to Togo organised by the Christian charity Compassion UK. We “visited” its UK aid-funded child survival project. The situation in Togo is desperate. Under-five mortality is among the worst in the world, one in 25 babies does not reach the age of one, and women have a one-in-58 chance of dying in pregnancy or childbirth. Compassion UK’s work, supported by UK aid, is starting to change things: in the first year, the project reached more than 4,000 people in extreme poverty and the number of full-term healthy babies delivered was 24% above target. UK development aid helps to save lives among the world’s poorest people.
We met somebody called Ama, who registered in the programme when she was seven months pregnant. She was struggling to feed her children. When she reached full term, her husband left suddenly. She also had malaria. Her baby and her own life were at risk. The child survival project provided food and hygiene support. Her expenses were paid, she gave birth to a son and she has since been able to set up a business of her own.
Even a small amount of aid saves lives. The cuts to UK aid put thousands of projects like those run by Compassion UK in Togo at risk. I really hope that Parliament will reject the motion.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate. I recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has probably the most difficult job in the Government, bar none, and perhaps in the whole country. He is the only person employed to say no and make difficult choices about the spending demands that we all present at the door of the Treasury. Nevertheless, I share the concerns, fears and doubts expressed by colleagues this afternoon about whether the cuts that we are debating will become permanent. I share their fear that 0.5% will become the default setting for our overseas aid spending and that the cuts will become locked in—a permanent withdrawal and a permanent stepping back from the level of commitment that Britain has given overseas among the poorest countries on earth. I share those fears not only for reasons that hon. Members have already outlined, but because I think we are in danger of overlooking just how enormous the effort was that got us to the point where the House of Commons was united on making the commitment to 0.7%, as the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has just reminded us.
I am perhaps one of the few Members present who was in the House in 2005. I recall the enormous lobbying efforts made not just by churches, but by trade unions, women’s institutes and groups in all our constituencies. There was demand for that commitment. It required Opposition Front Benchers to work with Government Front Benchers; it required Opposition Back Benchers to work with Government Back Benchers. For me, it represented a high water mark of what can be achieved in this House of Commons when people choose to bury some of their political differences and work together for a cause much bigger than our most immediate political needs.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is making a wonderful speech. He refers to his longevity in the House. Does he remember how Make Poverty History galvanised national opinion? Crack the Crises is the current successor to that generation, and it is reinforced by younger people. Does he accept that once covid is over and they are able to show what they feel, they will make very clear their opposition to this foolish decision that the Government have made?
Stephen Crabb
My right hon. Friend makes a very strong point, and he is right that there was a popular movement behind the commitment. Nevertheless, it was not universally popular. There were staunch critics inside and outside the House, sections of the press absolutely hated it, and as we went through the financial crisis in 2009 and 2010, the criticism became louder.
As the ripples from that crisis have moved through our politics over the past 11 years, it has become increasingly difficult to keep making the case for investing 0.7% of our GNI in helping the world’s poorest people, but I am proud that we chose to stick to it. Even when we were making very difficult decisions and choices about other aspects of public spending, we took a decision that spending more on the people with the very least, globally, was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do then in the wake of the last financial crisis, and I believe it is still the right thing to do now as we are going through this awful pandemic. Yes, we face a moment in our politics when we have enormous pressures on our public finances—and I made those remarks about the Chancellor of the Exchequer very sincerely at the start—but what is a difficult moment for us fiscally and politically is an absolutely tragic, devastating moment for the poorest people around the world for whom the pandemic has been the cause of another wave of dire poverty and suffering, and that is what we are really debating here this afternoon.
These are difficult issues, and sincere speeches have been made on either side of the argument, but I am very sad that I will not be able to support my Government this afternoon. As I have said, I think the 0.7% commitment we made all those years ago was the right thing to do—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for the role he played—and sticking to it now is still the right thing to do.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister brought a very sombre tone to the Dispatch Box this afternoon, trying to convince us that this decision was all a regrettable consequence of the economic impact of the pandemic, but that rings hollow when we remember the glee with which he stood at the Dispatch Box this time last year and announced the abolition of the Department for International Development, when he described aid and DFID as a
“giant cashpoint in the sky”.—[Official Report, 16 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 670.]
We also remember that, as Foreign Secretary, he quoted Kipling in a Buddhist temple in Myanmar and, when he was a journalist, used the language of “piccaninnies” and “watermelon smiles”.
This is a Prime Minister and a Government who know little and care less about the struggles of poverty, whether at home or abroad, or about the life-saving, life-changing difference that aid can and does make around the world. A bit like the English votes for English laws Standing Orders that we will be debating later today, the aid budget to them is just another part of David Cameron’s legacy that they seem so keen to bury. I think the Prime Minister likes the fact that he is the only living Prime Minister who supports the cut in the aid budget. It is part of this year zero, hard rain approach to the UK consensus that has existed for so long.
That consensus saw every single Member of this House, as has been said, elected on the commitment of 0.7%. It is a consensus that has existed for 20 years, with a target that has been met consistently since 2013. The 0.5% figure is completely arbitrary; 0.7% was calculated by international organisations when it was set in the 1970s. As I have said, the 0.5% figure is completely arbitrary, and we have not heard why it is not 0.4%, 0.6% or 0.3%. It is simply that it sounds good and sounds as though the Government are taking decisive action. That seems to be their attitude to so many aspects of government just now, never mind the impact or the feasibility.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Member is making some very serious points, but does he accept the fact that the UK has set out 0.7% in law? Many countries around the world also commit to 0.7%, but always fall short and do not bother to have a discussion about it.
Patrick Grady
But the UK is now resiling from that. The Government are resiling from it, and they will not even give us a legally binding vote on the decision to resile from the commitment agreed by the entire House. What we consistently hear from the Dispatch Box is about being a soft power superpower and about global leadership, and in a year when the UK should be taking the lead, it is taking a step backwards.
Of course, the decision to cut aid has been shown to be doubly problematic because aid was due to fall anyway. GNI has been falling as a result of the pandemic-related economic contraction anyway, and there would have been tough decisions and funding squeezes, but those would have been predictable and manageable. There is this notion that it is all being paid for by debt, but we could say that about all kinds of aspects of Government spending. All Governments around the world run debts and deficits, and they invest for the future. Aid is an investment in all of our collective futures, but what is happening now in real time is that drastic, sweeping cuts have already been made to get down to this completely arbitrary target of 0.5%, and these will be massively difficult to undo.
Despite today’s attempt to bounce the House into a decision and all these other shenanigans, the Government’s own rhetoric does not add up. The Prime Minister repeatedly says that the covid investment they are making is going to be additional. Well, if it is going to be additional, how can the Government spend 0.5%—they must be spending more than 0.5%—and if it is not additional, then what else is going to be cut? It does not make any sense.
I did not get an answer in the last debate about the concerns raised about UK Aid Match. The public have been donating £1 to certain charities in good faith on the basis that the UK Government would match that, but charities such as Mary’s Meals have now been told that this funding will be delayed, and they will be wondering whether it will ever appear at all. Hundreds of constituents in Glasgow North have contacted me about that since the cut was first announced. That speaks to thousands of activists and organisations across the country.
Aid works best when it is stable and predictable in the long term. There will be no undoing some of the damage caused by the UK Government’s cuts. They have been hastily and, in some cases, disastrously implemented. A return to 0.7% as soon as possible will at least mitigate some of that damage. I hope that some of the Tories who have been opposed to the Government’s decision so far will continue to show resilience and vote tonight to restore our aid commitment to our poorest brothers and sisters around the world.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I did not come to this House to reduce overseas aid, but then I also did not come here to tell people that they cannot see their parents or their grandchildren, that they had to close the business they have spent years building up, or that they could not get married with their friends and family there to support them. Those are just some of the soul-searching choices that covid has forced on all of us in the past 18 months.
Today’s choice is no different. Voting for the Government’s motion will take £5 billion out of the overseas aid budget. Voting against it will cut £5 billion out of our public services here in the UK or necessitate tax rises on our constituents, many of whom have been living on restrained incomes over the pandemic. It is important that we are honest with our constituents, especially at a time when the NHS has a huge task to get a backlog of millions of operations and treatments down, when so many children have had their education so badly disrupted, and when the police are dealing with a chilling rise in crimes such as domestic violence.
There have been some suggestions in the debate today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) suggested cutting HS2. That would no doubt be very popular in some places, but business leaders throughout the east midlands have made it clear that that would significantly degrade the ability to grow the economy there. The hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) suggested degrading our cyber-capabilities at a time when our public services, businesses and society are increasingly reliant on digital infrastructure and digital services. There are no easy choices here. There are no cost-free options.
The second point I want to make is that the definition of ODA is very narrow. It excludes much of the support the UK provides overseas from being included in it: £85 million invested to help to develop the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which is now being distributed without profit across the world; we are the largest donor to Gavi, immunising 300 million children against infectious diseases; and we provide £350 million a year to the UN’s peacekeeping budget on top of our ODA contributions.
Finally, even with the reduction to 0.5%, the UK will spend more as a percentage of GNI than almost any other major economy—more than the US, Canada and Japan, and well above the OECD average. We will still be the third-largest bilateral humanitarian donor in the world. So to talk about Britain as if it is withdrawing from the world or turning its back on people is, in my view, divorced from reality.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
First, like others, I wish to pay tribute to individuals on the Government Benches who have brought us here because of their tenacity. They have shown the courage of their convictions, convictions the Government claimed to hold but, despite the obfuscation of the Prime Minister, are seeking to renege on. That is why this debate is so welcome. It is an opportunity to rehearse the arguments we have had before. As others have said today, they remain—the principles still remain and the arguments still apply. It is still in our own economic self-interest to ensure that we remain committed to 0.7%. It is environmentally necessary, especially with the spectre of COP26 arising. It is also the case that international aid is a right, not a charity given by us. It is something we need to repay for historical acts.
There are two primary arguments, twin imperatives, that I think apply and those are the arguments that I wish to make. First, there is a moral imperative. This is for humanity. We are all part of the human race and we are required to look after our sisters and brothers wherever they are, whatever nationality or passport they hold—even whatever colour that passport may be. Equally, and as a corollary of that, it is a necessity of public health, because it is in our own self-interest that we carry out these actions.
I will deal first with the moral argument. Many others have quite eloquently made it clear that these cuts will be catastrophic. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to say that the pandemic is a once-in-a-century event. It will be repeated, as we have seen with the variants. Indeed, we will face other health challenges if the third world continues to face the problems that it does. That is why we have to address the issue. Those in the third world are unable to deal with these things as we are, notwithstanding the challenges we are already facing. We have seen what happened in Africa with AIDS; the consequences for Africa from coronavirus are horrendous. There is therefore a moral imperative that we take actions to ensure that we protect them, as well as us.
That brings me to the public health argument, because if we do not address the issue there, it will come here. As others have mentioned and as I said earlier, we have had the delta variant. We have had other variants, and we will have other variants still, from which our vaccinations will not be capable of protecting us. If it is not the coronavirus outbreak, it will be some other form of ill health that will challenge humanity, and therefore we must take every step possible to ensure that we not only protect ourselves, but protect everybody: by protecting everybody we protect ourselves.
People will march. People will come. People will fall ill and people will be infected. If Border Force cannot keep out drugs, it will not be able to keep out individuals and an illness. It is therefore in our own interest to ensure that we carry out that moral imperative, which is right for the benefit of society and us all. Equally, for our own benefit in our own land and, indeed, individually, we must protect the public health of the country.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who speaks with passion. I do not accept his arguments, but I accept that those people who will vote against the Government tonight do so with genuine concern. I welcome the fact that we have a lot of SNP Members here, we have the Democratic Unionist party here and we have the Liberal Democrats— ah, but only two Labour Back Benchers have bothered to stay in the debate, and one has just arrived, so I am not so sure about the concerns expressed by those on the Labour Benches.
I welcome one thing that the hon. Gentleman mentioned: the fact that this Parliament is having a vote and a debate on this issue, and that is to the great credit of the Government. They are bringing forward a motion that they may well lose tonight, and that is to their credit. They are letting this Parliament decide on this very important issue.
I think this debate is not particularly about the merits of overseas aid and 0.7%; it is about the state that the economy is in. I cannot tell from sitting here whether the Chancellor is his happy self. He is very popular at the moment because he has been giving money away and helping people, but there is an economic crisis coming down the line, and certainly on these Benches, we should recognise that. That is the reason we should support the cut of £4 billion in overseas aid. If we do not do that, the Chancellor either has to borrow £4 billion more, or he has to tax more, or he has to cut public expenditure. That is actually what the issue is about, and that is why I will be supporting the Government tonight.
I will just touch on what I think is more important with overseas aid: it is the outcome, not the amount of money we are spending. Labour Governments used to say, “We are spending record amounts of money”, but that did not mean they were having record outcomes. When I was chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking, it was often the small charities without state money that were having the best outcomes.
The great thing about this Government is what they have done with the vaccine and AstraZeneca. The fact that we have given this to the world and that there will be 3 billion doses across the world by the end of next year is tremendous testament to this Government. That is world-leading and it is changing the world, and it is saving millions of people from being seriously ill and dying. That is the sort of thing we should be proud about. We should not be worried about a figure.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Many right hon. and hon. Members have already spoken about the different areas that will be impacted by the proposed cut to the international aid budget, and I will focus my remarks on a subject that is really important. Last month marked 40 years since the first reported AIDS case and the subsequent discovery of HIV, and although we have made big progress in fighting HIV in the UK and across the world, AIDS remains a leading cause of death for women of reproductive age. Although it is preventable, over 1.5 million people acquired HIV last year, and 690,000 people lost their lives to an AIDS-related illness. The HIV epidemic continues to devastate communities right across the world, yet screening has fallen by 40% in Africa and Asia over the past year.
Ending new HIV transmissions in the UK is a global effort, yet shamefully, our funding of the UN AIDS budget has been reduced by a staggering 83%. As we know only too well, pandemics can only be beaten together. Up until now, the UK has been instrumental in reducing the stigma around this terrible disease and helping to save the lives of millions of people, and I pay tribute to the Terrence Higgins Trust for its new campaign launched today, called “Life really changed”, celebrating people who live with HIV.
I represent Vauxhall, a constituency with a large migrant population and one of the highest rates of HIV prevalence in the country. Now more than ever, if we are truly committed to global Britain, it is so important to step up and meet our responsibilities, not step back. The UK should take a leading global step to help reverse the devastating spread of HIV and AIDS, otherwise how are we supposed to meet our target of zero transmissions by 2030? I hope that Members will reflect on that, and the fact that this is about issues not just in our country, but right across the world. I hope that they will join me in voting against this motion.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I welcome the fact that this Government have brought this motion before the House today, but I am afraid that I am going to vote against it, and to restore the 0.7% commitment. I am worried that the new criteria would only have been met in one of the past seven years, and goodness knows when it will be met again. Effectively, we are locking in 0.5% for the foreseeable future. I absolutely acknowledge the huge generosity of the UK taxpayer and the contribution by COVAX and others, but we cannot stop now.
I voted and campaigned for that 0.7% commitment, and was really proud that a Conservative-led Government enshrined it in law. I proudly stood on a manifesto to keep it in 2015, 2017, and 2019. Our 2019 manifesto said that
“We are proud of our peace-building and humanitarian efforts around the world, particularly in war-torn or divided societies, and of our record in helping to reduce global poverty”
and
“We will proudly maintain our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on development”.
There were no riders that that was dependent on the state of finances, on whether debt was going up or down, or on how much revenue the Treasury was bringing in. There was no small print, no ifs and no buts, and I believe in standing by manifesto pledges. It would have been even more unsatisfactory if we had not at least had this vote today.
Everyone has talked about difficult decisions. It was specifically to avoid short-term difficult decisions that we enshrined that commitment in law, and crafted a careful formula so that the money went up in good times and down in bad times, as is happening. However, this will be a double whammy, as has been said: funding is going to go down because the economy has contracted, and it is going to go down further because the formula is being changed as well. Covid has impacted severely on many countries whose health systems are far less resilient than ours at dealing with the pandemic, and as we know, global pandemics need globally co-ordinated action, including us all facing the challenges posed by the new strains mutating in far-flung corners of the world. The UK plays a key part in that and must continue to do so, not just with vaccines.
However, this decision is also a false economy. Abruptly pulling projects part way through—pulling funding for the malaria programme in Nigeria, which is supposed to go on until 2024; cutting £48 million from the NHS overseas training scheme, when people are being trained in important posts in developing countries; the £80 million cut to water sanitation in the middle of a pandemic; and the circumstances in Yemen that I mentioned earlier—makes no financial sense and increases uncertainty.
Global Britain is not just about projecting military and diplomatic influence, or pursuing new trading and investment partnerships beyond this continent. Complementary to global Britain is the exercise of soft power, which is hugely important and has proved highly influential and effective for UK plc. Our world-leading commitment to 0.7%, enshrined in law, is an important and, I have to say, very cost-effective part of that. Climate change is a major focus of it—we are chairing COP, for goodness’ sake. What message does this reduction to 0.5% send to the rest of the world? This is a false economy at the wrong time.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The choice that we face today is clear: are we global Britain or little Britain? This is a trap for the unwary. In fact, it goes further than that. This is a deliberate cut in aid, which the Conservative party has been wanting to do for a long time. I share the concern of many Government Members who do not want to be seen as the nasty party. We are the only G7 country to be cutting our aid, so it simply does not have to be done. We do not have to shrug our shoulders and say, “We are in the middle of a pandemic. This is another cost of covid. We just have to get on and do this”. No, this is a deliberate choice about what we do to retain our promises to the world’s poorest people at a time when we are all suffering around the world together. This is not only about how much we are cutting, but how the cuts are being made: not very strategically; very fast for many of the smallest projects which have the best outcomes; and without any impact assessment being done. The figure of 0.7% is not some arbitrary number dreamt up by a Treasury civil servant.
One of the most memorable days of my life was standing on a stage in Edinburgh, introducing Eddie Izzard to a massive crowd of people. Why am I bringing that up now? It is because it was a Make Poverty History rally. People had got up the night before and travelled overnight in coaches from communities across the whole country. They were of all ages and all backgrounds, and had one mission: to make poverty history and see the 0.7% prescribed in law. That happened many years after; there were many years of campaigning that brought the 0.7% into reality. It is not something that we can lose so easily. I share the concerns of many Members that if we lose it today, it will be many years—if ever—until we see the return to 0.7%, which the British public want.
People from across my constituency have written to me saying that they do not agree with the aid cuts. It is a small amount in the whole scale of Government spending—just 1% of our borrowing—and it is very good value for money. It is a false economy and it is wrong to cut the South Sudanese peace project, which has been built up over many years and is based in trust. This cut will result in devastating results in South Sudan. It has been called a “crushing blow” to the people of South Sudan. Today is an opportunity to restore the cross-party agreement on aid, to restore our ambition and our own influential place in the world, to do the right thing and to vote against these cuts.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Catherine West—[Interruption.] We do not seem to have any audio, so let us go to Tobias Ellwood and come back to Catherine West.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
This is a vote about our soft power; a vote on the definition of global Britain; and a test of our political courage to see the bigger international picture and stay committed to our international obligations even when we face difficulties at home. I will not tire of telling the House just how dangerous and complex our world is becoming. A simple question that I put to the Prime Minister, the National Security Adviser, the Defence Secretary and all the respective heads of the armed forces was this: is global instability over the next five to 10 years going to increase or decrease? In every single case, the answer was increase.
We face an unpredictable, uncertain decade, with growing authoritarianism and extremism on the rise, an ever assertive China and Russia, and, of course, climate change increasingly wreaking havoc across the world. The Government acknowledge that in their own integrated review, but hard and soft power are two sides of the same coin, as we learnt to our peril in Afghanistan. Cutting our soft power will have operational, strategic and reputational consequences. The sheer scale of global challenges was acknowledged at the G7 summit, yet here we are debating the reduction in our soft power profile—the only G7 nation to do so. In contrast, China is using its aid programmes as part of a long-term strategy to advance its own global reach. Look at what is happening across Africa and Asia. A new global soft power war is taking place. This, to me, is the face of a cold war that is slowly emerging, but we in the west have yet to wake up to its reality. China is weaponising its immense soft power to significantly advance its influence and reach and to promote its own interpretation of the international rules-based order, and it ensnares dozens and dozens of countries into its sphere of influence. That is why we should not be diminishing our own soft power.
I suspect the Government may succeed in winning the argument today, but they will lose the moral high ground. We claim to be a problem-solving and burden-sharing nation with a global perspective. It is simply not a good look to promote a global Britain agenda, emphasising leadership, responsibility and resolve, but then to cut our overseas aid budget.
I urge the Government to ask what Churchill might say to the House now, given the 1930s feel to the world. Why not articulate to the nation the wider geopolitical uncertainty that we face, the urgency for the west to regroup, and the influential role that Britain could play if we retain our soft power commitments so we can begin to address the progressively dangerous trajectory our world is now on? I have no doubt that, if the Government did that, the nation would be fully in support.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
May I begin by saying how pleased I am that the Government have finally bowed to pressure and that we in this House are having the vote that we were promised on cutting money to the world’s poorest people? It is absolutely right that we have that vote because every Member of this House must declare his or her position. I fear that, without a meaningful vote, Members on the Government Benches could continue to hide behind crocodile tears or meaningless words of regret, without ever having to display the courage of their convictions and stand up and tell this Government that the decision to take £5 billion away from the world’s poorest people is fundamentally wrong and morally repugnant.
At the end of this debate, we will all have to declare where we stand, and no one can continue in the hope that, by choosing to stay silent, he or she will not be asked to come off the fence. Although this vote has been a long time coming, it does mean that we are all in this House well rehearsed in the arguments. Absolutely no one can pretend that he or she does not know what they are voting for this evening, or that they do not understand the consequences of their actions when they vote. They now know that, if they support the motion, that money is not coming back.
I find it utterly incomprehensible that the Government of one of the richest countries in the world appear hellbent on making the poorest people on this planet even poorer and more susceptible and vulnerable to disease, hunger and the lack of clean water. For them to push this as vigorously as they have, despite every single analysis telling them and us that millions of people will die, simply beggars belief. It is shameful that, if the motion is agreed tonight, it will mark a new low point for a country that pretends or boasts about being a beacon for tolerance, decency and humanity. This is the test of that vote.
As I have said before, this country has a moral obligation to help those in what we now call the developing world, not least because this country is in no small way responsible for the situation in which they now find themselves. The UK—Great Britain—grew rich and powerful on the backs of the world’s poor. We invaded, conquered, divided and plundered, leaving behind an impoverished wasteland. It is about time that this country woke up to its moral responsibility to assist those we abandoned to live with the consequences of British imperialism. We should not be running away from that responsibility. Those on the Government Benches have to accept that that is the consequence of their action tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now go back to Catherine West.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) [V]
What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), who is wearing a navy suit and a navy tie with white dots, just like our favourite football manager, Mr Southgate.
I am very proud to stand on my promise today, which was laid out in the manifesto of each of the political parties in the House, for the UK Government to spend 0.7% of gross national income on the world’s poorest. The UK’s economy and health have been ravaged by covid. In my local authority area alone, covid has led to many, many deaths and the loss of jobs. Haringey borough has one of the highest numbers of workers on furlough and at risk of joblessness in the autumn, and child poverty is on the increase. However, my constituents care deeply about the work that the UK does around the globe, especially in Africa. They do not wish to see so many girls lacking in education; they do not wish to see more infants die from malaria; and they do not wish to see Daesh prosper from the withdrawal of important civil society programmes that promote stability throughout north Africa.
The decision we take today will affect the UK’s regional universities as well. For example, it could inhibit the important work that is done to strengthen health systems around the globe by doctors and nurses working through the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, or the important scientific research by Durham University on the making of insecticide-treated anti-malarial bed nets. The Prime Minister claimed to support British science but the motion suggests the opposite.
In 2021, 23 more billionaires reached The Sunday Times rich list. Inequality is worsening day by day and the Government’s proposal fails to address the grotesque inequality around the globe. If I thought that, if I agreed with the Government today, they would instead fund summer schools for children in my constituency, reinstate the 5,000 mental health beds that have been withdrawn since 2010, or fund the capital needed for social homes and housing services for those in housing need, I would change my mind. Instead, the motion is the beginning of more austerity, along with the £20 cut to universal credit recipients, the potential breaking of the triple lock for pensioners and further cuts to local government.
The past 10 years brought the country to its knees and weakened health systems and society, so when covid reached our shores, we fell like flies. When will we learn that the Government must act to protect and build defences, or we will suffer even more?
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I thank the Government for being courteous in having the Prime Minister present and the Chancellor respond to this debate. They have been courteous in holding a vote at long last, but I am afraid that is where my thanks end.
As we have heard in the course of this debate, the 0.7% target was not only a manifesto commitment made by every political party in this place but a commitment to the world’s poorest. It was a commitment to join in force with other nations around the world. Many Members have said, “We didn’t do anything—no other country followed us” but Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Luxembourg all now fulfil the 0.7% target, France is set to hit the 0.7% target next year, and the United States of America has uplifted its spending by $16 billion. We say that we did not have influence; I beg to differ.
Today’s debate is really about the fight for parliamentary engagement. In 2015, this House voted for the International Development Act, which enshrined the right to make sure that we did not make short-term decisions and that when the years were good the spending went up and when the years were bad the spending went down. That is something we should have kept in mind before we made today’s decision. Instead, we have been offered a mirage. What looks like a compromise is something that will never be reached. Despite the arbiters of the OBR, the spending decisions on the issue will still be made by the Treasury. This announcement comes before a spending review, so we do not know how much is going to be spent on social care, health or education. We do not know what the Government’s financial commitments will be in the years to come. We are therefore being led down the garden path, and by that I am appalled. Just as with Gordon Brown’s checklist to join the euro, we will never meet these targets.
The Government’s proposal is a short-termist approach. Like many Members, I have seen the value of what we spend in foreign aid, whether that is on women’s education, AIDS programmes, deradicalisation or climate change. I believe passionately that the UK leads by example in those policy areas, so I will not apologise for voting against the Government tonight. I will not apologise for the fact that I will be standing up on behalf of the NGOs and experts who are based in the UK but operate around the world and who lead by example and help other organisations to follow suit. For that, I offer no apology, but I remind Members of this House that we make an extraordinary impact in the world and to shirk from it for a short-term decision is something that we should all be appalled by.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for an excellent speech.
Twenty-two years ago I visited a hospital in sub-Saharan Africa where a woman, who was about the same age as I was then, was being treated for AIDS. When I say “treated”, I stretch the definition to breaking point. She was receiving aspirin, and I felt totally helpless. That visit was part of a professional trip to write about the work being done by an international Christian charity, but it was part of a much more important journey for me.
My once carefully protected eyes had long been opened to the poverty in the world, but on that trip and others I came to realise the significance of the international aid that the UK Government provide, both in creating a stable international community and in making a real difference to the lives of people who need it most.
The Prime Minister highlighted the work this Government are doing as part of the global response to the pandemic, and yes they are, but these cuts are being made at a time when Ministers have often said that no country is safe until the virus is under control in every country. The same applies to international aid.
The world is in the grip of insecurity and democracies are under threat. Long-term strategic support is key to building resilience and capacity in places such as Myanmar. By reducing our support, power vacuums will be filled by countries, such as Russia and China, with very different agendas from our own. China has 500 Confucius Institutes across 140 countries, with plans for 1,000 more, and it is increasing its global presence through education and culture as part of a strategy of having boots on the ground, education and soft power.
And where are we? Withdrawing from the international stage. Cutting our international aid budget leaves the British Council some £10 million short, which has led to 20 offices being closed. How do we have a global Britain if we blunt the very tool that delivers and embodies that ideal?
Instead of saying, “Look at what we’re doing. Isn’t it great?”, what we see in the world around us should drive us to do more, underlining how important it is. It should make us determined to fight to save children from starvation and girls from being abused. It should drive us to help protect and enhance their health, their rights and their democracies, because we have the ability.
The Government reassure us that this is a temporary measure, but their definition is, frankly, the height of cynicism and heartlessness.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
My hon. Friend will have spent time knocking on doors in Chesham and Amersham, as I did. Is not her characterisation of the new Tory party exactly why many of those voters said they were turning away from the Tories in that election and voting Lib Dem instead?
Christine Jardine
Yes, it is, as we have heard other hon. Members say today. Those same people will know that more than 2 billion people in this world do not have access to clean water, and cutting aid will make it more difficult to change that. The rate of HIV infection across the world remained at 1.7 million people in 2019 alone. The leading killer of women of reproductive age is AIDS.
When I visited that hospital 22 years ago, I felt helpless. I feel the same today, but my Government can help. This Government can help, and this afternoon I will be voting to remind them that they should.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I have listened very carefully to the speeches in this debate, and many of them focused on our manifesto promise on aid spending. That is entirely correct but, as I said in one of my interventions, we also made a commitment not to borrow money for day-to-day spending and to reduce our debt burden. All those commitments have been made more challenging by the global pandemic we have faced. The Treasury’s motion, which I will support, as I hope all my colleagues will, is an attempt to deal with the challenge of the pandemic and deliver on all our manifesto commitments in a way that reflects the reality of what has happened over the past year.
I have also heard many Members talk about the borrowing that we have had to make over the last year. I know the Chancellor and I am very proud of that borrowing, because it has helped us get through an incredibly difficult year, but one-off borrowing for a crisis is not the same as ongoing day-to-day spending. I am surprised by many of my colleagues who talk about the £5 billion a year that it would cost to replace this spending as if £5 billion was not a lot of money.
I can remember many difficult conversations when I was a Minister, and indeed when I was Government Chief Whip, about far smaller sums of money, sometimes involving many of the colleagues I have heard talk about £5 billion as if it were nothing. I am afraid that we are going to have to get used to the fact that there are certain realities in the world—that money we spend has to be paid for, and it either has to be borrowed or financed from taxation.
One of the problems we now have with the borrowing we have had to make over the last year is that we are very vulnerable to increases in inflation or interest rates. I heard someone say we are living in an era of low interest rates. We do not know how long that is going to last, and a 1% rise in inflation and interest rates would cost us twenty-five thousand million pounds, five times the amount we are arguing about today. Those are the realities that not just the Chancellor but all of us in this Parliament, and particularly those of us in the governing party, have to grapple with.
My final point is just to say to my colleagues that I fear that this debate is going to be repeated many times as we move through the comprehensive spending review. We are all going to have to face very difficult challenges. Governing is about choosing. It is about setting priorities for what we think is important. This is important, but so is keeping the fiscal measures on balance. All of them are important, and I am glad that the Chancellor has brought forward the measures that he has today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sorry that we have not been able to get more speakers in, but we now have to move to the wind-ups. I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The Government say that global Britain is at the heart of how we engage with the world, but this move to unilaterally cut overseas aid is a direct attack on what it means to be global Britain. It is a decision that will reduce our power, reduce our influence in the world and undermine our security here at home. At this moment perhaps more than any other, we should be looking to project our power and influence for good around the world, to create change in our national interest but in the global interest, too.
I am proud—we should all be proud, in this House and across our great nations—of what we have achieved together through overseas aid. Together, we have pushed polio to the verge of eradication. Together, we have improved water and sanitation for more than 1.5 million people. Together, we have reduced maternal and infant mortality, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) spoke about. And together, we have ensured that girls in the poorest places in the world can go to school, as we all take it for granted that our daughters and granddaughters can go to school.
Yet today the Government seek to undo that great progress. Instead of being a global leader, this Government seek to retreat on the international stage. I can see the understandable discomfort that that is causing hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches, who know the consequences of this decision and the short-sightedness of what the Prime Minister has said and what I fear the Chancellor will go on to say.
I commend in particular the contributions of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who advised colleagues to beware the traps set for the unwary; my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who said that this motion is just not who we are as a people; and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who said, “When it is a choice between lives and money, I choose lives.”
The reason there has been a consensus from five previous Prime Ministers across both parties, including the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), on the importance of the 0.7% commitment is that the case for overseas aid both expresses the moral responsibilities that we have and is firmly in the national interest.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One of the NGOs that I would be involved with is the HALO Trust, the organisation that clears mines, unexploded ordnance and improvised explosive devices. If it comes to giving money to one group, there is a group that saves lives, as the hon. Lady refers to.
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and he speaks powerfully of what he has seen. What has guided former Prime Ministers and Ministers is a moral compass, and I ask the Chancellor what moral compass guides the Prime Minister and Ministers today, as we cut the lifelines of support, and in the midst of a global pandemic as well. For several decades, we have recognised that the world is increasingly interdependent, and that overseas aid helps tackle poverty, infectious diseases and climate change, and reduces conflict, terrorism and the need for people to flee their own countries and seek refuge elsewhere. The Chancellor himself made that point in 2015, arguing that
“this Government’s commitment on international aid is a tangible example of…leadership”.—[Official Report, 20 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 793.]
Where is that leadership today?
Crucially, overseas aid helps us respond to pandemics. Covid cannot be eliminated anywhere if it is not eliminated everywhere. These cuts will impede the ability of some of the poorest countries in the world to mobilise their public health systems and roll out this vaccine effectively. What good does that do any of us here? Until covid is under control globally, the risk is that this virus mutates and comes back to Britain and threatens all of us, including those who have already been double vaccinated. The Chancellor knows full well that our country’s commitments are as a proportion of our gross national income, and that is right; it means that as our economy grows our generosity as a country grows, but as our economy shrinks so does our generosity to those in the poorest parts of the world. That is right and it happens automatically, without the cuts being proposed on top. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) puts it, the “simplicity” of the 0.7% commitment is
“built into the formula: our payments go up in times of plenty and fall back when our economy is stretched.”
But with a 30% reduction—that is what we are talking about today—in just one year, never has our aid budget been cut so savagely, so suddenly and by so much.
Let us be very clear about the tests for returning to 0.7% of GNI spent on overseas aid. The second test the Chancellor set out is on our debt to GDP ratio falling. The OBR has forecast that that will not be met next year or the year after; at the very earliest it will be met in the financial year 2024-25. Let us look at the first test. In the past 30 years, the current budget balance test being proposed by the Chancellor today has been met only five times, and only for one year under a Conservative Government. But the test proposed by the Chancellor goes further than that, because it does not just refer to a “current budget balance”; it refers to a “sustainable current budget balance”. In the past 30 years , that has been met only under a Labour Government.
So if the Chancellor’s small-print conditions are applied to the latest OBR forecasts, we will not be achieving a current budget surplus in the whole of the forecast period. These are not tests to go back to 0.7% of GNI spent on overseas aid; they are tests to stop that ever happening under a Conservative Government again. So let us be clear about what we are voting for. If we vote for the Chancellor’s proposal today, this will not just be for a year; it will hang over us for as long as the Conservatives are in government.
If the Chancellor is serious about saving money—and I believe in value for money in every pound of taxpayers’ money spent—why did he happily sign off cheques for £2.6 million on a media briefing room that will not properly used and £200 million on a vanity yacht project to sell global Britain around the world—why not invest that money on overseas aid instead? There was £37 billion on a test and trace system that does not even work, and £2 billion on crony contracts for friends and donors of the Conservative party. What exactly does it say about the priorities of this Government? Why is the overseas aid budget being singled out for cuts by this Government? It is because this is ideological; it is not about value for money.
If this cut goes through this evening and the House votes for it, it will diminish Britain. It will reduce our power and influence for good in the world, and it will undermine our security here at home too. This is not just about how much aid we give overseas. It is about the country that we are and the country that we want to be. Whether a Government or a football team, when someone is on the world stage, how they conduct themselves and whether they lead by example really matters. Many hon. and right hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—and on the Government Benches too—know in their heart and in their head that what the Government propose is profoundly wrong. They know full well that it breaks the proud promises that we all made at the election only 18 months ago, not just during crisis but for as long as the Conservatives are in government, so I urge hon. and right hon. Members to reject the motion and do what they know is right for the poorest people in the world, and to honour the proud commitments that we all made in the national interest.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
I am grateful to Members in all parts of the House for their passionate and principled contributions to today’s debate. Given the short time available, I shall highlight some of the powerful speeches that we have heard in support of the Government’s motion, including by my hon. Friends the Members for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). Of course, I am disappointed that not all my colleagues feel able to support the Government today, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). No one can doubt the sincere commitment to this cause of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) for his kind words about my career before I came to the House.
There were particularly thoughtful speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), both of whom highlighted the explicit provisions in the 2015 Act that envisaged these circumstances arising. I can give my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells my commitment to the £22 billion, in which I believe very strongly, as does the Prime Minister. We are determined to create a science superpower in this country.
As ever, my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) made a powerful speech about our promises—all our promises, not just some. While the Opposition might not be concerned with promises about managing the public finances and looking after people’s money responsibly, Government Members always will be.
May I pay tribute to the Members who have worked with the Government? I am grateful for their constructive co-operation over the past few weeks in finding what I believe is a genuine compromise to bring the House together so that we can support a policy that commands, I think, the broad acceptance not just of this place but of the British people. Those right hon. and hon. Members include my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Theo Clarke), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). I am very grateful to them for all their engagement.
What we are asking the House to vote for today is a road map for returning to 0.7%. That road map reaffirms our values while recognising the reality that covid has caused severe damage to our public finances. It puts beyond doubt the fact that the reduction in the aid budget is temporary; it defines a reasonable set of tests for when we will return to 0.7%; and it makes those tests objective and verifiable, based on data, not dates, measured not by the Government ourselves, but by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor accept that in areas of instability and potential social decline, if we withdraw aid and support people are more likely to end up needing the support of our military? We know that for a fact, because we have had to give that support a lot in the past. Does he not accept the principle that in areas that are extremely volatile it is much, much cheaper to the British purse to provide support via aid workers than to send the military in with hardware and put our soldiers on the frontline, often in danger?
Rishi Sunak
It is not an either/or. This Government are doing both. We are one of the largest donors to the UN peacekeeping operations and that is why we are making a difference in countries across the globe, not just through our ODA budget but through all the other ways we express global leadership.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Chancellor is right to say that the countries with big hearts also need clear heads, so will he confirm that, with the roadmap he has set out today and the proposals before the House, we will still be spending 20% more on overseas aid than we were when Labour was last in government?
Rishi Sunak
If my numbers are right, as a percentage of GDP we were for the last few years spending double what Labour ever spent when it was in office, and my right hon. Friend is right about what we will be doing even at this reduced level.
Today’s approach is a pragmatic approach to meeting our commitments to the world’s poorest today and to have the secure fiscal foundations we need to meet those commitments for decades to come. We should be proud of what UK overseas aid means to millions of the world’s poorest people. It means tens of millions of girls around the world getting a better education. It means food parcels stamped with a Union Jack arriving in famine stricken countries such as Syria and Somalia. It means wind turbines, solar panels and hydroelectric dams generating clean energy in developing countries. I am proud, as I know the whole House will be proud, of the extraordinary good this country is doing around the world.
John Redwood
I am looking forward to this answer. Will the Chancellor remind the House, given that we are rightly keen to save as many lives as possible, that this country has given a great gift to the world with many free vaccines and pioneered the cheapest and one of the best vaccines to save lives all around the world?
Rishi Sunak
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will come on to that in a minute.
I am proud, too, of our response to last year’s economic crisis—the deepest recession this country has ever seen. In total, we have provided hundreds of billions of pounds to protect jobs, keep businesses afloat and help families to get by. That was the right approach, but we should be clear-eyed: covid has severely damaged our public finances. We have the highest level of borrowing since world war two, national debt of £2 trillion and rising, and debt expected to peak at 100% of GDP. If we want to continue to meet our commitments in the future, both at home and overseas, we must act now to rebuild our fiscal resilience.
Christian Matheson
This is all well and good, but the Government had already taken the decision to scrap the Department for International Development before covid came along. That is how committed they were to international aid.
Rishi Sunak
On the contrary; this Government have brought a coherence and a strategic symmetry to our approach to international development and foreign policy, which is improving how we project our influence and effectiveness around the world.
I have heard that this is the only difficult thing that we are doing, but that is simply not true. We have had to build fiscal resilience and have asked businesses to pay more tax. We have frozen the personal income tax allowance, taken a targeted approach to public sector pay and, yes, we also had to take the difficult decision to temporarily reduce our aid budget. This decision follows a path that Parliament explicitly envisaged when it enshrined the 0.7% target in law. Section 2(3) of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 clearly foresaw the fiscal circumstances that might mean the target could not be met. And let us be honest: if that test is not being met in the aftermath of the worst economic shock in 300 years, surely it never will.
This decision is categorically not a rejection of our global responsibilities. The UK will spend over £10 billion this year on overseas development. According to the latest figures, that is more as a proportion of national income than all but two of the G7 countries—more than Japan, Canada, Italy and the United States, and much more than the average of the 29 countries in the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee.
Our spending on humanitarian causes goes far beyond just our ODA budget. We have the fourth biggest defence and security budget in the world and the third largest diplomatic network. On average, we contribute nearly £500 million a year to the United Nations peacekeeping budget. We use our trade policy to reduce poverty, with developing countries benefiting from tariff savings of up to £1 billion a year. It is why we are working with the G7 to deliver the clean and green infrastructure financing initiative. With UK Government support, this year 1.5 billion people around the world will be vaccinated with the Oxford-AstraZeneca jab, provided at no profit whatsoever.
There is no question about our commitment to overseas aid. The only question is when we return to the 0.7% target. The motion puts beyond all doubt that we will do so once two clear objective tests have been met: our national debt is falling and we are no longer borrowing for day-to-day spending. Those tests are in line with the approach set out in our manifesto and at the Budget. They are practical and realistic.
If the House votes against the motion today, it is an effective vote. We will return, irrespective of the circumstances, to 0.7% next year. Instead of voting for responsibility, the House would in effect be voting to say that no circumstances could ever justify a move.
I know that a deep sense of conscience underpins the view that the amount we spend on overseas aid is a moral issue. Many hon. Members will know the words:
“Charity is patient, is kind.”
I think of those words and I share that sense of conscience. That is why we are maintaining the target, not abolishing it; why we are setting out the conditions, not obscuring them, and why we are basing the conditions independently—
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I recognise the passion and conviction with which Members who voted both for and against the Government’s motion spoke in favour of the 0.7% target. To me, that is the salient point. While not every Member felt able to vote for the Government’s compromise, the substantive matter of whether we remain committed to the 0.7% target not just now but for decades to come is clearly one of significant unity in this House. Today’s vote has made that commitment more secure for the long term while helping the Government to fix the problems with our public finances and continue to deliver for our constituents.
I commit to the House that I, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will continue to work with all hon. Members on how we can continue to be a global leader in helping the world’s poorest and on how we can improve our aid spending, targeting it most effectively and ensuring that it gets to those who need it most. Having now provided the House with an effective vote on this matter, the Government will move forward with the planned approach.
Mr Speaker
I now suspend the House for two minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope you can help us. In the debate after the next one, we are discussing the regulations that the Government have brought forward that will deprive thousands of people who work in our care homes of the right to work and not give them any compensation. The Government said on 22 June that alongside the statutory instrument they were laying an explanatory memorandum together with an impact assessment. The impact assessment has not been laid. Yesterday I raised this issue and referred to the fact that the Department of Health and Social Care had written to the Library to say, “The impact assessment has not been laid yet. We will be laying it at the earliest opportunity.” That was at midday yesterday. I have recently spoken to people in the Vote Office and they say that they have now been informed by the Department that this impact assessment will not be laid before the debate. So either it does not exist and there was a fault when it was asserted that it did, or it has been suppressed because it does not fit in with the Government’s agenda. In any event, is it open to you to put pressure on the Government to withdraw that item of business until we have an impact assessment?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me advance notice of it. No, I cannot ask the Government to withdraw the motion and the business statement that has been agreed to, but I do share his disappointment that the document has not been made available before the debate after next. I hope that it will be fed back from those on the Treasury Bench that the Minister should address the issue in her opening remarks in the debate.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have recently been on a four-colleague call with the Care Minister where she confirmed to us that the said impact assessment would not be made available until after the debate. That strikes me as a rather back-to-front approach. I just provide that clarity to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that clarity. It is what we rather suspected, and what I was trying to hint at, in that it was not going to be ready but the Minister would address that in her remarks when she opens the debate.
Sir Christopher Chope
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given what my hon. Friend has said, it is available and it could be made available immediately, but the Government are choosing not to make it available until after the event.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has reinforced his point that if it is available it could be made available before the debate. We understand that it is not going to be, but, as I say, we will pass back the very strong feeling that the Minister should address why that is the case in her opening remarks.
Armed Forces Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the Order of 23 June 2021 (Armed Forces Bill: Programme (No. 2)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Armed Forces Bill
Tuesday 13th July 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 July 2021 - (13 Jul 2021)
17:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 361 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 274 / Noes: 360 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 358 - Question accordingly negatived.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Report on dismissals and forced resignations for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the number of people who have been dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include cases where—
(a) there is formal documentation citing sexuality as the reason for their dismissal; or
(b) there is evidence of sexuality or gender identity being a reason for their dismissal, though another reason is cited in formal documentation.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must include recommendations of the sort of compensation which may be appropriate, including but not limited to—
(a) the restoration of ranks,
(b) pensions, and
(c) other forms of financial compensation.
(4) The report must include a review of the cases of those service personnel who as a result of their sexuality have criminal convictions for sex offences and/or who are on the Sex Offenders register.
(5) The report must include discharges and forced resignations back to at least 1955.
(6) The first report under subsection (1) must be laid no later than 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed.
(7) The Secretary of State may make further reports under subsection (1) from time to time.
(8) In this section, “sexuality or gender identity” includes perceived or self-identified sexuality or gender identity.”
This new clause requires the government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who were dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexuality and to make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation.
New clause 3—Armed Forces Federation—
‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 333, insert the following new clauses—
“333A Armed Forces Federation
(1) There shall be an Armed Forces Federation for the United Kingdom for the purpose of representing members of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom in all matters affecting their welfare, remuneration and efficiency, except for—
(a) questions of promotion affecting individuals, and
(b) (subject to subsection (2)) questions of discipline affecting individuals.
(2) The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the armed forces at any proceedings or on an appeal from any such proceedings.
(3) The Armed Forces Federation shall act through local and central representative bodies.
(4) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces, and references to the Armed Forces shall be construed accordingly.
333B Regulations for the Armed Forces Federation
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) prescribe the constitution and proceedings of the Armed Forces Federation, or
(b) authorise the Federation to make rules concerning such matters relating to their constitution and proceedings as may be specified in the regulations.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may make provision—
(a) with respect to the membership of the Federation;
(b) with respect to the raising of funds by the Federation by voluntary subscription and the use and management of funds derived from such subscriptions;
(c) with respect to the manner in which representations may be made by committees or bodies of the Federation to officers of the Armed Forces and the Secretary of State; and
(d) for the payment by the Secretary of State of expenses incurred in connection with the Federation and for the use by the Federation of premises provided by local Armed Forces bodies for Armed Forces purposes.
(3) Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate, including provisions adapting references in any enactment (including this Act) to committees or other bodies of the Federation.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces.””
This new clause would create a representative body for the Armed Forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent their members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency.
New clause 4—Armed Forces Mental Health Care review—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing a review of the mental health treatment provided to Armed Forces personnel through the—
(a) Defence Medical Services,
(b) Departments of Community Mental Health and the Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Service, and
(c) Reserves Mental Health Programme.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within three months of the date on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would require the government to conduct a formal review of the standards of mental health care available for serving personnel.
Amendment 1, page 4, line 27, clause 7, at end insert—
“guidance under subsection (3)
(a) must provide for charges of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape to require specific consent by the Attorney General to be tried in court martial when the offences are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom, and
(b) if the Attorney General has not granted such consent, guidance under (3)(a) shall provide that charges as set out in section 4A(a) to be tried in civilian court only.”
This amendment would ensure that the most serious crimes – murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape - are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK unless the Attorney General has specifically consented for such crimes to be tried under courts martial.
Amendment 7, page 16, line 1, clause 8, leave out subsection 5
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Ministers in the devolved legislatures before issuing or revising any guidance under section 343AE relating to the duties imposed by sections 343AB(1), 343AC(1), and 343AD(1).
Amendment 8, page 17, line 34, clause 8, leave out “consult” and insert “obtain consent from”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of Ministers in the devolved legislatures before widening the scope of the duties in sections 343AA(1), 343AB(1), 343AC(1) and 343AD(1) when exercising this power in devolved contexts.
Amendment 2, page 18, line 28, clause 8, at end insert—
“343AG Section 343AF: report
‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament no later than three months after the day on which this Act is passed, and thereafter must make a report at least once in every calendar year.
(2) The report in subsection (1) shall set out how the powers in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) will work in practice.
(3) Any report published under subsection (1) after the initial report made 3 months after this Act is passed must include—
(a) a statement detailing how the powers granted through section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) have been used since the last report was issued,
(b) a review of the relevance of the listed bodies and functions in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) in relation to the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report under section 343A of AFA 2006, and
(c) the outcome of a consultation conducted by the Secretary of State with the Armed Forces Covenant Reference Group on the bodies and functions listed in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) in regard to their appropriateness and relevance as part of the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out how powers in the Bill could be used to widen its scope to address all matters of potential disadvantage for service personnel under the Armed Forces Covenant including employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration.
Stephanie Peacock
Labour stands firmly behind our armed forces and our brave service personnel who serve our country. It is a privilege to be speaking on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition on this important legislation. From their work across the country on the frontline of the pandemic to operations around the world, Britain’s armed forces deserve our admiration and gratitude. My granddad, who would have been 100 this year, served with the RAF during the second world war. Nearly all of us will have loved ones whose service we look back on with pride, and I am sure that we would all hope they were given the support they needed and deserved during their service and afterwards.
Labour supports our armed forces and the principles behind the Bill. It presents a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to bring about meaningful improvements to the lives of our service personnel and veterans and their families, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all the organisations—local authorities, service charities and voluntary organisations—that have contributed to this legislation.
It is the duty of any and every Government to look after their people, and there are welcome steps in the Bill, which we support—the creation of a legal duty to the principles of the covenant, and the implementation of key elements of the Lyons review—but we believe the Government can and should go further. Our forces communities cannot afford for this Bill to become a missed opportunity, and that is why Labour has put forward our amendments in good faith to strengthen the Bill and offer the support and protection that are needed by many of our service personnel.
Turning first to amendment 1, currently serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape cases that are committed in the UK by service personnel are prosecuted in the service justice system, the SJS, not the civilian courts. Victims and their families often do not get the justice they deserve, and quite often sexual abuse cases are tried as “disgraceful conduct” and other service offences, meaning those who commit the offences are not put on the sex offender register.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I greatly welcome the shadow Minister’s commitment to the rule of law in amendment 1. Almost 50 years ago 14 unarmed civil rights marchers were murdered on the streets of Derry by the Parachute Regiment. Five of those victims were shot by David Cleary, otherwise known as soldier F. For 50 years he has been granted anonymity; now the Government want to give him an amnesty. Does the shadow Minister agree that nobody—none of the perpetrators involved in murder during our troubles—should be granted an amnesty?
Stephanie Peacock
The Labour party is committed to the Stormont House agreement and the leader of the Labour party, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), made it clear in Northern Ireland last week that the rule of law must be central to our approach to legacy in Northern Ireland.
Returning to amendment 1, last week I met with the charity Salute Her at Forward Assist, who shared with me statistics showing that up to six out of 10 women serving in the military have experienced some form of sexual harassment or abuse. This is an issue that disproportionately affects women of lower ranks; it is a harrowing issue, and these women deserve real justice. This amendment would ensure the Armed Forces Bill provides appropriate support, protection and access to justice for our forces. Serious crimes will be tried in civilian courts when committed in the UK unless the Attorney General has consented for such crimes to be tried under courts martial.
Moving on to amendment 2, a significant part of this Bill relates to the armed forces covenant and the introduction of a legal duty for public bodies to have regard to its principles. I am proud that my local authority, Barnsley Council, is not only one of the leading signatories of the covenant but has achieved the gold award in the defence employer recognition scheme. More needs to be done to end the postcode lottery of support and introducing a legal duty in this Bill is a welcome step, but we believe it can go further not only in the duties themselves—currently limited to healthcare, housing and education—but in who they apply to as well.
While the Bill creates new responsibilities for a wide range of public bodies, from school governors to local authorities, central Government are not included. The Government are notable by their omission from these legal responsibilities; they should show leadership in at least holding themselves to the same standard they are asking others to follow. Our amendment would place the same legal responsibilities for the armed forces covenant on central Government as their current drafting requires of local authorities. Twelve of the UK’s leading military charities wrote an open letter to MPs last week sharing their concern that the new legal duties in the Bill do not cover the “full range of issues” currently affecting our armed forces community. They are urging the Government to widen the Bill’s scope to make sure that greater protections are given in areas such as employment, pensions, social care and immigration. I hope that the Government will today listen to those charities and support our amendment.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), the new shadow Minister, and I wish her well in her new role. I also empathise with much of what she said this afternoon, but of course the Government position is quite different, and I will explain why.
As Chair of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, I am probably more familiar with this Bill than most, and it is a good Bill. As before, with the armed forces covenant, I welcome the fact that it pays due regard to the placeholder, recognises rightful outcomes, and accurately reflects the unique sacrifices and obligations on HM forces, and that it places a legal obligation on the delivery of health, accommodation and local support from councils. It provides examples of good practice and pragmatic guidelines on how this is to be provided.
I note, with the Minister in his place, that prescriptive performance targets are still absent from the statutory guidance, but it may just be impossible to apply any meaningful metrics and tools to this area. I just do not believe that councils are in any doubt about what is expected of them after 10 years, but it may be that guidance is still needed on how they will be held to account if they do not meet their obligations, so I await that with interest.
I want to talk to just a handful of the amendments, if I may. New clause 1, as mentioned, is on the duty of care. It would require the Secretary of State to
“establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations”.
While this duty of care is one of the most important aspects of the Bill, and of the armed forces of course, applying a one-size-fits-all approach could lead to difficulties in the future. Tailored welfare and mental support for those who have served is already very effective and is already offered to all personnel.
New clause 2, on dismissal for sexuality, requires the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who are dismissed or forced to resign from the armed forces because of their sexuality or perceived sexuality, and to make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation. As before, while there is no validation of this practice and the Government do see it as an absolute wrong, the Government have resisted this clause at this point in time, as indeed they did in Committee, owing to its complicating the MOD’s efforts to address at pace this injustice. However, for the record, this does need to be done in due course, and I believe that the Government will do it.
New clause 3, on a representative armed forces body, would create a representative body for the armed forces, akin to the Police Federation, that would represent their members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency. But, once again, the Government have not been persuaded that there is a requirement or a groundswell of support for a federation along the lines that have been suggested. The interests of armed forces personnel, of which I was one, are already ably represented through a range of mechanisms, not least the chain of command. Furthermore, the Service Complaints Ombudsman provides independent and impartial scrutiny of all service complaints.
I would talk to some more amendments, but actually my opinion of all of them is the same as it is of the new clauses: while they are laudable on their own, there are good reasons why the Government are resisting every one—reasons outlined at length in Committee, and indeed during the Select Committee stage. In the interests of time, let me just say that this Bill has been subject to repeated scrutiny at various stages. It is a good Bill, it remains fit for purpose in terms of what can be achieved now, and I will be voting it through tonight.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
I start by paying tribute to members of the armed forces both for the work they do in ordinary times and for the work they have done over the last 15 or 16 months with their support for services during the pandemic. I also want to pay tribute to the organisations that have taken time to engage with Members during the passage of this Bill to ensure that we are fully informed about as many areas and as wide a range of issues as possible.
The Bill started its passage with Members on all sides keen to see real change for personnel in the armed forces. From that start with the very best of intentions, we have ended up with a disappointing conclusion, with non-controversial amendments being rejected without, I believe, any real attempt to make meaningful progress. We therefore find ourselves at this stage with a Bill that will make very little, if any, practical difference to those who serve. Of course, I do hope that I am proved wrong about this, but I have my suspicions that if, in a year’s time, we were to ask personnel whether they knew of any difference this has made, the answer unfortunately would be negative.
As I have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill, it lacks the punch required. The Bill’s commitment to the armed forces covenant falls far short of what it ought to be. Many stakeholders, including the Royal British Legion, have argued that the Bill should go further in strengthening the covenant in law, but many other areas have been missed out, such as visas for Commonwealth personnel, pay, Department for Work and Pensions issues, and proper representation for serving personnel.
For veterans who have suffered humiliation, dismissal and loss of pensions because of their sexuality, the Bill simply does not deliver. The Armed Forces Minister has previously spoken of his intention to make real progress in this area, so I look forward to working with him to deliver a just outcome for those individuals who have been affected in that way. This is an example of an issue that the Bill fails to address, and the SNP will be supporting Labour’s new clause 2 on that.
The Armed Forces Minister has previously given us assurances on service accommodation, but accommodation issues are raised year on year by serving personnel. The recent National Audit Office report on single living accommodation describes a litany of neglect. Accommodation for families also falls far short of the standards we expect. It is therefore disappointing that the Bill as it stands will not strengthen the accommodation offer. The SNP’s series of modest amendments, Nos. 3 to 6, asks that service accommodation match the standards set for civilian housing. This should be a matter of straightforward agreement across the House. We should not be asking service personnel, or indeed their families, to put up with accommodation that would be deemed unacceptable to non-military families. If we are talking about non-detriment, basic housing standards would be a good place to start. I am not expecting the Government to accept the SNP amendments on that today, but I hope this issue can be properly considered in the weeks and months ahead.
The SNP has for a long time advocated a far more comprehensive way of representing the interests of the armed forces. We look at the examples of many of our NATO allies, which benefit from armed forces representative bodies. We are used to hearing arguments from Members on the Government Benches about how it could not possibly work, because it could undermine the chain of command or encourage strike action. However, an armed forces representative body would be a federation like the Police Federation. It would not allow strikes and it would not impact on the chain of command, but it would give a voice to our personnel that, at the moment, is sadly lacking. I am therefore pleased to see Labour bringing an amendment forward again. If we are looking to ensure that the covenant is properly fulfilled, such an organisation would substantively carry out that role. It could advocate on housing, pay, terms and conditions and so on. However, I think the real reason for the Government’s resistance is that it would actually give our armed forces and veterans a voice.
The time and effort spent on the Bill should have been an opportunity to significantly improve our offerings to the armed forces, but I am doubtful. Without the ability to enforce—without the teeth the Bill needs—the Bill will sadly fall short. If this is a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity, many of us will be disappointed, but the SNP will continue to engage with the Government and the Armed Forces Minister in the hope that we can make a real change for those who are serving.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
The substance of the Bill before the House today is access to justice and welfare and our wider responsibilities in the context of the military covenant. In supporting this Bill, I would like to draw the House’s attention to the excellent work of some local authorities in relation to our service personnel and veterans, including the many who reside in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner as a consequence of the numerous nearby military bases, including HMS Northwood, RAF Northolt and some of the historic ones in the area .
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I join other Members in thanking the Committee Clerks who have supported this Armed Forces Bill and in paying tribute to all the Members who have taken part in it, as we are now on the final stage. I was also going to pay tribute to the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), but I do not think that I can because he is absent again today. He has taken such an interest in this Bill and in standing up for veterans that he cannot even be bothered to get off his beach in Devon to come to speak on their behalf when he has the opportunity to do so, but we will leave that there for now, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I rise to support Labour’s new clauses. As I think I have said on a previous occasion, I have been on every single Armed Forces Bill for the past 20 years either as a Minister or a Back Bencher. As has just been said by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), these Bills come round every five years. The Department does not deal with much legislation, so it is very important that, when we do have these five-yearly Bills, we ensure that we try to address all the issues that we can. Sadly, I do not think that we have done so with this Bill. As I have said before, that has partly been down to the intransigence and attitude of the previous armed forces Minister. The new Minister for Defence People and Veterans has been left to pick up the pieces at the end. One issue that has been left unresolved—I was tempted to table an amendment today, but I decided against it—was around investigations. It is outside the scope not only of this Bill, but of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. If, as I understand it, the review is complete later this summer, when will those amendments and changes be put in place, because I do not think that we can wait another five years for the next Armed Forces Bill. As I have said before, this is a missed opportunity. Such changes would have improved this Bill and certainly vastly improved the 2021 Act, which is a disappointment to say the least in terms of promising a lot, and delivering very little. It actually takes away rights from veterans, which is disappointing.
I wish to speak to some of the amendments before us, beginning with new clause 2. One great thing about the way proceedings on Armed Forces Bills are constructed is that we can take evidence from a wide range of individuals. I pay tribute to the people from Fighting With Pride for their evidence to the Select Committee on the Bill. They shone a light on something that has not been highlighted: the effect on those individuals who were dismissed from service because of their sexuality. Many of us thought that because the ban was overturned, that was somehow the end of the issue and things had moved on, but what shocked me and, I think, many Members on the Committee was the fact that those individuals who served their country with dignity and bravery but were then dismissed because of their sexuality still suffer the legacy of that. We heard evidence about an individual who, because it was classed as a sexual offence, is on the sex offenders register, and today, 20 years afterwards, that still affects his ability to get a job as, for example, a school caretaker. That urgently needs to be addressed.
I do not doubt that the Minister is committed to looking at the issue, but without new clause 2 the Ministry of Defence will go into its usual mode of thinking, “We don’t need to bother about this and how we’re going to do it for the next few years.” A study of the effects clearly needs to be done and the issue of criminal records needs to be addressed straight away. There is no justification for these individuals having a criminal record when if they had “committed the same acts” in civilian life they would not have a criminal record. That cannot be right.
I note the change from the Government in terms of asking about medals and making sure that people can apply for the medals that were stripped from them when they were dismissed from service, but we need clear guidance. People have to apply; some people have asked why the MOD cannot take a proactive stance and offer the medals out. For some unknown reason the data is not there, which makes me wonder whether a hard-enough effort has been made to find out about these individuals and address the situation. All three services must have records on the individuals who were dismissed. It is important that those medals are reported. As I say, I do not question the Minister’s commitment, but I think that without the new clause he will come up against what we all do—as you know, Madam Speaker—in terms of the civil service system: the issue will just get pushed back and back. We have to make sure that that does not happen, and the only way we can do that is through the new clause.
New clause 3 would establish an armed forces federation. This idea always sets off end-of-the-world notions in some in the military and some on the Conservative Back Benches, as though somehow if we had an armed forces federation, the world would stop. If it is good enough for our main allies—the United States, Australia and many European countries—it is good enough for me. People ask whether we are arguing for a trade union; the hon. Member for Glasgow North West was correct to say that it is not about having a trade union for the armed forces. I understand the conservative—with a small c—nature of the military, but we are reaching the point where a federation is going to have to come in sooner rather than later.
Along with other members of the Select Committee on Defence, I have just undertaken an inquiry, ably chaired by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), into women in the armed forces. I will not say what is in our report, but when it is published, which I think will be next week, I think that people will be utterly shocked at the evidence and at what we have found.
A key point that comes out loud and clear is people’s reluctance to come forward and make complaints, and the chain of command’s reluctance to address the issues. We are not talking about employment disputes; in some cases we are talking about serious sexual assault and other issues that are just not being addressed. It is like a pressure cooker—we need something to let the steam out, but there is no system there at the moment, so all it does is build up. In some cases, that is because people in the chain of command are ignoring the issues.
There is still a cultural issue, particularly in the Army, that means that people’s issues are not being addressed, and I do not see any way of changing it other than what would seem a radical change. I would not support any sort of federation that could affect the operational effectiveness of our armed forces in terms of strikes—I would not go there—but what the ordinary man and woman in our armed forces need is a voice, and frankly I do not think they have one. People ought to read the Committee’s report; it saddened me that after all the changes in wider society, some of the old attitudes are still there. It will come round to such a change—whether it will be in the next Armed Forces Act, I am not sure—because those people need representation.
New clause 4 is about the provision of mental health. Has a lot of progress been made in the area? Quite clearly it has, but the same thing is happening now that came up when I was dealing with the matter in the Ministry of Defence: the transition and the disconnect between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health. I know that the present Government have tried, as I certainly did, to ensure a joined-up, seamless service, but it is still not working. Veterans are still falling through the gaps in provision, and the only way we can address that is to ensure a seamless, joined-up service. It has to be patient-led, and it has to be about the individuals.
To reiterate something that the Minister has said on numerous occasions, I do not want to portray the average veteran as a victim, because they are not. Most of them are very active, constructive members of society who have no problems whatsoever, but we have a duty to care for individuals who do not have that positive life post service. How do we break down the barriers for them? Without a joined-up service, we will not have the proper system that I think we all want, across the House, and which is best for our veterans.
I turn to amendment 1. Hon. Members will have seen The Times this morning; the figures on rape and serious sexual assault are not pretty. Is that an issue with lack of commitment or resources? Possibly, but having worked on the Defence Committee’s recent report, what saddens me is that some of it is down to cultural attitudes that have no place in a modern society and that need radical change.
The other issue addressed by amendment 1 relates to my earlier comments about investigations. With matters such as serious sexual assault and domestic violence, we cannot expect the military police to have the level of expertise that most forces would have because of their volume of cases. If someone is dealing with one case a year, their level of expertise in terms of being able to make it a priority, to gather the evidence and to make sure they have the strongest case possible is not going to be there. I am sorry, but this has to be taken out of the military justice system.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I find myself making a mental note to be fairly worried if the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) praises me, but we will gloss over that. I, too, would like to extend my thanks to the Minister. I was delighted to receive a telephone call from him to discuss this Bill a few days ago. I would have been much more surprised had I received a telephone call from his predecessor.
I will give credit where it is due. In our conversation, we discussed the fact that I would be very pleased, forgetting political boundaries, if the Minister or one of his colleagues would care to come to witness NATO’s Exercise Joint Warrior, which takes place off the north-west of my constituency and in other parts of Scotland. It would be a tremendous shot in the arm for our military personnel to see a ministerial presence. I do not think we have actually seen a Government Minister there—certainly not in the lifetime of this Government. I cannot speak for previous Governments; I was not here. It would also be churlish of me not to express my thanks to all the organisations that have been in touch with me during the whole process of this Bill.
We are rather short of time, so I will keep my comments very brief. I want to talk about two things. The first is to say that my party will be supporting amendments 1 and 2. Further to the remarks of the right hon. Member for North Durham on amendment 1, the general public do not really understand why, if a member of the armed forces commits a truly terrible crime—murder or rape—they should be tried and dealt with differently from how someone not in uniform would be dealt with, in a civil court. As an MP, if I were to commit a crime, I would not have the right to be tried by my peers in this House. I would be up in court, in the dock, the same as any other citizen of this country. There seems to be an impeccable logic in amendment 1.
The right hon. Member for North Durham is correct, in that the military police do not have the resources to investigate in the depth that would get to the bottom of some of the most serious allegations that can be made in this land.
Finally on amendment 1, let me turn it around. If the Government cannot support the amendment, are they saying that, in fact, the civil courts are in some way inferior to military courts? Why would they not trust the civil courts and the civil police to get it right?
Secondly, I do not want to weary the Chamber on this, but it is a point I have made a number of times and, for the sake of the record, I repeat it. I have talked at some length about my concern that reducing the size of the Army will lead to the Army, and possibly the other armed services, being seen as not a terribly desirable career option for young people.
We have a massive recruitment problem. Going around the highlands of Scotland, going to the Black Isle show, the Dornoch show and my local Tain highland games, in years gone by there would be a stall set up by the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, or perhaps two or three of them. The stalls were very popular, an attraction to the general public. They were one of the many reasons why people would go to these events, because people like to see the weapons on display and meet the armed forces personnel. Those events were excellent for recruitment.
I leave Members with a final thought. My thanks again to the Ministry of Defence, as I and others, including the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), went to the Ministry to be briefed on what we have been doing with the United Nations in Mali. It was a most interesting briefing. One message came out. When a young person in my constituency says they are thinking of joining the Scots Guards, the Royal Regiment of Scotland, the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy, if I can say, “If you opt for that career, you might get yourself involved in something like the peacekeeping effort in Mali,” I guarantee it will be a tremendous attraction. It is very different from doing an ordinary job—I do not want to do down ordinary jobs—a non-services job. That is one way of augmenting recruitment.
All of us in this place, regardless of our political persuasion—if we care about the defence of the realm, if we care about our armed forces, which I am sure everyone here does—have a duty, as Members of Parliament, to do everything we can to encourage recruitment by talking to our constituents and talking to what we call modern studies students in Scottish schools, to say, “Here is a career option you might like to think about.”
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I associate myself with some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), especially those about the work he and the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) have been doing in the Defence Sub-Committee on women in the armed forces.
As we discuss the Bill’s remaining stages, it is unfortunate to reflect that at no point in its journey has it received the attention I would hope for such an important piece of legislation, especially in a week in which we see the inevitability of the external factors that always pop up and seem to push armed forces welfare down the pecking order.
Today, unfortunately, it is international aid. I often wonder whether there are some in the defence establishment who see the aid budget as a golden goose whose slaughter would provide some sort of bounty for the armed forces, solving any funding crisis in the equipment budget. Although I do not want to say it, even if we were to cut the entirety of the aid budget, defence would still need reform.
That is particularly pertinent when it comes to the lack of progress on service justice in the Bill. I have seen it throughout my time on the Defence Committee, especially each year when we hear from the ombudsperson for the armed forces about how their role is stymied by a lack of investment and interest, and by byzantine regulation. Although excellent work is being done across the board by a plethora of armed forces charities, I cannot help but feel each time that the hugely divergent range of lived experiences of the 170,000-odd people in uniform—their geographical spread and divergent socioeconomic circumstances—means that charity, however well intentioned, often does not reach those who need it most.
In the case of both service justice and access to services for those in need, which are included in amendments this afternoon, we see a continuation—at least from my perspective and that of my party—of a two-tier system that enshrines class and social privilege, and ensures that the organisation itself will be unable ever to realise its full potential. The deficit in both service justice and access to services brings us to the case of Lance Corporal Bernard Mongan. This week, the Army’s report into his death in January 2020 was brought to wider attention. It admitted
“failings in the proper management of personnel”,
meaning that Bernard lay dead—undiscovered, in his bed, in his room in his barracks—for three weeks. I wrote to the Secretary of State about this case last year, and I have no doubt that the Ministry and the Army feel that his death was unacceptable and profoundly regrettable. However, there are other unsettling aspects of the case that speak to some of the challenges that we face in this Bill.
Lance Corporal Mongan came from a Traveller background. Although I do not want to go into whether that was a contributing factor in the bullying that may or may not have led to Bernard’s death, we must ask ourselves why it is that, time and again, those from our most marginalised communities are failed in this appalling fashion. This is precisely the moment when we should be ensuring that equality of opportunity and an armed forces who are representative of all communities on these islands become a reality. I can only, sadly, come to the conclusion that that is an opportunity that has been missed.
Although enshrining the armed forces covenant into law is welcome progress, a real legislative framework for armed forces personnel in this political state is, quite simply, long overdue. We can call it a bill of rights for the armed forces or an armed forces representative body, as has been my party’s policy for many years. I could even call it a trade union; I do not have a problem with the words “trade union”. We could at least start by giving members of the armed forces a contract that clearly states the obligations that their employer has to them and vice versa. Until we do, it is unlikely that we will be able to address the underlying issues that so many armed forces personnel face.
Finally, I feel that I should touch on something that is in a way connected to this legislation and which illustrates the knots into which the UK Government tie themselves to keep up appearances. I am currently chairing the Defence Sub-Committee on the subcontracting of MOD staff, which held its first evidence session yesterday. We will hear Ministers and other Members today make references to things such as “defence family”, “defence people” and “whole force”, but the demonstratable experience of many of those who make up the whole force, including my own constituents, is one of worsening conditions, lack of security and increasing alienation with the picture that is painted, I am afraid, by those who come to the Government Dispatch Box, including the Minister. We will undoubtedly hear all about the increase in the capital budget from the Government Benches today. I only wish that we might hear more about the day-to-day spend that is to remain stagnant over the next five years and what the Government intend to do to ensure that it is not the poorest paid in the armed forces who bear the brunt of this fiscal restraint.
I have always believed that in life, just as in politics, the key measure of our character and our beliefs is how we treat those with the least power and agency. It is high time that we enshrined the rights and responsibilities of all members of the armed forces, and, indeed, all those who support them. I will never tire of saying in these debates, Madam Deputy Speaker, let us speak of them less as heroes and more like you and me, entitled to everything that you and I would expect. It is the very least that we can do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and hear such welcome contributions from the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far. This Bill is something that is close to my heart, as a former Ulster Defence Regiment and Territorial Army soldier, and as an elected representative who has seen the way in which some of our troops have fared after service. I will make some comments in relation to the regular force: the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) referred to recruitment issues, which I also mentioned last time we spoke on this topic in the House, and I want to reiterate some of those comments if I can.
I believe that we must improve recruitment and retention. Each time numbers are cut, morale is dealt a blow, recruiting drops, and the three services become undermanned, which has a detrimental effect on those who are serving and those who maybe would wish to. I make these comments gracefully and try to do so in a respectful fashion, but we have two aircraft carriers, yet we only have crew for one. We have fewer tanks than most third-world countries, and we have a few highly complex fighter jets, but little ability to conduct expeditionary air warfare other than a reliance on Cyprus as a base. Future investment must be about growing the capability and capacity of the regular force. I know that the Minister is keen to do that, and we are keen that he should be supported in doing so, from both the Opposition side of the House and his own side.
If our regular forces can no longer punch at or above our new weight as an independent post-Brexit global player, I believe that we must reinvest in soft power. The last debate we had, which was on overseas aid, was about soft power: how we use it better to influence and help countries in which the potential for terrorism and extremism abounds, and how we get a reasonable level of GDP boost in those countries to ensure we can still bring some influence to bear in places where we cannot put boots on the ground, or indeed jets in the air.
When it comes to the reserve forces, I make a plea to the Minister directly: I know that he is interested in this matter and will wish to respond, but we continue to believe that Northern Ireland could make greater contributions to the whole force concept through greater opportunities in the reserve forces. Again, I urge the Minister to review the current reserve forces footprint in Northern Ireland, and consider expanding it to recruit a greater number of reservists from a wider footprint.
For example, Enniskillen uniquely gives its name to two very fine British Army regiments, the Inniskilling Dragoons and the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, both formed in the Williamite wars of the 1690s to defend the town against Jacobite rebels. Today, that loyal town is only being asked to provide a few medics and an infantry company. Northern Ireland is able to, and wants to, provide more reservists, so how can we make that happen? This comes back to the issue of recruitment, which the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross referred to and which I want to speak about today, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. May I remind the Minister, hon. and gallant Member that he is, that at the height of the cold war and in the midst of the so-called troubles there were 11 UDR battalions, two TA infantry battalions, an artillery regiment—which I belonged to as a part-time soldier—a signal regiment, an engineer regiment, logistics regiments, medical regiments, yeomanry regiments, military police and so on? Today, we are being asked for a fraction of that, yet the world is still a dangerous place. If we have the potential to recruit in Northern Ireland, we should be taking every step and every action to make sure that happens.
Very quickly, I will turn to veterans. I put on record the work of Danny Kinahan, the Northern Ireland veterans commissioner, and thank him for the impact that that post will no doubt have in due course. However, for some veterans in Northern Ireland, there is still precious little evidence of the impact of the armed forces covenant, or of other initiatives for veterans such as rail cards, guaranteed interview schemes and the veterans ID card. May I remind the Minister that this is a far cry from the desire to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran?
Respectfully, I make the point that Westminster can impose abortion laws and Irish language Acts from Westminster, but there is a real lack of pressure from London on Belfast when it comes to supporting our veterans. I would love to see more emphasis put on that if at all possible. I remain concerned about the scrutiny of the delivery outputs that flow from the armed forces covenant, so can the Minister be sure that all the promised action is being taken so that veterans are being housed, getting treatment with the priority they need, getting access to jobs and training, being supported by local and regional councils, and getting the recognition they are due?
Who are the eyes and ears at local and regional levels that are ensuring that all that can be done is being done? I urge the Minister to increase the assistance and get on with empowering the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees in order that they can fulfil their remit of ensuring that the armed forces covenant is being delivered across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in its entirety.
I appreciate the sentiment behind new clause 4, to which the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) referred, regarding the duty of care on mental health. That is vital, and never has it been more important. I work closely with a charity in Northern Ireland called Beyond the Battlefield, which provides counselling, as well as practical aid for veterans. It has recently leased a property in my constituency, in the village of Portavogie, which provides en suite accommodation for 10 people. The intention is to use it as a respite facility for veterans from throughout the Province. It will be the first of its kind in the whole of the Province, and after the closure of the Royal British Legion facility in Portrush we will have dedicated facilities available for our veterans.
This venue will provide space for individual reflection, as well as having communal rooms and therapy areas. The charity has fundraised and done so much work, and there is much more to be done with this facility—it has been targeted by vandals in the past, so there is some refurbishment work to do. I know that the Minister will be keen to hear more, and I will be anxious to see how the MOD can sow into this facility that is designed to pick up the slack left by the Department. On behalf of Beyond the Battlefield, I extend an invitation to the Minister to visit when the refurbishment is completed, as we would be very pleased to have him over for that purpose. If he is able to do so at a time convenient for him and us, we will do that.
Another clause that has struck me is that on the armed forces federation. The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) has referred to this regularly. It is one of the subjects he never misses on, and he did not miss on it today either. There is a principle at stake there that should be considered. I work with a wonderful charity called SSAFA—the armed forces charity, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association. It is probably known to everybody in this House, and it is often called on to step into scenarios that an armed forces federation would be designed to step into. If this Bill is aimed at addressing the years of neglect, this is an important aspect of it. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for the work he has put into this Armed Forces Bill, and I thank him for it. Our party will be supporting amendments 1 and 2 if they are put to a vote.
I conclude by saying that the Bill has many pros and many cons, one of which is that soldiers who served in Northern Ireland are treated differently. That must be made right. I know the Minister wishes to do that, and it would be good to hear in his response that that will be the case. I anxiously await the Government holding to their word to ensure that every service personnel member, regardless of where they served, deserves the same treatment. I still believe we miss out on this. This Bill is to be welcomed, but improvements can and must still happen. I look forward to hearing from the Government, and from the Minister in particular, whom I look upon as a friend, as to whether these new clauses and amendments which would enhance the Bill will be acceptable.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, particularly the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock); I am grateful for her sincere and constructive tone. I think the whole House is united in our desire to support our armed forces, and I am confident that the Bill delivers for our armed forces. It renews the Armed Forces Act 2006, it improves the service justice system, and it delivers on the Government’s commitment to further enshrine the armed forces covenant in law.
I turn first to new clause 1. As I said in Committee, the Government take very seriously our duty of care for service personnel and veterans under investigation. This amendment was debated at length in the other place during the passage of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. Our servicepeople are entitled to receive comprehensive legal support, and a full range of welfare and mental health support is offered to all our people, as laid out in the Defence Secretary’s written ministerial statement of 13 April 2021. We have made clear our intent to provide a gold standard of care, and we will not deviate from that.
We resist the new clause because a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate. People have different needs, and we want to ensure bespoke provision—the right support at the right time. Furthermore, the difficulties of drafting such a duty of care would inevitably mean the involvement of the courts and additional litigation.
Turning to new clause 2, I am pleased to remind the House that the Government accept entirely that the historical policy prohibiting homosexuality in the armed forces was absolutely wrong, and there was historic injustice suffered by members of the LGBT+ community as a consequence. We are committed entirely to addressing that with urgency and humility, and our priority now is to understand the full impact of the pre-millennium ban. We are committed to finding an appropriate mechanism to address this injustice, but we resist the new clause because it may complicate or constrain the work already under way.
Mr Kevan Jones
As I said in my contribution, I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to righting this wrong, but he is going to come up against a lot of resistance from his Department when it comes to issues around compensation in terms of pensions and everything else. I just stress that he must push back, and push back hard.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s encouragement. I hear it, and I reassure him that we will address this matter with absolute resolve. It will be at the heart of the veterans strategy, which I will announce this winter.
Turning to new clause 3, let me reassure the House that the interests of armed forces personnel are already represented and protected through a range of mechanisms, including the Service Complaints Ombudsman, the pay review bodies, the annual continuous attitude survey, and more than 50 diversity networks operating within Defence at various levels, run mostly by volunteer members, with senior officer advocates and champions—and, lastly but most importantly, there is the chain of command. We therefore resist the new clause.
I turn to new clause 4. In June 2021, the annual UK armed forces mental health bulletin showed that the overall rate of mental ill health is actually lower among service personnel than in the general population, but of course we are never complacent. We are constantly striving to improve our mental healthcare support for service personnel and, indeed, veterans. We resist the new clause because it lacks utility and would merely add to the administrative burden of those seeking to support our service personnel. Indeed, a duty on the Secretary of State to report annually on healthcare provision already exists as part of the armed forces covenant.
Amendment 1 would give the Attorney General the role of deciding whether the most serious crimes are prosecuted in the service courts. We have already considered this issue carefully as a recommendation of the Lyons review, but we believe that enhancing the prosecutors protocol is the most effective way to improve decisions on concurrent jurisdiction, because it allows decisions to be made early on, by independent prosecutors who have close working relationships with civilian and service police.
If the AG had to give consent, the process would be slower. The AG would effectively be asked to endorse decisions that had been made very early in an investigation, and it is hard to see what the AG would be adding. However, if the AG were to disagree with those earlier decisions and veto the trying of a case in the service justice system, there would be no easy way to transfer that case to the civilian system. That may have the undesired effect of making it difficult or impossible to prosecute the case in either system.
For that reason, we resist the amendment. We have a more pragmatic approach, because we want a workable, transparent and rigorous process for decisions on jurisdiction. We want cases to be heard in the right system, and we are confident that the service justice system is capable of dealing with all offences, whatever their seriousness and wherever they occur. We must bear in mind that the civilian prosecutor will always have the final say.
Turning to amendments 2 to 8, the covenant duty covers public bodies delivering healthcare, housing and education, because those are the key areas of concern for our armed forces community. We have ensured that the legislation can adapt to the needs of the armed forces community in future by making provision to allow the Government to widen the scope of the covenant by way of affirmative regulations. The Bill is evergreen, and if we need to expand it in future, we will.
Jim Shannon
I asked specifically about recruitment in Northern Ireland and what we could do with reserve forces. Can I have an assurance that recruitment is necessary in Northern Ireland to fill the gap for soldiers who can help the British Army? If we can do it in Northern Ireland, let us make it happen.
Leo Docherty
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance and put that on the record.
I thank the team of magnificently resolute and tenacious MOD civil servants in the Bill team, including Jayne Scheier, John Shivas, Caron Tassel, Tim Payne and Ben Bridge. I call on the House to reject the amendments. The armed forces always stand up for us; we must stand up for the armed forces, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Stephanie Peacock
It has been an incredibly thoughtful debate, and I thank all hon. Members who have taken part, including the Minister. Having listened carefully to what he said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1, but I will seek to press new clause 4 to a vote, as well as amendments 1 and 2.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Armed Forces Mental Health Care review
‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing a review of the mental health treatment provided to Armed Forces personnel through the—
(a) Defence Medical Services,
(b) Departments of Community Mental Health and the Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Service, and
(c) Reserves Mental Health Programme.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within three months of the date on which this Act is passed.” .—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This new clause would require the government to conduct a formal review of the standards of mental health care available for serving personnel
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
Leo Docherty
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I want to reiterate my thanks to all hon. and right hon. Members for their thoughtful and constructive contributions today. I have been honoured to lead on this Bill that further enshrines the armed forces covenant into law. Ultimately, the Bill is for the armed forces, its serving personnel, veterans and their families, and I pay tribute to them for their bravery, stoicism and unflinching professionalism. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude and this Bill is for them.
Our armed forces stand up for us and we must always stand up for them, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Labour has said from the start that this Bill offered a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to make meaningful changes to the day-to-day lives of our forces personnel, veterans and their families. During Armed Forces Week, I had the privilege to bring together veterans of D-day, the Falklands and the Gulf war with Royal Navy and Royal Marine cadets from across Portsmouth. This celebration of service past and present was a powerful reminder of our collective responsibility to keep society’s promises to our nation’s service personnel. That is why Labour worked with service charities, veterans and personnel, and colleagues from across the House, to get the very best for our armed forces from this legislation.
The increased scrutiny the Bill has received means the Government have had many opportunities to listen to the fundamental concerns raised, but Ministers have steadfastly refused to do so at every turn. The Government have let themselves off the hook in delivering for Her Majesty’s forces. The provisions in the Bill do not apply to Government Departments, including, laughably, the Ministry of Defence itself, so while the Government claim the Bill will enshrine the armed forces covenant into law the reality is that they have outsourced the delivery of its important promises to others, and without any extra resource with which to do it.
Service charities continue to raise concerns about the Bill’s narrow scope, which risks creating a two-tier covenant and a race to the bottom on standards in service areas left out. In practice, this means that long-standing issues facing forces communities, and frequently raised by service charities, will not be addressed. Employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration are all on the long list of areas we know will not be covered. Labour’s amendments forced Ministers to take responsibility and widen the scope of the Bill. Twelve of the UK’s largest service charities, including the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, Cobseo and SSAFA, all wrote to Ministers last week backing these proposals, but the Government still voted them down.
On service justice, we welcome the creation of an independent Service Police Complaints Commissioner, and we hope to see Ministers get on with implementing this to ensure greater oversight and fairness in service justice cases. However, the Government refuse to improve access to justice for service personnel by trying rape and serious offences in civilian courts when they are committed in the UK. These proposals are backed by the Deepcut families, who have used their powerful and first-hand experiences of poor service justice investigations to call out the double standard of sudden deaths being handled by civilian police while rape and other serious offences are not.
Almost three quarters of sexual offences in the armed forces in 2020 took place in the UK, and between 2015 and 2020 the conviction rate for rape cases tried under courts martial was just 9%. The latest data available suggest the conviction rate was 59% in the civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year. This issue is disproportionately affecting women of junior rank: more than three quarters of the victims were women, and seven in 10 victims held the rank of private. Ministers refuse to recognise the weight of evidence from these figures, the experts and campaigners, and instead have relentlessly backed a fudge that will leave personnel vulnerable. That will be on their watch.
Finally, the Government have rejected the golden opportunity provided by Labour to end the shameful scandal of eye-watering visa fees for non-UK service personnel. Ministers cynically cite the long-awaited and underwhelming plans currently under consultation as proof of progress on this disgraceful injustice, but we know that they will help just one in 10 of those affected. The truth is that Ministers are content with making these decisions, but personnel will pay twice to stay in the country they have fought for.
In summary, this is an Armed Forces Bill that provides absolutely nothing for actively serving personnel. It fails to address long-standing and well-known issues facing service communities. It willingly ignores the recommendations of a judge-led review on the service justice system. It reduces appeal time limits for serving personnel brave enough to make a complaint, and it does nothing to end the shameful scandal at eye-watering visa fees for non-UK veterans. The Tories will talk this up as a manifesto promise fulfilled, but by any measure this Bill does not match the high standards our armed forces display in their service and in what they demand of themselves. Tonight, personnel, veterans and their families will rightly be questioning whether this Government really are on their side.
It is Labour that has been working in the interests of service communities. The Tories have dogmatically opposed these efforts, but we will continue to support this Bill, despite its many faults, as the intentions and principles underpinning it are positive. However, we will do so knowing that this Government have fallen far short of delivering the very best for service personnel. This will not be the end of Labour’s efforts to secure improvements for our armed forces communities. We will continue to champion them, and we will work with others in the other place to ensure that the Government deliver on the covenant and in full for every member of our armed forces, veterans and their families. They deserve nothing else.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will now suspend the House for two minutes to make the necessary arrangements for the next business.
National Health Service
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 246 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I beg to move,
That the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.
As we head towards a winter where care homes may have to battle with covid and flu, the question we should ask ourselves is this: what more can we do? Over the last year and a half, covid-19 has sadly taken many thousands of lives, particularly the lives of older people and those with underlying health conditions, and particularly the lives of those who need the kind of care received in a care home. There have been more than 40,000 deaths among care home residents. They were mothers and fathers, grans and grandads, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. Sadly, we have lost some of our dedicated care workers, too: despite all the efforts that have been made by care homes and their staff, local authorities and by us in Government to keep covid out, despite personal protective equipment, despite testing, despite isolation. Throughout the second wave, care homes used 26 million tests and—
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I raised a point of order earlier this afternoon about the lack of an impact assessment before the House, despite it having been referred to on 22 June as having been made available. I was informed during the course of that point of order that pressure was going to be put on the Government to explain why there was no impact assessment. It is therefore a source of great disappointment that the Minister has not started off her speech with such an apology and explanation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you for that point of order, Sir Christopher. The Minister is on her feet and she looks as if she may respond to that point of order herself, as it is not a point for the Chair.
Helen Whately
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was indeed intending to come to that point. I was commencing my speech by giving some further context, but I can respond to the specific point made by my hon. Friend. The impact assessment is being worked on. I will be clear with hon. Members. One of the challenges is that there is significant uncertainty about the level of behavioural change we may see in the weeks ahead from this and other measures, for instance the requirement for vaccination to travel to some countries, which we anticipate will lead to further vaccination uptake.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Helen Whately
If my hon. Friend will let me, I will cover his exact point.
I know that some hon. Members may wish to delay this debate, because they wish to review—
Mr Wragg
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It states in the explanatory notes:
“A full Impact Assessment has been prepared”.
If it has been prepared, it cannot currently be in preparation. So where is it?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That is not a point of order for me, but it could have been an intervention upon the Minister, so let us allow the Minister to give the full response to the points that have been made and perhaps she can include that one from William Wragg.
Helen Whately
As I said, the impact assessment is being worked on. That is the current situation. I was explaining one of the challenges in coming to an impact assessment that we can share with colleagues to inform them accurately. I really hear that hon. Members want to have the full set of information for this debate. We face a dilemma: the clock is ticking and each day we are moving closer to winter. I am going to come on to it in the detail of my speech, but one important feature of this proposed legislation is that it gives staff a grace period in which to get vaccinated. The longer we take on this, the more risk there is to having that grace period.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Helen Whately
In one moment. One thing I can share is evidence that we have on how this kind of policy is working in practice from a large care home provider that is already implementing a requirement for its staff to be vaccinated. It has seen the vast majority of staff get vaccinated, with less than 1% of its workforce choosing not to be vaccinated. We have committed—and the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) committed to this earlier to the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—to publishing an impact statement setting out the evidence we have in advance of the Lords debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Helen Whately
If my hon. Friends would allow to make a little more progress, I will absolutely take more interventions. However, I am conscious of wanting to set out the context and thinking behind this piece of legislation.
Helen Whately
I may well answer many of my hon. Friends’ questions as I proceed, so I ask my right hon. Friend to let me make a little progress and I assure him I will take interventions.
As I was saying, throughout the second wave care homes used 26 million tests and 1.2 billion items of personal protective equipment, yet still we saw outbreaks in many care homes during the winter and 14,000 deaths from covid among care home residents. But there is one thing now making a huge and crucial difference, a major advance that is unequivocally saving the lives of care home residents and staff from this cruel and pernicious virus, and that is vaccination. I have spoken to residents who were in tears of joy and relief as they were vaccinated, as they at last had their own defence against this virus. So far, the vaccine roll-out to residents and staff in care homes has been a big success story. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation made residents and staff in older age care homes the highest priority as soon as vaccines were available, and the NHS hit its target of offering the first dose to all care homes by the end of January, which was a fantastic effort.
Helen Whately
In one moment. Vaccination teams have made multiple visits to care homes since then and as a result 96% of those living in older age care homes have had their first dose and 93% have had their second dose. Some 92% of residents living in working age care homes have had their first dose and 87% have had their second dose. Take-up among staff has also been strong, with 86% of staff in older age care homes having had their first dose and 75% having had their second dose, and 83% of staff in working age care homes having had their first dose and 72% having had their second dose. Our vaccination teams have gone to great lengths to support and encourage those who have been worried about the vaccination, along with care home managers and care colleagues. I am sure that Members will join me in thanking everyone in the NHS, local authorities and care homes who have worked so hard together to achieve such levels of vaccination.
Several hon. Members rose—
Helen Whately
I will take an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper).
Mr Harper
I come back to the point about the impact assessment. The document prepared for the House says that a full impact assessment has been prepared. Ministers need to give accurate information to the House, so if that is not correct and is misleading, it should be corrected immediately. It is not good enough to say that something will come along afterwards; we are being asked to vote on these regulations today. There is no urgency—the regulations do not come into force for 16 weeks, until November—so it is perfectly reasonable for them to be taken away and for the impact assessment that has been prepared to be published. If there is uncertainty, share the uncertainty with the House. It is not good enough to expect us to vote on something that is difficult, controversial and complicated and not share with the House the information that the Minister has at her disposal. It is an abuse. It is not good enough.
Helen Whately
During the course of this speech, I will share as much information as I can with my right hon. Friend on the rationale behind this, but let me address his point about the timing. He says that it could be done later, but the problem is that, if we do it later, will we suggesting that it is too late for care home staff who have not yet been vaccinated? The point is to give care home staff the time between this being legislated upon and its being implemented in time for the winter, when we know that there is a greater risk of a combination of covid and flu, to get vaccinated, in the knowledge that we are generally seeing an eight-week period between doses.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister will appreciate that the provisions before us extend well beyond the care home staff. With respect to the 1% of those staff of whom she spoke, in the absence of the impact assessment, if their failure to be vaccinated results in dismissal, who will be responsible for the compensation?
Helen Whately
My right hon. Friend asks an important question about how things would work in practice, although I think he is presuming that there is a question of compensation. I expect to see care homes being able to follow a process, and so long as they follow a fair process, there should be no need for the compensation that my right hon. Friend suggests. We will set out guidance, but the point is that there is a fair process in which, for instance, a care home can discuss vaccination with its staff member and, indeed, look at whether there might be an alternative role for an individual if they really do not want to be vaccinated, although I am realistic that there are not that many roles for staff in care homes that do not involve being in the care home. After that, if the situation is still that the staff member does not wish to be vaccinated, the care home must follow a notice period and make sure that it follows a fair process.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to help the Minister. We are having to make a decision this evening on the balance of risk, but we have not been given the data because the impact assessment has not come forward. The Minister is, in effect, asking us to make a decision on information that we have not yet been able to see. Would it not therefore be more sensible to withdraw this statutory instrument and ensure that we have the right data in front of us, so that we can then make an informed choice?
Helen Whately
We live in an uncertain world, but we know that covid is a killer for people living in care homes and we know that the winter ahead of us is going to be challenging both because of the ongoing circulation of covid and because of flu. The question we should put to ourselves today is: what are the steps that we can take to make people safer in the months ahead? This time last year—last summer—infection rates were low, but we did not sit back and say, “In that case, it’s going to be okay for the winter.” We in Government, working with local authorities and care homes, made preparations for the winter ahead. Thank goodness we did make those preparations. Although sadly there were many deaths, had we not put in place the personal protective equipment distribution system, had we not had the level of regular testing that went on in care homes throughout the winter, and had we not had the support with infection prevention and control, I fear that last winter would have been much worse. We know that the winter ahead is going to be another challenging one and we must prepare for it.
Helen Whately
I will make some progress. As the Prime Minister and our chief medical officer have said, even when we are no longer in a pandemic, the virus will remain in some shape or form and we will have to learn to live with it. It will continue to circulate and potentially evolve into new variants, and there is a serious risk of a resurgence of flu and other seasonal infections. A combination of covid and flu may be unpleasant for many of us, but it will be life threatening for those who are most vulnerable.
Helen Whately
We must ask ourselves: what more can we do to protect those who will be most vulnerable?
Mr Wragg
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. To assist the debate, there is a discrepancy between the explanatory memorandum and the explanatory note on the back of the statutory instrument. The note states:
“A full impact assessment of the costs and benefits of this instrument is available from the Department of Health”.
It gives the Department’s address and indeed the website on which the assessment is supposedly published. So is the explanatory note in the instrument correct or not?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Again, this is not a matter for the Chair, but it is certainly a point for the Minister to address. I think it would be helpful if the Minister could directly address that particular issue, which many Members are now raising.
Helen Whately
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is not a great deal more that I can say on that point. As I have said, the impact assessment is being worked on and we will share it with colleagues as soon as we can. That is all I can say on that particular point.
Sir Christopher Chope
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I asked the House of Commons Library to inquire of the Department where this impact assessment was, and the Department informed the Library that it was about to present the impact assessment. It did not say that the assessment was still under preparation. The implication was that it was ready to be given to the House and it was just a matter of time—they said they would do it as soon as possible.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Again, I can only say what I have heard during the debate and apparently the impact assessment is simply not available. This is clearly not the best situation. We can see exactly what it is, but it is what it is.
Helen Whately
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies recommends that 80% of staff and 90% of residents should be vaccinated in any care home, at a minimum, to provide protection against outbreaks of covid. While the majority of care home workers have now been vaccinated, our most recent data has told us that only 65% of older-age care homes in England were meeting that safe minimum level, and the figure fell to 44% in London. That is why the instrument is being put forward today. It means that, by November, subject to parliamentary approval and a subsequent 16-week grace period, anyone entering a Care Quality Commission-registered care home in England must be vaccinated unless an exemption applies. That will apply to all workers employed by the care home, those employed by an agency and volunteers in the care home. Those entering care homes to undertake other work, for example, healthcare workers, tradespeople, hairdressers and CQC inspectors, will all have to follow the regulations.
The introduction of this policy has not been taken lightly. We have consulted extensively, including with a wide range of valued stakeholders, and used their feedback to inform this legislation. We recognise that some people feel that workers should have freedom of choice about vaccination, while others do it as a duty of care to protect the people most at risk. I know from speaking directly to people who receive care and to those who have relatives living in care homes that, although they might not be sure about requiring all care workers to be vaccinated, they are sure that they, individually, want to be cared for by someone who has been fully vaccinated. Many people have little choice about who cares for them.
Helen Whately
We have reviewed the huge number of responses to the consultation. Not everybody who responded supported the proposal—as my hon. Friend says, 57% did not—but it was interesting that the picture in care homes was fairly even between those who supported it and those who were concerned.
One thing that we are already seeing is that some care homes are bringing in the policy themselves.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Helen Whately
I may pre-empt my hon. Friend’s point. I know that hon. Friends have asked why the Government need to bring in the policy if some care homes are doing it themselves. The problem is that we could risk a situation in which someone fortunate enough to be living in a care home that has required vaccination for its workers is highly protected against the virus, but someone less fortunate, in a care home in which far fewer staff are vaccinated, is unfortunately at much greater risk. That is not an inequality that any of us should be comfortable with.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
If we take a vote tonight, it will set a trend, set down a marker and point the direction not just for this place, but for the whole United Kingdom; I mention Northern Ireland in particular. Before we make the decision, may I ask whether the Minister has had any opportunity to talk to the regional, devolved Minister, Robin Swann, to gauge his opinion on how the legislation will affect us?
Helen Whately
The hon. Member is right: I know that other parts of the United Kingdom are watching what we are doing here in England. There are regular conversations between the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the other Administrations. Also relevant is the international situation: other countries have either done what we are doing or are looking very hard at it. In fact, France has just announced that it will require vaccination for health and social care workers on a faster timeline than the one we propose.
Never again do we want to be back in the situation of having covid outbreaks across hundreds of care homes, with those who live and work in them losing their lives to this virus. Vaccination is a safe and effective way of preventing the spread of covid. The majority of care home workers have already taken up the vaccine, and it is essential that all care home workers who can have the vaccine do so in order to protect those in their care.
The original scope proposed in the consultation was to apply the policy only to care homes that look after older people, but following the consultation it became clear that there was a compelling case to extend the obligation to all care homes that provide care to the most vulnerable, for example young adults with learning disabilities. There was also significant support for broadening the scope of the policy to include all those who come into contact with residents, and there was support for including all those who enter care home residences in any capacity.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Helen Whately
I will proceed, and I may answer my hon. Friend’s question as I go.
We listened to the responses and made the decision to apply the policy to all people working inside care homes, unless they have a medical exemption or are not eligible for vaccination—under-18s, for instance. There are further exemptions, including people providing emergency assistance or undertaking urgent maintenance work, and family or friends visiting. Guidance will be published that gives more detail about the exemptions, which will reflect the green book on immunisation and clinical advice from the JCVI.
Sir Graham Brady
Can the Minister explain why the draft regulations do not distinguish between those workers who actually come into contact with residents and those who do not?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend asks a reasonable question. We consulted on exactly that point. There are two reasons relevant to the breadth of the policy, which covers not only care workers, but others coming into the care home, such as hairdressers, health professionals and tradespeople.
When somebody, including a tradesperson, comes into a care home, they might spend significant time in the care home, move around and move from room to room, so they might be a significant infection risk to the care home. They might also move between one care home and another, particularly if they are a specialist who serves multiple care homes. We know there is a risk when individuals are moving between care homes, so there is a clinical case for the regulations.
We also heard from providers responding to the consultation that they want a consistent approach for people who enter a care home to work, and these regulations will make it more straightforward for them to implement that.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. On making sure there is equity, where does she believe the duty of care falls, given these regulations?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Throughout the pandemic, the Government and I have felt our responsibility to protect those living in care homes from covid as best we can. We can try to do that by extending to them the protection of being cared for by people who are doubly vaccinated, knowing as we do now, from the increasing evidence, that being vaccinated not only protects the individual but reduces the risk of transmission.
Several hon. Members rose—
Helen Whately
I will sum up, as I know other colleagues wish to makes speeches.
I put on record my sincere thanks to care workers across the country, not just for their work throughout the pandemic but for all they bring to our health and care services. People working in care homes have played an incredibly important role in caring for those most at risk from this terrible virus. The vaccine is working, with more than 14,000 lives saved so far. It is only right that we take every possible step to protect those most at risk.
As I said at the outset, we must all ask ourselves what more we can do to protect care home residents, and these regulations are what we can do.
Mark Jenkinson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on whether the vaccination figures cited by the Minister, which are more than a month out of date, might have inadvertently misled the House. Her earlier figures on the vaccination status of care home staff and residents suggest it simply is not possible for the figures both to have reached the SAGE threshold and to be as low as the House was informed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. Obviously, I cannot comment on figures the Minister may or may not have used. I am sure she will have heard what he said and, if there is anything that needs correcting, will do so in her summing up.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Since the start of the pandemic, our lives have all been deeply affected. Our key workers have experienced more than their fair share of grief, strife and sacrifice. Our care staff have truly been the best of us during the past 16 months, nursing our loved ones at the end of their life, being the person who holds our relatives when they are scared and confused, and facilitating greetings through windows and fences and across roads. They have been family to our vulnerable relatives over the past year, and for that I will be forever grateful. I do not think we will ever be able to repay that debt.
These are not the words of a politician or even a doctor; they are the words of a daughter who had to say goodbye to her father during the pandemic. I am eternally grateful for the care my father received, which went above and beyond what I could have expected. Carers showed my family and me what humanity truly is: changing their shifts to be with him, being on the end of the phone whenever we needed them, and facilitating whatever they could for us to be with him in his last moments. I can never repay my father’s carers for the humanity that they showed him as his condition worsened while my family could not be by his bedside.
Carers were scared, and many still are. The idea of passing a deadly virus on to the people in their care tormented them, and that is why we are here today. The idea that care workers do not think about the day-to-day safety of the people they care about is an insult. From my own experience, I know that their residents are of the utmost importance to them. So often poorly paid, they put in the gruelling work because they truly care. To argue that they do not neglects their fears. We want everyone working in a care home to take up the vaccine, which is safe and effective, but we are not inclined to support these proposals or the case for compulsory vaccination.
There are serious warnings from the care sector that the Government’s plan could lead to staff shortages in already understaffed care homes. This would have disastrous consequences for the quality of care. It is vital that we examine the current reality of life on the frontline in care settings. During the pandemic, Unison surveyed its members, who shared that they were feeling more anxious and depressed than before owing to the fear of passing the virus on to their relatives and those under their care. Many felt that their management were not equipped to support their needs. Resoundingly, care workers just wanted people to listen to their experiences and the challenges they were experiencing without, and I quote, “fear of being singled out as a troublemaker”.
Rachael Maskell
I am really grateful for the speech that my hon. Friend is making and obviously pass on my condolences to her. Does she agree that after all that our care workers have been through, what they need at this time is not only supported conversation about how they can progress with their own vaccination, or not, but to have the right people in place giving them that supported conversation?
Dr Allin-Khan
It is almost as though my hon. Friend has read the rest of my speech. I could not agree more.
We have to listen to our care workers today. For the young, pregnant carers worried about their next pay cheque, will these proposals make them more secure? For all those carers from communities who have lost trust in authority, will the threat of losing their jobs instil more trust? For all those carers who have loved and cared for their residents but have concerns about the vaccine and have not had anyone answer their questions, are they being told that their dedication is suddenly irrelevant?
To understand why there may be hesitancy among care home workers to take up the vaccine, it is important to understand the health inequalities that much of the workforce face. Ethnic minorities are over-represented in the adult social care workforce, with 21% of all care staff coming from a minority ethnic background. Negative experiences of a culturally insensitive health service, the higher rates of death from covid for people from black and south Asian communities, and a lack of representation of minority groups in vaccine trials and wider health research all serve to build distrust in the health system. These are some of the communities that have been hit the hardest during the pandemic.
The disproportionate use of coercive and restrictive practices on minority communities also, importantly, erodes trust in the system. Black people are four times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 than white people, despite making up a much smaller percentage of the overall population. With trust so low, that creates hesitancy, but this can be overcome through effective communication and an understanding of the issues that have created it. Further coercion and punishment through the threat of being dismissed from employment only reinforces the reasons for hesitancy in the first place.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I hear what the hon. Lady is saying. My first instinct on persuasion, months and months ago, was exactly the same, but more than seven months on, it has not happened. I am tempted to ask, “If not now, when?”, to coin a phrase. What is her response to that?
Dr Allin-Khan
My response is that the Government have not gone far enough to have these conversations. A real effort has not been made to engage with the communities that have been hit the hardest and for whom vaccine hesitancy is at its highest. Trust being so low creates the hesitancy that I have just spoken of. This hesitancy can be overcome through effective communication, but that has not yet happened under this Government’s watch.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Allin-Khan
I am going to make progress, thank you.
These measures will disproportionately punish groups whose needs are already rarely reflected in mainstream health services or the labour market. Respectfully listening to concerns and offering practical support would not only tackle vaccine hesitancy; it would also help to rebuild trust in health services, which in turn could eventually lead to reduced health inequalities for all minority groups.
Let us be clear: vaccine hesitancy is entirely different from being an anti-vaxxer. Vaccine hesitancy is a challenge for the Government to tackle. It is harder work. There is no quick fix. The Government are trying to make an incredibly complex issue into a black and white one, and that does nothing to pay respect to the sacrifices that care workers have made since the start of the pandemic. More must be done to encourage uptake of the vaccine.
Dr Allin-Khan
I am going to make progress, please.
The UK Government should learn from the fantastic work of the Labour-led Welsh Government, who are running the fastest vaccine programme in the world and have vaccinated a far greater proportion of their staff than England; yesterday’s figures showed that almost 95% of care home residents and 88% of care home staff are double vaccinated. Wales has rejected compulsory vaccinations and instead chosen to work closely with the care sector to drive take-up, as well as valuing the workforce with a proper pay rise. That is the sort of leadership that is needed here.
A failure of leadership here will place the care sector in an even more precarious situation, with even fewer staff than at present. There are serious warnings from the care sector that the Government’s plan could lead to staff shortages in already understaffed care homes. That would have disastrous consequences on the quality of care. More than 100,000 posts in the care sector are currently unfilled, with recruitment and retention already extremely difficult due to low wage levels for difficult and demanding jobs. Not only could this plan have a disastrous impact on those relying on care, but the stress and trauma placed on their relatives will affect so many across the country. We already have a social care crisis. Let us not deepen it.
These proposals are at odds with the Government’s decision to throw caution to the wind by making social distancing and mask wearing optional and up to individuals to decide on. It makes no sense. Surely forcing workers to receive a vaccine is at odds with the individualism that the Government seek to promote at every opportunity. It seems odd that care workers are being singled out. Why is there a different rule for them? Are the Government hoping that the public will simply forget about their failure to protect care homes over the past year? Is that what is going on here?
Forcing carers to choose between losing their job and taking a vaccine that they are afraid of is inhumane. These are people who often work for less than the minimum wage. They are incredibly vulnerable people and their voices must be heard. Many of these people have lost multiple family members during the pandemic. They are being asked to put their faith in a vaccine that they are afraid of. The Government need to be doing more to tackle misinformation, promote the positive benefits of taking up the vaccine and support care home staff to do so. They have not been doing enough to support care workers who have done so much during the crisis. They should be focused on driving up standards and staff retention by treating care workers as the professionals they are, with improved pay, terms and conditions and training.
We have a moral imperative not to force people to take a vaccine that they are afraid of, so I urge the Government to listen to our care workforce. Surely they deserve at least that after the last year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
This debate finishes at 7.19 pm and I need to bring the Minister in at the end. That means that if colleagues speak for between four and five minutes, everybody will get in. If colleagues do not speak for between four and five minutes, everybody will not get in.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). I am delighted that the Official Opposition share my view and that of many of my colleagues that these are bad regulations and that they should be opposed this evening.
Both the Welsh and Scottish Governments, as I understand it, are against this type of regulation. The Minister told us that other Administrations were watching, but this Administration should be watching what the other Administrations are doing and following their lead. I must say that this was probably the most depressing performance from a Minister that I have listened to in this House. She showed a cavalier disregard for the conventions and courtesies of this House, and, as she has admitted to, she completely breached the rules under the Government’s better regulation framework, which is designed to inform decision making for regulations that affect businesses and individuals in this country. When criticised, the Minister’s response is best described as dumb insolence, and that is just not good enough. One question that I would have liked to ask in an intervention was: what is the Government’s rationale for not requiring care home residents to be vaccinated?
These regulations were laid on 22 June. There was an accompanying explanatory memorandum that expressly referenced a full impact assessment. It said:
“A full impact assessment of the costs and benefits of this instrument is available from the Department of Health and Social Care…and is published alongside this instrument and its Explanatory Memorandum”.
The Minister has not explained what has happened to it, whether it ever existed, and whether it contained information that she found embarrassing and has therefore been suppressed.
An impact assessment is not an optional extra. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee made clear in its report of 6 July: “An impact assessment is a fundamental tool for those who wish to scrutinise legislation before nodding it through”. Indeed, an impact assessment should be cleared by the Minister before the proposals are brought forward. The Government’s better regulation framework principles, set out in March 2020, says:
“Where government intervention requires a legislative or policy change to be made, departments are expected to analyse and assess the impact of the change on the different groups affected – which should generally take the form of an impact assessment.”
That has not happened. Why has it not happened? I put down some parliamentary questions about this, because I feared that we would not get the impact assessment, and those questions have received holding answers rather than substantive answers. One asked what estimate he has made
“of the number of employees in…England who will face dismissal from their employment as a result of the enactment of regulations …and whether those staff will be eligible for compensation”.
There was not an answer to that, and there has not been one so far today. I then asked what estimate has been made
“of the number of staff employed in care homes in England who have not been vaccinated against covid-19 for (a) clinical reasons and (b) reasons of personal choice including religion, belief and conscience”.
Again, no answers—not even to parliamentary questions. How can we hold the Government to account if they will not even answer our questions?
My constituents are absolutely livid about what is being proposed. I will not quote extensively from a letter that I received from Mr Davis from Ferndown, but he says that it is completely wrong and unethical and that it makes no sense. An NHS consultant in Christchurch says that, “Mandatory vaccination would be crossing the Rubicon on medical choice, medical confidentiality and bodily autonomy.” These are vital elements of the right to privacy. A Christchurch care home manager to whom I have spoken has said that the whole proposal “undermines” the need for parity of esteem between care workers and NHS workers.
You may have seen, Madam Deputy Speaker, the article in the British Medical Journal on 8 July, which says that, while it may reduce the risk of transmission, vaccination
“is not a panacea for safety”.
Why are we not saying that people who have had previous infection and got immunity from that are exempt from these regulations? I think that this is an unnecessary, disproportionate and misguided proposal. I hope that, given what has happened in Scotland and Wales, we reject these regulations and put the Minister out of her misery.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
I do not usually speak in the debates about statutory instruments on covid regulations as they apply only in England, but I feel I have to make a couple of points on the plan to make covid vaccination mandatory for all care home staff—the first mandatory vaccination legislation in the UK for well over a century.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vaccinations for all, I totally support vaccination and I draw attention to our recent report, published in May, on how to improve the uptake of all vaccines. Virtually all our expert contributors highlighted the dangers of making vaccination legally mandatory because while it may force uptake among some, it tends to increase distrust and suspicion of vaccines and drive those who are hesitant to become vaccine refusers.
In Scotland, virtually 100% of care home staff are fully vaccinated with both doses, without mandating it. That has been achieved through three key policy approaches. First, as part of developing caring as a profession, care home staff in Scotland are now registered, which means we have information on who we are trying to reach. Secondly, when the Scottish Government became aware that care home staff were being deliberately targeted with disinformation on covid vaccines, they arranged expert webinars for staff with our chief medical officers and NHS director. Thirdly, as soon as the Pfizer vaccine became available in December, care home staff were vaccinated at the same visit as residents. That not only improved convenience, but created a strong sense of solidarity between colleagues and with the vulnerable people they care for.
The Scottish Government faced considerable criticism at the start of the year for spending so much time and effort on care homes rather than pushing ahead with mass vaccination centres, but it has paid off. We hear that in England, 86% of care home staff have received a first dose and 75% are fully vaccinated, although I understand that that hides a wide variation in uptake. While repeat visits have now been provided to care homes in England, that was not national policy at the start of the programme when many providers reported difficulty in accessing vaccine appointments for their staff.
The UK Government have never taken forward the principle of care staff registration and professionalisation in the care sector. As has been highlighted, staff in England are not even paid the real living wage. Care home staff have faced a very difficult time in the last 18 months and we all owe them a great debt of thanks. I still believe that locally targeted support, information and persuasion would be more successful in convincing care home staff than heavy-handed legislation, which threatens their jobs.
We all agree about the need to get the highest rate of vaccination possible to protect care home residents. The difference is in how to get there. Our APPG report makes it clear that the most important approach when dealing with communities with hesitancy is not to make assumptions about the cause but to listen to them and then act on what they are seeking.
Apart from my concerns about the principle of mandating vaccination, I call on the Minister to clarify that the legislation applies to England only. The Scottish Government do not accept the principle of making vaccines mandatory, nor do they see the need for such an approach after the fantastic uptake by our care home staff.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I do not often say this, but it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who speaks for her party and, in this case, the all-party parliamentary group on vaccinations for all. I agree with almost every word—not necessarily about the Scottish Government—she said about the right way of persuading care home workers to get vaccinated.
I should say first, before I touch on the specific proposals in front of us, that I agree with the Minister when she says it is very important that we protect those who live in a care home setting. We have all seen the damage over the past year from covid, and it is fantastic that we can now vaccinate those residents, because we know that covid is a disease that is focused on wreaking the most havoc on those who are older and those with health conditions. It is fantastic, as the Minister said, that 96% of residents of care homes have had a first dose and 93% a second dose. That means they have very substantial protection against serious disease, hospitalisation and, tragically, death, and that is fantastic. Everyone in the House—I think I can speak for everyone—wants to make sure we protect people in care homes. This debate is about how we best do so.
Let me just take the arguments that the Minister set out. First, I agree with what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said in terms of persuasion. I have certainly talked to my local health professionals, and they very much advocate listening to staff who are hesitant, understanding the reasons and then trying to address those reasons. I know that the Minister has said that a significant number of healthcare staff have been vaccinated, but it is not consistent across the country. In some places it will be 100%; in other places, it will be much lower.
It seems to me that we therefore need to focus on those areas where take-up is much lower and understand what the barriers are, rather than insisting that people have got to do something that they clearly have some concerns about. That may be because they are from a particular ethnic minority, and we know there is differential vaccine take-up there, or it may be that they are a younger female of childbearing age, and they are concerned—I think erroneously—about things they read about fertility. We need to deal with those concerns. We cannot threaten somebody who is young and worried about fertility and insist that they take a vaccine they are worried about without dealing with those concerns. I think we all agree about that; this debate is about how best to do it.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in some cases, seeming to threaten people will only worsen the problems of trust in authority from which people might already be suffering, causing them to be hesitant in the first place?
Mr Harper
I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why I think these proposals are mistaken. Let me just step briefly through the proposals in front of us. First of all, I completely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) said about the impact assessment. I have been a Minister; I have been through impact assessments, prepared them, signed them off and presented them to the House, and I am afraid it is not good enough.
The proposals will have a very significant impact on hundreds of thousands of people and many thousands of businesses—it is a significant step; it is the first time that we will have mandated in law effectively compulsory vaccinations—and it is frankly offensive that it is being debated in a 90-minute statutory instrument debate in the House. From the name of the regulations it does not leap out as to what they are, and I think many colleagues were unaware of the fact that we were being asked to vote on this measure today until it was drawn to their attention. That is the first point.
The second point is that if the information is available, even if it is imperfect—I accept that it will be imperfect and there will be things that we cannot be certain about—it is the Minister’s duty, if she has that information, which one of these documents says she does and one of them says she does not, to put what she has in front of the House. She should sign it off—she is responsible for that—and allow us to see it before we are asked to vote on the regulations.
I am afraid it is an abuse of the House to ask us to vote without that information. If this was genuinely an emergency, that might be acceptable, but, as I have already said, these regulations, if passed, do not come into force for 16 weeks. That is November. There is ample time to complete the impact assessment and bring the regulations back before the House. Even if that was in September, we could then have a tighter deadline and still deliver the legislation before it is currently scheduled to become law. I think that would be preferable.
It is worth saying that I could have been persuaded, although I have reservations, to support mandatory vaccination for care home staff, if a good case had been made about the risk reduction to residents. I did not actually hear the case being made about the risk reduction to residents. It is not set out in any of the documents in front of us, and the Minister did not set it out in her remarks, but I remain open to that, which is why I would urge her to bring back further proposals later.
However, that is not at all what is in front of us. These proposals are incredibly broad: they apply to everybody who enters the premises of a care home. Even if they never see a resident or are there only for moments, the care home will be prohibited by law from allowing them to enter, and will have to ask them intrusive questions about their health status, perhaps including what health conditions they have that mean they do not have to get a vaccination. That care home will then have to ask the employer, and those businesses that want to transact with care homes will then have to ask those intrusive questions of their employees. The scope of these proposals is massive, and is particularly troubling given what the Government said yesterday in the House about domestic vaccine passports. Many of us are concerned that insisting that employers ask their staff intrusive questions about their health conditions, when there is no good reason to do so, is the thin end of a wedge.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a fantastic argument, as he always does in this place. I have interweaved these new regulations into where they would fit in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and the 2014 regulated activities regulations, and have found that we are asking care homes to be the policemen of delivery people, plumbers and window cleaners with a possible £4,000 fixed penalty fine. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was aware of the extent of the fine that backs up these regulations.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that information to the attention of the House.
I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, because Mr Deputy Speaker wants to make sure that we get everybody in. My final point is that, coming back to the consultation that took place, it is very clear that most of the people responding did not support these proposals. They were very concerned about them; certainly, the care homes and those involved in the sector who I have heard from are very concerned about them. The proposals do not command wide support, so I say to the Minister that I would listen to the concerns that are being expressed, take these proposals away, and come back with some well-thought-through proposals to secure the support of the House. If she presses them to a vote today, I regret to say that I will be forced to vote against them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I can guarantee that everybody will get in: there is a five-minute limit.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and I pretty much agree with everything he had to say. I wish to preface my remarks on these regulations by making it abundantly clear that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues unequivocally and strongly support vaccination, and would urge everybody who is eligible to be vaccinated. We know that vaccines are safe, effective, and save lives, and for those on the frontline—whether working in social care or in the NHS—vaccination is critical. If I had a loved one in a care home, of course I would want maximum protection for them, and therefore would want all staff to be vaccinated. The question we as legislators have to grapple with is whether coercion is the answer, and what might be the unintended consequences of mandating vaccination for some of the lowest paid and most undervalued workers in our society, and for a sector that is on its knees.
As we have heard, the care sector is facing chronic staff shortages, and making vaccines mandatory has a real potential to exacerbate those acute shortages. The Government must do much more to convince and persuade care workers to get vaccinated. As many experts have said and as we have heard already, coercion is usually ineffective or, worse, counterproductive, and risks eroding trust in the sector. Indeed, the care sector has a long history of being overlooked and underfunded. Some 1.6 million social care workers earn less than the living wage; a quarter of the workforce are on zero-hours contracts; and there is a lack of any progression or career prospects. There is a real concern that those who are vaccine-hesitant may simply leave the profession rather than get vaccinated, particularly as we know that there are serious shortages in other sectors—such as hospitality—that are offering more competitive pay.
With 1.5 million older people currently not getting the care they need, already overstretched staff will become even thinner on the ground. Care providers, many of whom are already in a fragile state as a result of the pandemic, could find themselves having to deal with the costs of tribunals and legal challenges as a result of individuals losing their jobs. What support and resource is being provided to the sector to implement this policy?
Coercion is not an effective way to overcome hesitancy. Compulsory vaccination is a blunt tool for a complex issue, and research has highlighted that pressuring care workers can have damaging effects leading to the erosion of trust, worsening concerns about the vaccine and hardened stances on refusing vaccination. Indeed, digging into the detail shows that the rate of uptake may not be as bad in some places as it initially seems. The data is somewhat encouraging in that there is a significant disparity in the percentage of staff who have taken their first jab and not their second. For instance, Wandsworth has the lowest uptake rate, with 70% of staff having had their first jab but only 53% having had their second. This could indicate that Government and NHS initiatives are bearing fruit, and that mandating vaccination could therefore be premature. Alternatively, it might suggest there is a problem with trying to get care workers back to have their second jabs. This all suggests a much more complex picture, for which this blunt tool is not the answer. As others have said, we risk going down a slippery slope to chip away at people’s rights and freedoms to make their own health choices. This decision sets a precedent and must not be taken lightly.
That leads me to my final point. In part, we have arrived at this situation precisely because the care sector has been overlooked for so long. It has long been a Cinderella service and a poor relation to the NHS, and yet again, we see that this legislation applies only to care home workers and not NHS staff, so it feels discriminatory to many in the care sector. I come back to where I started. I want to protect the most vulnerable, but I fear that these measures will do more harm than good and that we risk a mass exodus of staff from an already overburdened, overstretched and underfunded sector.
In March last year, when my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place and I were asking searching questions of Ministers about testing and PPE to protect care homes, there were no answers. The truth is that the tragedy we have seen unfold in our care homes throughout the pandemic resulted in thousands of excess deaths because the protective ring that Ministers talked about went in far too late. This legislation we are being asked to support is a reaction to Government inaction and failure to protect care homes, and they continue to drag their feet on reforming the sector properly. Coercion and an assault on fundamental rights and liberties should not be the response to this. We must encourage, empower and support people to make the right decision to get vaccinated, and we must pay and value our heroic care staff properly, rather than pointing the finger of blame at them.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) has said. I shall begin, as others have done, with the impact assessment—or the lack of one. I hope that the Minister will, on reflection, accept that it is simply wrong to bring these measures forward without giving the House the impact assessment in advance. She still has the opportunity to do something about this by withdrawing these measures and coming back at a later date, and I hope she will consider that.
This is a very serious innovation. Imposing a legal requirement for people to undertake a medical intervention, maybe against their will, is a remarkable change in our law. As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, it sets a serious precedent, and it is a precedent that the Minister herself slightly alarmingly raised when she said that covid and flu would be a problem as the winter approached. As yet, we are not talking about compulsory vaccination for flu, but once we begin down that road, where does it end?
The scope of this measure is unnecessary. As I said in my intervention, insisting that people are vaccinated even if they will have no contact whatsoever with residents of care homes is entirely unreasonable. The application of the measure to a plumber who comes to fix a boiler, or to a trustee of a charity who may go to sit in an office but have no contact in any of the areas where residents would be, would be unreasonable. The measure is also inconsistent. Why does it apply only to care workers and not more widely in the healthcare sector?
Mark Jenkinson
We heard from the Minister about the 99% vaccination uptake where an employer had mandated it themselves. Would it not be the case, as in the case that my hon. Friend set out with visitors, that if this was in departmental guidance, it would be incumbent on the care home to take cognisance of it in the risk assessment?
Sir Graham Brady
I agree with my hon. Friend. There are perfectly rational arrangements that could allow particular residents to insist on only a vaccinated carer being in attendance.
I want to focus in the brief time available on a specific point: the importance of respecting religious freedom. Lime Tree House in Sale in my constituency is one of only two Christian Science care homes in the country. The rights of Christian Scientists were protected by the Labour Government when the Care Standards Bill was introduced in 2000. The then Minister, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, gave an explicit assurance in the House of Lords:
“Perhaps I may say right at the start that the Government have no intention of preventing or discouraging people from being cared for in accordance with the principles and practices of the Church of Christ, Scientist. The Care Standards Bill will not mean that Christian Science houses or their visiting nurse services will have to give medical treatment to their patients, or do anything else which would go against their religious principles...The Department of Health will consult and work with the Church of Christ, Scientist, to ensure that regulation by the commission is compatible with the church’s principles and practices.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 March 2000; Vol. 611, c. 741.]
Christian Scientists responded to the consultation in May. Since then, they have written to the Minister and indeed the new Secretary of State—obviously, that was very recently—but have not received a response. Clearly, there is no provision in the legislation to protect this important principle.
May I ask the Minister when she responds to give an absolute assurance that the principle of religious freedom will be respected by the Government, as it was by previous Governments? Will she undertake either to introduce an amended statutory instrument in the House or, if not, will she commit to including matters of conscience in the exemptions provided for in the measure? I am talking about two small care homes, a handful of residents and a situation in which both residents and carers might prefer not to have a medical intervention inflicted on them against their will, but a very big principle is at stake.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind Dr Evans that I will interrupt him briefly at 7 o’clock to put the motion on deferred Divisions to the House so that we can have live votes on this and on the terrorism motion.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I look forward to that, as it will give me time to catch my breath.
Like many hon. Members, I baulk at the prospect of mandatory mask certification or vaccination. I have made that clear privately and to my constituents who ask about it, as I did not think that it was ethically, practically or even medically reasonable. We should always be proportionate in our response. However, I have also made it clear that there are specific carve-outs aimed at those most at risk. Indeed, when it comes to healthcare and public health, this is a prime example, given the essence of who we are dealing with: the elderly and the vulnerable.
This argument boils down to rights versus responsibilities. There is a duty of care by the Government and internal providers both to patients and to members of staff. The House has to navigate the difficult path between limiting the risk to patients and residents from the spread of the virus while respecting the staff’s rights and responsibilities. In the next minute or two, including the break at 7 o’clock, I will go over a couple of principles that are in practice, and some real-world challenges that we face.
According to the Care Quality Commission, when it comes to talking about vaccinations, there are three pieces of legislation that are important: the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974; the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (Amendment) Regulations 1992; and the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
We are obviously dealing with the latter, but the former two measures set a precedent of safe working environments, dealing with substances dangerous to health, putting responsibility squarely on organisers and providers to mitigate that for staff and users as best as possible.
I do not expect that it will be too long before we see a legal challenge, where a resident dies from covid and the finger is pointed squarely at the care home staff, or at the care home for not having vaccinated staff, given that we know the vulnerability of the elderly. There is a duty—
Dr Evans
So there is a duty of care, and duty of care is a running theme. Currently, there is no law to say that vaccines are mandatory, so make no mistake: this is a departure from the legal precedent. However, it is not nearly as big or as wide a departure as the public or indeed this House may be led to believe, as, in essence, practically this precedent already exists in the NHS with the likes of TB.
Let us take the example of a medical student or a dental student. When a student joins a medical school, they have to have a TB check, an HIV check, a hepatitis C check and treatment to practise. While it is not a legal requirement, operationally it means that someone cannot do procedures, cannot do hospital placements and, in dentistry particularly, cannot progress. Why? A duty of care.
I do not recall a huge outburst about such concerns when the 2007 Department of Health clearance guidance entitled “Health clearance for tuberculosis, hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV”, which was revised in April 2014, was widespread. Why? Because when people enter these professions, the overriding principle hammered in time and again is that there is a duty of care to patients, and medical schools and providers have a duty of care for their students.
Mr Steve Baker
Of course my hon. Friend is an expert in these matters, but he has conceded that, in the cases he has referred to, that is not a legal requirement but a matter of health and safety. Why is it that in this case, he wishes to cross the Rubicon and mandate that someone may not be in a care home—apart from the conditions—unless they are vaccinated? Why does he want to put it in law in these circumstances?
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend has pre-empted the rest of my speech, in which I will hopefully try to address some of that. It is about recognising the parity between professions. We heard the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) talk about the professional recognition we need for social care. That is imperative. We have covered that in the Health and Social Care Committee, and our report is very clear that we need that parity of professional standards. We have heard time and again that people have gone above and beyond in their duty.
I am a realist on this, and I want the Government to draw people’s attention to the fact that there could be difficulties. It is going to cause a problem when there are 16 weeks’ consultation, and there could be an exacerbation of problems with the workforce. I also urge the Government to pick up on what other Members have said and encourage people to take up vaccination in the first place.
Fundamentally, however—perhaps this is what it comes down to for my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—this comes down to a duty of care to the looked-after. I ask Members to imagine that it was their grandmother, grandfather, father or mother being cared for. I would expect Members to say that they wanted the best possible protections for that individual in the institution where they were resting.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry, we have to leave it there. Four minutes each. I call Dr Ben Spencer.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Controversially, perhaps, I think that much of this statutory instrument is uncontroversial. The reason behind that is my own experience of being recruited to go through medical school. As part of the recruitment process, it was made very clear to me that I had to have hep B testing and I had to be vaccinated for hep B, and that going through and getting involved in becoming a medical student just would not happen if that was not the case. I think that is fair enough.
We expect our health staff to have vaccinations for a variety of conditions—not just hepatitis B but things such as chickenpox for people who have not been exposed, and rubella—because we know the impact that those things can have on the patients we look after or the people we care for. We know the huge impact covid has on the most vulnerable in our society. Its lethality—its severity—is linked to frailty, and one of the most frail groups are people living in care. It is important that people are vaccinated so that, when they have asymptomatic covid, they do not unintentionally pass it on. We know that vaccination rates are not high enough to give the protection necessary to protect people in care homes, and on that basis it is an entirely reasonable and sensible approach to bring forward measures saying that people have to be vaccinated to work in that setting. However, although that might be a reasonable approach I realise that it is different from my personal experience as I have just described, because that was a pre-recruitment process that I went through, whereas what we are talking about now is a process for people who are currently in post—people who might have been working for quite some time and have a lot of years behind them—and if they do not go through with vaccination, ultimately they will be without a job. That is a big deal. It is also important to recognise that those who may decide that they do not want to be vaccinated are not evil people who should be shunned; they are people who make decisions for whatever reason about vaccination, and that is important and should be respected.
Fundamentally, this SI is about risk, and I see two risks here. One is the risk of covid to people living in care settings, and that risk is very clear: there is loads of data on that—loads of data on the impact and on fatalities, and also on the protection provided by vaccination for people at risk of covid and protection in terms of reducing transmission. So, that side of the equation is very clear, but the side that is less clear is the risk in terms of staffing, and that is a critical issue. Some people will decide that not being vaccinated is more important to them than working in the care sector. I am completely unclear as to how many people will make that decision and I do not think anyone knows what that population is going to be—what the numbers are going to look like. That is a concern as we already have staffing issues in the care sector and it has been a long-term problem.
Nevertheless, perhaps the only way to test this out is to bring it forward and see what happens. The 16-week run-in makes a lot of sense, but it is critical that it is monitored to see what happens with regard to staffing and retention, and if that is a big issue—if retention pressures start coming through—we will have to change course. When my hon. Friend the Minister sums up I would welcome her saying what she will do over the summer as this is being brought in to work with and engage with people in the social care sector on its impact. If there is a substantial impact, I hope that she will undertake to come back to the House after the summer recess with plans to mitigate this or change course.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), and indeed the speaker before him, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). They are two learned medical practitioners who, with the underlying qualities that seem to attract to those positions, state their arguments in the finest tradition of the empirical method. As ever, I hope I can be forgiven for not being quite as rational as those two speakers.
I hope, too, that the House will indulge me because, frankly, I am in despair. We could perhaps have a painting next to me of Munch’s “The Scream” to get a sense of how I feel about the conduct of Government business in this House. The Government are treating this House with utter contempt: 90 minutes on a statutory instrument to fundamentally change the balance of human rights in this country is nothing short of a disgrace. It is a disgrace, too, that no impact assessment exists. I contend that it does not exist, and if that is proven to be the case I am afraid my hon. Friend the Minister will be in a tricky position if she contends it does when it does not.
The measures before us are in themselves entirely impractical. We have heard already about concerns about the workforce. I have the utmost respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, as he knows, but if we were to follow his suggestion, I fear that it would be far too late to repair the damage done to the workforce of carers in this country.
It is an insult to care workers in this country that all they merit is 90 minutes on a motion that nobody here seemed to know anything about last week but which we are discussing this afternoon. Meanwhile, so many of our colleagues, presumably because of the proxy vote system and the fact that they find it generally inconvenient to be a Member of Parliament, will know nothing at all about the measures on which they are voting, and that too should concern us a great deal. I will vote against these measures, if that had not been made clear from my remarks so far.
I believe that 1898 was last time vaccination was mandated in this country, and following that mandate, the rates of vaccination fell. That should tell us all we need to know. We will give succour to lunatics and crackpots who advance ridiculous theories about vaccination if we mandate vaccination. The triumph of the vaccination programme has been the act of kindness that people have felt towards their fellow citizens in doing so, and we will lose that good will if we mandate it.
A lady called me a week or so ago, and she was in tears on the phone. She has a condition that involves blood clots, and she associated the news about one or two of the vaccines with her condition. She is a care worker, and she was distraught. She now equates her illness and the vaccination—and the fact that she cannot get a GP appointment to discuss it, but that is a different matter—with losing her job. Is that what we are prepared to do to our fellow citizens as a Conservative Government? Absolute lunacy! We would expect this in a communist country, which partly explains why so many of our eastern European fellow citizens have the scepticism they do, knowing the nature of the state and how it can be perceived as being malevolent.
This instrument is an abomination. It should be withdrawn, and the Government should stop treating this House with contempt.
Helen Whately
I thank hon. Members for their contributions and the questions they have put to me during this debate. I welcome the consensus on the importance of protecting care home residents. This debate is about how best we do that and the level of evidence needed in order for us to take the steps to best protect those vulnerable residents. The problem we face is that the clock is ticking towards winter, and to a potential combination of covid and flu to which we know care home residents will be extremely vulnerable. The problem with inaction and waiting for more time is that inaction costs lives.
I have heard—I assure my hon. Friends on this—the strength of feeling about the impact assessment, and may I say that I apologise to my hon. Friends for the error, particularly in the explanatory notes to the regulations? I have done my utmost, as I did in my opening speech, to set out for hon. Members the situation with the impact assessment, and there is nothing further I can say on that now.
Mr Harper
I do not know what other colleagues feel, but I find it offensive that, because we have expressed concerns about these regulations, it is somehow implied that we want to do away with or risk the lives of people in care homes. These regulations do not come into force for 16 weeks. There is ample time to take them away, review them, publish the impact assessment and get this House to make a decision, and protect people before the onset of winter. To suggest that Members want to do otherwise and that we are suggesting inaction that would put their lives at risk is offensive, and I urge the Minister to withdraw it.
Helen Whately
No offence was meant on my part. The problem with what my right hon. Friend is suggesting is that, if there is a substantial delay—for instance, in the autumn—in bringing through this legislation, that leaves care workers who have not yet been vaccinated with very little time in which to get vaccinated, and that is why we are bringing this forward now.
Helen Whately
I am sorry, but I am conscious of the time left.
Several hon. Members have argued that we should continue the current approach to increasing uptake and indeed do more. Of course, we will continue to support care workers to take up the vaccine, but, as flagged by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), the question is: how long do we give that? The vaccination of care home workers in England began in December last year, about eight months ago. We did take a similar approach to that in Scotland mentioned by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), where staff were vaccinated alongside residents in care homes. NHS teams went into care homes multiple times to offer the vaccination to staff. Indeed, we saw that that was effective and more staff took up the vaccination on subsequent visits. We also opened the national booking system to care home staff early on, before there was wider availability to everybody. We have worked with communities who have been particularly concerned and hesitant about vaccination. There have been materials in multiple languages. We have worked with faith groups. Local authorities have worked closely with care homes, alongside NHS vaccination teams, particularly care homes that have had lower vaccination rates. A huge amount has been done to raise the levels of uptake among care home staff.
We then have to ask ourselves the question: what more can we do? The No. 1 reason care home staff have given us for not yet being vaccinated is that they want some more time. Well, this gives them some more time through the summer in which to get vaccinated. Some care homes, as I have mentioned, are already doing this. One example is the Barchester care home group, which has over 16,000 staff. The vast majority, over 99%, have chosen to be vaccinated. Fewer than 0.5% have chosen not to be vaccinated. But the problem, if we leave it to care homes that are on the front foot to do this, is that others will be left behind and we will see inequality, where some residents are fortunate to be cared for in a care home where all the staff are vaccinated, and others will not be so safe. That leaves us with inequality for those care home residents, who will remain at greater risk. We know that the vaccination not only protects individuals, but reduces the risk of transmission.
Some hon. Members have raised the concern that care workers are being singled out in some way. That is not the case at all. This is about the setting of care homes, where we know there is the greatest risk and the greatest vulnerability to covid. This is about protecting individual residents in those care homes by requiring the vaccination of people who enter those care homes to work—so not only care home staff but NHS staff who enter care homes. This is about protecting residents in those care homes. Fortunately, at the moment, the rates are lower than they have been during peak times, but even in some of the recent outbreaks we have seen in care homes, the index case has been an unvaccinated staff member. That just emphasises the importance of us having high levels of vaccination among staff.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) asked me about the data I referred to earlier, the SAGE data on minimum levels and the extent to which that is being achieved by care homes. I shared the most recent data that I have. What we do know is that there are still hundreds of care homes that have not yet met that safe threshold, which is a minimum threshold for avoiding outbreaks in care homes.
I say to my hon. Friends that the question before us is: what more can we do to protect those who are vulnerable in care homes? This is what we can do and I commend the regulations to the House.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am afraid that the point of order will have to come after the Division. I am sorry.
Question put.
Sir Charles Walker
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was the Chairman of the Procedure Committee for seven years. It is absolutely incumbent on Government not to mislead the House and to behave honourably at all times. This explanatory memorandum is a parliamentary paper laid many days ago. This has been well rehearsed in this Chamber, but it needs to be rehearsed again. It clearly states:
“A full Impact Assessment has been prepared and will be submitted”—
not is being prepared; “has been prepared”. Through your good offices, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask that Mr Speaker and the Clerk of the House conduct an investigation into this memorandum to ascertain whether the House has been misled by the Government and whether the Minister’s conduct at the Dispatch Box was good enough this afternoon?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As I said earlier, it is a totally unsatisfactory situation, irrespective of whether anybody has been misled by the statement in one of the official documents. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point of order and will make absolutely certain that it gets through to the Department. I will, as the hon. Gentleman has asked, raise it with Mr Speaker at the prayer meeting tomorrow morning.
Sir Christopher Chope
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It always used to be the convention in this place that if a Minister was unable to answer all the questions raised in a debate, they would offer to write to hon. and right hon. Members whose questions had not been answered in the time available. Bearing in mind the cavalier way in which Ministers seem to be treating the conventions of the House, I wonder whether it is within your offices to be able to put pressure on the Government to restore that convention as a matter of courtesy.
I look particularly at my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), who had a pertinent question that could have been answered in two words. It was not answered and I am sure his constituents, on behalf of whom he speaks, will feel aggrieved about that. Why cannot this place restore some sense of reasonableness and good manners?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have been a Member of Parliament for 29 years and many times, at the end of a debate, Ministers have said they cannot deal with each point that has been raised. We were under time pressure today, as has been pointed out by a number of Members, and therefore a number of questions have gone unanswered. Again, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point of order and will bring it to the attention of the Minister in order that she is able to answer the questions that went unanswered in her summing up.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 12 July, be approved.
This motion would ordinarily have been moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who sadly had to step down from his role as Security Minister a few days ago to assist in his recovery from serious illness. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending him our best wishes for a very speedy recovery.
This Government are committed to taking all necessary steps to protect the people of this country. Tackling terrorism, in all its forms, is a crucial part of that mission. This Government’s concerns regarding extreme right-wing terrorism are well documented.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I reassure the Minister and the Government that my party fully supports the motion, but does he not agree that we must send an appropriate message that those on the extremes, whether on the left or the so-called right, must understand that the huge majority of this UK abhor what they do and will not tolerate it, and that there will be continual proscription of cells such as the one in today’s motion? We should call them out for what they are: despicable terrorist cells.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This House, and the whole country, is united in our disgust for terrorism of all kinds. It is right that we call out these organisations, whatever colour they claim to have, and that we are united in our total condemnation of terrorist acts wherever they may occur.
The use of hateful ideologies to prey on young and vulnerable people is abhorrent and we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to crack down. Terrorist groups can now recruit, radicalise and train individuals from a distance, distributing terrorist material at the click of a button. The use of the internet for these purposes has had a huge impact on the threat and on the way we respond to it.
There are 77 terrorist organisations currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Four are far-right groups; the majority are Islamist groups. Thanks to the dedication, courage and skill of counter-terrorism police and our security and intelligence services, most of those groups have never carried out a successful attack on UK soil. I pay tribute to our security services for the work that they have done.
Proscription is a powerful tool for degrading terrorist organisations; I will explain shortly the impact that it can have. The group that we propose to add to the list of proscribed terrorist organisations by amending schedule 2 to the 2000 Act is called The Base; it is a predominantly US-based militant white supremacist group whose activities include seeking to train members with weapons and explosives.
The proscription power arises under section 3 of the 2000 Act. Under that section, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently concerned in terrorism. Where that statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion.
The effect of proscription is to outlaw the listed organisation, ensuring that it cannot operate in the UK. It is designed to degrade a group’s ability to operate by enabling prosecution for various related offences, allowing the removal of online material, underpinning immigration-related measures such as excluding group members from the UK, and making it possible to seize cash associated with the organisation. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, support or meet a proscribed organisation, and a criminal offence to wear clothing or articles that may arouse reasonable suspicion that that individual is a member of that group. Penalties include a maximum 14-year prison term and an unlimited fine.
The Home Secretary takes decisions on proscription only after great care and consideration of the evidence. Having considered carefully all the evidence in this case, the Home Secretary, informed by analysis by the joint terrorism analysis centre, believes that The Base is concerned in terrorism and that the discretionary factors support proscription. This abhorrent group, as I have said, is a predominantly US-based white supremacist militant group that seeks to radicalise and train people for potentially violent activities. It almost certainly prepares for terrorism. We believe that the training that it provides is highly likely to be paramilitary in nature and is possibly preparatory for offensive action.
We therefore believe that the statutory test is met and that the group should be proscribed. That will aid the police in their work to disrupt the threat that extreme right-wing terrorist groups pose to our national security, and will build on the robust action that the Government have already taken in the area, proscribing groups such as National Action, the Sonnenkrieg Division, the Feuerkrieg Division and Atomwaffen, which the House proscribed just a few months ago. It sends a strong statement of intent that their ideology is unacceptable and that the UK is a hostile environment for terrorism in all its forms.
Our message is clear: we will always take every possible action to counter the threat from those who hate the values that we cherish and who threaten our safety. The safety and security of the public is our No. 1 priority. I commend the draft order to the House.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
May I start by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who has stood down as Minister for Security? Suffice it to say that he was everything that one would have wanted in an opposite number: he was courteous, he was co-operative and he was also combative. We wish him well.
The Opposition fully support the draft order and the proscription of the vile hate group The Base, which, as we have heard, is a US-based white supremacist group whose sickening ideology mobilises racism, division and violence in an attempt to advance its repulsive goals. We know, too, that it retains close links to other neo-Nazi and right-wing terrorist groups that are already proscribed and provides paramilitary training, resources and support to sustain far-right global networks of terror, giving them the capability to undertake terrorist activity and potentially inflict serious harm.
In a week where we have seen the repulsive targeting of three black English footballers, subjected to a torrent of vile, racist abuse, the spotlight is turned again to the ugly underbelly of far-right hate within this country. As ever, we welcome the clarity and purpose that this order will give to counter-terrorism policing, the security services and their partners, whose tireless work, much of which is done selflessly and behind the scenes, keeps us safe from those who wish us harm.
However, while we agree with this measure, I am sure the Minister will understand that I have some questions on such integral issues of national security. Last October, the new director general of MI5 warned that violent far-right terrorism was now a major threat, with eight of 27 serious terrorist plots stopped in the final stages in the past three years linked to neo-fascist and racist groups. The recruitment and exploitation of young people such as that found online via chat forums and in video games has reached unprecedented heights. The number of those under 18 among those arrested has almost trebled, and this demographic is showing a worrying increase.
This is the third white supremacist hate group that Parliament has had to proscribe in a year. I say gently to the Minister that it does all feel a little bit ad hoc. Is there a plan to address the clearly alarming rise in this genre, and can he do that without having a clear, coherent and robust strategy such as those that Labour Members have called for and still await? The Base was founded in 2018 and has been operational since. That was three years ago. There is a concerning pattern of delay. It seems that whenever we have the opportunity to discuss the proscription of a far-right group in this House, the time elapsed between its initial founding, the recognition of threats and its eventual proscription is a matter of years. What is the status of the proscription review group? How often does it meet? Does he think that it is doing its work proactively enough? Is the current process working? Does he agree that doing things seriously does not mean that we have to do them slowly?
Will the Government, as highlighted by the group Hope not Hate, whose work I pay tribute to, seek to outlaw the neo-Nazi organisation Order of the Nine Angles, alongside other despicable far-right groups? I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for the work that she continues to do on this as chair of the all-party Hope not Hate group. Clearly, proscription should mark the start and not the end of the process. As such, is the Minister happy with the level of enforcement against proscribed organisations and their members?
We fully back these measures, which send a clear message that hate and terror will never be tolerated in our country. The Minister has our support and, I am sure, that of the whole House. However, I gently say that it would be good to see more from the Government than reactive, retrospective action. The threat from the far right is a serious and growing national security threat, and it should be treated as nothing less.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the reasons for this order. Of course, we fully support the proscription of the US white supremacist group The Base, whose message is abhorrent. We must do everything possible to tackle these far-right groups and their rhetoric. It is fitting that we acknowledge the racism experienced by three exceptionally talented English players this week and right that we call this out at every possible opportunity.
Will the Minister ensure that any and all necessary steps are taken swiftly, and will he outline any plans to strengthen these processes? Will he ensure that Members have the opportunity to scrutinise any new legislation whenever possible? We fully support proscription of this horrendous organisation, and pay tribute to all those who work hard to tackle and contain such groups and keep us all safe.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I welcome the banning of The Base, which is a violent group of highly determined, hardened Nazis. Based in the United States, the group has access to weaponry and have actively been plotting terrorist attacks. Although it primarily operates in the US, its leader is living in Russia and its members are promoting their hateful calls for violence globally via messaging apps and other online platforms. Although I welcome the ban, I want to speak about the context in which it is being proposed.
As parliamentary chair of the anti-fascist campaign group Hope not Hate, I have spoken previously in the Chamber about the threat of far-right terrorism, which is substantial and rising fast. There have been numerous arrests of people accused of terrorist offences. Many of these people—usually men—are just in their teens. I pay tribute to the work of the police and intelligence services in apprehending these men.
I also want to take a moment to pay tribute to a man known as Arthur, who operated at different times to counter the far-right. Twenty-seven years ago this summer, Arthur, a committed anti-fascist, met Nick Lowles, who worked then for Searchlight and who now runs Hope not Hate. Over the course of 10 years, Arthur worked at the heart of the British National party. During more than 400 events—from rallies to campaign sessions and more—Arthur gathered information about the activities of this fascist party. Using that information, Searchlight and Nick Lowles were able to sow division within the party and wreak havoc on its London operation.
Arthur was the first source to link the London nail bomber to the far right and help the police to stop his murderous campaign. Arthur never saw any recognition and he even lost out on a huge reward in order to continue his infiltration. Even his own family thought he was a Nazi activist. Now his story is being told for the first time, and I want to put my thanks—and, I hope, the thanks of the whole House—on record. We owe Arthur a huge debt of gratitude.
Countering far-right groups today, just as we have in the past, is vital to protect our way of life and our democracy. Although I welcome the steady stream of banning orders against these Nazi groups, I remain concerned that the Government still have not acted with regard to the Order of Nine Angles. Hope not Hate has consistently provided a clear case for the proscription of the O9A. It is not a new organisation; it has been active since the 1970s. Its members make use of largely unmonitored, encrypted social media platforms to conduct activities that are illegal under existing legislation and that warrant the group’s proscription under the same laws—namely, inciting or inspiring people to commit acts of terror. Nazis with links to the O9A have been convicted of terror offences in the UK and strong evidence suggests that children as young as 13 are being groomed by the group. Figures associated with the group consistently promote content that seeks to incite acts of horrendous violence.
This is not the first time that I am asking the Government to respond to this urgent call. It is more than a year since I co-ordinated a letter from a cross-party group of MPs, calling for the O9A to be banned. The Government have previously, understandably, refused to explain their rationale for allowing this terror group to continue to be free of a proscription order, but does the Minister share my frustration that this deplorable situation continues to exist?
In previous debates of this kind, Ministers have consistently made two points: first, that they will not provide any commentary on which groups are or are not being considered for proscription by the review group; and, secondly, that the proscription review process is robust and working as it should. Does the Minister seriously consider a situation whereby the Order of Nine Angles can operate without being subject to a banning order suggests that the proscription review process is working perfectly? Does that process really have sufficient resources to ensure that it can move briskly enough? Given that the far right poses the fastest growing terror threat, is the Minister satisfied that the intelligence gathering is sufficiently strong to proactively consider groups that engage in activity close to the threshold for proscription? Is he happy with the level of enforcement against proscribed organisations and their members?
In the past, proscription was the culmination of a process against a group, whereas it should merely be the start. I again urge the Government to review the process fully and seriously to consider the proscription of other groups, such as the Order of Nine Angles, that have a clear and consistent record of spreading hate and conspiring to commit acts of terror.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I thank the Members who have contributed to this evening’s debate. There is clear unanimity throughout the House on the importance of taking action against terrorist threats where they arise, regardless of the ideology that sits behind them. I assure the House that the process for seeking, identifying and reviewing organisations that might be subject to proscription proceedings is ongoing at all times, properly resourced and occurs on a regular and frequent basis. There is eternal vigilance among the counter-terrorism officers associated with the Home Office and the security services more widely. We take the threat of terrorism extremely seriously, as Members would imagine, which is why this is the second time in just a few months that I have come to this Dispatch Box to proscribe another organisation.
Stephanie Peacock
If the Minister cannot address the issue of the Order of Nine Angles in the Chamber this evening, will he agree to meet me to discuss it further?
Chris Philp
As the hon. Lady said in her speech a few minutes ago, we do not comment on specific organisations for obvious reasons of operational security. In the absence of the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who has very sadly had to stand down owing to ill health, ministerial responsibility sits for the time being with Baroness Williams of Trafford, to whom I shall pass on the hon. Lady’s request.
In conclusion, let me repeat how seriously this Government take action against terrorist organisations, regardless of their ideological motivation. We will leave no stone unturned nor any path untrodden in our ceaseless battle to keep our fellow citizens safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now suspend the House for just one minute in order that preparations can be made for the next item of business.
English Votes for English Laws
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That Standing Orders Nos. 83J to 83X (Certification according to territorial application etc) be rescinded and the following changes be made to Standing Orders:
(1) in sub-paragraph (3)(b) of Standing Order No. 12 (House not to sit on certain Fridays), leave out “Consent Motions under Standing Order No. 83M (Consent Motions for certified England only or England and Wales only provisions) and of”;
(2) in paragraph of Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy), leave out “or in any legislative grand committee”;
(3) in paragraph of Standing Order No. 51 (Ways and means motions), leave out “or, in the case of a motion to which Standing Order No. 83U applies, forthwith upon the announcement of the Speaker’s decision with respect to the motion under that Standing Order”;
(4) in Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order) leave out paragraphs and (6);
(5) in Standing Order No. 64 (Notices of amendments, &c., to bills), leave out “, of Consent Motions under Standing Order No. 83M (Consent Motions for certified England only or England and Wales only provisions)”;
(6) in Standing Order No. 73 (Report of bills committed to public bill committees), leave out “or the Legislative Grand Committee (England)”;
(7) in Standing Order No. 83A (Programme motions), in paragraph (9), leave out “up to and including”;
(8) in Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees),
(a) in paragraph (1), leave out “or in legislative grand committee or on reconsideration or consequential consideration” and
(b) in paragraph (5), leave out “or in legislative grand committee or on reconsideration or consequential consideration”;
(9) in Standing Order No. 83C (Programming sub-committees),
(a) in sub-paragraph (5)(e), leave out “up to and including”,
(b) in sub-paragraph (12)(b), leave out “up to and including”, and
(c) in sub-paragraph (14) leave out “up to and including”;
(10) in Standing Order No. 83D (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings in public bill committee or in committee of the whole House, etc.),
(a) in the title, leave out “, etc.”, and
(b) in paragraph (1), leave out “, in the Legislative Grand Committee (England) when exercising functions under Standing Order No. 83W(6)(a) (Legislative Grand Committees)”;
(11) in Standing Order No. 83E (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration up to and including third reading),
(a) in the title for the words “and up to and including” substitute “or”,
(b) in paragraph (1), leave out “up to and including”, and
(c) leave out paragraph (5);
(12) in Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments), leave out paragraphs to (11);
(13) in Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords),
(a) in paragraph (5), leave out “, subject to paragraphs (6) and (7),”, and
(b) leave out paragraphs (6) to (9);
(14) in Standing Order No. 83I (Programme orders: supplementary provisions), in paragraph (1), leave out “or in legislative grand committee”; and
(15) in Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of general committees) leave out sub-paragraph (2)(iv).
The motion in my name on the Order Paper would rescind Standing Orders Nos. 83J to 83X and make related changes across the House’s Standing Orders to remove the English votes for English laws—EVEL—process from the legislative process.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House allow me?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My Lord, my right hon. Friend has come in very early! Yes, of course I give way to him.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Am I to assume from the motion that the Leader of the House does not have an answer to the West Lothian question? Or does he take the view that it does not deserve one and that it was impertinent of the late Tam Dalyell of the Binns to have asked it in the first place?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The West Lothian question has not had a very satisfactory answer since it was posed by Tam Dalyell, who was a most distinguished Member of this House, but if there were an answer, EVEL would not be it.
The EVEL measures were first proposed by way of a counterpoise to the extension of devolution, which saw further legislative powers handed to the devolved Administrations and their Parliaments in the wake of the 2014 once-in-a-generation Scottish independence referendum. The argument put forward then, as some Members may recall from a Chequers summit held at that time, was that an English votes for English laws process represented an honest attempt to answer the West Lothian question.
Proposals for Standing Order changes were not brought forward until after the 2015 general election, during which the potential influence of Scottish MPs on English matters featured especially prominently. Some Members may remember a rather marvellous election poster, depicting the then Leader of the Opposition tucked into the pocket of Mr Alex Salmond in the place of a pocket handkerchief. Once the initial excitement over the proposals’ introduction had abated, it quickly became obvious that their practical implementation would prove unwieldy and—dare I say it?—even baffling.
The procedure amended the legislative process to provide MPs representing English constituencies—or English and Welsh constituencies—with the opportunity to have an additional say on matters that applied to England only or England and Wales only. The procedure also applies to legislation introducing a tax measure that affects only England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which must be approved by a majority of MPs representing constituencies in those areas.
Mark Tami
I represent a border area and many of the specialist hospitals that my constituents go to are on the English side of the border. Indeed, the Countess of Chester Hospital was built as a Welsh and English hospital to serve the residents of Deeside in Wales and Chester in Cheshire. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was unfair that I could not effectively vote or express a view on that whereas someone from the south-east of England, who had no interest in that matter, could?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As the majority of taxation is set on a United Kingdom basis and the Barnett formula ensures that the level of spending provided for services is proportionate to decisions taken by the Union Parliament, I do not think that is as unreasonable as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. Sometimes the West Lothian question’s significance gets exaggerated.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the House that the Government believe that the procedure has added complexity and delay to the legislative process. Slightly over 10% of all our Standing Orders are taken up with enabling EVEL-doing and its additional parliamentary stages, notably the Legislative Grand Committee, which is held on the Floor of the House between Report and Third Reading. In theory, that allows English MPs to veto provisions, but not to propose them. In practice, it has resulted only in short-lived and poorly attended debates that have always concluded with English MPs, or English and Welsh MPs, giving their consent to England only, or England and Wales only, provisions.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I know that the hon. Gentleman has been waiting with bated breath. His breath is now unbated.
Pete Wishart
Does the Leader of the House recall who has made the most contributions to the Legislative Grand Committee? Perhaps he could tell the House how many contributions that Member made.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have a sneaking suspicion that we may get the accurate statistics from a careful consultation of Hansard that took place earlier this afternoon by the hon. Gentleman himself. May I point out that I made a speech on the matter in 2011, when I outlined all the difficulties that the system would have? I therefore predate the hon. Gentleman in that I opposed EVEL before it had even been proposed. As a good Catholic, I would be expected always to oppose evil.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Government think that England uniquely of the four main parts of the United Kingdom should have no devolved powers at all?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am loth to disagree with my right hon. Friend, who understands these issues very well, and had a better scheme of his own, which would have been called EVEN—English votes for English needs—rather than EVEL. We could be having a very different debate this evening had EVEN been adopted rather than EVEL.
There is of course devolution within England, but it is different. It is not to England as a country, because England makes up 85% of the total of the United Kingdom. As far as I am aware, there is no federal system in the world where one part makes up such a great proportion. The size of England—and of course the influence that comes from that—would unbalance any settlement we tried to create.
It is not just the ability of this place to legislate effectively that has been constrained. More fundamentally, the EVEL procedure has undermined the role of Parliament as the Union Parliament in which all parts of the United Kingdom are represented equally. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has made that point very eloquently, and I greatly agree with him that there should be equal representation of all Members. I have spoken elsewhere about the ways in which the UK Parliament has become a more important place in our national life following the return of powers from the European Union. Since our departure, we have once again begun legislating properly in areas touching on devolved matters, including trade, health and safety, employment laws and state aid. All of these are now powers returned to the United Kingdom, and we are able to legislate properly because all MPs are equal once again in a Parliament that considers the matters put before it from the broadest possible Union perspective.
Rather than returning to an unhappy, asymmetric answer to the devolution question, the evolving operation of this Parliament has made this much less of a black and white issue than it would have felt in 2014. That is good news, because it reflects the way in which Brexit has strengthened the Union. We have now restored authority in this Parliament to address the problems of voters in every part of the United Kingdom. That is in all of our interests, because our country is much more than the sum of its parts. Just as George III gloried in the name of Britain, so do I, for our global influence together is far greater. Take, for example, our security relationships; the nuclear deterrent, based in Scotland; our shared history as brothers in arms; the economic successes that we have had; or the global reach of the empire builders. One may visit Argyle Street in Hong Kong, the Glencairn suburb of Cape Town, the Aberdare national park in Kenya, or even sunny Cardiff-by-the-Sea in California to see our past shared influence writ large across the world.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Will the Lord President give way?
Harriett Baldwin
The Lord President is making a magnificent speech, as one would expect, but how would he feel if hypothetically, the outcome that was depicted back in 2015—with Alex Salmond having the shadow Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), in his suit pocket—had come to pass, and the Lord President’s constituents in North East Somerset faced a situation in which they were having laws made for them without there being a majority view in Parliament in England?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We are one country, and I accept that voters in Gloucestershire can have an influence on what happens in Somerset—that is a much greater thing for me to confess to than that voters in Scotland should have a say. We are one nation, and I accept the basic principle of democracy that the overall will of that nation must be observed. However, I put it to my hon. Friend that that poster had an effect in the campaign, because it made people think about what the consequences of voting Labour could be, and they did not particularly want to be ruled by Alex Salmond.
I have mentioned all those places around the world that are named after places in the United Kingdom, and I have not yet had the chance to mention Belfast. There are many Belfasts around the world, but there are many English place names, too: there are 22 places in the United States called Somerset, in addition to the one in Wisconsin, and there is also a Somerset in KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Bermuda, and of course Pomeroon-Supenaam. There are Somersets everywhere; there are Scottish place names everywhere, Welsh ones and Northern Irish ones, as part of the success of our country as global Britain before the term “global Britain” was invented.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am sure that there are many places called Bath, and on that basis, I of course give way to the hon. Lady.
Wera Hobhouse
Can I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are many streets in this country called Hanover Street, which is my home town in Germany?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and we should be very proud of all that the Hanoverians did in this country, not least providing us with a royal household that served with great distinction.
We have had great success as a United Kingdom across the globe, and after our EU exit, we can work together to do more to increase prosperity across the whole country. Members need look no further than the Subsidy Control Bill or the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 for examples of us making good use of competencies taken back from Europe. In that context, the tiresome and ineffectual EVEL process seems less of a priority, particularly given the ease with which Governments can make changes to Standing Orders of this kind to suit them—a point that will not be lost on those of us elected in 2010 or before, who are now spending time trying to unpick the poorly thought through constitutional changes made by previous Administrations. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 is already on its way to the knacker’s yard.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way, because he has made reference a number of times now to powers that are being repatriated subsequent to our departure from the European Union. Does he not accept that when it comes to matters such as agricultural payments and fisheries management, we now have the highly unsatisfactory situation where the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for example, acts as a UK and an English Ministry? Does he not think that that makes the case for devolution within England?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is a case for devolution within England, and that is part of the Government’s approach—there are the mayoralties in London, in Manchester and so on—but no, we are also a United Kingdom. It is important that we operate as a United Kingdom and ensure that powers are used where they will be most effective, and it is natural that most, though not all, powers that came back from the European Union should be used at United Kingdom level.
Mr Carmichael
The Leader of the House is being generous with his time. Surely the logic of his position is that if it is unsatisfactory for this House to be at the same time a UK and an English Parliament, the same thing must apply to the Executive.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do not think that is quite what I am saying. I am saying that this Parliament is the Parliament for the United Kingdom and is therefore able to take a broad swathe of decisions. It also takes decisions that affect only England, and it has votes from people from outside England affecting them. The Ministers are United Kingdom Ministers who, like this House, also make decisions for England, but they are held accountable by Members from across the whole of the United Kingdom, and I think that that is a perfectly rational constitutional settlement, considering that 85% of the population of the whole of the United Kingdom live in England. They are not, however, necessarily English.
John Redwood
I want to try to clarify this, as the Leader of the House is saying that our Ministers are United Kingdom Ministers. When the Government are consulting the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Government, who then speaks for England so that it is a fair consultation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Ministers have their different areas of responsibility. Within Ministries some areas are devolved and the Ministers will obviously consult with devolved Ministers; it is important that we have a good relationship with them. Other areas are not devolved and remain the competences of the UK Government, and those matters are decided by the Ministers themselves on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom. This system is quite well known and understood.
The House will be delighted to note that I am now coming to the end of my speech. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said that I was being generous with my time, but I am not really; I am being generous with the House’s time, and I am aware that this debate is time-limited. The motion seeks to make the process of legislating on matters that deliver for everyone in the UK just a little easier, and it is on that basis that I commend the motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
There will obviously there will be a limit of three minutes on Back-Bench speeches, but as Members have already worked out, most will not have the opportunity to speak. I see that they are dealing with that by making interventions, which is fine because that is what a debate is all about.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Oh, it is so very hard to avoid starting this speech with the “I told you so” dance—which does actually exist—but alas, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is just making it too easy. In a written ministerial statement yesterday about English votes for English laws, which I will hereafter refer to as EVEL, he said:
“The introduction of the procedure in 2015 added additional stages to the legislative process in Parliament and in doing so introduced complexity to our arrangements and has not served our Parliament well.”
He also said:
“It is a fundamental principle that all constituent parts of the United Kingdom should be equally represented in Parliament, and Parliament should deliver for the whole UK. The operation of this procedure—and the constraints on the role of certain MPs—does not support this aim.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1WS.]
Goodness me! If only somebody could have spotted this sooner. Hmm. Let’s just see what my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle)—who, incidentally, did warn me against using sarcasm in the Chamber—the then shadow Leader of the House and a fantastic role model for me, said in the July 2015 debate on the EVEL proposals. She said that
“as currently written, they are deeply flawed. We do not think that the Government’s proposals are either wise or viable. Indeed, they are likely to put the Union at risk by creating an English veto rather than a voice, possible gridlock in Parliament, and two classes of MP.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 949.]
My friend David Hanson, the truly right hon. and sadly not current Member for Delyn, said in that same debate:
“When Members walk through that door into the Chamber, they do so as equal Members.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1011.]
However, he and many others identified that the English votes for English laws provision would undermine that equality, and so indeed it has proved.
In the Leader of the House’s recent appearance at the Procedure Committee, he said:
“It is of fundamental importance, constitutionally, that every Member of Parliament in this House is absolutely equal: Minister, non-Minister, spokesman for Opposition party”—
thank you—
“Front Bencher, Back Bencher, Privy Counsellor, well established, newly elected—there is absolute equality of the regions of the country they represent. That has been the most ancient constitutional principle, which EVEL contradicted to some extent.”
I so agree. I am glad that the Leader of the House can now see the points that my hon. and right hon. Friends made so clearly and eloquently six years ago.
Then there is the contradiction between the two Houses. The written ministerial statement observes:
“The English Votes procedure does not apply to the legislative process in the House of Lords”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1WS.]
It is so hard to avoid that stricture from my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) not to use sarcasm at this point because, as David Hanson put it six years ago:
“Lord Thomas of Gresford in Wrexham, who has never won an election in his life in north-east Wales, will vote on these matters in another place, while I, who have won elections on six occasions in north-east Wales”—
I hope he will one day again—
“will not be able to do so.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 1212.]
John Redwood
How can the hon. Lady defend the idea that her party believes in a single category of MP when there is a huge difference of powers, responsibilities and aptitudes between an MP representing a Scottish constituency and one representing an English constituency? I cannot pass any comment here on health and education and so forth there, but they can pass any comment on that in England.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was expecting references to the West Lothian question. As the Leader of the House has said, we have different bits of devolution for different parts of the country. We have indeed a Labour metro Mayor of the West of England, who was elected quite properly by the people of the west of England. There are different elements of devolution across the entire country. That does not take away from the fact that in this place we should all be equal.
The then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) totally failed to absorb the wise counsel from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) on the subject of matters of interest involving the border between Wales and England. My right hon. Friend said:
“The Government like to tell us that English votes for English laws is a clearcut issue, but it is not—and we have heard today many reasons why it is not. Residents of Alyn and Deeside use healthcare services both sides of the border.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 993.]
My right hon. Friend has already referred to that and other issues today. I fail to understand why Ministers at that time did not understand what my hon. and right hon. Friends were saying. Now, wonderfully, they do, but why not at the time? We could have saved so much time and effort.
Also, what of the need to reform the constitution of this country? Does this procedure in any way add anything useful? Well, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey observed at the time:
“Labour Members consider that this issue should have been properly dealt with as part of a much wider process involving a constitutional convention to examine a range of issues in a more holistic way.”
That might have answered what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) was asking. My hon. Friend continued:
“A genuine attempt should have been made to come to a cross-party agreement between the parties represented in this place, and with wider civil society.”
We could still try doing that. She continued:
“Proceeding in this consensual way, rather than in the blatantly partisan way the Government have chosen, would have hugely increased their chances of introducing a successful and sustainable change. No such attempt has been made.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 951.]
If only the Government had heeded her wise words.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because, in Scotland in the 1990s, her party and mine were part of exactly that: a constitutional convention. However, I remind her in the House that that was not about a question of national identity, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) suggests. It was about better governance, and it was about bringing control of affairs back closer to the people. So the question of who speaks for England is not the appropriate question. The question should be: who should be speaking for the various parts of England?
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I do so commend to all Members the Labour party’s constitutional convention work, which continues to this day. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said at the time that there should be that attempt at a cross-party piece of work. If that had happened, perhaps the Government would not have had to admit yesterday that
“Parliament should deliver for the whole UK. The operation of this procedure…does not support this aim.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1WS.]
As my friend, the sadly not current Member for Scunthorpe, the wonderful Sir Nic Dakin said in his winding-up speech:
“That is why we are asking the Government to learn from their mistakes and proceed in a genuinely cross-party way that allows all interests to be properly examined. We need to go back to the McKay commission report”.—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1043.]
I interrupt that quote to explain for those who do not know that the McKay commission did indeed look at issues of devolution. It was commissioned by the coalition Government, and I urge the Government to go back and look at it. The report, Sir Nic said, examined the issue
“properly and thoroughly. That should be our starting point. As this issue has far-reaching implications for the way in which this Parliament operates, it is well worth seriously considering taking things forward through a Joint Committee of the Commons and Lords. That will be a proper way to proceed with a constitutional issue of such significance.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1044.]
There are probably not many people in the House who would not agree with my friend, Nic Dakin. The Government cannot complain of a lack of constructive suggestions, either at the time or now. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether, having seen the error of their ways, the Government would now consider a cross-party non-partisan piece of work in which we do what we need to do to strengthen our constitution, make it fit for the 21st century for the United Kingdom, go back to the McKay recommendations and try to work out what we need to do to bring power as close as possible appropriately to people?
What of the words of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was recently quoted in The Times? He said:
“Ultimately, it’s a convention which arose out of set of circumstances after the 2014 referendum, where you had a coalition government and so on. We’ve moved on now, so I think it’s right to review where we are on it.”
Dear, oh dear, this doesn’t half reek of partisanship.
At the time, it was dressed up as the democratic thing to do. The Government accused those who objected to it of being party political, but it turns out that the opposite was, in fact, the case. I am afraid that this rather looks as if the Tories will do anything to cling on to power, even if it undermines democracy and even if it undermines our Union of nations, which the EVEL procedure does by creating different classes of MP in the House, depending on the nation their constituency is in. The Prime Minister is always claiming that he is a strong supporter of preserving and strengthening the Union, but in reality he seems to be a cheerleader for Scottish independence. The more atrocious he sounds, the happier SNP Members seem to be, as that makes their case for them. Feeding their indignation helps them to make their case that their sole purpose for being here is to campaign not to be here.
Creating two tiers has added to a narrative that does nothing to help preserve the Union. Poor legislation on constitutional matters seems to be a theme for the Government. For example, the Northern Ireland Secretary said last year that the new post-Brexit law was breaking the law
“in a very specific and limited way”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]
That is an extraordinary thing for a law maker to say about something as important as our constitution and the way in which we operate legally.
John Redwood
Will the hon. Lady explain why Labour told us that Scottish devolution would solve the problem of independence, but it led directly to an SNP Government and the demand for a referendum?
Thangam Debbonaire
Well, I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that that is democracy. There is a Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish people elect its Members. At the moment, Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom, and long may that continue.
If the Government want to reform the constitution, they are going about it in an odd way by doing things piecemeal. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was repealed last week; the boundary review is happening at some point, when it may suit the Government to put it in the legislative timetable; and there is the outrageous, anti-democratic, totally unnecessary, using-a-wrecking-ball-to-crack-a-wholly-imaginary-nut legislation on voter identification. If the Government want to reform the constitution, perhaps they could return to the McKay commission report, and emphasise the need for a national consensus-building approach to constitutional reform.
Once again, the Labour party is happy to oblige the Government with news of our constitutional convention. Over the past 15 months, EVEL has been suspended. The Leader of the House himself said in an evidence session with the Procedure Committee that
“EVEL has been suspended for a year without any loss of effectiveness to the way the House operates, any loss to the constitution, or any loss to MPs’ ability to represent their constituents.”
I quite agree, and would go further in saying that I very much doubt that anyone outside the House has even noticed. He added:
“I think the EVEL Standing Orders take up more than 10% of all our Standing Orders, for a procedure that has not had an effect on our business once in the time in which it has been available.”
I really am struggling to avoid the “I told you so” dance. Given that the Government strongly supported EVEL six years ago and have now decided to think again, I have to ask the Leader of the House what changed? What have the Government learned about EVEL in the past 15 months that has led to this devastatingly obvious conclusion that the Labour party was, in fact, right all along? What plans do the Government have for developing devolution and constitutional reform within the context of a strong and united United Kingdom?
The most disappointing element of this whole completely pointless process is the disdain that the Government repeatedly show for the people of this country and for the concept of national identity and national pride. We have seen that very recently when many senior Cabinet Ministers so badly misjudged the public mood on the England football team taking the knee in solidarity as a team with their black teammates and to show their opposition to racism everywhere. It is time that the Government looked at the leadership qualities shown by Gareth Southgate, so inspiringly set out in his incredibly patriotic letter, “Dear England”, which I have read many times, despite the fact that I have very little interest in football. It sets out a richly layered, values-based patriotism.
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Lady is rather digressing from the subject at hand in the 60 minutes that we have available. Will she accept that both the 2010 and the 2015 Conservative manifestos pledged to address English votes for English laws and that we are able to implement that because we won a majority in 2015? She talks about respecting democracy. She should respect that.
Thangam Debbonaire
I am entirely respecting it by helping to abolish EVEL right now. If we are talking about digressing from the subject, may I refer the hon. Lady to the Leader of the House’s very interesting geography lesson, which I rather enjoyed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. No more digression. I understand that that was illustration not digression, but now we will conclude.
Thangam Debbonaire
Being English means being proud of our values, which are generous and inclusive and valuing our diversity. It does not mean petty pointless gestures that divide us and undermine democracy—a value that we all hold dear. In ending EVEL, I urge the Leader of the House to remedy the pointlessness of the entire sorry saga and commit his Government to a constitutional convention fit for the 21st century.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Chairman of the Procedure Committee is not able to speak this evening after all, so we will go directly to Pete Wishart.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am thrilled to be called to speak now, Madam Deputy Speaker.
May I start by setting something straight? There is an answer to the West Lothian question. Tam Dalyell and I actually came up with two answers some 17 years ago. One, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, is the Harthill services, and the second is salt and sauce. I will leave it to the House to determine which one is the correct answer.
What an utter humiliation this is for the Government. A flagship policy of the 2015 manifesto will soon be nothing more than a footnote in future constitutional history books, and, remember, it is just another Tory policy disaster. God knows what they were thinking about when they introduced this some six years ago. They were consumed with the notion that we, the unkempt Caledonian hordes, were somehow stopping them securing the democratic outcomes that they desired—us, the 59 Scots MPs out of 650 MPs, needed to be constrained and curtailed. EVEL was just about the worst solution to a problem that did not even exist.
Never before has a procedure come to this House that has divided the membership of this House into two different and distinct classes. Not only did it do that, it did it by nationality and by geography. It is a procedure that barely anyone understands, that is a burden to the management and administration of the business of this House, that is entirely unnecessary, and that produces almost unprecedented resentment. Something that it will be remembered for more than anything else is what it has done for the cause of English devolved governance. This was the first serious attempt to create some sort of forum for English democracy. We actually agree with them. They do deserve their English Parliament. They should always get the outcomes that they want and deserve. We have even got a neat, practical and elegant solution to that, but, of course, they will not even start to look at that. There are myriad solutions to resolving this within the precious Union. The thing is that they could not be bothered doing the work. They could not be bothered rolling up their sleeves and designing a Parliament of their own. They decided instead to come here and to use the national UK Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for this doomed experiment. Imagine a quasi-English Parliament squatting here in the national Parliament. What an absolute and utter disgrace.
Pete Wishart
I do not have time to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
It satisfied absolutely no one. All it did was infuriate Scotland. Instead of securing the near federalism that was promised, Scotland instead saw its MPs become second-class Members in the Parliament that they had just been invited to lead. There were signs in the Division Lobby saying, “England only.” They would have been better saying, “Scots out.” That is what the Government did with this procedure.
The Government knew it would never work. From the first moment when they suggested this nonsense, we have told them again and again that it was madness and that, at some point, they would be here—as they are this evening—to withdraw it. Now under pressure from the SNP, EVEL is to be abandoned. This is a spectacular victory for the Scottish National party, and I congratulate all my hon. Friends on bringing down this nonsense. This is one victory that we have secured this week in the United Kingdom and, by God, we are going to celebrate like it is 1966. Believe me, we will be banging on about this for the next 55 years and we will enjoy every minute of it.
There is a part of me that will miss the entertainment of it all and the laughs that it gave us. It was designed to quell this tartan menace, but I ended up making the most contributions in the Legislative Grand Committee. With 57 contributions, not only was I the most committed and dedicated Member of the English Parliament but I beat all the English Members combined two times over.
Harriett Baldwin
Given the hon. Member’s digression on to football, which team did he support on Sunday night?
Pete Wishart
I supported the best team on Sunday night. I enjoy my football, and I can say quite clearly Forza Italia.
English votes for English laws started its sorry and doomed journey just hours after the Scottish independence referendum result was announced. Instead of the statesmanship and consensus required at a sensitive and raw moment in Scottish constitutional history, David Cameron announced that the English question should now be addressed. With that, as well as bringing us to this point, he ensured that the campaign for Scottish independence started once again almost immediately. That campaign will soon be concluded with a victory for the Scottish National party and a victory for Scotland.
We believe it is legitimate for English representatives to secure the outcomes they want, and SNP MPs do not vote on English-only legislation or business that does not affect Scotland. If it is not in the Scottish interest, we take no interest in it. If there are financial consequences or an inadvertent impact, we will represent our constituents—but it is us who will decide that, not the diktat of a Tory Government. We commit not to participate in legislation that does not impact on our nation, but, please, let us never, ever do anything like this again.
Instead of going on about KwaZulu-Natal, the Leader of the House should be apologising to the House for wasting hours of the House’s time on a stupid experiment that went absolutely nowhere. Let us now work together to resolve this and ensure that our nations get what they want. We are on different trajectories and we want something different. Let us now give our nations what they want.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
EVEL was a genuine attempt in good faith to answer the long-lasting West Lothian question on the asymmetric nature of devolution. However, EVEL is a cumbersome and ineffective constitutional innovation that has won few friends in its short life. Its abolition would simplify our procedures and remove a source of resentment. It would reaffirm the fundamental constitutional principle that we are one United Kingdom with a sovereign Parliament comprising Members elected on an equal basis, representing every community in the land and able to make laws for the whole kingdom. It would be the Unionist act of a Unionist Government.
EVEL has introduced a layer of complex and time-consuming bureaucracy into the legislative process. It has also, as we have heard, given our nationalist opponents a pretext to degenerate the UK Parliament. Worse still, as the procedure is set out only in Standing Orders, it would provide no meaningful protection in a hypothetical situation in which a UK Government lack a majority of English MPs.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister to be Minister for the Union. He is abolishing EVEL on Unionist grounds. The principle underlying his decision to become Minister for the Union and underlying that this Government’s whole approach to the Union matters is that this Government are for the whole United Kingdom, accountable to a Parliament representing the whole United Kingdom. This is a qualitative difference that separates the UK Parliament and the UK Government from the devolved legislatures and Administrations. On this basis, the Government have a constitutional and democratic mandate to serve the whole UK, as they do in the exercise of reserved responsibilities and through measures such as the UK Internal Market Act.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I am following the hon. Member’s argument as closely as I can, and it seems to be that he is arguing that the Government brought in EVEL to strengthen the Union and now are scrapping EVEL also to strengthen the Union. Does he realise that this just makes it look like his Government are clueless, directionless and, when it comes to the constitution, simply making it up as they go along?
John Lamont
I do not accept the hon. Member’s analysis. The introduction of EVEL was an attempt to answer the West Lothian question, which many people have struggled with for many years. But listening to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), it is very clear that he loves this place so much and wants to participate. I sometimes wonder whether he really does want independence for Scotland, given his great love of taking part in parliamentary activity here at Westminster.
The existence of a parliamentary procedure that separates English or English and Welsh MPs from Scottish and Northern Irish MPs offends this core principle of acting for the whole of the United Kingdom. As we have heard, it allows our nationalist opponents to misrepresent the treatment of Scottish MPs at Westminster as second class. In the very short time available to me, let me say that, however well intentioned, the severe limitations of the EVEL procedure are now very apparent for us all to see, and retaining it would serve no practical use whatsoever. The time has come to put it out of its misery.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), a fellow member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, as well as, before him, the Chair, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).
During the independence referendum in Scotland in 2014, I was not a member and indeed had never been a member of any political party. I would describe myself as a typical no voter in that referendum—which was in many ways a great demonstration of engagement with the democratic processes, but in other ways a divisive debate that pitted family, friends and colleagues against one another—in that I kept my views to myself. Would I had continued in that vein, some might say. If that sounds familiar in relation to the subsequent Brexit referendum, too, that is partly because a referendum—popular democracy—is on the surface an easy way to resolve a complex issue. But when it comes into conflict with our system of parliamentary democracy, as it clearly did post both votes, the shortcomings of such an approach become clear, and that has been the issue with English votes for English laws.
As I sat, on 19 September 2014, watching the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by pivoting immediately to plan to introduce EVEL without acknowledging the need to properly reflect on how the UK had evolved and developed in advance of its parliamentary systems, it was easy to see—even for me, as a layperson then—that this was the wrong approach. Telling Scots, regardless of their vote in the independence referendum, that the first steps of their Prime Minister was to prevent their representatives in this place from participating fully and telling those in other devolved nations that their voices would also be neutered, was giving the SNP and others an ongoing grievance publicity point at every single vote.
It is important to remember that, when we talk about a four nations approach, as we often do in this place—for me in all seriousness, for others perhaps less so—we are talking about Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the UK. It is right that those in England query how their views are best represented, and an increased prominence of regional Mayors during the pandemic perhaps suggests that the English are finally waking up to the democratic deficit that they experience. But creating a two-tier system in this place, where MPs held a mandate at 6 pm and had it withdrawn at the next vote at 8 pm, was never the answer. It certainly did not sound like all votes or constituents counted equally.
Where I agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire and his party is that the systems here are broken and need to change. Where we disagree is that the answer to this broken system is to break away completely, causing economic and cultural damage to these islands—it is salt and vinegar. EVEL has been suspended now for an extended period of time and, frankly, no one has noticed because it has never been needed to offset the scenario for which it was put in place, because that scenario has never arisen. I hope that this is the first step by the Government to recognise political reality on these islands, but, frankly, I hae ma doots.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
England deserves better, and England expects better. It is a sad occasion that this Government should wish to dismiss the only modest devolution ever offered to England, with nothing to put in its place. They leave instead Labour’s lopsided and unfair devolution, a devolution proposed and forced through a previous Parliament, on a large majority, by a Labour party that said it would settle the constitution and unite the country behind the Union once and for all. It did nothing of the sort.
Surely this Government can now see that if they carry on, as Labour did, appeasing the forces that would pull the Union asunder, they will not bring the Union together but give those forces greater strength and a better platform. Instead of Scottish electors welcoming their devolved powers and deciding to continue in the traditional mould of two United Kingdom parties contesting power, they chose a party that wishes to pull the Union apart. Some of them chose that party because they thought the Government would give in to it, and so get a better deal for Scotland; and some of them chose that party because they genuinely wanted to pull the Union apart, although they were, of course, in a minority.
The Government and I treasure our United Kingdom. We wish this Union to work for everyone, but it has to be a fair Union and it will not be held together better by appeasing the SNP or by appeasing the EU over Northern Ireland, when we above all in this House should be speaking up for all the millions of Unionists in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and throughout England and Wales, who expect better and expect fairness.
One of the crucial values that our United Kingdom shares is that idea of fairness. How is it fair to have these totally different categories of MP, with different powers, different responsibilities and different opportunities to influence how they are governed in their parts of the United Kingdom? Why is it that England, the home of many more millions of Unionists and more loyal to our country than anyone else in our Union, is the one part of the Union that gets no justice and no fairness from this Government or their predecessors?
Labour introduced policies that sought to break the Union in the name of keeping the Union. I want this Government to mend the Union, and that means standing behind all those people throughout the United Kingdom who believe in the Union, and to stop appeasing those who would pull it apart.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I know the Leader of the House is enjoying delivering us from EVEL but, yet again, we have another debate and another attempt by the Government to disavow the work of their predecessors. This afternoon the 0.7% aid target was unceremoniously dumped, and now this evening another element of David Cameron’s legacy is overthrown.
What was it about the EVEL Standing Orders proposed by David Cameron, introduced by Chris Grayling and overseen by John Bercow that made the Johnson regime so keen to get rid of them, I wonder? As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) said, they were introduced to strengthen the Union and they are now being abolished to strengthen the Union. We have Schrödinger’s Standing Orders, strengthening the Union by existing and not existing at the same time, although the Union does not feel desperately strong to me right now.
Maybe it is more like the Schleswig-Holstein question: anyone who understood EVEL has either died, gone mad or forgotten what it was all about, although there were a few folk around here who had a sense of how it worked. We should recognise that and express our thanks to them for their support in navigating the system: Sir David Natzler, Sir Roy Stone, Ian Davis and many of the Clerks who supported the team of Deputy Speakers as they convened and unconvened the Legislative Grand Committee—not that any of them, least of all you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are dead, mad or forgetful, I hasten to add.
There is also Daniel Gover and the team at the Constitution Unit who literally wrote the book, or at least several scholarly articles, on EVEL. Maybe they will now get to write the history book, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—my right hon. Friend, as he should be—is going down extremely well with his many fans in Scotland’s online community with his contributions to the English Parliament.
Tonight, Scottish MPs and all their constituents will rest easy in their beds, in the knowledge that never again will their right to debate and vote on matters affecting Kew gardens, the Non-Domestic Rating (Nursery Grounds) Bill or the Neighbourhood Planning Bill be denied. On all those issues and more, parity of esteem has been restored between Tory MPs from Scotland and their colleagues from the red wall in the north of England—but of course in the SNP we have already exercised a self-denying ordinance on such issues anyway. We did so tonight with the covid regulations, and that was kind of the point: it should be up to us to decide what is relevant to our constituents, not a process, procedure or rule invented by the Government.
What is more insidious and more dangerous is that we might be losing English votes for English laws, but we are increasingly experiencing Tory votes for Scottish laws. Perhaps the Government are abolishing legislative consent motions in the English Parliament because they so routinely ignore legislative consent motions from the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd Cymru. I say to hon. Members on the Government Benches: don’t think we can’t see what you’re up to.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire has said, we have an answer to the West Lothian question and we will be happy to put that proposition to the people of Scotland as soon as the opportunity allows. The answer is independence—and it is coming down the road.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
In the 1990s, the status of England had not figured sufficiently in the world view of the Labour architects of devolution. “Home Rule all round” had been proposed in the 19th century. Indeed, it had appeared in the Labour party’s policy for the 1918 election. In 1997, however, England was overlooked—it was excluded from consideration. It was all too complicated.
That devolution settlement has proved unstable. It was a fix, not a solution. English votes for English laws was an attempt to address this basic flaw in the post-devolution Union, but it too was a fix, not a solution. I think that EVEL was more of a symbolic concession to those Members who were constantly intruding English questions into devolution debates, and I do not think that it has ever delivered a meaningful voice for English voters, so I have some sympathy with the current proposal.
One advantage of EVEL, however, was that where it applied it gave an authoritative answer to the perennial question of some Welsh MPs: is this matter devolved, and is it Barnettable? EVEL told us. Now, as a consequence of this Government’s recent, more explicitly hostile stance on devolution and the lawmaking powers of the Welsh Government, a further question has arisen: what consequential effects might Westminster’s legislation have on Welsh law and Welsh Government policy?
My request to the UK Government Front Bench is not just that they reconsider the failed EVEL procedure—not just fix the fix—but that there be clarity as to what is devolved. Barnett has long been bust. In the medium term, we need a proper statutory duty on Westminster to seek devolved Government consent when introducing a Bill that might affect the laws or policies of the Welsh Government.
Abolishing EVEL will not address the growing problem of accommodating people in England within a post-devolution United Kingdom. Even the reforms that I have outlined very briefly would only place an additional check on what is a flawed system. What we really need is independence for Wales—and no more fixes.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) [V]
I am coming to you from glorious isolation, Madam Deputy Speaker. Tonight, time and again, we have heard the Scottish National party’s representatives conflate their party and its MPs with the nation of Scotland. I think it is quite clear that the SNP is not Scotland.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, if the West Lothian question has an answer, EVEL is not it. In my opinion, English votes for English laws is the most ill-conceived, wrong-headed and damaging measure ever passed by any Government in modern times—well, possibly it comes a close second to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. I am grateful for the opportunity to outline why.
Devolution is often described as something that is new—as something that we are grappling with that has created an imbalance in how the UK is governed that has to be addressed. We have heard that repeated often, including today, but it is nonsense. Devolution has existed in the modern United Kingdom for more years than it has not existed. During this time, non-white boxers were barred from competing for a British boxing title. It seems impossible to believe it today, and it means that so many talented boxers were denied the right to compete for British titles purely due to the colour of their skin. Thankfully, progress was made with the lifting of that ban, and great strides have also been taken in other aspects of diversity through the nurturing of female boxing talent. I am sure that hon. Members will recall, as I do, their great pride in the first woman to win an Olympic boxing medal being our own Nicola Adams, back in London in 2012. Northern Ireland had a devolved Parliament from 1922 to 1972 and in that time no steps were taken to deprive Northern Irish MPs of their right to vote on areas that were seen to be devolved, even when those MPs deprived Labour of working majorities. And why? In the words of the then Conservative shadow Home Secretary Peter Thorneycroft,
“every Member of the House of Commons is equal with every other Member of the House of Commons”.
Peter Thorneycroft and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House are right, but I have heard the heartfelt arguments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) that the actions today are appeasing the separatists. I understand exactly where he comes from—he is a proud and passionate English MP —but I fundamentally disagree with him. In this Parliament, our sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom in which we are all privileged to serve, we representatives, drawn from across the whole of our United Kingdom, are equal and should be entitled to vote on every piece of legislation and at every stage of the passage of that legislation placed in front of us. As a Scot and a Unionist, I found it frankly offensive to be informed that I could not vote at certain stages of Bills on education or health, for example. As a Unionist, I care just as much about the welfare, health and education of people in Aldershot as I do about the people in Aberdeen. I have heard the arguments that EVEL does not prevent any MP from voting on a Bill before this House but only gives English Members the ability to veto certain legislation. We have already heard this evening that that is not true and in fact causes even greater issues.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, there is no such thing as English-only laws thanks to Barnett consequentials. Almost every single measure debated and voted on has financial implications for areas that appear on the surface to be wholly devolved. Therefore, EVEL is bad law. It does not work and it causes more problems than it solves. Let us have more devolution in England. It exists already through our regions and localities, but let us not divide even further down national lines. We are a proudly Unionist party and by repealing EVEL tonight, we are demonstrating that to the whole United Kingdom.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie).
I speak in support of the motion. I acknowledge the good intentions behind the creation of EVEL and I recognise, too, the anxieties of some of my English colleagues. However, EVEL was born out of an imperfect devolved settlement, or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) called it, a lopsided settlement. Of course, no settlement is ever perfect, but it was conceived at least in part in an attempt to balance inequities that arose for English voters as a result of the devolved settlement. As a corrective, however, EVEL did not address the root cause and could never therefore have been an enduring or satisfactory solution.
Parliament stands as the expression of the sovereignty of the British people. Therefore, it is not the appropriate vehicle for a particular form of devolution. EVEL diminishes the standing of non-English MPs and by extension, non-English Ministers. It also clouds the perception of our British Parliament, hinting at an English Parliament with non-English MPs strapped on. But that is something we are not.
Voters must know where the buck stops and who to approach for redress. Politicians must agree with one another about who is in charge, something we debate regularly here. A system without such clarity risks being pulled apart. I support the principle of subsidiarity, but standing here today I am clear that an effective and strengthened relationship between this Parliament and devolved and local Administrations, one which would address the worries of underrepresentation in Glasgow, Grimsby or Glanwydden, must be built on clarity and the clear premise that sovereignty lies with and flows from this Parliament.
For this country to thrive in perpetuity, we must never surrender the belief that there is a British people and that their voice is expressed here in this Parliament. We must never allow the principle of one Britain, one vote to be replaced by a precarious balancing act between competing nations. This is reason enough for me to support the motion today. English votes for English laws may have been for some, and for a time, a necessary EVEL, but today I hope its day is done.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is good to be one of only two representatives of middle England objecting to the proposals to abolish these Standing Orders. My 2011 private Member’s Bill, the Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill, put pressure on the coalition Government to set up the commission that put forward the EVEL proposals, and I well remember the Lord President of the Council—in those days he was merely the Member for North East Somerset—making his speech. He is noted not only for being a great historian but now for being a seer and someone who can foretell the future, because he said that one day, a Government would be able to come in and simply abolish these Standing Orders. I very much regret that it is he who is doing it.
I think that we can all see the mood of the House this evening—we can all see that the motion is going to carry—but we must recognise that this was a pledge in the Conservative party manifesto in 2010 and 2015. It was a pledge that was there for a reason: because, at the time, our constituents were raising this on the doorstep as something they were very concerned about. A solution was put in place through the Standing Orders. As the Lord President said, it has not necessarily been needed in the interim, but it is not impossible to envisage a scenario in which its absence really would cause constitutional problems in this country. I regret very much that these Standing Orders are being abolished without a proposal for any kind of replacement to deal with that.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to the debate—to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who called for EVEL to be put out of its misery; my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who reminded us that, for about 50 years, Northern Irish MPs had a vote in this House when they had a devolved settlement, without any complaint; and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), who said that we needed clarity in our arrangements and should emphasise the sovereignty of Parliament, points with which I wholeheartedly concur.
I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). There are few people I listen to more closely than my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. When he makes a point and raises concerns about the constitution, I think a wise Government listen, and some of the points he makes are extremely fair. Devolution was lopsided and the constitution has become unsettled, and it has had too many variations to it in recent decades that have not improved or enhanced the unity of the nation.
I do not agree with my right hon. Friend that removing EVEL is an attempt to appease the Scottish nationalists. I think, in fact, that it shows we have confidence in our Union Parliament. Perhaps I am most confident in returning status quos ante. That is to say, both by abolishing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and by removing EVEL, we are trying to restore the beauty and the uniformity of our constitution so that it will work properly.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire quite rightly reminded us of the debate in 2011. I also had an exchange with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) when these proposals were put forward in 2015, when I said that I was very strongly against any idea of a divided parity of MPs and supported the measure only because we could repeal it—which, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are doing.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Standing Orders Nos. 83J to 83X (Certification according to territorial application etc) be rescinded and the following changes be made to Standing Orders:
(1) in sub-paragraph (3)(b) of Standing Order No. 12 (House not to sit on certain Fridays), leave out “Consent Motions under Standing Order No. 83M (Consent Motions for certified England only or England and Wales only provisions) and of”;
(2) in paragraph of Standing Order No. 39A (Voting by proxy), leave out “or in any legislative grand committee”;
(3) in paragraph of Standing Order No. 51 (Ways and means motions), leave out “or, in the case of a motion to which Standing Order No. 83U applies, forthwith upon the announcement of the Speaker’s decision with respect to the motion under that standing order”;
(4) in Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order) leave out paragraphs and (6);
(5) in Standing Order No. 64 (Notices of amendments, &c., to bills), leave out “, of Consent Motions under Standing Order No. 83M (Consent Motions for certified England only or England and Wales only provisions)”;
(6) in Standing Order No. 73 (Report of bills committed to public bill committees), leave out “or the Legislative Grand Committee (England)”;
(7) in Standing Order No. 83A (Programme motions), in paragraph (9), leave out “up to and including”;
(8) in Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees),
(a) in paragraph (1), leave out “or in legislative grand committee or on reconsideration or consequential consideration” and
(b) in paragraph (5), leave out “or in legislative grand committee or on reconsideration or consequential consideration”;
(9) in Standing Order No. 83C (Programming sub-committees),
(a) in sub-paragraph (5)(e), leave out “up to and including”,
(b) in sub-paragraph (12)(b), leave out “up to and including”, and
(c) in sub-paragraph (14) leave out “up to and including”;
(10) in Standing Order No. 83D (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings in public bill committee or in committee of the whole House, etc.),
(a) in the title, leave out “, etc.”, and
(b) in paragraph (1), leave out “, in the Legislative Grand Committee (England) when exercising functions under Standing Order No. 83W(6)(a) (Legislative Grand Committees)”;
(11) in Standing Order No. 83E (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration up to and including third reading),
(a) in the title for the words “and up to and including” substitute “or”,
(b) in paragraph (1), leave out “up to and including”, and
(c) leave out paragraph (5);
(12) in Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments), leave out paragraphs to (11);
(13) in Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords),
(a) in paragraph (5), leave out “, subject to paragraphs (6) and (7),”, and
(b) leave out paragraphs (6) to (9);
(14) in Standing Order No. 83I (Programme orders: supplementary provisions), in paragraph (1), leave out “or in legislative grand committee”; and
(15) in Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of general committees) leave out sub-paragraph (2)(iv).
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Richard Lloyd OBE to the office of Chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority with effect from 1 September 2021 for the period ending on 31 August 2026.
The Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has produced a report, its first report of 2021, in relation to this motion.
The chairman of IPSA is appointed under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, and candidates must be selected on merit, on the basis of fair and open competition. The name of any candidate must be approved by the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA.
In this regard, a recruitment process for a new chairman was initially launched in the spring of 2020. That was paused and then subsequently started afresh. As is normal for these appointments, Mr Speaker appointed a panel, who conducted the longlisting, shortlisting and interviewing of candidates. The panel was chaired by Philippa Helme CB. The other members of the panel were Michelle Barnes, an independent panel member; Cindy Butts, a lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA; and Sir David Crausby, former Member of Parliament for Bolton North East. The panel was asked to report to Mr Speaker with a list of candidates it considered suitable for appointment to the role. After carefully considering the panel’s report, Mr Speaker recommended Richard Lloyd to the Speaker’s Committee as his preferred candidate for the post. At its meeting on 15 June, the Speaker’s Committee agreed to Mr Speaker’s selection of Mr Lloyd.
Richard Lloyd is currently a member of the IPSA board and has been interim chairman since 2019. I must say that he has been very approachable and friendly to deal with in that role. He is also senior independent director at the Financial Conduct Authority, a council member of the Advertising Standards Authority, and vice-chairman and founding trustee of the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute. If the appointment is made, Richard Lloyd will serve as the chairman of IPSA for five years. I hope that the House will support this appointment and wish Mr Lloyd well in his important role. I commend the Humble Address to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I do not intend to detain the House for long. The Leader of the House has laid out the process that was followed and I have pleasure in confirming both that I have met the new chair and that the care and attention that the Leader of the House describes was paid towards the recruitment process. The panel reported fully to the Speaker’s Committee and we were able to scrutinise the decision properly.
I welcome Richard Lloyd to his post. I put on record my thanks to him for already being available to me and the willingness with which he has signalled that he is able to hear and consider concerns that I may raise on behalf of colleagues across this House. I am pleased that he seems to understand the concern raised by many Members and staff about the time that is sometimes taken on dealing with IPSA matters, which of course takes away from the time when they are able to serve our constituents, who expect us, rightly, to account for our costs but also to be able to focus on them. I look forward to working with him closely and I am happy to support the Humble Address.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Scottish National party Members of course have no objection at all to this post being given to Richard Lloyd, who has served with distinction as interim chair of IPSA for the past few months. He has an abundant and very recognised career in the private sector and I am sure he will bring some of his skills to bear. As the Leader of the House correctly outlined, the recruitment process was gone through in the proper way. Richard Lloyd has been approachable when it comes to issues to do with IPSA and I hope that continues. There is a saying in this House, “Let’s not do an IPSA” when we are thinking about creating new institutions. The reputation of IPSA still has to be worked on, and I hope that the new chair will be able to take that forward. As regards the process and the appointment, we have absolutely no objections.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Committees
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House I will take motions 13 to 17 together.
Ordered,
Education
That Fleur Anderson be discharged from the Education Committee and Kate Osborne be added.
International Trade
That Taiwo Owatemi be discharged from the International Trade Committee and Tony Lloyd be added.
Justice
That Paula Barker be discharged from the Justice Committee and Kate Hollern be added.
Petitions
That Chris Evans be discharged from the Petitions Committee and Christina Rees be added.
Public Accounts
That Olivia Blake be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Kate Osamor be added.—(Stuart Andrew, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Randolph Turpin
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this significant debate. It may seem that to talk about Randolph Turpin is to talk about a parochial sporting hero, but I hope to demonstrate just how much he helped to transform British sport.
Seventy years ago this week, Randolph Turpin took the world of boxing by storm as more than 18,000 spectators packed into Earls Court in London to witness the great—the legendary—Sugar Ray Robinson end his European tour. The scene was set for Turpin to show the world what he was made of. After a pummelling 15 rounds, Turpin triumphed. He was the world middleweight champion—the first British fighter to hold the title since Bob Fitzsimmons some 60 years earlier in 1891, and the first ever black British boxer do so.
More colloquially known as the Leamington Licker—a title that many in the constituency are proud to recall—the local Leamington lad shot to international fame overnight. But Turpin’s 1951 victory was not just a flash-in-the-pan event; his entire career was based on breaking records. He was the first and only man ever to win both the junior and senior British amateur boxing titles in one year, and his record stretched to a stunning 66 wins out of 75 fights. For some of that time, he boxed while serving in the Royal Navy at the end of the second world war.
Our knowledge of his achievements and their recognition owes much to the work of the Randolph Turpin Trust. I pay special thanks to its chair, Adrian Bush, whose dedicated work helped to lead to the erection of the statue of Randy that stands proudly in Warwick town centre. It took five long years to raise the money for the statue, and I commend the trust members for their perseverance. It was they who organised for proper recognition by those who understood his true achievement.
The fact that the statue was unveiled by some of boxing’s greats—including Our ’Enry, the late, great Sir Henry Cooper—and attended by Earnie Shavers, Richie Woodhall, Alan Minter, Neil Simpson and Danny McAlinden, tells us everything we need to know about Randy Turpin, a sporting legend among sporting legends. It is the only statue that stands in the centre of Warwick, which is why I believe this Chamber is a fitting place to remind ourselves of and recognise and continue to remember Randy’s legacy on the 70th anniversary of that momentous fight. I do not believe this country has fully appreciated what he or his brother achieved.
Behind every great sportsman is, of course, a dedicated, loving and supportive family, and Randy’s was no exception. Born in Leamington Spa in 1928, Randy was the youngest of five siblings. He was the son of Lionel Turpin, who came to these shores from what was then British Guiana to fight in the first world war.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate to the House. Whenever anybody mentions the Somme, I am always reminded that it is a very special place for us in Northern Ireland. To know that Randy’s father fought at the Somme tells us a lot about the person he was and the person his father was as well. I want to say how pleased we are that the hon. Gentleman has brought this debate to the House to recognise not just Randy’s sporting heroics but the bravery of his dad at the Somme.
Matt Western
Lionel was indeed courageous fighting in the battle of the Somme, but sadly he died some years later having sustained permanent damage to his lungs. Together with hundreds of others, he had been the victim of a gas attack. As is so often the case, his sacrifice is barely recognised, together with those of so many other nationals who served the British empire.
It was left to Randy’s mother Beatrice to raise him and his four siblings, taking on part-time domestic work to provide for them. Beatrice was the daughter of a former bare- knuckle fighter and was by all accounts a feisty woman who would tell her children to stand up for themselves when they were subjected to racial abuse.
Sporting success in the Turpin family did not stop at Randy; indeed, his elder brother Dick Turpin, the first black British and Commonwealth middleweight champion in 1948, paved the way for black Britons throughout the country to compete on the same stage as white Britons for the first time. If we accept that Randy and Dick broke the colour bar in the boxing arena—as it was described at that time—the current success of British boxing owes a lot to their work.
When I talk of the successes of British boxing, I only need to mention Anthony Joshua, Chris Eubank, Lennox Lewis and others. None of those great athletes would have had the chance to reach the heights they did were it not for Dick and Randy Turpin breaking through the glass ceiling of race.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing Randy’s history to Parliament. Does he agree that that history shows the need to have more funding for sporting activities for young people, so that we can get more diverse and more ethnic minority participation?
Matt Western
I totally agree; I will come to that shortly.
Despite Randy’s momentous accomplishments during his sporting career, his troubled personal life and at times flawed character would lead to violence against some of those closest to him and others. He was financially cheated by those he trusted, his debts mounted up and he was declared bankrupt. Ultimately, alcohol would get the better of him. Most sadly, he took his own life; he was 38.
But it is for his sporting success that we and many people in my constituency remember Randy today. His extraordinary reputation, recognised more in the United States than here, led many to visit Warwick and Leamington to pay homage to the great man. In fact, even Muhammad Ali came to Warwick in 1983 as part of a visit to the midlands to pay his own homage and respects.
Randy’s legacy in my constituency of Warwick and Leamington is clear. Only last week, I had the great pleasure to meet three talented young Asian boxers in Warwick, Serena Mali, Jaya Kalsi and Aman Kumar—to demonstrate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi). We stood by the statue and chatted briefly with their coaches. The reputation of local boxing clubs is still inspired by Randy, Dick and Jack Turpin. Seventy years after that great fight, the legacy of boxing in Leamington lives on. There are six other clubs in Leamington that are powerful and important in our sporting community. Another fine boxer, Lewis Williams, who won gold in the 2018 GB elite three nations championships, may soon be the heir to the Turpin legacy. It is an exciting prospect that the future of heavyweight boxing may indeed reside in Leamington.
The successes of Randy and his brother as the first black world middleweight champion and the first black British and Commonwealth middleweight champion respectively spelt the beginning for inclusion in sport. With them, the tide turned, although—let us be honest—not completely. It took more than 25 years after Randy Turpin’s victory over Sugar Ray Robinson for Viv Anderson, the first black man to play football for England, to put on a white shirt and proudly sport three lions on his chest. It is unimaginable now to think that it should have taken that long for a black man to represent his country in our national game, but therein lies another piece of history. In truth, a black player would have represented his country as far back as 1924, but was denied the opportunity—not on talent, but by the colour of his skin, for it was only when Football Association officials learnt that Jack Leslie was black that he was deselected from the England squad. Leslie is the fourth highest all-time goal scorer for Plymouth Argyle football club, but racial stigma spelt the end for his international career. As we know, sadly, even today that undercurrent of racism persists in sport. I hardly need to remind Members of the abhorrent racist abuse endured by some members of the England team following the final on Sunday. The national team and their manager brought about great pride and unity across our country, and the racism that continues to haunt those who represent England on the field or in the ring should be called out for what it is and condemned as totally unacceptable in 2021.
Alongside the new-found recognition, we need to invest in our local communities for the next generation of English sportspeople. In writing and researching this speech, I was reminded of some brilliant and talented sportspeople, in particular boxers: Cooper, Bruno, Khan, Benn, McGuigan, Minter, Ahmed, Hatton, Lewis, Calzaghe, Eubank, Honeyghan, Buchanan, John Conteh—all names I knew, even though I was not a major fan of the sport. I also remember Nicola Adams and her great success, and now Joshua and Fury.
When I was growing up, of course, I knew about Our ’Enry, but I was captivated by the great bouts between Ali and Frazier, and then Norton. One of the things I remember most is how Henry Cooper and others were described as “the great white hope”, an expression dating back to the early 1900s when heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson, who was black, seemed invincible. The term would be used for any white opponent who might defeat him. When he decisively beat James Jeffries, put up against him and nicknamed the great white hope, Johnson’s triumph ignited confrontation and violence between blacks and whites throughout the United States, leaving around two dozen people dead, almost all of them black, and hundreds injured.
Thankfully, today we do not think in those terms—or rather, I hope we do not. I would like to think that we consider only a sportsperson’s ability and who can better another opponent rather than their race and colour of their skin. Everyone loved Henry Cooper. I did. He was knighted in recognition of his boxing and wider contribution to sport and British life, but he was never a world champion, let alone undisputed world champion. Randy Turpin was an undisputed world champion. To repeat: he beat Sugar Ray Robinson, one of the all-time greats, to claim that particular pinnacle of sport. I hope that he will one day get the national recognition he deserves for boxing, but arguably more importantly, for what he and his brothers did in punching through the glass ceiling of being barred through their race; for breaking down the racial barriers that ultimately led to the Anthony Joshuas, the Nicola Adamses, the Naseem Hameds, the Viv Andersons, the John Barneses, the Raheem Sterlings, the Marcus Rashfords, the Jadon Sanchos, the Bukayo Sakas and so many others being among the best of British sport. For that reason, I ask the Minister to meet me to discuss how this country can rightly honour Randolph Turpin.
Given recent events surrounding the England football team, I suggest that recognition of our first black British world champion is long overdue.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing the debate to highlight the noteworthy anniversary of Randolph Turpin’s middleweight title 70 years ago.
Anyone who reflects on the important moments in British boxing history, particularly in the 1940s and 1950s, will no doubt cite Randolph Turpin’s stunning win over the great Sugar Ray Robinson for the world middleweight title those 70 years ago. As the hon. Gentleman said, he was widely known through his nickname of the Leamington Licker. He was born in Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, in June 1928 after his father moved to England from Guyana during the first world war, as we have heard. His amateur boxing career began at Leamington boys club alongside his three brothers, where he showed so much promise and became the first black boxer to win a senior Amateur Boxing Association championship. After making his professional debut in 1946, Turpin went on to win the British middleweight belt in 1950 before that momentous title win on 10 July 1951. That was a truly outstanding achievement given Robinson’s fame, prestige and competitive record. He had previously amassed 129 victories, just two draws and one loss, which is incredible.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Turpin’s story is not only significant because of his outstanding achievement—and it was an outstanding, world-class sporting achievement. It also shines a light on some of the key issues that we are still battling today. In fact, the anniversary could not be more timely. How we promote diversity and inclusion in sport; how we tackle the abhorrent racism we have seen in recent days; the long-term impact of concussion and head injury on our sportsmen and women; how we support people who are struggling with mental ill health and depression, and indeed, how we prevent domestic violence are all topics that come of Randolph Turpin’s story.
Today, British boxing is one of our most diverse sports. Most of our high-profile sporting stars are boxers from ethnically diverse backgrounds. The hon. Gentleman named a few of our great heroes. However, for the first part of the 20th century, the social inequalities in society were reflected in that sport. It is hard to believe that from 1911, boxing rules stated that, for a British title, both contestants needed to have been “born of white parents”. That rule remained in place until 1948. During this time, non-white boxers were barred from competing for a British boxing title. It seems impossible to believe it today, and it means that so many talented boxers were denied the right to compete for British titles purely due to the colour of their skin. Thankfully, progress was made with the lifting of that ban, and great strides have also been taken in other aspects of diversity through the nurturing of female boxing talent. I am sure that hon. Members will recall, as I do, their great pride in the first woman to win an Olympic boxing medal being our own Nicola Adams, back in London in 2012.
Of course, boxing is a sport that is accessible to people from all economic backgrounds. We continue to invest in community boxing clubs through Sport England and funding through the National Lottery Community Fund, and we support our elite boxers through UK Sport. However, no sport can afford to rest on its laurels: we must take steps to ensure that discrimination and inequality are identified and addressed. Like many other sports, boxing continues to look at what more it can do to promote inclusion and diversity, and England Boxing has been conducting a review of its operations from board level to grassroots in order to increase diversity at all levels. So far, that work has resulted in additional training for coaches and support staff and in anti-racism workshops, but I understand that more activity is in train.
This comes against the backdrop of the code for sports governance, which UK Sport and Sport England launched four years ago. That code sets out the standards that all sporting organisations must meet in return for public funding. It has proved very successful in setting clear expectations around good governance and diversity, but UK Sport and Sport England have just announced that the code will be updated later this year to ensure that sporting bodies in receipt of substantial public funding have a detailed and ambitious diversity and inclusion action plan for diversity right across their organisations, which is another positive step forward.
Of course, there is another part of Randolph’s life that we should reflect on, which is the impact that concussion sustained in the ring may have had. Today, we know a lot more about brain injury, but there is still much more to know, to understand, and to do. The important issue of concussion in sport is a priority for my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), the Minister for sport, who is working with the national governing bodies that are responsible for the regulation of their sport and putting in place appropriate measures to protect participants. We continue to consult very widely with various stakeholders, including representatives from boxing with whom the Minister for sport met very recently, and are assessing what role Government can usefully play in convening research and improving education around concussion and supporting technological advances.
However great Turpin’s achievements were in the ring, it is also worth reflecting that throughout the 1940s and 1950s, multiple women accused him of significant violence and domestic abuse. The Government are determined to tackle crimes that affect women and girls, but in fact domestic abuse impacts men as well. That is why, earlier this year, we achieved a historic milestone when the Domestic Abuse Bill received Royal Assent and became law. For the first time in history, there will be a general purpose legal definition of domestic abuse that incorporates a range of abuses beyond physical violence, including emotional, coercive or controlling, and economic abuse. That will help the millions affected by these crimes by strengthening the response of all agencies, from the police and courts to local authorities and service providers.
Another key concern for the Government as we navigate our recovery from the coronavirus pandemic is grassroots sports participation. It is truly vital for the preservation of our national sporting excellence that we help feed the elite level with the grassroots base, which is why the Government’s strategy, “Sporting Future”, puts increased participation at the very heart of the long-term direction of sport in this country. Since 2017, Sport England has provided a range of grassroots funding to boxing totalling more than £8.2 million, and this significant funding includes £3.2 million to grassroots boxing projects, £4.25 million to England Boxing across the 2017 to 2021 cycle, plus an additional £999,000, to be precise, in covid roll-over funding from 2020-21. Grassroots facilities in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency have also benefited from the Government’s £100 million national leisure recovery fund for local authorities, with Warwick District Council awarded £277,851. This emergency funding package has supported public sector leisure centres to reopen to the public, giving the sport and physical activity sector the very best chance of recovering from this pandemic.
In conclusion, I am really grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing to the attention of the House the story of his prestigious and incredibly memorable constituent. It is always refreshing to reflect on how constituency matters have a wider impact on the world of sport and on the global impact of one of his constituents. I thank him for securing the debate. He asked whether I would be prepared to meet him. I am not the Minister for sport but I will certainly pass on his request to my colleague who is. I am sure he would be very happy to accept that request.
Matt Western
I understand and appreciate that. I just want to stress the point that Randolph Turpin had many battles, as the Minister has mentioned, but he was the first British world champion of the 20th century, he fought through the bar on colour and he beat one of the finest boxers ever, but there is no national recognition for this person. It would do a great deal for social justice in this country if he had some recognition at long last, so I hope that that invitation will be taken up by the Minister.
Caroline Dinenage
Yes, I absolutely agree. I have to admit that until this week I had no previous knowledge of this story and it is a shame that such a significant figure in the history of British boxing is unknown and is not a household name in the way that Henry Cooper is. I am sure that the Minister for sport will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss how that can be rectified.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con) | Andrew Mitchell |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Jeffrey M Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wera Hobhouse |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba) | Kenny MacAskill |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John McNally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Andrew Mitchell |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) ( LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Peter Aldous |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wera Hobhouse |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Draft Health Security (EU Exit) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members about social distancing regulations. Spaces available to Members are clearly marked. Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee, when Members are not speaking. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members sent any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Health Security (EU Exit) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure not only to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Murray, but to see you in person again—it has been a long time.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that sharing information in order to co-ordinate health protection activity between all parts of the UK, as well as internationally, is critical in ensuring that we can effectively prevent and respond to serious cross-border health threats. That has been evident to us all, and of particular importance, during the pandemic. The regulations will ensure that such necessary co-ordination is maintained following our departure from the EU, and will enable us to continue to deliver high levels of human health protection across the whole UK. They modify retained EU law on health security to establish a stand-alone UK-wide regime.
The regulations form part of broader ongoing work to improve our health security capabilities, including through the establishment of the new UK health security agency, which will be fully operational from 1 October 2021. UKHSA will combine key elements of Public Health England, NHS Test and Trace and the Joint Biosecurity Centre. It will provide overarching leadership to strengthen partnership working and the response at local, regional and national levels. UKHSA will be this country’s permanent organisation to build standing capacity to plan for, prevent and respond to threats to health. It will be able to deploy the full weight of our analytic and genomic capability on infectious diseases. It will work collaboratively with partners around the world to lead the UK’s global contribution to health security.
The regulations will support UKHSA, alongside Public Health Wales, Public Health Scotland and the Public Health Agency of Northern Ireland, in quickly identifying and responding to a wide range of health threats. They will ensure that we maintain a robust and consistent UK-wide approach to health security that enables international working and links to international surveillance systems, which is so important.
I will briefly set out a little context. As hon. Members will know, on 24 December 2020, the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement was announced. These regulations will support the UK in meeting the health security arrangements in that agreement. The TCA provides a strong basis for the UK and the EU to continue to co-operate closely on health security, including: a commitment to inform each other when new public health threats are identified in the UK or the EU; ad hoc UK access to the EU’s database for sharing alerts, known as the early warning and response system; a provision for the UK to attend the EU Health Security Committee; and a commitment to co-operation between the UK and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, including through the inclusion of a memorandum of understanding, which is being negotiated. It is because of these arrangements that the UK was given access to the EWRS for covid-19 from 1 January 2021, ensuring continuity after we left the EU, and we attend the Health Security Committee. Our current access has avoided any disruption in the flow of public health data during the pandemic.
While we were a member state, the UK was required to co-ordinate with the EU, and to share with it certain types of information on health protection, such as early alerts on newly identified threats. As health protection is predominantly a devolved competence in the UK, in order to effectively meet these obligations, the four UK nations had to co-ordinate and share the required information with Public Health England, which is the UK’s focal point for communication with the EU. However, following the end of the transition period, this retained EU law relating to health security no longer operates effectively to set rules for such co-ordination on a UK-wide basis. Therefore, the proposed regulations modify and transfer functions previously carried out by the EU to a new UK health protection committee and to UKHSA, working in co-operation with their counterpart organisations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Let me set out the key ways in which the regulations do this.
First, we recognise the importance of early alerting. That has been clearly illustrated by the pandemic. It is imperative that when a threat is identified, information is rapidly shared to enable the quick implementation of control measures that will reduce transmission rates in the general population and protect individuals. To ensure we have a robust early alerting system in the UK, these regulations require the UK’s public health agencies to notify the UK’s focal point—PHE, which will become UKHSA—within 24 hours of any new threats being identified.
For the purpose of these regulations, PHE is designated the UK’s focal point, with that function transferring to UKHSA on 1 October. In this role, UKHSA will be responsible for receiving alert notifications of serious cross-border threats to health from the different parts of the UK, and then working jointly with them to conduct rapid risk assessments and put in place co-ordinated response measures as necessary.
To meet our obligations under the TCA, UKHSA must notify the EU of any threats occurring in the UK that may present a risk to EU member states. In return, the EU will notify the UK of any emerging threat in Europe that may present a risk to us. If the UK and the EU agree that it would be beneficial for the UK to have access to EWRS for any threat, and to sit on that committee, UKHSA will be responsible for uploading and receiving related information to ensure continuity of flow.
Secondly, it is critical that we continue to conduct UK-wide epidemiological surveillance on known communicable diseases. The regulations therefore make provision for the UK’s four public health agencies to conduct surveillance of communicable diseases on a shared list and related special health matters.
Thirdly, the regulations require the UK Government, the devolved Administrations and the UK’s public health agencies to consult each other with a view to co-ordinating their respective monitoring, early warnings and responses to serious cross-border health threats. They must inform each other of any substantial revisions to preparedness and response planning.
Finally, to support the implementation and functioning of these regulations, we are establishing the UK health protection committee. The committee will regularly meet representatives from all parts of the UK, and will provide advice on the list of communicable diseases and related special health matters that are subject to UK-wide surveillance, and on the associated operational procedures. The committee will be accountable to the UK chief medical officers group.
As health security is an area of devolved competence, we have obtained formal consent for these regulations from the devolved Administrations, as the shadow Minister and the Committee would expect. In parallel, we are working together to develop a common framework that will further strengthen UK-wide governance arrangements on the prevention and control of serious cross-border health threats to complement these regulations.
To conclude, I must emphasise that these regulations are critical in ensuring that we continue to take a consistent and collaborative approach to health security in all parts of the UK and, importantly, with our European friends and neighbours. The regulations will help ensure that the UK can meet the obligations on health security that we recently agreed in the TCA, and represent an important step forward in the protection of our citizens and those across Europe.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I thank the Minister for his introduction, and for setting out the effect of the regulations. As he says, in the last 18 months, we have all agreed that we cannot fight transmissible disease alone. We see that in the worldwide effort to develop a vaccine, in the way that covid has gone around the world in waves, and in the fact that most countries with the lowest deaths have been those with the strongest border controls. In many examples, the greater interconnectivity of the world has been one of the biggest challenges, as well as one of the biggest opportunities.
Turning to the substance of the regulations, the Minister will no doubt be aware of the comments by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as set out in the explanatory memorandum:
“Although the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) provided is full of information on future EU-relations, it does perhaps overestimate the average reader’s knowledge of the UK’s plans…Because of the pandemic, coordination of health surveillance is more important than usually, and an EM needs to make it absolutely clear to the House what it is being asked to agree to.”
I have had many concerns about the detail of regulations that have been introduced, so this is not a new issue. The Minister did a valiant job of filling in the gaps, although his speech was a little acronym-heavy at times, but we have some questions outstanding.
We no longer have unconditional access to the EU’s early warning and response system, or the EWRS, as the Minister preferred to call it. The trade and co-operation agreement states that the UK may be granted access to that system on an ad-hoc basis on written request. Will he set out the fall-back position if there is disagreement about a request, or if there is delay in responding to such requests?
The Minister referred to the need for early warnings and early responses. Sometimes, early warnings and an early response are not what we get, although they are clearly critical. Does he have anything to say about how we would deal with that situation? We would hope, of course, never to be in that position, but it is important to understand the Government’s thinking about safeguards in those circumstances. There was also no reference to the World Health Organisation’s role in all this. I wonder whether he can say anything about that.
As we heard, the draft regulations refer to the newly created UK health security agency, or UKHSA, as it will no doubt be commonly known. It will of course undertake functions in relation to future infectious disease threats, but there are still gaps in the detail of how that will work. The Opposition are concerned that the decision to abolish Public Health England and give its role to a security-focused agency could result in important areas of public health not getting the focus and attention that they need. Social inequalities have been clearly exposed by covid, and life expectancy has stalled for almost a decade. Those matters are far too important to be a footnote in UKHSA’s remit, so anything that the Minister can say about that, or even when we can expect more detailed debate about the agency’s role, would be appreciated.
Finally, our four nations continuing to work very closely is just as important as international co-operation. The draft regulations, as the Minister pointed out, set up some measures in respect of that, but putting them into practice is a different thing. There have been many examples over the past 15 months of divergence in the measures taken against covid. Often it is a difference of tone; sometimes it is a difference in timing. Whatever it is, I am afraid that those differences do not recognise that the world is greatly interconnected, and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are even more so.
I give one current example: face coverings on public transport, which have been debated recently. I will not drag the Minister into a debate about whether those laws should remain in place, as that is clearly outside the scope of the draft regulations, but it is a very pertinent example of how closer working really should be aimed for. My constituency of Ellesmere Port and Neston is very close to the Welsh border. Many people on both sides of that border travel across it to work. If I were to get on a train to Wales, because of the different approaches to public health there, I would not be legally required to wear a face covering until I reached the Welsh border, but would have to put one on once I got over it. Clearly, that is nonsense position. I think all of us here hope that people will continue to take sensible precautions, and will wear a face covering on public transport, whatever the legal default position. That is a good example of why it is far better for us to work together more closely on public health measures.
Finally, what can be done to ensure that the ambition of joined-up thinking clearly set out in the regulations is reached? In conclusion, we will not oppose the regulations, but I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to my questions.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for a well researched and pragmatic response to the regulations; it was typical of the responses that he has given on multiple Delegated Legislation Committees we have been on together. We may not agree on everything, but I agree with him on a huge amount in this case. I suspect that, in this space, we agree on rather more than many might suspect. He is right to highlight that diseases, including the virus in this pandemic, do not respect borders. It is therefore in everyone’s interest to work together—not just internationally, but as he says, with our friends and colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. He mentioned the explanatory memorandum; he and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee make a fair point. I suspect that because we all consider regulations almost every week—or feel like we do—the detail under- pinning them is etched on our minds. However, the Committee is right that the explanatory memorandum’s purpose is to make that accessible to members of the public, and Members of the House who may come to these matters afresh. I hope that in my remarks I added a little flesh to the bones of how this will work and what sits behind the regulations.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the EWRS, the Health Security Committee in Europe and how it will work—that is, how getting access worked this time; he also asked what would happen and what the fallback position was if access were refused. We received confirmation of the TCA over Christmas and new year; at the start of this year, I instructed officials to formally request continued access to EWRS and to the committee. If I recall, that was granted within a matter of hours, if not minutes. At a pragmatic level, therefore, there is genuine recognition and desire from both the EU and the UK to work in a sensible, grown-up way and achieve the results that all our citizens expect.
The hon. Gentleman asked “What if?”, which is fair. The TCA provides a framework for the UK to request access where we think it is in our interest to do so in responding to a serious cross-border threat to health. If the EU rejected that request—on the basis of experience, I would not expect that—the UK would continue to receive the critical information and notifications on public health risks and incidents through our parallel access to alternative international surveillance systems, such as the event management system operated by the World Health Organisation.
That takes me to the hon. Gentleman’s second point, which was about the WHO. We are talking about additionality; the measures in no way replace our commitment to working with the WHO through the Epidemic Intelligence Service, and through our obligation to comply with International Health Regulations 2005, which link closely with the WHO’s work. Our commitment to working collaboratively and openly with the WHO remains and is parallel to what we seek to do with the regulations.
The shadow Minister asked why we are putting UKHSA together, and voiced his concern that it might switch the focus to health security, and away from broader public health considerations. One of the reasons why we are putting it together is that over the past year, we have taken a huge step forward in our diagnostic and testing capability in order to meet the challenges of this pandemic. The measures will bring that test and trace capability into a new organisation, and establish it formally as a proper agency of Government, with the appropriate internal Government arrangements to ensure that it is joined up.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, yes, health security is hugely important; that is obviously top of our mind at the moment, given what the country and the world has seen over the past 15 months. As a former council cabinet member for adult social care and health, including public health, I recognise the importance of broader drivers of public health outcomes, and of reducing health inequalities, and UKHSA will absolutely continue to focus on that in parallel with its health security responsibilities.
On the point about debate, the shadow Minister and the Opposition Back Benchers are always welcome to seek a debate on this subject; I say that with relaxed confidence, because I suspect I would not be the Minister answering. Those routes are, of course, open to him on the Front Bench and to Opposition Back Benchers.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the need for internal UK co-operation to match the openness with our EU friends and colleagues. He is absolutely right. That is one of the reasons why I was so keen, as he would expect—we were obliged to, but it was the right thing to do—to engage with the DAs on these regulations to make sure that they work. We are not replacing the public health bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; they will work with PHE, and then UKHSA. They will be full partners in that, because of course we will have to co-operate. They will have an equal say on which diseases go on the list of those we monitor, those we take action against, and those we transmit information on. That is the national list, but that does not prevent a devolved Administration from being able to decide to monitor an additional disease in its territory, so the devolution settlement is respected.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned divergence of tone and timing on occasion during the pandemic. That is a reflection of the fact that going into a set of regulations, it is very easy to move forward as one, but as he said, areas come out of regulations in different ways and at different times, to reflect what is going on in different parts of the country. We have seen that, and we have seen slight tonal differences, but looking at this from within the Department of Health and Social Care, I see that whatever the rhetoric at political level, there has been incredibly effective co-operation beneath the surface, at medical expert and official level, to make sure that the UK continues to do everything that it can to keep citizens safe, wherever they live.
To conclude, as the shadow Minister said, diseases do not respect borders. It is absolutely right that we co-operate internationally and across the United Kingdom. We negotiated a good deal with the EU in respect of the TCA and health security; the regulations give effect to the deal, and will help protect our citizens for many years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I would like to remind hon. Members to observe social distancing and only to sit in places that are clearly marked. I would also like to remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee unless Members are speaking or if they are medically exempt. Hansard colleagues would 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 Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
The regulations that we are considering today will support the continued smooth operation of essential channel tunnel traffic and provide long-term certainty, clarity and confidence to cross-border operators, both current and prospective, regarding the future operator licensing framework for the channel tunnel. They will do so by making the necessary legislative amendments to enable the implementation of a bilateral agreement between the UK and France on the recognition of rail operator licences for the channel tunnel.
The regulations amend the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005, which updated the rules for the licensing of rail operators in Great Britain by introducing a new EU form of licence. That was done to reflect changes to EU operator licensing laws. The regulations also amend the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were introduced to correct deficiencies in the 2005 regulations arising from the UK’s departure from the European Union. As well as converting the EU form of licences issued by the Office of Rail and Road to “railway undertaking licences”, the 2019 regulations provided for the continued recognition in GB of European licences for a period of two years from exit day, that is until 31 January 2022, to facilitate a smooth transition.
Following the end of the transition period, there is no longer automatic mutual recognition of licences between the UK and the EU. The recognition of UK licences for the channel tunnel is currently provided for by temporary contingency arrangements, which expire on 30 September 2021.
The operator licensing regulations, and the proposed bilateral agreement that they will implement, will ensure the continued recognition of operator licences for the channel tunnel when the current temporary arrangements expire. That will have a significant positive impact on cross-border operators, providing them with certainty and reducing the administrative burdens on them considerably by enabling them to operate within the channel tunnel and the cross-border area without the need to hold two separate licences, one issued in GB and one in the European economic area.
Under the regulations, EU licences will be recognised up to the first border crossing station in the UK only, which is Dollands Moor for freight and Ashford International for passenger services. That mirrors the extent of recognition of UK licences in French territory under the proposed bilateral agreement and will ensure equivalence. The regulations, and by extension the agreement that they will implement, are fully compatible with the Government’s fundamental red lines in the channel tunnel negotiations with France, which are designed to support the continuation of cross-border services while conferring no role for the EU courts or the European Rail Agency in UK territory and avoiding dynamic alignment with EU law.
Information-sharing provisions are included in the regulations to give effect to requirements of the proposed bilateral agreement. Under those requirements, the Office of Rail and Road will be able to share relevant information with the equivalent French authorities, for example regarding the validity of cross-border operator licences.
The regulations will also ensure a level playing field regarding the licensing requirements for operators on the UK and French sides of the channel tunnel and cross-border area. They will do so by disapplying the current UK requirement to hold a statement of national regulatory provisions, which covers issues such as third-party insurance for EU-licensed operators of channel tunnel services up to Dollands Moor or Ashford International only. They will ensure no equivalent additional licensing requirements will be in place for UK licensed operators on the French side. We are clear that that change will have no impact in practice on passengers or freight.
The regulations will reduce administrative burdens on cross-border operators and enable them to plan their businesses into the future with confidence. Most importantly, they will support the long-term continued smooth operation of cross-border services through the channel tunnel, which, as I am sure hon. Members agree, bring significant economic and social benefits to the UK.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I want to address the future of rail passenger and freight services using the channel tunnel and the high-speed link to London. The statutory instrument is all about the licensing arrangements for the operation of the services, but surely the more salient question is whether there will be a viable service to license. The Opposition firmly believe that the Eurostar service has a central role to play in our post-pandemic transport system, and we support the shift of international passengers from air to rail wherever possible.
High-speed rail is responsible for 80% less carbon emissions than the alternatives and I have been consistently calling for a huge rolling programme of electrification across the rail network, and a post-diesel railway. High Speed 1 must remain a central part of that clean, green future; it was the first high-speed link, but it must be the first of many across the UK. And yet the Eurostar service is under threat.
There is a real danger that the licensing regime under consideration today will have nothing to license if Eurostar goes under. The facts are stark: a 95% fall in demand; one service a day, instead of 50; a collapse in revenue from £1 billion in 2019 to just £180 million a year later; and the company is struggling with huge debts and the need to raise finance from shareholders and loan facilities. For example, in May this year the shadow Transport Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), wrote to the Transport Secretary to point out that stations in Kent have been closed for the Eurostar service; UK jobs lost; and that the company was operating at less than 3% of its normal revenues.
The situation is not merely one in which Ministers are slow to respond, intransigent or that the focus has been elsewhere. No, it is much worse than that. The Secretary of State’s appearance before the Select Committee on Transport let the cat out of the bag when he said:
“It is not our company to rescue”.
It is true that the Government divested themselves of their shares in Eurostar back in 2015, but privatising the British people’s share of that vital public service has left us without the levers to protect it. Yet again, we witness privatisation driven by ideology, not practical common sense. Today, it is simply not good enough for Ministers to divest themselves of all responsibility and to turn their backs.
We will abstain on the SI. I invite the Minister to address my questions. Does she see a long-term future for Eurostar? What communications has she had with her French counterparts? What discussions have Transport Ministers had with the Treasury to devise a rescue package? Will she guarantee today that Eurostar will not collapse under her watch?
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for her opening remarks.
The regulations we are considering relate to an issue on which the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, of which I am a member, recently reported, namely, the Government’s plans for the operation of the channel tunnel now that the UK has left the EU. Before the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, EU law applied in specific areas on the fixed link, and Brexit necessitated new arrangements. The economic and societal importance of the channel tunnel cannot be overstated, and I am pleased that the Government have introduced the regulations.
I thank the Minister for writing to the European Scrutiny Committee and providing draft copies of the regulations. As the Minister will recall, she gave evidence to the Committee on the issue in December when we expressed our particular concerns about the European Commission’s suggestions for how the channel tunnel could operate after Brexit. As the regulations illustrate, a solution has been reached directly with France, and I note that all affected channel tunnel stakeholders and rail industry experts strongly support the regulations and recognise their importance to securing the continued smooth functioning of channel tunnel services. Any concerns that were raised were either outside the scope of the regulations or related to the geographical scope of recognition in the UK.
Can the Minister update the Committee on the progress of negotiations with France? Will further regulations be required to give effect to new arrangements for the channel tunnel? If so, can she provide further details?
Rachel Maclean
I thank hon. Members for their consideration of the draft regulations and for their helpful, constructive comments and questions. I thank my opposite number, hon. Member for Slough, for supporting the regulations contained in the SI.
The regulations will make the necessary changes to ensure that the UK is able to implement an agreement with France on the recognition of rail operator licences for the channel tunnel. That will ensure a long-term future for those vital Eurostar services, as the hon. Gentleman said. He will be in doubt of the Government’s commitment to the green industrial revolution and of transport and the rail sector’s contribution to decarbonising our economy. That is why we have set out a number of ambitious plans, and will be publishing our transport decarbonisation plan shortly. That will set out a holistic view for the rail sector.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) asked for detail on further regulations. Ongoing negotiations are being conducted with the French to cover all the regulatory structures that we need and I am very happy to write to her Committee as those talks progress.
The hon. Member for Slough asked about financial support, and although that is outside the scope of today’s debate, the Government are clear that all companies must have exhausted all other options before being considered for financial support from British taxpayers. Any support must be given on terms that protect the taxpayer, so we welcome the announcement from the company, its shareholders and lenders about a new financing package which will help to secure the company’s future. We have continual discussions with all stakeholders, including the operators. We believe that the regulations allow cross-border operators to continue operating as they do now, providing certainty, clarity and confidence.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their consideration of the regulations and I hope that they can join me in supporting them.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide emission performance standards (cars and vans) (amendment) (eu exit) regulations 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Some quick announcements: Mr Speaker has said that masks should be worn in Committee, except when Members are speaking or unless they are exempt. Please send your 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 Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali.
The draft regulations will be made under the powers provided by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to deal with matters arising from the Northern Ireland protocol. The statutory instrument amends regulation 2019/631 and regulation 114/2013, as amended by a prior EU exit SI. The regulations set the carbon dioxide emission standards for new cars and vans in Great Britain, as well as the rules for applying for a derogated target.
Regulation 2019/631, as amended, currently sets manufacturers of new cars and vans in Great Britain CO2 emission reduction targets and allows for assessment with those targets. The provisions were set in Great Britain only as the regulations were originally listed in annex 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol, meaning Northern Ireland would continue to be captured by the EU regime following the transition period.
The current fleet average CO2 emission reduction target for cars is 95 grams of CO2 per kilometre and for vans it is 147 grams of CO2 per kilometre. Manufacturers can still be set individual targets above or below those figures providing that they average out to the fleet average targets, as aforementioned. Individual targets are based on the mass of a manufacturer’s fleet compared with the average mass of the entire GB fleet. The heavier the fleet, the higher the target and vice versa. The fleet average targets for both cars and vans will further tighten in 2025 by 15% and in 2030 by 31% for vans, and 37.5% for cars, when compared with the 2021 baseline. Fines, called excess emission premiums, are levied for non-compliance with CO2 targets. Flexibilities exist within the regulation to help the manufacturers reach their target.
One such flexibility enables smaller manufacturers to apply for a derogation from the “normal” target, and be given one that is more in line with their technical and economic capability. Pooling is another flexibility by which manufacturers can join together for the purposes of the regulation and be given one CO2 target. Manufacturers can also receive a limited amount of credits for deploying CO2-reducing technologies in their vehicles, such as LED bulbs.
Further, more credits can be received up to a certain value if a manufacturer puts more zero and low-emissions vehicles on the market. Those are called super-credits and are only available from 2021 to 2022.
Regulation 114/2013, as amended, is a tertiary piece of legislation that further sets out the rules and procedures for manufacturers when applying for a derogated target. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 retained EU regulation 2019/631 and 114/2013 in their entirety into UK law. Those regulations were corrected for by a prior EU exit SI, SI 2020/1418, which set obligations in the GB only.
The EU regulations were removed from annex 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol on 17 December 2020, leaving Northern Ireland without regulation. The draft instrument we are considering extends the regulations to Northern Ireland from 1 September, in effect creating a UK-wide regime. The amendments throughout the regulations primarily swap references to GB for UK. However, an additional provision was added stating that new car and van registrations in Northern Ireland prior to 1 September were out of scope of the regulations, including all CO2 target calculations. The SI is essential to ensuring that CO2 emissions from new cars and vans in Northern Ireland are regulated and held to the same standards as elsewhere in the UK.
The regulations before the Committee are essential to ensuring that the UK achieves its net-zero carbon ambitions and legally binding carbon budgets. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting those regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ali.
As we know, transport is the single largest contributor to UK emissions. That was the case before the pandemic and continues to be case even with the significant drop in journeys taken during lockdowns. We need to act, and I look forward to seeing, finally, the much delayed transport decarbonisation plan, which I gather will be published tomorrow, accompanied by a statement to the House.
Improving the CO2 performance standards for cars and vans is an important part of keeping emissions from surface transport in check, and getting manufacturers to reduce the carbon footprint of their vehicles. Following our departure from the EU and the end of the transition period, we have now this legislation before us. Labour did not object when the EU emission performance standards were rolled over, and we will similarly support the SI today, as it merely extends those standards to Northern Ireland, which has previously abided by the relevant EU regulations.
I continue to have concerns, however, about the lack of ambition that accompanied the rolling over of the EU standards. The EU regulations saw manufacturers given CO2 targets based on the average mass of their fleet compared with the average mass of the EU fleet, and that continues to be the case. However, the UK’s average vehicle weight is above the EU average, meaning that UK standards are now weaker than they would have been if the UK average weight had been used instead.
It is disappointing to note that, rather than embracing strengthened emission standards, the Government opted to retain the weaker formula, despite our changing political circumstances. The Government were fully aware of this issue because it was highlighted in responses to their consultation. As I understand it, they dismissed the alternative as “too challenging”. Unfortunately, that appears to be another instance of the Government shying away from more ambitious action, despite their failure to address transport emissions over the past decade. Those emissions fell only 1% between 2009 and 2019. Even with the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles, we are still facing nine years of new polluting vehicles making their way to UK roads—14 years if we include hybrids.
The Climate Change Committee recently highlighted how much could and should be done by the Government. In its annual progress report, it called for ambitious regulations on new car and van CO2 intensities, requiring a 55% reduction by 2025 and a 97% reduction by 2030. That is the level of ambition that we need to deliver the green transport of the future, yet all we have today is a reiteration of the status quo that has failed to make a dent in our emissions. There is still time to change that, and I would welcome the Minister taking the opportunity to spell out now what will be done to increase UK ambitions on surface transport emissions.
Labour recognise the necessity of the regulations and agree that they should be extended to Northern Ireland, and we will give our support to today’s measure. However, we fully support the CCC and other environmental stakeholders in their desire to see much more from the Government to address emissions and pollution from cars and vans.
Rachel Maclean
I sincerely thank the hon. Lady for her support for the regulations, just as she supported the relevant prior legislation and accompanying regulations.
The hon. Lady is right to say that tomorrow the Government will be publishing our transport decarbonisation plan, which takes into account the advice from the Climate Change Committee, which she and I have discussed on many occasions. She will see from that plan the full detail of how we intend to meet our environmental objectives for the transport sector.
On regulations, we have always been clear that when we left the EU, we would strengthen our CO2 emissions reductions regime. In the light of that, we have brought forward our 2030-35 phase-out date—that would not have been possible were we still EU members. We are leading the world in terms of setting our objectives and phase-out dates. There will be much more detail in our transport decarbonisation plan, which will answer the other questions that the hon. Lady put to me.
The SI is necessary to ensure that the emissions from new cars and vans in Northern Ireland are subject to the same stringent regulation as elsewhere in the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Observations
Outer London driving charges
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
Fisheries Management
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Okay, everybody, you know what the rules are. Mr Carmichael will lead off. The three Front Benchers have 10 minutes each, and there will be two minutes at the end for Mr Carmichael as well.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered fisheries management after the UK’s departure from the EU.
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Charles. First, I place on the record my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate.
Before turning to the business of today’s debate, I want to say a few words about the recent and very sad passing of David Linkie, former editor of Fishing News. David’s work on Fishing News was more than just journalism; it was a mission to give a voice to the fishing industry and to the communities that depend on it. I will not claim to have agreed with every word he ever wrote, but we do not have to agree with someone to acknowledge their passion, sincerity and commitment, and in David, all that and more shone through. His contribution will be missed, and I am sure that hon. Members from all parts of the House will want to send condolences to his family.
I hope that David would approve of what today’s debate is about, which is giving a voice in Parliament to our fishing industries—industries that were promised so much by politicians, from the Prime Minister downwards, and that now look to him and them to deliver on what they promised. When the holding of today’s debate was first announced, I put out a call for evidence to hear the views of people in the industry and its associated sectors. I anticipated a healthy response, but even so I was astonished at the volume and content of what I received. The emails came in from all around the coast, from catchers, processors, engineers and traders, and all with the same message: the deal struck by the Prime Minister on Christmas eve is not what they were promised and, six months into its first year, it is causing massive difficulties.
One Shetland skipper spoke for many when he wrote:
“I run a small wooden 22-metre trawler around Shetland. We have a ridiculously small cod quota and we find it impossible to avoid cod, there is more cod around Shetland right now than at anytime in living memory but our quota is minuscule. It has been said by skippers recently that you can catch your year’s quota in one day! There are also plans to cut the cod quota further in 2022, so it begs the question why are we still using the broken quota system the EU put in place now that we are an independent coastal state?”
Magnus, a 19-year-old fisherman from Whalsay, who has plans to buy into a whitefish boat with a few close friends and so is the future of this industry, asked:
“Why is the fishing industry having to fight their own Government for survival? Why do their advisory boards have no qualified fishermen or ex fishermen or fish processors advising them? Why are they allowing uncontrolled fishing by foreign vessels in our waters?”
From Cornwall, at the other end of the country, a skipper wrote to me as
“someone who has fished for 40 years from my home village of St Mawes in Cornwall.”
He said:
“There were 18 boats worked here when I started, all with 2 or 3 crew and now we are down to the last 2 trawlers, both working single-handedly due to the constant negativity surrounding the industry. With Brexit we had a golden opportunity, the one and only chance to keep these vessels out to at least 12 miles, the meridian line would be the next goal but no, an unbelievably weak Government has put us in a worse position than before.”
In coastal and island communities around the country, the anger and frustration felt by fishermen is almost palpable. They feel let down and used, and they want answers. At the start of the year, we saw catastrophic gridlock as exporters seeking to take advantage of what would traditionally be the busiest week of the first quarter were unable to get their fish to market in continental Europe. Promises were made then that British businesses would be compensated for their losses, and I spoke to one local exporter in Shetland who was looking at a loss in the region of £50,000; he was not alone. The Minister and the Secretary of State made big promises about compensation schemes, but how did that work out? I spoke to the same person again yesterday. He had sought to mitigate his loss by selling his fish at a much lower price on the domestic market and, in doing so, he managed to limit his loss to £20,000 rather than the £50,000 loss that he had originally faced. When he applied for help to meet that restricted loss, he was told that because he had sold his fish—he had done the responsible thing—there would be no assistance for him. If, when the Minister promised in January to help exporters, she had meant that to qualify for that help, they would have to leave their fish to rot, she should have said so. Will she revisit how that compensation scheme has worked?
Processors have been badly hit as a result of their inability to source the labour that they need to run their businesses. One major processor in Peterhead told me a few weeks ago that he was constantly at least 10% down on his required staffing levels. That means that either he is paying overtime to his staff, or he has to restrict the range of work that he takes on; either way, it has a massive impact on his profitability. What is the Minister doing to bring home to our colleagues in the Home Office the need to ensure that the processing centres have access to the skilled labour that they need?
The Prime Minister’s deal was deficient in many respects. For the catching sector, one of the most dramatic of those was the loss of easy access to in-year quota swaps. The Secretary of State assured us that those could easily be agreed on a Government-to-Government basis. However, as we enter the third quarter of the year, having only recently and finally established the quota entitlement for this year, we still do not know how these in-year quota swaps are going to work. Can the Minister tell us when the industry might expect to be told how it will get access to the extra quota that it needs? With every week that passes, this becomes more urgent.
Another theme that came through loud and clear from fishermen in every part of the country was their unhappiness at the inequality of treatment when it comes to sea boardings by fisheries enforcement officers. In Scotland, that is the responsibility of Marine Scotland. Marine Scotland figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show a massive disparity between the approach to UK boats and to the French and Spanish fleets, which are allowed to go about their business virtually unmolested. Why is that? Is it, as was suggested to me, because fisheries protection officers do not have the same access to real-time catch data from foreign vessels as they do for UK boats? Again, the complaint is the same around the coasts; it seems that what is true of Marine Scotland is true also of enforcement agencies south of the border.
The Minister has heard me speak before about the practice of gillnetting off the west of Shetland. This practice is environmental lunacy. It is just about the most unsustainable form of fishing imaginable: it contributes massively to the problem of plastic pollution in our oceans and means that for several square miles of water at a time, local boats are excluded from fishing areas that they have traditionally seen as their base grounds. For years, we were told that this was something that we had to live with as part of the common fisheries policy. That no longer applies, so why do we still allow it?
The Minister also knows, because I have told her, of the friction between local boats and gillnetters. When the Fisheries Act 2020 passed into law, I urged her to give the Maritime and Coastguard Agency powers to police the waters in our exclusive economic zone, between 12 miles and the 200-mile limit. She knows how close the Alison Kay came to disaster in her encounter with the Spanish gillnetter Pesorsa Dos. I have to tell the Minister, though, that the situation continues to be bad, and that in fact it is getting worse.
On Monday 28 June, Ross David Robertson and his crew, in his trawler Mizpah, were operating in traditional grounds north of Shetland when they were confronted by the Genesis FD 19, a 30-metre, 298-tonne longliner. It crossed the bow of the Mizpah and came within three metres of hitting it. Ross David Robertson told The Fishing Daily,
“‘We are trying to fish on grounds to suit our quota allocation but can’t get fishing because of these vicious wolf packs chasing us off. The seamen ship off these guys are totally horrendous. Put the fishing to the side on this matter, it’s the danger they put both vessels in that’s totally against the law,’ says Ross. Asked if he has experienced this before, Ross says that he has, and it is a growing concern for him and skippers across the fleet, but they are afraid that the authorities are not doing enough to protect the fleet and one day it will lead to a tragedy. ‘Yes, it’s happening too often,’ he said. ‘Last year another vessel did the same to us and I reported him to the Coastguard and MAIB but I didn’t hear any outcome, so I just presumed it was a waste of time.’”
I have met the Minister and officials from her Department and others about this, and they all come out with lots of good and detailed reasons why it is awfully complicated and difficult to fix. These reasons no longer hold water, however. Will it require a boat to go to the bottom of the sea before somebody takes responsibility and acts to end this irresponsibility?
I am aware that I have already taken quite a lot of the time given to today’s debate. I have a lot more to say, but I am afraid that that must be left to others. In January, I asked the Secretary of State if he would meet me and industry representatives to discuss the problems facing the industry. He ignored the request then and has done so since, so I make it again today. Will the Minister sit down with Members of this House and industry representatives? Will she listen to us and engage? If not, I fear the anger and frustration in the industry will only grow. Our fishing industry still has enormous potential, but to realise that potential requires political will. Do the Minister and her colleagues have that political will, and will they use it for the benefit of our fishing industries and the communities that rely on them?
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
The right hon. Gentleman said that he would speak for 12 minutes, but has actually spoken for 11 and a half, so he is top of the pops. I call Mr Neil Parish. There is a four-minute time limit on contributions.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate arranged by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), for which I thank him. I am standing right next to the Minister, so I will try to be nice to her. It is not an easy job being a fisheries Minister at the moment, because there are many problems to sort out. I will get through all the problems as quickly as I can, and I hope that there may be some solutions.
First, on fishing in Norway, can we apply a temporary trade remedy with Norway to try to get our boats access to these waters? Naturally, we fish for cod in Norwegian waters. As far as shellfisheries are concerned, we still have major problems on the west coast, Wales and others, where we are still unable to trade from class B waters. We have been trying to sort out the different waters, but that seems to be hitting the buffers as well. This really needs to be sorted. It is not all the Minister’s fault. The European Commission could have been, and needs to be, much more amenable to get this to work. We must not be held up as an example to others that may leave the European Union. I rather fear this is where we are with shellfishing.
On international quota swaps, the lack of international swapping has left some companies with less quota than they had before Brexit, and it has left all companies with less flexibility over their quota management. Quota swapping is a key tool in compliance with landing obligations. English fish producer organisations collectively would like, believe it or not, a system that stays as close as possible to the previous one, so that swaps brokered by the producer organisations can be checked and signed off by all devolved Administrations and the swaps can occur at any point during the year. Otherwise, they cannot land the fish they catch. We have worked so hard on this over the years to try to ensure that we stop discarding fish.
The key principles are that whichever devolved Administration donates the quota should receive the incoming quota, and the organisation donating the quota should receive the full incoming quota, so that the levels of quota are kept where they are. There is no fisheries Minister for England, which means that English viewpoints are under-represented in the fisheries discussion. The process for Scotland should not necessarily be adopted for England if other processes would be better for management of English quota.
There are many things for the Minister to do. My final point is probably more for the Chancellor, and I have talked about this before. We must make sure that we give new fishing boats the same capital allowances of 18% a year so that our fishermen can have new boats, new gear and much better safety. That would be much better for the environment and much safer for our fishermen. At the moment, they get only 6% on a new boat and 18% on an old boat. The boats could be made in the north of England. We could have a north-south divide in so far as we could provide the north of England with great employment, and we could have fishing boats all around the country. It is up to us to now develop our fisheries, and I believe that we can.
Once the Minister has flattened out all the little local difficulties with the European Commission, we can get on and actually benefit from leaving the common fisheries policy, because environmentally it was disastrous. We will need to get stuck in so that our fishermen can get back to being able to fish and land what they catch.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Mr Parish, you were four minutes exactly. I am sorry, colleagues; these things are a nightmare to chair because other colleagues pull out at the last minute, but I can now up you to five minutes until further notice. [Laughter.] Seriously, if you put in for these debates, do try and turn up. As you have just seen, a colleague has been discriminated against because of another colleague’s failure to show. I call Angus MacNeil.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and to hear that we are getting an extra minute. I recall that you and I entered Parliament at the same time, so it adds to the joy. As a co-sponsor of this important debate, along with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing it. I associate myself with his words about David Linkie, the Fishing News editor, who seemed to be ever-present at fishing exhibitions in Glasgow whenever I went there over the years.
Before I go much further, I would like to mention the Norwegian fishing deal and UK fisheries. I have a letter from Sir Barney White-Spunner, who points out:
“The recent…deal with Norway heaps more pain on an already hamstrung distant waters fleet. At the same time that Norway removed our right to fish for cod in its waters, the UK has given them the right to sell the self-same cod without any tariff at all to UK chippies. In effect the UK government has given the Norwegians the greater part of our market overnight and achieved nothing in return for English fishermen. We are calling on the government to apply a temporary trade remedy to bring the Norwegians back to the negotiating table.”
That deserves to be highlighted and brought to the fore in this debate. Many in the fishing industry in all parts of the UK are suffering quite badly.
I do not want to mention too much—I know I have been given five minutes, but I hope I will be under that time—but I want to talk about the cost and bureaucracy involved in fisheries at the moment. Before Brexit, three quarters of Scottish fishermen’s exports went to the European Union, but there has been an almost exponential rise in costs. Barratlantic, a local fish factory in my constituency, tells me that whereas a mere delivery note used to suffice, it now needs a catch certificate, packing lists and commodity codes, scientific names on consignments, a commercial invoice and an import and export declaration form. It pays the French Government VAT at 5.5%, and it also needs a health certificate. With the health certificate and all the rest, it needs to bring to the fore about eight pieces of paper before it starts exporting, whereas a delivery note once used to suffice.
The upshot is that the export cost to get a product to the continent has trebled from 32p per kilo to around £1 a kilo. Whereas consignments could be sent in three to four pallets, they now have to be sent in pallet loads of 10 to make matters viable and economical. Obviously, that affects the bottom line of many businesses. The Government really have to look quickly at ways of streamlining.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and I have been in touch with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on several occasions to try to get these matters streamlined so that multiple data entries and paperwork are not required. Some things could and should be digitised to enable the transfer of data from one place to the other without the onerous time. The eight pieces of paper that I have mentioned translate into a lot of hours and cost for people who need to get their product to the important markets where we export three quarters of our product.
The final thing I will mention is the £100 million scheme that was promised in January, although apparently the Scottish Government are still waiting for details of that compensation for fishing. Hopefully, the UK Government will be awake and quickly moving on that, because six to seven months has passed and things in Government often move slowly. However, the big promises were there and the big promises should be delivered. The promises were there because of the incompetence that was rained upon those selling fish produce to continental Europe as a result of Brexit and the deal that was struck, which meant all that bureaucracy had come into play.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Charles, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate, which I believe is the first fisheries debate that has been held since the signing of the trade and co-operation agreement at the turn of the year. Taking into account the fact that fisheries was centre-stage in the Brexit debate, it is long overdue.
Normally, we have fisheries debates immediately before the annual fisheries negotiations with the EU; straight afterwards, there is invariably a statement in the main Chamber when the Minister announces the outcome of those negotiations and Members have the opportunity to ask questions on behalf of their communities. This year, these particular negotiations, which were historic because they were the first conducted by the UK as an independent coastal state, were understandably concluded only last month, yet it appears that they have been conducted behind a wall of silence. There was no opportunity for colleagues to raise concerns beforehand and there has been no formal and full Government statement since.
The main headline seeping out of the negotiations is that it was agreed that the tonnage limits for the total allowable catch for non-quota species would not be enforced this year. That primarily advantages the EU fleet, it will lead to increased effort in fishing grounds that are already under enormous pressure and it will damage the English inshore fleet. That is hardly an auspicious start to the management of our own waters and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address that concern in her summing up.
Brexit provides an opportunity to manage our waters in a better and more responsible way, for the benefit of both the marine environment and local people in coastal communities, such as Lowestoft. Around the UK that can play an important role in levelling up, and internationally we can be a global exemplar.
In East Anglia, the fishing industry came together with local councils, Seafish and the New Anglia local enterprise partnership to produce a report—the Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries study, or REAF. The recommendations of that report have been adapted as a result of the disappointing outcome of the Brexit negotiations and I shall briefly highlight some of the revised proposals.
First, it is important that our fishing stocks are sustainably managed to bring economic benefits to local coastal communities. In the short term, the management of the under-10 metre pool system should be improved to better support the inshore fleet. That requires the Marine Management Organisation to change its approach to trading and valuing quota for the pool.
Secondly, the Government must ban bottom-trawling in marine protected areas, especially on the Dogger Bank. They should also look to restrict engine power in MPAs, which would not only safeguard our fisheries for future generations but reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Thirdly, the southern North sea should be managed as a mixed species fishery, with quota allocations and catch limits in line with the requirements of the discard ban. Funding and practical support should be provided to enable fishermen to trial new types of gear designed to minimise by-catch.
Finally, we need to make more use of data to better manage conflicts between fishing and other marine activities, such as wind farms. That can lead to arrangements that better manage the impact of displacement, which can have devastating impacts on local communities.
In conclusion, we have the opportunity—a golden opportunity—to put in place a world-class system of fisheries management. We have not yet grasped that opportunity. However, I hope and anticipate that, in her summing up, my hon. Friend the Minister will lay out the route map that will enable us to do that.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Just for the record, the next speaker on the list, the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall), was added in error; he is not a withdrawal. He is due to speak in a debate later today.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Sir Charles; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing today’s debate. The comments by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) were extremely pertinent—I am very much aware that he is in the party of Government and I am in the party of the Opposition, so perhaps I can express things in slightly different way, but I think his comments were very useful.
Having now come on to the theme of being in one of the Opposition parties, I hope that the Government will apologise to the UK fishing community for the disruption that has marked our departure from the EU, from the start up to the present day. There was, of course, no oven-ready deal. The Government left our fishing industry, and especially the Welsh shellfish industry, high and dry. Overnight, Welsh producers were cut off from their main export market, and that debilitating uncertainty is ongoing. Questions remain about how water is classified and the impact of that on the shellfish industry, particularly in England and Wales.
After years of promising control over our seas, the UK Government folded on the issue of access to UK waters. With asymmetrical interests within the UK fishing industry on access, perhaps one obvious route would be to better involve the Welsh Government in negotiations with the EU, so that we can ensure equitable and sustainable access to Welsh and European waters. However, I understand that the UK Government have seen fit to include the territorial waters of south Wales in an access region stretching from Grimsby in Lincolnshire, around the southern English coast and Cornwall, to Fishguard. Historically, only 10 EU vessels were licensed to operate in south Wales’ waters under the old area regime system. This huge new region opens up Welsh waters to 120 licensed EU vessels.
There is a series of questions here. Could the Minister explain why Wales’ devolved control over our territorial waters appears to have been swept aside? Were the Welsh Government consulted? Did they give up the means to manage conservation of Welsh fish stocks voluntarily, or did the Minister’s Government impose this action without consultation or consent? In addition, what assessment has the Minister made of the potential effect of displacement on Wales, especially on non-quota species, as the UK Government introduce marine conservation zones and highly protected marine areas around England?
If English vessels cannot fish locally, there is a real risk that they will put unsustainable pressure on Welsh stocks because of the Government’s actions. Equally pressing is the challenge of displacement facing our fishing communities as a result of a combination of measures, including a huge expansion in the area devoted to offshore wind farms and improved protection for marine environments. While the Welsh Government have control over marine protection—allegedly—they do not have control over the seabed on which offshore wind developments depend.
One solution would be devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales, as has happened in Scotland. That action would further holistic fisheries management in Wales and support not only our decarbonisation efforts, but the viability of our fishing industry. While I welcome the co-operation between the UK and devolved Governments on joint policy statements, it is essential that such co-operation is grounded in dialogue.
I cannot overstate this: the fishing industry has the knowledge and the vested interests to make conservation work, not from a distant office, but from the living environment of the sea. That would prevent a repeat of the key flaws within the common fisheries policy, such as the landing obligation, and would ensure that fair and sustainable practices were supported across the UK industry. I would particularly welcome any comment by the Minister on how the UK Government are addressing the issue of unlicensed fishing in UK waters, and what support they are offering to the Welsh Government on that issue.
I hope that today’s debate will improve the UK Government’s awareness and responsiveness to the challenges facing both the Welsh and the UK fishing industry, and I would welcome the opportunity to take these matters further in a meeting with the Minister. Diolch yn fawr.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing the debate. He and others have outlined the challenges faced by the industry, which impact communities across the UK, including the East Neuk of Fife in North East Fife, which I represent.
There is no doubt that fishing has faced and is facing a number of issues. Some of them are longer term, such as changes in consumer taste, the impact of overfishing and the climate emergency. I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), expressing her faith in the expertise of the industry to help tackle that climate impact. We know that the short-term and more acute factors are covid over the past year and a half and Brexit. If we look to future management—the topic of the debate—it is clear that those two are the most critical and acute.
Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who will speak later, I serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which has had three sessions, since the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, specifically focused on food and drink and fishing. At the first session, in February, attended by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) in his role as Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, representatives of the industry outlined a profound sense of disappointment, anxiety and betrayal about how the Government had handled the UK’s departure from the EU in respect of the industry.
The only hope for the future expressed by those representatives at that first session was for the negotiations in 2026 to be handled differently. It was clear that the impact on the industry was now acute and distressing, and that the Government are wholly to blame for that position. Export areas such as groupage have been impacted, which suggests that there has been no assessment of the impact, and that the fishing industry has been made lots of promises but left to fend for itself. No grace period was granted, despite requests. The industry had less than two weeks to respond with a plan related to the EU agreement.
At the second session, in April, I asked Donna Fordyce whether the Scottish and UK Governments were doing enough to progress electronic transmissions—to help move bulk market exports—and streamlining, which would reduce those errors. We again raised the issue of longer-term plans, particularly around funding. I echo the request to the Minister by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney for more detail on what funding might look like. Elspeth Macdonald pointed out at that session that 60% of landings are in Scotland, and that that needs to be reflected in funding.
As others have outlined, having left the common fisheries policy, the industry still seems to be impacted by that, plus further restrictions brought about by our third-country status in relation to the EU. For example, regarding the haddock quota that we had under the common fisheries policy, the 57% that the Government obtained during the Brexit deal as a result of in-year quota swaps was a 5% cut in quota for that type of fish. We clearly need progress on in-year quota swaps, not just for this year but moving into 2022, so that the industry does not make further losses.
Although agreement has been reached in 2021, it is clear that a lack of progress for future years is critical. What is the progress for 2022? The likely risk is a knock-on effect. Will negotiations for that start next month, as discussed and expected at the Scottish Affairs Committee?
Hon. Members will have often heard a famous quotation by the American poet Maya Angelou, which is usually very motivational:
“People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”
I would ask the Minister and the Government to reflect on how the fishery industry is feeling as a result of the past 18 months.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
The next speaker withdrew with plenty of notice, so did not secure the ire of the Chair. We now move to Mr Stone.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this highly important debate—one that is very important to my constituents. As an aside, I have to say that I am personally very grateful that my right hon. Friend is where he is, because he has a considerable knowledge of fisheries from his constituency and that is very helpful to me. I do not have as great a knowledge, which is why I am glad that he is where he is.
I want to use three examples to underpin what I am about to say. The first is that of a gentleman whom I have mentioned before in this place. I had a conversation with him this morning. He is Mr William Calder, the owner of Scrabster Seafoods—the Minister and I have spoken about this gentleman. Today, Mr Calder has put it to me pretty starkly by saying that the cost of getting a 30 kg box of fish, such as monkfish, to his market in Brittany has just about doubled, and that is really eating into his business. It is a local business that employs locally, and it has been in existence for some time. By coincidence, yesterday he had an email from one of his hauliers, saying, “I am really sorry. Because of the situation and the way business has dwindled a bit, we are going to have to up our prices to move your fish from A to B.” Then there is something that I have mentioned several times: every hour and every day of delay cuts into the product being sellable at the end of it all, because absolute freshness is key. So that is Mr William Calder, my good friend, and anything that we can do to help him would be very welcome indeed. I shall return to him in a couple of minutes.
The second person I want to mention is my friend Mr Peter Sinclair, whom I have mentioned to the Minister before. He is the owner of a fishing trawler called the Reaper, and he has made the point to me that a boat owner is more likely to be inspected if they are British than if they are a foreigner. By means of a freedom of information request, my party has established that the stats say that a British boat owner is five times more likely to be inspected than a French or Spanish owner, which is not good.
That takes me to my third gentleman, who has had considerable newspaper coverage, not least in the Thunderer—The Times. Mr Ian Mackay is the skipper of the Loch Inchard. At the beginning of June, he rightly highlighted a most unfortunate incident—the sort of incident that my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland has referred to—whereby he went to his fishing ground expecting to be trawling, only to find that French boats, and sadly some boats flying the British flag, had established long lines. That meant that they pretty abruptly told him to get out of it and that he could not trawl, because he would damage their fishing gear. Eventually, after much aggressive toing and froing, he established an area of the ocean where he could trawl, but that sort of aggressive behaviour is simply not on.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, where is this going to end? Mr Mackay had boats cutting across his bows. We could well end up with deaths at sea, and that is something we cannot possibly countenance. I return to Mr Peter Sinclair, who has suggested to me that we should look seriously at some form of penalty for boats that have indulged in that sort of behaviour. Possibly an effective penalty would be to ban them from landing their fish in a British port. That would need to happen only once, and they would soon learn their lesson.
If we could have a meeting with the Minister, that would be very helpful indeed. I compliment the Minister on having had conversations in the past—I give credit where it is due—but promises were made to the fishermen about compensation and trying to sort out the problems, so I echo others’ call for a roundtable meeting involving the industry. That would be best. I have mentioned Mr Sinclair, Mr Mackay and Mr Calder because I know them personally from face-to-face discussions. If we have a roundtable discussion, it is absolutely important that they are at the table and are not just being spoken to remotely by an agency. I am afraid that Marine Scotland can seem a little remote in the way that it deals with fishermen. I am not aware that it has too many face-to-face conversations. I hope I am wrong in that; if I am wrong, I apologise, but that is the impression I get.
For your amusement, Sir Charles, I come from fisherfolk from the Black Isle on the highland side of our family. I think I might be the only Member in this place who actually once worked in a fish factory—I spent a winter in the Faroe Islands. We are a maritime nation. Salt is in our blood. Fish is good for the health of the nation. For hundreds of years we have taken our fisherman very seriously and we feel we owe them a debt. Now is the time for us collectively to pay that debt to them and show just how much we value them. They are brave people doing a difficult job. We do not want their lives to be made any worse.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be able to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. Let me start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael); we have a good tradition of following one another in debates, and it is always a pleasure to hear him speak with such knowledge on this issue.
I recently arrived at Westminster and am privileged to represent Brixham, Salcombe and Dartmouth, which have fine fishing fleets and a fine fishing tradition, which I hope I will ably represent in this place. I also pay tribute to David Linkie; I did not know him, but I did see his work and I know how much he meant to the industry. On that note, I also pay tribute to Jim Portus, who has stepped down as the head of the South Western Fish Producer Organisation, and I wish Juliette Hatchman the best of luck in taking on that new role. She will certainly have a number of us to deal with in the south-west.
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point that there is an opportunity for the fishing industry and there must be political will. At the same time, we must ensure that we are not playing party politics with this issue, because there are opportunities in leaving the European Union, one of which has recently been recognised. The Minister knows that all too well because I have been knocking on her door almost daily about it. It relates to bivalve molluscs and the gradations of our waters, and the fact that the Food Standards Agency has moved significantly in the last eight months to allow us to challenge anomalous results. Each of our constituencies will be impacted differently by that, but it is extremely welcome to see how we can move at pace. After organisations have been asking for those changes for 30 years, we have managed to see some of them come through in eight months. I hope we might see a little bit more of that approach. We can never give certainty, but we can look at reforming our domestic legislation and providing opportunities for the fishing fleets in our coastal communities.
The second point I would like to make is about highly protected marine areas and the Benyon review. I understand the point that Lord Benyon is making in the review, but we must also have faith in our fishermen to look after their waters. They want future generations to be able to make money and have a business and a livelihood; they want to look after their waters and their coastlines as much as we do. Whatever we do with highly protected marine areas, we must make sure it is in conjunction, co-operation and discussion with the fishing fleets.
I hope the Minister and the team at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will engage with as many people in this place and outside Westminster to find the right balance, so that we can operate in highly protected marine areas in a way that will work. There is also a move on the environmental side of offshore wind farms, which are also heating up.
In a rare moment of cross-party unity, I find myself in agreement with the Chair of the International Trade Committee, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) about the maritime fisheries fund, which I believe has now been replaced by the fisheries and seafood scheme—FaSS—about the £100 million. DEFRA has been generous about that, but it does not mean anything until it is produced. I appreciate that the Department has to jump through hoops with the Treasury, but a lot of people have been waiting close to seven or eight months to hear when that will happen.
Speaking of certainty, we have a transition period. We have an opportunity to provide a degree of certainty to the industry about what our future relationship with the European Union will be after 2026. I hope we can begin that process of reassurance, build up the opportunity to develop our fleet in our coastal communities and ensure that people understand where we are going and why the trade and co-operation agreement we have now is what it is. There is room for opportunity.
The Minister was very kind and gracious to come down to Brixham; unfortunately, I was not able to be there, but I know she met a number of my constituents. She will have heard a great deal about non-total allowable catch species. We need further discussions about what goes beyond 2021, because right now there is uncertainty. The disparity between what EU vessels can catch in our waters and what we can catch in their waters is of grave concern. There is a lot more we can do.
Two specialised trade committees have been established that will be linked to fishing: the first is on sanitary and phytosanitary measures and the second is on just fishing. How will those committees be set up, who will be put on them and what representation will there be from Westminster and DEFRA? The committees offer us an enormous opportunity to streamline the process of ensuring that we can get our exports up to where they need to be, which so many other Members have raised as a point of concern.
To end on a positive note, I received the statistics this morning from Brixham fish market. It is now earning £800,000 per week. In previous years, it was £300,000 to £400,000. It is selling 40% up on previous years. It is looking forward to a very prosperous summer. I know that is not the case universally across the United Kingdom, but it is worth noting that my fishermen in Brixham, England’s most valuable fishing port, are painting a very positive picture. I was asked the other day what they were doing on 5 November and they said: “We built the effigy of you, but we are just deciding whether to burn it.” I have been told they are not intending to quite yet.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
There is plenty of time for them to reconsider that, though, isn’t there?
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Sir Charles, for this morning’s important debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing it.
Since 2016, the Government have repeatedly told fishing communities that there is a post-Brexit bonanza waiting for them, famously describing it as a sea of opportunity. In preparing for today’s debate, I contacted four fishing businesses in four different parts of my Argyll and Bute constituency to ask them exactly what that sea of opportunity had delivered to them. I spoke to Jonathan MacAllister, a trawler owner and skipper who fishes out of Oban; Connie Macaskill, the office manager of Easdale Seafoods; Fiona McFarlane, director of Islay Crab Exports; and Jamie McMillan, the owner of Lochfyne Langoustines. From Oban in the north to Islay in the south, they all tell a story of an industry struggling with falling prices and loss of markets, an industry drowning in bureaucracy and red tape, and one struggling to cope with labour shortages and facing huge transport and logistical problems. That is an existential threat to the industry in the west coast of Scotland.
Jonathan MacAllister has seen the price he gets for his catch fall by a third since 2019. The routine of landing his catch at Kilkeel in Northern Ireland is now time consuming and wrapped up in customs paperwork and red tape. That is assuming he can get a crew to go in the first place, as the new skilled worker visa is actually more of a hindrance than a help in recruiting non-domestic crew. He now struggles to get spare parts for his boat. The engine is American, it is distributed via Holland, the refrigeration unit is German, the condensers are Italian and the boat’s electronic control unit is manufactured in Denmark. He can no longer get vital spare parts quickly and cost- effectively, while the cost of delivery has soared too.
A few miles down the road at Easdale Seafoods, Connie Macaskill’s office manager job now requires a forensic knowledge of French customs and VAT regulations. Like so many other small exporters, Easdale Seafoods has had to adapt quickly to change its practices and has spent an awful lot of money just to stay afloat in this sea of opportunity. Although fish are zero-rated for VAT, Easdale Seafoods still has to pay VAT in advance and then reclaim it from the French authorities, which use the single euro payments area business-to-business scheme. However, very few banks in the UK are set up to use SEPA B2B and currently, this very small Scottish company has thousands of euros tied up with the French VAT authorities and has no idea when it is getting them back.
Like many Scottish seafood exporters, the shortage of qualified heavy goods vehicle drivers has added another layer of complication for Easdale Seafoods. It is the same on Islay. Fiona McFarlane’s company, Islay Crab Exports, is suffering from the lack of qualified HGV drivers, but that is just one of the Brexit-related problems facing the business. More pressing is a shortage of workers. Jobs that were once filled by EU nationals now lie unfilled and the business needs double the number of processors that it currently has. Fiona told me yesterday: “We have worked hard building our business and have invested in the future. I desperately need people to work. There are people who want to come and work, but it is just not possible.”
We live in an economically fragile constituency, and the situation is unsustainable. It was laid out starkly by Jimmy McMillan of Lochfyne Langoustines. He employs 23 people in the village of Tarbert. He exports about 40%, the cost of getting that to market has soared and three hours of every day is spent dealing with Brexit-related paperwork. His costs are £300 to £500 a day in customs fees alone. That is the reality of Brexit for the fishing communities of Argyll and Bute. That is the reality of the “sea of opportunity”. That is why we voted against Brexit.
I will leave the final word to Fiona MacFarlane:
“If people had all the information and knowledge of what Brexit really meant, they would have voted differently. Someone should be held accountable to the country for misleading the people.”
She is absolutely right.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Last but not least from the Back Benches, Mr Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Sir Charles, and I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for setting the scene.
I am pleased to speak in a fisheries debate. I represent the village of Portavogie in my constituency. I am familiar with it. At the advice centre there fishermen give me their updates every month on the issues that are hurting them and the fishing sector. I am also pleased to speak on behalf of many fishermen across Northern Ireland—not just those in Portavogie but those in Annalong, Ardglass and Kilkeel as well—because they come to me with those issues through the fishing organisations.
Some good news to start with reached Northern Ireland on Friday afternoon: an email from the Marine Management Organisation advised fishermen that access to Ireland’s inshore waters—those between nought and six nautical miles off shore—had been restored, thus reflecting their traditional fishing patterns around the island. Some 140 fishing vessels from Northern Ireland and some 190 fishing vessels from the Republic of Ireland have been licensed to fish in each other’s waters. That is just getting things back into line again on that one issue.
I always start with the good news, before any other news, which is perhaps not as positive. Part of the hard sea border erected against our fishermen has been removed, and we are grateful for the efforts of all involved in securing that. We must now redouble our efforts to restore access for all Northern Ireland and southern Irish fishermen to territorial seas round the island of Ireland, especially between six and 12 nautical miles offshore.
An irony of the trade and co-operation agreement, the TCA, is that access to territorial waters inside the 12 nautical miles for EU fishermen was written into the agreement in an area stretching from the Humber to Saint David’s head in Wales. Mutual access is not available for UK fishermen to access waters off the County Cork coast, in waters known as ICES—International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—sub-area 7.g. Regardless of the historical nature of the fishing industries in both parts of the island of Ireland and the call to avoid a hard border on the island, access for our fishermen in Northern Ireland—from my port of Portavogie, and Ardglass and Kilkeel—has been denied.
Last Friday’s announcement, therefore, was a partial fix and I repeat calls to the Minister. I have the utmost respect for her and—I say this honestly—she is very responsive to the issues that I bring to her attention, and to the fishing organisations, and we really appreciate that. I want to put that on the record. I again call on the Minister to seek a resolution. I ask her to make this matter a top priority at the UK-EU specialised joint committee on fisheries.
What we are seeing in the Irish sea as a result of the hard fisheries sea border is displacement of fishing effort. Geographically speaking, the Irish sea is a small area and increasing competition for space is bringing all kinds of pressures to bear. At least 80% of the UK’s fishing effort throughout the Irish sea emanates from Northern Ireland, but sometimes, regretfully, at least a perception exists that there is a communication problem between the statutory authorities in England and the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. Again, I call on the Minister to ensure that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Natural England and the marine planning division of the MMO all fully engage with industry representatives in Northern Ireland.
I again wish to commend the Minister for being in contact and working with the Northern Ireland Fishermen’s Federation, in particular Alan McCulla and Harry Wick under the NIFF banner. It is a good relationship, which is working, although perhaps we need to tighten it up a wee bit.
I also call on the Minister to encourage our officials in the various statutory authorities to give more than simple lip service to terms such as “adaptive management” or “co-management scheme”. Nature is an evolving ecosystem and its management must not be set in concrete for generations to come. I want to reflect on what was said earlier about the management of MPAs, which complicates fisheries management, as does the construction of offshore wind farms. Increasingly, the eastern Irish sea is presenting itself as one giant offshore energy generation scheme. The Crown Estate’s fourth round of offshore leasing reinforces a squeeze on fishing operations in the Irish sea. There is a real danger that these developments are impinging on fish spawning and nursery grounds. It is not good enough to tell fishermen to reduce or move their fishing activities through the MPA process, when that creates a sense that they have been told to move on to make space for windfarm developers.
Over the past few years, ICES set out to track ecosystem interactions in the Irish sea, through its WKIrish programme—the workshop on an ecosystem-based approach to fishery management for the Irish sea—without, it would seem, any further discussion on how the ecosystem model could be incorporated into fisheries management. This point was raised last week at the UK sea fisheries science panel, with reference to an annual briefing to industry and other stakeholders about the ICES fisheries science advice for 2020. Perhaps the Minister could respond on that point as well.
Fisheries management boils down to livelihoods. We talk about the quota system. How that dividend is allocated within the UK has not been finally settled. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will soon be launching a further consultation on the allocation in 2022. Fishermen in Northern Ireland were let down by the allocation methodology used in 2021. We know that the Secretary of State is supportive of zonal management, but, like him, the Minister is well aware that that would penalise Northern Ireland because our maritime economic zone is small. I suggest to the Minister that, if special cases can be made for other parts of the UK—for example, Wales; I welcome that—a similar case should be made for Northern Ireland, given its relatively small part of the UK quota share.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) spoke about Norway. I will not repeat that, as time does not allow. Will overfishing of mackerel by Norway result in reduced catches for UK fishermen? That is practical fisheries management in action.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
We now have 10 minutes each for the Front-Bench spokespeople. We start with Deidre Brock for the SNP.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I commend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this timely debate today, in which I am very pleased to participate. He began by setting out the staggering number of problems that fishing organisations are experiencing. He spoke of the promises made, by the Prime Minister downwards, to the fishing industry—promises broken, with little regard for the impact. He posed a question from a young fisher of his acquaintance that I found particularly telling—why is the fishing industry having to fight its own Government to survive? That is a very good question.
Numerous Members have outlined details of the great difficulty being experienced by those in the fishing industry. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland commented, the anger and frustration felt by fishing communities is palpable. It certainly is among those representatives who have been in touch with me.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made some interesting points. As he said, this debate has been a long time coming, and there has been a lack of transparency around this year’s negotiations—in comparison, ironically, with what happened when the UK was still part of the EU. I would be pleased if the Minister could address that issue.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) called for apologies to the fishing industry and commented on Wales’s devolved control being swept aside, which is something we are certainly familiar with in Scotland. I note her calls for devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales, as has occurred in Scotland. My understanding from industry representatives is that relationships have improved considerably since that happened in Scotland, so I would certainly encourage her to pursue that aim.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) made an excellent speech. He spoke of an existential threat to the fishing industry. His words were brimming throughout with a deep knowledge of the problems being experienced by businesses in his constituency and the harshness of the impact of Brexit on those businesses.
What of the sunlit uplands of Brexit? What a mess has been made of people’s lives in the name of taking back control. It was a nonsense, pursued by an unthinking herd of populist and arrogant politicians. It is causing massive damage. Some of us predicted damage, but I do not think any of us grasped just how bad it would be.
It has been particularly bad for Scotland’s food and drink industry, as we have heard, and for smaller producers, especially, who have seen their overseas markets disappear. Fishing got a huge skelping and it is not really feasible to transport fresh fish halfway round the world to sell into the Australian market, no matter how fabulous a deal the Government think they have done.
Fishing is, of course, a far more important industry for Scotland than it is for England, so it was a prime candidate for the flinging-under-the-bus treatment during the Brexit negotiations—and that is what happened. Now, there is no sea of opportunity, no easy access to the EU markets and no help from Government. They will say that there is £100 million available, but where is it, how is it being distributed and how come we are not getting any details? Even more importantly, do the Brexit Government think that that is enough to compensate for the damage that is being done to the industry?
When damage is done to the industry, it affects not just the crews on the boats but the communities back on land, many of which, certainly in Scotland, are sustained by fishing. Removing the industry will remove the lifeblood from those communities. Scotland’s coastal communities could be facing the same devastation in the 2020s that Thatcher’s Governments visited upon the industrial towns of Scotland’s central belt.
I am aware that this Government will not listen to the voices calling for action. We are well used to the sneering contempt from the Leader of the House, the airy-headed enthusiasm of the International Trade Secretary and the blank refusal of the DEFRA Secretary to acknowledge problems. Week after week, we hear the Prime Minister refusing to acknowledge the problems that are so evident to the rest of us.
Before Brexit, three quarters of Scotland’s seafood exports went to the EU, bringing in revenues of over £600 million in 2019. Since Brexit, those exports have been held up by red tape and logjams at the ports. Our fleets are still subject to the common fisheries policy, thanks to the atrocious deal negotiated by the UK Government. Members do not have to believe me that it is a terrible deal; they just have to ask the guy who negotiated it. Lord Frost thinks it is a terrible deal, too—that is one bowl of Frosties that is anything but terrific.
The Food and Drink Federation has produced figures showing that EU sales have all but halved—a £2 billion loss to the UK economy right there. These are not teething troubles. They are disasters happening in real time under the view of a Government that do not give a damn. It is clear that the Government had no idea what Brexit would bring and had not thought about the difficulties that would be put in the way of traders. They gave no consideration to the complex administration that takes hours of extra time—hours precious to the small and medium-sized enterprises that make up the bulk of the sector—or to the need for customs agents, health certificates and battling miles of bureaucratic red tape, the extra costs fishers now bear for fishing gear supplies, or the delays and extra costs of now exporting not just to the EU but to Northern Ireland. I now hear that Danish and Irish sectors are, unsurprisingly, picking up the lost UK market and that they are seen as more stable suppliers after confidence in the UK drains away.
We should not allow the Government to forget the difficulties that their hostile environment approach to immigration is causing the sector. Non-domestic crew who are brought over to Scotland under the new skilled worker system are being sent back because they fail the advanced English exam required of skilled workers, which comes at a great cost to skippers, who are left with no crew. The UK Government must look urgently at where they can usefully intervene to resolve that issue.
In September 2020, I remember being shouted down by virtually every Member present on Second Reading of the Fisheries Bill for daring to say that it was in no fit state to be passed any time soon. I gave a number of reasons, the primary one being that we had no idea what sort of deal the UK’s Brexit negotiators would arrive at or what the fall-out would be. Well, we ken noo, as they say in my neck of the woods.
I read again the Secretary of State’s speech at the start of that debate. It was stirring stuff—some would say a triumph of starry-eyed optimism over actual knowledge and foresight—pummelling once again the CFP punch-bag, though forbearing to mention the many advantages the EU brought in the way of open markets and easy access, and, ironically, lambasting it for its
“anachronistic methodology for sharing quota”,
which we are still largely subject to, and the
“uncontrolled access to UK waters for EU vessels.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 65.]
Which, again, we are still basically subject to.
We were told that the Bill gave the UK powers that were needed irrespective of the Brexit outcome—powers that have ultimately come to nothing as fishing interests were sold away in those negotiations. I look forward to reading in years to come the close analysis of those deliberations and exactly how hard the negotiators fought for our fishing communities’ interests. That information will surely come out, as will, perhaps, a published account of the meeting between the Secretary of State, his officials and several blazingly angry fishing representatives after the truly terrible outcome of the Brexit agreement was finally made public.
It is actually quite useful to go back over that Second Reading debate to remind myself of the deception practised on our fishing communities by the Government and many of their MPs. Were Back Benchers really as convinced as they sounded then of the benefits of Brexit? I remind hon. Members of what one Conservative Member said during that debate:
“Only the SNP could take a sea of opportunity and turn it into an ocean of division.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 93.]
I will return the favour now and say that only the hated Tories, with their hearts of stone, could pledge to the fishing communities of Scotland a bonanza, and then just shrug as it turned into a sludge of mendacity.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for the way he introduced this debate. This is a deeply political area. It genuinely matters, and it is important that we do not take cheap shots because people’s livelihoods depend on it. The way in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced this debate shows why he is held in such high regard by Members on both sides of the House.
I would also like to pay my respects on behalf of the Labour party to the friends and family of David Linkie. It is really important that we have robust journalism on fishing at this time, especially because so many promises have been made and so many promises have been broken. It is important that those people who serve fishing communities, both in this place in elected roles and in journalism, are as professional and thorough as David was, so I pay tribute to him.
As this is a fisheries debate, although not the annual fisheries debate that the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) from Waveney mentioned, I would also like to pay tribute to all the fishers who go to sea every single day to catch our food—it is the most dangerous peacetime occupation and they deserve our thanks—as well as organisations such as the coastguard and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which exist to save lives at sea. I support all efforts to continue allowing them to legally save lives at sea. If someone is drowning in the channel, they should have a legal right to save them. Sadly, that is not the Government’s current position with the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, and I hope that the Minister, in support of saving lives at sea—something so important for this debate—will have words with the Home Office to say that saving lives, wherever they come from, is the right thing to do.
Anthony Mangnall
I think the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the National Coastwatch Institution, which is made up of thousands of volunteers, has extraordinary stations and does so much of the good work he has mentioned.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say thank you to my stepmother, who is one of those officers along the coast in Boscastle in North Cornwall. I thank him for that.
This is a debate that has been prompted by Brexit. It is because of the promises made by Ministers about fishing—the sea of opportunity, the additional fish—that we are here today. It is interesting that those who attended these debates before Brexit have not always done so after Brexit. Having made the case for Brexit, and then made the case for a harder form of Brexit, many of them are not here to stand up for their fishing communities in the way that those communities now need. As a small but perfectly formed representation of the south-west, we know that that is really important and we need to do it.
The betrayal of the promise on the six to 12 nautical miles is something that fishers find unforgivable. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) was right to say that we should assess this on how fishers feel. Well, let me tell you: fishers feel betrayed, they feel abandoned and they feel lied to. That is because they have been betrayed, they have been abandoned, and in many cases they were lied to by prominent people whom they respected because of the offices they held and whom they believed would tell the truth, when that was not always the case. That is why the Members in this room, whom I genuinely believe care about their fishing communities regardless of which party they are in, must now clear up the mess that has been made by the Prime Minister and his botched Brexit deal. If we do not, fishing businesses will go under, and that is simply unforgivable.
I want to address a number of issues and to pick out others that have been raised by colleagues. The first is the plight of small boats. Throughout this debate, hon. Members have alluded to the extra difficulties for those people who work on our small boat fleet—the backbone of the British fishing fleet. In 2019, the Seafarers UK report, “Fishing Without a Safety Net”, found that many of those small businesses were struggling to afford the vital safety equipment that has been put in place. I very much enjoyed the Minister’s foreword to that report, which said:
“Small-scale fishing is a cornerstone of local coastal communities around our shores.”
She was right then and she is right now, but that is why I am so confused about why so much of the support provided by the Government throughout the covid period went to large fishing companies and not to the smaller fishing companies. So much potential help for those small businesses escaped them because of technicalities and because the people who sat on those boards did not value sufficiently those small boats and initiatives such as the brilliant Call4Fish, which came from Plymouth and helps provide those small boats with a domestic market. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, those small businesses were subsequently penalised because of how those rules were drawn up. I do not think that that is right. The hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) is right to say that the delays in bringing forward that money are unacceptable. The Minister and I will no doubt pick that up when we discuss the statutory instrument on MMO funding tomorrow morning. It is unacceptable that, eight months after we left the European Union, fishers have not been paid the money that was promised to them. Ministers need to sort that out pretty fast.
Ministers have been speedy to enforce on those small boats the catch app—a needless piece of home-grown, Conservative digital bureaucracy that is sinking many of those businesses. The catch app requires fishers to weigh their fish before they are landed, on scales that do not exist on small boats and that are not marinised. When those same fish are landed and get put through a grading machine, the same information is provided. We know that handling fish for extra time reduces their quality and price, yet the Government are forcing needless Conservative digital bureaucracy on fishers. It is simply nonsense, and I encourage the Minister to please look at that again.
I am also really concerned that much of the so-called windfall stock—the uplift in fish quota—does not exist. They are paper fish, deliberately enhanced and inflated in the stock assessments leading up to Brexit. We will not get them. I am not convinced that we are getting those extra fish; indeed, because of problems with quota swaps and with the science, many of our fishers up and down the coast are now seeing reduced quota. It is not the sea of opportunity that they were promised.
The hon. Member for Waveney, who knows that I am a big fan of his, praised his REAF initiative, and I would also like to praise it. It is a great example of what happens when communities come together. There are similar examples around the country and he does a good job of promoting his.
I would like briefly to pick up on shellfish. We are facing the potential collapse of the shellfish industry because the Government failed to negotiate a proper export arrangement for our shellfish. Live bivalve molluscs are a really important part of the industry not just in the south-west and in Wales but right across our coast. It is simply not acceptable that they were excluded and that a solution has not been put in place. Simply blaming the EU was the tactic before we left the EU. We now need solutions, not blame. Simply reallocating class B waters does not make those waters any cleaner or any better. If anything, the Government are opening themselves up to legal risk by saying that these waters are no longer as dirty as they were. We need a proper solution to the issue of the export of live bivalve molluscs. If that does not happen, businesses in the south-west and around the country will go bust within months. That simply has to be addressed. I encourage the Minister to listen very carefully to Conservative, Labour and other party Members who represent coastal areas.
Luke Pollard
I will not at this time, I am afraid.
I had hoped to be able to raise a number of points. In the spirit of praising people when they get it right, I want to thank the supermarket Aldi for stocking British fish. They are mainly Plymouth-caught fish. Whenever we go down the meat aisle at a supermarket, we see flags aplenty—we see the heritage of where that meat comes from—but we do not see that down the fish aisle. Why is that? It is because we mainly export the fish we catch and import the fish we eat. At a time when the Government have made importing and exporting more complicated, more costly and more difficult, we need to buy and eat more of our own fish. Well done to Aldi for taking a punt on that. I encourage other supermarkets, which will no doubt have their monitoring alerts for this, to stop ignoring British fishers and to put British fish on their shelves.
The plight of the distant water fleet is often ignored. It is a sector of our economy that has been hugely betrayed. I pay tribute in particular to the Labour MPs in Hull, who have fought the case on behalf of our distant water fleet. Those fishers are a living, breathing example of the betrayal that has been perpetrated against them.
The Minister will know that Sir Charles, I and other Members of Parliament have an interest in the bluefin tuna catch-and-release trial, which will ensure that those wonderful, amazing fish are not simply caught and eaten when they are in our waters, but can be used to propel and support the recreational fishing industry. The announcement that the Minister was hoping to make about that is a few months overdue, so I would be grateful to her if she could touch on it.
We have not spoken much about non-quota species in the debate, but it is a really important area. Non-quota species are the financial foundation of our entire fishing sector, and the Government’s deal allows EU fishing boats to take and exploit our non-quota species. They have failed to negotiate a real-time transfer of data, so we cannot even see to what extent they are doing it. That needs to be resolved urgently, to support our small boat fleets.
On a point that I hope everyone in the House will welcome, the Minister for Digital and Culture, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), made an announcement today that will be a real boost for Plymouth. The campaign to have Plymouth Sound designated as the UK’s first national marine park—a campaign launched by a Labour MP, supported by the then Labour council, and now supported by a Conservative council—now has the support of the Government, with a £9.5 million boost that will support marine jobs and help bring our oceans and seas closer to people living on land. If we have learned anything from the debate, it is the fact that what happens at sea matters. We need more people to understand the fantastic array of marine life at sea, the importance and fragility of marine coastal habitats, and the importance of those jobs.
I want a proper debate on fisheries on the Floor of the House when we come back from the recess. I want to see proper, robust scrutiny ahead of any annual negotiations, which were mentioned by MPs on the Government side. Most of all, with an impending reshuffle and uncertainty about whether the Environment Secretary will still be in his place, I want the Prime Minister to apologise to fishers for the poor deal. I want him to take a personal interest in ensuring that those businesses do not go bust and in protecting the future of this industry. It is a brilliant industry and full of fantastic, innovative people. They deserve a proper plan to support their sector.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
And we shall support Aldi. Victoria Prentis, can you leave two minutes for Mr Carmichael at the end?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
Of course, Sir Charles. It is always a pleasure to take part in a fisheries debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for organising it with our friends on the Backbench Business Committee. I thank all who have spoken today. If I may class them together, they are a group of colleagues with whom I deal very frequently on fisheries matters—I would include you in that as well, Sir Charles. It is always good to hear from colleagues, and my door is always open. We have had many bilateral and trilateral meetings over the last few months, and I encourage colleagues to continue to get in touch on behalf of their fishing industries.
I pay tribute to the fishing industry for its resilience, and to all who work in the seafood supply chain. I am reminded of that by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who represents Peterhead and who is sitting in the Public Gallery. It has been a very difficult 18 months for the industry. The pandemic forced the closure of hospitality both at home and abroad, which has led to an abrupt loss of our markets. As we have heard again and again, exporters have had to adapt to the new conditions that we were subject to as we left the single market. On recent visits to Brixham—my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) was kind enough to mention that—and Grimsby, I met many people, including the great Jim Portus, who were really impressive and dedicated to this industry. Their expertise and knowledge will allow us to manage our fisheries in a way that is flexible and sustainable, and that enables us, I hope, to take advantage of our new opportunities.
On the future of fisheries management, there is a great deal to do about the administration. The 2018 fisheries White Paper laid the foundations for devising our new fisheries management rules. The Fisheries Act 2020 provides the regulatory framework. The TCA recognises the UK’s regulatory autonomy and that means that each of the four Administrations can reform fisheries management.
Fisheries management plans will allow better spatial management within a very complex marine environment, identifying where fishing can take place in an area while minimising environmental impact. We will start to develop our first fisheries management plans in England this year. We are also preparing a full list and timetable for the implementation of fisheries management plans in the joint fisheries statement that we plan to consult on in the autumn.
Quota was mentioned by many hon. Members, including the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. We have put in place a new method to apportion additional quota between the fisheries administrations. In England, we have allocated additional quota in 2021 based on a new method that gives the fleet segments of quota in the stocks that are important to them and also takes into account their capacity to fish that quota. My hon. Friend represents England very well, if I may say so—as do many hon. Members in this room and outside it—and he need have no fears on that front.
Quota swaps, which were also mentioned by many Members, are important. That is why the TCA provided for an in-year quota exchange mechanism, which will be established by the Specialised Committee on Fisheries. In the future, we expect quota exchanges just to be part of annual negotiations. I am very pleased to say that we have agreed with the EU an interim basis for fishing quota transfers, before the specialised committee establishes a longer-term mechanism.
The details are still being worked out, but we expect an exchange of lists to take place next week on 20 July, when the UK and the EU co-chair the first meeting of the specialised committee. Lord Frost has assured me and others that the devolved authorities and Crown dependencies will be fully involved in the process, which obviously matters to them. I am pleased to say that we have now got to a point of real resolution on this issue, and I know that many people within the fishing industry are working up—PO to PO—the details of exchanges at the moment.
On control and enforcement, which was also raised by many Members, we have a 24/7, effective and intelligence-led enforcement system, which is co-ordinated by the Joint Maritime Security Centre. In English waters, we have really increased resource dedicated to fisheries protection and we continue to work on this. We have made additional Government investment of £32 million in this space over the last three years. The MMO has doubled the number of marine enforcement officers since 2017, and it has two dedicated offshore patrol ships at sea and increased aerial surveillance. All this complements the existing electronic monitoring system. In terms of landings to inspect at sea, in the first six months of this year there were 228 inspections by the MMO at sea, of which 131 were on EU vessels.
The safety of the UK fleet remains our highest priority; the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has raised safety with me repeatedly and rightly, and I am always very keen to hear from him on it. We continue to monitor the presence and activity of vessels across our waters. I am aware of recent reports raised by the right hon. Gentleman and others of UK vessels being subject to bullying behaviour. It is really important, and I have stressed this to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and others in the past, that any such incidents are reported in real time, whenever possible. It is true that there is an area where, if the threshold for criminal activity is reached, UK police require, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the consent of the Home and Defence Secretaries and the flag state to take action. However, that does not preclude communications going straight to the vessel immediately, nor the gathering of evidence, which can be done by MMO officials, Marine Scotland officials or the police. That is why it is so important that these incidents are reported immediately.
That is a matter of great concern to both me and ministerial colleagues. I speak regularly about it to colleagues at the Department for Transport; we met at the end of last year to discuss it. We continue to work on a long-term solution. Last week was Naval and Maritime Security Week, which is a reminder that we need to continue to focus on this important issue. We work with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Seafish and the Fishing Industry Safety Group to lower the number of preventable accidents and deaths at sea.
I turn to funding. This year, the Government have spent £23 million on emergency compensation and £32 million on the replacement scheme for the European maritime and fisheries fund. We have also announced new funding, aligned with our reform of fisheries management.
The £100 million announced by the Prime Minister at the very end of last year will support investment to modernise and develop the seafood sector. It will focus on three pillars: infrastructure projects for the development and modernisation of ports, harbours and landing sites across the UK; the advancement and roll-out of science, innovation and technology across the catching and processing sectors; and projects that develop tailored training and qualifications. We will be hearing future announcements about that investment—probably starting with the science, innovation and technology strand, or pillar, of the £100 million—very shortly, certainly this summer. A large amount of money is involved and it is important that we get this right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes raises the issue of live bivalve molluscs with me several times a day. I am as angry as any colleague present that the EU changed its rules on the importation of our class B molluscs; I take that up with it at every opportunity and will continue to do so. We are looking at a number of options to support the industry, including grant funding in England to facilitate business adaptation through the fisheries and seafood scheme. We are working on securing access to new markets, promoting domestic seafood consumption and reviewing the classification of shellfish harvesting areas while—of course—protecting public health.
Neil Parish
How quickly can the money be got to the shellfishing industry? That is really important because otherwise many will go out of business.
Victoria Prentis
The fund is already open and we are debating a statutory instrument tomorrow that will facilitate the spending of that fund. The money will in the longer term help people adapt their businesses to help with depuration or possibly canning, but it will not help everybody. One of the solutions that I have just outlined ought to be helpful to all our live bivalve mollusc industry. I continue to work closely with colleagues from around the country on this and to bring the matter up with the Commission whenever we have the opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made a powerful speech; he is keen, as ever, to support the inshore fleet. He is right that there is not a one-size-fits-all management approach, which simply would not work. We need to draw on local knowledge to make sure that our fisheries management plans are suitable going forward.
I would be delighted to meet the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). Access is a reserved issue; the Welsh Government had to consent to the licensing of EU vessels in Welsh waters. We are not concerned that all those vessels will go and fish in Welsh waters, but we are concerned, for example, about valuable non-quota stocks such as scallops. We are working closely with the scalloping industry on the protection of those stocks and with the Welsh Government on management measures. I will be happy to fill the right hon. Lady in on any point.
Victoria Prentis
I am sorry too, Sir Charles. I was going to talk about digital solutions, on which we have all worked together, and about Norway and the Faroes. Finally, we have had an 11% uplift in domestic consumption this year. There is a bright future ahead.
Mr Carmichael
Thank you for chairing what has been an excellent debate, Sir Charles; we have covered just about every sector and geographic area possible. It is unfortunate that nobody from Cornwall made it on to the call list. That was one notable omission.
Essentially, we can pull two strands from this debate. The first is how very different things could have been if we had had the implementation period, for six months or so, to bed these arrangements in. We said we needed that, but we did not get it.
Secondly, as we have heard from the different examples around the country, the worst fisheries management has always been the most centralised. If the Minister takes nothing else from this debate, she must take back the need to engage with the industry, devolved Administrations and local communities as widely and effectively as possible.
When the Backbench Business Committee offered us 90 minutes on a Tuesday morning, they asked whether that would be good enough. I replied, “Consider your hands duly bitten off!” I hope that they will feel that we have made good use of the time this morning. I want to see this subject back in the Chamber with a longer debate because this is really just the tip of the iceberg.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Thank you, Mr Carmichael. You and other colleagues have used the time extremely well; perhaps you could have done with a little more.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered fisheries management after the UK’s departure from the EU.
Aquind Interconnector
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the proposed Aquind interconnector project.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I am pleased to have secured a debate on this crucial issue, which is of great importance to residents across my city of Portsmouth, as well as many other areas impacted by the Aquind interconnector project or concerned by its relationships with Government.
Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth South, I have consistently represented the opposition of local people to this development, deemed a national infrastructure project. Many of my constituents have told me that they have been ignored by the developer and felt shut out of the planning process and, as Government get closer to making their decisions, they do not feel listened to by Ministers. That is why, in the limited time available, I wish to put on the record, first, my constituents’ concerns about the impact that the development would have on Portsmouth, its surrounding communities and its precious natural environment; and secondly, the concerns over the company’s relationship with a string of Government Ministers, some of whom are directly responsible for making decisions about whether the scheme goes ahead.
Whatever the alleged merits of the scheme may be, to ignore the overwhelmingly negative impact that it would have on Portsmouth residents, its businesses and the environment would be a dereliction of duty. I have heard from hundreds of constituents via my own survey work, through day-to-day correspondence or as a result of my engagement, alongside council planners, the local authority and community campaigners, to oppose these plans for Portsmouth and the surrounding area every step of the way. I have also summarised our concerns in submitting formal evidence to the examining authority and in raising key issues in written and oral questions in the House. I have written separately to successive Secretaries of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, on several occasions, with the views of my constituents. More recently, I launched a public petition, alongside Portsmouth’s local Stop Aquind campaign, to ensure that they are given a direct voice to share their objection to this disastrous project. Today I want to reiterate residents’ concerns, as well as those of other interested bodies in my city, such as the local authority, the university and Portsmouth’s small businesses.
The construction of the proposed interconnector would take up to seven years and would cause untold damage and disruption to people in Portsmouth, businesses and our local environment. The proposed corridor where trenching is due to take place threatens to disrupt key elements of transport infrastructure, including highways that act as vital arteries to our city. The city council believes that there will be significant disruption to residents, ranging from noise at antisocial hours to dust and loss of natural light, in a wide-ranging area from Farlington Avenue, in the north of the city, to Fort Cumberland Road, in my constituency.
That belief has certainly been reinforced by constituents whom I have spoken to. One constituent has told me:
“If this goes ahead then I’m in danger of not being able to drive out of the road I live in to commute to work. Why should I suffer”
this impact on
“my livelihood for something that most probably would never benefit my family or our community?”
Another said:
“How can I look at my daughter and the future generation and say we did nothing and allowed business to come before saving our precious green spaces and protecting our ocean environment?”
I have example after example of constituents raising these points. I will happily share these with the Minister following the debate.
The congestion and disruption will inevitably have a detrimental impact on local traders, who have already endured 18 months of lost revenue and unprecedented uncertainty. I know that Aquind will also cause long-term disruption to Portsmouth’s valued open spaces, with the unmitigated loss of recreational space at Milton common and Farlington playing fields. A season or more of play could also be lost at Farlington, Baffins and the University of Portsmouth, with few alternatives in the meantime. In addition to the air pollution created by construction, there is a risk to our city’s precious wildlife at Milton common. I have raised before, during the planning process, the threat that the development poses to the Eastney and Milton allotments, which have been a lifeline for those who tend them, particularly during the pandemic. As it stands, the planning applicant has been unable to demonstrate to the people of Portsmouth any positive benefit that the project would bring to the city.
Throughout the process, there have been concerns about the transparency of the applicant and its apparent inability to disclose the information necessary to fully assess the impact of the proposed development. I am aware that changes have been made to the proposed route, but I remain concerned that more could be done to engage with those impacted by the construction and to avoid the worst of its effects.
Constituents also continue to be troubled by reports of the applicant’s previous donations to the Conservative party, and by the project company’s financial and domiciliary arrangements. In August 2020, The Times named Russian oligarch Viktor Fedotov as the ultimate owner of Aquind, but until then he had been able to remain anonymous by using a rare exemption in corporate transparency rules. The exemption can be made only if the individual successfully argues that their security is at risk. Yet sources told The Times that security and law enforcement agencies have no concerns that Mr Fedotov is at risk. If that is the case, why is Mr Fedotov so keen to hide his identity and his ownership of Aquind? Does that not concern the Minister? Will he set out what due diligence has been done on the project company and its directors?
The project’s financing is also unclear. Aquind’s annual accounts confirm that funding for the project is coming from loans from OGN Enterprises Ltd, which is based in the British Virgin Islands. Very little is known about that company, other than that it is linked to Offshore Group Newcastle, a previous venture of one of Aquind’s senior leaders, Mr Temerko, and that it collapsed into administration. We do not know where this money is coming from, who is providing it, or whether there is a complex financial structure behind the company in other secrecy jurisdictions.
Elements of the project give rise to further security concerns. Aquind plans to lay one of the largest data pipes in Europe alongside the electricity interconnector. It will hold 180 fibre-optic pairs, many of which will be available for hire by third-party clients, which could include telecoms companies, technology firms and banks. That raises similar concerns to those about the UK’s 5G network and Huawei.
In the light of the significant contribution that the project is expected to make to our national infrastructure, why have the company’s structure and finances been allowed to avoid rigorous scrutiny? Perhaps it is because Aquind has mounted a shady campaign to lobby successive Conservative Ministers behind closed doors, backed by heaps of cash. The Times reports that since 2012 the Conservative party has been given £1.6 million by Temerko or companies that he has directed, and £55,000 by Aquind since last August. That includes direct donations to a string of Tory Ministers. Just last week, the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), recused herself from speaking on the matter during BEIS questions because the Northumberland Conservatives had received funding from one of the company’s directors.
The Times has also uncovered a string of letters and meetings between an Aquind director—a Soviet-era oligarch—and Ministers past and present in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) also recused himself from handling the issue when he was Secretary of State after it was revealed that he, too, had received a donation and had shared a table with the same Russian-born businessman at the Tory black and white ball fundraiser.
In addition, letters obtained through a freedom of information request have revealed that the current Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), stated the Government’s ongoing support for the controversial project and agreed to lobby French officials to support it on their side of the channel. He has even taken to signing off his letters with affectionate handwritten notes. One October 2019 letter said:
“Excellent to see you at conference this year!”
All that makes a total mockery of the Planning Inspectorate’s independent examination and reinforces the points that the Labour party has made about this Government’s developer’s charter, which rides roughshod over local communities and prevents them having their say about developments in their area.
Despite the Government’s unashamed downplaying of the revelations, it is the Business Secretary who will make the final decision to give the project the green light. Any suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman is able to make an impartial decision about the project is now a total fantasy. Any decision that he does make will be tainted by accusations of cronyism. Given the significance of the project to the city of Portsmouth and the country at large, we should not have to drag the truth out of Ministers kicking and screaming. As one constituent put it:
“To proceed with this project in the face of overwhelming opposition would send a message that the interests of your rich Russian donors matter more than the people of Portsmouth and local democracy”
On behalf of residents across Portsmouth, I want to place on the record our fundamental objection to the project. I want to make it crystal clear to the Secretary of State and the Minister today that the project must be rejected. In the meantime, I wish to ask the Minister some questions. Will he commit to immediately publishing all correspondence with Aquind? Will his Department conduct a further independent review of this deeply controversial project to drag the truth into public view? Beneath the cosy relationships that Ministers have with their billionaire donors are choices that affect the day-to-day lives of people in Portsmouth. They deserve total transparency from the Government and a real say in decisions about the project.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) on securing this important debate.
Great Britain currently has 6 GW of electricity interconnection with Belgium, the Netherlands, France and the island of Ireland, supporting our security of supply, keeping consumer prices low and supporting our decarbonisation goal of net zero emissions by 2050. Interconnectors widen the energy markets and thus make them more efficient, transporting electricity from where it is cheaper to higher-priced regions. That predominantly leads to imports of cheaper electricity to Great Britain, delivering benefits to consumers, but in future it will allow us to export renewable energy to the rest of continental Europe.
Interconnectors also act as a source of flexibility, helping the system rapidly respond to changes in demand and supply, which is crucial when helping integrate intermittent renewable energy sources, and reducing curtailment, thus supporting decarbonisation. A study commissioned by the Department, and published alongside the energy White Paper, illustrates the decarbonisation that could be facilitated in Great Britain and the European Union by an increased level of interconnection to 2050. Interconnectors can contribute to security of supply by providing access to a wider pool of generation. They can also currently participate in the capacity market and can be available at times of system distress. They provide additional options to system operators, helping ensure system stability and security.
The Secretary of State has three months to take his decision on receipt of the Planning Inspectorate’s report, meaning that he has to make his decision on the Aquind interconnector on or before 8 September 2021. That decision will be taken in line with Government propriety guidance. Given the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in determining the application, I cannot comment on specific matters regarding the proposal as that could be seen as prejudicing the decision-making process, but I can say something about the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects.
I want to make it clear that the system absolutely recognises how important the views of local people are. Indeed, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South talked about the potential adverse impacts on local communities. Clearly, that would be given appropriate consideration in the planning process, and therefore also in the Secretary of State’s decision-making process. When the developer makes an application to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer has to demonstrate that it has complied with all of its consultation requirements and that it has regard to consultation responses that it has received. At the pre-application stage, the developer has to prepare that consultation strategy and must carry out a pre-application consultation with the local community, in accordance with that strategy.
The developer has to explain how the application was informed and influenced by those responses, outlining any changes that were made as a result, and provide an explanation as to why responses advising on major changes to the project were not followed out. The Planning Inspectorate will also ask relevant local authorities whether the consultation was adequate. The Planning Inspectorate will consider the local authorities’ view on the consultation before deciding whether to accept the application for examination.
The application consultation with local communities cannot be taken lightly by developers. If the application is accepted for examination, an examining authority is appointed to examine it. People with an interest in the project can then register as interested parties and will have an opportunity to make written representations on the project. There may also be open-floor hearings, as well as hearings on specific issues, where interested parties can make formal submissions to the examining agent. I understand that during the Aquind examination there were two open-floor hearings, as well as issue-specific hearings on matters including traffic, air quality and the environment.
After that examination closes, the examining authority will write a report to the Secretary of State, containing its recommendations for the project. In the case of Aquind, the Secretary of State received the examining authority’s report on 8 June. As I have said, the Secretary of State then has three months to decide whether to grant or refuse development consent. For Aquind, the Secretary of State has until 8 September to make a decision. That decision must be based solely on the planning merits of the proposal.
Although it is not possible to comment on specific projects in the planning process, the Government are supportive of interconnection generally, as a core part of our energy strategy, due to its benefits in helping to provide an electricity supply that progresses towards our net zero decarbonisation goals in a low-cost and secure way. In last year’s energy White Paper, we committed to work with Ofgem, developers and our European partners to realise at least 18 GW of interconnector capacity by 2030, which is triple the current capacity.
In conclusion, I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the residents of the proposed area that the Secretary of State will take into account both sides of the proposal. He will base his decision on the work of the Planning Inspectorate and the quasi-judicial process that he has in front of him, rather than any of the accusations that have been thrown at him to influence his decision either way.
Question put and agreed to.
Oxford-Cambridge Arc
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Oxford-Cambridge Arc.
This is a subject of the most profound importance to the whole of Buckinghamshire, so I am grateful for the opportunity to lead the debate. I convey apologies from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), who is of course on paternity leave. I am sure we all wish to congratulate him on the birth of a child. This is, however, a matter of great importance to his constituents and he has given me a statement, which I hope to get to later. Likewise, I have apologies from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), who is applying his considerable expertise to justice matters in the relevant Select Committee. I also have a statement from him.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) in her place, and I look forward to hearing from her later. For the record, although my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), as a Minister, cannot speak, he is present, because the matter is of close interest to his constituents. We should be in no doubt that the Milton Keynes arc—I have renamed it for him already; I mean the Oxford-Cambridge arc—could transform Buckinghamshire and the other counties that it touches. The principles at stake are of importance to the whole nation.
To give some background, in 2017 the National Infrastructure Commission launched “Partnering for Prosperity: A new deal for the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Arc”. Although the report initially focused on economic development, its focus was moved so that it referred to 1 million new houses as a key enabler for a new geography known as the arc. That would, of course, be a profound quantity of houses to put in that area.
There has never been satisfactory clarification of the requirement for 1 million houses mentioned in the report, or any further details about potential housing targets. I am told by my county council that the housing numbers that the Government linked to the arc have not been informed by local discussion or input, and that has contributed to local concerns about a lack of autonomy and local determination. In addition, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government commissioned AECOM to produce work to show where land was unconstrained and new settlements could be built across the geography. That work, again, did not seek local input from councillors or MPs, and it has not been formally shared or published.
The National Infrastructure Commission report shifted the emphasis on regional collaboration away from an economic driver to introduce housing as the focus; that is the real sense in Buckinghamshire Council. It crossed over the work that was already under way from England’s Economic Heartland, a collaborative strategic regional body focused on connectivity and economic growth, although the NIC arc covers a slightly different geography that is narrower than the area considered by EEH, which also includes Swindon and Hertfordshire. The key concern, however, and the thing to which I draw attention, is the prospect of 1 million houses coming into our counties.
I turn to engagement with local authorities. An arc leaders’ group was established in about 2017 as a coalition of the willing, although it went on to endorse joint declarations with Government that were signed by its chairman and announced without discussion with its membership. In the spring of 2020, changes to the governance of the leaders group were announced, shifting decision making to a majority-rule approach and away from the unanimous consensus under which the group had been established. That puts Buckinghamshire at a significant disadvantage. As a unitary, it has just one vote among 25 other local authority votes across the area. Oxfordshire, as a county council with five district or city councils, would have six votes.
Alongside those challenges in governance, the leaders group, without the endorsement of all the relevant local authorities, pushed through a measure to develop a regional spatial strategy, which is now frequently referred to as a spatial framework. Although that framework was set out as non-statutory, it has been made clear that Government intend to publish it and that in local planning decisions, similar weight is to be attributed to it as to the national planning policy framework. The arc spatial strategy would be a material consideration in the development and examination of local plans, and that raises concerns that it could be used as a vehicle to dictate housing growth in a way that undermines local decision making.
Of course, the initial attraction of all that was the prospect of central Government investment in infrastructure —that is needed in our area, as it is in so many places—but there are significant concerns. In August 2020, Buckinghamshire informed the Government that it could not continue to be part of the arc. This withdrawal was supported by and followed by the Buckinghamshire local enterprise partnership and the Buckinghamshire universities. Buckinghamshire has instead pursued a policy of developing its own more focused and ambitious recovery and growth proposal, which builds on the place-based approach, with the coterminosity of the council with its LEP, the business representative organisation Bucks Business First, the NHS clinical commissioning group, the hospital trust, and the voluntary and community sector. The point is that we have a county and it works—including Milton Keynes, at times—and we are very proud that it does so.
I will go through four of the key concerns before I turn to statements from my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury and for Buckingham. First, the political case for the arc has not been made. The initiative to establish the arc was not agreed locally; it has always been driven from the top down and there is significant local opposition, not just from Buckinghamshire communities but from community groups throughout the arc. Democratically, communities across the arc have made their views known in recent elections. In some cases, I am sorry to say, where candidates have run on an anti-arc platform, local authorities have flipped from the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats, including several authorities in Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire, and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that the Liberal Democrats are up to their necks in the arc? They have people on standing committees, they have England’s Economic Heartland and they have the control of this process, and they have nothing more to offer than anyone else.
Mr Baker
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Although he tempts me to elaborate on the points he makes, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not especially attack the Liberal Democrats in the absence of anyone to reply on their behalf—but I note their absence from this debate. Two months ago, communities in Chesham and Amersham notably sent this message in a startling by-election result. The point is that the Government are taking a top-down approach in imposing the arc, and they seem to be doing so without the effective engagement of the people in the area. Those people are pushing back, and quite right, too. I recall that in 2010, when some of us were elected and the Conservatives came to power, we abolished regional government. This is perhaps a point I will return to: having abolished regional government, we now seem to be, in a sense, reinstituting it through the arc.
Secondly, there are profound issues with local democratic accountability. Our council could find other local authorities and partners taking important planning decisions that are of the most acute interest to our residents, and imposing them on Buckinghamshire. Those decisions have the potential to be significant, generational and, crucially, permanent ones, such as on the suggested new settlements in Bucks, on the imposition of local development corporations and on the imposition of major new and unwanted infrastructure, such as the recently withdrawn expressway. That is the second key point—local accountability.
Thirdly, there are top-down housing targets. I have perhaps said enough about the idea of 1 million houses, but it seems to us that there is now is pressure for overflow from London. What is to become of our area and our beautiful region? My constituency consists of areas of outstanding natural beauty where it is not built on, plus the airfield. These are beautiful parts of our country. Enormous amounts of housing being put in there as overflow from London will cause major protests from the public, and quite right, too.
Fourthly, the spatial strategy for the arc appears to sit above local plans developed by the local planning authority. The interrelationship of the spatial frameworks with existing planning responsibilities is unclear, but it appears to insert this additional and more regional layer of government over what local authorities are doing. Framework proposals would need to be incorporated into new local plans or the plans could risk being found to be unsound, which would have real meaning for the ability to carry forward plans that met with democratic consent.
Those are my four key points. Colleagues have said to me in passing—perhaps some will say this in detail today —that there is a real problem of co-ordination. Before I come on to my colleagues’ statements, I say in passing that of course there is a problem with co-ordination. With great respect to the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), whom I will call my hon. Friend as he is sitting on my side of the House today, whenever big Government choose to plan society and the economy and to impose conditions and development top down, there is always a co-ordination problem. That is why some of us believe in the spontaneous order of the market, but that is not the fundamental point of today’s debate.
I want to put on record a statement from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who says:
“Buckingham is well-placed to benefit from the Arc’s potential. But we, like our neighbours, must first address the rapidly deteriorating state of our local infrastructure. We have been hit hard by the construction of HS2 and multiple housing developments. Central government must realise and compensate for the damage that HS2 and other high-volume construction projects are causing.
The success of the arc locally depends on the delivery of ongoing local infrastructure projects—above all the Aylesbury Spur of East West Rail. With continuing uncertainty surrounding the spur’s implementation, my constituents and local businesses are growing increasingly anxious. A fast and efficient connection to both the county town”—
I should just add that I have always felt that High Wycombe was the county town, but I am advised otherwise—
“and beyond, is pivotal for realising the economic growth inherent in the Arc’s strategy. The Aylesbury Spur of East West Rail must therefore be built.
It must also be said that we have taken our fair share of housing. Housebuilding targets must be spread fairly and must take into account the tremendous amount of available brownfield land.”
That is the statement from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury has asked me to say:
“Buckinghamshire has withdrawn from the Oxford Cambridge arc and has presented to MHCLG an ambitious recovery deal based on local devolution, which I wholeheartedly support. The council in conjunction with the Bucks LEP believe this deal will achieve the benefits of the arc but with local decision making remaining in local hands.
The proposed spatial framework has caused considerable concern in Aylesbury for an area already saturated with strategic infrastructure projects and housing development. By retaining decision making in Buckinghamshire, the recovery deal would represent the strategic aims of MHCLG and ensure local democracy.”
Saving the contribution that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield will make in a moment, I come on to our ask as Buckinghamshire MPs and for the council. We are not anti-growth; of course we accept that housing growth will continue at already high rates, and I particularly want sympathetic development for people in my area who desperately need a home to own. However, it must have local consent, and the targets must be determined and led locally.
In conjunction with our partners, we have already put forward an ambitious recovery and growth proposal to the Government, as I have mentioned. We urge the Government to work with Buckinghamshire Council to progress this bottom-up, democratically driven approach to creating jobs and economic growth, rather than the top-down targets imposed within the structure of the arc and its strategic spatial strategy.
I conclude by saying how much I look forward to this debate, which is overwhelmingly among hon. Friends. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will not mind me saying that I look at the matter with a spirit of some disappointment. He and I were elected to this place in 2010 enthusiastically looking to reform the planning system and to abolish regional government, so I hope he will not mind me pointing out that we now seem to be reinstituting it by other means. I do not think this is going to meet local concerns at all.
As somebody who represents a constituency adjacent to Chesham and Amersham, I really do think this is a moment to think again; to respect the rights of property holders in our area and the needs of those who would like to buy a house; and to make sure that people have incentives to say yes to development, but also the opportunity to say no. I look forward to a think-tank paper, which I hope I have catalysed, which will set out those ideas in more detail, and I hope in due course my right hon. Friend will feel able to look at it.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for securing this debate, which is very appropriate for not only those from our county, but those from adjacent counties as well. I pay special tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who is here to show solidarity and concern for his local residents. He is an MP, and our only Minister, who continues to put the needs of his residents first. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) for their contributions.
May I start by inviting the Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), to take a special trip to south Buckinghamshire? There is no better way to understand the complexities of what we are discussing in this debate than to visit and see at first hand what things are like in places such as Denham, Iver, Beaconsfield, Gerrards Cross and Marlow. We would love to have the Minister, and I think he might enjoy the trip.
In addition to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe has already alluded to, I would like to speak about the Oxford-Cambridge arc, the spatial framework and what appears to be a top-down housing target. Housing numbers are clearly the primary objective for establishing the arc and a token account is paid, through various vision documents, to innovation, environmental improvements or other place-based factors. However, it is unclear why the arc would be a key enabler for these in preference to working on a cross-boundary basis with existing strategic authorities, as initiated by England’s Economic Heartland.
I mention England’s Economic Heartland because Bucks, and particularly south Bucks, has the highest level of entrepreneurs, small business owners and self-employed people in the whole country. We are an economic powerhouse, and we will be so particularly after covid and the covid recovery. We are very focused on economic growth, job creation and vital infrastructure in Bucks. The housing will follow that, but we need to get the fundamentals right.
Local communities fear—as do I, as the local MP—that when that is combined with the changes to planning regulation, proposed planning regulation or the use of the old housing need algorithm, we will not be able to cope with the housing numbers that are placed on us. That is true of places across my constituency, but Bourne End and other towns have already seen the effects of over-development where all strategic green space and common land have already been given over to developers.
The spatial framework is something that I object to. With the existing planning responsibilities, it is unclear, as it appears to insert an additional layer of Government direction on housing and potential economic development. The framework proposals would need to be incorporated into new local plans, or the plans would risk being found unsound. Without a democratic mandate and with the possibility of facing strong opposition from local groups and planning authorities, it is unclear how these proposals would move forward. We do not have the strategic oversight of the London plan or a mayoral structure that has devolved power, so who would be accountable for this democratically unelected right to impose on us?
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend has put her finger right on the heart of it. In other areas where they have these grand regional plans, there is a regional identity and a democratic personification of that in a regional Mayor. We do not have that in the Ox-Cam arc, do we?
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Although I am not advocating any more devolved power, if people in London and the west midlands do not like the strategic framework, they can at least vote the Mayor out. That is not the case here, and we have some of the most economically valuable land in the country. Covid has only shown how valuable and desirable our part of the country is to live in. People want to move from London to south Bucks. My fear is that the housing numbers and the algorithm set will just meet the housing demands of London rather than meeting the needs of local residents, who are desperate for more infrastructure, GP surgeries, better roads, better wi-fi connectivity and the basic amenities already afforded to London residents. Again, I would welcome the Minister visiting and touring south Bucks to see the unique perspective and challenges that we face.
I ask the Minister and the Government to support the alternative Buckinghamshire approach. Buckinghamshire and its council are not anti-growth. It is accepted that housing growth will continue at already high rates. However, those targets should be determined at local level. Bucks, in co-operation with its LEP, Buckinghamshire Business First, and health partners already put forward to Government an ambitious recovery and growth proposal. Discussions on that have commenced.
We urge the Government to work with Buckinghamshire Council to progress this bottom-up, democratically driven approach, to accelerate jobs, infrastructure and economic growth, rather than follow top-down and imposed targets within the structure of the arc or strategic framework, without democratic accountability. We have seen examples of how well we can work together, because every single week those partners were working and talking together during covid, to deliver the covid response effectively for Bucks residents. I believe we can move forward with an economic recovery plan for Bucks and Milton Keynes.
I have a few questions for the Minister, based on concerns residents have continually raised with me, about housing numbers and demands. The concern from residents across south Buckinghamshire is that more people from London will come to Beaconsfield, Marlow and Gerrards Cross, and the vital housing of bungalow-style, single-storey homes for older residents or the children of Bucks residents who are desperate to get on the housing ladder, will not be provided. If a percentage of housing were allocated only to Bucks residents, that would go a long way in securing more local support on the ground.
Do the millions of homes mentioned as part of the arc factor into the existing extremely high housing numbers already proposed in Buckinghamshire, or will they be additional numbers imposed on us at some point? How up to date are the data that inform the supposed need for the arc in the first place, given that covid and Brexit have changed the numbers and demands for inner London, outer London and surrounding green belt areas? Is the demand still the same as it was before?
With yet more pressure being put on Buckinghamshire, we require more protection for our green spaces, which have been left, unlike in London, without the expected levels of protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe has AONB land, as has the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green). I have nothing, apart from Burnham Beeches, which is run by the City of London. I do not have a lot of common land that is protected. We do not have metropolitan open land, because that is an inner green belt protection.
There are basic statutory protections for existing green space that we do not have in my constituency. Most of our green belt land is agricultural green belt land, which is owned by independent farmers or the council. That is problematic for development because it can be sold off piecemeal, and whole areas of biodiversity and vital areas of green infrastructure will be lost for ever, because there is not strategic oversight or protection put in place on that land.
Many other members of the arc have that protection, but south Buckinghamshire does not. As the local Member of Parliament, I want to fight to ensure that existing green spaces, biodiversity and protection for the lungs of London are in place for future generations. The relentless expansion of development into the lungs of London will have a dire consequence, not only for Buckinghamshire but anyone in outer London who values decent air quality, lower carbon emissions and a better quality of life.
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend reminds me of a discussion we had about the way that housing is built. Will she agree that it is really important that, when housing goes in, sufficient green space exists through developments, so that people can still feel that they are getting the benefits of the environment and an environmental amenity, even in the places right where they live?
Joy Morrissey
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. I thank the Minister and Government for initiating new nature reserves and the rewilding of areas such as Buckinghamshire, where we need to preserve green space, while adding strategic housing development. I welcome those excellent proposals and I am looking forward to working with the Minister on how we can take them forward in the county.
I would like to see a focus, particularly in Buckinghamshire, on biodiversity and on protecting the wild spaces, waterways, ancient woodlands, marshlands and meadows of south Buckinghamshire. The economic, ecological and environmental vandalism of proposals, done piecemeal, by predatory development, forgets the key and most beautiful part of living in south Bucks—the green space, the rolling hills and the quality of life that residents choose to have. Perhaps it is further from London and a longer commute, but residents are paying the price because they want to have that green space. I cannot express the value that every resident in Buckinghamshire places on that green space. They will fight to the death to maintain it and save it, not only for their community but for future communities. I as their MP will do the same.
I hope that the Minister will continue to look at alternative ways of incorporating new innovation that the Government is proposing for environmental biodiversity. First, the Government could perhaps include the Colne Valley Regional Park and Burnham Beeches in an expanded AONB or a national park, or they could find another way of providing additional protection when more housing demands are being put into the local area. If those things can be done in tandem with a locally led approach that values the opinions of residents in the county, we can move forward in a positive way, meeting the demand for housing but also preserving our green belt and green space and to build the infrastructure that we vitally need for the future.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for introducing the debate. It might be understood from his opening remarks that Buckinghamshire is the only place that is affected by and concerned about the arc, but that is not true. Oxfordshire is just as affected by it and just as concerned about it.
I want to start off with the example of the Oxford to Cambridge expressway, which was an essential part of the arc. That major infrastructure project was handled in the most abysmal way that I have ever seen. From the very beginning, nobody was consulted about it. In my own area, which had a large part of it, I was the first person to bring consultation on the arc to the parish councils in my area: I invited my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) to come with me and address them all at a meeting. By that stage, it was already too late. People had already formed their opinions on the expressway, based on misconceptions and information that came from nowhere. Most of that was wrong, as my hon. Friend was able to point out, but by that stage it was too late.
The other thing that I particularly stress about the expressway shows what could happen with the arc: from one end of the expressway to the other, from the Cambridge end to the Oxford end, there was an enormous difference. At the Cambridge end, most people accepted the need for an expressway to carry the traffic. From Milton Keynes to Oxford, there was no acceptance; there was a completely different attitude. Not once did I hear the Department for Transport, which was responsible for it, making sure that that distinction was well understood. If we are not careful with the arc, unless we go out of our way to make sure that we do things in a different way, we will end up facing similar problems. There is no doubt that road traffic is an issue that needs to be addressed.
With the expressway, we had the ridiculous situation that the whole project was initially paused. That created enormous problems for me electorally. What is the difference between pausing something and abolishing it? It did not make any sense. People were saying that they did not believe it had just been paused; they thought it was just temporary, to take the election into account. It was very difficult to overcome those objections at the time.
The expressway has now been cancelled and the explanation given by Highways England is that it needed the information in order to be able to look at other projects in the area. Why could it not have said that at the very beginning? Why could the whole of the project not have been dealt with in a different way?
I turn to some of the points that have been made about the arc. What is the arc? In the Government’s paper on the arc, it notes that the body that is being put together to try to push it through is made up of three county councils, 17 district councils, six unitary authorities and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. That is before we take into account any involvement of different Government Departments. The Minister is an excellent Minister, but he cannot handle all Government Departments at the same time. There needs to be involvement from other Government Departments to make sure that the project works, but that means that the body becomes overwhelmingly large and very difficult to control, which goes completely against the project with which I was involved when I first joined the House—our localism agenda. I still think that localism and involving local communities in the development of projects is a good place to start.
I have been critical of the arc project, but I see the potential in joining up 10 universities or colleges along the route of the arc. I see the potential in joining up things such as Harwell in Oxfordshire with the equivalent in Cambridge and I see the enormous benefit in trying to line up the fusion project in my constituency at Culham, to hopefully provide the energy and critical science that comes from that across the whole of the arc, but I go back to what I said about the expressway—there is no common identity across the whole arc on which a common strategy can be based, which makes it very difficult.
On the 1 million houses, it would be nice to hear from the Minister how that number is made up. At the time the plan was put forward, I tried to analyse where those 1 million houses were going to come from. Some—in fact, the vast majority—are already in local plans; it is not a million new houses that are being imposed on the area, but a million houses in total, some of which are already there and about to go for planning permission. How is the number made up? What additional housing is left and how will that be dealt with?
I do not take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe that most of the housing is directed towards London. There is a very good aim in trying to make sure that most of the housing picks up local development and local growth. The risk is that it will become so attractive to people from London that it will be very difficult to keep that aim going.
I want to ask a little more on the spatial framework. How is it going to work? What rights will local people have to be able to assess the projects that are being put forward? What criteria will they use to judge them? Who will make the decisions about planning issues and what sort of consultation will they have? Without those things, we will have lost a huge element of our localism agenda, which, for me, would be a great loss. I have put a lot of effort into that agenda over however many years have passed—it is a long time—since I first started, so it would be nice to know whether we are keeping some of it and can use it as the basis to make something happen going forward.
To conclude, I see potential in establishing a brilliant arc of science and engineering across that part of the UK, but we need a properly balanced assessment of what that will involve and of the losses that will come out of it for people. As my hon. Friends have already mentioned, these are some of the most sensitive and beautiful landscapes in the country. Think of how Buckinghamshire rolls into Oxfordshire: it is a seamless entity of nothing but beauty. We trash that at the risk of our future as a Government in this country.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
We now go to the leafy glades of Northamptonshire to hear from Andrew Lewer.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Sir Edward. I thank my good and hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for proposing this timely and important debate on an issue that will have significant implications for Northampton, the town that I represent.
Northampton, and indeed Northamptonshire, are a key part of the Oxford-Cambridge arc. Although Northampton may not have the international kudos of Oxford or Cambridge, let alone High Wycombe, it is none the less a vital component of this overall ambitious investment plan.
The Oxford-Cambridge investment arc has, at least, the potential to boost recovering growth in my constituency. Covid-19 has underlined the UK’s position as a global leader in the life science industry, and the Ox-Cam arc could be the investment accelerator that will help to create the infrastructure to prevent it from being strangled by its own success. Northampton is the home of Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA. It is within a 75-minute drive of the great universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Cranfield, which I was privileged to visit just last week to meet the South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership, another critical piece of the structural jigsaw.
Northampton is a prime location, at the hub of the British strategic supply-chain network, for life-science and engineering businesses. The arc programme provides an opportunity to further realise that and, critically, to address the levelling-up agenda that the Government are championing. Northampton has a rich industrial heritage with great past glories—of which, incidentally, shoes and footwear were just part—and we must now focus our attention on the future of the industries that we do so well here, such as life sciences and high-performance technology. We do not just want the houses therefore; we want the business and the infrastructure from the programme as well.
The all-party parliamentary group on devolution, which I chair, recently produced an inquiry report on levelling up and devolution. Although all that I have heard about the Ox-Cam arc programme—including from my right hon. Friend the Minister—marks it out as ambitious and far reaching, it can also be complex and difficult to navigate, with its plethora of overlapping decision-making bodies—councils, LEPs, the central area growth board and the arc. How, where and with what legitimacy the programme’s decisions are made will be critical to its success. I say that with particular feeling as the first elections for the new unitary authority of West Northamptonshire, under the leadership of Councillor Jonathan Nunn, have just taken place. In our APPG’s report, we concluded that the UK is:
“one of the most fiscally centralised countries in the world and we should look to learn lessons from our international partners, many of whom are governed successfully with a more decentralised model. The UK also has one of the most regionally unequal economies in the world. Greater devolution of responsibility for local economic growth has long been necessary, but it is now extremely urgent.”
There is an opportunity, therefore, to use the Ox-Cam arc not only to recalibrate our economic fortunes but to rewire and improve the way that we make those decisions. To me, that means powers from Whitehall and those formerly held at Brussels—as my years on the European Committee of the Regions followed by years on the Committee on Regional Development of the European Parliament as an MEP have informed me—coming down closer to the people of the area. If that is what this means, then it is generally welcome. However, if it also means powers taken away from local government upwards and outwards to new regional structures—again, informed by my past as a county council leader, regional assembly member and a founding director of a local enterprise partnership—I would be much less happy about that.
The formal consultation on the Ox-Cam arc is about to begin. Details of the levelling-up agenda are about to emerge, into which the promised devolution Bill has either been folded or—let us hope not—buried. So my challenge to Government is to bite the bullet and transfer some of those distant Whitehall decision-making powers into the hands of local leaders, and that way unleash the potential of the Ox-Cam arc into something far more wide-reaching that will truly power the pistons of the levelling-up and devolution agendas in our country.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I call Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi. Sorry, I call Richard Fuller. I apologise. How could I miss you out?
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Very easily, Sir Edward. It is a pleasure to have a chance to contribute, and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) on securing the debate. If I may, I shall start with one of the points that he raised. Coming in as a Member of Parliament in 2010, we thought we were burying regional development agencies in the east of England, one of which was the East of England Development Agency. However, if one looks to the origins of the Oxford-Cambridge arc idea, essentially it is a regional development corporation idea: it stems from 2003, during the Blair period. It was given body and voice by the 2017 National Infrastructure Commission report by Lord Adonis—another leading figure of that period of government.
The first—and fundamental—question that has been raised by other Members during the debate is that this is a plan for an area that has no cohering identity. I almost feel like an interloper, Sir Edward. Before your inclusion of me in the debate, I felt like an interloper anyway, given the strong Buckinghamshire feeling about the debate —and all praise to Buckinghamshire. I am proudly from Bedfordshire and represent North East Bedfordshire. However, that makes the point, does it not? Essentially, this is not some grassroots, built-up, passionate call for helping our region to develop and unifying us into an identity that can have meaning for people on the ground—our local residents. No, no: this is a Blairite top-down plan, to be imposed on people in the region whether they like it or not.
I say “whether they like it or not” because, rather sadly, the spatial framework, which my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) spoke about, takes that additional step forward. It says that the arc’s 23 local planning authorities cannot continue to plan separately because
“planning at the local level for homes, business space, infrastructure and the environment is not integrated, and is unable to take an Arc-wide view.”
Well, my constituents do not want local planning to take an arc-wide view; they want it to take a local view—a neighbourhood view. The Government need to understand that the question that has been posed today is, how is that going to work when there is an absence of democratic accountability?
It is worse, because the spatial development framework goes on to say that all local plans must conform to the spatial framework, including the requirement that housing needs are met in full. Out of the window goes any discretion on housing growth targets. They must be met in full. For local authorities in my constituency, who are already achieving growth rates in housing well above the national average—my constituency is already growing at three times the national average—having a top-down target imposed with no discretion on local authority housing growth seems to me to raise major questions about democratic accountability.
Let us go to the two fundamental points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. Where did this come from? Was it a plan for housing or a plan for economic development? If it was a plan for housing, let us get to the rub of the 1 million houses. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say in a few minutes that the 1 million housing target is not a target. I know he will say that, because he has told me that in a debate, and it will be welcome to hear. The truth of the matter is that that target at the time included more than a quarter of a million extra houses that were going to be placed into the Oxford-Cambridge arc because that aspiration could not be met in London. It is an important point of principle of this Government to ensure that the housing needs of areas such as Greater London are met by regional authorities themselves and not displaced to other areas.
On housing growth, I would like to hear from the Minister what balance the Government will be able to provide for housing growth with the pieces of infrastructure that people care about. We have heard about expressways and railways, but what people care about in terms of infrastructure is: can I get an appointment with my doctor because my child is sick? Can I get my son or my daughter into a good local school? That is what people want to hear across the Ox-Cam arc and in the rest of the country. I know that the Minister and the Government are committed to that, but that is where our priorities should lie when we think about what to do with this particular region.
If the plan is an economic one, let us remember what the basis of it was: that somehow, by connecting or improving the connections between two major universities and other universities—of course, I would say Cranfield is also a major university, but let us say Oxford and Cambridge—we would unlock economic growth. That is the state-driven answer to how we unlock growth: “We can connect it.” So let me ask the Government: where is the international example of that having worked in practice? Can they name one example anywhere in the world where countries have joined universities to create economic growth? I bet they cannot, because most countries understand that we create economic growth around centres of educational excellence. We focus on the centres of educational excellence and build out that network of localities and business parks and innovation around where that core of academic excellence is. That is already happening in Cambridge, it is happening in Oxford, and it can happen around Cranfield. That is where the Government’s focus with the Ox-Cam arc should be moving.
There are some shared interests. There is the opportunity for more growth in housing. The Minister is absolutely right to focus on the core fundamental Conservative principle that everyone at every age should have the opportunity to own a home. That is something that we all want to do, and we want to do it in a way that is supported by local communities.
On the infrastructure, my colleagues from Buckinghamshire have already said bye-bye to the expressway, so we will have an expressway from Cambridge through Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes, and then we can stop off and get on—I do not know what they have in Buckinghamshire—perhaps a dirt track until we reach Oxfordshire, and back on the expressway again.
Heaven knows what will happen to the railway line. I know that the people of Cambridge are up in arms about it, and I know there are questions in North East Bedfordshire about it. If those transverse cross-country pieces of infrastructure are called into question, should we not have a rethink about how this interlacing, connecting Ox-Cam arc strategy would better be replaced with a central specific focus around certain areas for development there? There is probably more of a community interest between the good people of Buckinghamshire and the good people of Oxfordshire, and there might be a good common interest between the people of Bedfordshire, Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire, rather than saying that people in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough should somehow feel an affinity with the people of Oxfordshire and Berkshire.
Joy Morrissey
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Alluding to the history between Oxford and my constituency, we were the first stop-off on the coach trip from London to Oxfordshire. The economic prosperity of Beaconsfield was built on providing meals, entertainment, hotels and livery to those making the vital trip from London to Oxford. There is that historic link, but my hon. Friend is right that the Oxford-Cambridge arc is not attributable to any of those historic qualities or natural linking that might be found in other regions.
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend is right to bring in that historical perspective. Sir Edward, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister if we can have a Conservative vision of the Oxford-Cambridge arc? Let us not just take the Blairite vision off the shelf and say that the Government must now impose it.
What would a Conservative vision look like? First, it would be grounded in local democratic accountability, at the lowest possible level, with parishes, neighbourhoods and towns making decisions and not having them dictated by the state. Secondly, it would be a vision that rested primarily on the private sector to determine what would happen and where, and ensure both business and housing growth. We have recent evidence of that. According to Property Week, last year the Oxford-Cambridge arc was already seeing the largest inward housing investment. The market is working it out; we do not need a Government top-down plan to do it.
Thirdly, there is a role for Government in co-ordination, which we can understand, but the focus should be on international examples that can be repeated here, rather than trying to create something that has not got any international power and saying, “Let’s try and make it work here.” That means creating a focus of innovation with innovation grants and support in towns and cities across the arc.
There should be a focus on green transport initiatives and commuter transport initiatives, getting people from Cambourne into Cambridge in a green and environmentally sound way that works with the flow of people, building communities around Cranfield that work on unmanned vehicles, and undertaking initiatives around large public bus transportation systems in Oxfordshire, which are based on electric or battery-powered vehicles. Working with local councils to find out what people need locally, in combination with innovation and support from the Government, will allow the brains in those cities to create new champions who can create examples for the rest of the world.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) on securing today’s debate. I welcome the opportunity to debate the future of the Oxford-Cambridge arc and follow the lucid arguments advanced by the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), for Henley (John Howell), for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) and for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).
I have very happy associations with both Oxford and Cambridge, having had the pleasure of living in both cities for a couple of years. I took my MSc in applied statistics at Oxford University and my MPhil in history at Cambridge University. I love both cities and their surrounding areas, and care about their distinctive character, history and future development.
However, the plans for the Oxford-Cambridge arc are already outmoded. Events have overtaken plans drawn up in a markedly different age. Covid-19 has challenged the assumptions that underpinned the Oxford-Cambridge arc back in 2016, which was based on a model of building 1 million new homes, along with a road and rail transport system to take people to places of work at various points across the arc. My first question for the Minister is whether Her Majesty’s Government have properly re-evaluated the assumptions underpinning the scheme, not just on population growth but on changes to patterns of commuting and working, and where people will be working in the future, to ensure that plans meet the needs of residents?
The spatial plan consultation, for example, should cover whether there is a need for genuinely affordable and social environmentally-sound housing; I believe there is. Local authorities should be given proper representation within the arc arrangement. I have discussed these important points with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the chair of the Labour party, who, fighting assiduously for her constituents as usual, has already met the Minister and his officials and has written to him. Although she could not attend today’s debate, I hope that her invaluable input will not be ignored, but instead incorporated into Government plans. Local people, businesses and leaders cannot be ignored. Proper consultation must be guaranteed.
We recognise the need for more homes, but have Ministers thought through the implications of 1 million new homes and the impact on existing communities, on the natural environment, on biodiversity and on levels of pollution? If we build 1 million homes, how do we balance the needs of the local environment? What kind of homes? We need homes for young people, just starting out, and homes for nurses, teachers, train drivers, supermarket workers and social carers—in other words, homes for the heroes of the pandemic. Where is the plan for affordable homes for those heroes? In all candour, I tell the Minister that the blue wall will not be happy if he ignores their views, as we have heard eloquently, again and again, from hon. Members today.
Then there is the question of transport. Central to the Government’s version of the Oxford-Cambridge arc will be the expressway, a massive motorway-building project, like something from the 1970s or 1980s. I welcome the Minister’s decision to scrap the expressway and I praise campaigners who fought so hard to make Ministers see sense, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who rightly called it
“a last-century approach to a 21st-century challenge”.
Yet again a Conservative Government is catching up with Labour policy, but dither, delay and retreat on the expressway cannot be replaced by dither and delay on the Oxford-Cambridge rail link. The Government must now give their full-throated support to the completion of phases 2 and 3 of the East West Rail link, linking Oxford, Bicester, Winslow, Bletchley, Bedford, Cambourne and stops along the way to Cambridge.
That investment in the railway is a superb opportunity for world-class station design and facilities for passengers; for full access for people with disabilities; for integrated transport systems linking up walking, cycling and bussing; for affordable spaces for local businesses and traders; for flexible ticketing and sensible pricing; and for environmentally friendly and sustainable use of buildings, energy and land. Most of all, the East West Rail link must be fully electrified. It must be a shining example of post-carbon, safe, clean and affordable public transport. The last point that I invite the Minister to address, therefore, is the full electrification of the East West Rail link. Rather than further prevarication and evasion, today would be a perfect opportunity to announce Government support for full electrification.
Labour supports investment in new homes, in new rail links, in projects that tackle climate change and in community building—in investing in a 21st-century economy—but they must be the right projects, based on the correct assumptions in our post-covid society. At all stages, they must engage every part of the community, not just the loudest and best organised, and never in a dash for growth at the expense of existing communities, never at the expense of people on low incomes, and never at the expense of our climate.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and it is certainly a pleasure to take part in a debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), or the Member for Wycombe International, a doughty campaigner for his constituents. He spoke eloquently on the issues and the opportunities that face his constituency and Buckinghamshire.
It is also good to see that, beyond the confines of the county of Buckinghamshire, we have a great many other interlopers, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) described himself in a moment of lucidity. We also have my hon. Friends the Members for Henley (John Howell) and, remotely, for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer). It is good to see them. By their presence, they demonstrate how very large a space the arc is. It stretches from the southern border of Leicestershire all the way down to the London borders and crosses east-west a large chunk of our country. Having mentioned them, it would be remiss of me not to note, too, the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who has also always spoken up strongly for his constituency.
We believe the arc is a globally significant area. It is a very big space, which provides the homes for approximately 3.7 million residents. It supports over 2 million jobs and adds over £110 billion to our economic output every year. While London puts the United Kingdom at the heart of global financial and legal markets, the arc is the driving force for national innovation and science. We believe that with the right collaborative support from the ground up, not the top down, by 2050 we could see economic output in the area doubling to over £200 billion a year, with the addition of 1.1 million further jobs.
When I have spoken to colleagues across the House and to our colleagues in local government, I have always been at pains to express that this is not about house building; it is about economic development of a very large region for jobs, skills and the transport and other infrastructure required to build the hopes and opportunities of the people who live there. It is about housing too, but housing is not the central thrust of what we are trying to achieve. When I hear talk from the Chamber of 1 million additional homes, points that were made in a report of some five years’ standing, I reply by saying that is not a Government target and it is not a Government policy.
I pointed that out to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire in this Chamber, but I suppose the best way to keep a secret is to make a statement in the House of Commons. I think the only way that we can put to bed or break open this particular secret is to keep repeating the point that 1 million homes is not a Government target. More homes are what we need and require, because in certain parts of the arc space, Cambridge being an example, average house prices are 12 times the average salary of a local resident. In other parts of the arc, house prices are as expensive, so we do need to build more homes with the right infrastructure for the people who need to live in this space.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My fundamental point is that the local plans and local authorities remain the building blocks—if he will forgive the pun—for house building and commercial construction in the area. We certainly want to make sure that local authorities work collaboratively with one another to make best use of this space, but it is the local plans that drive the numbers.
To answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), some authorities may wish to be ambitious and go further than the local housing need number, based on 2014 Office for National Statistics numbers. They may wish to go further. Others may have constraints. They may be green belt constraints, AONB constraints or other constraints. Those also need to be taken into account when local authorities take their plans to the planning inspector. It is for the planning inspector to decide what is a reasonable plan. If local authorities can demonstrate they have a reasonable plan, the numbers in that plan are what they are judged against, not the local housing need number.
I make two further points. The first is that if a plan falls out of date, it is the local housing need number that the planning inspector will look at if speculative planning applications come forward, so all authorities should ensure that they have up-to-date plans. Secondly, it is the case, generally speaking, that when local authorities collaborate with each other constructively, they can find ways of spreading their overall need across a wider space and thereby, using innovative means such as pursuing brownfield regeneration or using the permitted development rights tools that we have given them, ensure that there is less pressure on the all-important green spaces that we all know and enjoy.
If I may, I will address some of the points raised by colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield raised a number of points. She made it very clear that she wants local authorities to define what should be built, and our planning reforms emphasise that very point. We want local authorities to define the homes or the commercial properties that they need to build, the density and the design of them and the quality of them, to ensure that we get the right homes, the homes that we need. She also made the point that in her constituency there are certain challenges with affordability. That is one reason we have introduced the First Homes policy, which will allow the construction, through the planning system and developer contributions, of new homes discounted by at least 30%, which can be defined as for local people or key workers, for example, in order for them to benefit from the opportunity to own their own home.
We have also introduced the affordable homes programme for 2021 to 2026, which provides £12.3 billion of investment in affordable homes across our country. It will provide a significant number of new homes that local people can rent at reduced prices or that they can buy into, in a shared-ownership sense, at reduced increments, so that people can get on the housing ladder more easily.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of biodiversity and the importance of having green spaces that people can enjoy. We certainly recognise that, in the post-covid world, that will be important. She asked what the effect of the covid emergency would be. I think—like Zhou Enlai answering the question “What has been the effect of the French revolution?”—that it is as yet a little too early to say. But we do know that people need better green spaces. That is one reason why, in the national model design code, we have called for tree-lined streets and a better hierarchy of homes versus green space. We have also, in the Environment Bill, made it absolutely plain that when development takes place there must be a biodiversity net gain of 10%. We have also made it plain that local nature recovery strategies, to which she refers, are a fundamental building block of that Bill, which is soon to become an Act, and we shall bake those strategies into our plans for planning reform when we introduce legislation later this year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley made, as ever, a very thoughtful speech. He raised the question of the expressway and how that was handled. I will certainly take his remarks back to the Department for Transport and to Homes England. I simply note that in that particular case the Government listened. Clearly, there was local concern about how the approach was made and the proposals were tabled, and the Government have agreed that another course should be taken.
A number of colleagues have discussed—again, eloquently—the question of the spatial framework. We will begin a consultation on the spatial framework very, very shortly. In building our approach to that, which began in February, we have taken on board the views of local businesses, local councils and local authority leaders, who, across the political divide, have given us useful input. We want to ensure that we carry the public with us as we undertake this spatial framework vision consultation. The questions that we will ask in that consultation over the next several weeks will be high-level ones: “How do you want your space to be used?”; “What sort of environmental considerations do you have and how do you want them baked into planning?”; “What are the transport issues that you face?”; and “What are the job and the skill opportunities that you want to see for yourself and the place where you live?” The answers that people give us to those questions will feed a set of policy prescriptions that we could then take forward into another consultation, again engaging local people and involving local authorities and local leaders.
Fundamentally, we want to ensure that local people really get to have their say and not just the usual suspects, if I can put it that way. That is one of the reasons why we have taken such great pains to use the most modern technological tools, such as apps, to reach as many people as possible, including in diverse communities—those people who are not usually touched by the sorts of dry questions that Government and our agencies sometimes ask, including young people, people from ethnic minorities and people from less advantaged backgrounds—so that we get proper feedback that can then inform the decision-making process. We want to make sure that there is proper consultation, proper feedback and proper engagement at the heart of this.
That is also our approach to the growth board that we want to set up, to ensure that business leaders across the area can provide their full and fundamental feedback as to what policies they want to inform this space, because—again—this process is not simply about housing. Homes are important, but so are jobs and the infrastructure to support those jobs, which is why we want to ensure that the growth board plays a vital role in the arc.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire asked the very important question: “What about the infrastructure that really matters to people?” Not the big roads or the great big railways that impress certain people, perhaps, but the GP surgeries, the clinics, the playgrounds, the schools and the extensions to schools. That is one reason why, in our proposals for planning reform, we are proposing an infrastructure levy to replace the community infrastructure levy and section 106, which I think most people and bodies, including 80% of local authorities, agree is a rather convoluted and opaque process for providing developer contributions. It tends to be loaded in favour of the bigger developers, it tends to be very slow, and it tends to result in the infrastructure that was initially conceived of being negotiated away.
We want a system that will provide infrastructure up front that is far less negotiable and that means communities get what they want when they expect it, and as they want it. That is one of the reasons why the proposals built into our planning reforms will be so important for community buy-in to the proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South said that this process is not just about houses. Well, he is dead right; it is not just about houses. I have been at pains to be clear about that. It is about the economic generation of a very wide area in the centre of our country in the south, and not simply about houses. He also asked us to be collaborative. We will be, because we fully understand that if we are to succeed in this area, we need to engage the public and take them with us.
Sir Edward, I am conscious that I have now gone on for some 10 or so minutes, that there will be a Division soon, and that the Opposition spokesman wants to intervene, so I shall let him do so.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is most generous to do so. He has not responded to my key point about the east-west rail link. In order to assuage residents’ concerns and ensure that we are moving towards a greener post-carbon society, can he confirm that the east-west rail link will be fully electrified?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I understand his concern. He will know that this Government are the greenest Government that we have ever had, and the policies that we are pursuing and the commitments that we have made will ensure that that continues. For example, the future homes standard will ensure that homes built after 2025 are at least 75% more carbon-efficient than present homes. He will note that I am not the Transport Minister. DFT is looking at the proposals for east-west rail. We are all committed to it, and I trust that we will get an announcement sooner rather than later.
We are fundamentally committed to the arc and the economic opportunities it presents. We are committed to ensuring that local people are engaged in our plans. We want to ensure that the homes that are built to support the people who want to live and work in the arc are of the right quality, in the right places and are built with the grain of local communities.
We want to ensure that the right infrastructure to support those homes is developed at the get-go and not way down the line. We want to ensure that the jobs and skills in the arc complement those industries that are already there, and provide the jobs for the future. We want to take everyone with us in that enterprise. We believe that the arc can be a tremendous boon to our country and support to the local community. We are determined to see it happen and do it with the support of the local community.
Mr Steve Baker
It has been an interesting and informative debate. I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for some of the things he said. Before I come on to those, I was grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) reminded us that her constituents are so entrepreneurial. If people have taken enormous risks all their lives, in order to buy themselves a large house in a nice place, they are going to be upset and push back if we build houses in their view. We need to ensure that the system gives them some opportunity to say no and to be compensated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) was right to chide me that I had created the impression that this was a matter only for Buckinghamshire. He was followed very nicely by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer). It was important that my hon. Friend the Member for Henley set out some of the co-ordination problems, and reiterated the importance of the localism agenda, which, Sir Edward, you will remember we were all great fans of early on when we came here. My right hon. Friend the Minister reinforced the importance of those ideas.
The highlight of the debate for me, if my right hon. and hon. Friends will not mind my saying so, was when my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South expressed a sentiment from my heart to his lips, about the pre-eminence of the name of High Wycombe. I was grateful to him for that. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire was right to remind us about the regional development corporations. He spoke most articulately, and I was grateful to be here for his speech.
There was tremendous agreement with the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that we had better appropriate the slogan “affordable homes for heroes” before the Opposition put it on all their leaflets. I certainly would like some affordable homes for the heroes of Wycombe.
My right hon. Friend the Minister made a very strong case for a doubled economic output, with 1.1 million new jobs. I hope he will not mind my saying that, when people hear of another 1 million jobs, they will wonder about the homes to go with them. He has been clear that the local plans remain the building blocks that drive the numbers. That will be heard across the region, in all the counties. I very much hope that councillors and officials will be reassured by that.
Finally, my right hon. Friend the Minister made the point that he wants to ensure that local people have their say over what is done. That is the fundamental point on which everyone here is agreed; and I am most grateful for that.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
On the part of the pre-eminent town of Gainsborough, I must now put the question.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Oxford-Cambridge Arc.
UK Emissions Trading Scheme: Wales
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the operation of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme in Wales.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I commend the co-operative approach taken by the UK and devolved Governments in establishing the emissions trading scheme and in agreeing a common framework that treats each nation as an equal partner in our climate efforts. The scheme has brought coherence to one element of our combined efforts to achieve net zero.
There is, of course, room for improvement. I draw the Minister’s attention to concerns expressed by the Green Finance Observatory:
“The elephant in the room is that offsets are fundamentally not about mitigating climate change, or even about removing past emissions, but about enabling future emissions, about protecting economic growth and corporate profits.”
I hope that the Minister will reflect on those remarks when she sums up the debate. They raise two critical questions. First, how will businesses fundamentally reduce aggregate emissions, and do so rapidly? Secondly, what is the role of Government in facilitating that change?
In order to meet our climate targets, we must not only reduce overall emissions but adopt carbon-negative strategies. The most economical and natural of those is tree planting. I hope to expand on that point today and in doing so make a case for more closely linking the UK emissions trading scheme with a separate and voluntary carbon offset market. Both schemes encourage businesses to reduce overall emissions. They are currently unconnected in policy; they run parallel to each other. I accept the technical and policy challenges associated with directly incorporating carbon offsetting into the UK ETS, but I believe that an association between the two schemes, if established, would bring rigour, scrutiny and additional resources to the offsetting process.
Governmental intervention is urgently required to bring much-needed stability to the voluntary carbon offset market in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) recently highlighted that large companies are already purchasing vast tracts of agricultural land in the upper Teifi and Tywi valleys for forestry and carbon offsetting and are doing so in a manner that internalises financial gain and externalises the social, economic and cultural costs.
Those costs increasingly pose an existential challenge to Welsh farmers and rural communities and are inimical to efficient land use and a just transition. To echo the National Farmers Union, we urgently need to ensure a system that makes carbon offsetting mean the right tree in the right place. The Government, by acting as a broker and data-backed co-ordinator, can help to ensure appropriate land use for carbon offsetting, support the sufficient scale of planting and empower local farmers and rural communities to make a carbon-negative effort for themselves.
Wales’s forests are a natural economic and national asset at the very heart of our decarbonisation efforts. The lungs of our nation, our forests sequester approximately 1.84 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually, while pollution removal by woodland was estimated to have an ecosystem value of more than £385 million back in 2015. Our forests are also essential for our environment and biodiversity. Indeed, of the 542 listed species of principal importance to the Welsh Government, 210 rely wholly or partly on woodland habitats.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the crucial importance of restoring Wales’s peatlands, given that their climate change mitigation potential is 3,000 tonnes of carbon a year, equivalent to 5% of Wales’s transport carbon emissions? I am sure he will also take the opportunity to welcome the peat restoration projects led by parc cenedlaethol Eryri, the Snowdonia national park.
Ben Lake
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and, indeed, will join her in congratulating the parc cenedlaethol on that work. Peatland restoration will be an incredibly important part of our carbon mitigation and sequestration efforts. More work to ensure that local actors such as the parc cenedlaethol can fully benefit from and engage in that process is what we as politicians and policy makers should focus on in the future.
The area of land covered by trees and woodland in Wales has tripled since the early 20th century, increasing from 88,000 hectares in 1905 to more than 309,000 hectares as of March 2020. It accounts for about 14.9% of the Welsh land area. That is significantly greater in percentage terms than in England or Northern Ireland, but the coverage lags behind our Scottish cousins and is lower than both European Union and wider European averages, so we have much further to go.
The “Woodlands for Wales” strategy suggests increasing tree planting to at least 2,000 hectares per year from 2020. The Climate Change Committee, recognising the challenge of reaching net zero, has been even more ambitious, recommending an increase to woodland cover in Wales from present levels to 24%. That would mean planting 43,000 hectares of new trees by 2030 and 180,000 hectares by 2050.
Set against that backdrop, Welsh farming finds itself at a perilous juncture, buffeted on the one hand by increased trade barriers with our largest market and uncertainty over future income support, and on the other by increasing pressure on land use. Welsh land, like all land, is of course a finite resource. If climate goals are to be met in a sustainable and fair manner, solutions cannot be imposed on rural communities. Instead, solutions can and should be implemented in conjunction with rural communities, and in a way that protects them from any damaging consequences. That is especially important when it comes to Welsh forestry and carbon sequestration. If we are to achieve the desired objective of reducing carbon emissions and promoting biodiversity, rural communities must be at the heart of implementation. Welsh farmers play a vital but often overlooked role in the climate equation, with over 109,000 hectares of woodland—just over a third of the total woodland in Wales—located on Welsh farms. To fulfil the stated tree-planting objectives, therefore, we need to understand the implications for the farming and food and drinks sectors, which rely on this agricultural land—land that is also essential to the wellbeing of the rural economy.
At scale, concerns about food security are increasingly valid. We must also account for the real risk of displacing food production elsewhere, to countries that may have higher carbon footprints and lower environmental standards. The last thing that any of us would want is for an unregulated carbon offset market to bring about the perverse scenario of productive agricultural land in Wales being sold to large corporations for the purposes of carbon offsetting while we increase our food imports from across the world. Such a scenario—namely, the offshoring of our food production—would make a mockery of wider sustainability efforts. I must warn the Government that there are anecdotal examples of such a scenario beginning to take root in some parts of Wales. We must therefore act now to ensure that it does not become widespread.
The best way forward would be to increase the support for farmers and rural communities looking to enter the carbon offsetting market for themselves. I pay tribute to the fantastic work by academics based at Bangor University. In particular, I thank Professor John Healey, Dr Prysor Williams, Dr Sophie Wynne-Jones, Dr Tim Pagella and Ashley Hardaker for their outstanding research, which I commend to the Minister. If she were to review their work, she would note that substantial barriers to entry still exist for farmers and local landowners hoping to diversify into agroforestry. The UK ETS could play a transformative role, not only by better regulating the offset market but by providing the resources to encourage tree planting that is locally grounded rather than purchased by external, big business actors.
Practically, ETS revenues could be used to hasten a system of payments, as has happened in Ireland, so that farmers can afford to wait for a crop of trees to mature in order to derive an income stream. We could also look at land tenure restrictions and review contractual clauses that prohibit the planting of trees, which are especially important because over 30% of Welsh landed is tenanted.
Although such measures may seem parochial, they are fundamental to ensuring that we actually deliver a transition that is just as well as sustainable. We must work with farmers, who manage over 80% of land in Wales, to deliver a forested future that is critical to the overall success of our decarbonisation efforts. The alternative, in which big business can buy land, plant trees without any reference to local biodiversity and the optimum use of different parcels of land, all the while continuing with their polluting, business-as-usual practices, is unacceptable. Greenwashing, as the Minister will know, is an ever-present danger, but in this instance it would devastate Wales’s rural communities, culture and economy.
I hope that the Minister will address concerns that the ETS is not moving fast enough nor fundamentally reducing emissions. I also hope that she will agree that local groups and farmers should be supported to play an important part in the carbon offset market and in so doing lead the transition to net zero. We must not allow large corporations to buy farms, put rural communities out of home and land, and weaken local food production for the sake of greenwashed business as usual. More specifically, I would welcome any thoughts that the Minister might have on integrating carbon offsetting into the wider UK ETS framework to ensure that we have effective regulation of the market, the promotion of sustainable practices and the rewarding of responsible practitioners.
I hope that today’s debate, short as it is, has demonstrated the need for co-operative action across the UK to ensure that our greener future is ecologically, socially and culturally sustainable and, therefore, that the transition to it is a just one.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) on securing this really important debate on the operation of the UK ETS in Wales. The four Administrations of the UK have worked together over months and years to establish what will be the world’s first net zero carbon cap and trade market and a crucial step towards achieving the UK’s target for net zero carbon emissions by 2050. We have drawn on our years of experience and global leadership in carbon pricing, going all the way back to the original UK ETS in 2002, to ensure that the new scheme has the flexibility and ambition to deliver for the whole of the UK. We share the combined objectives of driving permanent emission reductions across the UK while protecting the competitiveness of our businesses, be they steelworks in south Wales, ceramics producers in central England or whisky distilleries in Scotland. The UK ETS authority—the UK Government and the three devolved Administrations —continue to make good progress in the operational delivery of the UK ETS in our respective nations.
The UK ETS market opened on 19 May and there have now been four successfully completed auctions, with a fifth taking place tomorrow. Collectively, we published the free allocation table for stationary installations on 11 May, and we have since issued just under 40 million free allowances to qualifying operators. The allocation table for aviation operators was published on 28 June, and we will be issuing allowances to qualifying aircraft operations shortly, but we are committed to building on the process, and officials from the four Administrations are already working together on plans to further increase the climate ambition of the UK’s carbon pricing policy.
The UK ETS authority has already jointly committed to exploring a number of areas where we could go further and faster, and together we plan to set out our aspirations to continue to lead the world on carbon pricing. The overall cap for UK ETS is an obvious place to start, and we will be moving together quickly to consult on a consistent net zero trajectory for the cap, drawing on the advice from our statutory advisers, the Climate Change Committee. We will also be reviewing free allocation, which is a key measure to protect our industries, to prevent the offshoring of emissions—I think we all agree that that slightly defeats the point—and to ensure that the system is fair and equitable across the UK and its constituent nations, while maintaining the level of ambition that we really need to be able to get to net zero.
Together, we will tackle the case for expanding carbon pricing across the economy while encouraging innovation in emerging decarbonisation technologies. The hon. Gentleman’s challenge of connecting forestry with the ETS is one that we will indeed look at. We have committed to explore expanding the UK ETS to other sectors—two thirds of emissions are currently uncovered—including thinking about how the UK ETS can incentivise the deployment of greenhouse gas removal technologies, be they nature-based, as he identified, or indeed engineered not by nature. We shall enhance the effectiveness of the UK ETS, particularly for aviation, while recognising our international obligation in that sector.
A key objective of the UK ETS is to protect the competitiveness of UK industry, so as well as the free allocation of allowances to sectors at risk of carbon leakage, which is the offshoring of production and emissions, we are providing a package of measures to help businesses to decarbonise. On 17 March, the Government published the UK’s first-ever net zero strategy for industry. The document is the first strategy published by a major economy, and it sets out how industry can decarbonise in line with net zero while remaining competitive and without pushing emissions abroad. The strategy sets the expectation that emissions in industry will fall by around two thirds by 2035 and at least 90% by 2050 compared with 2018 levels, in order for us to achieve net zero. We have challenges ahead and we need to find the best, most effective and most impactful solutions.
The UK ETS is a jointly established, jointly operated scheme that has great potential for all Administrations.
Ben Lake
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. As the work gets under way to expand the ETS scheme, will she ensure that the wider costs of any scheme, particularly carbon offsetting in local communities —whether those costs be the loss of agricultural land or the impact on the vibrancy of rural communities—can somehow be incorporated into the approach taken? I appreciate that it is a very complex issue and I do not pretend to have the answers, but could she reassure us that that will be considered as part of the future work scheme?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I take note of that. The hon. Gentleman may want to call for a similar debate with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss other aspects of the funding that will go to those smaller communities as we change the systems, now that we are no longer under the EU frameworks.
The UK ETS is focused on supporting industry to make those transitions and has great potential for all Administrations. It recognises both the unique opportunities and, indeed, the challenges in each, which are all different. I endorse and agree with the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and share their passion for all those nature-based solutions, which are critical to helping us to sequester carbon from trees to peat. I am a particular advocate for peat restoration across Northumberland, for obvious, biased reasons.
I encourage all Members to work with Government and Natural Resources Wales as we think about extending the ETS scheme, which we are just starting to do. We will seek to review it in some detail and think about how we can expand it. There is a great deal of room to continue the conversation. I look forward to working with Members as we set out the consultation in due course and make progress. I hope we will continue this important discussion and find solutions to ensure that these really important industries of ours can compete effectively on the international stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Voter ID
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the hybrid arrangements. I must remind hon. Members participating virtually that they must leave their cameras on for the duration of the debate and that they will be visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room—which is a very wonderful thing for all of us. Welcome. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That this house has considered the introduction of Voter ID.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary. Today’s debate is on an issue and a piece of legislation that pose a direct threat to our democracy. Citizens casting their votes in polling stations in England, Scotland and Wales currently do not need to present any form of identification. It is in that context, where elections in the UK are being undertaken safely and securely, that the Government have presented the Elections Bill—a Bill that will cost more than £40 million over the next decade to address a problem that does not exist.
The Government state that the Elections Bill will ensure that elections are “secure, modern and fair”, implying the baseless assumption that they are currently not secure, modern and fair. Election administrators in local government work tirelessly to deliver safe and reliable elections. This year, local councils delivered one of the biggest sets of elections ever held, an incredible feat after a decade of austerity. Luton Borough Council, in my constituency, has had £157 million cut from its funding since 2010. Now the Government want to heap additional, unnecessary work on under-resourced election administrators. According to academic research, 99% of election staff do not think fraud has occurred in their polling stations, and 88% of the public think our polling stations are safe.
From 2010 to 2018, there were a total of five police cautions issued for personation at polling stations in the UK and four convictions. In 2019, a year that included a high-turnout general election, there was one conviction out of more than 59 million votes cast. Although those rare cases are serious, and allegations must be investigated, they had little or no impact on the outcome of the election. The Electoral Reform Society has stated:
“Adding a major barrier to democratic engagement off the back of so few proven cases would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”
Can the Minister explain whether she believes that voting is safe and secure in Britain? The Government like to point to Northern Ireland, where they enforce voter ID, but the situations could not be more different. At the 1983 general election, 949 people arrived at polling stations in Northern Ireland to be told that a vote had already been cast in their name. Faced with high levels of documented, in-person electoral fraud, Northern Ireland introduced mandatory ID in 1985, and a free electoral ID card in 2002.
The introduction of voter ID in Northern Ireland did impact turnout, which was acknowledged in the Minister’s Department’s letter to Unlock Democracy in May this year, which stated that
“turnout appeared to be lower”
after the introduction of photographic ID as part of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. Around 25,000 voters are estimated not to have voted, as they did not have the required identification. Almost 3,500 people were initially refused a vote for not presenting identification. In a different context, and faced with military-style organised in-person fraud, an ID scheme was a proportionate response to protect the integrity of elections in Northern Ireland. That level of voter fraud has not been identified elsewhere in the UK.
The Government also rely on the misleading argument that if people need ID to pick up a parcel, why should they not need it to vote? Unlike picking up a parcel, voting is a legal right, not a privilege. Estimates suggest that around 3.5 million UK citizens—7.5% of the electorate—do not have photo ID. Furthermore, 11 million citizens do not have a passport or driving licence. Research estimates that about 1.3 million people in the UK do not have a bank account. This legislation would disproportionately impact sections of society. As Liberty has said:
“If you’re young, if you’re a person of colour, if you’re disabled, trans or you don’t have a fixed address, you’re much less likely to have valid photo ID and could therefore be shut off from voting.”
In Luton, we are proud of our super-diverse town. The 2011 census data showed that 45% of our population are not white—the very people that this discriminatory policy is more likely to impact—and not everyone can afford photo ID. A passport costs £85 and a driving licence £43. A Department for Transport survey found that 76% of the white population hold a driving licence compared with 52% of the black population. After the past year, the number of universal credit claimants in Luton South increased by 146% between February 2020 and March 2021, so photo ID will only have become more unaffordable.
Will the Minister explain why the Government are putting their energy into creating barriers to voting for already marginalised or deprived communities? I anticipate that the Minister will stress the free elector ID, but many on low incomes will not have the necessary free time or the means to access it. The ID process will require voters to take time off work or caring responsibilities to request it; those who can most easily take time off are those people who are most likely already to have ID. Also, in accessing the card and verifying the elector at the polling station there will be additional barriers, such as for those who wear face coverings or niqabs, or those who are part of the trans community, who, for example, may have changed their name.
Organisations such as Sense, Mencap, Age UK, Crisis and The Traveller Movement have all raised their concerns with me about how voter ID impacts people with complex disabilities, people with learning difficulties, the elderly, those who are homeless and Gypsy and Traveller people. The Bill has no provisions that directly address these concerns, so why is the Minister introducing a policy that will make voting more difficult for these groups?
Ministers repeatedly refer to evidence from the Electoral Commission, stating that the Government’s voter ID pilots at the 2018 and 2019 English local elections show there is no impact on any particular demographic group. However, there is a clear disconnect between the Cabinet Office’s statement and the Electoral Commission’s evidence. In both of its most recent reports, the Electoral Commission has said that it had no way of measuring the effect of photo ID on minority ethnic communities’ votes. Its report in 2019 states that polling station staff were not asked to collect demographic data about the people who did not come back. The commission recognises that that means it has no direct evidence of whether people from particular backgrounds were more likely than others to find it hard to show ID. Also, the Local Government Information Unit has highlighted that 37% of those who were refused a ballot paper did not return to vote, and in two areas just under half of those turned away did not come back with ID.
If the Government’s argument does not stand up to scrutiny, why are they intent on introducing voter ID? If no such voting issue exists, and if all the evidence points to voter ID causing voter suppression, what is the point of proposing these additional barriers to voting? I believe there lies the issue. This legislation cannot be unpicked in good faith, as the Government’s claims do not reflect reality. Instead, we have to take this policy for what it is: a discriminatory policy that will disenfranchise millions of voters. Much of the functioning of the legislation will be enacted through secondary legislation. Either the Government do not know how it will be implemented or this is simply an extension of whipping up a culture war, targeting black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, people with a disability, the trans community and the working class.
I am sure we all agree that encouraging high turnout is vital to sustain a healthy, thriving democracy. Imposing barriers on voting to tackle baseless allegations, which will lead to voter suppression, is disgraceful. The estimated cost of photo ID would be better spent on increasing confidence in our democracy through improving political literacy and encouraging engagement in the political process. Since 2010, this Government have cut youth services funding by 73%. Reversing those cuts would also help to improve democratic participation.
I have a question for the Minister. How does she expect me to explain the introduction of voter ID to my constituents, who are more likely to suffer voter suppression because of it, and to my council, which will have to undertake unnecessary additional work after a decade of cuts? I look forward to receiving specific responses to each of the questions I have asked and to each of the points I have raised, but I will conclude by saying that our elections are well run, so if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. This dangerous legislation must be scrapped.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
We have only six Back-Bench speeches, not seven, so we can aim for five minutes each.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and to follow the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), although I have to politely disagree with some of her assertions.
In this country and most true democracies, the right to exercise the franchise is one of the most important symbols of the state as servant not master. Once every four or five years, voters go to the polls and give their verdict on the policies, commitments and ideals that they think will best suit their ambitions and hopes for where they live. It is a marvellous privilege, and we should not forget that there are still many places where people are denied that right.
Worst are those that go through the motions with an attempt to legitimise often ruthless, cruel and oppressive regimes through a veneer of respectability, in a charade of an election where every ballot box will be stuffed and every vote for the regime or junta in charge counted at least twice. That is why it is so important that our own democratic process is utterly unimpeachable. When we seek to bring the virtues of liberal open democracy to the rest of the world and promote our values, we cannot turn a blind eye to fraud and corruption at home. I do not need to look too far from my own constituency for examples of where that has already happened.
In Rochdale, a sitting Labour councillor who was serving as a member of the executive was caught voting twice in a local election. He accepted a caution from the police after claiming ignorance of the rules. This was a senior councillor who was still sitting on Rochdale Borough Council.
The rules should be clear and properly enforced. The idea of taking ID to the polling station is not a radical one. In fact, it is quite common around the world. Unless we are seriously saying in this debate that countries such as Germany, France and Canada are failed states or oppressive regimes, it could just be that we are the international outlier. I can speak only from my own experience, but on more than one occasion when I have been canvassing I have been asked by somebody whether they need to take their polling card with them to the polls, and on more than one occasion when I have been outside telling, I have been handed a polling card because people legitimately assume that they have to prove who they are when they go to vote. When told that they do not need to, many of them say, “You should probably do something about that.”
The idea is not even new to the UK. Voters in Northern Ireland have been providing proof of their identity since the 1980s, with no difficulty in the smooth running of elections. As long as there is access to a free recognisable form of photo identification that identifies that a person is eligible to vote and, more importantly, eligible to vote where they are attempting to, there should be no adverse effect on participation. It is even reasonable to assume that increased confidence in the integrity of our elections could encourage some of those who abstain to re-engage with the democratic process.
Voter suppression is a vile and unconscionable act, and accusations of it being levelled without a good faith basis are scurrilous and unbecoming. Voter fraud is sinister, and we have evidence of it already. A simple change requiring additional checks at the polls will go a long way to bolstering our political process, and we should, in short, welcome it.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. It might come as no surprise, but I disagree with most of the comments made by the previous contributor, the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson). Voter fraud is an issue that the Tories have obsessed about for a long time without ever having proof that it is an issue that needs additional legislation and voter ID to resolve. Giving one example of one conviction does not actually underline the need to bring in such widespread legislation, which will indeed lead to voter suppression. Even the pilot trials that were undertaken proved that many people did not have ID with them, and even when they might have accessed ID, many did not return to vote and a lot of folk were effectively disfranchised. The Electoral Commission has admitted that it does not have enough evidence to draw strong conclusions from the results of the pilot, so again that undermines the argument for the legislation.
The Tories talk about democracy, but the Bill could disfranchise between 2 million and 4 million people from disadvantaged backgrounds or from ethnic minorities—in other words, non-Tory voters. We have already had the boundary reviews that give the Tories an advantage. We now have a Bill to put the power of calling elections solely into the hands of the Prime Minister, and now this. Those are all ploys to cling on to the levers of power. Then they are looking to extend the franchise to give Brits abroad the vote for life. Why? Because they believe there is an ex-pat cohort that will vote Tory.
In the talk about extending the franchise for life abroad, quite often we hear the example of a war veteran deprived of the vote. What they never say is that that war veteran is often stuck in a frozen overseas pension, so it would be far better to do something about that. Meanwhile, in Scotland, we extended democracy and the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds at the independence referendum—a move that was cynically opposed at the time by Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems. We have now brought that in for all elections in Scotland, and we have also extended the right to vote to refugees and foreign nationals with leave to remain. By contrast, down here, in a further bid to upset democracy and fair elections, the Tories want to curb the powers of the Electoral Commission. Their argument is that the Electoral Commission does not have sufficient powers at the moment.
The Scottish National party is the only major party not to have been fined for breaching election rules. Indeed, the Electoral Commission believes the fines that it can impose at the moment are now just seen by all three UK-wide parties as business-as-usual election expenses, so that is way bigger an issue than the 33 or 34 accusations of possible voting misrepresentation out of 34 million votes cast. Of course, clerical error quite often accounts for possible voter impersonation, so voter ID might not solve that in itself.
There is actually a far bigger issue for democracy than possible vote fraud: the attitude of the Tory Government, and how they reward chums and donors. We have a Secretary of State for Housing—he is still in place—who made an illegal planning decision that was going to save a Tory donor millions of pounds. We have the covid contracts fast-tracked to Tory donors, and the misuse of funds for the contract to Public First to undertake political polling in Scotland. It is shocking that the Good Law Project and openDemocracy—not to mention the SNP—are relying on the courts to hold the Tory Government to account.
Looking at elections, we have seen the dirty tricks and the personal data breaches by Vote Leave, which has also been subsequently quoted by the Tories, and so many people from Vote Leave migrated into advising the Tory Government. Instead of trying to disenfranchise voters, it would be better for all if the Tories created level playing fields for elections and were seen to be part of an open and transparent governance structure—not the unfortunate “them and us” set-up that we have at the moment.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I think the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) approached this issue with an attitude of “Let’s throw various things at the wall and see if any of them stick,” rather than a coherent argument.
The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) opened the debate by saying that this legislation is a direct threat to our democracy and is tackling a problem that does not exist. I am pleased to see on the Government side my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall). We are both former members of the Conservative party in Tower Hamlets, and we both vividly recall that this is a problem that does exist and has happened. I am afraid to say that, but for the brave work of a few individuals, without any support from our authorities, an election in our country’s capital city, next to the heart of our financial district, would have been taken away due to improper conduct. One of my great friends in the world is Councillor Peter Golds, and he behaved remarkably, along with others, to ensure that that election was not taken away.
I understand that the hon. Member for Luton South feels that she needs to defend her constituents and put her case forward, but I am not sure it is as coherent as she wants it to be. We all know that the example we cite at this point is that the Labour party requires identification to attend its meetings. Please explain to me why Labour party meetings are more important than the elections that decide our Government.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I would not normally intervene, but I want to clarify for the hon. Member that there is absolutely no requirement to show ID to enter a Labour party meeting. Indeed, I have been a member of the Labour party since 2004 and have never been asked to show ID to attend meetings. As hon. Members might expect, I am a very active member of the Labour party. I just wanted to correct the hon. Member on that point.
Mark Fletcher
I commiserate the hon. Lady for her long membership of the Labour party—I hope it has not proved too costly. However, she will be aware that there have been many adverts for Labour party events that say that members must bring identification. I am very happy to provide screenshots of those events, but I think that she will accept the common point, and perhaps she could return to it later.
The hon. Member for Luton South referred to police convictions and the Electoral Commission. There was a sort of dampening down—“This is not really a problem, because the law is not really that concerned.” There is an argument on police resources and how much time is dedicated to this issue, but the point is that the Electoral Commission in this country is not fit for purpose, in my humble opinion. It has not directed enough resources to this issue.
Finally, on the idea that people do not have identification and that they would be unable to show it, my understanding is that 98% of people in this country have suitable identification. This is a de minimis requirement for people to be able to participate in a democracy. Our laws are made by the people who are elected. They come to this House to be the voice of the people. We should make sure that the process is fair, transparent and meets the highest standards we can possibly have. Do we really think that this small matter of having voter identification, which will help to improve the process, will somehow disenfranchise millions of people? It is a ludicrous suggestion.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Now, through a slight quirk in the call list system, I call Tom Randall.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), who is my predecessor as chairman of the Poplar and Limehouse Conservative Association. I agree with everything he has said, particularly his generous remarks about Councillor Peter Golds and his campaign against electoral corruption.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) on securing the debate. We sit alongside each other in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I often agree with everything she says in that Select Committee. Regrettably, I will disagree with almost everything she has said this afternoon.
The hon. Lady says that this is a problem that does not exist. How does she know? To answer that question, perhaps it would be helpful to have a potted history on how to commit electoral fraud. There is a marked register that sets out who has voted and who has not. In the case of council elections, it is very easy to tell, with a little bit of research, who the 50%, 60% and in some areas up to 70% of people are who do not habitually vote in council elections. Once someone is armed with that name and an address, they can go to the local polling station and give that name and address. Unlike at Labour party meetings, there is no ID—they just need to give that name and address to the clerk at the polling station and they will be handed that voter’s ballot paper.
If someone lives in a town or small village, the clerk might recognise that the name and face do not match up, but if they live in a crowded urban area—take Tower Hamlets, as a random example—where people do not know each other and do not know their neighbours, the ballot paper will be handed over with no questions asked. If someone were to do this perhaps later on in the evening, at 8 or 9 o’clock, when most people who were going to vote had voted, they would be able to do that successfully, and they might, in an urban area, be able to go around a few polling districts, if they have really done their homework, and vote several times for several people, before the close of poll at 10 o’clock.
Throughout the whole of this process, this is perhaps the most unique fraud of all. It is a fraud in which the victim does not know that they are a victim of fraud. If someone has decided not to vote in an election, they will not go out to check the marked register—if they even know what the marked register is, which most people do not. They will not go out to check that they have not voted in an election in which they have decided not to vote.
If a victim of electoral fraud does not know that they are a victim of electoral fraud, how does the hon. Member for Luton South know? I have not had an answer to that so far. However, this debate has a little while more to run, so I look forward to being enlightened on that point.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) on obtaining the debate. I agree with her and share her sentiments.
I think I can speak with some experience. Others are equally experienced, but I first contested an election in winter 1974. I have contested elections since 1982 at every level—local authority, Scottish Parliament, United Kingdom Parliament and, indeed, the European Parliament. I have contested rural seats and, in particular, urban and deprived seats, so I think I have some experience.
Have I seen electoral fraud? Yes, but in almost 50 years’ experience, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of instances in which it has occurred. There are, of course, many apocryphal tales. I have heard them mentioned, sometimes by my own side, sometimes by others: keys to empty flats being used, to take polling cards; or staff in care homes taking the residents’. None of them actually bore any scrutiny. Does electoral fraud happen? Yes, we know that it happens. I have seen the sad situation in Northern Ireland, but that is not the situation either in Scotland or, certainly, south of the border. That is why the Government’s position in fact creates a worse situation for democracy.
As parliamentarians, we should be encouraging people to participate in the franchise. Although the elections that just took place in Holyrood did not go the way I would have wished, I very much welcome the fact that, despite the fears that many of us had, turnout increased. That can only be a good thing for democracy. We would be delighted to obtain these days the turnout when I first participated back in 1974. We have to ensure that we encourage participation, not discourage it.
I have been fortunate in my political life to have met Professor Henry Milner. I think he is probably still alive; he will be a very old man. I remember him speaking to me and lecturing me. He gave me a copy of his book “Civic Literacy”, which is a fascinating study that I would recommend to any Member. He compares and contrasts the high turnouts in places such as Finland and Scandinavia and the lower turnouts in places such as Australia and, indeed, Belgium—countries where voting is mandatory and it can be a criminal offence not to vote. He explains that high turnout is not about being able to vote at Tesco, and it is not about being given a free pen or whatever else. What matters is understanding, knowledge and awareness; people have to appreciate what they are voting for. It is not a simple, straightforward matter.
I accept that low turnout will not necessarily be blamed on impediments. As Professor Milner mentions and as we all know, people stood in the blazing sun in South Africa to vote for the end of apartheid, despite the difficulties in getting to vote. In the United States, it took ages for people to be able to vote and they went through difficulties and great delay, but they did so. That said, we have to remember that, as well as Professor Milner’s lessons about raising political awareness, education and civic literacy—by which he means measures such as public service broadcasting and access to a broader, open media—there is a lesson about making it as easy as possible to vote. Voter ID goes against that, and that is why it is counterproductive.
The measures are not as flagrant as what we see in the United States, but let us remember that what we see in the United States is something utterly shameful. The voter suppression that was practised by those who supported President Trump’s attempts to rig the ballot and remain in office came about after reconstruction at the end of the civil war, when those who could not retain ownership of people through slavery sought to retain it by rigging the ballot box. Sadly, voter suppression continues in the United States.
Voter ID is about voter suppression. For that reason, those who represent minorities have continued to express their concerns. Members may shake their heads, but this is not me; I am simply taking advice from the likes of the Electoral Reform Society, which I support and view as neutral. Those concerns also come from organisations such as Mencap, Crisis and those who represent the most vulnerable.
People sometimes criticise the referendum in Scotland, but it was truly startling: more people voted in the independence referendum than have voted in any election to the Scottish Parliament since. On that basis, voter ID is a counterproductive measure that discourages voting and is fundamentally wrong.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes, until all Members return.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The electoral integrity Bill, which is now called the Elections Bill, is a bit of a con. Putting the word “integrity” in the title—it is now in the long title—of the Bill cannot disguise that. It seeks to solve a problem that in reality does not exist, as we have heard. With only one person convicted of voter fraud and one person cautioned, it is very hard not to draw the conclusion that something else is going on here. If the Government disagree with that—I appreciate that they do—they need to let us see the evidence as to why they are so convinced that this legislation is necessary.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) told us that he was aware—to his knowledge—that alleged election fraud had taken place, but by his own admission, that attempt was thwarted. That was before we had this legislation in place, so clearly the legislation was not necessary to prevent that.
Patricia Gibson
I will not give way, because we need to move on. What we do have evidence for, from countries around the world where voter ID operates, is that it creates the barrier that we have heard about—a barrier to voting, and a barrier between citizens and their right to exercise their democratic choice.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) said that we do not know whether election fraud is taking place. All we can rely on are the facts, and the facts do not bear out the claim that there is a need for this Bill. Here is the rub: all the evidence shows that the more socially disadvantaged a voter is, the more likely it is that that voter will be further disadvantaged by the introduction of voter ID. Is this a mere accident? Is it a mere accident that the demographics most likely to be disadvantaged by the Bill are less likely to vote Tory? It must be an accident, surely. It must be an accident, because the title of the Bill—[Interruption.]
Patricia Gibson
The Bill was called the electoral integrity Bill, and the long title still refers to “integrity”, so I am sure that any advantage or perceived advantage to the Tory party will be accidental.
The American experience tells us that voter ID resulted in reduced turnout among black, Hispanic and working-class voters, but of course this Government will know that. Research in the UK shows that the voters least likely to possess the necessary ID include the most disadvantaged groups in our community, but again, the Government will know that. The Government well know that 3.5 million voters across the UK do not have access to photographic identification and 11 million do not have a driving licence or a passport.
The example of Northern Ireland shows that an estimated 25,000 voters did not vote, because they did not have the required form of identification, but this information is not routinely published and no proper work has been done to analyse the further effects in Northern Ireland. The Government are willing to spend the estimated £10 million in implementing this exclusive, unnecessary scheme at a time when, as the Government will surely agree, spending is under real pressure, so it is almost impossible not to be suspicious of this measure.
In contrast, what do we see in Scotland? We see the franchise extended to 16 and 17-year-olds for the Scottish Parliament and local authority elections, and we see votes for foreign nationals who have leave to remain. Perhaps it is worth considering that, as a direct result of that, the voter turnout in May’s Scottish Parliament election was the highest for any election since devolution was established in 1999. There might be a lesson in that for proponents of this legislation. Surely any healthy democracy would seek to encourage voter participation instead of doing what we know suppresses turnout, for reasons that simply are not backed up by any convincing and sustained evidence. The so-called electoral integrity Bill, as was, is very much about elections, but let us be clear: it has nothing to do with integrity, which many argue is not really a priority for this Government anyway. Sadly, that is a problem for this Government, because the voters are watching and they understand what is going on here. The views expressed by those of us today who oppose the Bill speak for the electorate, who know.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I just inform hon. Members that we had a 22-minute suspension, so we now have to finish at 6.12 pm. Can the Front-Bench spokesmen keep an eye on the clock, because it is only fair to give the proposer of the debate some time at the end?
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) on securing this debate.
It is striking that the general arguments against this measure are so consistent: it is a solution in need of a problem, its implementation will have a disproportionate effect on certain communities and it undermines our democracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said, it is part of a pattern of measures—something we must not lose sight of. The hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) made an important point; he said that we cannot really quantify it, but a problem really exists. In evidence-based policy making, one would normally identify a problem and then craft a proportionate solution. This way, we have a so-called solution that we know will cause a problem, but we have absolutely no idea of the quantum of the problem it is there to fix, if it even exists at all. I say gently to the Government that one should develop policy on the basis of evidence rather than anecdote. It is no surprise, given the evidence that we have, that this measure has quite rightly been described as voter suppression.
Let me turn to the genesis of the current voter ID plans. When the noble Lord Pickles reported on electoral fraud in 2016, he highlighted what he called the trust nature of polling station voting, and he was absolutely right to do so because trust is at its heart; it is the great strength of the voting process. Regardless of whether one agrees with the first-past-the-post electoral system, once voters have properly registered to vote, they do not need ID or even a polling card. In this democracy, if someone is entitled to vote, they can turn up and can cast their ballot—or not—for whoever they please. Suppressing the right to do that by making it more difficult will reduce trust in the result, not increase it, because the public will assume, quite rightly, that in some way this Tory Government have suppressed the vote to fiddle the result in their favour.
We did hear stuff about Tower Hamlets, and I do not doubt for a second that a lot of shenanigans went on, but the criminals should be arrested under the existing law. We refer to Tower Hamlets, but let me remind hon. Members of Dame Shirley Porter, Westminster council and the homes for votes scandal, which the district auditor described as “gerrymandering”. At the end of the day, after many court cases and trials and a huge amount of money, the verdict was upheld by the House of Lords and she was asked to repay £42 million. If the public are concerned that somebody is at it, we have evidence of Tory gerrymandering designed precisely to win a handful of marginal wards in one local authority.
I do not think we should be going down the road of voter suppression, lest we end up with the head of the Post Office taking away post boxes for communities that do not vote Tory, as we saw in the United States when post boxes were removed from Democrat-voting areas during the last presidential elections. To proceed with this voter suppression plan, before the Supreme Court has made a determination on whether the pilot schemes that the Minister may pray in aid were even legal, further suggests that something is far from right.
When the Government responded to the various reports by the Lords Select Committee or the Joint Committee on Human Rights on this matter and various related matters, they said a number of things, such as that the potential for electoral fraud exists and
“the perception of this undermines public confidence in our democracy.”—[Official Report, 12 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 2WS.]
However, there was precisely no evidence that anyone has ever not voted because of the small potential for electoral fraud. They said that although the incidence of voter fraud may be low, its impact can be significant and takes away a voter’s right to vote as they want. That is true in the few cases of personation that we have seen, but the impact of voter fraud is not just low to the point of being almost insignificant; it is almost non-existent. This is, as almost everyone has said, a solution looking for a problem.
The Library has helpfully told us that the worst year for personation was 2016, with 44 allegations and a single, sole, solitary conviction. That is one conviction for personation in 2016, which was the year of the EU referendum—a ballot in which more than 30 million people cast a vote.
The Government have also said that showing ID for everyday activities such as picking up a parcel is something that people from all backgrounds do already, and that voting should be no different. In my view, that is a facile and puerile argument. Collecting a parcel is not a human right, but being able to vote freely in a democracy is.
Finally, the Government have said that voter ID does not have a negative effect on election turnout or participation. That is simply not true. We know from the pilots that the proportion of voters not returning after initially being refused a ballot ran at between 0.1% and 0.7%, which implies between 46,000 and 325,000 people in a UK election in the whole of Great Britain. This plan alone would likely deny somewhere in the order of a quarter of a million people the right to vote, so it will have an impact on participation. And as has been mentioned a number of times, the Electoral Commission has suggested that 3.5 million people would not have a suitable ID, which means that the impact could be substantially larger.
So, however the Government slice and dice it, whether the scale of the suppression is only a quarter of a million voters or 3.5 million voters, and whatever we heard in Tower Hamlets or whatever we know about for Westminster City Council, this would be voter suppression on an industrial scale, and I urge the Minister to think again.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Edward.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) on securing this debate. It is indeed a timely debate, given the recent publication of the Government’s Elections Bill. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, it was initially mooted that it would be called the electoral integrity Bill, but it has absolutely no integrity and absolutely stinks of voter suppression. Consequently, I am glad that my hon. Friend has secured the debate, so that we can set out the reasons why the requirement to show photo ID to vote is a solution looking for a problem.
I will focus my arguments on three key areas. The first is the fact that voter fraud is vanishingly rare in England, Scotland and Wales, and that voters actually have high confidence in our British democracy. The second is that requiring photo ID for voting is a huge waste of taxpayers’ money; it is estimated to cost £120 million over 10 years. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, this policy is discriminatory: it will lock millions of people out of democracy. I think that once we start to break down the Government’s arguments for requiring photo ID, the mask starts to slip and there is a pattern of behaviour by which this is an act of voter suppression to try and rig future elections.
My first argument is that voter fraud is incredibly rare. When I say that, I mean that personation at polling stations is incredibly rare. I am the sort of person who looks at the statistics on electoral fraud when they are published, and it is an uncomfortable truth for all of us who are political activists that the main perpetrators of electoral fraud in this country are actually political activists. Indeed, it is something that I have seen in my own constituency, when one of the political parties that campaigns in Lancaster fraudulently filled in ballot nomination papers and made up people’s names and addresses. Sadly, that type of fraud is quite common.
What is very rare is personation at polling stations. Many colleagues have already set out the statistics on that. For instance, 2019 was a year with a high-turnout general election, but the UK saw just one conviction for personation out of 59 million votes cast in that year alone. To put that into some kind of context, a person is more likely to be struck by lightning three times than to be impersonated at a polling station. So, personation is incredibly rare, and I am really pleased that the British people actually have confidence in our democracy, with recent surveys showing that confidence in our elections is at its highest for 10 years—since record-keeping on this issue started.
So we have an electorate who are confident in our democracy, and very low instances of voter fraud. We should be proud of our democracy, and certainly not talking it down in the way that the Government are doing.
My second argument is about the colossal waste of taxpayers’ money. As we have heard from my colleagues, the Government are choosing to spend £120 million of taxpayers’ money to introduce the voter ID scheme, presumably to catch one case of voter personation. I would argue that the money would be better spent on 9,000 more police officers on our streets over the next decade, in order to deal with the rising knife crime that blights so many of our communities, or perhaps on solving the epidemic of violence against women and girls—it feels like the Government have chosen to ignore that at the expense of pursuing this policy.
Voter personation is absolutely a crime, but it is about priorities and scale. We are spending £120 million on something that is so tiny, whereas huge problems in our society are going unaddressed. I would argue that such a level of investment could be better spent on fighting the types of crime that I have just spoken about, or perhaps we could even give a pay rise to our NHS workers, who are exhausted after an absolutely torrid 18 months of fighting covid on the frontline. Perhaps we could instead consider funding our children’s catch-up education to an adequate level and supporting young people’s mental health. But no—£120 million of taxpayers’ money is deemed more valuable on this project, which is looking for a solution.
My final argument is that this policy locks people out of democracy. It is a regressive policy. It makes it more difficult to vote, and it puts barriers up. We have talked a lot about the people who do not have access to ID and marginalised groups, but it is actually also a barrier for those that do have ID, because it is an additional barrier. It means people looking around for their passport or driving licence before heading to the polling station. This policy can do nothing but suppress voter turnout, and when voter turnout is decreased, it is easier to manipulate elections and become more vulnerable to actions of potentially rogue states.
Mark Fletcher
The hon. Lady kindly intervened on me, told me of her Labour party membership since 2004 and told me that people do not require voter ID to attend Labour party events. To return to Tower Hamlets, I am conscious that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) hosted an event at St Paul’s church in Bow on Sunday 27 October 2019. On the poster for that event, which I have in front of me, it says very prominently, “Bring photo ID.” I am just curious as to why all the arguments that the hon. Lady is making do not apply to Labour Party events.
Cat Smith
Attending a Labour party event is not a human right, but voting in a democratic election in a democratic country is. That is the first obvious point to make, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to talk about Tower Hamlets, because fraud was an issue in the election of Lutfur Rahman as mayor. I absolutely recognise that, and it is a serious issue, but if we are going to argue that personation at polling stations was the primary issue of fraud there, I would argue that we are actually missing the bigger picture, because there was postal vote fraud, there was illegal provision of false information, there was illegal employment of paid canvassers, and there was bribery and undue spiritual influence. It is important to look at such things as a whole, because the Elections Bill will involve taking a very small slice of the problem and, I would argue, using it for party political advantage because of voter suppression.
Cat Smith
I do not think Sir Edward has the patience for me to give way a second time, but I am sure that we will have plenty of time to explore the arguments much further as the Bill comes before the House.
It is wrong for the Government to pursue the Elections Bill, which would require voter ID, when we are still waiting for the High Court judgment on the legality of the pilot schemes. The pilot schemes saw over 1,000 voters turned away from polling stations in just a few council areas. If we scale that up to a UK general election, we are talking about potentially changing the outcome of the election by locking people out of democracy.
This proposal is a colossal waste of money. It is a solution seeking a problem and it is a discriminatory policy that will lock some of the most vulnerable people, who need political representation the most, out of our democracy. I am proud of our British democracy. The British people have confidence in it, and it is about time that the Government started talking it up.
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I will aim to speak for no more than 10 minutes, leaving time for the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) to come back in at the end. I hope that is sensible.
I thank the hon. Member for Luton South for bringing forward this debate, and all hon. Members who have contributed. The Government and I are committed to upholding the integrity of our democracy, giving the public confidence that our elections remain secure well into the future. Voter fraud is a crime that we cannot allow room for. We propose to stamp out any potential for it to take place in our reserved elections.
The hon. Member for Luton South asks why I would do this. It is because I want more people to vote, because I want people to have their own vote and because, apparently unlike some hon. Members speaking today, I want to stop criminals having two, three, four or more, or scores of votes.
Personation—assuming the identity of another person with the intention to deceive—is, by definition, a crime of deception. It only comes to light later. It is very difficult to prove and to prosecute, but it is a crime and by no means a victimless crime. It is often the most vulnerable who find themselves targeted. The Electoral Commission stated in its review of electoral fraud in 2013:
“The majority of people in communities affected by electoral fraud are victims rather than offenders.”
The people who are likely to be the victims of electoral fraud can be described as vulnerable.
I recognise the hon. Lady’s concerns about the diversity in her constituency. I am going to address many of those points today. I will start with a further point from the Electoral Commission’s own research, published by the University of Manchester, the University of Liverpool and the Electoral Commission in 2015, which warns that residents are at greater risk of being victims of electoral fraud in diverse areas.
Voter identification is important. It is a reasonable approach to strengthening our electoral system. It virtually eliminates the risk of personation occurring in the first place. Since its introduction in Northern Ireland, there have been no reported cases of personation. The EC has also previously noted that the confidence of voters that elections are well run in Northern Ireland is consistently higher than in Great Britain, and there are virtually no allegations of electoral fraud at polling stations.
Even the perception that our electoral system is vulnerable to fraud is of course damaging to public confidence. Data from our pilot evaluations show that the requirement to show identification increased public confidence in voting, and we all want that.
In 2016, Lord Pickles conducted an independent review of electoral fraud in the UK, which provided the evidence of vulnerabilities in our elections that must be addressed. In the case of Tower Hamlets, where an entire election was declared void by such fraud, he made a number of recommendations, including the introduction of voter identification at polling stations. Hon. Members speaking today, including the hon. Members for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), have added to that evidence base. It happens in our country, it is wrong and we have the power to act.
The introduction of voter identification is also supported by the independent Electoral Commission. It is backed by international election observers, such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s office for democratic institutions and human rights, which has repeatedly called for the introduction of ID in polling stations in Great Britain, saying that its absence is a security risk.
Many other democracies around the world, such as Canada, France and Germany, and the Scandinavian countries—already hailed by the hon. Member for East Lothian today—require some form of identification to vote, and they use it with ease. Showing identification to prove who you are is something that people of all walks of life already do every day.
As we have discussed, many constituency Labour parties require two types of ID to vote in Labour party selection meetings—but then, the picking up of a parcel has been called a privilege. Perhaps Labour Members think that membership of their party is for the privileged as well.
The suggestion that millions of voters will not be able to vote is simply not supported by the evidence. Cabinet Office research from earlier this year shows that 98% of electors already own the photographic documents that we propose, either in date or expired. The survey was the first of its kind looking at the full range of photographic ID planned. I note in passing that the figures used by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) are out of date and are not relevant to the identification that is proposed.
It is important to be aware that the list of approved photographic forms of identification will not be limited to passports and driving licences, but will include a broad range of documents already in use, including, for example, various concessionary travel passes, proof-of-age standard scheme cards and photocard parking permits issued as part of the blue badge scheme. Out-of-date ID will also be accepted as long as the elector can still be recognised from the photograph, and any eligible voter who does not have one of any of those forms of identification may apply for their free, locally issued voter card from their local authority. That is critical. Everybody who is eligible to vote must and will have the chance to do so. We will continue to work with the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders, including charities and civil society organisations, to ensure that voter identification works for all. I encourage hon. Members to look at our comprehensive equalities impact assessment, which was published alongside the Bill.
As a Labour Minister said in 2003 when introducing photo ID in Northern Ireland:
“If we believed that thousands of voters would not be able to vote because of this measure, we would not be introducing it at this time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 2003; Vol. 646, c. 1248.]
Indeed, look at all the work that I led to ensure that elections could take place this year, despite the pandemic, with voters able to vote by a new proxy scheme, up to polling day itself if necessary. That is not a Government suppressing voters. I strongly suggest that sensible politicians drop that foolish language.
It is vital that such an important policy be implemented properly. That includes secondary legislation, which is a sensible approach. The roll-out of voter identification was successfully trialled in two years of pilots in a variety of local authorities, and we are building on that knowledge with research, modelling and planning, as we work with the electoral sector and wider organisation on the national implementation plans. Crucially, we will ensure that there is sufficient time and resources to support the hardworking elections teams to put it in place. Critically, there will be comprehensive targeted communications and guidance by the EC to raise awareness among voters.
Of course, introducing voter ID is only one of the measures that this Government are bringing forward to strengthen our electoral system. After all, personation is just one of the interlocking types of fraud that we have seen at polls, as argued by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) and as demonstrated in Tower Hamlets. That is why, with our new Elections Bill, we are also tightening the rules for absent voting, giving greater protection to all people with a postal or proxy vote arrangement. We are legislating to clarify and improve the outdated legislation on the offence of undue influence of an elector.
Modernisation is critical inside the polling station as well. The test of identification already exists, but voters are asked only for their name and address, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) rightly pointed out. I regret that some seem to oppose voter identification in principle, because that principle has been part of our elections for decades. It is right to do it, but we need to do it well, not badly. Victorian law needs to be updated, and that is what we are doing.
I thank the hon. Member for Luton South for bringing forward the debate, and all hon. Members who have contributed. We have discussed a number of important issues, and we will have much more debate as the Elections Bill progresses through Parliament. I look forward to that, because this policy is truly important to protect that most precious of things—our democracy.
We are the stewards of a fantastic democratic heritage, but it is not perfect and we must keep striving to ensure that it stays secure, fair and transparent in the face of the challenges that the modern world brings. Strengthening the integrity of our electoral system will give the public greater confidence that our elections will remain secure well into the future. The measures in our Bill are a reasonable and proportionate approach to give the public confidence in a core principle of our democracy—that their vote is theirs, and theirs alone.
Rachel Hopkins
We have had a long afternoon, with the votes in the House. I thank everybody for their participation. I thank in particular the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for his comments, because I believe that this is just the Government’s attempt to cling on to the levers of power. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) that we should encourage participation and civic literacy. I particularly agreed with the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who said that we need evidence-based policy, not anecdote. Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith): we on this side of the House all know that this is a solution looking for a problem, and that £120 million of taxpayers’ money could be much better spent fighting crime with 9,000 more police officers.
Ultimately, the proposals will lock the most marginalised people out of democracy, including those with disabilities, the elderly and those from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups. The Minister said that we must do everything to protect our democracy and I agree, but tackling potential fraud by actually disenfranchising voters is wrong.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the introduction of Voter ID.
Written Statement
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
National Crime Agency: Crime Reduction Function Inspection
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The National Crime Agency (NCA) leads the fight against serious and organised crime. It has the power to task other law enforcement partners and a capability, with local to international reach, to disrupt the impact of serious and organised crime on the UK.
This is the eighth Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services inspection of the NCA and examines the non-specialist NCA investigation teams based at the branch offices across the UK. The focus is specifically on the alignment of investigations to the threats, allocation of resources, and the NCA’s capacity to tackle organised crime.
I have asked HMICFRS to publish the report. It will be published today and will be available online at www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The inspection found that NCA’s crime reduction function is working well in a number of areas of law enforcement. The agency’s management of the highest priority cases and the difficult management of scarce, specialist resources are effective, and cases being developed by the intelligence command are focused on SOC threats. The agency’s investigators show resilience and flexibility often in difficult conditions. However, the report also identifies a number of areas for improvement, including assessment of capacity in the investigations command to meet the demand being developed by the intelligence command, inadequate level and quality of equipment and access to investigative tools in some parts of the country, an over-reliance on legacy IT systems and the need for consistent investment to ensure the NCA is at the same standards as the police force.
[HCWS173]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering, except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
For the Grand Committee on the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including those in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk, using the Grand Committee address, if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groups are binding. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not Content”, an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content”, a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make that clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill
Tuesday 13th July 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 15-II(Rev) Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (13 Jul 2021)
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“(1A) The duty under subsection (1) includes a duty to review—(a) vendors of goods or services to public telecommunications providers which are prohibited in other jurisdictions on security grounds, and(b) the reasons for such a prohibition.”
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
In moving Amendment 1 and speaking to Amendments 20 and 27, I first thank the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who have signed one or all of the amendments. This is a clear signal from across the Committee that the Bill must be strengthened to deal, first, with companies that have been banned in other jurisdictions, secondly, the need to dig deeper into the ownership and investment of companies and, thirdly, the desirability of acting in concert with our allies in Five Eyes.
These amendments sit comfortably alongside the call that we heard at Second Reading for additional parliamentary scrutiny, which the Intelligence and Security Committee has called for. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, said that we should focus on what other nations are doing:
“we have allies around the world and will want to be able to work with other companies and countries around the world to make sure we have that diversity of the supply chain.”—[Official Report, 29/06/21; col. 716.]
On 30 November 2020, the Secretary of State told the House of Commons:
“We must never find ourselves in this position again. Over the last few decades, countless countries across the world have become over-reliant on too few vendors”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/20; col. 75.]
During our debate, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, told us:
“Other countries in the free world face the same challenges as the UK”.—[Official Report, 29/06/21; col. 718.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, urged us to work
“in close partnership with our Five Eyes allies”,
reminding us that
“We have known that Huawei is a security risk since 2013.”—[Official Report, 29/06/21; cols. 726-7.]
That should enable us to avoid what the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, described as “another costly security debacle”. My noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup told us that we
“need to develop an approach ... that constantly monitors and rebalances this equation in the context of our complex and dynamic world.”—[Official Report, 29/06/21; col. 715.]
These amendments seek to address many of those points.
At Second Reading, noble Lords referred to companies that have caused security concerns in other jurisdictions, including Huawei, TikTok, ZTE Corporation, which the Government have named a high-risk vendor, Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd, Zhejiang Dahua Technology Company Ltd and Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company Ltd. I will return to Hikvision later. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, said that the Bill’s headline is
“a ban on the purchase of new Huawei equipment”.—[Official Report, 29/06/21; col. 711.]
Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Bennett, he referred to the genocide against Uighurs in Xinjiang. I serve as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs and am a patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response. Following the House of Commons’ decision to name a genocide in Xinjiang, only last week the Foreign Affairs Committee published a damning report calling for a much stronger response from the Government. These amendments, like those to the Trade Act, which the House passed with three-figure majorities, are a modest attempt to force that stronger and effective response.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has frequently pointed to the way Chinese companies can fundamentally compromise our infrastructure and, through subsidies, asphyxiate UK industry. The one billion lateral flow tests that we have bought from the CCP are a glaring example. These amendments specifically address the telecommunications sector, but they provide a road map that could be emulated in other strategic sectors.
Finding ways to protect our strategic industries has never been more important. Last week, we learned that, in a deal estimated to be worth £63 million, the Newport Wafer Fab, the UK’s largest producer of semiconductors, has been acquired by the Chinese-owned manufacturer Nexperia. Nexperia is a Dutch firm but is owned by China’s Wingtech. Newport Wafer Fab is the UK’s largest producer of silicon chips, which are vital in products from TVs and mobile phones to cars and games consoles.
This acquisition is happening during an increasingly severe global shortage of computer chips. Kwasi Kwarteng, the Business Secretary, said that the Government are monitoring the situation closely, but do
“not consider it appropriate to intervene at the current time”.
When she comes to reply, perhaps the Minister could tell us why it is not appropriate, when the right time would be to protect a key national asset, and whether, following the Prime Minister’s subsequent expression of concern, the acquisition is being reviewed under the National Security and Investment Act, which at Second Reading we were all told would protect key national assets from dangerous foreign takeovers.
There is a lamentable lack of strategic coherence or consistency in our approach. On one hand, we have the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, saying that he wants to deepen trade deals with China, while the Foreign Secretary tells us that slave labour in Xinjiang is “on an industrial scale”. We have the integrated review telling us that China is a threat to the United Kingdom, but the Business Secretary telling us that it is not appropriate to do anything at the present time.
This predatory absorption of our semiconductor industry is inimical to the material interests of our technology companies and to national security. Our Committee should consider carefully what is at stake here and why these amendments are so very relevant. Have the Government examined what is happening within the same sector in other jurisdictions, for instance? What assessment has been made of the dependency of United Kingdom manufacturers on China for imports of critical technologies such as semiconductors and semiconductor devices? The applicability of these amendments, by generating a review of other practices in other regions, is of course self-evident. We are starting with telecoms, but the same lessons apply across the board.
I also want to pursue an issue which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and I raised at Second Reading. The Minister was asked about companies that operate and own CCTV security networks. UK local authorities are reviewing contracts for CCTV equipment made by Hikvision. This is being used to enforce China’s surveillance state in Xinjiang, but it is also operating CCTV equipment the length and breadth of Britain. Is that wise? Hikvision is banned in the United States but not here. I put a simple question to the noble Baroness at Second Reading, and I put it again: why not?
Last week in its report Never Again: The UK’s Responsibility to Act on Atrocities in Xinjiang and Beyond, the Foreign Affairs Committee said:
“Cameras made by the Chinese firm Hikvision have been deployed throughout Xinjiang, and provide the primary camera technology used in the internment camps.”
The committee heard concerns that facial recognition cameras made by companies such as Hikvision operating in the UK—I repeat: operating in the UK—are collecting facial recognition data, which can then be used by the Chinese Government. Dr Hoffman, who was one of the witnesses giving evidence to the Select Committee, said that Hikvision cameras are operating “all over London”. The committee said:
“Independent reports suggest that Hikvision cameras are operating throughout the UK in areas such as Kensington and Chelsea, Guildford, and Coventry, placed in leisure centres and even schools.”
The committee concluded:
“Equipment manufactured by companies such as Hikvision and Dahua should not be permitted to operate within the UK. We recommend that the Government prohibits organisations and individuals in the UK from doing business with any companies known to be associated with the Xinjiang atrocities through the sanctions regime. The Government should prohibit UK firms and public sector bodies from conducting business with, investing in, or entering into partnerships with such Chinese firms”.
So will we? It would be good to hear from the Minister.
In parenthesis, the committee also registered concerns about
“substantial research connections between the Chinese organisations responsible for these crimes and UK universities”,
and said that,
“the role of advanced technologies in the use of oppression in Xinjiang cannot be ignored.”
At Second Reading, the Minister referred to the report into export licences. The Select Committee complains that
“the Government has not made clear when the urgent export review will be concluded. The crisis in Xinjiang is far too urgent for delay.”
Again, it would be good to hear from the noble Baroness on that specific point about export licences. Can we at least be told what plans the Government have to impose import and export controls on firms linked to China’s military-civil fusion programmes? Are we acting in concert with our allies, as these amendments require, over Hikvision? As in the US, will this Bill be used or amended to enable us to ban it?
The Select Committee also referred to our duties under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. I refer to my interests as a trustee of the Arise Foundation. The committee report says:
“the issue of forced labour in Xinjiang is pervasive, widespread,”
and that
“In the Government’s own words, ‘no business can consider themselves immune from the risks of modern slavery’.”
This, too, is information that has been assessed in other jurisdictions and deemed to raise ethical and security issues of which we should make ourselves aware, as these amendments would require us to do. I can think of no compelling reason, other than vested interests, as to why we would not want to know what other jurisdictions are doing about these issues.
I turn again to telecoms. The argument for more concerted action was put well, in the context of Huawei, by Senator Marco Rubio, who said:
“Rejecting Huawei would not mean the UK going it alone, but joining a coalition of like-minded countries determined to ensure effective, market-based alternatives to Huawei are available.”
He is right. Have we examined this? Are we doing the same?
As long ago as 2018, the US put in place a block on ZTE, China’s second-largest maker of telecommunications equipment, because of violations of sanctions against Iran and North Korea. It has designated ZTE as a “national security threat” with government telecommunications funds banned from buying equipment from ZTE. Are we doing the same? In April, the Department of Commerce added seven Chinese supercomputing entities to the list, with Gina Raimondo, the US Secretary of Commerce, insisting that
“The Department of Commerce will use the full extent of its authorities to prevent China from leveraging U.S. technologies to support these destabilizing military modernization efforts.”
The US has gone further in examining investments, as these amendments do. Proposed new Clause 15 would require us to examine what others are doing in this respect. President Biden has issued an executive order banning US investors from trading shares in China Mobile, China Unicom and China Telecom. The list of firms in which US firms cannot invest comes to more than 60. I will not read out the full list today, but I have sent it to the Minister, who has kindly acknowledged receipt, for which I am grateful. Among those firms listed are a number specifically connected to surveillance technology including China Telecommunications Corporation, China United Network Communications Group, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology, Huawei Technologies, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, China Mobile Ltd and China Telecom Corporation Ltd.
However, it is not just the US. Australia is another of our closest allies and a core member of Five Eyes, which is specifically mentioned in these amendments. In blocking a A$300 million takeover offer by China State Construction Engineering Corporation, Australia cited national security grounds. As long ago as 2016, Australia forbade a deal on the basis that China’s subsidies rendered it difficult for Australian bidders to make a competitive bid, with the Treasurer saying that it may be
“contrary to the national interest”.
In 2020, the Guardian Australia reported links between companies operating in sensitive sectors including the national science research agency and technology companies and operatives from the Chinese intelligence agencies, with one reported as having ties to the CCP’s United Front Work Department, a foreign-influence body described by President Xi Jinping as an “important magic weapon”.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, we move into the scrutiny of the Bill, which seeks to balance the need for the United Kingdom to be at the forefront in technological development and connectivity—requiring the fastest and most efficient broadband, for example—with the need to ensure that we do not inadvertently open ourselves to malicious actors or states as we do so. It is therefore appropriate that the first group of amendments seek to strengthen the security side, recognising the complexity of modern threats. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has as ever laid out the case extremely clearly and in detail, and I look forward to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, replying as comprehensively. He has long made sure that in the Lords we delve deeply into these issues as we challenge the Government and hold Ministers to account.
These are sensible amendments intended to set the Bill in the context of what our allies are doing, drawing from their knowledge and experience and, as the noble Lord said, most importantly, working together. They propose actions that should be happening anyway but which we know can be easily set aside or overlooked as Governments address many pressing issues. Amendment 1 includes a duty to review telecoms vendors
“which are prohibited in other jurisdictions on security grounds”.
It is important that we both learn from other jurisdictions and act together. We have seen how China, for example, seeks to pick off states, as in its recent threat to ban Australian beef on the basis of what it had judged to be interference in its internal affairs. We also saw the Foreign Minister of New Zealand at first indicate that her country should go its own way in relation to China, clearly worried about China’s possible actions, before stepping back from that position in recognition of the fact that we really are stronger together.
There are clear risks. We see Canadian citizens used as pawns in a wider concern about Huawei. As China becomes ever more dominant economically, and under its current leadership, resistance to its positions will become ever more difficult. We have been unable even slightly to hold it back in relation to Hong Kong, and it is therefore vital that like-minded countries work together. Therefore, there are two reasons for seeing what other like-minded countries are doing: first, to see what risks they identify and, secondly, to decide whether we should act together, as we would hope they would act when we saw risks. We are of course in a weaker position globally as we are out of the EU, which has strength in numbers and economic power.
Amendment 20 would expand the powers to include ownership or investment, and this clarifies further where risks might be; for example, through the investment clout of certain players. This is clearly vital.
Amendment 27 would require the Secretary of State to review the UK’s security arrangements with countries banned by a Five Eyes partner and decide whether to issue a designated vendor direction or take similar action with regard to the UK’s arrangements with that company. This updates previous legislation where this risk was not so apparent as it is now, with the hugely increased economic and other associated power, for example, of China. Of course, the Five Eyes of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK are very much aligned on this. Certainly, the risks identified by the Five Eyes should be front and centre in our thinking. I would say that we should add in the EU. Had we still been in it, we would have had that major sphere of influence to strengthen our position further. That makes these amendments even more important.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, laid out, we have become very dependent on China in many areas. That is true not only in the area of the Bill but in the new green industries, for example. We need to be much more strategic than we have been in this regard up to now. As he also set out, we cannot build our business on human rights abuses even up to genocide.
I am sure the Minister will say that these amendments are not needed as all these actions will be taken, but they are tabled to make sure that they are. We know that this has not happened adequately up to now; we need to strengthen the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has stated. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to my colleagues that I was not able to speak at Second Reading. I am quite clear, as I suspect we all are, that the security of the UK’s telecoms infrastructure is vital. Sadly, we come pretty late to the scene. The expansion of 5G and full-fibre broadband should have happened years ago, so this is not before time.
I read economics at Cambridge and looked at a number of aspects of economic expansion there, particularly in relation to business sectors. It is all very well saying that we will try to prevent the supply chain to the UK network being dependent on a limited number of suppliers. That may be a good idea in theory, but I just reflect that we have a national grid which is every bit as important as 5G; we have one or two aircraft manufacturers, and we have a couple of shipyards, so I just wonder whether there are a whole lot of suppliers out there for the telecoms world—there will be others who are better qualified than me to judge that. However, it is clear that we need to identify areas of risk, and Huawei is clearly one of them.
I would just ask a couple of simple questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned Five Eyes. Is there a co-ordinating structure for Five Eyes in relation to this particular structure? If so, where is it based, what is our contribution to it and who exactly is doing it?
Some of our colleagues may have read the recent trading standards report that has just come out—I read it only last evening. A massive number of scams is happening at this point in time and we are dealing with the trouble they cause.
Amendment 20 refers to
“a specified country or … sources connected with a specified country, including by ownership or investment”.
I have worked overseas, including in a fair number of countries in south Asia such as Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka, so I ask: who on the ground will actually be doing the work? Quite frankly, I know of nobody in any of our high commissions capable of doing that sort of analysis. Do we have a floating investigatory system? How are we going to judge the evidence properly?
On Amendment 27, we need to take care, clearly, but we must recognise that there may be a valid opportunity in a company that has upset the host Government. You and I would not know the situation, but we should be aware of that fact.
I am a bit sceptical about the security check. I made a freedom of information inquiry—it was nothing to do with telecoms—and, at the end of the day, the reason given for not producing all the evidence following my FoI request was the security of the country. It was never explained in words of one syllable—or indeed in any syllables at all—what aspect of my inquiry would affect the security of the UK. I would like to know this from the Minister: are we relying on Five Eyes or are we relying on Ofcom? Who is it specifically that will be doing this analysis?
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I want to say a few words on this. It is highly relevant that we keep a close eye, but on all vendors, including the ones that may seem okay at any given moment—the world keeps changing. I am not an apologist for, and nor do I wish to promote, China in any way whatever, but it happens to be there and it happens to have ripped off a lot of Cisco stuff a few years back and improved it. The Japanese did this to our cars, many years ago—nothing changes.
The real problem is that we do not manufacture this sort of stuff here; some of it is manufactured in Europe, and of course we are no longer part of that, but does that matter anyway? We are reliant for the supply of all this electronic equipment, and the components—such as chips, which I mention specifically —on China and many other places. The Americans also rely on China to manufacture components which they then put in their equipment. We had a security compromise a few years ago, when compromised components were put into some Cisco equipment. It is more complex than trying to ban one company or one country. But there are not many alternatives for us here, and that is the real problem. We need to get some home-grown stuff going and we need to get it done very quickly if we want to be really secure.
What are we going to do about it? The thing that worries me is that you cannot assume that your allies are always your friends in everything. We have to be particularly careful of being dragged into a trade war under the cover of security or defence—and this does happen. The cost of this whole thing is not so much that Huawei will try to cause us problems in some way unknown if we remove it from our system completely; there is the other side of it. If its technology is working and is better, and we can make sure in various ways that we are secure against what Huawei might do, its technology might get us to where we need to be in an internet world a lot quicker. I notice that we have already delayed quite substantially the rollout of broadband everywhere and 5G—everything seems to be stalling because of these rows, which to me are trade rows.
I fully understand the points of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about supporting regimes that are doing appalling things around the world. The trouble is that there are an awful lot of them. Take the situation he mentioned, to do with cameras. It is actually the software that does the facial recognition, not the camera; it is purely a bit of hardware that takes a very good, high-quality photograph, and there are many alternatives to it. Who is supplying that facial recognition software? That is where I would really target, and I would bet it is China. If there are bits that are useful to us, we need to use them. We need to stay in the world and we need to get ahead. We are not ahead and we are going to drop behind more and more.
The other difficult thing about picking a fight with China is that, if we are really going to go net zero and start going all electric in the next few years, lithium supplies and processing are from China. There is already a shortage of chips and other things in the automotive industry; I am sorry, but we are reliant on an intertwined global supply chain which stretches all over the place. We must be very careful about singling out one country, but we are—and that is why the amendment is useful. We must have something that says that we are keeping a proper eye on the whole lot of them.
Lord Fox (LD)
This is an interesting debate—one that we started about a year ago. During the summer, on the then Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill, many of these arguments were rehearsed. This Bill was held out, in a sense, as the carrot that would address these issues, and it has been some time coming.
To some extent, the initial issues that came up last year have been discounted, with the Government largely moving on the Huawei issue. However, as we have heard—and will hear over the course of Committee—many questions are unanswered. We should once again thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Blencathra, and my noble friend Lady Northover for bringing forward these amendments, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I will be interested to hear his perspective as, having been a Minister, he understands some of the trade-offs in decision-making—it is interesting that he chose to sign this amendment none the less.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for his Second Reading speech. He could not give it to us at Second Reading, so we got it anyway. There are some issues around industrial capacity which I will come back to.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, picked up a point on which I queried the Minister and did not get a response: at what point are we examining this technology? You have systems, sub-systems, components and software. Frankly, if we are doing this, it must be done at all levels. The capacity to do that and track a chip, a piece of software or something in the software which we do not even know is supposed to be there is a huge task. Do we have the capacity in the intelligence services, and the industrial ability, to do it? It is a very important question, as there is not much point having this if we cannot actually do it.
Before speaking to Amendments 1 and 20, I will say a few words on Amendment 27, the Five Eyes element. As we know, this requires the Secretary of State to review the UK’s security arrangements with companies banned by Five Eyes partners and to decide whether to take similar action on the UK’s arrangements with those companies. As I think my noble friend Lady Northover said, the Minister will no doubt say that we do this anyway. If we do this anyway then, to some extent, we should not be afraid of putting it in the Bill. It is important that we walk in as lock-step a way as we can with our Five Eyes partners, but the point of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is apposite; China understands that and will play the Five Eyes against each other. We must be aware of that; we must not be slavish in how we respond but canny, and work with our partners so that they understand why we are moving in the right direction.
Again, this comes down to capacity. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, asked who does it. The NCSC is supposed to provide the ammunition for the Secretary of State and Ofcom to operate on. There are big questions around the interface between the NCSC and Ofcom and how they relate to each other. How, for example, does the highly secret information the NCSC is dealing with get to DCMS and Ofcom without either breaching security or eroding transparency, or both? We have big concerns about that, and obviously it will come up later.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised Newport Wafer Fab, which until recently I thought was an ice cream firm somewhere in Aberystwyth. However, now I find that, as he set out, it is our only supplier of this equipment. That is an object lesson in itself but it is also completely appropriate to this point. In its response, BEIS confuses manufacturing capacity with technical novelty and has the idea that, because this is not technically novel, that somehow stops it from being valuable to this country. However, manufacturing capacity is central to the delivery of future technical novelty, and if you want somewhere to look, look at the communications industry. We were pre-eminent global leading companies in analogue communications technology; no country could match us. We lost that manufacturing capacity and the ability to innovate in the digital space, and that is why we have the supply chain issues we have today. If the Government have not learned this lesson, and it seems that BEIS has not, we have a long way to travel yet before we get to a sensible place.
In a sense we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others about specific issues but I would like to rise up a bit and look at the bigger picture slightly. In his Mansion House speech on 1 July 2021, Rishi Sunak crystallises the challenge and perhaps the dichotomy, and points us in a number of different directions at the same time. Your Lordships must excuse me, but I will read out a fairly lengthy passage which is appropriate to this debate. He says:
“And our principles will also guide our relationship with China. Too often, the debate on China lacks nuance. Some people on both sides argue either that we should sever all ties or focus solely on commercial opportunities at the expense of our values. Neither position adequately reflects the reality of our relationship with a vast, complex country, with a long history. The truth is, China is both one of the most important economies in the world and a state with fundamentally different values to ours. We need a mature and balanced relationship. That means being eyes wide open about their increasing international influence and continuing to take a principled stand on issues we judge to contravene our values. After all, principles only matter if they extend beyond our convenience. But it also means recognising the links between our people and businesses; cooperating on global issues like health, aging, climate and biodiversity; and”—
here we come to the rub—
“realising the potential of a fast-growing financial services market with total assets worth £40 trillion”.
What does a mature, balanced relationship look like in context? How nuanced are the examples that we have just heard about the Chinese? First, we can see that because of advanced concerns around the security of at least one Chinese vendor, the UK Government are mandating equipment to be torn out of our existing infrastructure and thrown away at the cost of several billion pounds. That is not a nuance. Secondly, we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, this time and previously, and we have seen the evidence of malevolence within China to its own people on a scale that is, let us say, unusual even for the age in which we live. Thirdly, we can see transparently what is going on in Hong Kong. That in itself is not a nuance either. Fourthly, we have the Chancellor’s stated desire to realise the potential of a fast-growing financial services market.
All this is the context in which Amendments 1 and 20 have been tabled. This gives the chance for the Minister to explain where she and the Bill sit on that nuanced scale, as the Chancellor puts it. He clearly sets out that the Government’s principles will guide our relationship with China, so what are those principles?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this is my first Grand Committee appearance, and I hope that I do not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I have been in a number of committees, but not at this end of the building. I am still getting used to some of the processes and procedures, but I am very pleased to be speaking on this Bill.
From our perspective, the Bill is very welcome. The Government are clearly addressing a very real security concern that our nation has, and, in trying to deal with it, have not just my support but that of every single Member of the House of Lords. It is our country, and we want it looked after and defended properly. Many of the amendments and the comments that have been made so far today, and which will be made throughout the Committee and no doubt at Report and beyond, are about challenging the Government, not from an oppositional point of view but from one of trying to improve the legislation. We want to ask the Government testing questions to see where their thinking is. That is what all the various speakers have done so far today.
There are a number of particular issues. As others have said, the amendments in this group, from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, deal with the international context for the security of the telecommunications sector, however you define that. This is really important, because it affects—not infects—every single part of our lives. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave the example of Hikvision and CCTV. Whether it is the hardware or the software, this demonstrates that there are examples of new technology and telecommunications which impact on all our lives but which many of us probably do not view as causing a potential security threat to our country and nation. We have only to look at where that is going—whether you look at this sphere or the defence sphere—to know that we are going to see an increase in telecommunications, and in the use of space, drones, artificial intelligence and all those sorts of aspects.
One thing that I will talk about in other debates on other amendments is how you future-proof this—and that is part of some of the later amendments. Hikvision, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised, is an interesting instance. At the nub of it is that, if our allies, who we depend on for our collective security, are banning companies such as Hikvision, as in the United States, how is it in our interests to defend our own security to not do the same? It is unfair to say that it has not been thought about, but there is something of a disjointed approach when one of our closest allies—if not our closest—has banned a tech company that we use. I am sure that there are very good reasons for it, and the Civil Service and others will no doubt tell the Minister X, Y and Z, but it defies common sense. Whatever the reality of it, it just does not appear to be a sensible option, so I very much support the example that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, gave. That is one of the reasons why I added my name to Amendment 27.
With regard to NATO and Five Eyes on a domestic and international level—I shall return to this point on Amendments 18 and 25—who actually holds the ring? Who is the person or what is the department that co-ordinates all this activity across government? Who holds the ring across government? You could say that it is the Prime Minister, but the Minister will know what I mean. Out of all the various aspects of government, who actually in the end decides? And if there is a conflict of interest between them, who then is the judge of that and how does that work on an international level? But as I say, that is more to do with Amendments 18 and 25.
Amendment 27 in particular, as I said, ensures a review of telecoms companies when a Five Eyes partner bans the operation of a vendor of goods or services to public telecommunications providers in its country on security grounds. That is eminently sensible. It a review. The amendment is, essentially, testing the Government by asking, “Why wouldn’t you have a review?” Why would you not—to use a security term—keep that under surveillance?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for these amendments, which seek to strengthen the resilience of our telecoms networks by putting a new monitoring requirement on providers in relation to vendors in other jurisdictions, adding to the list of matters to which a requirement in a designated vendor direction may refer, and requiring the Secretary of State to review decisions taken by Five Eyes partners to ban vendors on security grounds.
We recognise the aim of having a comprehensive approach to telecoms security that includes the provider and government. The Bill follows this approach. A number of your Lordships said that I could be advised that the amendments are not unnecessary, but one issue the amendments raise is that of clarity of responsibility in the Bill. We believe genuinely that these amendments would blur some of that clarity.
The Bill as drafted is clear that it is the responsibility of government, not public communications providers, to set security duties and to designate vendors who pose a national security risk. In doing so, the Government, via the National Cyber Security Centre and other agencies, will monitor companies globally, including, of course, in the Five Eyes countries. It is then up to the providers to implement the security duties placed upon them and to comply with any designated vendor directions issued to them.
Amendment 1 in particular risks blurring these lines of responsibility and requiring telecoms providers to spend disproportionate resources on monitoring vendors internationally. This amendment seeks to place a new duty on public telecoms providers to review vendors of goods or services to those providers which are prohibited from other jurisdictions on security grounds, and to review the reasons for the prohibition. This would require public telecoms providers to monitor the policies and regulations of all other jurisdictions to understand whether those jurisdictions had banned certain companies from operating. This would be an onerous, disproportionate duty to place on industry.
Furthermore, in some cases, it may be impossible for telecoms providers to comply with the duty. The amendment states that telecoms providers must review the reasons for a vendor’s prohibition from a jurisdiction. As noble Lords will be aware, many jurisdictions have opaque decision-making processes, where it may be difficult, if not impossible, for telecoms providers to review the reasons for the prohibition of certain companies. Moreover, new Section 105A, which is inserted by Clause 1, places a strengthened overarching security duty on public telecoms providers. This duty is centred on an appropriately future-proofed definition of security compromises. Clause 1 therefore already ensures that telecoms providers undertake appropriate risk management to guard against any relevant threats to network security. In the light of this, I do not consider that this amendment is either proportionate or necessary, given the burden that it would place on telecoms providers and the duties already contained in the Bill.
Amendment 20 seeks to clarify that a requirement in a designated vendor direction may make provision by reference to the sourcing of goods, services and equipment from a specified country, or from sources connected with a specified country. While it is important that we protect our networks from the threats posed by hostile state actors, I do not consider this amendment to be necessary. As currently drafted, the Bill already allows for requirements to be included with provisions relating to the “source” of goods, services and facilities supplied by a designated vendor. I would consider that countries, and sources connected to countries, would already be captured by this wording.
Further, the list of matters that the noble Lord seeks to amend is explicitly non-exhaustive. The Bill is clear that the provisions of a requirement may refer to matters other than those listed in the Bill. It is therefore already possible for a requirement in a direction to refer to the country from which goods, services and facilities are sourced, if the Secretary of State considers that such a requirement is necessary in the interests of national security and proportionate to the aim that is sought to be achieved. As such, this amendment would not achieve anything that is not already possible under the provisions of the Bill as drafted.
Amendment 27 seeks to add a new section to the Communications Act 2003. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review decisions taken by Five Eyes partners to ban telecoms vendors on security grounds and consider whether similar action is required in the UK.
A number of Members of the Committee, including the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, stressed the importance of co-operation. She asked whether this was happening anyway. The short answer is that it is. The UK is already committed to a close partnership, and engages regularly with the Five Eyes. The UK’s telecom networks face similar challenges to networks in other countries.
The Government have engaged with partner countries on the approaches to high-risk vendors throughout the drafting of the Bill and will continue to do so once it is passed. I reassure the Committee that we are in regular contact not only with the Five Eyes nations but with other key partner nations—for example, Japan, France and Germany, to name but a few. Therefore, a requirement to review their decisions to ban a high-risk vendor and consider whether to issue a designated vendor direction in the UK would be unnecessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked more broadly how we worked with other countries in relation to national security. We have always maintained that each country needs to implement the mitigations that are right for their national circumstances. Of course in practice, Governments are adopting similar measures to address the risks, and adapting them to meet their own national circumstances. For example, the Netherlands, Germany and Australia have all either adopted or are planning to adopt security measures comparable to those set out in the UK’s draft secondary legislation, which the Bill would allow us to implement.
In July 2020, following advice from the National Cyber Security Centre, the National Security Council considered the impact of US sanctions in relation to Huawei. It considered that further action was needed, as the new US restrictions made oversight of Huawei products significantly more challenging and potentially impossible. That is another example of how the UK already regularly reviews security advice and requirements in response to international considerations.
Some of the issues raised were closely linked to the Bill, while others were slightly less so. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked how Ofcom and the NCSC would work together in practice. To formalise the relationship between the two organisations, they are in the process of developing a memorandum of understanding and have published a statement, available on the Ofcom website, that sets out the three key principles that they will follow. They are: first, that the National Cyber Security Centre will provide expert technical cybersecurity advice to Ofcom to support the implementation of the new telecoms security framework; secondly, that they will exchange information where necessary and permitted by law; and, thirdly, that the National Cyber Security Centre will continue to provide incident management support during serious cybersecurity incidents, both to telecoms operators and to Ofcom as needed.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, suggested that our broadband rollout programme had stalled—forgive me if I misheard—but I do not accept that. We as a Government remain committed to delivering nationwide gigabit and mobile connectivity as soon as possible. We have put in place £5 billion of funding to roll out next-generation gigabit broadband and have already connected more than 1 million hard-to-reach homes and businesses. Despite the pandemic, the expansion has been extraordinary, with 40% of premises now having access to gigabit-capable broadband, which will rise to 60% by the end of this year.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
I congratulate the Minister on introducing the Barran scale of nuance, which will no doubt become a classic in future. She did not address the issue of componentry, if you follow my drift. It seems to me, in analysis, that what tipped the balance in the sense of Huawei was the absence of American-made chips. Were that not to have happened, the NCSC would not have recommended the widescale removal that we have seen. That appears to be the implication. There seems to be an element of component monitoring going on, although in this case the monitoring appears to have been done more by the Americans than by the United Kingdom. It comes back to that fundamental point: at what level is the Bill going to be applied? Will it be applied on the overall capability of the system? In other words, is it a systems capability issue? Is it a subsystem operational outcome view, the individual pieces that go to make those subsystems, or the software that drives the overall system? How will the Bill actually be put into process?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I may need to write to the noble Lord about the technical details he has set out. I think for the approach to be effective it needs to incorporate all elements of that. An overall system cannot be a capable system if the subsystem is not. There needs to be coherence across the equipment that is supplied and our understanding of how it operates in practice and the component parts to inform the judgment about its security or not. I am happy to follow up in writing if he is agreeable.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and the Minister for her replies. I thought that the intervention just now by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, was important. It drives at one of the issues that we have debated today in the context of Nexperia and what is happening to a British company that has been acquired by a Chinese company through its Dutch affiliate. It is about computer chips. It is about semiconductors. It is about our ability to be able to control what goes into the technology that the Bill is very much about. That is not an on-the-side question; it is a very important central question and I look forward to seeing the response that the Minister gives to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, when she looks at it further.
I turn now to some of the contributions made today. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, in a typically powerful and thoughtful intervention, invited us to delve more deeply. That is what we have been doing during this afternoon’s proceedings. She emphasised the importance of countries working together. She regretted, with sadness, that we have been forced to make some of these decisions about our own individual ability to acquire intelligence as a result of our decision to leave the European Union.
I thought it was interesting that, earlier today, the European Commission issued new guidance to combat forced labour in supply chains. It rather puts our laggardly and perfunctory efforts to shame. The guidance provides concrete, practical advice on how to identify, mitigate and address the risks. This issue has been referred to and the noble Baroness has said that she is going to write to us further on modern-day slavery and supply chains. High Representative/Vice-President Josep Borell says that the guidance
“will help EU companies to ensure their activities do not contribute to forced labour practices in any sector, region or country.”
It paves the way for future legislation which will have enforcement mechanisms and should introduce a mandatory due diligence duty, requiring European Union companies to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for sustainability impacts in their operations and supply chains.
Our amendments today would gather that kind of information. I simply do not accept that it is impossible for companies, in partnership with government—a point made by the noble Baroness in opposition to these amendments was that this would place too much responsibility on companies—or countries such as our own to collect this information. Like other noble Lords around the table, I have no staff. The information I gave to the Committee today is publicly available and, with a little bit of research, it can be obtained without too much difficulty. It is absurd to suggest that it is beyond the ability of companies or countries to collect information and share knowledge. The example from the European Union underlines what the noble Baroness said to us today.
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, was, as always, asking all the right questions. From our many years together in another place, as well as here, I am always happy to stand with the noble Lord, not least because of his experience in many parts of the world. It is important to ensure that our people who are in post in many of our embassies are given the ability to ask these searching questions and to ensure that the information comes back to us, to prevent many of the expensive mistakes that have been made around Huawei, and which have been referred to during the debate, happening all over again.
My noble friend Lord Erroll was right to say that there are human rights abuses in many countries. Like him, I become indignant about some of those abuses; I do not argue, though, that we should no longer trade with those countries. I always prefer that we trade with countries that are on a trajectory to reform, that are law-abiding and that believe in human rights and democracy, but I accept that it would be impossible to take out of supply chains any country that carries out any kind of human rights violation.
However, there are certain markers that we can look to. One of them is our legal duty under the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide. This is not a word to be used lightly. The word “genocide” came into our vocabulary thanks to a Polish Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, who had seen over 40 of his own family murdered in the Holocaust. During the proceedings on the telecoms infrastructure Bill last year, I gave examples from that period of how companies such as Philips had their own forced labour in the camps where people were dying. I gave the example of Corrie ten Boom, a Dutch woman who had given refuge to escaping Jewish people trying to flee the Holocaust. She and her sister were arrested and sent to work in that factory; her sister died there. Corrie ten Boom wrote a deeply moving book called The Hiding Place. That is the comparison I seek to draw.
It is not just me. In April this year, the House of Commons said that what is taking place in Xinjiang is genocide—it is only the second time that it has ever made such a declaration, so this is of a different order. Where there is genocide, we, as signatories to an international treaty—the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide—have a legal obligation to predict the signs of genocide, prevent it from happening, protect those affected and prosecute those responsible. I accept my noble friend’s argument—we are not going to stop trading tomorrow with Gulf states or whomever it may be who is doing fairly odious things—but the crime of genocide is surely in a different league.
Lord Clement-Jones
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with similar amendments to Clause 1 in the name of Lord Fox, seeks to narrow the scope of the definition of “security compromise”.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I hope the Committee will forgive me if I move on to drier but—I hope the Committee will agree—important ground. In moving Amendment 2, I will also speak to Amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Amendment 2, along with similar amendments to Clause 1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fox and myself, seeks to narrow the scope of the definitions of “security compromise” and “connected security compromise”. As well as having concerns about oversight of the new powers of the Secretary of State, which we will debate later, there is also concern, reflected by the Constitution Committee, about the width of these crucial definitions and the consequences that flow, particularly as regards planned outages and the need to make a clear distinction between reporting on security compromises and on resilience.
I say this in the context of the impact assessment of 9 June, which stresses the large degree of uncertainty surrounding the costs to be incurred by business, amplified by the report of the Regulatory Policy Committee under its new chair. The Constitution Committee says:
“Clauses 1 and 2 impose duties on providers of a public electronic communications network or service … These include taking such measures as are appropriate and proportionate for the purposes of identifying and reducing the risk of security compromises occurring. The Bill defines security compromises, but the Explanatory Notes acknowledge this definition is broad and do not explain their intended scope. The consequences of a security compromise for providers are potentially significant, including substantial and costly duties of due diligence”—
this echoes the impact assessment. It goes on:
“The House may wish to consider whether narrowing the definition of security compromises would be appropriate.”
BT gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the Commons. Of course, BT is a provider which will need to comply with the provisions of the Bill, so I take the liberty of reading out much of its evidence:
“As currently defined, a ‘security compromise’ … would cover any planned network outage that may be required for maintenance or upgrading of the network, or any unplanned outages due to faults or wear and tear. These types of outages are relatively regular occurrences given the scale of our network and we always seek to minimise customer impact and restore service as quickly as possible. The duties on operators in the Bill that flow from this definition are significant—including network issues that cannot reasonably be considered as security compromises (rather resilience or availability issues) would create undue burdens on operators and potentially on OFCOM.
These outages are not the result of any unauthorised access or malicious intent, nor do they have consequences for the confidentiality of data or signals carried over the network. We do not believe it is the intention of the Bill to apply the same requirements (e.g. with respect to reporting or notification to stakeholders), or to make the same powers available to OFCOM, in relation to these types of incidents, as are intended to apply to ‘security compromises’.”
It goes on:
“The definition also seeks, we understand, to capture any compromise to the integrity of signals conveyed over a network. However, the way that this is expressed—by reference solely to compromises of the ‘confidentiality of signals’—is unclear and confusing. It could be significantly improved by making a simple amendment to refer to ‘confidentiality and integrity’.
The definition of ‘connected security compromise’ … is a simple definition referring to something that ‘occurs in relation to another public electronic communications network or a public electronic communications service’. Given the potential breadth of this definition, building some specifics on how the ‘connected’ element will be assessed in the overall Government/OFCOM guidance on ‘security compromise’ will be important.”
So a provider that will be considerably impacted by the Bill and the Constitution Committee have raised important issues about the width of these definitions. These amendments perhaps do not go as far as some providers would like, but they attempt to give greater certainty by specifying that compromises which involve security issues are covered, but not wider outages which do not have security implications. I very much hope the Government will heed both the providers and the Constitution Committee by narrowing the width of these definitions. I beg to move.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I had the privilege of being an RAF pilot. The instructions we received as pilots in methods of security included the word “anything”. In other words, if you are flying a jet on a mission and you suspect something, “anything” is reported back, or you take remedial action. You do not try to refine that security by, in this case, reducing it or leaving any element of doubt. Thinking about it a little further, the “anything” could be technical. In this context, it could be competitive; it could be a company being taken over; it could be lack of finance; it could be fraud. Above all, it could provide a loophole. Therefore, Her Majesty’s Government are absolutely right in putting in the word “anything” and not trying to restrict it further.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on this matter. The Bill is meant to be about security, not about “anything”. I have seen this happen with other legislation—that it suddenly becomes convenient to take something never intended for another purpose and, because it is very broadly worded, use it to beat some company or someone over the head over something completely unrelated. I am afraid that I agree that the Bill needs to be tightened up and brought down to security issues, not just “anything”.
For starters, a powerful, predominant supplier of routing equipment in the IP network would be a security risk. If anyone relies too much on one supplier—and they may unfortunately be pushed in that direction—it becomes a security risk, and we may have to close down some providers: “Oh dear, that’s our network finished”. That would be stupid. We are going to be anti certain companies. Companies get based or controlled elsewhere as takeovers happen internationally, so I see a certain amount of difficulty with this if it is very wide.
I come to what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. The reason we lost our manufacturing, of course, was that BT selected Huawei as the preferred supplier of the 21st-century network rewrite in 2005. That is the point at which we closed down our capability, effectively being blackmailed by America to get rid of Huawei while potentially blackmailed by Huawei, which could get too much control. We need to look at these strategic decisions where private companies that used to be government suddenly make companies that affect UK security. I have never been happy about that.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in response to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I say that it is also a huge issue when you have, essentially, a near-monopolistic private sector supplier, which makes any decision completely catastrophic for the under-bidder. I am speaking not to that but to Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, which, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones pointed out, bear my name. He set out a very clear rationale for these amendments, which back up the concerns of the Constitution Committee and, indeed, some suppliers. Rather than reiterate those, I beg noble Lords’ indulgence to illustrate the point, inviting them to join me in a thought experiment. They need not worry—it is not going to hurt and I will not be pushing them into a Petri dish or anything like that. I simply ask your Lordships to imagine things the other way around: imagine that the Telecommunications (Security) Bill did indeed include the words currently proposed by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and myself, words that clearly identify that the focus of the Bill should be on the security of telecoms.
I ask noble Lords to continue to use their imagination that it was my noble friend and I who were proposing changes to include the words that are currently there; in other words, imagine that we were proposing to take the word “security” from this imaginary Bill and turn it into “anything”. Broadening the cover, as we have heard, would broaden the problem around any interruption very widely. I do not know but I dare say that, if we tried to do that, the Public Bill Office would have something to say, pointing to the Long Title of the Bill, which is:
“To make provision about the security of public electronic communications networks and public electronic communications services”
—in other words, security. Were we to try to take that word out and put in “anything”, I dare say the PBO would not allow us to do so.
If we did however slip it past the PBO, I guarantee that the Minister of the day would tell us that this would subvert the Bill’s intention and would take away the Bill’s focus from security to some of the imaginary things that the noble Lord opposite suggested—or, indeed, a digger backing into a green box somewhere in Kent. This is not the “Telecoms (Mishaps) Bill” but the Telecommunications (Security) Bill. These simple and modest amendments focus the Bill on its stated objective.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
This is a really important discussion. I do not want to speak for too long but the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, was right to say that the Bill is about security and not just “anything”. None of us on the Committee wants to compromise the nation’s security or compromise the ability of our military personnel to conduct necessary operations. However, sometimes in legislation words really matter—they are the law of the land. That is why scrutiny of legislation in Committee like this is so important, word by word and line by line, otherwise—and I will have a series of questions for the Minister on this—down the line in one, two, three or five years, something will happen and everybody will go, “How was the word ‘anything’ included?” The unintended consequence of legislation is something that we need to consider, or people will ask how something happened—how that word was allowed.
With that in mind, it is important that the Minister explains to the Committee how this definition is arrived at. The starting point would be to ask her to explain the differences between having the word “anything” and having the phrase “security issue”. Can she give examples of how the Bill would be weakened by having that term rather than “anything”, and what “anything” means—apart from saying that it means “anything”? What does it actually mean, given that the Bill is supposed to be about security issues, as the noble Earl said?
The Government argue that the duty on providers is appropriate and proportionate to ensure that the effects of compromise are limited and to act to remedy the impacts. I understand why Ministers are keen to keep the definition wide, but on its own it is not good enough. For example, can the Minister explain whether there are any thresholds to what amounts to a security compromise, or is it “anything”, and what does that mean to an individual who might stray into territory that they are not sure about? How was the Bill’s definition arrived at? Who came up with it and what advice did they receive? Were alternatives suggested to it, what did security experts say to the Minister was necessary, and were there dissenting voices?
In seeking clarification, I wonder whether the Minister can explain why the definition does not include, as I understand it, the presence of supply chain components, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned on the earlier group of amendments, if they represent a security threat. Maybe it does—but could the Minister clarify that? We need to know that to understand the diversification of the supply chain and how effectively or not it is proceeding. It is important to consider the components of the supply chain, particularly when identifying where they are a threat to our national security. As I see it, that is not included in Clause 1, but perhaps the Minister can tell me that it is and that I have not read the clause correctly. If so, where is it?
I go back to where I started. These amendments are important in testing how the Government have arrived at this use of “anything”. I know it sounds like semantics —what does “anything” mean?—but the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is crucial. The Bill is a security Bill. That being so, why does “anything” appear and why is “security issue” not the appropriate way to describe this? Why is it not included in the Bill? It is necessary for the Committee to understand the Government’s thinking on this for us to consider whether we need to bring back this matter on Report.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will recall that the UK Telecoms Supply Chain Review Report in July 2019 found that telecoms providers lack incentives to apply security best practice. This Bill is our response to its recommendations and takes forward the Government’s commitment in the report to introduce a new security framework, including new legal duties and requirements, to ensure that telecoms providers operate secure and resilient networks and services.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling these amendments to Clause 1. Before I address them directly, I hope that it will be helpful if I set out some brief context for the clause as it appears in the Bill and try to address the challenges posed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.
Clause 1 inserts a new Section 105A into the Communications Act 2003. New Section 105A places a duty on public telecoms providers, first, to identify the risks of security compromises; secondly, to reduce the risks of compromises occurring; and, thirdly, to prepare for the occurrence of security compromises. To support the duty, new Section 105A creates a new definition of “security compromise”. The definition is purposefully broad and includes anything that compromises the availability, performance or functionality of a network or service, or that compromises the confidentiality of the signals conveyed by it. I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby for his support for this approach.
I am genuinely slightly puzzled by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about what is included and excluded, because Clause 1 goes into great detail—which I shall not read out now, but I know the noble Lord has looked at it. Not only do we define what is included in “compromise” but we are explicit about what is excluded. This comprehensive approach will help ensure that telecoms providers protect their networks and services properly in the future. It creates a new duty on providers to take steps to reduce the risk of incidents and attacks seen globally in recent years.
As we have heard, the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, would narrow the definition of a security compromise. As both noble Lords noted, this was also a matter that the Constitution Committee recommended the House consider in its recent report. As I have said, the definition is designed to support a long-term approach to security. It aims to be focused enough to address risks that are specific to telecoms networks. At the same time, it is broad enough to ensure the Bill is future-proof and has flexibility to enable us to address new and evolving threats.
I appreciate that the noble Lords are seeking to ensure that legal obligations on telecoms providers are targeted and appropriate to specific risks, but it is important to remember that the framework within the Bill is designed to do exactly that. Certainly, we are not aiming, in the words of the noble Earl, to bash suppliers over the head. Rather, the broad definition in the Bill helps future-proof the legislation, whereas the specific security measures which narrow that focus will be set out in secondary legislation. I tried to get my head around the thought experiment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, but I got stuck at the idea of trying to fit inside a petri dish, which would definitely be impossible.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
The Minister brought up the review, which was very clear that there are huge potential market failures within the security and resilience telecoms market, the reason being that security is not valued by the networks. It is other things, such as network connectivity and price, which are of maximum importance to those networks—things that might come under the word “anything”, for example.
Let us be clear about the four reasons given by the review that security is undervalued by networks: insufficient clarity on cyber standards and practices; insufficient incentives to internalise the costs and benefits of security; lack of commercial drivers, because consumers of telecoms services do not tend to place a high value on security; and the complexity of delivering, monitoring and enforcing contractual arrangements in relation to security. All four of those issues, which I think are driving the purpose of this Bill, involve the word “security”. Far from these amendments watering down the intent of the Bill, the Minister is watering it down herself by including the word “anything” and ignoring the word “security”. I do not expect her to accept these amendments now, but I would like the department to go away and think about this very carefully, because a catch-all Bill catches nothing.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hear the noble Lord’s concerns. We will of course take back his comments and reflect on them again. However, I know that officials working on this Bill have considered these points in enormous detail and would be happy to meet the noble Lord and discuss them, if that would be helpful. We believe that our framework does not water down but balances future-proofing with the precision and specificity that the noble Lord seeks. I hope we can follow up on that in a separate meeting.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I see a slight chink of light, perhaps, that may be opened by opened by a meeting with the Minister on this subject—because she will appreciate that none of the amendments tabled to the Bill, which we think is important, has been put down lightly, and definition is crucial.
I was somewhat baffled by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, flying in his jet—I was thinking of perhaps pressing the ejector button, but I thought better of it. The idea that there is an analogy between flying a jet and what we are talking about here was a bit baffling. The only way that I could think of the analogy for a planned outage, which is exactly what the providers are worried about being subject to under this definition of “security compromise”, is where a jet does a planned manoeuvre and everyone scrambles and treats it as an incident—so I cannot see that his analogy holds at all.
I much prefer and give thanks for the contributions of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lord Fox, who, in doubling down on the points raised about the purposes of the Bill, illustrated exactly why we seek to have a much more precise definition. The big problem is that the flexibility demanded by the Government is effectively at businesses’ cost and causes uncertainty. That is the worry about the way that the Bill is currently drafted.
The Minister talked about future-proofing and doing it more precisely, in a sense, by setting out the duties by secondary legislation—but, of course, there are great concerns about the way that the secondary legislation is to be agreed and the codes of practice. So I suppose that, if I were going to ask for a quid pro quo, if there is to be a loose definition of “security compromise”, there must be a very tight way of agreeing the codes of practice and the secondary legislation—but I wonder whether the Minister will actually agree to that trade-off, as we go through the afternoon. I would like to have all of the amendments that we have tabled for today.
I really think that, when the Minister said that this would “undermine the whole approach”, it is good to have it in her script, but that is absolutely not the case. The last thing that we are doing by trying to tighten this definition is to undermine the whole approach; we are trying to create certainty for the providers so that, when they plan outages and there are other planned events, they are not caught by a sidewind when trying to comply with the terms of the Bill. This is a practical issue.
I understand what the Minister says about resilience and, to some degree, that is the case, but there is clearly a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the providers’ interpretation of the Bill, as it currently stands—and they are the ones that will be subject to this. As I said—without wishing to repeat myself too much—the Government’s impact assessment itself makes it very clear that the costs of this exercise, of having to comply with the Bill, are extremely uncertain at this point, and there is quite a lot of concern about that.
I am sure that, if we have a meeting with the Minister in due course, we will be able to persuade her to accept these amendments, and I look forward to it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 7. Before I call the mover, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I will run through the speakers’ list, so that everyone is clear: the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the noble Baronesses, Lady Merron and Lady Barran, and finally the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Amendment 7
Lord Clement-Jones
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require Parliamentary approval before regulations regarding the duty to take specified security measures are made.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 7 and will speak also to Amendment 12. New Section 105B introduced by Clause 1 affords the Secretary of State the ability to make regulations that have highly onerous provisions, laying down that a provider must take specified security measures. This is under the negative procedure, which is of course a near 100% guarantee of their coming into force. There is no provision for any independent or specialist oversight of these regulations, as we will discuss later. They cover a huge range of issues in great detail, including
“Network architecture … Protection of data and network functions … Monitoring and audit … Supply chain”.
These are all in the draft regulations, along with
“Prevention of security compromise and management of security permissions … Remediation and recovery … Governance and accountability … Competency … Testing … Assistance”.
Very helpfully—in a way—to my case in the last group, the Minister said that the whole purpose of the regulations was to specify in greater detail what the duties of providers would be. But, already, particular issues have been identified in the draft regulations by providers relating to patches, audit and monitoring, supply chains, foreign network operating centres—and the list goes on. So, there is already a feeling not only that these regulations are very detailed but that they should not be subject to the negative procedure. It seems extraordinary that regulations of such importance are not to be subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny.
Noting, obviously, that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, will be speaking to her Amendment 11, I move on to my Amendment 12. The fourth report of the Delegated Powers Committee drew the attention of the House to proposed new Section 105E of the Communications Act 2003, which gives the Secretary of State power to issue, revise or withdraw codes of practice about security measures that should be taken by providers in the performance of their duties to prevent security compromises under Sections 105A to 105D. There is a duty to consult with Ofcom and providers but no oversight or approval role for Parliament.
In her letter to us after Second Reading, the Minister of course assured us that:
“Government will consult with affected public telecoms providers and Ofcom on any codes of practice that are issued. This will ensure that we have a full understanding of the code’s impact before it is finalised. A consultation on the first code of practice will take place after the Bill receives Royal Assent.”
I am glad to say that the Delegated Powers Committee, in the light of the importance of the codes to assessing compliance and in enforcement by Ofcom, were unconvinced by the department’s claim that this was too detailed and technical and “not legislative”. As the committee said:
“The Bill provides for codes of practice to play a significant role—both in relation to the exercise of OFCOM’s regulatory functions and in legal proceedings—in supplementing the important duties to take security measures that the Bill imposes on providers.”
It concluded:
“In our view, it is unacceptable for codes of practice that will have the significant statutory effects provided for in this Bill to be subject to no Parliamentary scrutiny procedure.”
As the UK communications council said, the combined effect of the two proposed provisions that I have talked about in these two amendments amount to a near-unfettered ability for the Secretary of State to interfere in the normal operations of what is an otherwise innovative and successful industry. Amendment 7, in particular, seeks to ensure that these regulations need to be approved by Parliament by the affirmative procedure. Amendment 12 would require approval from Parliament for codes of practice under the Bill. Where I differ from the committee and, it seems, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, is on the procedure to be adopted. In my view, at minimum, it should be by the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, does not like my analogy of flying. I just remind him of a recent series of Boeing airliners that crashed with a huge loss of life when the security of flying was overridden by a piece of machinery. I stick by my analogy but I will not progress that any further in relation to these amendments.
The Bill says clearly:
“publish the code; and … lay a copy of the code before Parliament.”
However, it does not allow Parliament by right to debate that code and any amendments that come. This is a fast-moving market, as we all know. New opportunities have come up that will have a security dimension to them. There will be new developments, I hope, from our own technical universities so there must be some provision for the expertise that both the House of Commons and the House of Lords have within them to debate. Those of us who have been in Parliament for a few decades know that quite often there are unusual people who have a particular niche that they know something about. That is the benefit of the experience of Parliament.
I agree with the noble Lord that it ought to be done on the affirmative procedure. I sat in the chair for five years during the passage of all the Maastricht and other Bills and there are certain areas where it is absolutely crucial that it should be done by affirmative resolution. Therefore I certainly support that dimension.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I can see that it might be useful to avoid scrutiny sometimes when we have to finesse difficult issues—say, balancing effectiveness and public perception of certain other issues, or whatever. We can also end up with an awful lot of SIs in front of both Houses and everyone feeling rather swamped and bored by them and no one really doing anything about them. The trouble is that we get more and more wide-ranging powers in Bills, and this is a particular example of it. The more we do that, the more careful we have to be about the secondary legislation, because that is where the devil resides and that is where the real control is. We have just passed something that enables a takeover by the Executive. In some cases that may be a good thing; in others it could be very dangerous. To be honest, because of the huge, general issues in these Bills, I now come down in favour of the affirmative procedure. We are going to have to scrutinise it.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, harmony is breaking out across the Room, with the possible exception of the Minister. I will not reiterate my noble friend’s well-put argument but I refer the Minister—I am sure she has already read it—to the impact assessment. I am increasingly of the opinion that the single most useful document that comes with the publishing of a Bill is not the Explanatory Notes but the impact assessment. The department is to be congratulated on the quality of the one produced in this case.
Page 30 of the impact assessment covers the monetised and non-monetised costs of this. At the front of the assessment there is a number. However, point 6.1 says:
“This impact assessment makes an estimation of the costs and benefits of the options”.
It says it brings together “a number of sources” and notes that there are “limitations to the analysis”. The first is the
“lack of robust and specific data”—
that is a fairly serious limitation—
“for example on UK telecoms market size and the size of specific sub-markets”.
Therefore, the number on the front is based simply on—obviously, well-intentioned—estimates of the telecoms market. Furthermore, the costs are quantified based on equipment costs. They are not based on the friction of running a network under the constraints of this Bill, which is itself a glaring error in how one looks at the cost of this Bill in terms of impact.
It is not just about the cost and replacement of equipment—it is about the draft regulations to which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones referred. They cover all aspects of the operation of the networks in this country. We are looking at a situation in which, if the Minister so chose, the regulations could be made and implemented such that the Minister ran the networks by remote control from the department. That is why these safeguards, parliamentary scrutiny and the affirmative process are an important safeguard to prevent attention—not, I am sure, from this Minister or this Secretary of State, who I am sure can be trusted with these regulations, but we do not know who will follow or what their intentions will be.
As the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, wisely said, to hand over these powers without simultaneously taking significant powers of scrutiny of the statutory instruments that will inevitably follow is the wrong way in which to pass a Bill in your Lordships’ House. For these reasons, along with the huge uncertainty of the cost of what we are doing here, I commend my noble friend’s amendments.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 11 in my name and welcome Amendments 7 and 12 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones. I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to a chorus of agreement, which I certainly heard ringing out, expressing concerns about the role that Parliament should have in scrutinising on codes of practice that this Bill currently does not provide for. To me, the codes remind us that the Bill can provide us only with something of a framework, and for many areas there is a wait for the details to be filled in later. As the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said, the devil, as always, is in the detail.
Clause 3 allows the Secretary of State to issue new telecom security codes of practice that will set out to providers the details of specific security measures that they should take. As we have heard referred to, the impact assessment states that these codes are the way in which the DCMS seeks to demonstrate what good security practices look like. However, I note that Ministers are proposing only to demonstrate but not actually to secure good practice, which I am sure is the real intent—and it would be very helpful if, through this debate, we could get to that place.
I am interested also to note and draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Government have said that these codes will be based on National Cyber Security Centre best practice security guidance. The Government have said that they will consult publicly, including with Ofcom and the industry, as we read in the Minister’s letter following Second Reading. That public consultation will be on implementation and revision. However, it strikes me as very strange that the National Cyber Security Centre is not a statutory consultee; can the Minister say why it is not?
I particularly make the point that, as the codes of practice will be admissible in legal proceedings, they have to be drafted accurately and we have to ensure that security input and expertise is fed into them. The National Cyber Security Centre, which is described as a bridge between industry and government and is, indeed, an organisation of the Government, would seem to be a body that should be, in a statutory sense, invited to make the input and offer its expertise, along with other departments and agencies. After all, we can see, when reading about the centre, that its whole reason for being is that it provides widespread support for the most critical organisations in the United Kingdom as well as the general public, and they are absolutely key when incidents, regrettably, occur. We are trying to address those incidents in respect of this Bill.
As we have heard from all noble Lords who spoke in this section of the debate today, the input needs to come from Parliament, which is why I tabled Amendment 11. As the Bill is drafted, the current reading is that a code of practice must be published and laid before Parliament, but there is no scrutiny procedure. I put it to the Minister that if codes have legal weight, why is Parliament being denied the chance to scrutinise them? We seem to have a complete mismatch there. I was taken by the words in the Delegated Powers Committee report, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his introduction, which stated that this way of being was “unacceptable” and called for the negative procedure for codes. That is what Amendment 11 does. Can the Minister address specifically the words of that committee report? I refer her to paragraph 27, which says:
“In our view, the Department’s reasons are unconvincing … the fact that codes of practice would be produced after consultation with interested parties cannot be a reason for denying Parliament any scrutiny role; and … the Department appears not to have recognised the significance of the statutory effects of the codes of practice”,
as has been highlighted today. I therefore hope that the Minister will both comment on the report and seek to make what is a very important and significant change in this regard.
I will pick up on one additional point. The impact assessment also says that the codes of practice will have a tiering system for different-sized operators. The initial code will apply to tier 1, which serves the majority of businesses of critical importance to the United Kingdom. This will also apply to tier 2 medium-sized operators but with lighter oversight by Ofcom and longer timetables. Can the Minister offer a draft list of the operators in tiers 1 and 2, and can it be shared with noble Lords? I would also be interested to know whether the Minister has any concerns that tier 2 operators will somehow be worse at compliance. If she has those concerns, what support will be provided to small and medium-sized enterprises? I look forward to her reply.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I have heard with interest the contributions of your Lordships regarding the parliamentary oversight of the secondary legislation and codes of practice associated with the Bill. I will try not to disrupt the harmony that broke out so agreeably.
Amendment 7 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would apply the affirmative procedure to regulations made under new Section 105B in Clause 1. It would require secondary legislation to be laid in Parliament in draft and to be subject to a debate and a vote in both Houses. Both Amendment 11 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and Amendment 12 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would require a statutory instrument to be laid in Parliament for the Secretary of State to issue or revise the codes of practice, under the negative or affirmative procedure respectively.
I will first address Amendment 7 and the procedure for the regulations. The Bill currently provides for the statutory instrument containing the regulations to be laid using the negative procedure. This is the standard procedure for instruments under Section 402 of the Communications Act. The only delegated powers in the Bill currently subject to the affirmative procedure are Henry VIII powers to retrospectively amend penalty amounts set out in the primary legislation.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather depressing reply. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for his support—I think we will have a fly-by in celebration. I thank too the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, my noble friend Lord Fox and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, who raised some very interesting points, all supportive of greater scrutiny in both respects, which was very helpful. As my noble friend illustrated—the impact assessment is a mine of information—the lack of robust and specific data is one of the areas of great uncertainty, and there is the risk of running the industry by remote control without adequate scrutiny. There is great uncertainty about cost, and therefore there needs to be that level of scrutiny, and there is great concern about the role that Parliament should have.
I was fascinated by the Minister’s argumentation. It does not really matter whether a committee recommends something or not; the Government are not going to accept it. Apparently, it is not good enough to have the affirmative procedure because the committee did not recommend it; on the other hand, it is not good enough to have scrutiny of the codes of practice even though the committee did recommend it. Basically, the Government are saying, “Well, what the hell? We’re not going to agree with the committee on any basis.”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the Grand Committee will now resume. I think we were just about concluding the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I might take that hint, but there is still a little bit of water to flow under the bridge.
The Minister knows that there is already a great deal of concern about both the regulations, which I have specified and gone through to some degree, and the forthcoming codes which we are assured will come out, so there is no doubt that the Government are fully aware of the providers’ concerns.
I thought the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on the NCSC’s lack of involvement was very strong. That absolutely must be bolted into the Bill; it is fundamental in so many ways, and I do not think any of us really understands why that should not be bolted in.
I come on to the substance of what the Minister said: that using the negative procedure for the regulations was fine because we are not amending primary legislation. Do we now make a virtue of a non-Henry VIII power? Are the only powers that we think should now be subject to the affirmative procedure Henry VIII powers? We have moved some way. I am clearly getting far too long in the tooth to see those sorts of arguments being made by Ministers, especially when it is a matter of scrabbling around to keep the Bill as it is. I understand the “not invented here” principle, but it is a bit depressing to see it when the merits of a case are so strong.
The other time-old argument is “Don’t worry your pretty little heads; these are technical regulations. Parliamentarians can’t have too much oversight of a technical regulation—they might not understand it. They might get confused and lose sleep.” I do not know what the arguments are, but they are clearly bogus. We should go for the affirmative, and someone with the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby—I am sorry to see he is not here—as a Deputy Speaker in the Commons knows full well that that is the appropriate form.
The words “legislative effect”, which the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, emphasised, as I do, are important in this context, and were raised by the Delegated Powers Committee. On this point about having no delay, regulations needing to be updated, and a code of practice needing to be flexible and updated, we have seen that this Government can pass Covid-19 regulations in a blink; they can do virtually anything they feel like at the drop of a hat and nobody says boo to a goose, so I do not think that is a very useful argument.
The other point the Minister made was that the code needs to be understood by its audience. Again, that is a “Don’t worry your pretty little head” argument—“Parliamentarians will not understand the code—it is not relevant to them; only the providers need to worry about it.” But providers are worried about the code, and they would be much reassured if they saw that there was proper scrutiny.
I am really sorry to say that I did not even see a chink of daylight in that group, sadly. I hope that we can move a bit further as the Bill progresses but, in the meantime, with great disappointment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Merron
“(7) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must take the utmost account of the advice of the Technical Advisory Board and a Judicial Commissioner concerning the proportionality and appropriateness of any measure or description of measure specified in the regulations.”
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I move Amendment 8 in my name and welcome the similar Amendments 9 and 19 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox. The Minister will recognise some similar themes in this group to those in the previous debate. The amendments are to Clause 2, which gives the Secretary of State the powers to make regulations which require providers to take specified measures in response to a specified security compromise and where a security compromise has a specified adverse effect on the network or service. The Minister will not be surprised that the amendments seek to understand what advice the Secretary of State will receive and where that advice will come from when making these regulations.
I am sure that we have all heard concerns about how these regulations are widely shared. For example, Comms Council UK has said that this represents an
“unprecedented shift of power from Parliament to the Minister in relation to how telecoms networks operate”,
and argues that
“the Minister will be able to unilaterally make decisions that impact the technical operation and direction of technology companies, with little or no oversight or accountability.”
Unsurprisingly, there has been a call for technical and judicial oversight, as reflected in these amendments, just as the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 established a Technical Advisory Board to advise the Home Secretary on the reasonableness of obligations imposed on communications providers. There is precedent here to which we can usefully refer.
Other concerns were expressed in Committee in the other place. The Digital Policy Alliance is familiar to a number of parliamentarians, especially the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who is chair of that august organisation. I am sure that he is aware of the comments of its Dr Louise Bennett, who said:
“There is no mention in the Bill of a technical advisory board focused on the provisions of the Bill, and that would be a very helpful addition.”—[Official Report, Commons, Telecommunications (Security) Bill Committee, 14/1/21; col. 49.]
I agree. Such a board would, for example, be able to point out that new types of components were coming down the track. Does the Minister feel that such a board would be a helpful addition? If not, why not?
Have the Government considered expanding the remit of the current Technical Advisory Board to cover the powers in the Bill? Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, gives us a useful steer on how any such new board could be constituted. Without such a board, what technical advice will the Secretary of State receive? Who will it come from, and will it be published? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to be on the same page as the noble Baroness on the insertion of a technical advisory board and judicial commissioner into the process. I note that she quoted Dr Bennett of the DPA; I am proud to be a DPA member and sitting opposite my chair. Others from the industry have made the same points. Comms Council UK has pointed out that there are no clear mechanisms for technical feedback or expertise to be fed into the drafting of the regulations and the codes of practice, which we discussed on the last group. It makes the point that many of the technical requirements that will be placed on its members are not in the text of the Bill but are in the accompanying regulations and the code, which we have heard has yet to be published. It is clear that, in these draft regulations made under Section 105B and 105D—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the Grand Committee is resumed—third time lucky. I call the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I hope I am demonstrating the agility of which the Minister is so fond. As I said earlier in respect of the judicial commissioner, these amendments provide a ready-made mechanism for oversight concerning the proportionality and appropriateness of any measures in the regulations and codes. Taken together, Amendments 9 and 19, would require the Secretary of State to take into account the advice of the technical advisory board—and insert a new clause after Clause 14—and that of a judicial commissioner appointed under the 2016 Act. We have gone a little further in specifying the make-up of the technical advisory board, but we are clearly on the same page as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, with her Amendment 8.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak on this issue as I remember mentioning it at Second Reading. There is a person for whom I have huge respect, Dr Louise Bennett, whose extensive knowledge and sagacity I first ran into when we were talking about ID cards years ago and the whole problem of digital identity and privacy over the internet. If you really want to know about such things, read her work: she has produced a lot of work on this. I think a technical advisory board is essential: these are complex issues. The Minister said that the matters subject to regulation will be technical. I do not see how we can do this without a good technical advisory board, and it is good if we have some view of who goes on it, because it is too easy for these things to disappear off and no one thinks about them. We will keep needing cutting-edge advice and not have groupthink, and these matters are very tricky.
Between Amendments 8 and 9, I could not decide between taking “the utmost” and “full” account; there is a neat little difference in the wording. Otherwise, the point about laying it out properly is important. The other thing, which slightly goes back to our previous debate, is that we get into the whole problem of what are regulations, what is guidance, what are guidelines and what is a code of practice and the different legal stance of those different things. We have to be careful about using them as if they were interchangeable. Regulations will often give rise to a code of practice, breach of which is not necessarily an offence, but they can be linked back to a primary Act offence. We should not bandy those words around interchangeably; they are different. We need a technical advisory board and, between these amendments, we should do something about it.
Lord Fox (LD)
In quick response to, or doubling up on, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, my understanding is that the code is enforceable by law. If it is not, perhaps the Minister can explain how the operators are expected to deliver.
This is relatively simple. The Minister has asserted that this is a technical issue. She has asserted that it is too technical for Parliament to be able to manage, but at the same time, as it is currently structured, there will be a self-referential group of people. If the Covid crisis has told us anything, it is that a self-referential group of people is not good at horizon-scanning. Security is a great big horizon scan. You normally know you have not got security only when you lose it and it is essential to take advantage of the diversity of technical opinion that exists in this country and elsewhere. It is extremely arrogant to believe that the sum of human knowledge is contained in one department, and probably one subsection of one department.
For those reasons alone, a technical advisory board is vital to secure the future of this country. That seems to me self-evident, but clearly it is not, so perhaps the Minister can explain. Was this discussed, when was it discussed and why was it dismissed as an option?
Both these amendments have very cunningly taken advantage of existing structures; they have looked at the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and read across, with ready-made structures that can deliver both the technical advisory board and the benefits that I have just set out and a judicial commissioner to make sure that there is sufficient proportionality and appropriateness in those measures. It seems to me that it is for the Minister to explain, if this was good enough for the 2016 Act, why it is not appropriate to put it in this Bill for these issues.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on these amendments, which seek to require regulations and codes to reflect advice provided by technical advisory boards and a judicial commissioner. The amendment to Clause 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, requires any regulations made under new Section 105D to reflect advice provided by the existing Technical Advisory Board to the Home Office and a judicial commissioner. Similarly, the two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would require regulations to reflect advice provided by a new technical advisory board and a judicial commissioner.
Each of these amendments concern regulations made under new Section 105D and codes of practice issued under new Section 105E. I appreciate that noble Lords are seeking to ensure that any regulations and codes of practice are appropriate and proportionate before they are made or issued. However, there are several difficulties with what they propose. First, Clause 2 already requires the Secretary of State to make these measures only when he actively considers that they are appropriate and proportionate, under the wording of subsections (2) and (4) of new Section 105D. To ensure that is the case, the Secretary of State would have to consider relevant advice, which could include technical security assessments provided by the National Cyber Security Centre. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked whether the advice would be published. As is usual practice, we would not publish advice given to the Secretary of State on the new framework, but we will consult on the code, and we feel that is the best and appropriate way in which to draw together the views of all relevant parties and their expert advice.
Advice to the Secretary of State could also include relevant representations by public telecoms providers. To reassure the Committee on this point, we have received helpful feedback from telecoms providers on the illustrative draft measures that were published in January. DCMS continues routinely to engage with telecoms providers about this Bill and telecoms security more widely.
Similarly, Clause 3 requires that any codes of practice are finalised only after consultation with affected providers. The process of consultation, when taken together with the fact that codes can only give guidance on legal obligations and not expand their scope, as noble Lords noted, means that any final codes in effect will be appropriate and proportionate. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked whether it was enforceable by law. It is guidance, not law, but the code has certain legal effects, as set out in Clause 3. In that context, further advice from a technical or judicial panel would therefore be unnecessary.
We understood the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, to refer to the Technical Advisory Board to the Home Office. That board provides advice regarding the reasonableness of obligations imposed on telecoms providers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Each of these amendments risks confusing two separate sets of security arrangements.
Section 227 of the Investigatory Powers Act provides for the Prime Minister to appoint the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and judicial commissioners. The role of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is to authorise and oversee the use of the investigatory powers, in the public. The Investigatory Powers Act regime is not comparable with the new framework set out by this Bill. Oversight of the Investigatory Powers Act regime by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is considered appropriate because of the potential intrusion into the private lives of individuals as a result of the use of covert powers.
The powers to make regulations under this Bill are very different to those in the Investigatory Powers Act. They are focused on protecting public telecoms networks and services by improving the security practices of telecoms providers—so those two sets of arrangements should not be confused. Indeed, there are specific provisions in the Bill designed to ensure that it does not adversely affect lawful activity carried out by law enforcement authorities and the intelligence services under the Investigatory Powers Act. The judicial commissioner would therefore be the wrong body to advise the Government on the Bill’s regulation-making and code-issuing powers. For those reasons, the Government are not able to accept these amendments, but I hope that that explains why and reassures the noble Lords sufficiently for them to be content not to press their amendments today.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—sorry.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I must admit that I am somewhat baffled by the Minister’s response. The argument on the technical advisory board seems to be, “Oh, we’ve got enough technical advice, so we don’t need one”—but, clearly, it seems that there is a need for this. I quoted providers—I can go into the papers that we have received from them—as saying that real issues arise out of the regulations. These are technical and relate to things such as patches and audit and monitoring issues. There is a feeling that the department is just not listening on those issues, and what is needed is someone who is rather more dispassionate and can advise on the technical issues that are arising—perhaps, if it is seen as a conflict, someone like the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who can genuinely advise on this kind of thing. It seems to me to be extraordinarily dismissive to say, “We’ve got enough advice. We don’t need a board of this kind”.
In the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, there is a very useful technical advisory board—it is not usable for this purpose because its function is rather different under that Act. When the Minister comes to the point about the judicial commissioners, saying, “Oh, no, they are for an entirely different purpose”, I say that, actually, if you read their function, it is four square with the kind of thing that would be useful under this Bill. They are talking about not technical issues but proportionality, appropriateness and so on—very much the kind of thing that they are dealing with under the 2016 Act.
So I am afraid that I do not buy what the Minister has to say, sadly; I just think that it is pushback based on the thinking that, “Well, the Bill’s the Bill and it’s all drafted, so we don’t really want to do very much with it by way of amendment”. That is the time-honoured government response to this kind of suggested amendment, but I believe that, constructively, both these aspects—a judicial commissioner and a technical advisory board—would make a great difference to the functioning of the Bill and would lead to much better regulations and codes of guidance at the end of the day.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Deputy Chairman and apologise for speaking across him. I am a bit intrigued by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on the subject of legal enforceability. He is correct to say that, as new Section 105H states, the
“provision of a code of practice does not of itself make the provider liable to legal proceedings”
—but it would not be liable only when the provision was not in force in time or when it was not legal. However, you would not bring a legal case anyway when it was not relevant or in force, so, to all intents and purposes, where the code is in force and relevant, it is legally enforceable. Therefore, it is legally enforceable.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
First, if I may, I will take back the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about new Section 105H under Clause 3; I will write to him to, I hope, alleviate any concerns and confusion. There are certain legal effects set out; I will write to him to clarify the point about legal enforceability.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his appreciation. Part of the confusion here may be that two technical advisory boards are mentioned in these groups of amendments. As I think he noted, the one set up under RIPA has a different function, but we are certainly not being dismissive of the points that have been raised. Indeed, as I said, we have spoken to the industry and received helpful feedback from telecoms providers on the illustrative draft measures that were published in January. We will also be glad to look at the information that he mentioned—the views that have come his way—to make sure that these are reconciled; if he is happy to share them, we will look at them and come back him.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. In view of the pandemic restrictions on the numbers that might sing in a choir inside, it is dangerous now to say that we are singing from the same hymn sheet—as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will recall from her time at the Dispatch Box. I do not know whether we would count as amateur or professional, so perhaps I could venture in that direction, but there is a sense among noble Lords of wanting to strengthen the Bill by ensuring that the Secretary of State has the best technical advice.
I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his response. However, I take from it that a technical advisory board is not required. I share the confusion that was referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. On the one hand, in the previous set of amendments, we were advised that this is so technical that it is not appropriate for a particular aspect of parliamentary scrutiny, yet suddenly, it seems, it is not quite as technical but we need further advice. I am reminded of the words of the then Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove, who we will recall commenting in a debate over Brexit that we have “had enough of experts”; I suspect the Minister will have picked up from the amendments today that we feel we have not had enough of experts. I hope he will reflect on the fact that these amendments seek to assist the Secretary of State, and to assist this Bill to do the job it is here to do to very best effect. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“(d) must ensure that the code of practice is necessary and proportionate to what it intends to achieve and does not place an undue burden on any electronic communications networks or electronic communications services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure codes of practice are necessary and proportionate.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in its evidence to the Bill in the Commons, BT said:
“we believe greater clarity is needed on OFCOM’s planned approach, with safeguards introduced in the Bill to ensure operator burdens are proportionate.”
Amendment 10 seeks to ensure that codes of practice are necessary and proportionate.
As regards Ofcom’s new powers to ensure compliance with security duties as set out in new Section 105M, how will these relate to Ofcom’s existing powers and duties under Sections 3 and 6 of the Communications Act 2003? Will this duty and the new powers Ofcom is being given still be subject to good regulatory practice so that, for example, it still must have regard to the principles of transparency, accountability, proportionality and consistency and not impose unnecessary burdens? How will this fit in with the statement to be made by Ofcom under new Section 105Y?
Amendments 16, 17 and 21 to Clauses 5, 6 and 19, in my name and that of my nobble friend Lord Fox, seek to ensure that the new powers for Ofcom introduced in the Bill are subject to requirements in the 2003 Act regarding carrying out and reviewing its functions. I was pleased that in her letter to noble Lords after Second Reading, the Minister explicitly said:
“When carrying out its security functions, Ofcom will remain bound by its general duties under Section 3 of the Communications Act 2003 as it is now. Section 3(3) provides a duty on Ofcom to have regard to the need for transparency, accountability and proportionality when carrying out its functions. Ofcom will also be bound by its duty under Section 6 of the Communications Act 2003 to review the burden of its regulation on public telecoms providers. If Ofcom fails to carry out its security functions in line with these duties, then it is likely to be subject to legal challenge.”
I very much appreciate those words, which are a very clear interpretation of the existing Act and the duties of Ofcom and the responsibilities it has in the way that it carries them out. Will the Minister repeat that assurance today?
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I want to say a few words on this because the key words “undue burden” stand out. It is very important that we do not put too many burdens, particularly unnecessary ones, on companies. In particular—and this is something that I have often looked at because I have done a lot of work with innovative and growing companies—you must not let large corporations stifle innovation. There is an attitude among them that regulations are for your enemies; they are a very good way of stopping up-and-coming competition. I have also noticed that departments tend to consult the companies which have significant market presence already and see them as being the people who know all about it. However, that does not take account of what is up and coming. The other thing is that they often have people on secondment from them or people who have retired from the companies and gone into the departments, so there can be some interesting biases within. With those few warnings, I think the whole undue burden issue is more important than people might think.
Lord Fox (LD)
The undue burden point touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is really important. On a previous group I spoke about regulatory friction and the fact that this has not been costed into the impact assessment. Clearly, regulatory friction is harder for smaller companies to deal with than larger companies. I think that is the point that the noble Earl was making. It is one that I would also join up.
We should also not confuse lots of regulations with security. The whole point about people who wish to subvert security is that they understand the regulations and go round them. Indeed, sometimes regulations are a guidebook for security, in a sense, because they show the map around which you seek to find the chinks.
The point in the impact assessment about making the networks value security is right. On that, I completely agree with the Government. I am not sure that some of the measures in the Bill actually do that; what they do is create a regulatory load without necessarily adding value. Some of the measures that we spoke of in the last group of amendments, as well as in this, are about stripping this down to where value is added rather than simply more regulation being loaded up.
One of the great pleasures of speaking after my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is that he normally says everything better than I would. He simply asked the Minister to repeat what was in the letter and to endorse the 2003 Act. I hope that he is able to grant his wish.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, for these amendments. As before, it is a pleasure to follow their contributions and that of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll.
On the codes of practice and Amendment 10, I understand the importance of not wanting to put undue burdens on businesses. We should make particular reference to the exceptionally difficult and testing times that businesses and the economy have had to suffer over the past year due to the pandemic. Obviously, a balance needs to be considered. We have to ensure that if the codes are going to be used, they are the most effective way of implementing security measures. How will the Government consider the impact of codes on businesses? For example, will there be specific consultation about undue costs in respect of businesses?
The concerns that we have heard in this debate give a further nod to concerns about lack of parliamentary oversight, which is missing from the codes. I again say gently to the Minister that by giving parliamentarians the opportunity to provide scrutiny there might also be the ability to review the impact on businesses.
Amendments 16, 17 and 21 would ensure that Ofcom’s new powers in the Bill were subject to requirements in Sections 3 and 6 of the Communications Act 2003. Section 3 focuses on the general duties of Ofcom, while Section 6 focuses on reviewing regulatory burdens. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether the Bill has been deliberately drafted for the new powers to fall out of scope of those sections in the Communications Act and, if so, why.
What review process will be faced in respect of Ofcom’s new powers? It is very important that, when new powers are given, there is an opportunity to review, reflect and amend, and to keep a close eye on whether those new powers are doing the job intended.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, for these amendments, and all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. The amendments focus on the need for the regulations and code of practice to be proportionate, and to ensure that the duties of Ofcom are carried out in a transparent and similarly proportionate way.
I turn first to Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. This amendment to Clause 3 seeks to ensure that codes of practice are necessary and proportionate to what they are intended to achieve, and do not place an undue burden on telecoms providers. The Bill already includes provisions in Clauses 1 and 2 to ensure that security duties placed on public telecoms providers in the primary legislation and specific security measures set out in regulations must be considered to be appropriate and proportionate by the Secretary of State. The code of practice will provide the technical guidance on the steps that public telecoms providers should take to meet their security duties. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, about the extra—and indeed extraordinary—work that providers have done over recent months to keep us all in contact during the pandemic.
To help ensure that technical guidance in the code of practice is appropriate and proportionate, Clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to publish a draft version of the code of practice before it is issued, and to consult on its contents. This public consultation will take place after the Bill has attained Royal Assent; it will enable the voices of telecoms providers of all sizes—as noble Lords rightly pointed out—the wider sector, Ofcom, and any other affected groups to be heard and taken into account before the code of practice is finalised. Subsequent versions of the code of practice, which will be revised as technology evolves and new threats emerge, will also be subject to the same process of consultation before being issued.
An impact assessment is also being conducted for proposed secondary legislation to be laid as part of the new framework, which will take into account the initial cost assessments from providers to ensure that the framework is balanced and proportionate. The precise make-up and design of each provider’s network remains a commercial decision. The Bill makes it clear that providers are responsible for the security of their own networks and services; providers also remain responsible for deciding how they recover their costs. As such, we expect the costs of ensuring adequate security to be met by individual providers.
I turn to Amendments 16, 17 and 21, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. These seek to apply Sections 3 and 6 of the Communications Act 2003 to Ofcom’s duties and powers under Clauses 5, 6 and 19 of this Bill. Section 3 of the Communications Act sets out Ofcom’s general duties; these include a duty on Ofcom to have regard to the need for transparency, accountability and proportionality when carrying out its functions. Section 6 of the Communications Act requires Ofcom to review the burden of its regulation on telecoms providers. These are all principles that we think are essential to the functioning of the new security regime created by this Bill. I am glad to repeat the reassurance given by my noble friend in her letter, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned, that Ofcom is already bound by its general duties in Sections 3 and 6 of the Communications Act when carrying out its security function under new Section 105M, and when using any of its powers in this Bill. This will include Ofcom’s power to carry out an assessment of public telecoms providers’ compliance with their security duties under Clause 6 of this Bill, and powers for Ofcom to give inspection notices under Clause 19. As my noble friend said in her letter, if Ofcom fails to carry out its security functions in line with these duties, it could be subject to legal challenge.
The provisions in the Bill already ensure that the regulations, code of practice and duties of Ofcom are proportionate. Therefore, we do not think that these amendments are necessary, and we hope that noble Lords will be happy not to press them.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that—he pierced through the gloom of the afternoon, giving an assurance that existing duties of Ofcom will cover the new powers.
I think we have a Pepper v Hart situation that works for the other aspects on the code of practice. It is not just the regulations and the duties and powers of Ofcom that are subject to it; the way in which the code of practice will be drawn up is covered also by the duties under Sections 3 and 6 of the existing Act. I very much hope so, and I need to take away and read what the Minister had to say.
Baroness Merron
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 13 seeks to speak up for consumers and to probe possibilities as to how we may act in their interests. After all, they are the ones who are, on an individual basis, and often in very large numbers, at the receiving end of security threats.
Amendment 13 would amend Clause 4, which places a duty on providers to take steps to inform users about security compromises or where there is a significant risk of a security compromise occurring which may adversely affect the user as a result. As we see in the clause, the provider must inform the user about the existence of the risk, the nature of the security compromise, what steps could be reasonably taken by users in response, and of course the name and contact details of a person who may provide further information. All those are welcome, and such a duty being placed on providers to report security incidents is right and proper. After all, for many years, we have heard calls from all sides to place a clearer and more comprehensive duty on providers to share information with users, who should not be kept in the dark. When they are affected by a breach, there are not just practical considerations; as we all know, such security breaches are extremely distressing and worrying, as well as compromising for those affected. It is right for them to have some sort of redress.
Let us reflect on the high-profile incidents where users have not been told of security incidents. For example, TalkTalk failed to inform 4,500 customers that their personal information, including bank account details, was stolen as part of the 2015 data breach. That was revealed only in 2019, when details were found online. I am sure that, like me, the Minister will completely understand how distressing this must have been for those people, who were not only affected but were given no opportunity by the company to do anything about it.
Clearly, we know that such behaviour by telecoms companies is unacceptable. However—and this is what the amendment seeks to assist with—Clause 4 does not give a timeframe for providers to inform consumers. This probing amendment suggests a 30-day window to do so. I understand that we have to be aware that this cannot lead to further security compromises that could result from informing the public, so that point has to be taken into account.
How quickly does the Minister think providers should inform the public of a security breach? I ask that because under Clause 4, which is very open, it could be months before users find out that their personal data has been stolen. How much worse for people to find out in that way and in that sort of timeframe?
The amendments we are debating today and the Bill we are considering are all about the protection of national security. In all that, let us remember consumers too, whose interests are key to these debates. The public have to know that their data is safe and when to take necessary steps if their privacy has been threatened in some way.
On Amendments 14 and 15, I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether an Ofcom backstop to halt providers speaking to users on security grounds already exists. Does Ofcom have the expertise already to make such a judgment, or would new experts—I use that word carefully but definitely—and new expertise be needed? I look forward not only to the Minister’s reply but to the comments of noble Lords participating in this debate.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 14 and 15. I wanted to say on the last group of amendments that I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about regulation. It is entirely possible for regulation to provide certainty, to stimulate innovation and, in the context of this Bill, to ensure that we have the right framework for our providers to ensure that our security is not compromised. So there is certainly no negativity in that respect towards regulation; the question is whether it is appropriate in the circumstances and not unduly burdensome for those subject to it. That is why the question of parliamentary oversight, which has been mentioned throughout this afternoon, continues to be important, and I think that it will come up again in the next group.
This amendment is on rather a different area. I have quite a lot of sympathy with Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, but this is more nuanced than the Bill provides for. I want to quote again from the evidence of BT to the Bill Committee in the Commons. It said:
“We agree with the requirements on operators to support the users of their networks in preventing or mitigating the impact of a potential security compromise … In certain cases”—
and this is a sort of “however”—
“the security of the network may be put at greater risk if potential risks are communicated to stakeholders, providing malicious actors with additional information on potential vulnerabilities in the network that they may seek to exploit. We therefore believe that the Bill should explicitly consider such scenarios and not place obligations on communications providers to inform users of risks whereby doing so it will increase the likelihood of that risk crystallising.”
That is where our first amendment is going. BT further stated that
“the Bill also confers powers on OFCOM to inform others of a security compromise or risk of a compromise, such as the Secretary of State or network users. We understand the intention of the Bill in this regard and support the principle. We believe that this would be most effective when done in conjunction with the operator in question to ensure there is clarity and agreement, where possible, on the timing, audience and messaging of such information provision. This would also ensure that this does not cut across any other obligations that an operator may have, such as market disclosures. The Bill currently does not require OFCOM to consult with the operator prior to informing third parties of a security compromise (or risk of one).”
I think these are fair points. The Government must have an answer before Ofcom is faced with that set of issues. In this light, Amendments 13 and 15 make further provision about the duty to inform users of a risk of security compromise and specify that duties to inform others of “significant risks” of security compromises must be proportionate and not in themselves increase security risks.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I put my name down to speak to this because the problem with putting a fixed time period on having to report security breaches is that it very much depends on what the breach is. We mentioned patches earlier. If it is a vulnerability in the software—or it may be the hardware—which requires a patch to be released, you must have the time to produce it and test it as fully as possible. You do not want the hackers out there to know what the vulnerability is until you can roll out the answer to it. That is what zero-day attacks are based on. Equally—the noble Baroness is absolutely correct here—you do not want this stuff swept under a carpet to sit there unused for years. Could our technical advisory board give advice at an incident level, or something like that?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this is an interesting and nuanced—to coin a word we used earlier—debate. I am probably the only person here who has had to deal with a national security issue that impacted a consumer brand in real time on television. I must say that 30 days was not an option—30 minutes was not an option. Picking up on the point of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the time is entirely dependent on the nature of the crisis or security breach. My fear is that 30 days becomes a target rather than an injunction.
I think the point here is “no burial”. I assure colleagues and others in this Room that our amendments do not intend to bury the issue either, but to introduce some equivocation in the event that not announcing something makes things more secure than announcing them. The point of this is not to protect the reputation or otherwise of the network, but to protect consumers and the integrity and security of the network. That is the decision Ofcom would need to make. That would be its call. Its default position would be that it needs to be communicated to consumers as quickly as is sensible, unless there is a reason not to communicate it, and it would be up to the network providers to put their position forward. However, there are definitely times when it should not be communicated. At the moment the Bill seems rather unequivocal in its approach.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.
Lord Fox (LD)
Sorry, I have not quite finished.
I would call Amendment 15 a “good manners” amendment. If Ofcom possesses information that the network provider does not, it simply calls for that network to be brought into the loop before the rest of us are. That seems good manners to me—you do not necessarily have to legislate for that, but these days it always helps. I have now finished.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, for tabling these amendments to Clause 4 and for their considered remarks. As we have heard, these amendments speak to reporting requirements placed on industry in the event of a significant risk of a security compromise and the powers bestowed on Ofcom in the event of a compromise or the risk thereof.
Amendments 13 and 14 amend new Section 105J. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, summarised, new Section 105J is designed to give users of telecoms networks and services relevant information when there is a significant risk of a security compromise, including the steps that they should take to prevent such a compromise adversely affecting them. Giving users this information will help ensure that, where possible, they can take swift action to protect themselves. It will also contribute to greater awareness of security issues, supporting users to make more informed choices about their telecoms provider.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lord, until the Minster replied, “nuance” was the word being used in the context of information being provided and required and so on. I am afraid that nuance was completely lost in that response. The response to Amendment 14 was that the NCSC, the Government, the Secretary of State and Ofcom know best and that is it. They have to release the information. They do not believe there are any circumstances where it should not be released. It is all there in the NCSC guidance and well, too bad—tough. That seemed to be just about the Government’s position. That is pretty extraordinary considering that the relationship with the providers is extremely important, particularly in these circumstances where there have been breaches. We have heard from noble Lords during the debate that the timing of giving the information is important but the very fact of giving the information may also be important. I am afraid that is part 1 of a rather depressing response.
Part 2 was almost worse because the amendment being put forward is the mildest possible one. Ofcom must consult the provider in question
“where reasonably practicable to do so.”
As for the idea that this is going to lead to horrendous delay, the Minister really had to scrape away to find a suitably negative response to that amendment. I am afraid that her response in both respects does not engage with the real issues and I think it is grossly unsatisfactory in the circumstances.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry, as ever, to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. With regard to his first point, of course the relationship with providers is important, which is why we have worked so closely with industry throughout the preparation of the Bill. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said so eloquently, the relationship with users is also very important; it is that balance that we are seeking to strike. I am sorry if the noble Lord found my remarks grudging or negative; there was a lot of thought behind them.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a healthy debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed on the various amendments. I certainly noted from her response to Amendment 13 in my name that the Minister shares my understanding of the issues for consumers. The debate has shone a light on the fact that it is not possible to simply put one set of interests above another. I felt in the course of the debate that it has been understood that, while fixed time periods may create an unintended consequence, as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said, they do ensure that things are not swept under the carpet. That is really where the amendment was seeking to probe.
I appreciate the point made that, while timescale is at the discretion of telecoms providers, there are certain requirements on them. I still have a sense of nervousness; I hope that, as we proceed with this legislation, the telecoms providers will understand the importance of acknowledging and responding to the very real concerns, interests and threats to consumers when they consider what the words “reasonable and proportionate”, as well as the words “timely manner”, mean. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
We now come to the Question that Clause 13 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say, “Content”—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Clause 13: Appeals against security decisions of OFCOM
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we know how it is when you are on a roll. This reminds me that it is very unusual for somebody to have the opportunity to get in before the noble Lord, Lord Fox, draws breath, as the Chair did. “Very impressive footwork,” I thought to myself.
There has been a common theme this afternoon of a lack of oversight over aspects of this Bill in many respects—in particular, the regulations and codes. This lack of oversight is compounded by the fact that, under Clause 13, any appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal cannot take account of the merits of a case against the Secretary of State. The rationale for this, as the Constitution Committee says,
“is unclear and is not justified in the Explanatory Notes.”
I will quote the Explanatory Notes in full. Clause 13 provides that, in appeals against relevant “security-related” Ofcom decisions, the Competition Appeal Tribunal is to apply ordinary “judicial review principles”, notwithstanding any retained case law or retained general principle of “EU law”—by that they of course mean retained EU law. This means that the tribunal should not “adopt a modified approach” to proceedings, as required under retained EU law, which provides that the “merits of the case” must be “duly taken in account”.
Therefore, this provision disapplies aspects of the ongoing effect and supremacy of retained EU law, as permitted by Section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The rationale for reducing the powers of the tribunal in respect of security matters is unclear and not justified in the Explanatory Notes. The House may wish to ask the Government to justify reducing the powers of the Competition Appeal Tribunal in respect of appeals under Clause 13. That is the motive behind this clause stand part debate.
The most authoritative judgment to date about the current standard of review is the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s TalkTalk Telecom Group plc and Vodafone Ltd v Office of Communications case. This addresses, inter alia, the standard of review on an appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal under Section 192 of the Communications Act. The judgment of Peter Freeman QC provides a good analysis of the context and history of the changes to the standard of review. I make no apology for quoting it at some length:
“Of particular relevance to how the Tribunal should approach this appeal are Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive and section 194A of the 2003 Act, as amended by the DEA17 … Article 4(1) provides: ‘Member States shall ensure that effective mechanisms exist at national level under which any user or undertaking providing electronic communications networks and/or services who is affected by a decision of a national regulatory authority has the right of appeal against the decision to an appeal body that is independent of the parties involved. This body, which may be a court, shall have the appropriate expertise available to it to enable it to carry out its functions. Member States”—
this is the key bit—
“shall ensure that the merits of the case are duly taken into account and that there is an effective appeal mechanism…’ … Section 194A provides: ‘The Tribunal must decide the appeal, by reference to the grounds of appeal set out in the notice of appeal, by applying the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review.’ … The combined effect of these provisions is to require the Tribunal to apply the same principles as would apply in a judicial review case but also to ensure that the merits of the case are duly taken into account so that there is an effective appeal.”
At paragraph 139, the judgment concludes:
“Given that Article 4(1) continues to apply, it would appear that, in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s view in BT v Ofcom and the High Court’s view in Hutchison 3G, as set out helpfully by the Tribunal in the recent Virgin Media judgment, we should continue, as before, to scrutinise the Decision for procedural unfairness, illegality and unreasonableness but, in addition, we should form our own assessment of whether the Decision was ‘wrong’ after considering the merits of the case.”
“Article 4(1)” refers to the now-repealed framework directive. It should now be read as referring to Article 31(1) of the European Electronic Communications Code—the EECC. The transposition deadline of the EECC was just before the end of the transition period and iseb;normal;j therefore currently binding as part of retained EU law. The wording of the EECC is almost exactly the same as the framework directive in respect of appeals.
That is what will continue to apply across the remainder of the Communications Act for other appeals under Section 192 but is being changed by Clause 13 of the Bill, which amends Section 194A of the Communications Act in respect of security provisions. This is a very significant change to the appeals procedure in security cases. There is a single bald paragraph in the Explanatory Notes, no justification is given—as the Constitution Committee says—and neither is there any evidence of why it is necessary. What evidence does the Minister in fact have of the need to make this major change in respect of security decisions made by Ofcom? I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I saw this and thought that I really did not understand why the Government were doing it. I saw what the Constitution Committee had said and realised that it did not understand why it was needed. I cannot believe that you can have a proper appeal if you ignore the merits of the case. I probably have an overdeveloped sense of justice and I think that to have an appeal where you are not allowed to present half the case or whatever is not a proper appeal. In fact, what you find is that the system can use procedural things to run rings around people who have a very justifiable complaint about something. I did not like the look of it and I entirely agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am not going to attempt to outlawyer my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. I may not be a lawyer, but I am suspicious or, indeed, perhaps ultra-suspicious. What is the department seeking to avoid by removing what would seem to be natural justice from this process? What are the Government seeking to protect themselves from in advance? Who are they frightened of?
I do not think I know the answers to these questions, but I know that there is someone or something there that the department is seeking to avoid in advance. For those reasons, we should be extraordinarily suspicious, just as suspicious as I am. I ask the Minister: what is the justification? What are the Government scared of?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I have been very interested to hear the arguments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his opening remarks, concern about oversight is driving this section of the debate. As we know, Clause 13 ensures that when deciding an appeal against certain security-related decisions made by Ofcom, the tribunal is to apply judicial review principles without taking any special account of the merits of the case.
I understand that this does not apply to appeals against Ofcom’s enforcement decisions and that the Government have said that this ensures that it is clear that the tribunal is able to adapt its approach as necessary to ensure compatibility with Article 6, the right to a fair trial. My questions to the Minister are about the legal advice that the Government have received on this clause. What legal advice has been received? Is this external legal advice as well as internal legal advice?
The clause states that
“the Tribunal is to apply those principles without taking any special account of the merits of the case.”
Can the Minister explain what “special account” is expected to mean?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, for tabling this amendment to Clause 13. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has spoken extensively on the standards of appeal in this House. As the noble Lord remarked, this matter was also raised in the Constitution Committee’s recent report, where it asked for further clarification about the reasoning for the changes made by this clause. I will attempt to address this point today and answer the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about what we are worried about.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I have heard some ministerial pushbacks but, I must say, that circularity more or less takes the biscuit: “The Government believe that we need to change the standard and therefore we have changed it.” There is very little that one can get one’s teeth into in terms of the argument. It is simply that the Government believe that JR in its unlawfully rational or unfair incarnation should apply in this set of circumstances—and that is it, whereas, for the rest of the 2003 Act, the merits version of JR continues unabated.
The Minister made a few points. I thought “merely” was rather extraordinary; it is a very important change to the way the tribunal will operate in those circumstances. Providers will not appeal against these decisions unless they are of major importance. The process of going to the Competition Appeal Tribunal is not lightly undertaken. She used the words “a smooth regulatory process”. Of course Governments always love smooth regulatory processes, but how big is the steamroller employed in these circumstances? There was also the use of “appropriate”—a splendid weasel word.
This is the end of a very entertaining afternoon so I cannot really comment heavily on the Minister’s reply. However, she really could have done better. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and I asked for evidence of why in these circumstances—we have all just asked why—but nothing was forthcoming: no evidence, precedent or, “We did it that way and it didn’t work”. We have just decided within the bowels of Whitehall to do this—splendid, but the Government need to do better than that, even with their current majority. However, this is the end of a splendid set of debates this afternoon and I hope for better on another occasion.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
My Lords, that concludes the work of the Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing and wear face coverings while in the Chamber, except when speaking. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Pensions: Gender Gap
Baroness Altmann
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to narrow the gender pensions gap; and what assessment they have made of (1) the under- payments of state pensions to married women, and (2) the reduced private pension contributions associated with female work patterns, in the development of those plans.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
This Government recognise the challenge of the gender pensions gap resulting from historical differences in labour market participation. Through automatic enrolment and the new state pension, we are enabling more women to build up pension provisions in their own right, reducing historical inequalities in the pensions system. We are fully committed to addressing the historical state pension errors and ensuring that the individuals affected receive the state pension they are rightfully due in law.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her Answer but, given the gender pensions gap of 40%, which Prospect says has not improved over five years, what specific workstream is there with targets for reducing the number of women with lower state and private pensions and for publishing up-to-date numbers—including for women in multiple part-time jobs, who are excluded from the state pension and auto-enrolment and lose out in net pay schemes, category D pensions and pension credit? Secondly, can my noble friend explain why married women did not receive automatic state pension uplifts after 2008? Will she agree to meet to discuss improving women’s pensions?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend asks a number of very important questions. We are happy to meet to discuss them fully; there just is not time to do justice to them today. My noble friend also referred to people who may have several jobs that individually fall below the lower earnings limit in relation to national insurance qualifying years. Analysis of this group shows that it is not usually a working pattern that people do for many years; over an average 50-year working life, most people are still likely to build up sufficient qualifying years to maximise their state pension when they reach state pension age.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, 63% of adults in households claiming housing benefit are women. Women are the household reference person in 57% of social tenancies, and ONS figures show that those in their mid-30s to mid-40s are three times more likely to rent than 20 years ago. Given all that, many women will struggle to increase their pension savings above their current level. Will the Government consider a flat rate of tax relief on pension contributions, but set at a level above 20% so as to improve the retirement income position of low to moderate earners?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Baroness brings up a very interesting point. I do not believe that we have discussed that, and it is not in our plans to deliver that, but I will take it back to the department and we will discuss it further—and I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this Question in the first place. There are 12.5 million state pensioners, and they require a budget of more than £100 billion a year. That burden, if we can put it that way, is projected to double over the next 20 years. This is great news for pensioners, of course, but is there not a hidden imbalance in these figures because, in future years, that burden—that huge budget—will be borne by young people rather than the elderly? So is it not right that we should look very closely at the balance in all our budgetary provisions for pensions? In particular, is it not appropriate to look at the triple lock to see whether it achieves the right balance between those who receive and those who have to provide?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend must not forget that today’s working-age people are tomorrow’s pensioners. Future generations of pensioners, not just the current ones, will benefit from this uprating approach. In the long term, if the triple lock is maintained, younger people will benefit as the value of the state pension continues to rise above the trends of earnings rates and price growth.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, divorced women face the largest gender pensions gap, so what measures will the Government take to ensure that, on divorce, pensions are split sufficiently for divorced women to receive their full entitlement to retirement income?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, to ensure that anybody is getting the correct amount of state pension, it is important that individuals report to DWP any change in their circumstances. This includes divorce, as it may affect their entitlement to the state pension. This has been the position under successive Governments of different political persuasions, who have then further made this information known in a variety of ways. I suggest that it is important to look at that information on GOV.UK.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
Can my noble friend the Minister tell me what action the Government are taking to address the disproportionate lack of engagement with pension saving by women?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is important that all savers can easily access their pension savings, so that they can plan to retire when they want. We are introducing pension dashboards to help make accessing pensions information much easier. We are also introducing shorter, simpler pension statements to help all members of the automatic enrolment scheme engage with their pension savings.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
Some 200,000 women have been underpaid their state pensions for up to 20 years. I might be one of them. I declare an interest as the proud recipient of £6.79 a week. Yet there is little movement on the part of the DWP, and I and those others cannot find out. Letters go unanswered and messages say, “Don’t contact us, we’ll contact you”. How long will it take to achieve repayment?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the DWP is working extremely hard on making sure that these underpayments are repaid. It is putting in a new team of 360 people to work through it, and we hope that all those underpayments will be paid by the end of 2024.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, although in truth it leaves us none the wiser. Does she agree that there is a pattern here that is not simply, in her words, historical, since it is still happening, and not just through the continued discrimination against women in employment? There is also the clear failure to offer any pension to women on lower levels of pay on top of the inadequate new state pension. This pattern needs urgent attention. Governments can defer legislation that everyone agrees is necessary, but women cannot defer when they need a decent pension.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I lost some of the noble Lord’s question there. The state pension underpayment that we are talking about affects both men and women. We will have estimated costs and data in the department’s annual report and accounts, which will be published shortly. It is important that those people are paid what is owed to them and that we continue to ensure that women are getting their fair share of pensions into the future.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, just said, pensioner poverty is rising up to 18%—2.1 million people—with 30% of single female pensioners living in poverty. Is it not time for what might be called a universal basic pension, set at a rate so that no pensioner is living in poverty? People who spend a lifetime contributing should surely not be left, as 8% of pensioners are, worrying that they cannot pay an unexpected bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to look at the basic pension. What is happening now is that people—women in particular—are beginning to build up their pension schemes, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that, within the next 10 years, they will be equal to all other pensions.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
When looking at the various types of unfairness with women’s pensions that we have heard about today, will the Minister also look at the plight of those retired women who now live in countries where their UK state pensions are frozen? Is this not the greatest unfairness of all?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this issue has come up before in this Chamber. We are looking at it, but we have no plans to change anything at this time.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, referred to the triple lock. Does the Minister agree with me that the triple lock merely enshrines the inequality in the pensions received by men and by women, which should be reason enough to examine it again?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. We are committed to ensuring that older people are able to live with the dignity and respect that they deserve. The state pension is the foundation of the support for older people. As a result, the triple lock and the full yearly basic state pension is now £2,000 higher than it was in 2010. It is important that we consider that every year and ensure that we keep that fairness for both pensioners and taxpayers.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Folic Acid
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the reply by Lord Bethell on 3 September 2020 (HL Deb, cols 444–5), whether they have yet been able to form a conclusion on the outcome of their consultation on the proposal to add folic acid to flour which closed on 9 September 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that substantial progress has been made on this work since I spoke to the House in June, including positive dialogue with all devolved Administrations. It is right that we remain committed to proceeding on a UK-wide basis and I am grateful to colleagues in the devolved Administrations for their energy and support. I assure the House that we are progressing this as a priority, and I look forward to updating the House after the Recess.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
Can I assume that the Minister is aware of the statement from the Ministry for Primary Industries in New Zealand on 8 July, five days ago, that as a result of its consultation on folic fortification in 2019 it will fortify all non-organic wheat flour from mid-2023 and therefore join Australia and more than 80 other countries in mandatory fortification? Why are we so far behind New Zealand? The women of New Zealand had the vote 30 years before British women. Can I be assured that British women will not have to wait as long to have safer, healthier pregnancies and fewer babies with a lifelong disability?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the Government of New Zealand for focusing on this important issue and to the energy and passion of the noble Lord in his advocacy in this matter. I can give him the reassurance he asked for. This is a priority for the Government. We are taking it through the machinery of the British Government to ensure that it is rolled out safely, extensively and on a nationwide basis.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, assuming that the Minister is able to come back to the House after the Recess and give the green light, can he say when we could implement this policy? Does he agree that the recent report of the Health Select Committee on maternity services underlined the importance of making this decision soon?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is not only its importance for maternity services that is on my mind. It is also the recently announced office for health promotion, which will lead the national effort to improve and level up the health of the nation in the round by tackling obesity, improving mental health and promoting physical activity. This important initiative should be seen in the context of that important strategy. I completely endorse the ambition expressed by the noble Lord.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, why does the Minister tease the House? He says that fortification should happen, so there is no disagreement, but it does not happen. In June, just over two weeks ago, he said that
“we are committed to following the science and are totally persuaded by it … I reassure noble Lords that this remains a priority for the Government.”—[Official Report, 23/6/21; col. 221.]
Since that Question, 50 more babies will have been born with neural tube defects. This will not do. Has the Minister sought the view of the new Secretary of State? Could he share it with the House?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I look forward with great enthusiasm to my monthly updates to the House on this important initiative. We are moving as quickly as the machinery of government allows us to. Taking along all the nations is an important aspect, but, quite fairly, it requires consultation with and the engagement of the devolved assemblies, which is why we have written to them and are engaging with them accordingly. I am also pleased to share with the noble Baroness that we are actively engaged with Defra, which is undertaking a wider review of bread and flour regulations. We will be aligning its fortification plans with this measure in due course.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on his campaign, which I strongly endorse. Further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will my noble friend at least set out the draft timetable for the implementation of this measure before the House goes into recess?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am looking forward to outlining the draft timetable, but I will not be able to do so before the Recess.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, following on from the Minister’s answers, can he tell us whether a provisional target date has been set with the devolved nations for the implementation? Given that we know that 90% of women aged 16 to 49 currently have folate levels below that required to reduce the risk of neural tube defects and that 70% of adults—that includes men—have folate levels so low that they are at risk of anaemia, this is an urgent problem.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I share the sense of urgency expressed by the noble Baroness in her articulation of those statistics. They are both worrying and entirely accurate. We very engaged with the devolved assemblies. Welsh and Scottish Ministers have expressed their support, but with Northern Ireland it is important that we consider all the implications of the Northern Ireland protocol. I am therefore not able to lay out the precise timetable now, but I reassure the noble Baroness that we are moving as quickly as we can.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Rooker continues to press to protect newborn babies while, sadly, the Government have over a number of years continued to drag their feet. In preparation for the Minister’s forthcoming update, which he has promised the House today, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the financial and practical ability of women to access prenatal vitamins, including folic acid? How has the pandemic affected awareness-raising to ensure that women are not missing out on vital nutrients in the early stages of their pregnancy?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am sorry, I cannot answer the noble Baroness’s question directly. I am not sure whether an assessment has been made of the impact of the pandemic on the consumption of folic acid, but it has undoubtedly raised the importance of these kinds of preventive measures. We have never been more acutely aware of the importance of improving the health of the nation, and this is an important step in that direction.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, one of the first to indicate that folic acid could prevent spina bifida was Professor Richard Smithells in 1980. That was accepted 11 years later, which is nothing compared with the present delay. Spina bifida is one of the commonest congenital defects and is easily prevented by adding folic acid to flour, which is what the Americans did 23 years ago, thus preventing 1,300 babies having that tragic condition every year. We keep hearing about consultations and meetings, which some of us regard more as group psychotherapy than as achieving anything. When will action be taken?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely understand and appreciate the sense of frustration and urgency that my noble friend expressed, but I emphasise that this is a massive national measure. It has to be conducted in a way that takes the nations with us, that people feel confident that the right processes have been adhered to and that there is no doubt about the safety of the measure. This is not a question of foot dragging, quite the opposite. We are doing this in a thorough way that reflects the practicalities and realities of the machinery of the United Kingdom Government.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I understand the frustration the Minister must feel being brought to the House again and again on this issue, but can he understand the frustration just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, that British science of 40 years ago has influenced the activities of countries across the world, New Zealand being the latest, and yet somehow in this country we have not managed to act on the science that was produced here and families have paid the price for that? Will the Minister understand the urgency and the frustration of those of us who have been raising this issue for years and will he look again at a timetable for implementation?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely understand the frustration. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have campaigned assiduously for this measure. It speaks extremely highly of this House that it is so focused on getting over the line an important and emblematic measure that puts preventive medicine at the heart of our healthcare system. Personally, I do not feel any disappointment or anger. I am completely committed to this measure, as are the British Government.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I have been raising this matter since I became president of the British Dietetic Association, and my presidency ended a year ago. It seems that we go round and round in circles. Some 80 countries in the world have solved these questions. Why is it taking HMG so long? Can the Minister assure us that before we break up next week, he will have made a definitive statement on dates?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not need to explain to a seasoned veteran such as my noble friend that the British Government have had a lot on their hands in the past 18 months and that getting right important measures such as this, that touch the lives of every single person in the country—at least, all those who have bred—is an extremely delicate matter. That is why we have to do it in a thoughtful, constructive way. There is no cutting corners on a measure such as this. I reassure my noble friend that we are going through it as quickly as we can. I am not able to give him the timetable that he asks for, but I would like to return in the new term with further details.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Universal Credit
Baroness Sherlock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support people on universal credit.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The UK Government’s approach to welfare is to recognise the value and importance of work, making work pay and supporting people into work while protecting the most vulnerable in society. To support those on low incomes through the outbreak, we introduced a package of temporary welfare measures, spending £111 billion on welfare support for people of working age in 2020-21. This included around £7.4 billion of Covid-related welfare policy measures. However, our focus now has to be on the £30 billion plan for jobs, which will support people into long-term employment by helping them to learn new skills and increase their hours or to find new work.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
Thérèse Coffey has confirmed that £20 per week will be cut from universal credit in September, overriding objections not just from Labour but from numerous charities and even six of her predecessors. Like the Minister, the Prime Minister argues that the emphasis should be on getting people into work, even though one-third of claimants are already in jobs, including many of the carers, drivers and shop staff who served our nation throughout the pandemic. Rather than repeat the tax credits debacle when the Government were forced into a late U-turn, will Ministers please rethink these questions and do the right thing now?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government announced in the 2021 spring Budget a six-month extension to the temporary £20 a week increase to universal credit. Eligible working credit claimants also received a one-off payment of £500. However, as we see the economy opening, it is right that the Government should shift our focus to developing and pushing forward excellent schemes for people getting back into work. That is why we are investing £30 billion in the plan for jobs.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I am saddened to hear about the phasing out of the £20 uplift in universal credit. Her Majesty’s Government have made a very positive step towards tackling childhood obesity with plans to ban junk food adverts before 9 pm but there is a clear link between poverty and obesity, particularly where financial constraints make cheap, high-calorie food more affordable than healthy alternatives. How then do the Government aim to improve access to healthy food for those on universal credit?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we help those most vulnerable in our society with free school meals and with free fruit and veg in primary schools. We are continuing to look at the obesity strategy to make sure that we are doing everything we can to ensure that people can afford to eat healthily.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, could the Minister give us an update on the contribution that UC work coach activity has made in alleviating workforce shortages in the hospitality and other sectors? How successful have they been in inspiring people to enter vocational careers, particularly in the prison and police services?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, as I said, we are investing over £30 billion in our ambitious plan for jobs, which is already delivering for people of all ages right across this country. We have fulfilled our commitment to recruit 13,500 extra work coaches who, through our jobcentre network, provide people with the support that they need to move into work across a wide range of sectors and vocations, including access to apprenticeships, vocational and basic skills training, careers advice and sector-based work academy programmes. I am happy to offer a further meeting with my noble friend to discuss these further.
Lord Bird (CB)
Does the Minister agree that if you are not very good at digital usage, if you find it difficult to get a bank account in spite of all the Government’s good efforts, or if you find it difficult to arrange your budget, this situation is very hard? For a continuous period, almost since the 1970s, we have infantilised people on social security and not given them any support to get off it. Now that we are giving them that support, all these things are happening at once. I meet hundreds of people who are struggling daily because they do not know how to handle the opportunities presented by universal credit.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord brings up a very good point. What we need to do, and what we have done, is to train and recruit good work coaches, working from our jobcentres, who personalise the support they give to the most vulnerable in our communities but also help them to get good jobs and reach their potential.
Baroness Drake (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the pandemic has been highly unequal in its impact on different sectors, people and geographies. The Government can try to bury the bad news that they are cutting universal credit by £20 a week but they cannot disguise that this is delivering an overnight 5% cut to the incomes of 6 million poorer households. If the £20 cut goes ahead, as the Resolution Foundation points out, it will result in the lowest real-terms level of basic benefits for 30 years. In today’s environment, how does the Minister justify that?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As I have said, when the Government put in the £20-a-week increase in universal credit, it was always going to be a temporary position. We now have a comprehensive plan for jobs. There are jobs out there. We will support people in the short and long term by helping them to get new skills and increase their hours to find new work, whether they are young or old, and to ensure what we know is the best way out of poverty, and that is jobs.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, further to the question from the right reverend Prelate, is the Minister aware that to afford the cost of the Government’s recommended healthy diet, a family on benefits would need to spend 75% of their income on food? What will the Government do to ensure that the cost of a healthy diet is fully factored into the calculation of benefit payments?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not think I can add anything further to what I said to the right reverend Prelate. We are looking at the obesity strategy. We have a great free school meals programme, which is also running through the summer and Christmas holidays. It is important that, through the obesity strategy, we continue to look at making good food affordable.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
Will the Minister please explain how cutting £20 per week from universal credit for 6 million of the poorest households, many of whom are already in work, and pushing below the poverty line another 420,000 children who will therefore go hungry, can possibly be delivering on the Prime Minister’s promise of “levelling up” our communities?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As I have explained, what we are doing and what we intend to do is to take away something that was always going to be temporary and invest in making sure that these families get good jobs for the future.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their Restart programme, but surely a year of unemployment before that kicks in is not necessary in the case of an enforced career change—for example, returnees from looking after children or those whose livelihoods have been destroyed by Covid.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend is probably talking about the Restart programme, which looks at referrals on a case-by-case basis with work coaches and can restart jobs for people who have lost jobs through the Covid pandemic. Those work coaches will look for the most appropriate route for an individual. These could be people who now need a career change. The other option for those having to change career could be the sector-based work academy programme, which also looks to invest in reskilling. This offers up to six weeks of training, work experience and a guaranteed interview for a real job to claimants in England and Scotland.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister keeps talking as if this is only for people out of work and the solution is to find work. However, this support goes to people on low incomes, including those in work. The level of support is now lower in real terms than it was 30 years ago, and the lowest as a proportion of wages it has ever been. Will she reflect on the fact that every single Conservative Secretary of State for Work and Pensions since 2010—all of the former Secretaries of State—believes that this cut should not take place?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord talks about in-work poverty. Our focus today is still on supporting people financially through the Covid pandemic, but our long-term ambition remains to build an economy that ensures that everybody has the opportunity to enter and progress in work. Full-time work dramatically reduces the risk of poverty. We have a commission on in-work progression, which has published its report on the barriers to progressing for those on persistently low pay. The Government will consider its recommendations and respond later in the year.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Royal Yacht
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the costs and benefits of the proposed new royal yacht.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the new national flagship will boost British trade and drive investment into our economy. The national flagship will be built in UK shipyards, creating both jobs and upskilling opportunities. It will play an important role in delivering the vision we will set out in a national shipbuilding strategy refresh, to be published later this year. The cost of the national flagship will be confirmed once we have concluded market engagement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I see that the Government have already downgraded the proposed boat from a royal yacht to a national flagship. As the department has been lumbered with the responsibility for this extravagant folly, will she say what contribution she expects the boat to make to our defence—and I mean defence—capability? Will the department be fully compensated for the cost?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I am somewhat saddened by the noble Lord’s lacklustre attitude, because this is an exciting prospect for British shipbuilding, our skills base in that industry and the supply chain. It is opening a new chapter in our global engagement focus on trade, investment and British jobs. The MoD is responsible for the national flagship because our Secretary of State is the shipbuilding tsar, and more than any other government department we have significant experience in building ships. This new ship will be an innovative maritime mobile trade ambassador.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, when such captains of industry as the successful business luminary, the late Sir Donald Gosling—who reportedly bequeathed some £50 million to the replacement of the royal yacht “Britannia”—see the sense in promoting Britain in the world, particularly as we seek new trading partners, does the Minister agree that the benefits of such a vessel will be invaluable?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
The case for the new national flagship is not just well made, it is self-evident. It reflects the determination of this Government to do everything we can to boost investment in the UK economy, to create more jobs in the United Kingdom and to ensure that we have a facilitator in the form of this new flagship to engage meaningfully with global partners.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is another vanity project by the Prime Minister, just like his £53 million garden bridge and the £5.2 million estuary airport. Does the Minister agree that the proposed £200 million would generate more jobs by feeding hungry schoolchildren during the summer break, tackling domestic violence or hiring 6,600 new nurses?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
The duty of government is to make decisions and judgments. It is the judgment of this Government that the creation of and investment in the new national flagship is a very substantial means of enhancing global engagement, with the specific intention of improving trade relations and identifying and inviting potential global customers to invest in the UK, create jobs and thereby create the wealth and expenditure for the very worthy purposes to which he has referred.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, there might be all sorts of very good reasons to have a national flagship, but will the Minister tell the House what the benefit of this to defence is going to be? How does she envisage naval staff being available to equip the ship?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
In common with all government departments, the MoD wishes to play its role in supporting the Government. The noble Baroness will be aware that the carrier strike group is currently conducting an important mission overseas, and that is attracting interest from a variety of sources, not least those who wish to engage with us globally with a view to looking at trade opportunities. This proposal complements that approach. Manning the flagship will be a Royal Navy responsibility, but that will be factored into our existing commitments.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister comment on whether, in the light of government borrowing being so high at £303 billion following the Covid pandemic, the money to be spent on a new royal yacht is money that we cannot spare at the moment and the project should be delayed accordingly?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
My Lords—[Inaudible]— the estimated bill cost for the new national flagship, it is unhelpful to refer to this as a royal yacht. In concept, purpose and function, the flagship is completely different. The estimated bill cost is less than 0.1% of the defence budget over the next four years, and that will be met from within the defence settlement. We are satisfied that that can be comfortably accommodated.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is both disappointing and shocking that the Minister has now confirmed that the capital costs of building the flagship will be met from the defence budget. Does the Minister not understand that the core of the objections from many Lords in this debate is that the money is coming from the defence budget? If the Government are determined to go ahead with this, would it not be better for the MoD’s money to be spent not on this prime ministerial vanity project but on another maritime patrol aircraft or frigate? That is the nub of the questions that the Minister is being asked: why is this a priority for the MoD?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
As I indicated, the MoD is one government department but we operate in conjunction with others. We consider it our duty to support these other government departments in their respective obligations and missions. As I also indicated earlier, the MoD spend on shipbuilding will double to over £1.7 billion a year over the life of this Parliament, while the national flagship is less than 0.1% of that defence budget over the next four years.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I would like to explore why the MoD is the right department to take forward this vanity project. When we debated its record on procurement a couple of weeks ago, we heard that the 400 tanks it had ordered cannot reverse, cannot go forward very fast and cannot fire on the move. The staff inside also had to be changed every hour and a half because it was too noisy. Why is the MoD the right department to procure this, rather than the business department?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
As I indicated on a previous question, the Defence Secretary is the Government’s shipbuilding tsar and the MoD’s role as the lead department for this project reflects our knowledge and experience in shipbuilding and procurement. That has been a very active part of our defence engagement and continues to be so, with a really proud and substantial shipbuilding programme in process.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, if this is to be primarily concerned with promoting international trade, should it not be funded by the Department for International Trade? Since that department is concerned about the tip towards the Pacific, it would be absurd to base this ship in Britain. Will it be based at Bahrain, Diego Garcia or Singapore? Lastly, since this is a pet project of the Prime Minister, do the Government plan to name the ship Dilyn?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
There may be much speculation about the name of the ship but it is premature to discuss that just now. It will be announced in due course. The noble Lord makes an important point about the underlying purpose and function of this flagship. He is quite right that it is to be mobile and a maritime asset. Many of the major cities in the world with which we wish to engage for trade purposes are coastal; he is therefore correct that we anticipate this vessel’s role to be mobile. It will go to where the need is and where we wish to engage, at the time we wish to undertake that engagement.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, everybody wants to boost British shipbuilders, but does the Minister not agree that other ways of doing it are more relevant for the purposes of our defence? The Minister talked about investment and boosting trade. Is not this whole project a vote of no confidence in the good work that our embassies and consulates do throughout the world? Is it not a way of saying, “You’re not good enough—we’re going to find a different way of doing it”?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I disagree with that last assessment by the noble Lord. This is entirely complementary to what we currently do with our Diplomatic Service and through our trade ambassadors and trade emissaries—an added facilitator to help support these important endeavours. It is all about finding investment and orders for the UK, boosting UK jobs and bringing that investment to this country. That is a collective government responsibility and I therefore anticipate that this vessel, although being built under the aegis of the MoD, will be operated and work closely in conjunction with our overall government endeavours and ambitions.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Racism in Sport
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the recent racist abuse directed towards members of the England football team, what action they are taking to tackle racism in sport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the England team, not only for what they achieved during the European Cup, but the manner in which they achieved it. It was a magnificent performance, which raised the spirits of the whole nation. What followed in terms of racist abuse is wholly unacceptable. The Government have been working with the football community to address this problem. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has held talks with a number of footballers and other sports people to hear first-hand the appalling abuse suffered. The Online Safety Bill will address the racist abuse of footballers online, including anonymous abuse.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
In praising quite rightly, the brilliant leadership of Gareth Southgate and the inspirational England team, will the Minister join me in calling out those who dismissed taking the knee against racism as gesture politics or those who refused to condemn fans booing the players? As the Minister says, we are all disgusted and condemn the appalling racist abuse of Bukayo Saka, Jadon Sancho and Marcus Rashford. But people are also furious—they are demanding action now from the Government. How are the Government going to force social media companies to act now? Promises have been made before, yet we are still waiting. Why are we not seeing more prosecutions? This activity is illegal offline, so it must be illegal online. We would not stand for it on the street.
Has the Minister had discussions with government colleagues, the police, the CPS and others demanding that these racists—whatever we want to call them—are prosecuted and do not hide behind anonymity? Will the Minister agree with me that the Government urgently need to set out a series of practical steps outlining action before the next England game? Will she join me in saying that that will happen? Action, not words, is the call from the British public.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the focus on action, because that is exactly where the Government are looking. In response to the various points he raised, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already met with the policing Minister to review what further steps can be taken, including any additional protection for the players that the noble Lord referred to. In terms of leadership on this issue, the Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that people should feel free to show their respect and condemn racism in whatever way they choose. In terms of next steps, I have already talked about the Online Safety Bill. We have also recently launched safety by design guidance and made a substantial investment in safetech.
Lord Addington (LD)
While thanking the Minister for her assurances, can she tell us now exactly what the duties of the online platforms which carried the abuse will be under the new Bill? What sanctions will they face if they do not fulfil these duties?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Bill will create a regulatory framework which applies to all platforms whatever their size in relation to illegal online abuse and, particularly for the largest platforms, to harmful but legal content. We fully expect that racism and racist abuse will be a priority category. In terms of sanctions, there are fines of up to 10% of global turnover, blocking of sites and, indeed, potentially criminal sanctions for the leadership of those businesses.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB) [V]
My Lords, I too thank the England team and its manager Gareth Southgate for providing so much joy for millions during the Euro football championship. Does the Minister agree with me that not only must the deluge of racist abuse towards black players be condemned and perpetrators brought to justice but it should not be fuelled in the first place by politicians, some of whom, if we are honest, in effect encouraged fans to boo the national team—a brilliant team that took a collective stand in taking the knee against the very racism that the black players were subject to after Sunday’s defeat?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord about the appalling deluge of abuse that the players suffered. I have already, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, set out exactly what the Prime Minister has said on this matter. The other thing that is very clear is that there is a yawning gap between what social media companies say they do on their sites and what all our experiences are—including, particularly in this case, the players affected.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, these are not football supporters. They are sick. They are scum. They are cowards because they hide behind the anonymity of social media, which clearly have been incapable of putting their own house in order. I support the Government in their efforts to bring social media to their senses. We have friends in the social media world. Could our colleagues in this House, who know him so well—the Liberal Democrats, for instance—draw to the attention of Nick Clegg the difference between his previous principles and his current position? Surely he should be encouraged to take a lead and do so much more in fighting this sort of racism and bring us back to the position where we can get on with the beauty of the English game.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Social media companies follow every aspect of our lives and I think we are all surprised that they could not have anticipated better some of the events that have occurred in the last 48 hours. The Online Safety Bill will specifically address issues around anonymity.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome and endorse the tribute paid by the Minister and my noble friend Lord Coaker to Gareth Southgate and the England team. They are genuine role models in whom we can all take a great sense of pride. The Minister will recall that she answered an Oral Question from me on this subject on 23 March. She said:
“The police already have a range of legal powers to identify individuals who attempt to use anonymity to escape sanctions for online abuse.”
May I ask her what those sanctions are and what progress has been made in making football a specific priority in the hate crime unit looking at online discrimination against protected characteristics, as specified under the Equality Act 2010? She spoke about imposing a duty of care on social media companies with
“clear systems of user redress and strong enforcement powers from Ofcom.”—[Official Report, 23/3/21; col. 724)
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but half the time for this PNQ has already lapsed and we need to make more progress.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am happy to write to the noble Lord and address any other points that he wishes to make. The Investigatory Powers Act allows police to acquire communications data such as an email address and the location of the device from which illegal anonymous abuse is sent, which can be used as evidence in court. We hope that this will act as a clear deterrent in future.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, like my grandsons and my granddaughter, I loved every England game. For me, football did come home to unify a divided nation, which stood with the profoundly thoughtful leadership of Gareth Southgate and Harry Kane and with magnificent players like Shaw, Grealish, Saka, Rashford, Sancho, Mount, and the man of many matches, Raheem Sterling.
Given their and our message that there is no place in our sports or institutions for racism and Islamophobia, with hindsight, does the Prime Minister regret his divisive and disrespectful comments? Will the Minister say what additional action the PM and the Government are taking to eradicate institutionalised structural racism and Islamophobia and its devastating impact in all aspects of our conduct and policy? They should take a leaf out of the England team’s efforts—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry, but can we please keep questions short? It is extremely disrespectful to the rest of the House.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I can only repeat to the noble Baroness that the Government have been absolutely clear that racism is unacceptable online or offline and that we respect people’s choice to condemn racism in whichever way they feel is right.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, may I ask the Government to consider legislation to the express effect that racism in sport should be an aggravated crime, thereby allowing greater powers in sentencing?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that racism is already an aggravating factor in many crimes. I am happy to take his suggestion back to the department.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of Carlisle United Football Club, where we are all simply appalled by the racist abuse. The Times today suggests in a leader that this is not solely a British problem. Therefore, will Her Majesty’s Government raise it at the international forum to see whether we can help solve it? Domestically, when discussing this problem with the football authorities, will they include a relatively new body, Fair Game, which is composed largely of lower league clubs and will offer a different perspective?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are determined to do everything within their power to stamp out the awful racism that we saw. Obviously, it is an extremely long-standing problem and one that extends across the world. We will use every opportunity to address it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Surely the Government can see that when senior politicians, such as our Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Home Office, make dog-whistle comments and do not slap down racism, the Cabinet and Government themselves have a problem.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do not accept what the noble Baroness says. I have quoted twice now what the Prime Minister has said, which has been crystal clear on this subject. The Home Secretary has also been clear that there is no place for racism in this country, and she knows very well from her own experience.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Football Association. I am delighted to hear what is going to be done about social media; it is going to have to be enforced. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, that the people displaying their hooliganism and racism are scum; they have nothing to do with England or its football team.
As chairman of the FA I sought legislation that would enable us to ban for life—one strike and they are out—anybody convicted of any of these crimes from every football ground in the United Kingdom: no excuses, no second chances. Would the Government support that?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are well aware that football banning orders can have a great effect on those implicated. This is one thing we are looking at.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
I proposed six weeks ago to the Secretary of State that the Football Spectators Act 1989 be amended to include online hatred. Can the Government do that in advance of the online harms Bill? A simple amendment to that Act would give far greater powers for dealing with this problem.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is very familiar with the approach we are taking to address online harms, which we hope will be comprehensive and effective. I will take his suggestion back to the department, but I cannot reassure him today at the Dispatch Box whether we can progress it.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise this is outwith the Minister’s brief, but does she agree that we must now include specific anti-racist teaching in the curriculum for initial teacher education and in the national curriculum, given that racism in sport reflects racism in society at large?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is right; it is outwith my brief. What I will say is that the Government take incredibly seriously the racist behaviour we have seen in this case but also, sadly, in others. I agree that thinking about how children grow up and their expectations is really important.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is intolerable that the slightest excuse or whim, such as the missing of a penalty, can result in the raining down of racial abuse on social media against young sportsmen representing their country at the highest level. Does the Minister agree that this clearly illustrates the importance of removing anonymity for those who peddle racial and other hate speech on such platforms?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware of some of the issues around anonymity. It is important that platforms—and this will be required in the Bill—have a functionality that does not allow anonymous users, or those using pseudonyms or multiple different names, to perpetrate their hateful abuse online.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That Baroness Doocey be appointed as a Parliamentary member of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body in place of Baroness Scott of Needham Market.
Procedure and Privileges
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:53 - Division conducted remotely on Lord Adonis’s amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 234 / Noes: 296 - Lord Adonis’s amendment disagreed.
17:19 - Division conducted remotely on Lord Balfe’s amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 112 / Noes: 376 - Lord Balfe’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the Report from the Select Committee Procedural adaptations arising from the hybrid House; Interim option of voting using PeerHub; Ongoing virtual participation by disabled members (1st Report, HL Paper 41) be agreed to.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I speak to the Motions standing in my name and in the name of the Senior Deputy Speaker. As the Lord Speaker said, this Motion is being debated alongside a Business of the House Motion and a Motion on allowances, both of which are in my name, which is why I am opening this debate.
Before I go any further, I once again put on record my thanks to the staff of the House for all of the work they have done to support us over the past 16 months. I also thank the Chief Whip, the Front Bench and all the fantastic people who work in our offices, specifically some unsung heroes—many of your Lordships will have relied on them for support during our hybrid proceedings but you may not fully appreciate the role they have played. Jane Burfoot, Leann Twinley, Matt Taylor, Hannah-Louise Gadsby, Charlotte Johnson and James Anoom have all patiently assisted noble Lords from across the House with the myriad speakers’ and participants’ lists and so much more. On behalf of us all, thank you.
The virtual then hybrid systems we have been using for the last 16 months have served their purpose: they allowed the House to continue to meet through three national lockdowns and to carry on scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account. Despite the unprecedented and challenging circumstances, in the last Session 55 Bills were passed and, when added together, 341 Statements, UQ repeats and PNQs were debated.
Although I agree with the Constitution Committee, which concluded that our hybrid scrutiny has been “less effective”, no one can say we did not do our job as best we could in the most difficult of circumstances. Throughout the pandemic we have worked hard to ensure that our practices and procedures have remained compatible with the public health situation, and that will not change.
All the proposals before noble Lords today have been informed by the debate that took place on Thursday 20 May, by representations from across the House and by an informal consultation exercise carried out last week via PeerHub. They give effect to a series of measures agreed and proposed by the commission and the Procedure and Privileges Committee in respect of the working practices of the House from 6 September onwards, after the remaining public health restrictions have been lifted and ensuring time for the House authorities to implement them.
Subject to the agreement of the House today, the hybrid system and remote voting will come to an end at this point, after the Summer Recess. There will be no more speakers’ lists for the amending stages of Bills; Grand Committee will return to the Moses Room; and interventions, which noble Lords across the House have said they have missed most, will once again be possible. Statements, Urgent Questions and Private Notice Questions will go back to being taken at the earliest convenience and without speakers’ lists.
We all know the limitations of the hybrid system, and I am pleased that the package before the House will return the vast majority of our working practices to what they were before the pandemic. However, we have learned from the experience of the last year and are therefore recommending that the House keeps some of the changes that we believe have made our processes more effective and efficient.
If these Motions were agreed to, Private Notice Questions, which were extended at the beginning of the pandemic, would continue to last for up to 15 minutes, rather than go back to 10. Speakers’ lists, for the business that will still need them, would continue to close two working days before a debate or Question takes place, rather than the night before. The legislation tabling deadline would stay at 4 pm and the Table Office tabling deadline at 5 pm—both one hour earlier than their pre-pandemic cut-offs. A ballot would continue to be held for Questions for Short Debate to be taken in Grand Committee once every five weeks. This would be in addition to the return of balloted general debates, balloted topical QSDs and dinner break business. The Companion would be updated to discourage the late degrouping of amendments before the amending stages of Bills. The requirement to convene a Reasons Committee would cease; a standard Reason would be given instead when the Lords disagree with a Commons proposition without proposing an alternative.
There would also be changes to the arrangements for Oral Questions. The extension of Question Time to 40 minutes and Secretary of State’s Questions to 30 minutes would be retained, so each Question would have up to 10 minutes rather than revert to the pre-pandemic seven and a half. Oral Questions would continue to be allocated by ballot, removing the need for noble Lords to queue up for hours on end outside the Table Office in the hope of securing one. The wording of Oral Questions would not be able to be changed with less than 48 hours’ notice, and a speakers’ list for Oral Questions would continue to be used. Because we were all aware that opinion across the House was—and remains—divided on this issue, the Procedure Committee decided to ask the opinion of your Lordships. It was subject to a vote via PeerHub in which the whole House was invited to take part. Of the 551 Members who responded, 59% voted in favour of keeping speakers’ lists for Oral Questions, hence the proposal before your Lordships today.
I can see from the Order Paper that this decision is not universally popular but, as with all measures, the Procedure and Privileges Committee will keep it under review from September. Of course, if the House agrees to these Motions, Members will be able to contrast having lists for Oral Questions with having Statements, UQs and PNQs without them once we return.
One of the great achievements of the past 16 months was the work done to rapidly adapt the House of Commons system, MemberHub, for use in this House as PeerHub. It proved a secure and mostly reliable way for noble Lords to vote remotely. We would not have been able to continue scrutinising legislation without it and, once again, I put on record my thanks to the digital team that worked so hard to both build PeerHub and support our use of it. However, the commission has decided—again, subject to your Lordships’ agreement —that remote voting should cease from September and that the relationship between attendance at Parliament and casting a vote in a Division should be restored. Voting is at the core of what being a legislator is, and we believe that it should be done in the House. In the longer term, voting will take place using pass readers, and we will bring proposals on this to the House in the autumn. However, while that system is being developed, PeerHub will continue to be used as an interim measure. From September, noble Lords will be asked before they vote whether they are in a place of work on the estate and will not be able to vote if they answer “no”.
Finally, it has been proposed that a small number of Members who may be unable physically to attend the House on the grounds of long-term disability should continue to be able to take part in our business remotely. Eligible Members would be free to choose their mode of participation and take part either physically or remotely. The commission has decided that requests to become an eligible Member should be considered by an additional support group chaired by the Senior Deputy Speaker. If the package before the House is agreed, further details on how a request can be made will be circulated.
Eligible Members who choose to participate remotely will not have the parity with physical speakers that we have seen throughout the hybrid House. Nor will remote participation be immediately available in the Moses Room for technical reasons; a solution is being worked on, but it will take some time. But, by giving sufficient notice, eligible Members will be able to take part remotely in all business in the Chamber. Eligible Members would also be exempt from having to declare that they are present on the estate when voting. Of course, making the Chamber and House as accessible as possible remains a key priority and we will look to make improvements where we can to ensure that Members can participate physically in the House if and when they wish to do so.
I stress again that the Procedure and Privileges Committee and the commission will keep all these adaptations under review and consider them further if necessary. But I hope that, for the most part, your Lordships will be satisfied with the progress we are hoping to make to get our House back to how it should be. I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ contributions on these matters today and returning to a fuller, livelier and more effective House in September. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Adonis
At end insert “but that this House believes it should sit from 1pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays.”
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness for her introduction. She quite rightly paid tribute to the staff of the House, and we all pay tribute to them too, but it is fitting that we also pay tribute to the Leader of the House herself for the way she has guided us through these very turbulent times over the last 15 months. She has proved very sensitive to the feelings of the House, and we are very grateful to her. Thanks should also be extended to my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, who has done an excellent job as leader of my party, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in respect of the Cross-Benchers. The House has shown itself in a very commendable light in the way it has adapted to this great public health emergency we have had to deal with.
The Leader said that we are seeking to keep some of the changes we have adopted over the last year that we generally agree are worthwhile. I suggest to your Lordships that one of the changes we should consider keeping is meeting earlier. My proposition this afternoon is that, just as we have been meeting earlier on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays throughout the pandemic, we should continue to meet earlier on the basis that we also adjourn earlier and have a new equilibrium of meeting earlier and adjourning earlier.
There are two reasons why this is particularly important, which are partly to do with when we do our business but also how we do it. In terms of when we do our business, it is only because of custom and practice from time immemorial that the House started its business mid-afternoon—and indeed, going back 50 years or so, in the late afternoon. Almost every other parliamentary assembly in the world has started meeting earlier in the day as it has adapted to modern conditions. The House of Commons now meets earlier than us on every day of the week.
The arguments for meeting later are now superseded. It used to be said that we had to juggle the demands of holding other full-time jobs with membership of the House. I am very sympathetic to noble Lords who work in banks, in the City, as lawyers and in other professions that carry on until the late afternoon, but the biggest second job that almost all of us have is as members of families—as parents and carers who need to be available in the evenings, which, by definition, you cannot be if the House is sitting in the evenings.
Of course, no set of arrangements suits everybody. I am fully aware that meeting earlier and adjourning earlier would inconvenience some Members. But from the many conversations I have had on this issue over the last few days, and over many months while we have been meeting in this way, I think the generality of your Lordships think that meeting at 1 pm—which, after all, is the middle of the day, so we are not exactly taking over the whole working day—and adjourning at 7 pm or 8 pm, as a normal practice, is a great improvement on the conditions in which we have worked, which have simply been inherited from time immemorial.
I am aware this poses a particular issue in respect of Monday for noble Lords who come from the north of Scotland, which has been put to me. If this amendment is passed today, I would recommend that the Procedure Committee look at whether the precise arrangements for Monday should be further reviewed. Maybe 2 pm on a Monday, rather than 1 pm, would be better for noble Lords coming substantial distances.
As for how we do our business, though, which is as important as when we do it, it seems absolutely imperative that we look at meeting earlier. The practical effect of beginning our proceedings in the middle of the afternoon, as all noble Lords who have conducted the business of the House know, is that we essentially have two House of Lords sittings. We have a Sitting where there is a full House, which is roughly from 2 pm or 3 pm to about 7 pm, then we have a residual House from 7 pm, made up of only those die-hard Members actually conducting the business in the Chamber, and it goes through to the end at 10 pm.
I once conducted the Committee stage of a Bill from where the noble Baroness sits with four Members of the House for three hours while we got to the end of a Bill. This is perfectly common after your Lordships come into the House after dinner. This suits the Government very well indeed. I see a Chief Whip on one side and a former Chief Whip on the other. There is nothing that suits the Government better than that the business of the House should be conducted with nobody present. This limits the opportunities for debate and intervention and, in particular, it removes the potential for votes. Everyone knows that in the normal course of events, with normal voting, you cannot have votes after 7.30 pm because you simply cannot conduct a House. You have only a narrow window, which will become narrower, because we have just agreed to extend Question Time, and we now have Private Notice Questions almost as a matter of course. There will be only a very narrow window, of about two and a half hours in most sittings, when it is practically possible to conduct votes in the House.
Walter Bagehot, in his famous book on the English constitution from 150 years ago, said:
“An assembly—a revising assembly especially—which does not assemble … is defective in a main political ingredient.”
A fundamental problem with the House of Lords, if we revert to our previous arrangements, is that for about half our sittings, we essentially do not assemble. Only a tiny subset of your Lordships assembles. It is not possible for most Members, because of their other responsibilities, to take part in these sittings in the late evening—or it is not their desire to do so, and it is not possible to have votes. Whereas, if we conduct our business like every other institution in the country does, in prime time, then from 1 pm until 7 pm or 8 pm, almost all Members will be available. We will be far more inclusive in our conduct of the business, and it will be possible to conduct votes throughout that period. For those Members of the House who are not in the Government, which includes the generality of Members on both sides, our conduct of business would be improved.
Just one final remark: we are a self-regulating assembly. When we set up the office of the Lord Speaker, which was very controversial at the time, I remember the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who I am delighted to see is speaking later, told us frequently through many hours of debates that the Government’s proposal should not be accepted, in respect of the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor and the creation of the Lord Speaker, because we are self-regulating and should make these decisions ourselves. We are a self-regulating House, but that does mean that we should regulate ourselves. We should not shy away from making these decisions about the conduct of our own business. Meeting earlier and adjourning earlier is an idea whose time has come. I beg to move.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate. I begin echoing the well-deserved tribute from my noble friend the Leader of the House to all those who have made it possible for us to continue during these difficult times. I should like to make a particular vote of thanks to the digital support team. As one who had not used a computer before, I have been able to take part in your Lordships’ House when I have not been present—although I have been present most of the time—entirely because of the team’s patient tuition. The team has been marvellous.
I must begin on a note of dissent from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. He made a persuasive case, but I am afraid I think it was a superficial one. It did not take sufficient account of the fact that we always almost boast about our expertise, and one of the reasons we can do that is that a significant number of Members of your Lordships’ House do other things before they come in at 2 pm. There is also the important point that there is a clash with committees—both party committees and Select Committees, which we should prize. I also say to the noble Lord that—although perhaps he does not eat as many luncheons as I do; it does not look as though he does—to lunch with people before we sit at 2.30 pm can be extremely helpful.
It is for the convenience of a large number of Members of your Lordships’ House that we revert, as the committee is proposing, to sitting at 2.30 pm on Mondays and Tuesdays, 3 pm on Wednesdays, 11 am on Thursdays and, if we sit, 10 am on Fridays. Therefore, I cannot support that amendment. When the noble Lord generously invited me to support it, I let him know that I could not.
I want to concentrate my remarks on Questions. I am delighted to know that UQs, Statements and PNQs will be taken in the old way. But I do not think it is a good idea to have a printed list for the main Question Time of the day. It destroys spontaneity. Often, I have come into your Lordships’ House—and I know this applies to others because I have discussed it—not thinking I would take part in a particular Question, but I am provoked to do so by some ministerial or other remark with which I could not associate myself, or to give support to a colleague who has had an unsatisfactory answer from the Minister. I believe that spontaneity is a tremendously important part of your Lordships’ House’s proceedings. Therefore, I strongly urge that we discard the list.
I know it was done for the best possible reasons but I was a little troubled by the fact that we had an opinion poll. A lot of people did not know about it. I spoke to two Members of your Lordships’ House with whom I keep in regular touch, and I do not mind mentioning them: the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. Until I warned them that this opinion poll was being taken on PeerHub, they had not heard of it. There are others I have discovered since. It was also a pity that it was a binary question, because there are other ways of doing this, as my noble friend Lord Balfe will point out when he speaks to his amendment to the Motion in a few minutes’ time.
I come back to spontaneity, which is a very important part of our proceedings. It is crucial that we hold the Government to account. This has not happened over the last 16 months. That is no one’s fault—but it has not happened, and the Government have been the beneficiaries. We have not been able to intervene on a Minister or to get up and challenge a ministerial statement. As I say, I blame no one, but the sooner we can get back to that, the better, because your Lordships’ House, a House of scrutiny and of holding to account, wishes to be able to fulfil those functions to the full. It is truly important that we are able to do that and at the moment, under this printed list system, we are not able to. So I am urging, in my amendment, that by 31 October at the very latest this is reviewed, because I think we are going to lose a very great deal.
I shall end on a very different note. The committee that has been looking at these things has been reviewing our procedures. It has said that it will continue to review our procedures, and one of the procedures I hope it will continue to review—I mention it today because there is no chance of debating it next week—is Standing Order 68, under which, on Wednesday next week, without any debate or discussion, this House that wants to value everybody is not going to value three of our colleagues by voting to half-suspend them from the facilities of the House. I think that is shameful and I hope that my noble friend will take this message back to her committee, and that high on the agenda when it next comes to review our proceedings will be reviewing Standing Order 68. For a man or a woman to be condemned without any opportunity to explain, or have his or her colleagues explain, is a denial of natural justice.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by associating myself with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Cormack, thanking the Leader and the staff and the Leaders of the other parties here for the way in which we have managed to get ourselves through the last year. Before I move on to my amendment, I will offer support to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for his. He mentioned people coming down to London on a Monday and said we might need to look at it. That is exactly why we need to start earlier, certainly on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday—because most Members do not have other jobs. Most Members, if the House is not sitting and they are from outside London, are basically just kicking around, looking at the newspapers, et cetera. I think they would be much better employed if the House was sitting, and I hope that serious consideration will be given to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Adonis.
Much has been said about the dignity of the House. My contention is that the least dignified part of the House used to be the scramble at Question Time, with people shouting against each other and generally trying to get in to a debate, without anyone regulating it at all until, if it got totally out of order, the Government Whip would get up and say, “It’s the Cross-Benchers’ turn” or something like that. It was totally undignified. People watching on television or in the Gallery could not understand what was going on. When I first came here, the advice I was given was, “Sit as near to the front as you can and carry on shouting. Pretend you do not know there is anyone else behind you and you will probably get in.” This is not the way to conduct a Question Time.
I am sorry to put extra work on to my good friend the Lord Speaker, but I think that having the Lord Speaker choosing people to ask supplementaries as the debate goes along does combine spontaneity with being able to share the questions around the House. No one, I think, is suggesting that the House of Commons does not have a reasonably fair Question Time. There, the Speaker provides this service, and I think it is a most important service to provide. I also think that those of us who have not been in the House of Commons feel somewhat at a disadvantage at the way in which Commons procedures such as that are used in this House—not that that is a complete Commons procedure. So I advise and hope that we will ask the committee to look at the matter and report by 31 October.
My amendment does not say that it should start now, because I appreciate that there will be points that have to be looked at. There will have to be guidance and discussion as to how Question Time should be structured, with the Lord Speaker or one of his deputies calling the person to ask a question—but it will, in my view, enable a certain amount of spontaneity, governed by a certain amount of discipline and the ability to give people the opportunity to ask a question and spread it around the House, not only between Members but between different types of Members. I very much hope that we will look at that.
This is not to denigrate what has gone before, but I have to say I always thought Question Time was the least dignified part of the proceedings of this House and that, if we are a self-regulating body, one thing we surely should regulate is good manners in the Chamber. Shouting against each other does not conform to my definition of good manners, so I ask Members to look favourably on this. We are asking the Procedure and Privileges Committee to report by 31 October; we are not taking a decision but offering a guide that I hope Members will feel able to issue to this committee. It may, of course, come back and say it does not work—in which case we would have to think again. But I think that, if it can find a way of making it work, we will have a more dignified and better House.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, for the last year your Lordships’ House has moved forward in its processes and has even joined the 21st century by using Zoom, Teams and electronic voting, in the Chamber and remotely. The decision to move to hybrid working was necessary and it is important to say a big “thank you” to all those who have made it possible. So I echo the thanks of the previous speakers, but I want to mention the commission, the clerks, all the Whips’ offices and the myriad invisible staff who have come to our aid to make it work. I especially thank the broadcasting teams, who onboard us with patience and courtesy, and help problem-solve when things do not quite work. Above all, I thank everybody who has made this work across the House.
We have to learn the lessons of what worked well for us and what we can change to improve our future ways of working, and this report proposes some of those. I think that retaining the extended time for Questions, and, indeed, speakers’ lists, are sensible. For those such as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who want us to return to bobbing, I say that there are some who always find it difficult to get in over noisy colleagues, and for those of us who cannot stand there is immense frustration that we are invisible to the rest of your Lordships at Question Time and too often spoken over. The proposals of the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Balfe, do not quite address the problem that we wheelchair users face.
On voting, keeping the principle of electronic voting is good, but forcing Members on to the main Parliamentary Estate to use it seems somewhat short-sighted. As a disabled Peer, I know that the most suitable offices for wheelchairs are in Millbank, but it is not possible to reliably get out of the building, across the road and into Parliament in time to vote. The reality is that people just do not see wheelchairs. They do not give way in lifts; cars do not give way on crossings; and at bottlenecks coming into Parliament, wheelchairs always seem to be pushed to the back. That means we have to stay in the main building, often in offices unsuitable for wheelchair users. Having these stands to tap in would be very helpful.
My main focus today is to thank the commission, its sub-committee and especially the Lord Speaker for listening to the disabled Members of your Lordships’ House. To say we were distressed by some of the comments from the Benches opposite during the previous debate in May is an understatement. We felt devalued and excluded by other noble Lords, to be told that if we could not physically come in, we did not deserve our place in your Lordships’ House. Some Members opposite even suggested that we should retire because we were “frail and elderly”. We are not; we are disabled, and, under the law of this land, all organisations are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people to help them overcome the barriers they face. These proposals are a start and, I believe, a trailblazer for disabled parliamentarians in Westminster. I hope that the commission will keep the practical working of these proposals under review. As an opposition Front-Bencher, I am not quite sure how some of these proposals will work in the heat of debate on a Bill, but I believe that the House authorities are prepared to help Members like me give it a go.
I would like to restate something I said in the previous debate: I am desperate to return to the Chamber, and I will as soon as it is safe for me to do so. But, as I mentioned in that debate, there are some other Members of your Lordships’ House who are excluded from these proposals but who cannot come to Parliament for the foreseeable future. I refer to the clinically extremely vulnerable, who were told yesterday by the Government in revised formal guidance that, from next Monday, because all other restrictions will be lifted and because of the large surge in Covid cases, they must keep themselves safe and not meet people inside, not come into contact with unvaccinated people, and ensure that they keep socially distant from others, whether inside or outside. I believe that this makes it impossible for them to resume their seats in the physical Chamber. Some of these clinically extremely vulnerable people are disabled, but not long-term. Others may not define themselves as disabled, and they are not the “frail elderly” referred to by noble Lords opposite in our previous debate. But, under these arrangements, they are to be excluded from your Lordships’ House, despite Ministers and these people’s hospital consultants saying that they should not come to London and to Parliament because it is not safe for them. I do hope that the commission will reconsider this small group of people.
Finally, can the Leader of the House say what will happen if further restrictions need to be imposed in the future? Can hybrid facilities be reinstated if necessary? I hope, with every single other Member of this House, that it will absolutely not be necessary—but, as Israel and the Netherlands have recently discovered, the virus and its variants may have further shocks for us all.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, in an earlier debate on reform, I remember saying that in a race I would always back the tortoise rather than the hare when it came to reforming your Lordships’ House. The hare is constantly being shot at; I think the tortoise at the moment is hovering on the finishing line. At least we have seen some movement towards change and modernisation, which is extremely welcome. I add my thanks to all those who have been mentioned so far. In particular, I emphasise what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said in relation to the Whips, who have had the most horrendous task in keeping us in some sort of order while keeping fairness.
I will make one or two observations on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, relating to timing. As I have already said to him, so he knows I feel this, I am extremely sympathetic to what he has put forward in relation to Tuesday and Wednesday—and, by the way, there are committees on a Thursday, so the idea that we infringe on committees on a Thursday but not on a Tuesday and Wednesday is a little odd, to say the least. Although the way in which we have conducted ourselves has been extremely impressive in the circumstances, as the Leader of the House spelled out, we have actually been working much longer hours than the House of Commons. We have seen the House sitting very late, and I fear that, with the level of business that is likely to be presented to us, we will end up in the worst of all worlds: we will start later and end much later, but we will expect people to be around for votes much later.
So there is a great deal in it, other than on a Monday, when those who live in Scotland, the north, parts of Wales and the West Country would have a hell of a job getting here for lunchtime. In my days as a Cabinet Minister, having to come down on a Sunday meant that, by the time I had done other duties, I had virtually no weekend at all, and I am certainly not keen to go back to that. So, if we could ask the Leader of the House, with the Procedure and Privileges Committee, to bring forward an alteration to that, I would be in favour and I would vote for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
The lesson of the past 16 months has been more than just how people have stepped up and been extremely helpful—the comment made about the broadcast team is particularly apposite. But I think it has had another effect: more of the staff of this House, and indeed Members, have understood some of the challenges for those who have a variety of disabilities—not being able to get off mute is one of the least of them. People have discovered that they really need help and support. While I am in favour of very limited external connectivity for those with severe disabilities, I make another appeal: those of us who want to be here on a regular basis, and can be because of the nature of our special needs, would welcome a bit more understanding and support, including continuity of support for assistance. There is no point in telling people that they should be here and then getting snooty, which has happened in the past. It happened in the Commons when I first entered it, and it does happen here. Some people really do not understand what the challenge is, because, like a good goalkeeper—I will not mention anything to do with Sunday night—when you save easily, it looks easy, but actually it is often very difficult indeed.
Finally, I welcome the changes very much, but I hope that in the future we will review perhaps how we can blend in, on the remaining business of Bills and Statements, the ability of Members to be named. It is extremely helpful for me to know, as it was just now, that it was my turn. I can count and quite often I can hear who the previous speaker was, but guessing that you have got it right is not too clever. The modest changes that I hope we will agree to today will take us a further step towards self-regulation that is underpinned by decency and common sense. If we get that right, we will have a greater degree of respect and a much better reputation outside this House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, has withdrawn, so I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, whose career I have followed with great interest for many years. I wish him continued attendance in the House; he is always welcome.
I begin by thanking the Leader of the House and all those who have been concerned with helping us during this pandemic to reasonably participate in the responsibility of helping the Government to get through legislation that is satisfactory and attempting to stop legislation that we do not always consider to be completely satisfactory. In the period of tremendous trouble that we have just come through, which has not necessarily finished, we have been able to do what I regard as a pretty good job.
Before I speak briefly about the three amendments, I want to say that I very much support the need for disabled people to be able to participate as much as possible in the affairs of this House. I regard their point of view, which I have considerable experience of hearing, to be extremely valuable in deciding not only what is relevant for disabled people but other matters where they have a special point of view.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in mentioning the leaders, and I would like to add the Lord Bishops as another group that has been extremely helpful when participating in the previous time.
I must say that I am fairly attracted to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, but it has been fundamental that this is a part-time House that includes people who have full-time work. From the House’s point of view, the value of that is that they bring expertise to legislation in particular but also to other aspects of the House’s business. Therefore, the times at which we start is a very balanced question. I came from Edinburgh this morning, so it is not all that difficult, but it does require a fairly early start.
On the second point, made by my noble friend Lord Cormack, I agree with my noble friend Lord Balfe that Question Time before the pandemic was not always the most dignified aspect of the House’s activities. Not many of us worked on the assumption that one should in honour prefer one another. It is important that Question Time is more organised than it was, and the idea of having a list is satisfactory in that respect. But it may be wise to reduce the total time allowed for the listed questions in order to enable the asking of supplementary questions that may arise, to be dealt with at the discretion of the Lord Speaker or whoever is on the Woolsack. We have experience of listening to Question Time when the Minister’s Answer, short as it may be, does not always fully meet the point that the main Question has put, and an opportunity to raise that kind of question would be rather useful. In the vote that has been referred to, I voted to have the list, but there was no option to vote for something such as that—but I did take the opportunity to make that point in discussion after the vote.
It seems to me that voting is now a matter of some importance. We should be willing to give our attention, if we can, to being here to vote, and the restriction on voting is satisfactory. On the other hand, those who are disabled should be exempt.
I have overstayed my time and I would like to conclude.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, one of the things that was really noteworthy about the Procedure Committee report was this entirely novel way, as far as I can make out, of the House reaching decisions—that is, to have a kind of opinion poll before we reach our decisions. Under the normal procedures of the House, whether it is a Bill, a debate or anything else, you have the debate and then test the opinion of the House. In this system, it seems that you test the opinion of the House and then have the debate. That seems to me—well, I can think of some of rude ways of referring to it—to stand procedures on their head, and I am not sure that I like it. No doubt the Senior Deputy Speaker will be able to refer to this when he sums up.
But I will say this: if we are to have this kind of system in the future, my word, we need some ground rules—they certainly do not come out in the Procedure Committee’s report—about what kinds of decisions we test opinion on before the debate, and what kinds we do not. There are two contrasting examples of very important decisions that I can refer to: one is whether to have a speakers’ list for Oral Questions and the second is whether to change our sitting times, as my noble friend Lord Adonis referred to. The Procedure Committee dismisses the question of the House’s sitting times in just a sentence. The only justification it gives for testing the opinion of the House in the way that it has on speakers’ lists is because of “the divergent views” on the subject—but there are divergent views on every conceivable subject that ever comes before this House. If that is the only ground the Procedure Committee has to offer for having this system, it is a pretty poor basis.
There is a real problem with this way of making decisions, which the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, touched on. By the way, I very much sympathise with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Adonis. In the five sitting days of the week—Monday to Friday—we have four different starting times, and the only two days that are the same are Monday and Tuesday. I cannot think of any other public-facing organisation that has four different kick-off times in five working days.
However, the other problem with having these kinds of pre-debate opinion polls is that most of these questions do not lend themselves to a binary decision—they are not a simple “this or that” question. I will be frank with the House: on the question of speakers’ lists, I do not like the system that was in operation prior to the Covid crisis. I have said so many times; I initiated a debate on it five years ago to say that the Lord Speaker should be the person to play a role in that. But I certainly do not like the idea of the lists being published in advance and continuing with that method. I would love that idea if I was still on the Government Front Bench. When you are there to answer questions at Question Time, it is an absolute joy if you know exactly who is going to ask them. You can generally, with reasonable accuracy, anticipate precisely what question they will ask. If you know the subject and the person asking the question, you know what the question will be, so it is a great benefit to the Government Front Bench.
Perhaps I should be more sympathetic to the other group to whom it is a great benefit, having been a Chief Whip: it is great news for the Whips. If it is not the Lord Speaker or randomness deciding, the party groups, one way or another, have to find a mechanism for determining who the questioners should be. When I was Chief Whip, I would have loved to have decided who among our side was going to ask the questions; quite a few would have been waiting quite a while for that opportunity. So, this system hands power to the Government Front Bench—to Ministers—in particular, and to Whips in general.
I do not like that system either but, of course, there is a third way—to coin a phrase—which is the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe: we do the same as pretty much every assembly across the planet with procedures anything like our own does, and give some authority to the Lord Speaker. That authority has slowly accrued over the years since the post was established, to more or less universal agreement. We now actually have the Lord Speaker announcing business, and we have had, as my noble friend Lord Blunkett said, the Lord Speaker announcing who is going to speak next. I do not want there to be Stalinist control, but light-touch control from the Woolsack seems the best way of dealing with things. This was neither of the options on the ballot paper, if I can put it in those terms, when the House was consulted. I certainly support that amendment, and I really hope that the House can think again about the idea of a rigid speakers’ list.
One final point: a rigid speakers’ list is a huge change in our procedures. Since I have been here, every other major change in our procedures has always been introduced initially for a trial period, usually for six months, to test the water. If the House decides to go ahead with this system without accepting the amendment, which I hope does not happen, I feel very strongly that, after six months of operating with rigid speakers’ lists, we should have the opportunity to decide whether we want to make this permanent.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I advise noble Lords that the speaking time is about five minutes.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Birmingham, who is our convenor, regrets that he cannot attend today’s debate. As Bishop on duty, I offer some thoughts on behalf of these Benches. On behalf of my right reverend friends, I thank the Leader of the House and the leaders of the parties, and especially all the staff who have seen us through this extremely challenging time. All of us have a particular debt of gratitude to those in the digital and technical spheres, which many of us struggle with. I noted earlier that it has enabled some of my right reverend friends to share with the House the interior of their splendid cathedrals, so that has been great. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for his recognition that being present in the House is also a very important contribution on our behalf.
I speak as a relative newcomer to your Lordships’ House, and as one of those Members, found on all sides of the House, who combines their service here with a significant full-time outside commitment. It is one of the strengths of this House that it gives space for this, so that membership is not just for what might be described as the full-time, professional politician. The assessment of any change to our procedure should not only test efficiency in our working practices and the capacity for inclusion in them but demonstrate how it will enable those who are not full-time to participate as fully as possible to bring into the debate and scrutiny this House exercises the wide range of experience that they bring.
We also need to be wary of the impact any change might bring to our working culture and how we embody the principle of being self-regulating. In this House, I believe it is possible for fairness, courtesy and inclusion to animate even the most robust moments in the handling of Oral Questions, which we saw prior to the introduction of speakers’ lists.
Though no Bishop serves on the Procedure and Privileges Committee, I can say with confidence that, if invited, one of us would gladly take part and wish to contribute to its work. I am grateful to the committee for this report, which suggests removing barriers to participation in some key respects. Keeping some aspects of the hybrid House in place to help our colleagues with disabilities take a more active part is a very welcome step indeed, as is the end of in-person queuing outside the Table Office for putting Oral Questions, which has prevented many of us finding space on the Order Paper. I also welcome the decision to retain Questions for Short Debate.
For those of us who attend less frequently the opportunity to vote remotely has been an incentive to pay much more detailed attention to the business of the House, so the move away from that is not entirely positive. However, I welcome the transition to voting here by electronic means. It is something we have been doing for some time in the Church of England in the General Synod.
Where I have most concern—this comes back to the point about culture and self-regulation—is having speaking lists for Oral Questions every day. Prior to Covid, Oral Questions so often revealed, at their best, the forensic, persistent and responsive aspects of this House. It might not have been a perfectly regulated system, or to everyone’s taste, but there is a risk that, in streamlining our processes, we might trade away something central to the function of this place, which is about close and effective scrutiny of government. In this, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, spontaneity is an important element. Many of your Lordships will understand when I say that when the spirit moves, it does not always give two days’ working notice.
Therefore, I welcome the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on speakers’ lists. I hope we can agree an extension to a review of this, so that more consultation with Members can take place. I also welcome the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, about not putting the cart before the horse, which is perhaps a polite way of interpreting his comments. I hope that the cumulative effect of reforms, as we now return from the Covid arrangements, will ensure that they are not simply playing to the needs of business managers and for the benefit of the Government —which, again, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott drew our attention to.
I find it difficult to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, where I fear there could be unhelpful politicisation of the Speaker’s role. However, I welcome the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in his amendment. Apart from the question about Monday, I think that the earlier starting times are something we would welcome.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lord, I hope not to detain your Lordships for very long. Largely, I support the proposals in the main Motion.
There is really only one point on which I want to speak, which arises under chapter 2 on page 8 of the report: the interim option of voting using PeerHub. In my view, this is clearly a sensible option to allow us to continue voting by PeerHub until the technology is in place to enable us to move, as is planned, to swipe cards. I also support the proposal that to vote by PeerHub the Member should have to be on the Parliamentary Estate, which I hope includes Millbank so that those such as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, can continue to vote. Among the benefits, I hope, of being on the estate is that it may reduce the number of occasions when Members get in a muddle and misunderstand precisely what they are voting for, and, as a result, vote the wrong way, contrary to what they intended. One knows of several cases, in recent times, where that has happened.
My central point, however, is that there is a real problem—and to my mind little or no advantage—in stipulating not only that the Member must be on the estate but that he or she must also be in “a place of work”. That expression is not defined. To my mind, it is incapable of being given a useful definition in this context. What is intended to be encompassed? What is intended to be excluded and why? Clearly, it has to include places such as the Library, Lobbies, the Royal Gallery and so forth, where Members actually often work at desks. Presumably it would, and should, include corridors and other common space where Members meet and discuss parliamentary business and so forth.
I have heard it suggested that the reason for including this requirement is to safeguard the House from possible reputational damage if a Member were to vote by PeerHub in restaurants or bars, but work may very well be done even there. I have written speeches in the Bishops’ Bar myself. In any event, the most that could be required would be that the Member briefly wanders into the corridor in order to press a button. Who would be advantaged by that? Because there is so little point in excluding places of refreshment—and if it were necessary it could be done explicitly—it is difficult to give any cogent definition of what constitutes a place of work.
I am on the Conduct Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance. For some years before that, I had the honour of chairing the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct. It is against that background that I am troubled by the veiled threat underlying this additional requirement. In this context, we are reminded of our obligation to act always on our personal honour, but it seems wrong to threaten a breach of the code without a clear, positive idea of just where we are allowed to vote and where we are not. This provision does nothing to advance Members’ faith and confidence in the disciplinary process and the concept of personal honour. If anything, it risks bringing that out of favour.
We would never allow this degree of imprecision, this manifest uncertainty, if we were scrutinising legislation, so I suggest we should not do so here either. I invite the Senior Deputy Speaker, when he winds up, to say it that is only if a Member is in a place of refreshment on the estate—if it is thought necessary to exclude that —that they cannot properly confirm, when voting, that they are at a place of work on the estate.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, tempting as it is to dive straight into the minutiae of the committee’s report and the associated Motions, I will spend my allotted time on the wider issues facing your Lordships’ House. What is the context in which we are taking these decisions? There are two crucial issues we have to address before we get too absorbed in the detail.
First, it is not good enough simply to revert to the way we operated pre-pandemic. We were not doing a perfect job then and pretending that we were, and trying to repeat the way we operated, will not be good enough. We have a chance to do better. I will look in a little detail at one area crying out for improvement, in a moment.
Secondly, we would be foolish and myopic not to acknowledge, and welcome, the notable silver linings there have been to the awful clouds of Covid. Most significantly, the House has found new ways to communicate, engage and listen, thanks to the remarkable efforts of all those who have helped us develop technical solutions to the problems we did not have 18 months ago—as several Members have referred to. This is so obvious that I do not need to say much more on that score, but it is important that we recognise that the recommendations before us are clearly transitory, cautiously tentative and in no way future-proofed for the further technical evolution that may take place. Perhaps we will have to wait for the full restoration and renewal programme to roll out before we can begin to appreciate the potential improvement in the way that the whole of Parliament can work.
Meanwhile, there are specific issues that were not addressed effectively before the pandemic and which our current ongoing review should address. In the interests of brevity, I will concentrate on the scrutiny of secondary legislation. I know from personal experience how effective the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform and Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committees are and, equally, how relatively weak and haphazard the Commons system is. But that is not where the problem lies. Despite all the meticulous examination and advice from the DPRRC and SLSC, a farcical false choice faces the House as a whole, bringing the whole process into disrepute. The current options are to approve an SI without incorporating the necessary improvements recommended by those committee colleagues, on the one hand, or to refuse point blank to do so, on the other. As a result, we hardly ever do the latter, and have to fall back on pathetic regret Motions, which Ministers blithely ignore.
Ever since the report of the 2006 Joint Committee on Conventions, whose recommendations both Houses approved in toto, there has been pressure to find more practical and positive ways forward. Should there be a middle way? Should we have an amendment possibility for SIs? Should we have a specified delay of implementation while Ministers have to consider amendment? Should we be able to have a Motion that sets out reservations and invites the Minister to reconsider, or some mixture of those alternatives? I know that the Hansard Society, the Institute for Government and the UCL Constitution Unit have been thinking through possible improvements. We should invite them to advise us, as we go forward.
Meanwhile, tinkering is not enough. Extending Grand Committee sittings from four hours to five, as suggested by the report before us today, is surely pointless if the outcome of the SI debates itself remains pointless. It is also true that the Commons would naturally need the same alterative processes. With secondary legislation, we are not in competition with them, since the proposal comes to each House directly from the Government. This is not intra-parliamentary, but a direct exchange between the Executive and the legislature. What is certain is that the experience of the last 18 months means that we cannot simply revert to previous practice.
In the 2006 committee, I recall with enthusiasm the vigorous defence of your Lordships’ House to exercise its right—indeed, responsibility—to refuse to accept inadequate SIs, notably then from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, Leader of the Conservative Opposition. The clear theme was to assert that there was no point in having a second Chamber if it could not occasionally say no. I wish he had been so forthright when we were faced with clearly inappropriate secondary legislation, under both Covid and Brexit, in more recent months.
I am struck by the extent to which Members of both Houses seem to have become conditioned to accept this major fault in our scrutiny system. MPs and Peers who have arrived since December 2019 may think that this is both normal and immutable. They have known nothing else. Certainly, Henry VIII powers seem to have become dangerously habit-forming for Ministers, and all too many scrutineers, in either House, may have succumbed to that addiction too. The Leader of the House implicitly acknowledged this today.
The failure of Parliament to do its duty with the hugely significant Brexit and Covid secondary legislation, under the inevitably difficult constraints of the last 18 months, is just one of the lessons to be learned. But hoping to revert to the previous system would be insufficient and a clear dereliction of duty. There is no room for complacency. I hope all concerned acknowledge that today’s Motions, and the debate on them, comprise only a temporary and limited step towards more effective analysis of our shortcomings and opportunities for improvement.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I join all those, especially the Leader of the House, who gave fulsome congratulations to the House authorities, IT department and the leadership of the House itself, who effectively put in all the changes to this House since March 2020.
Having said that, and nothing I say takes away from it, the hybrid House we have at the moment is considerably worse than the House we had before. There is a matter of process and essential principle in this, which the committee report we are now discussing has avoided; namely, that when emergency measures were introduced with minimum debate, for reasons we all understand, the first job of the Procedure Committee should have been to say that, when the House returns in September, all the emergency measures will be dumped and we will go back to where we were.
That does not mean that there is no case for, for instance, tabling Questions or amendments electronically —of course there is—but it would be better if the committee were to start the process of change, which many Peers have discussed, by making the individual case and therefore having a debate. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has a perfect example of that: sitting times is a very good question, but he forgot to mention the role of Ministers. We rely on Government Ministers being well briefed and understanding the questions they are dealing with. The fact is that, if we sat very much sooner than we do, they would not have the opportunity to be briefed or carry out their job. The noble Lord was a distinguished Secretary of State in the House of Lords, which is something we all support. I hope he agrees that Ministers play an important role in this House and that we need to give them time.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, used to talk about the “emotional geography” of the House. It is hard to define, but we know it when we feel it: that sense that we have gone on for too long, a sense that we should not be talking or a desire to have one speaker rather than another. These are important matters and we should not lose sight of what we are all here to do: to hold the Government to account, to provide scrutiny and revision of legislation in detail, and to hold general debates on which Members of this House are particularly expert.
The main issue with this report is on Oral Questions. Here, I have to agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack. First, there is the question of timing: 40 minutes. It is not so long ago that Lord Williams of Mostyn, a very distinguished Leader of this House—I think he may have been noble and learned—introduced in a Leader’s Group the idea of having five Questions in 40 minutes. It seemed like a good idea at the time but was an unmitigated disaster. We dropped it after a bit because the House does not, or did not then, have the patience to continue Questions much beyond 30 minutes. The House that I joined originally had only 20 minutes for Questions, which was far better. This is an example of where less is more.
Secondly, there is the question of lists. Imagine a situation where we all come back in September, the House is full and the Back-Benchers suddenly realise that they are here not as participants but as spectators because the list had been decided days ago. I take nothing away from what my noble friend Lord Cormack said but I really hope that the Senior Deputy Speaker will reflect on it again.
Thirdly, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, spoke extremely effectively about those in wheelchairs. More thought needs to be given to that process. At Question Time, the House is very good at picking up Lord Bishops and making sure that they speak; it is perhaps true that people in wheelchairs do not catch the eye of the Front-Benchers or the Back-Benchers as much as they should.
My final point is on PNQs. I understand why the Lord Speaker and his predecessor wanted to have more PNQs but, now that the emergency has gone, when we come back in September, please can we go back to the normal practice of having very few PNQs? After all, what is the difference between a PNQ and an Urgent Question? We already have provision for Urgent Questions. PNQs should be reserved for rare and special occasions, often affecting your Lordships’ House, rather than on general matters.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I echo entirely his endorsement of the various thanks that were spoken so well by the Leader at the beginning of this debate.
I have attended the House in person pretty consistently since early June last year. Having been a strong advocate for a full lockdown in early March, I made a conscious decision that, if people were having to work in shops, on public transport, in schools, in hospitals and in health services, if possible—and if willing—Members of Parliament should be in attendance in the Chamber. I have done that consistently over the past 13 months, so I warmly welcome the fact that the House will return in full in September. I strongly support the principle that, apart from for those Members who are exempt, voting should take place on the Parliamentary Estate. That is right for the second Chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament, and will enhance our business and reputation.
However, I have some concerns about the proposals before us today. Last week, in the opinion poll—as it has been described—on the future of speaking lists, I reluctantly voted in favour of continuing with them. I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament from when it gained its full legislative responsibility on 1 July 1999. One of the mistakes that was made early on in the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood was instituting a system of speaking lists for Questions to Ministers. I tried to change it after I became First Minister; ever since, I have advocated for change when I have occasionally had the chance to speak about it. It did not just take the spontaneity away from the questioning of Ministers; it constantly let Ministers off the hook and reduced accountability rather than enhancing it. This regulation of Questions also made the whole session significantly less interesting for members of the public, whether they were in the gallery or watching through the media. It was a mistake in Holyrood and it would be a mistake to continue with this system indefinitely here.
However, I voted for it because I support the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, in principle. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, explained, having a list that is then enhanced by the occasional spontaneous question to follow up on a non-answer would be worth trying in your Lordships’ House in those circumstances. I hope that the Procedure Committee will continue to discuss this and not simply close off any further review as a result of the opinion poll that took place last Monday.
I also have some sympathy with the proposals from my noble friend Lord Adonis on starting times. I would vote without hesitation for earlier starting times—probably even earlier than my noble friend is proposing—for the House on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The leaders are aware of this but I was dismayed last year when the decision was made, for what I understand were technical and practical reasons, to move the starting time of the House on Mondays to an earlier time. At that time, because of the number of trains and other forms of transport that were available—not just from where I live in Stirling but from many miles north of that and from Northern Ireland too—some Members were not able to be here at 1 pm on a Monday. It was physically impossible for them, as it was for me and many other noble Lords who were further away and were therefore unable even to apply to be on the speakers’ list for a Question for the Monday 1 pm session.
I do not think that I will vote for my noble friend Lord Adonis’s amendment today but I implore the Procedure Committee and those responsible to look at this issue. It is possible to move the starting times further forward on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, but I want the Procedure Committee and the other administrative committees of this House to take more account of the fact that many of us do not live in the metropolitan area around London. They need to take account of that in their decision-making and remember it, because participation in this House should be based on the principle of equality for all Members, with all Members able to take part on the same basis. We are rightly making provision for that today in terms of those Members who have long-term disabilities, but we should also take into account those who live far away. This should be true in relation to allowances as well.
I will not divide the House on the fourth Motion in front of us and I will not speak for long about it, but we have shown over the past 15 months that we can amend the allowances system when there is an absolutely proper need to make a change. It is fundamentally wrong that this House continues with an allowances system that, since 2011, has resulted in those Members who have property in London and the surrounding area and are therefore able to commute into London benefiting to the tune of nearly £300,000. Before 2011, the daily allowance was £86.50. It was changed overnight to £300. In general, the allowances that could be claimed by Members who lived outwith London, including the overnight allowance, were reduced by £34.50. This discrimination has now been taking place for a full decade. It is fundamentally wrong. It discriminates institutionally against Members who do not have property in London. It is time to change it. This Motion reinstitutes the position as it was before, builds in the annual uprating and does not make the change necessary to make this House equal. It is time that it did.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, there are many ways in which this hybrid way of working allows great freedom—possibly too much freedom —where people can vote from their beds. However, importantly, it allows participation from those who are physically limited, whether they are disabled or find it hard to travel, so I am very pleased that the House authorities are enacting new roles for those limited in their movement. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, who follows me, will speak about this.
I commend much of the speech made by the Leader of the House. She is an excellent figurehead at the prow of our vessel. As a broadcaster, I congratulate the broad- cast team, who allow me, in mid-Wales, to speak today. Given that they have enabled me to speak like this, why does the hybrid system somehow leave me so profoundly dissatisfied? Why do I feel that this way of contributing remotely is indeed remote? I sat in your Lordships’ Chamber last week and still felt that, for all its technical accomplishment, the proceedings were, by virtue of disembodied screens, oddly removed, so I absolutely concur with a return in early September to where we were.
I was discussing these feelings with a senior colleague in the Lords, who summed it up perfectly when he simply asked me: “Should we be considering our convenience or how best to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account?” That is the vital point. It brings me neatly to the importance of our physical presence in Westminster and our ability to intervene, and so to Oral Questions and speakers’ lists. My concern is that, as we have heard, the inability to intervene can become stultifying. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I used to enjoy sitting in the Chamber for Oral Questions. It was too rowdy sometimes, but now if I heard something that seemed ill informed, I could no longer seek amplification or correction. We have heard various ideas on this, which is why this debate has been extremely useful.
The speakers’ lists preclude spontaneous intervention and correction. Furthermore, the increasing habit of Ministers to prepare answers to solicited questions can sometimes be sensible, for instance when complicated figures are needed, but on other occasions has all too often led to a stock reply that does not really answer the point and, as I just said, there is no way of pushing for more information. We should be here—or rather, there—to listen and then to vote.
I endorse the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I am one of those who has another job—two, in fact—so I am a little nervous of the timetable suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, along the lines expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Yet I feel that this is selfish in some ways and that I should simply practise what I preach and bow to the wishes of the House on this.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton. I will confine my remarks to the impact of the Select Committee’s proposals relating to participation by disabled Members of your Lordships’ House.
For me, these proposals are best summed up by the assertion in paragraph 45 of the Select Committee’s report that:
“The contribution disabled members make to the House’s debates and decisions is integral to the work of the House”.
The measures proposed will, as my noble friend the Leader of the House made clear, give effect to that very welcome affirmation. It is an affirmation not just of the disabled Members of your Lordships’ House but of the collective expertise and experience that, together, the House brings to the legislative and scrutiny process of this diverse United Kingdom.
I agree with those noble Lords who rightly feel passionate about the ability of your Lordships’ House to subject the Government to effective scrutiny, which is of course essential for the exercise of parliamentary democracy. It is no less essential that we recognise that if it is to the exclusion of diversity—in this case disability—scrutiny is less effective because it fails to draw on the breadth of lived experience of all noble Lords to which my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern alluded. For a House which prides itself on that unique combination of expertise and experience not to accommodate the needs of its disabled Members, for example, to be able to contribute remotely, particularly for disability-related reasons, does not make sense.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I was dismayed to hear some of the comments made when the House last debated these issues. While this may not have been the intention, as a disabled Member of the House, I was left feeling not only that I and other disabled Members did not add value to our proceedings and debates but that the very validity of our contributions was in question.
We are fortunate to command a wealth of wisdom because of the range of expertise and experience that other noble Lords have referred to. It is also an inescapable fact that many noble Lords are wealthy to a disproportionate extent relative to the general population. I begrudge no one their wealth, but with wealth comes responsibility—a responsibility to ensure that it cannot be used as a stick with which our detractors can beat your Lordships’ House. We urgently need to become more representative and more diverse, especially in relation to disability, because diversity is our best defence against such attacks. The measures under consideration today, and the way they have been developed in meaningful consultation with disabled Members, recognise that and enable it to happen.
I close with this observation. It gives me no pleasure to say that the way in which we are addressing this need, particularly regarding how disabled Members have been listened to and meaningfully involved in developing these proposals, is in marked contrast to the unfortunate way in which I fear that the DWP has traduced the Prime Minister’s promise of
“the most ambitious and transformative disability plan in a generation”
to mere rhetoric. The cynicism with which the DWP has treated disabled people in the development of the national disability strategy, which is apparently due to be bounced on us next week, is staggering. I thank the Lord Speaker, the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Procedure and Privileges Committee for taking a very different approach. I urge noble Lords to support these proposals.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I suspect that many of us are largely unaware of the thought and work that went into the adaptation, so I too add my thanks. I appreciate that there is no satisfying everyone, so thanks are also due to those who have been wrestling with these proposals. I very much support what my noble friend Lady Brinton had to say and what I think that my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield will say, and we have just heard a powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin.
I am sympathetic to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for the reasons he gave and because what we do should not be a test of stamina. Sitting at 10 pm or 11 pm is better than the 2 am sessions to which I became accustomed when I was first a Member of your Lordships’ House, but it should not be any indication of being feeble to admit that one probably does one’s best work earlier in the day. I admire those who think that they can be as productive very late at night as earlier.
However, I really want to refer to a couple of issues which I appreciate are relatively narrow. The first is on groupings of amendments, or rather their degrouping. I do not disagree with the recommendation that degrouping should be discouraged after publication of the groupings, provided that “discouraged” is applied to mean just that. I well understand the tangles one can get into if one’s notes have to be reorganised at the last minute. I find it as difficult as anyone when we receive briefings which can be described only as arriving after the last minute. But just occasionally, it becomes clear during debate early on a Bill that an issue will get a full airing only if it is considered separately, so “discouraged” should not mean precluded. I make this point because there are occasions—not today—when an advisory speaking time is treated as if it is a hard stop or firm cut-off.
More importantly, perhaps, I also want to mention two aspects of voting mechanisms. As we have heard, there is a recommendation that, in the interim, PeerHub should be used in “a place of work” on the estate. We should take very serious note of so senior a lawyer as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and his observation that the term is incapable of construction. Every part of the estate is used as a place of work, even if that is not its primary function. We are so short of places to meet people who want to discuss a current issue, or other Members to discuss legislation—there are any number of work-related reasons. Because we are short of places to work, we make use of the refreshment facilities. Those of us who have desks are often in rooms shared with several other people where there is no space for a visitor’s chair, quite apart from the disturbance that would be caused to colleagues if we had meetings there. A meeting in a place where coffee is served may be accompanied by a cup of coffee, but that is a courtesy and not the purpose of the get-together.
If I may briefly look further ahead, if we are to use pass readers—I have some reservations about that, given that we have PeerHub, but perhaps that is for another day—I hope they will be readily accessible. If they are placed only around the Chamber, one wonders about the benefit. For instance, Members of the House come and go from Portcullis House and there are often votes during meetings there, which can be very disruptive and physically difficult for a number of noble Lords. If we have to have that new technology, let us make it work for us to the maximum. That applies to the immediate issue and for the future.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I begin with my thanks all round to everybody who has been involved in making this place work. I have had 12 months of the hybrid system, not 16, and I have had massive help in operating remotely. In fact, other than a year ago when I had to come in person to be sworn in—because that is the only way you can do it—I think I have turned up on four or five occasions in the last couple of months. I found the Chamber eerie and uncomfortable in some ways, yet I love the Chamber and want to get it back as near to normal as possible as quickly as possible. In fact, other than on the merchant shipping Motion later on, this will probably be my last Zoom contribution.
In some ways, I much agree on the oral ballots. After I became a Back-Bencher and realised how to get a Question tabled, on occasion I spent a couple or three hours on that because, once I had determined that I wanted a date, the only way I could guarantee to get it was to turn up outside the office with books and papers by about 10 am or 11 am and sit there until 2 pm. That way, I would get my date. In the ballots I have not had much trouble getting an Oral Question—although it is true that I put in one Question on life expectancy for 23 consecutive days before it came out in the ballot. Nevertheless, it came out.
On the lists for Questions issue, by the way, I did not vote because I refused to accept the stark conditions of one or the other. I had said so in the debate as well, but decided that I would not vote. If the amendments today are pushed to a vote, I will vote for all three of them because I agree with bits of them all. I am not saying I agree with every part of them, but the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, certainly has my support.
The possibility of instant reaction in the House is pretty crucial, but not under the old bearpit system. It was a bearpit and, while I will not embarrass them by naming them, we have some Members with exceptionally foghorn voices who were verbal bullies at getting their way. I used to notice this because, at one time when I was a Minister, I served as deputy to my noble friend Lady Amos for two years. I was then saddled—that was the word, in a way—with the regulation of Question Time when things went wrong. It was not an easy time, but the fact is that it was a bearpit. Many people were put off, so they can see the benefit of the speaker system, but a complete speaker system is controlled by the Front Bench. I agree with my noble friend Lord Grocott on this: the Front Benches on both sides should not really be involved in choosing the questioners.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made a very fair point: are Members going to come back in their large numbers in September as participants or spectators? I know which I would prefer: as participants. Coming back just to watch people on speakers’ lists is not really effective, although it would be cushy for the Minister. To go back to my time as a Minister, it was easy to work out who the questioners would be. You could more or less guess with your staff the issues they would raise, because you would cross-check what they had done in that field in other areas, including debates and other Questions. It should not be like that. My view on the speakers is that it is probably impossible to have four on a list and maybe six chosen by the chair. I can see the impracticality of that. Nevertheless, there is merit in having a bit of precision to start with.
The right reverend Prelate made a point. I do not wish to be critical, but the Bishops are not in the same position as everybody else because, under the old bearpit system, the minute one of them stood up, everybody shouted “Bishop! Bishop!” and the right reverend Prelate got to speak. They did not really have to get involved in the bearpit; they just had to stand up.
Some issues need looking at again. I do not deny that I would prefer to avoid the bearpit but to have some precision. It is therefore about the chair, and the chair has to be trusted. I know people say, “You want to make this place like the House of Commons”. Well, in some ways, including in this respect, the House of Commons is better organised than we are; there are other aspects where we are better organised than the Commons. We do not have to mirror each other but, for heaven’s sake, if the Commons does something really well and it is organised with satisfactory conditions, we could adopt that here.
I know that we tried it in the past and had a vote, with people saying, “We’re self-regulating and don’t want to give the chair any powers”, but it is time to trust the chair. That would not put politics into the chair because we can all work it out: the chair will take advice—that is where the clerks are in the wrong place, of course, which is another issue of making the Lords like the Commons. The fact of the matter is that today’s debate is not an open and shut one. There will still have to be some flexibility on changes after we get back in September. We cannot carry on as did.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be involved in this debate, but I am going to struggle not to argue with all the previous speakers I have disagreed with.
On behalf of the Green group, I welcome the report from the Procedure and Privileges Committee and its proposals, and I give a huge thank you to the staff who have been able to keep us going through the hybrid times. I am too short-sighted to see the clock up on the wall, so perhaps the Chief Whip can give me a signal when he is ready to stop me talking—at five minutes, not before.
While the Green Party would like to see the wholesale reform of parliamentary practice—not least the replacement of your Lordships’ House with an elected upper Chamber—we are happy that some of the best bits of the hybrid House are being retained. One of the issues is accessibility for people with disabilities, which is something that we have to take seriously; it is ridiculous that someone who cannot walk or cannot hear as well cannot participate as much as everyone else.
I am very pleased that electronic voting will continue. The old system of noble Lords shuffling through the corridors was ridiculous. What a waste of valuable time. Please do not tell me that there were lots of good conversations; I was there and I heard them. I hope that the Procedure Committee will continue to seek ways to improve the voting system so that we can become a more efficient and modern institution.
On the issue of interventions, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, knows that I have a soft spot for him, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for whom I do not have a soft spot, but in this case the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, calls him superficial but quite honestly, when he then defends starting late because it enables lunch with friends, he reaches heights of superficiality that no one else has so far.
I found the previous system of interventions very bullying. The right reverend Prelate described the spirit moving people. What spirit is that? The bullying spirit? The spirit that prevents women standing up because they feel threatened by the behaviour of the House? Having this system may not be ideal. I am slightly swayed towards the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, which I was not before, by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. It would be a fine system if one got on with the Lord Speaker, but one cannot guarantee that—I especially feel that I cannot guarantee it—so I might vote for that but I might not. I definitely will not vote for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
I hate to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, but he describes this as a “part-time House”—well, tell that to those of us who were here at 11.50 pm last night. For many of us it is a full-time job. Quite honestly, if other people have jobs that they have to go to, let them stay away. The rest of us will carry on scrutinising the Government, which I think we have done extremely well under the hybrid House system.
I have a speech prepared but I have not actually used any of it yet. We are losing an opportunity not to use more of the hybrid systems that we put in place. We have a chance to move on and not be—I was going to say “such dinosaurs”, but actually dinosaurs were incredibly successful for millions of years—so old-fashioned. There was nothing magical about the way the House was run before. We could take this opportunity to be more modern. It has happened in wider society that people are reluctant to go to their jobs in office buildings and so on. Why can we not reflect that and accept that remote voting and remote participation are part of what we do?
It is good that we are accommodating people with disabilities, but there are people who have other needs and demands on them—for example, caring responsibilities. There are people with partners or children who might perhaps benefit from being part of debates but cannot actually come into the House.
While we are thinking about modernising, we really should put in processes for maternity and paternity leave—they have sort of done that in the other House but not properly—and breastfeeding. We really ought to think about these issues. Greens lead the way, let us not forget; your Lordships are all 40 years behind the Green Party at the moment, particularly on the other side of the Chamber. The Chief Whip is signalling me to stop. Let us think about issues that are not the issue of individuals so that they can be a general thought, and let us make sure that we are a little more progressive than we have been.
I have said before that I will not take interventions from now on. I think they are rude and shows a loss of self-control by the people who get up and shout. We have always had the option of coming in after the Minister, and that could be retained. You need not lose your temper, bluster and shout someone down to get in and make an intervention; you can just do it in a civilised way.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, on a start time for the House of 1 pm, for all the reasons that he has laid out. The last year has suggested, to me at least, that 1 pm on a Monday is a fairly civilised—one might say laid- back—time to start, but in a good way, giving Members enough time to get here if they have far to travel and carry out any morning business. However, a 2.30 pm start time now seems positively lazy. I support the noble Lord’s amendment and will vote for it.
On the issue of a speakers list for Oral Questions, I understand the arguments for it, but I support the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. The House may be packed at Question Time at first but I believe that, following the lifting of restrictions, people would drift away. Previously there was always the possibility that anyone could intervene on Oral Questions, and therefore it has been a time that involved everyone in the House. In the end it depends on what the House wants, of course, but we should be clear that Question Time would not be the exciting focus of the day any more if it remained in the current form. Instead it would be—as indeed it already is—more akin to a procession of Written Questions and Written Answers spoken out loud than a vital conversation.
Most of us on speakers’ lists have had emails from the relevant department asking what our question is. Pre-Covid, of course, those emails were sent only to the original questioner. Those who would benefit most are Ministers, who would have significantly greater control over sessions. To me, that does not feel properly like holding a Government to account. However, I hear the suggestions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for additional supplementaries, although that might make Question Time rather complicated.
The other issue with speakers’ lists is that there is quite a lot of wasted effort involved, not least by the one, two or more speakers who drop off the list because of a lack of time. Even if they get in, if they are some way down the list—I know from talking to colleagues that this is not an uncommon practice—they might prepare a number of questions in addition to the one that they really wanted to ask, since a repetition of that question may not feel appropriate.
That does not mean that the House could not be more disciplined in the way that it has traditionally operated at Question Time. The practice of going clockwise around the House, with a question from each grouping when volunteered, worked well until it got ignored. If we returned to the previous system, there is no reason why that practice could not be reaffirmed, though it would need to be spelled out to all Members as the accepted way of doing things.
With regard to the hybrid House, it is right that disabled Members can still participate virtually and vote remotely. I am glad that we are continuing in some form with electronic voting. One thing to consider is that electronic voting would allow for abstentions to be recorded. Whether they are party abstentions announced or not announced by Front-Bench spokespeople or decisions made by individual Members, they are a fact. They are real decisions, and Members in the Chamber at the time when a vote takes place will be aware of these decisions. It seems wholly wrong to me that something as fundamental as the way in which Members vote should be privileged information. The public have a right to know. Most other modern parliaments record abstentions, and we should do the same.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the commission’s proposal for procedures for the workings of the House of Lords from 6 September. We, as a Government and a country, are moving forward as global Britain with modern ideas for the future.
I have enjoyed working with the hybrid system. I have had no difficulties and any small problems were quickly remedied. The technical team is excellent. What is the rush for us to come back fully in September? Many companies, whether FTSE 100, FTSE 350 or large family firms, are offering their staff to come back in their own way or not to come back at all. I am not suggesting that, however.
The Prime Minister recently said:
“We’re removing the Government instruction to work from home where you can but we don’t expect that the whole country will return to their desk as one … We’re setting out guidance for business for a gradual return to work”.
This is why I question yet again the rush for us to come back.
Further, what does the committee mean by “disability”? A number of members of staff and many Members of this House are extremely vulnerable or having treatment, or have compromised immune systems. The Prime Minister urged us to think of others and to consider the risk. I ask noble Lords to consider the risk to ourselves and to the staff and gradually, over the next 12 months, to keep the hybrid model.
This model could be improved even further. The wi-fi on the estate is not up to speed or to the standard of many firms or other institutions. Will we invest more in wi-fi and further connections to the estate? In certain parts of the estate the wi-fi does not work at all. Trying to vote on your phone in the House is impossible. It is impossible to make a phone call. Wi-fi may work for a small number of colleagues, but we know from experience that the function declines with more people in. What is being done to improve it? We have been asking for a number of years but nothing has happened.
Card readers do not always function well when it comes to opening doors. They need to be looked at again and a fuller report given.
How are we going to circulate and filter the air in the Chamber, Committee Rooms and other rooms? Will further work be done on that? It is almost impossible to open windows. Is the House being fitted with proper air ducts to ensure safety for Members, staff and those who come in to give evidence? Social distancing should still be paramount, in particular in the Chamber and Committee Rooms. I can see Members looking very bored with this, but we have to do it. Social distancing is vital, as we know.
Experts warn of the inherent risks of rushing back. I will vote this afternoon in favour of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Adonis about starting earlier. We have to give further consideration to our working practices and we should not rush back on 6 September and throw everything away.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has scratched, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Elder.
Lord Elder (Lab)
My Lords, I will make three points. First, I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I am hugely sympathetic to the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lord Adonis. We need a degree of flexibility. I am not sure that it is entirely worked out, but an earlier start on Tuesday and Wednesday would seem sensible and rational, and could bring a good deal of scope for the proceedings of the House.
Secondly, I will say something about committees. It is not clear to me what the outcome of this is. Most people seem to think that Zoom has worked very well in committees. I beg to differ. The committees I have been on since I came into the House worked most effectively when there was a lot of discussion between Members outside the committee. Chatting to people in the quarter of an hour before the committee started was enormously useful. Going for a coffee with someone afterwards was enormously useful to see whether edges could be smoothed over and whether agreement could be reached. Zooming does not do that. It seems to me that Zoom has put a great deal more power and control in the hands of the chair and the secretary, and diminished the contribution of Members. We should look very carefully at what we are doing about committees. Committees were one of the strongest elements of the House and that is slipping away from us, in the way that the views of some committees are now being largely dismissed. We must be very careful where we go on this.
Thirdly, I back very strongly the points made by my noble friend Lord McConnell. Ten years ago, before the new system of allowances was introduced, the daily allowance for someone staying outside London was higher in cash terms than it is now. For people in London it is about twice what it was in cash terms. The effect has been to make a tremendous difference to the importance of London and the south-east as there is now a disincentive for people from far away to come here.
We must find a way to have something closer to equality. My way of doing that would be to say, in exactly the same way as we do with travel, “Claim for accommodation in London and produce receipts.” It would put a little more work on the accountants department but it would get us closer to equality. At the moment, if you live in London and have no additional expenses the daily allowance goes straight into your bank account, but if you live outside London you are paying for accommodation, travel—you do not get free travel, even if you are of the age at which you get it in this part of the country—and all your food: you have to eat out, as you are not able to go through to the kitchen and make yourself breakfast. That is the kind of equality that you get—if I may say so—in Animal Farm: all Peers are created equal, but some, on expenses, are much more equal than others. We must try to do something about that as a matter of urgency.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
I am sorry to have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who is normally a fount of wisdom, but I associate myself with his remarks about the suspension, or part suspension, of some Members because they did not take the Valuing Everyone course. That course is insultingly inappropriate. I have taken it twice. The entire message could be put on a postcard. The Procedure and Privileges Committee’s report mounts a rather feeble defence of it, which I do not accept.
I also associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elder. Londoners do not know how much it costs to rent even a modest hotel room in London if one comes from outside London.
I also thank the staff and others who have achieved a miraculous adaptation of our debates and committee meetings to the virtual platform. Not only have there been very few glitches, but they dealt patiently and courteously with Peers’ lack of expertise and they have made the word “unmute” as familiar a word in our proceedings as “order” used to be. The effect of our adaptation to lockdown has been to precipitate the workings of this House much further into the 21st century. Indeed, given the snail-like pace of the restoration and renewal building programme, we will soon have modern practices in a building scarcely able to accommodate them. Having chaired a review of the law relating to disabled people in 2016, I would have appreciated then the ability for our disabled witnesses to appear virtually and to have been spared the journey and, in some cases, the challenges of access and speaking. Future committee witnesses will be greatly advantaged and their scope widened by the ability to give evidence remotely.
I intend to address Questions. Certainly allocation by ballot is much to be preferred to the queue with sandwiches outside the Table Office. Speakers’ lists are also an improvement on the previous situation when those with the loudest voices and thickest skins prevailed, and quite frequently precious minutes were wasted in the embarrassing scenario of several noble Lords shouting to attract simultaneously until the Leader of the House sorted it out. It was also hard to see why we all had to give way to the right reverend Prelates. A mixture of listed and spontaneous interventions is well worth considering. We should also get rid of the pointless “My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question” et cetera and instead have the questioner voice the Question so that watchers and listeners know what it is.
The criteria that should apply to lists for Questions or, in the alternative, spontaneity are those that underlying the purpose of Question Time. In my view they are: holding the Government to account by compelling answers to questions and extracting commitments and dates; seeking information that is not otherwise forthcoming; allowing all Members of the House a chance to ask questions in pursuit of their interest, not just those best placed with Ministers; and injecting an element of surprise that forces Ministers to prepare for every possible question without knowing in advance who will question them or on what aspect.
Holding the Government to account is equally well achieved by lists, providing that the questioners are fairly chosen by the leaders of their groups. That choice, over which some may have doubts, is at least as fair as giving the Floor to the loudest interveners, often the same few people under the old system. Under both the old system and the speakers’ list system, Ministers can and do avoid answering the question directly and can be brought back to it by subsequent interveners, so 10 minutes per Question is welcome; one wishes it were longer. Seeking information is equally well achieved by either system, backed up by Questions for Written Answer.
Do all Members of the House get a look-in? My own calculations show that women Members have enjoyed 34% higher participation than before, even allowing for the extension to 10 minutes. It was not so much that women interveners were underrepresented numerically under the old system; it was more that the same few formidable women with the strongest voices and the least hesitancy dominated the women’s team. It is now more varied.
The element of surprise is lost in having a speakers’ list, or rather, it may be that the Minister’s team knows in advance or researches the particular angle a Member is likely to pursue. This is an even greater drawback if, as appears to be a growing practice, the Minister’s staff ask the Member in advance what they are going to ask. This practice should be discouraged. For that reason, were it practical, a slot or two reserved for interveners who have not signed up would be of benefit. Therefore, I see much in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall be fairly brief, but to the point. I very much look forward to your Lordships’ House returning to some normality in September. This has indeed been a difficult time, but I would like to heap as much praise as I possibly can on to all those behind the scenes who have allowed the House to continue to function so smoothly since the introduction of hybrid proceedings. I am in no doubt that much has been learned and that, in many respects, our working practices have moved forward in a very positive and modernising way from an IT perspective.
I do not intend to go through the Procedure and Privileges Committee report paragraph by paragraph, but I will make the following brief observations. On the issue of speakers’ lists for Questions, I was interested to see that a good majority of the House voted to retain such lists. There is no doubt in my mind that previously, the situation could be quite intimidating for some noble Lords. I note from the House of Lords Library paper that since changes were made to the way supplementary oral questions are selected during hybrid proceedings, more female Members are taking part. Since March 2020, the proportion of supplementary questions asked by female Members has been higher, on average, each month when compared to previous years. This must be a very positive move in the right direction. I therefore wholeheartedly support the recommendation that there should be speakers’ lists for normal and topical Oral Questions and Questions to Lords Ministers who are members of the Cabinet.
On the issue of time allocated to Oral Questions and Private Notice Questions, I again support the recommendation that total question time for normal and topical Oral Questions be 40 minutes, and that the time allocated to Lords Ministers who are full Cabinet members be 30 minutes.
When one finds oneself last on the list of speakers, it is particularly frustrating to have to miss out on participating due to other noble Lords having over- stretched the time limit on their question. I therefore wonder whether some sort of rigid cut-off mechanism could be introduced which would enable a fairer allocation of time for each question.
I look forward to the return of voting in person, an essential ingredient of procedures in the House—a point made well by my noble friend Lord Lamont, who argued against allowing Members to continue to vote remotely, saying that it enabled some Members to claim that they were participating without interacting meaningfully with the business in the Chamber—excepting, of course, the arrangements for disabled Members.
On start times, I cannot for the life of me see why we are proposing to start so late on a Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. My personal preference is to keep the current hours. From a selfish point of view—and I know this applies to others—it would allow those of us who have to travel substantial distances to make our way home to our families without having to stay an extra evening in London. Without going into it, I share the view on expenses of the noble Lord, Lord Elder.
Save for the issues that I have mentioned, I largely welcome the report’s recommendations. I will certainly be supporting the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and my noble friend Lord Balfe.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I came into this House during the hybrid measures, so for me, this has been normal. Despite the nightmare descriptions of bullying, bear-pit Question Time—although I am not sure why the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, thinks that women are always the victims of this—I do not want the hybrid House, however ingeniously conceived or executed by the wonderful staff, to ever become the new normal again, because it is bad for democratic accountability.
I have attended physically as much as possible. As I have been focusing on apprenticeships in preparation for the skills Bill, it has reminded me that no matter how much you study the theory or the rules, it is best to learn on the job. May I take this opportunity—it is cheating, I know—to say that as an apprentice Peer, I have made every mistake in the book? I have stood at the wrong times, faced the wrong way during Prayers, made Second Reading speeches in Committee, confused Committee stage with Report, missed my supplementary questions and voted against my intentions by pressing the incorrect button. I apologise, and noble Lords might think that I would be glad to cover my embarrassment by having a near-empty Chamber, but actually it was the graciousness of those physically here in person—Peers, clerks and doorkeepers—who took me to one side and gently corrected me, that helped me get the hang of it; slowly. My point is that through real-life interactions, you can learn the ropes. Zoom will never replace the pressure of human interactions or the importance of informal chats.
This is perhaps a clue as to why, if you want to encourage Valuing Everyone—or, indeed, anyone—mandating a tick-box online training course is a shoddy substitute for creating an offline culture of open discussions about difficult and challenging behaviour. By the way, whoever thought that the punishment for non-attendance of a course allegedly designed to improve relations with staff should be to ban those Peers from all face-to-face communications with the same staff perhaps needs to attend a course in valuing common sense. Crucially, the fact that the controversies about Valuing Everyone and the punitive and unfair responses to non-attendance have not been fully debated or argued about in this House feels like the epitome of what has been lacking here in recent months.
In a scathing article in the Times, Iain Martin wrote of a “ghost Parliament”. He quoted one MP who talked of Chambers “full of negative energy” or “drained of energy”. I agreed with the article’s critique that some were too keen to treat Parliament as a normal workplace and not keen enough, even now, to return to normal. If ever there was a good excuse for an “us versus them” rule exemption, surely it would have been to honour the public by ensuring scrutiny and pushback against the Government removing people’s liberties so easily. I therefore wish that the proceedings had been less hybrid and that these Chambers had been packed.
At the very time when the Executive needed to be prodded, probed and interrogated over the 457 statutory instruments controlling every aspect of public life, Parliament was reduced to stultifying and formulaic set speeches read out—and, yes, I am reading mine out; it is a bad habit—often non-sequiturs, with no ability to push each other for clarity or to dig deeply into Ministers’ answers or explanations. What has been lost is the meaningful, interactive spontaneity that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and so many other noble Lords have discussed. That has been a loss for democracy. In that, we need to change. Even now, I worry about a slothful return to spontaneity and normal. Should not these Benches be packed to the gunnels on 19 July, rather than waiting until September? Even in that last week, surely there are plenty of worrying developments that need our fullest attention, with renewed talk of vaccine certification via security data collection and surprise votes on mandatory vaccines for care workers.
Do we not need to be here—all of us—to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on all this? Surely, it would be a real show of leadership in encouraging a full-time return to work among the public if we led by example.
Finally, speaking of the public, I relish the return to the estate of the banished public. Both Houses need to feel the presence and pressure of hordes of lobbyists—not the paid variety but the constituents, lobbying MPs and Peers on matters of urgency, and the grass-roots activists denied the right to look parliamentarians in the eye and challenge them to account for decisions. I look forward to filling the place up with groups of sixth-formers, full of awkward-squad teenagers stroppily asking why the House of Lords should not be abolished —a fair enough question—and activists from across the country and across political divides demanding answers and actions. Without the public valuably putting both Houses under pressure, Parliament is denied its lifeblood and raison d’être. We owe it to the public to resume normal business as urgently as possible on their behalf.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, first, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Adonis. I am also in favour of speakers’ lists for Questions, having discussed the matter with noble friends who have more experience than me. However, there are two other matters I want to raise: allowances and ballots for Oral Questions.
The issue of allowances is clearly germane to this debate. Whatever your view of remote participation and its effect on the work of the House, it has been of benefit by facilitating the participation of those who live some distance outside London. The return to the physical House will mean a big change for them, not least in the additional costs for accommodation that they will now have to bear. The unfortunate but inevitable effect is that it will limit their participation. The conclusion I draw, as argued forcefully by my noble friends Lord McConnell and Lord Elder, is that the current system of allowances needs to change to maintain the wider geographical participation that I am sure we all want to see. As someone who lives within walking distance of the House—or a short trip using my freedom pass —I have no personal interest in any change. I know nothing of how the present system is arrived at, although I appreciate the sensitivity of the issue. But, as a newcomer, it looks manifestly unfair. The return to physical sittings is the appropriate time for it to be reviewed. I am unclear whose responsibility this is, but I ask that the matter be given some genuine thought.
Then there is the issue of ballots for Oral Questions. I will focus on ballots for Oral Questions, but my remarks apply to all ballots. I am in favour of ballots rather than queues, but I suggest that the system of ballots needs to be improved. Virtually all the Members I have spoken to about the ballot system believe that they are discriminated against, even though the system is properly random. They feel that their Questions never get chosen, while others’ get chosen many times. This is inevitably determined in large part by how many Questions you ask, but the truth is that you can be randomly discriminated against. Luck may simply not be on your side. My suggestion is that in place of the present system, which is random selection with replacement, we move to random selection without replacement—at least for a specified period. In other words, those who get selected in one ballot will have less chance of being selected in those that follow. There are a number of ways by which this could be achieved, but at this stage I simply want the principle to be given some consideration.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I join others in congratulating the House authorities and all those involved in making this hybrid virtual Parliament work over the past 16 months. I also congratulate the leadership of the House. My noble friend the Leader of the House should take this as a compliment. She does not get many from me; I give her one—and others involved, as well.
These virtual hybrid sittings have been a lot better than nothing—they have allowed us to continue our work—but this has not been a parliamentary assembly. I agree with much that is in this report. I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who sadly is no longer in his place, on the business of opinion polls, which seem to me to be exactly the wrong way to go forward in the way we did. I note the lucidity of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. Some people say there should be a retirement age in this House; I do not agree. Should I be spared and get into my 90s, like my noble and learned friend, I hope I have some element of the lucidity that he showed in his excellent speech.
I turn to the delicate subject, which people are particularly unhappy to discuss, of exemptions for disabled people. I listened intently to my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, who obviously has a personal and very good understanding of this. I can see that we can do an awful lot better. I, too, appreciate the excellent contributions of some of the disabled Peers here, who add enormously to our diversity and help us understand. I have had four hip operations, which is quite a lot, but I am not disabled. While appreciating that—and I see that we can do better—I quote the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who said that the House authorities can help. I think the House authorities could probably help more. It is a question of looking at what help there can be. We should look again, for instance, at part 17 of the financial support document entitled Additional Financial Support Available to Members with a Disability. Of course, people who find it more difficult should have all the support they can. We should show all these people real respect. They make incredibly valuable contributions.
However, we should be cautious about how we view attendance. This is a parliamentary assembly—to take part, you need to assemble. It is about emotional geography, which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde referred to, apparently quoting the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy: talking to people, understanding the mood of the House—which noble Lords have referred to—and understanding the point of view of others. This, too, is important: disabled people who bring benefit to this House also need the assembly. They need the informal discussion and the spontaneity, which has been referred to. Therefore, we should be extremely cautious about how we proceed on that line.
Finally, as a former Deputy Chief Whip in the other place, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who said that there is a particular value to the Front Bench in listing speakers. For that reason, I do not agree with it. By so doing, there would be no spontaneity, as my noble friend Lord Cormack said, and no difficult questions. That is why I shall support my noble friend Lord Cormack in the Division.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
I welcome some of the relatively modest procedural changes being proposed today, such as retaining lists for Oral Questions and changing our working hours to make them more family-friendly, argued very cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
However, my main purpose today is, first, to register my deep disappointment that a real opportunity has been missed to overhaul and modernise our working practices, many of which were designed for a very different age, despite the many voices calling for change in our debate on 20 May, which seem to have been ignored. Secondly, while strongly welcoming the proposed new arrangements for those with long-term disabilities—I found the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, particularly poignant—I draw specific attention to the plight of those Members with long-term health conditions, the clinically extremely vulnerable, those with shorter-term disabilities and those with caring responsibilities, for whom no provision is being made after remote participation finishes.
My starting point in our debate in May was that the ability to participate remotely, while developed to deal with the pandemic, should continue in certain forms to give everyone in your Lordships’ House an equal chance to participate. I was not alone in voicing those sentiments.
We are taking decisions today on the future working practices of the House at the same time as the Government have decided—recklessly, in my view—to scrap all measures introduced to keep us safe in the face of rapidly rising infection rates driven by a far more transmissible variant. This has real consequences for those for whom leaving home to take public transport and entering public buildings, such as Parliament, will become impossible if they cannot guarantee that others will be wearing face coverings after that ceases to be a legal requirement. That includes Members of this House who are clinically extremely vulnerable, as well as those living with family members who fall into this category.
Parliament, as we all know, with its many small and narrow corridors, its very crowded areas around the Chamber and its really tightly packed Division Lobbies, is an extremely difficult building to make Covid-secure. So I ask the Leader of the House whether, in September, we will be following the Chief Medical Officer’s advice to continue to wear masks in crowded indoor spaces, of which this Chamber is clearly one? What assurances can she give me that concerns about overcrowding will be taken into account when new proposals to vote in person using pass readers are put to the House in the autumn?
For me, this is personal. Having had two knee operations in the last nine months, my mobility has been severely impaired, making me effectively housebound for much of the period. Using the Tube has been pretty much impossible for me. Participating remotely, which I have done continuously during this period, has been my only real means of participating and contributing. In brief, I have had a short-term disability. So yesterday I sought some advice from employment law experts on how the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 to provide reasonable adjustments applies to people who may not have a long-term disability, as defined in the Act, but nevertheless have an impairment which impacts on their ability to perform day-to-day activities. I was advised that any good employer would be expected to make reasonable adjustments in these circumstances. I was also advised that, if someone had caring responsibilities that required them, for example, to be present at a prescribed time to supervise medication, it would be considered discrimination by association not to make reasonable adjustments to allow them to do so, if the means existed—which they clearly do; the system for remote participation is up and running.
So will the Leader say what legal advice has been sought on how removing the ability to participate remotely for those relatively few noble Lords with real and genuine needs to do so complies with the Equality Act? Will she also explain why there was no consultation about the new arrangements for people like myself with shorter-term disabilities—those with post-operative restrictions, the clinically vulnerable, and so on—and why the definition of “disability” has been drawn so tightly?
Finally, I make a heartfelt plea that the House of Lords Commission, which will be overseeing the process for deciding who will be eligible for continued remote participation, will look again at the issues I have raised, in the hope that good sense and common decency will prevail.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I join in thanking the staff for the very helpful way in which they have supported us during the last 16 or 18 months of the pandemic.
When we had the opinion poll, as described by my noble friend Lord Grocott, I voted in favour of lists, not because I like lists but because I feared that, if we rejected lists, we would go back to a situation of no change under any circumstances. My preferred choice would be to have the Lord Speaker choosing people to ask supplementaries. After my time in the Commons, I was absolutely shocked at Questions in our House. There are many things about our House that are better than in the Commons, but Question Time is certainly not one of them. I found it intimidating, I found that I was easily bullied—I still am—and there was no chance to be spontaneous; it was a matter of whether one had any chance at all of getting in.
By the way, I mean no disrespect to the right reverend Prelate when I say that the House gives way to the Bishops’ Bench. They have a better chance, so I do not think he should vote in support of the amendment to the Motion suggesting that we should have lists. My preference is absolutely to have a Lord Speaker doing the selection of Members to ask supplementaries, so I shall certainly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. I remember the days of the queues, not so long ago, to try to get a Question, sitting outside the Table Office. One had to sit sometimes for two hours in advance. It was totally ludicrous. Passers-by said, “Whatever are you doing here?” Two hours of your time, maybe even longer if you wanted to be certain, and then the undignified bearpit process of trying to get in on a supplementary.
Of course we need flexibility. I believe in the Lord Speaker choosing people. I am sure the Lord Speaker would be pretty fair to those with disabilities; would be fair in terms of choosing people specialising in the subject, rather than anybody; and would be fair in terms of timing if he or she had some flexibility in terms of giving more time to one question than to another. All that, to my mind, would be a matter of spontaneity, so I shall support with enthusiasm the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe.
As regards voting on the estate, of course there have to be exceptions and we have to define what a “place of work” is, but I think that, unless people have disabilities, all people should vote on the estate. I did not quite follow the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in one respect, about Millbank House, because, under the proposed system, as I understand it, she would be able to vote from Millbank House. I am in Millbank House myself and I am bound to say that, while I move pretty quickly—or I did before the pandemic—I found sometimes that getting to a vote from Millbank House when a Division was called took some time because of traffic at the pedestrian crossing and so on. As for Portcullis House, coming over for a Division takes some doing. I know Members of our House who never go to meetings in Portcullis House because, if there were to be a Division, they simply would not get back in time.
While we are on this, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Adonis. I remember when we used to sit very late, which might still be the case this autumn, and I had to make sure I knew the timing: my last Tube home was at 12.35 am and I would race to get the last Tube to save a £40 or £50 taxi fare. So I understand the difficulties and I am well aware that I can move quickly and Members of this House who are not able to move so quickly, or who are disabled and can hardly move at all, should have better provision made for them than is the case now.
To conclude, I support my noble friend Lord Adonis in his suggestion of different timings. I am on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we always meet on a Wednesday afternoon. One has to forgo either the Select Committee or what is going on in the Chamber. This is quite possible and it is normal to have to juggle timings a bit, so that one can decide whether one is in a Select Committee or whether one is in the Chamber. As I said earlier, I very firmly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. I do not believe we can go on with the present system, or that the list system will be able to continue. Surely it is not a breach of our traditions of being a self-governing House if we stop the bearpit that characterised Question Time up to the pandemic.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, when I entered the House of Lords 21 years ago, I never imagined that one day I would be moving and debating amendments to government legislation remotely from my dining room table. Much of the technology that we have come to use every day did not exist at that time. Had this pandemic happened even a few years earlier than it did, I am not sure how Parliament would have coped. As Covid-19 restrictions ease and the world starts to open, it makes sense that increasingly Members return to the Chamber.
I note the moves by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and others to restore the normal working practices of the House to what they were prior to the pandemic. While I understand this desire to uphold the traditions of the place, it would in my view be a mistake not to embrace the various changes and improvements that have happened during this time—in particular, the use of technology, which we now have an opportunity to incorporate into normal practice going forward.
I welcome moves to allow those with a long-term disability to continue to work remotely. My personal experience of participating remotely at the start was very mixed, as, like many of us, I struggled with using this technology at first. However, as things turned out, it was very fortunate for me that Parliament was working remotely. In October last year, I was diagnosed with advanced cancer and over the next six months I went through a course of intensive chemotherapy. During this time, the Domestic Abuse Bill came to the Lords and, due to remote participation, I was able to table and speak on amendments aiming to prevent the abuse of older people, which I have continued to do. Had it not been for remote proceedings, my involvement in this and other legislation during this time would have been significantly less or nil. Also, were it not for remote Divisions, I would have struggled to vote on this and other important legislation. For Members who have health or disability issues, the hybrid proceedings model is very good and removes barriers to participating.
I also welcome and fully support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, proposing that the House meets at 1 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, rather than at 2.30 pm to 3 pm, as the Government propose. As the noble Lord outlined, starting later means less time for questions and debates, and means Divisions happening later in the evening, when potentially fewer Peers will vote.
I will not, however, support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Balfe. For those concerned with the traditions of this place, I would argue that, in implementing hybrid proceedings and remote Divisions over the last year, the Lords have in fact upheld one of the greatest traditions of the world’s oldest Parliament. During this crisis, the House showed resilience and agility by finding a way to uphold its important constitutional role in challenging times, as it has done so often in our nation’s past. The House of Lords, often perceived as stuffy and old fashioned, has in fact shown the world how a modern Parliament can embrace technology and change—something it has done much better, in my view, than the other place.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a little while. First, I share the tributes paid by almost every noble Lord who has spoken to the staff and supporters of the House, who have kept us operating in a hybrid manner since these difficulties arose a year or more ago.
First, I am afraid I do not agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is proposing in his amendment to the Motion. I believe that we should sit rather later in the day than we do at present because, as several noble Lords have said, it will allow experts in other fields to practise their profession before they come here. That is sometimes very important.
Secondly, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Cormack is proposing. I speak with some experience in this matter: I think I still hold the record for having answered more questions from the government Dispatch Box than any Minister, ever. I have perhaps been overtaken by my noble friend Lord Bethell more recently, but I think at one point I had answered 900 questions, so I can claim some knowledge and experience. It is right that Ministers should be properly answerable when they face questions, and I am therefore not in favour of a pre-printed list of speakers and hope that we will not proceed with that.
Finally, on the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Balfe, I am not necessarily against the idea of the noble Lord the Lord Speaker calling questioners, but we would need to provide some guidance for him if that is to be implemented, in which case I might not necessarily oppose it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the amazing efforts of our superb staff.
I have found the debate today fascinating and of a high order. However, it is a pity that it is taking place after the committee has agreed its report and not before. I suspect that is the reason that the committee seems to have combined the worst aspects of how we worked pre Covid with the worst aspects of our current working. As a result, we risk ending up with a House out of kilter with modern working practices, anaesthetised debate and further control exercised by the Government and party Whips. My noble friend Lord Grocott gave a very good illustration of that.
Why are we not allowing flexible working to continue? Up and down the country, employers are adjusting to what we have learned during the pandemic—that more flexible working suits employees and employers. Yet here we are insisting that we all must return to the old way of working. The Government even want us to return to outdated working hours. As my noble friend Lord Adonis has argued, working late into the evening is not conducive to effective working. Only the Government gain from the House starting its business in the middle of the afternoon, leaving far less time for questions, debates and, mostly crucially of all, votes in prime time, before attendance drops off rapidly after 6 pm. Why should we be so destructive of family life?
My second concern, which I share with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is about the recommendation to keep speakers’ lists for Oral Questions. Oral Questions should provide the pivotal moment for the House. In normal circumstances, the House is full, and Ministers are on their mettle as questions come at them from all sides—questions which, at their best, are short, spontaneous and follow the debate, rather than pre-packaged. Sadly, Oral Questions during Covid have been anything but. Even with the extension of 10 minutes, not everyone on the full list of speakers always gets in. This is due to long-winded questions followed by often pre-ordained questions read out by some Members seemingly oblivious to what the Minister has said or to the debate that has gone before. Frankly, it has become a bore, where Ministers get away with much and often answer in kind with their own long and laboured responses. I appreciate that there has been a vote on this, and I understand that some Members did not like the unruly nature of Oral Questions before the pandemic, but surely my noble friend Lord Grocott was right about the binary nature of the question. I ask the Senior Deputy Speaker: why were we not asked about the timings of the House? Why are we not allowed to discuss and vote on whether we should have a proper Speaker?
If we are to have 10 minutes and a speakers’ list for each Question, surely, if Members know in advance that they are going to be on the list, it is not asking too much of them to stick to the advisory time limit for their words. If they do not, why can they not be pulled up immediately? This is not happening because, of course, the Lord Speaker is not able to call order. Those who argue against the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, say that it is the end of self-regulation. Well, I am afraid that self-regulation is not working. When I first came to the House in 1997, it did—Members gladly gave way to others, but that no longer pertains. The current role of the Leader in assisting the House does not seem to be working. I do not think there is any substitute for us having a Speaker who can ensure that some of the issues raised today about the difficulties of, say, disabled Members getting in, can be dealt with. It would retain the essential spontaneity that we need.
I will vote for all three amendments, but I appeal to the Senior Deputy Speaker to reflect hard on this debate, go back to his committee and, over the Recess, work on a new scheme to put to us in the autumn. At the least, he should agree to an extensive review of our procedures in the autumn, taking full account of Members’ views and allowing us to become the modern and effective Chamber we all want to be.
Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]
My Lords, I fully support the Procedure and Privileges Committee’s report and the decision for the House to return to as normal as possible with your Lordships being present in the House, except, of course, severely disabled Members. It is also important that we return to the practice that your Lordships should be physically in the—[Inaudible.]
Could my noble friend the Minister clarify whether Members of your Lordships’ House are obliged to attend Select Committee meetings physically or whether they will still be able to continue attending online? I am not talking about anyone who is giving evidence. Will it still be illegal to attend any meeting from a car or train if we continue to be able to participate remotely?
Legislation was passed during the Covid lockdown without any debate in your Lordships’ House and without any votes. This diktat is considered legal as it is included now in the Standing Orders. This point does not—[Inaudible.] I wonder whether it could be clarified by the Minister for your Lordships.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
The noble Baroness keeps cutting out so it is probably best that we move to the next speaker.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Yes, the next speaker is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is present.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I will try not to. Just about everything that can be said in this debate has been said, so I am going to say a bit more. I ask noble Lords to notice that I am speaking just before the wind-up speeches from the leaders of the two main opposition parties. I underline that the Cross-Benchers are not a party or group. I see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is not in his place, but could somebody remind him that I have said that? I am speaking on behalf of myself and nobody else.
I support the Senior Deputy Speaker’s report, but then I would, would I not? I am a member of the commission and of the Procedure and Privileges Committee. There are so many committees that I am a member of, I can probably speak for every single committee in this House.
I think we are envisaging a return to a pre-pandemic normal but one that is enlightened by some of what we have learned in dealing with the pandemic. There are a number of matters I could draw to noble Lords’ attention. We have discussed disability. I am so glad about that; the Cross-Benchers raised it almost at the very outset. There was an absolute unanimity of view that we had to use our new technological skills to ensure that disabled people could continue to play their part in the House. I am absolutely delighted that that is going to happen.
I do not support the amendments but I respect them. I am one of those larks: I love getting up in the morning and there was a time when I actually used to enjoy getting up for work in the morning. I am not an owl, so I am attracted to earlier starts—though 1 pm is not that early. But before we agree to that amendment, could we check that we would not be reducing the contribution made to this House by experts who continue to use their expertise outside this House?
Some noble Lords referred to the grand people, the doctors and the lawyers, but what about the engineers, teachers, university professors and—if I may say so to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—the environmentalists, who are still at work? They have a contribution to make and we need to be very careful that we do not adjust the times and lose their contributions. I am not saying that it will happen, but it is not something that we should plunge into.
I am also a little concerned about the work of Select Committees. We now have many more Select Committees. We do not have the proper facilities for all of them: a facilities room with audio, broadcasting facilities, facilities to work in a hybrid fashion. We need to check that, if we have an earlier time, we will not make it more difficult for members of committees to attend the Chamber. They have an invaluable contribution to make and should not be disqualified because they are simply following their duties as members of a committee.
I have great sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack; I was one of those in the minority when the ballot took place. I believe—and continue to believe notwithstanding the result of the ballot—that speakers’ lists for Oral Questions have been disadvantageous to everybody except Ministers. Ministers have got away with obfuscation for 18 months now. We are not doing anything about it if we have a speakers’ list. However, the House took a different view: a view which I respect and do not share. We have to abide by it, at any rate for the time being.
We have to be careful not to get carried away about how discourteous everybody is during Oral Questions. Yes, there are some people who behave badly; most of us do not. I think it is also very bad behaviour for people to go on asking questions at great length so that numbers eight, nine and 10 on the list do not get reached. It is a different form of discourtesy, but it is discourtesy nevertheless.
As for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, there is a very important principle involved. We need to consider whether we rewrite the way in which the House conducts its business in relation to the principle of self-regulation. It is a principle; chapter 4 of the Companion to the Standing Orders is absolutely clear about it, and there is a lot of chapter 4. The Lord Speaker
“observes the same formalities as any other member of the House, addressing the House as a whole, and not an individual member”.
There is much to be discussed in the noble Lord’s amendment but it is appropriate for examination in a single-issue debate, not as an add-on to this debate, because it has some very fundamental questions to answer about the way the House does its business. Let us return to the enlightened normality.
I will add one word recognising one speech in particular: did not the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, speak a great deal of sense about government control of the way we do our work?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I echo the comments of the Leader of the House and others about the way in which the staff rose to the challenge of introducing a century and a half of change into your Lordships’ House in about three weeks. That was most impressive, and they deserve all our thanks.
I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who I am rather distressed to see is not in his place, who said that we should return as if there had been no pandemic and then think about whether we want to make any changes. No organisation does that. That seems to be the worst of all worlds, whatever changes you then decide to make. I am very pleased we have not adopted that approach.
Of the changes that are being proposed, which take account of a changed ability to do things, the two most significant are: first, the continuing support we are going to give to disabled people; and, secondly, electronic voting. As far as allowing disabled people to participate in your Lordships’ House virtually in future goes, this is a tremendous improvement to the way we do things. Over a long period, we have said that we are very keen that your Lordships’ House should have disabled Members, but then made it impossible, in effect, for them to participate in many cases. Allowing them to participate in all cases where they are physically able to do so from their own homes is clearly an advantage.
The only wrinkle I put on what has already been agreed is that I hope that when the group that looks at these things does so, it will adopt a pretty wide definition of what is allowable for people who are disabled to continue to participate. In today’s debate two particular categories of people have been mentioned, beyond those who are already covered by the disability scheme.
The first is those who are clinically extremely vulnerable as we come out of the worst effects of Covid but have not left it. It would seem perverse if people who are clinically extremely vulnerable now, but do not have a long-term disability and have been able to participate for the last 18 months, should be denied that ability for a few months until they are allowed to come back.
I also think we should look further at the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about short-term disability. She gave an example of her own case. Another case might be if a noble Lord on the Government Front Bench broke their leg in the middle of a Bill. Why should that Minister not be able to participate from home when they are still perfectly capable intellectually but have a short-term disability? We need to look at that as part of what is, in general terms, a very welcome change.
Secondly, on electronic voting, it is a huge improvement to be contemplating not voting through the Lobbies. Many of us have spent many of the happiest hours of our lives chatting to chums shuffling through the Lobbies, but the alleged benefits of being able to nobble Ministers and others going through the Lobbies is, frankly, greatly overdone. Having the continuing use of modern technology to vote, thus saving time, is a great boon.
I hope, though, that we will allow voting to take place in Millbank House, for the reasons my noble friend Lady Brinton and others gave. I hope we will allow people to use their passes and pass readers in the Committee Corridor so that we do not have a whole corridor of people traipsing down from a committee, sometimes several times during the committee, then traipsing back up again. It will save a lot of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made a suggestion I had not heard before but has a lot to recommend it: that we should be able to vote in Portcullis House. It is quite difficult getting back from Portcullis House anyway, but many Members of your Lordships’ House go there for meetings of all-party groups and party groups, and other meetings. It would make our lives easier without undermining any principle of being on the estate at the point at which votes are taken.
I note the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, about the problems we might have in defining working areas in September and sanctions relating to that. I would just point out to him that we are talking about a couple of weeks, we hope, during which this system will operate. I would not have thought it would cause too many problems.
I had a lot of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, when he said we might have missed one or two tricks in what we are planning to do. Personally, I think there is a lot to recommend the proposals made during our debate on 20 May to allow people who live several hours away to participate in non-legislative business. Again, it would broaden the number of people that could speak and I do not think it would undermine any principle of democracy that your Lordships’ House rightly holds dear. We have had that debate, however, in the commission and elsewhere. I think the case simply has not been won, but that is a pity.
On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, my interest is to return to spontaneity because, as a leader, if I get up I can certainly trump people behind me, as I have found out to their fury in the past. Therefore, I have no personal benefit in having a speakers’ list. I should also say, without going too far into the substance of this, that the idea that Ministers have been obfuscating in their answers just over the last 18 months is, to put it mildly, stretching the point.
The important thing about what we do next is that we have asked people what they think. The noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Grocott, described this as an opinion poll. It is as though you had a general election and, instead of having a vote, you had an opinion poll in which 40 million people voted, because over 500 people voted in this opinion poll. As to whether they knew what they were doing or whether we debated or thought about it, I remind your Lordships that we had had a full day’s debate on 20 May in which this issue was discussed at some length, among many others. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, probably remembers it.
We have also had 15 months of actually operating the system. It is not a new system. People are not wondering how it might work; we know how it has worked up until now. People have formed a view about whether they think it was beneficial. In my view, this is a perfectly valid ballot of Members. I agree that it is contentious, but that is why the Procedure Committee decided to have the ballot in the first place—because opinion was sharply divided in that committee and probably more evenly balanced than in your Lordships’ House as a whole. It is slightly odd that Members of your Lordships’ House object to being asked their views on something, rather than allowing a committee to push something forward on its evenly balanced view.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, also talked about the report from the Procedure Committee. We will debate that at some length next week, and there is certainly no question of issues not being debated in your Lordships’ House. But the one thing I really took issue with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about was the suggestion that, in some way, the operation of that committee is a denial of natural justice. I just do not believe that is the case. If anybody who sat through the debate on the case of Lord Lester of Herne Hill believes that was natural justice and what we have now is not, then I am afraid their definition of natural justice is very different from mine.
There are questions about what exactly we do with Question Time. The proposal from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for example, was really interesting and one we should consider.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, falls if you accept that the ballot we had stands, so I do not intend to discuss that.
The final amendment was from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I have considerable sympathy with the view that we start somewhat earlier, for the reasons he gave. However, his amendment does only part of the job. I would support it to a greater extend if it were coupled with a firm proposal that the House finish earlier as a matter of course if we start earlier. At present, we sit early but, as last night’s midnight finish demonstrated, we are sitting longer and still at ridiculously late hours. However, this is a live and important issue, and I hope, given the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and others expressed, that this is something that the Procedure Committee will return to after the summer, whatever the outcome of the vote we have this afternoon.
That principle of returning to things applies to everything else. Nothing is set in stone. We must continue to evolve, as we have done in recent months, by experience. By accepting the proposals before us, we are taking the best of what we have done differently over recent months without closing the door to further improvements. I commend the report to the House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a long and interesting debate. It shows the challenges the Procedure Committee faces: just because a Member of the House thinks one thing, it does not mean there is an automatic cohort of others that agree on that point. There are a lot of crossed interests and different views, which strikes to the heart of the issue. When we looked at the different issues, it was felt that fundamental and significant change could not be proposed by the Procedure Committee unless there was widespread agreement on it and these were things we would return to on another day. I will come back to that.
I concur with all the comments that have been made about the staff of the House and the way they responded to our demands. When we initially had to become remote and then hybrid there was no blueprint and no equipment; we were starting absolutely from scratch. The Leader of the House, the leaders of other groups and the Convenor will recall the many meetings over many days and long hours when they were contacting us and serving us well to ensure we could operate. I think that the noble Baroness said that they served their purpose, and they did, because we have been able to function as a House, albeit not in the way we would genuinely wish to.
It is worth reflecting on the past 16 months. I have to say, 16 months ago, I thought that Zoom was an ice lolly, I had never heard of Teams and the words “Can you unmute?” were not ones that came easily. We have all learned a lot. Last Tuesday, I celebrated an important personal milestone of the pandemic: in addition to being in the Chamber, I had seven meetings, none of which took place over Zoom. They were all physical meetings because they were small groups in larger rooms. It was a much better experience with better outcomes and was not so exhausting.
Few, I think, would argue that conducting all the proceedings remotely or in a hybrid way is ideal. It has not been easy. There were the doubters who said that we would never cope with it. As we have heard today, we have had our moments, including asking “Can you hear me?” and “Can you unmute?” and having people drop out. However, if it were not for the people who made that happen—I pay particular tribute to the staff who developed and managed the Peers’ hub; it has been an excellent innovation and I hope that we keep it to a very large extent—we would not have done something that others doubted we could do. We have excelled ourselves. I still think that our Peers’ hub remote voting is significantly better than the nonsense we have seen at the other end of the building, with a conga to go and vote, then proxy voting. I would never be comfortable with somebody voting on my behalf; I would much rather do it myself.
However, we also have to look at the deficiencies. Too often, our debates have taken much longer. Yesterday was a prime example: the House sat from noon—lunchtime—until two minutes to 12 last night. We know the difficulties. It is easy enough to make a speech or make a point remotely, but it is far harder to debate, discuss and engage. We have managed it, but not in the way we would like.
The committee’s report has my support, which is not to say that it is not a compromise. The decision on electronic voting came from the debate on 20 May when more than 70 Members of your Lordships’ House took part. There was strong support for retaining the Peers’ hub or some form of electronic voting but views were divided, although they were mainly in support of voting on the premises, not remotely, in view of the fact that voting is quite a collective activity. I think one noble Lord admitted that they got it wrong because they were not with colleagues. I am agnostic on where the voting terminals should be when we move to voting without the Peers’ hub. We must look at what will benefit the House and our debates. Voting is a political activity and when we are together we engage in that political debate, which is important.
A few noble Lords said that this is the wrong way round and that we are having the vote on the Peers’ hub and the decision on the committee’s report before we have had the debate. There was a debate on 20 May to which the Procedure Committee and noble Lords listened carefully before proceeding with a way forward. However, as I have said, it was also felt that, where there was fundamental and significant change—I have no doubt that there will be further change—it should done by agreement and having the opportunity, when the House returns physically and is not just working remotely or in a hybrid way, to consider some of these matters further.
I welcome what the report said about disabilities. I was initially concerned—I expressed this to your Lordships’ House—that it was saying that, for Members with disabilities, we should offer the opportunity to work remotely. First and foremost, we want to ensure that we do as much as we possibly can as a House to ensure that those with disabilities can participate fully in the work of the House. If part of that is through remote working, it should be undertaken, but it should never be the default position that somebody with a disability is asked to work remotely, unless it is in their interests and they wish to do so.
In many ways, I am slightly disappointed that so much of the debate concerned Oral Questions; I suppose it is because of the ballot we had through the Peers’ hub. To me, the most important thing that this House does—that is not to demean the role of Questions and Statements—is our legislative work and the role we play in legislation which, to me, has been the hardest part to undertake in a hybrid way. Those who have been engaged in legislation have often done so until very late at night; we talked about the Environment Bill last night, but when we were considering the Fisheries Bill and other legislation, the House regularly sat until midnight. The point was made my noble friend Lord Adonis and others that we are not at our best when we are starting at 12 pm and finishing at 12 am. I hope that more physical debates on legislation will ensure that we do not have those very long sittings. They were not helpful to anybody and often became exchanges of speeches that sometimes do not relate to other speeches that were made earlier when we had had a proper debate on legislation in the Chamber.
I want to look at the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Cormack. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that I concur with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby: whether we agree or not—although I did not vote, I would have voted the other way, to remove the speakers’ lists—the House took a decision. When we discussed this with the Procedure Committee, it was decided that we would review it at a later date because Members may feel differently when we are back physically and there should be the opportunity to look at all these decisions then. However, it is not fair to say, “I don’t like this decision. I therefore want to change it”, so I cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It will be reviewed by the committee, as the committee agreed; it is right that we should do that because, when we return physically, we may have a different view.
There has not been a golden age of Ministers answering questions fully or us having proper scrutiny of those Ministers, but I do think that Questions are conducted better without lists. However, it is the choice of the House, and I think that it was possibly a majority of the members of the Procedure Committee who preferred to keep the lists. We felt that, because there was a difference of view across the House, the House should take that decision, rather than the usual channels or the Procedure Committee. It will be reviewed when we return.
I say the same as the Lord Speaker: I have some sympathy with this. The House does not cover itself in glory when Members get shouted down. I wince when it is regarded as an issue for female Members of the House—I have never had great difficulty in making myself heard—but it can be for inexperienced Members who are perhaps not used to a political setting and find it uncomfortable. However, again, for me, that matter comes under the more fundamental change that, when the House sits physically, the Members who are here can consider. So I cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on this point either.
We have an opportunity in the next few months. My noble friend Lord Grocott mentioned six months; in fact, that was the timescale I put to the Senior Deputy Speaker and the Leader in terms of reviewing matters. When we are back physically and have done things in a certain way for six months, we will have a sense of what works and what does not. We will have such an opportunity with Questions. Oral Questions and UQs will have a list but Statements and PNQs will not, so we will have an opportunity to compare the two and see which the House prefers. That is a good way to take this forward. I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments to a vote tonight but instead accept that these matters will be reviewed.
I always listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, with great respect. However, I take issue with one thing he said today: that this is a part-time House. It is not a part-time House. We are a full-time House. We actually sit longer than the House of Commons. We do have part-time Members; this House has never expected all its Members to be full-time Members. Saying that this is a part-time House misunderstands and misrepresents the scale of the work that we do and the issues that we raise. Racism in football, for example, has not been addressed by the other House yet but it was addressed in this House today through a PNQ. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord did not mean to, but we should not demean the role of this House.
I have great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Adonis, who spoke very powerfully. Indeed, his speech mirrored something that I raised with members of the Procedure Committee and the Leader early on: not that we should start earlier and finish earlier, but that we should examine that. A number of committees take place and a number of issues are raised. Many Members of the House are engaged not just in outside activities but in activities in your Lordships’ House, such as meetings with Ministers and working on Bills. Some also have to travel. Those who work on legislation play quite a detailed role in getting ready for that day’s work. This is something that we should discuss.
However, the worst reason I have ever heard for opposing my noble friend’s amendment was the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I regret to say this to the noble Lord, but the idea that we should sit later because it is helpful to have lunch with people does a great disservice to the many Members of this House working internally and externally, getting ready for legislation and Bills, and preparing speeches to ensure that they are fully prepared when they come to your Lordships’ House. I hope he will reflect on that comment as we move forward.
However—call me a cynic—my noble friend’s amendment is one side of the equation but not the other. I am nervous: knowing the battles that my noble friend Lord Kennedy, and previously my noble friend Lord McAvoy, had in trying to get the Government not to sit too late into the night but to have proceedings end at a reasonable time, like 10 pm, I am really concerned that, if his amendment was accepted as it stands on the Order Paper today, we would find ourselves sitting at 1 pm and going later and later. If we change the hours, there should be a debate in this House, and full consideration of the impact across the House, on having an earlier start time and just moving the day forward. I would accept that, but that is not what his amendment does. I hope he will reflect on that. I think it is something the Procedure Committee will reflect on, take soundings on and come back to, but I do not think passing an amendment today that just says we will sit at 1 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays really makes the point or addresses the issues in the way we would wish to. I regret to say to my noble friend that I would not be able to vote for that amendment, although I would very much like to revisit the hours at which the House sits as we move forward.
I have two further brief points to make. When the commissioners met, we predicated all these things on when the House returns physically, which we expect to be on 6 September. There has to be some doubt, with the rise in infections, that this will be the case. The delta, or Johnson, variant is actually quite rampant now. I hope it is the case; I certainly am longing to return to our physical proceedings. But I hope the noble Baroness can make a commitment that the commission will meet prior to that to confirm or, only if essential, delay in the light of prevailing circumstances.
Secondly, the Government have said that they will stop the free tests. If that is the case, and the Covid tests are not made available, I hope that your Lordships’ House will continue to provide a testing regime for those who work in the Palace.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I respect all the points made this afternoon. It has been a very thought-provoking debate. I have no doubt that my words will not satisfy most in all regards, other than that I think we all recognise how much we have gained from the experiences we have gone through but want better times ahead. In the words of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, the package of proposals before your Lordships is designed to facilitate a return to “a fuller, livelier and more effective House” when we return in September.
Of course, I join the noble Baroness, as almost all noble Lords who spoke did, in thanking everyone. In my turn, I thank all noble Lords and particularly all members of staff for working together. This is a very important point: we have all worked together on these matters in rising to the challenges presented to us by the pandemic. It has been a period of innovation and exceptionally hard work. Again, I want to emphasise, because there have been words about this, that I identify the House I have had the privilege to be in for 11 years with hard work. I think noble Lords work extremely hard, as do the people who come to work here as well as us. These efforts meant that, working at an unprecedented pace, the House was able to find ways to continue its work despite the constraints. In recognising how much has been achieved, we all also understand that we have lost some of the character and spontaneity of our proceedings. The proposals before your Lordships today represent seeking to return to that character but incorporate elements of the practices we have adopted during the pandemic which the committee believes have worked well. I say also to all noble Lords that the committee—and indeed the commission—considered with all seriousness the points made in the debate of 20 May, but also much discussion on all these matters.
Turning to the amendments before your Lordships, that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, invites us to set the House’s start time at 1 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. As mentioned in the report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, the House would otherwise revert—should the report and the Leader of the House’s Business of the House Motion be agreed to—to the pre-existing sitting times of 2.30 pm on Mondays and Tuesdays and 3 pm on Wednesdays. As has always been the case, the diversity of the membership of this House and the range of commitments that noble Lords maintain mean that it is not possible to find times that suit everyone. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, generously raised that as part of his speech. For some Members, earlier sitting times would undoubtedly be more convenient, potentially allowing for an earlier finish—although the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, suggested that there have not always been early finishes as well. However, I am particularly mindful of other noble Lords who come from across the United Kingdom and the importance of ensuring that all Peers from all parts of the United Kingdom can attend this House in reasonable time. Earlier sittings would undoubtedly be difficult to accommodate on certain days of the week, and this is what I picked up from Peers from across the United Kingdom. As referred to, there are others who may have significant commitments outside the House, but from whom we want to hear the essential contributions that they make in afternoon and later proceedings.
Having taken on this post, I am also mindful of the immense work that your Lordships undertake in Select Committees and other bodies, which tend to make full use of mornings in particular for meetings. I refer particularly to Wednesdays, because the later start enables some group meetings which do not conflict with Select Committees to be convened before the House sits. The sitting times have evolved over the years. While I will, I am afraid, ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, I have no doubt that the points raised are very pertinent, and we will want to keep them under review. In other words, to do a very quick flick, as it were, to 1 pm would have consequences that I would not advise going into at this juncture. But I think we want to consider all these points because, after all, our purpose is the smooth running of the House.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, regrets the proposal from the committee to have speakers’ lists for Oral Questions and Questions to Lords Ministers who are full members of Cabinet, and it asks the committee to reconsider this point by 31 October. The committee recognised in our deliberations that there were good arguments on both sides of the matter over speakers’ lists for Questions. On the one hand, there are those who value principally the spontaneity of unlisted questions. On the other, there are those who value the scope for lists to enable what has been a wider range of noble Lords to ask questions and—I wrestle with how to put this—perhaps a less boisterous atmosphere in which to ask a question.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in particular led the charge of complaint about this consultation. I understand that many of your Lordships did not like the fact that a majority of noble Lords voted in the way that they did. I would say to the noble Lord and to others that it is surprising the number of noble Lords who have come to me and said, “How refreshing to be consulted in this way; what an innovation. It hasn’t happened quite this way before. Are you sure you’re not going to turn into a radical Senior Deputy Speaker?”
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
I thought that might amuse a few.
We did genuinely want to hear—and I say the word “genuinely” very seriously—what the feel of the House was. One of the things we have all missed is distinguishing the mood of the House. What are the shrill voices with a pet subject? What is the general context in which the mood of the House gathers as we try to do things well?
The number of noble Lords who took part in the consultation on this question was 551. A clear majority favoured having lists, and that majority informed the committee’s decision about what to propose to the House. I hope this is very clear: it is, of course, a decision for the House itself to take. As a committee, we took a responsible line. There were so many different views at the debate on 20 May and we wanted your Lordships to express a view so that, in our mind, we could be responsible in bringing something back that we thought might meet the mood of the House at the moment, and I stress the words “at the moment”.
As I have said, the effect of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is to mandate a review of this decision by 31 October. I respectfully suggest that the amendment is not necessary, given that the committee is committed to reviewing this and other arrangements after we have had some experience of their operation. Only five sitting weeks are likely to have taken place by the noble Lord’s deadline, within which I assume the committee would also need to have conducted its review. With a majority of 97, the result of the consultation—I repeat that it was a consultation—was clear, but the committee’s report states that the operation of speakers’ lists will be kept under review. I say particularly to the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, that we can gauge the effect of operating lists, noting of course that lists will not extend to Private Notice Questions, Urgent Question repeats and Statement repeats, so we will all be able to compare and contrast within the dynamics of the House meeting in person.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, would ask the committee to produce proposals for a Commons-style Question Time, with the Lord Speaker given the role of selecting and calling noble Lords to ask questions, rather than operating on either self-regulation or the list system as proposed by the committee. As with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, the committee would be charged with presenting the alternative by 31 October. The noble Lord’s proposal is a fundamental one: moving your Lordships’ House from self-regulation to what, in effect, would be regulation by the Woolsack. Today’s Motions are about the return from the hybrid House, alongside the changes that the committee recommends should be retained. Before we take any further steps, I suggest to your Lordships that we should see how the House responds to the list system for some Questions and self-regulation for Urgent Questions, PNQs and Statements. I believe that is a good basis on which we can make some sound consideration.
As well as the constitutional and procedural dimension to the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, there are some important practical aspects that I believe I should pose. Our Chamber is not the same as that in the other place. The position of the Table places the clerks at a considerable distance from the Woolsack, unlike in the Commons where they sit in front of the Speaker’s Chair, for accessing officials’ advice. Even with the wonders of instant messaging technology, this would be more challenging without work to reorganise our Chamber. The Lord Speaker sitting on the Woolsack is also, with no disrespect, much less well placed to see noble Lords in all corners of the Chamber than is Mr Speaker from his raised position in the Chair. None of these points would be insurmountable, but I do not want the House to consider that making the change proposed by the noble Lord is simple or straightforward. My view is that we should first look at how we return to the House, and see how the House fares, before we make decisions such as that.
A number of other very important points were made by noble Lords, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Goudie and Lady Tyler of Enfield. We will continue to follow public health rules and guidance. The important question of eligibility for virtual participation has been under consideration by the commission. It has been agreed that requests should be considered by the additional support group. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, that this was a group established by the commission last year to decide on requests for additional financial support from Members with disabilities. It was felt that this group would be well placed to consider requests for virtual participation as well. I will chair that group alongside the three Chief Whips and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. I understand that some Peers may wish to avail themselves of this eligibility in readiness for 6 September. We will make sure we circulate details for requests for continued remote participation very shortly, in the next day or so.
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who I was delighted to meet 10 days ago. He made a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, made as well. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, also raised this in terms of the integral nature of all Members of this House and the work they undertake. If we are not doing this as well as we should—and there is always room for improvement—we need to find ways of ensuring that all Members, particularly those with long-term disabilities, see coming to the House as a natural way of engaging. At no point do any of us want the message to be that remote voting is the option for those noble Lords. We gain so much from their presence in this House, but we also recognise that we need to ensure that when their disability is such that they cannot attend, they are in a position not only to vote but to participate wherever that is possible.
Further work is being done on ventilation. The main ventilation in committees is fresh air—an interesting point to make in London. The level of ventilation in the Chamber and a selection of Lords Committee Rooms has been assessed by the monitoring as satisfactory, but it was a well-made point that it is something we should always consider.
On the point the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised about degrouping, we deliberately used the word “discourage”. For the assistance of the House and of all noble Lords, in particular the Opposition Front Bench—which perhaps does not have some of the support mechanisms that the Government Front Bench has—degrouping is unreasonable unless there is a really strong reason for it. That is why we brought that forward. Again, it is for the smooth running of the House and the certainty of your Lordships.
On the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we deliberately said that all noble Lords voting using PeerHub will be asked by the system to confirm that they are voting from a place of work on the Parliamentary Estate. They will be able to proceed to cast their vote only if they confirm that they are. I would be remiss if I did not draw all noble Lords’ attention to the existing requirement in the code for us all to act on our
“personal honour in the performance of”
our “parliamentary duties and activities”.
We should all be mindful, clearly, that we are voting for the laws of this land. This needs to be an event that we take with due seriousness. I think noble Lords should, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, understand that a place of work means, overwhelmingly, as it says, on the Parliamentary Estate. That is what we decided was the best way of defining this. I know it is not precise, but we thought this was the most pragmatic way for this interim system. Committees are in a position to decide for themselves when they meet, and remote witnesses have undoubtedly worked very well.
I am reminded by the Whip that I should conclude. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and assure your Lordships that the Procedure and Privileges Committee will continue to reflect on the points made about how the House works. My purpose and that of the committee is to enable your Lordships and our work to flourish. Following the debate on 20 May and many discussions, we have sought to bring forward a series of Motions that we believe will be helpful to the House—not just to noble Lords but to our excellent staff. The Motions in my name and that of the Lord Privy Seal return the House, as from 6 September, to its original procedures, with some important innovations. We have responded, rightly, to the request that Peers with a long-term disability should have the opportunity to participate remotely when they wish.
I seek noble Lords’ approval, constantly mindful that we should always consider where we might do things better. That is why we will need to reflect on and consider many of the points made by noble Lords. Your Lordships’ committee seeks noble Lords’ approval in our joint endeavours to assist your Lordships in fulfilling their vital role in the national discourse and their constitutional duties. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to withdraw his amendment and invite your Lordships to support the Motions tabled in my name and that of the Lord Privy Seal.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, there is a great deal of support in the House for the idea of meeting and adjourning earlier, so I am going to press this amendment. I urge colleagues who support that principle, even if they have somewhat refined ways of doing it, to vote for this, because it is a complete delusion to think that an alternative proposal will come forward any time soon. Perfect moments for reform of the House of Lords come forward about once a century so, if noble Lords pass this opportunity by, it may be that their grandchildren have an opportunity to vote on a new proposal. If a noble Lord is a hereditary Peer and the hereditary Peer by-elections continue, they may even be able to participate in that decision, but the likelihood is that none of us will be able to.
Nothing was further from my thoughts than that I would be denying the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, his lunch. I will take an opportunity after the debate to introduce the noble Lord to the concept of the sandwich. It has a long aristocratic pedigree; it was invented 300 years ago by an Earl. It is not quite as old as Lincoln Cathedral—about a third as old, by my calculations. It enables one to reconcile lunch with fulfilling one’s duties in the House in the early afternoon.
Lord Cormack
At end insert “but that this House regrets the recommendation to have speakers’ lists for oral questions and believes further consideration should be given to this matter by 31 October at the latest.”
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am rather gratified by that result, but not for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, indicated. I feel that one thing that will now survive is the Long Table. One of the greatest features of your Lordships’ House is its collegiate spirit, and nowhere is that better exemplified—and nowhere is there better conversation, which often influences many people—than at the Long Table.
I listened very carefully to the debate and, like many of your Lordships, I heard every speech, and I am persuaded that, because we will have Statements and Urgent Questions taken in the old manner, there will be a proper opportunity for the House to compare and contrast. I accept the assurances given by both the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble that this will be kept under review.
I accept the good reasons why the opinion poll, as I called it, was taken. It was not a decision of the House, but I think that it would be more sensible not to press this amendment to a Division today and to allow the review to take place. I very much hope that this will show that Questions are not the bear pit that some have suggested and that it is possible to run them in a very civilised and sensible way, as they normally were, although they occasionally got out of hand. I therefore will not move my amendment.
Lord Balfe
At end insert “but that this House believes that the Lord Speaker should call members during oral questions, in a manner similar to that which pertains in the House of Commons; and calls on the Procedure and Privileges Committee to consider this matter and report by 31 October at the latest.”
Lord Balfe (Con)
I am afraid I am not going to be as helpful as my noble friend Lord Cormack. Some interesting points have been made during this debate. One of the most interesting is the fact that this proposal has been around for many years; indeed, I understand it was considered in 2006, when it was decided that it would not be quite this much of a regulated House.
I tabled a very reasoned amendment, which gives until 31 October for the points to be sorted out. The amendment
“calls on the Procedure and Privileges Committee to consider this matter and report”—
not to agree it but to consider it—because I think we need to consider the way forward for this House. I am gratified that a number of noble Lords have indicated their support and, on their behalf as much as mine, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this quite fundamental way of us going forward.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The question will be decided by a remote Division. I instruct the clerk to start a remote Division.
The remote voting period is now open. Members are now invited to record their votes using the remote voting system. Members will have 10 minutes to record their votes. I will make an announcement when the remote voting period has ended. Clear the Bar.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, there were technical problems with the Division system, but I am told it is now functioning so I will extend the Division by three minutes.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Can I just check with the Lord Speaker: if people have already voted, is that taken as a vote? Is there a way of putting the extension on the screen, and extending it for more than three minutes, as a number of Members have left the Chamber thinking they were unable to vote? I am not convinced that an extra three minutes is long enough.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The votes of those who have voted will be recorded. Why do we not go for 10 minutes? Is that okay? Very good.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Can a message be put on the screen that the vote is still open for the next 10 minutes, please?
Business of the House
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That with effect from 6 September the previous motions agreed on 4 June 2020, 28 July 2020, 12 October 2020 and 9 February relating to the sittings of the hybrid House and the hybrid Grand Committee shall cease to have effect; and that until further notice:
(1) the provisions of Standing Orders 52 (Divisions), 53 (Votes counted in the House) and 54 (Voting in wrong lobby) shall not apply; and
(2) members may only cast their votes through the House of Lords remote voting system, in accordance with guidance set out in appendix 2 of the First Report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee (HL Paper 41).
Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the standing orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
Insert the following new Standing Order:
“24A Arrangements for virtual participation by disabled members [13 July 2021]
(1) Members who may be physically unable to attend the House on grounds of long-term disability and may be eligible under the procedure agreed by the Commission can apply for eligible member status and if granted they may choose to participate virtually in proceedings in the Chamber.
(2) Eligible members may choose to participate virtually in all business of which there is sufficient notice:
(i) in business with a speakers’ list, eligible members should indicate that they wish to take part remotely when signing-up to speak;
(ii) in business without a speakers’ list, eligible members should indicate their wish to take part remotely by a given time the previous working day. In such business there will be a fixed point at which eligible members participating remotely are called to speak by the Chair.
(3) Eligible members may vote electronically or by telephone whether on or off the Parliamentary Estate.”
Allowances
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That:
(1) The Resolution of the House of 22 July 2020 (House of Lords Allowance), the Resolution of the House of 6 May 2020 (House of Lords Allowance) (as amended), and the Resolution of the House of 20 July 2010 (House of Lords Allowance) (as amended) cease to have effect in respect of attendances after 5 September 2021.
(2) Members of this House, except any Member who receives a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, should be entitled to an allowance in respect of each day of attendance on or after 6 September 2021 as provided for below.
(3) “Attendance” means attendance—
(a) at a sitting of this House,
(b) at a meeting or virtual meeting of a Committee of this House, or
(c) on such other Parliamentary business as may be determined by the House of Lords Commission.
(4) The amount of the allowance payable to a Member should be–—
(a) £323, or
(b) £162, if paragraph 5 applies.
(5) This paragraph applies if—
(a) the attendance relates to parliamentary business conducted away from Westminster, or
(b) the attendance is at Westminster but the Member elects that this paragraph should apply.
(6) In respect of attendance under paragraph 3(a), Members who have been deemed eligible by the process established by the Commission to participate virtually in sittings of the House are entitled to claim an allowance when they do so.
(7) In respect of attendance under paragraph 3(b), only Members of that Committee, or Members authorised to attend a meeting of such a Committee by the Chair, are entitled to claim an allowance.
(8) The provisions of this Resolution apply in accordance with guidance issued under the authority of the House of Lords Commission.
(9) In relation to the year beginning with 1 April 2022, and each subsequent year beginning with 1 April—
(a) any formula or mechanism included in the IPSA determination for the year as a result of section 4A(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 (adjustment of MPs’ salaries) should be treated as applying for the purposes of adjusting for that year the amount of the allowance payable to a Member of this House, and
(b) accordingly, the amount of the allowance payable to a Member in respect of a day of attendance in that year should be—
(i) the amount obtained by applying the formula or mechanism to the amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year, or
(ii) where no formula or mechanism is included in the determination, the same amount payable by way of allowance (under paragraph 4 or this paragraph) in the previous year.
(10) In paragraph 9(a) “IPSA determination” means a determination under section 4(4) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.
(11) Any fraction of a pound in an amount obtained under paragraph 9(b)(i) should be rounded up to the nearest pound if the fraction is 50p or more, but otherwise should be disregarded.
Early Years Foundation Stage (Miscellaneous Amendments) and Childcare Fees (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:05 - Division conducted remotely on Lord Watson of Invergowrie’s Motion - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 232 - Motion disagreed.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
That this House regrets that the Early Years Foundation Stage (Miscellaneous Amendments) and Childcare Fees (Amendment) Regulations 2021 introduces the Reception Baseline Assessment that takes effect in September 2021, when the workload of teachers will be significant, schools will be focused on re-opening, and special attention will need to be paid to those children who were unable to develop their language skills because of social isolation during the pandemic; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to provide schools with the flexibility to defer implementation of the Reception Baseline Assessment for the cohort of children starting Reception this year until January 2022.
Relevant document: 53rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2019-21 (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I make no apology for the wording of this regret Motion being based on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, which very clearly set out the concerns felt by committee members after they had considered these regulations and their effect.
I want to make it clear that in tabling this regret Motion we are not anti-assessment. Assessment in schools is integral to measuring a child’s progress, which at this time is more important than ever. However, the reception baseline assessment that is the subject of these regulations does not assess, nor is it intended to, the progress of children—at least, not within a timeframe that would enable any improvements to be made. It is not a diagnostic assessment; it is designed as a data-collection exercise, with the data collected used to measure the progress of a child from reception to the end of key stage 2. The information will be locked away for a period of seven years, then used to measure school performance. The results will not be given to parents or teachers, other than a “narrative statement” with comments such as “the child recognised fewer than 10 numbers”.
The purpose of the baseline assessment is to produce a score by which the Government claim it will be possible to measure the quality of education. That ignores the views of experts such as the British Educational Research Association, which has said it is not possible to test four year-olds and get reliable data.
The Government say that the aims of the changes are
“to improve outcomes for all children at age 5, especially disadvantaged children and to reduce teacher and practitioner workload so that more time can be spent interacting with children in their care.”
There is nothing to disagree with there, but the baseline assessment was designed prior to the pandemic—an event that has disrupted children’s education and development in ways that could not have been foreseen and which will increase the extent to which children from disadvantaged families arrive at school less well-prepared than their more affluent counterparts. If the Government had said that the intention was to identify those children and provide them with specific, targeted help, that would have been welcome, because none of the paltry recovery funding that caused Sir Kevan Collins to resign is to be spent on under-fives.
The baseline assessment cannot be properly evaluated until 2028, when the first cohort tested at reception has taken their key stage 2 SATs. Perhaps the Minister can provide her understanding of how a 20-minute snapshot test taken at the age of four can be compared with the results of three days of tests taken under exam conditions at the age of 11, particularly when school cohorts can change markedly from reception to year 6. Children move schools, as do teachers and school leaders. The child’s unique pupil number will follow them, but if they begin at one school and move to another, perhaps even to a third, how can the school at either end of that process be measured?
Reception teachers will still carry out their own observation-based assessments over a period of weeks to gain a comprehensive and holistic picture of what each pupil can do. This will provide better information than anything gained from a snapshot 20-minute test. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised questions as to the various stages of development at which children present on their first day at school. For instance, a difference in age has been shown to produce pronounced developmental differences. Autumn-born children have demonstrated a strong advantage in attainment over their younger, summer-born peers in assessments similar to the one proposed.
I hope that the Minister can tell us what recognition will be given to contextual factors in the interpretation of the data. It is generally recognised that the only proper way to make comparisons between schools is to make adjustments for the prior attainments of their pupils when they enter those schools, and to control for other relevant characteristics of pupil intakes such as parents’ educational levels, family income and having English as an additional language. Such adjustments lead to what are known as value-added comparisons, a term that the Government have used in relation to the baseline assessment.
We are told that the assessment will be
“covering material that many pupils will already be familiar with.”
No doubt some will be familiar with that material, depending on what they have previously been taught, but what about those children who have not had the same experiences at home or in an early years setting? Children whose background experiences have not prepared them to answer the maths and English questions may have high levels of curiosity, motivation, and persistence, which will help them to make rapid progress in school, but the test cannot measure such things, nor can it measure motor skills.
When Schools Minister Nick Gibb MP began to experience pushback against the baseline assessment he wrote to all Conservative MPs to explain why it was happening and attached a factsheet in response to criticisms. The burden of administering the test was written off as being carried out “in normal teaching time”, but it is far from normal for teachers to spend many classroom hours in the crucial first weeks of reception taking children aside one-to-one to ask them structured questions. What will be the experience of the other 29 children during that time? That is why a delay is necessary.
Just last month, the Department for Education published a thematic report from the international early learning study, Young Children’s Development and Deprivation in England. It confirms that both family and school deprivation are related to lower development in emergent literacy, emergent numeracy and mental flexibility. It provides clear evidence that by measuring children’s numeracy and literacy outcomes, the baseline assessment is actually providing a proxy for measures of deprivation. That is particularly the case in the light of the pandemic, which should have occasioned a review of the baseline assessment on the grounds that the basis for the baseline has shifted, and certainly not in a positive way, for so many four year-olds. There is no shortage of evidence as to the significant impact on early years children, particularly those from disadvantaged families.
Teachers are currently planning for reception intakes of pupils who in many cases will not be school-ready. Teachers are having to modify their approaches and will be making continuous assessments, using their professional judgment, of the children in front of them. Requiring pupils to complete a baseline assessment at this time could be enormously challenging. A delay would give teachers time to prepare and enable them to focus on supporting children who faced a pared-down early years education. In preparation for these regulations, an equality assessment was conducted in January 2020. That is now hopelessly out of date. What steps have Ministers taken to satisfy themselves that the baseline assessment is now a fair measure, given the new set of challenges and the increased inequalities created in early years as a result of the pandemic?
If the baseline assessment is being used as a form of measurement with which to judge progress made during primary school, would it not make more sense to delay the process to help avoid a situation whereby pupils are producing results that are not reflective of their abilities due to education lost to the pandemic? Is it realistic to expect that a baseline assessment conducted in autumn 2021 is going to be useful or reflective of anything normal, let alone as a measure of progress in 2028? A delay would help support recovery in a way that is manageable for teachers and meaningful for children. With the reception baseline assessments set to be introduced in less than two months, those are all questions that parents are entitled to hear the Minister answer. I look forward to her response. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the more that I have thought about the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, who did a pretty good job in assessing what is happening, the more I cannot see why we are approving these regulations at all, to be perfectly honest. Unless we are going to use the information more quickly than after seven years, or whatever the period is, it will not make much difference to the pupils. Anything that does not make any difference for them but takes up teaching time is counterproductive, I should have thought.
If you are making an assessment in order to have a lovely idea of where pupils are and how a school is changing, seven years is a hell of a long time. How many head teachers will still be in place at the end of that period? How many teachers will have changed? That is relevant. What have we learned in the past 18 months or two years? What has been confirmed? Parents usually decide the start a child gets in life and the way in which that continues. If a child has had a disrupted school experience but has parents who will read to them, who have books in the house and who make sure that that child is not spending their entire time watching TV but watching even slightly better programmes, reading a book or listening to something on tape, that child will do better than children who do not get that. Therefore, affluence, aspiration and so on are the dominant factors.
These proposals are not going to tell us much. They will be introduced at a time when schools are going to have one of the weirdest ever and most varied intakes of pupils. All the normal conditions will have a multiplier on them. That is what we are saying. If the Government are hell-bent on bringing in these regulations for whatever reason, I suggest that some delay, even by a year, would make sense because you will still get the data and a more normal response. Bringing in the regulations now, rather than in a few months’ time, does not make any sense, to be honest.
There is some suggestion that areas such as language skills and special educational needs can be assessed. I cannot let that go without saying that there is a variety of categories of special educational needs, some of which are neurological and some are not. The assessments will not really help because people will be struggling in the dark again. We know that those from less affluent backgrounds are not spotted because of all the issues upon which I have already commented. If a child does not have good verbal reasoning and therefore cannot express themselves, the difference between what that child can achieve on paper or verbally cannot be assessed. That may be down to the environment, which has, I say once again, been disrupted.
There seems to be no good reason for these proposals, other than for assessing the general development of a school over a period. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, is right in calling for a delay but he might have been a little timorous on the amount of delay required.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I remind you of my interests in respect of education, in particular that I am chair-elect of E-ACT academy group, which has a number of primary schools.
My understanding of the tests is that classroom teachers in reception will spend 20 to 30 minutes one to one with a child, who may be aged four years and a day, or four years and 364 days—which is a huge age range in relative terms, if you have been alive only that long—recording the answers to questions in respect of literacy and maths and so on that have been devised by the National Foundation for Educational Research. Teachers will record them as faithfully as they can, and the questions are adaptable, so they will change according to the answers given. If my understanding is incorrect, I would welcome the Minister letting me know.
I can see the temptation for Ministers to put a baseline at the beginning of primary in order to be able to measure the success of primary schools. Ministers in the past have been tempted; the Labour Government that I was a member of had a go at this, and it was withdrawn, and there was a pilot of this relatively recently, which was also withdrawn. In the end it is always withdrawn because it does not really work, so I am hugely sympathetic to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and very supportive of my noble friend Lord Watson and his Motion.
If this was about child development, I could support the regulations because, like my noble friend, I believe in the importance of assessment as a fundamental part of teaching, but it must be assessment for learning. The problems always come when you redouble the use of that assessment for accountability. In this case, it is not being used for learning and child development at all. We are not measuring any of the physical, social and emotional aspects of a child; we are just measuring some of the cognitive ones as best we can, given the huge range of capability that children of that age have.
The results will not be shared with parents, nor really with teachers, and I do not really understand how that will work in data protection terms. Indeed, I think the Information Commissioner is still waiting to hear how withholding the results from parents will work in data protection terms. It is not at all about child development; it is solely about accountability. Can it work on that basis? Can it work with the variety of results that children of that age will be able to produce?
Given the very different experiences of preschool learning—especially in this coming year—and a decline in the numbers able to attend nursery education during Covid, I see huge variability in what we will get. You get children moving schools during the primary phase, because it is a long phase, and the more churn you have in the school environment the more the results and the accountability measure for the school will get skewed. I foresee that a head teacher who is cynical or anxious about accountability will want to pull in as many summer-born children as possible because they will come in low on the scores, so that they can maximise progress. I foresee that same anxious head teacher looking at children who want to come in after the baseline assessment has taken place and looking anxiously at whether they are likely to be under or over the baseline average for the school because that, in the end, will affect accountability.
Those issues are all really problematic. Then there are the issues of the data itself. The data will be recorded and will be relatively secret but, as I understand it, it will then link to the national pupil database. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how that and the fair processing regulations around data will work. I am afraid that the Department for Education does not have a very good record with the Information Commissioner on the handling of personal data. Quite a significant amount of personal data about children will be held. Can the Minister reassure those listening that that data will never be made available to commercial interests, about which there have been some questions asked of the Department for Education in the past? I am concerned about reliability.
I offer an alternative to the Minister, if she wants this sort of accountability school by school. You can use samples of tests; you can choose to sample a number of children in a school, which is cheaper and quicker. You are not taking teachers out of class for quite as long. If it takes 20 minutes—I cannot remember the maths—it becomes something like 10 hours of lost teacher time, right at the beginning of the school year, when it is most important to spend time getting a child socialised and used to being in school. You would lose less time if you did sampling. It would be cheaper and you would still have reasonable results, which would be just as reliable as the slightly dodgy, unreliable things that this test would produce.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, there are issues around SEND, special educational needs and disabilities, and whether they will properly be accounted for in the adaptive questioning that will be carried out, because you need quite high levels of adaptive questioning in the system as it is being designed.
From my point of view, I do not think this will work. If the Minister really believes that it can work, she or her department need to take time to look at this and answer some of the questions before bringing it in. September is definitely not a safe and reliable time to bring it in, so I urge her to listen to the Motion and, if it is pressed, I will support it.
Baroness D’Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, once again the issue of monitoring and evaluation is upon us, this time to measure a child’s progress throughout his or her primary school years. But, as we know, there are flaws in all measuring systems, and in the reception baseline assessment more than most. It is based on the mistaken and unproven assumption that all four to five year-olds can be tested as a reasonably uniform group. We know this not to be true: very young children do not display their true abilities in a context outside familiar relationships and practical experience. For this reason alone, the reception baseline assessment arises from a false premise—that variation between children is a negligible factor and that difference between schools overrides socioeconomic background influences.
I am therefore led to believe that the decision to implement the baseline assessment in the new school year, in September, is purely political or has that context. The conclusion must be that the baseline assessment has been created to compare schools and their performances, not the individual achievements of children. As such, it is clearly a political and somewhat arbitrary decision, not one based on relevant and recent research.
The British Educational Research Association concludes that
“too much reliance is being given to test data that cannot bear the weight of interpretation placed upon them”.
Many noble Lords have made and will continue to make these points, but it seems extraordinary that, in times of such concern about our children and the severe difficulties that the pandemic has posed for many of them—increased poverty and all that implies, catch-up and mental health issues—this effectively takes teachers away from their primary task of building relationships with four to five year-olds. That the Government plan to expend £9.8 million on a baseline assessment programme is, to my mind, not a good use of money and somewhat extraordinary.
Would that sum not be better spent on appointing an overall senior figure, preferably at Cabinet level, to co-ordinate the many excellent projects from expert organisations, including the Education Select Committee; and to ensure that the DfE spends its scarce resources wisely and, most importantly, effectively to support the education of children from early years, and does not waste precious time and money on assessments that will prove nothing of value? At the very least, in view of the criticisms that have already been made, and no doubt will be made, in this debate, will the Government not agree to delay the implementation of this faulty plan for a few years to come?
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, it is pleasure to speak in the debate alongside my noble friend Lord Knight and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. As a former teacher, I can say categorically and without fear of contradiction that I am not anti- assessment, which is a central part of the teaching and learning process, but reception baseline assessment has very few friends and supporters. A teacher who engaged in an earlier iteration of this process described baseline assessment in no uncertain terms. She said it was unreliable, unethical, immoral and expensive, and that it should go once and for all. That is not the proposal before your Lordships’ House today, but it is worth considering why any early years professional should feel like this and how widespread that feeling is.
Is it unreliable? The British Educational Research Association, a highly regarded body, points out that assessing very young children—we are talking here about four year-olds, who have been locked down during this pandemic—is inherently unreliable. As the BERA report points out, any results would have
“little predictive power and dubious validity”.
Is it unethical? The reception baseline assessment is an accountability measure whose sole purpose is to judge the performance of schools. It is not to assist any child in any way at all. What is provided by the test is explicitly of no diagnostic value. They are to be used only as a cohort measure and the data will be used only at the end of year 6, as other noble Lords have said, to measure school-level progress. Yet, as other noble Lords have also said, over seven years a school cohort could change by up to 50%. Trying to reflect all the various changes accurately in any kind of algorithm could never really do so properly. Previous experience of the ill-fated and discredited algorithm for GCSEs demonstrates this. The current legislation also provides no information on the precise use to which the data will be put, other than that it will be entered on the national pupil database. Can the Minister expand beyond saying that it will be black-boxed?
Is it immoral? I am sure we all know that the first few days and weeks in a reception class are important for establishing, supporting, encouraging and nurturing relationships between children and their families and the team of early years professionals. But 69% of teachers involved in a 2019 pilot believed that the tests had had a negative impact on the settling-in period, which is not surprising when one realises that the teacher has to leave the classroom for 20 to 30 minutes at a time to conduct these tests with each child. For a class of 30, that could represent up to 15 hours of teaching time lost in those first important days of term.
However hard the teacher tries, though, according to University College London research, children know that they are being tested. This leads to some becoming anxious and feeling stressed, and to some possibly even feeling a sense of failure. That is a pretty inauspicious start to an education for any child.
Finally, is it expensive? My noble friend Lord Knight has already referred to the fact that if this were needed, we could do it much more cheaply by simply sampling. There is plenty of academic research on that being a suitable way of recording what cohorts can do. In my view, however, teacher time ought to be more highly valued than it is at present. I am sure it will be argued that the reception baseline assessment will reduce teacher workload, particularly in comparison with the early years foundation stage profile.
It is true that the early years foundation stage profile takes a lot of teacher time, but it is valuable teacher time productively spent. Frankly, any money spent on this reception baseline assessment system, which has attracted an open letter from 700 experts, educationists and parent groups describing the government plans as “pointless and damaging”, alongside an expert panel from BERA describing the assessment as
“flawed, unjustified and totally unfit for purpose”,
looks like a significant waste of resources, however much it is.
Research from University College London in 2020 showed that 86% of head teachers have negative opinions about reception baseline assessment, and research from More Than a Score, a campaigning organisation with which I have worked, found that 65% of parents are opposed to the testing of four year-olds as they start school. This should not be how children start the important lifelong learning journey on which they should engage. It is simply not appropriate.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
This Motion expresses regret at many aspects of the Government’s approach to education and I wish to express my regret over an issue that does not fall directly under the rubric of the Motion but which is nevertheless a matter of prime importance. It is a matter that I have already raised with the Minister, to whom I have sent a substantial dossier, and with whom I have requested a meeting, although as yet with no response.
On 22 February, I asked the Government what estimate they have made of the proportion of teacher posts in London and elsewhere in England that are currently filled by supply teacher agencies. I was told that the department does not hold data, but that nevertheless it is recognised that supply teachers perform a valuable role by covering temporary staff absences. What the Department for Education seems to have failed to recognise is that in England, many—if not the majority of—young teachers who are beginning their careers work as supply teachers, who are paid for the hours that they work. The fees charged by their agencies reduce their wages significantly. Schools have an incentive to employ supply teachers because this relieves them of the need to provide holiday or sickness pay, a consideration when budgets are tight. It also facilitates financial retrenchment, since they can more easily reduce staffing costs by releasing the supply teachers.
These circumstances have arisen at a time when local authorities have been losing control of the governance of the profession, through the rise of independent schools and academies. Hitherto, local authorities were the agents that supplied teachers to schools. Nowadays in England teachers are supplied by commercial agencies which have incentives that are not always well aligned with the best interests of education.
By coincidence, the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, has received notice of a statutory instrument that proposes a 10% reduction in the hours to be worked by early-career teachers. This is intended as a means of reducing the wastage whereby a large proportion of young teachers leave the profession within a few years. This allowance is confined to those who have obtained permanent posts, who are in the minority, and it does not take much thought to understand that it poses a disincentive to appoint teachers to permanent posts. I marvel at the obtuseness of the officials at the Department for Education who have proposed this policy. I regret that I did not take the opportunity to pour scorn and derision on it in a Grand Committee, when it could have been called into question.
In response to an inquiry from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee relating to the statutory instrument, the Department for Education stated:
“Supply agencies … are private companies and as such have discretion over individual pay—the teacher’s terms and conditions (including pay) will be a matter between the supply teacher and the agency by which they are employed.”
This seems to indicate that in the present circumstances, neither the Government nor the local authorities have any leverage to apply to the problem. They are simply ignoring the problem. I believe that the circumstances that are revealed are undermining the teaching profession and are the principal cause of the wastage whereby a large proportion of young teachers leave the profession within a few years of joining.
There is an urgent need to address this problem and I believe that some steps that could be taken are self-evident. I would welcome an opportunity to acquaint the officials at the Department for Education with the devastating facts that I have learned. I also hope to discuss with them the possible remedies.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, as happens all too often in these debates, I find myself beginning with the regret that the regret Motion is not something stronger. None the less, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, for tabling this Motion and ensuring that the House has the chance to air these issues.
I start from a very different philosophical position from that of the noble Lord, Lord Watson. I believe that tests and exams are a harmful part of our system. They are far too dominant, consuming vast hours wastefully in preparation and cramming, and are a major contributor to mental ill-health. To what purpose? They test how well you do tests and exams and little more. I can say that from personal experience, having over the years got high marks in subjects of which I knew little to nothing, simply by working out what I needed to do for the test, rote learning it and forgetting it as I walked out the door of the exam room. I am not proud of that, but that is what the education system taught me to do.
For many people, we know that tests and exams are a hugely stressful, damaging experience, in which they cannot show their true colours, skills, talents, ability or knowledge. In the modern world, with search engines at your fingertips and the need to think creatively, critically and flexibly, they are particularly poorly equipped as any kind of preparation for life—a life that will require you to co-operate with others rather than compete against them. Preparation for life is what our education system should be, not just exams.
Some of those arguments will not apply to these tests. One would hope that they will not be stressful and that there would not be cramming for them, although, given the panicked competition some parents feel and the pressure on teachers, that cannot by any means be guaranteed. None the less, there are powerful arguments against them and the strongest was made to me some years ago by a school head in North Yorkshire when these tests were first mooted. She said: “I don’t want to start children’s school lives by damaging them with a test”, surprising herself, I think, as she found herself near to tears at the thought. That is a view I have subsequently heard from many caring teachers and expert scholars, and is reflected in the briefings that I and, I am sure, many others have received.
The More Than a Score campaign group—in which I declare an interest as I work with it regularly—notes the utter senselessness of testing four year-olds. You could run the same test three days running and get three utterly different results: it depends on how the child is feeling at the time. I note too that the petition against reception baseline assessment had 112,000 signatures.
For many children standardised tests are utterly unsuitable: those with special educational needs, with English as a second language or, as we all know too well, with the massive, indefensibly ridiculous disadvantage of a summer birthday—a great flaw in our rigidly age-straitjacketed educational system. The settling-in period for primary school is different for different children. For some it is a great adventure, for others it is a terrifying ordeal no matter how much care and compassion they are shown. That is definitely going to show in the test results.
I note that the British Educational Research Association expert panel questioned the accuracy of the data and how it could be used to support children's learning, stating that these tests cannot be “accurate or fair”. Under normal conditions, in the early weeks as children start, schools make assessments of their educational needs. But they do it in a non-intrusive and continuous way, using the teacher’s professional judgement rather than a one-off binary test in which answers are recorded as “yes” or “no”, with no space for comments.
There is also a further risk of damage in reducing the time for play. We know that play is crucial for the development of children’s linguistic and cognitive skills, as well as beneficial for well-being and self-regulation. If you have a class of 30 taking 30 minutes for each test, that is 15 hours of lost teaching time in the first few weeks, not including the time spent preparing for the assessment and recording the results.
I also wish to add my voice to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, noting that we have no guarantee that this data will not be sold to commercial organisations. In the Minister’s answer could we have that guarantee?
It is telling that we are being told that this aims to close the attainment gap, yet there is absolutely no evidence of how it might do that. We do have a huge problem with the attainment gap, reflecting the fact that levels of inequality—and poverty—in our society are extraordinarily wide. Schools can help, of course, but they cannot fix this problem. The only certain way to reduce the attainment gap is to end poverty and reduce inequality.
This test does nothing at all for teachers or pupils. It is designed and intended solely as a system measure. It is, therefore, all about the data and not about the child. I seem to have taken part in a lot of medical debates in your Lordships’ House in the past year. One of the phrases that comes up again and again in those is “First do no harm”. The proposal for these baseline reception assessments does harm and there is no evidence of benefit.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that we should not use Covid as a reason for delaying the introduction of these tests, as strong as that reason is. We should simply abandon the whole misguided idea of reception baseline assessments. They are, like far too many things we see from this Government, a piece of theatre—a simulacrum of action, rather than an effective delivery of change. That would require actual resources, funding and support for schools—action to tackle the poverty and inequality that are the cause of the attainment gap.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s regret Motion but, like other noble Lords, I go further and say that never is the right time to introduce these absurd baseline tests for four year-olds. They should be allowed to wither on the vine. But this is all on a par with Michael Gove’s introduction of rigid exam systems, built on by Nick Gibb’s rote learning and testing, rather than the development of skills that would be useful to pupils in later lives and work, and actually stimulating during their school years.
I recall Ed Balls deciding there was too much testing in education and withdrawing the SATs for key stage 3—for 13-year-olds. They were pointless and have not been missed. We are all aware that SATs increase stress for the pupils who undertake them and the staff who run them, and we are aware of the perverse incentives they give to head teachers. In what way does this improve the education of young people? As the More Than a Score campaign group has put it,
“statutory tests have been cancelled for two years now with zero negative impact on pupils’ education or on school performance. Paradoxically, while their absence has barely registered, their presence creates unwarranted stress on young children and schools, narrows the curriculum, and generates a fear of failure within the whole school community”,
and, as I said, they lead to perverse behaviour by head teachers under pressure.
Has anyone heard from parents, staff or children a cry of, “Oh no, we didn’t have year 2 or year 6 SATs?” No, because they are pointless. It is interesting that private schools do not have to do SATs. In 2018 it was calculated that only 18% of them do so. Schools that have the choice do not generally use them; state schools do not get that choice. Yet the Government now want to introduce the additional test for children starting school at the age of four—and they seem to think that September, after 18 months of Covid restrictions, which have had a big negative impact on the development of children, is the right time to implement this.
Looking at Covid, we know that childcare settings and support have been closed or limited and that parents are under intense pressure and often less able to devote time to the development of their preschool children because of the pressure to support the education of school-age children. We know that half of parents questioned said that their child was not spending time playing with friends in their home, meaning that they were missing out on vital socialising skills. How on earth could the Government think that this is the right time to introduce such a deeply flawed approach to education? Why would anyone want schools across the country to devote time to these baseline assessments rather than support young children often worse prepared for formal education than their predecessors?
The Government have said that each child will need to be assessed by a teacher for 20 to 30 minutes to collect data for the Minister’s department. This data will not benefit the child in any way. For a class of 30 children, that is a minimum of 10 hours’ learning time in the first weeks of school. It could be 15 hours. The data will not be used to support children. As we have heard, it will be used by the DfE to judge the school. The data will be collected by teachers at just the time when they should be settling young children into the school environment, not wasting their time testing them.
We know that there are serious questions about the reliability of these tests based on pilot testing. My noble friend Lord Knight speaks with great authority on that. We have already heard about the educational experts who have written to the Government about the RBA, saying that it was pointless and damaging. I know that this Government distrust experts, because they want to hear only prejudice. Is it not time, however, that they listened to the evidence and began to trust teachers and head teachers?
Kevin Courtney, joint general-secretary of the NEU said:
“In yet another end-of-term announcement, the government is confronting schools with new, unnecessary and harmful policies.”
What do the Government have against our teachers? I hope the Minister will be able to respond.
One advantage of home education during Covid is that parents have seen what a restricted and tedious curriculum this Government have forced into primary schools. As one parent put it:
“The curriculum is joyless, both to teach and to learn. In some parts it is developmentally inappropriate. For example, too little time is spent on the foundations of maths.”
Another commented:
“I was shocked and dismayed by the content of the English curriculum. It appeared that children were learning how to classify language to satisfy testing requirements and nothing more.”
How damning that is about the wretched education system this Government are putting on to our children.
I hope the Minister will listen to what is said tonight. This baseline testing really goes to the heart of the dreadful education system that the Government are putting on our children, which is having such a negative impact on their development.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about SATs in primary schools, but I gently remind him that it was his Government who brought in a whole raft of testing through SATs in our primary sector. Never mind—a sinner reformed and all the rest.
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for this regret Motion. It is important to assess four and five year-old children in their first few months in school. Children start school in different ways. Some are excited and eager to start to play and learn. Some are shy and nervous at this big change to their lives, and some are very frightened at this big step. Those first few days and first few months—indeed, the first term—are an enormously important time for them to settle into their classroom environment; a time to gradually learn through play and discovery. The reception class teacher and teaching assistants need to get to know the child, work with the child and play with the child. This time of observation and learning is absolutely crucial to a child’s development and critical in the assessment of a child’s needs and development. It is a time for the early identification of any special needs a child may have.
These early weeks and first term are the time not only to get to know the child but to arrange to meet the parents, grandparents and carers, not just at the classroom door, but through home visits. In this way, the teacher can really understand the whole child—their interests and skills, the things they like doing, the things that make them happy and the things that make them unhappy.
Why do I have concerns about reception baseline assessment? The Department for Education says that by giving each child a baseline assessment when the child first starts primary school, schools will not only have a clearer idea of how much progress pupils are making but should be able to identify which children are likely to need extra help.
Children of just four and five already have to contend with the anxiety of starting school and are often daunted by unfamiliar tasks at this stage. Concentration levels may be an issue, particularly for summer-born pupils almost a year younger than their autumn-born peers. It would be good if the Government took a proper look at these children and brought forward proposals on how to support them.
Checks administered on a one-to-one basis are time consuming for teachers as well. At the very time they should be getting to know the children, they will be spending time—20 to 30 minutes per child—probably out of the classroom. With a class of potentially 30 children, that is several hours when the teacher could have been with the children in the classroom.
The Government have an interesting history on baseline assessment. In September 2016, the DfE was due to introduce a reception baseline check for all children. The Government suggested that the new tests would ensure higher standards and allow all pupils to receive the attention they needed and build on areas of weakness. Schools piloted three different types of assessment. A third of the pilot schools had tests carried out one to one with a reception teacher; these focused on the very basics of learning such as counting and picture, letter and number recognition. The NFER assessment used common reception resources such as counting beads, plastic shapes and number and picture cards, and the children worked through activities while the teacher recorded their progress on a digital device. The other third of schools decided to use an assessment that relied on teachers’ observations of children’s skills within the normal day-to-day school routine. This method of assessment was designed so that the children did not even know they were being tested.
In the summer of 2016, the baseline check was put on hold indefinitely and teachers were told to continue with the early years foundation stage profile pending further decisions. This decision was taken because the Government confided that the three pilots could be taken by the same child and come out with different results. So we see that the data provided by reception baseline assessment is sometimes—indeed, often—unreliable.
Administering tasks and tests, which takes teachers away from the classroom at the very time they want to get to know the children, is not the right way to proceed. Let me give an example. Imagine this: little Elizabeth starts reception. She is nervous and in wonder mode. In her first few days, as she is getting to know the classroom environment and the teacher, she is taken out of the classroom and tested. She then goes back into the classroom. What happens to those results? Do her parents get to know them? Do her next six teachers get to know them? What happens at the end of those seven years? What happens if little Elizabeth has not made the progress she should have made? Will the Government do anything to the teachers or to the school? What is the purpose of those tests and that assessment?
As has been said, now—when schools are still struggling with the problems of Covid—is certainly not the time to experiment with this baseline assessment. As we have also heard, at a time when early years resources are quite limited, now is not the time to spend money on an ambitious scheme when we do not know whether it will be successful.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
In this debate, we have learned that the reception baseline assessment is a short assessment taken in the first six weeks in which a child begins reception. As my noble friend Lord Watson stated at the outset, we are not against assessment.
This debate refers to the Childcare Act 2006 and the Early Years Foundation Stage (Learning and Development Requirements) Order 2007, which underpin the requirement for schools to administer the RBA. The legislation has been amended to ensure that the assessment is included in these requirements on a statutory basis; this statutory basis forms the basis of this regret Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, who argued comprehensively for a flexible delay in the light of the pandemic, allowing teachers to focus on the greatest needs of those in need.
We have learned that the RBA assesses a child in early mathematics, literacy, communication and language and that its purpose is to form the starting point for cohort-level school progress measures. We understand the purpose and need for a baseline assessment of where a young child begins their formal entry into education and that data is used as a benchmark for recognising progress, but many noble Lords have argued powerfully in this debate for the complete abolition of the test, and I understand their views.
However, the basis of this regret Motion is to highlight the fixed position of the statutory basis beginning in September. We are asking for a little more flexibility to be written into the regulations so that schools, which have been through the most incredible and incredulous time since March 2020, have the ability to administer the test according to their particular circumstances throughout the autumn term and do not remain fixed to the window of six weeks, as noted in the administration.
I am pleased to see in the guidance that scores are not shared or published, to prevent labelling or streaming of children or judgment of early years providers, and that teachers receive a series of narrative statements informing them how the child performed on the day but, as my noble friend Lady Blower noted, the current legislation does not make explicit what will happen to that data. Furthermore, she informed us of the unsettling effect that such testing has at the start of a child’s education.
The teachers’ guidance document notes that the RBA assessment should sit alongside the important activity that takes place during the first term of reception. If the Minister agrees to review the timeline so that assessment could take place during the most appropriate time for the school and the early years pupils in the first two terms of reception, it would assist many schools and pupils to concentrate on other important activities that could take place at the optimum time for the school and the pupils after the most disrupted 18 months of learning in our experience.
My noble friend Lord Knight made many apposite points, including about the efficacy of taking up scarce teacher time that could be better used in direct classroom learning. Parents may be concerned about the pressure and disruption that RBA will place on very young children, many of whom have had a very disrupted early years experience due to the pandemic.
Can the Minister assure the families of children undergoing these assessments that every effort will be made to ensure that they are at ease and that the assessments are not disruptive to school integration? How will the impact of catch-up time for lost learning be factored in? Some children starting reception and undergoing these tests will have just turned four, whereas some of their fellow pupils will have already turned or will soon turn five. How will this large age discrepancy be accounted for in the assessment? I support the Motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for tabling this Motion and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the regulations. I also thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its detailed examination of the regulations. At the start of the debate, I particularly want to welcome and thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, as chairman-elect of E-ACT, and I look forward to working with him in its delivery of excellent education.
The reforms to the early years foundation stage that form part of this statutory instrument have been several years in the making—with consultation, of course. The aim is to strengthen the early years curriculum, assessment and practice to improve outcomes for all children and to close the disadvantage gap, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned.
There has been considerable research into and evidence about the developmental stage, particularly over the past five to 10 years, which underpin this. The changes were devised with child development experts using the latest evidence on what is most important for supporting the learning and development of our youngest children. The early years foundation stage reforms were consulted on, and more than 3,000 schools have taken part in the early adoption year this year. It is important to note that, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and other noble Lords mentioned, the purpose of those reforms is to free up more pupil and teacher contact time for teachers to get to know their students, which helps to identify many of the special educational needs that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, often speaks about.
Likewise, the reception baseline assessment, or RBA, has been developed over a number of years with the Standards and Testing Agency working closely with teachers and school leaders at every stage. The noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Blower, among others, mentioned the British research project and validity. As I say, this has been piloted in the majority of primary schools and a validity report was published in February 2020 that provides evidence that the RBA satisfies four key requirements: first, that assessment is age appropriate; secondly, that the assessment results provide a fair measure of pupil performance; thirdly, that pupil performance is comparable within and across schools; and fourthly, that the meaning of RBA data is clear to those responsible for assessing the progress measure.
It is important to note at this point, given that many noble Lords raised the issue, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, that this is not an attainment measure but a progress measure and it is not unethical. We have the Progress 8 measure at secondary schools, and it is akin to that. We have had no challenges, saying that that is an unethical way to handle data. It is a short, interactive and practical assessment and will use age-appropriate resources that are easy for pupils to handle. Pupils do not have to prepare for this, either in school or at home. It will be very similar to other on-entry assessments currently carried out in reception classes in most of our schools. Most noble Lords mentioned teacher workload, and the good news is that once fully established, it will form the baseline for primary progress measurements, in place of key stage 1 assessments. Most noble Lords would, I hope, welcome the reduction in workload.
Noble Lords have rightly highlighted specific concerns about the RBA and the timing of its introduction, but the Government are confident that we are taking the right approach. It is important that we hold schools to account for the progress they make with their pupils, ensuring that all pupils are being supported to achieve, regardless of their background, prior attainment or additional needs. The RBA will enable us to do this in a fairer way. The noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, mentioned the different cohorts and summer-born and autumn-born pupils. This is a measure of a cohort in those schools, so summer and autumn-born pupils will be spread across the country. A school will not be disadvantaged because the summer and autumn born, while not spread equally across the population, are spread across our schools generally, so this will not be detrimental.
On the value we place on teachers, particularly in the earliest foundation stage, we do value them and that is why £153 million has been allocated for professional development for early years. The RBA means that primary progress measures will in future include the crucial first three years of primary school, which, of course, key stage 1 currently does not. We know that not all pupils start school at the same point in their development, and the RBA will enable us to understand the progress pupils make throughout their time in that school. That is one of the reasons why, when we consulted in 2017, a clear majority agreed with moving the baseline assessment point away from key stage 1 to reception.
The RBA will give parents better information with which to make informed decisions about schooling and, once fully established it will, as I say, end the key stage 1 assessments. It is not a measure of attainment; it is just an assessment at all entry points. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that if we give more flexibility than six weeks or delay until January 2022, it will not be a meaningful comparison for the children who enter in September, once you move that baseline point. It is for students when they enter school, within that six weeks. That is the validity of this report, so delaying until January 2022, when most students will have started in September, would undermine the validity of the data.
A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Knight, raised the issue of data protection. We have regularly consulted with the Information Commissioner’s Office when developing the data aspects of the RBA, and we are confident we are taking the right approach. The data will be stored on the national pupil database in a way that means it cannot be accessed by anyone other than the analysts who will, in X years’ time, be using it to measure progress. It will not be available to commercial organisations because of data control—I think that is the technical name. In order to be valid, this needs to be delivered as close as possible to the start of reception, so, unfortunately for noble Lords, we cannot delay until January.
I know that noble Lords are concerned about teacher workloads, and we are enormously grateful for the work that teachers have done during the pandemic. We have been taking decisive action to make improvements and reduce teacher workload.
I would like to reassure noble Lords that preparation time for teachers is limited and the RBA should take no longer than 20 minutes per child, with the average assessment taking 14 minutes. In addition, one of the principal aims of the changes to the early years foundation stage was to reduce the workload. Schools—and, if they wish, parents—will also receive a series of short narrative statements about the child’s performance in the assessment, which can help inform classroom practice, including understanding where children’s language skills may need further attention, so that children are given the right support at this critical time. Because it is a progress measure, and even though we have had the pandemic and we know the effect, schools will be given credit for this. Obviously, it is based on where the child has started: it is not an attainment measure but a progress measure, so overall, schools will be given credit for all the catch-up that we know they have been working hard on recently.
In relation to children with special educational needs, measures have been specifically developed with a SEND reviewer. We are confident that the test can be adapted, and the feedback from the 3,000 early adopter schools which, even during Covid, chose voluntarily to do this, is that, actually, many children enjoy it. It is more like a quiz kind of assessment; it is age-appropriate to them. Some wanted it to carry on because they were so enjoying what they were doing in the classroom, so it is not a traditional form of exam.
The RBA is about fairness for schools, parents and pupils. It will provide a baseline for a fairer progress measure for schools, and ultimately reduce the overall assessment burden and provide parents with better information. Along with the reforms to the early years foundation stage that these regulations introduce, RBA will improve provision in early years and reception. Covid-19 makes that improvement all the more urgent.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, mentioned a matter that in fact relates to a different statutory instrument, so I will write to him.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords that this will have a positive impact and will enable schools to be given credit overall for the catch-up they will be doing with our pupils, because this is a progress measure, not an attainment measure, and we will be introducing it as of September this year. Schools have had the information about the tests since March 2021, so there has been sufficient advance notice to the workforce.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken. It is not often that I am accused of being timorous, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but I am sure he meant it as a compliment. The Back-Bench speakers were all opposed to reception baseline assessment; only the strength of their rhetoric varied. The Minister must have felt that she was very much swimming against the tide, although I suspect that is not a position that she is entirely unfamiliar with.
I thank the Minister for her valiant attempt to respond to noble Lords, but ultimately she merely reinforced the Government’s position that the reception baseline assessment will have a start date of September. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the Merchant Shipping (Cargo Ship) (Bilge Alarm) Regulations 2021. My Lords! Lord Storey, I am standing. The time limit for this debate is one hour.
Merchant Shipping (Cargo Ship) (Bilge Alarm) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:12 - Division conducted remotely on Lord Berkeley’s Motion - Ayes: 179 / Noes: 211 - Motion disagreed.
Lord Berkeley
That this House regrets that the Merchant Shipping (Cargo Ship) (Bilge Alarm) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/592), introduced as a result of the accident involving the ‘Abigail H’ at the port of Heysham in November 2008, have taken over 11 years to be introduced; further regrets that this delay has put at risk the safety of crews of 425 ships of a similar type on the UK Ship Register; and notes that nine similar incidents to those at Heysham had been reported to the Marine and Coastguard Agency since 1996.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as honorary president of the UK Maritime Pilots Association. I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing our attention to these regulations.
In moving this Motion, I want to make it quite clear that, of course, I support the Merchant Shipping (Cargo Ship) (Bilge Alarm) Regulations 2021. I shall explain why, but my concern—my regret—is that it has taken over 11 years to introduce these regulations and that the incident was not just a one-off. I believe it is a question of the safety of over 400 ships of a similar type on the UK Ship Register, and nine similar incidents to that which happened at Heysham—which I shall come on to—were reported to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in the last 25 years. My concern, which I shall explain, is about the delay.
I am sure that noble Lords will have read the excellent Marine Accident Investigation Branch report into this incident from 2009. They will know that four people were asleep on board this dredger, which was tied up to a quay, and that four of the crewmen were suddenly thrown out of their bunk because water had come in and made the vessel unstable. It was a merciful relief that the vessel heeled and tipped towards the quay, which stopped it going further, rather than heeling out the other side, rolling into the deep water and maybe causing loss of life. This is a really serious issue. As the MAIB report said:
“It is unlikely that the mooring lines would have restrained Abigail H if it had rolled away from the quay, and the crew were extremely fortunate to escape without injury.”
As I said, this was not a one-off: it affects over 400 ships around the coast. I have lived for many years in Cornwall next to a small shipyard that builds and repairs fishing boats and other small boats. I have seen their condition: some of them are very good when they come in and some are not so good; some of them are dredgers and some do other small works. It is quite normal for the crews to sleep on board these ships when they are in the water because it obviously saves on their accommodation costs and they can keep an eye on the ship. It is therefore really important that they feel comfortable. They do not want to have water round their toes or for the ship to tip over. The MAIB recommendation is that vessels of more than 24 metres in length and 500 gross tonnes should be fitted with bilge alarms. I have seen ships sink in the port of Fowey just because stopcocks were not closed properly, which is not a good thing to happen.
Why do people sleep on ships? Apart from the safety reasons, and saving money on accommodation onshore, it is also often because they are in tidal work. They cannot go ashore that easily and it is perfectly reasonable for this to happen. The MAIB report was quite clear that it thought the “Abigail H” was in good condition, but noble Lords may know that it is quite difficult to find the source of a leak in such a small ship. If you have to replace the fittings which you think may be wrong, you probably have to take it to a dry dock. That costs money, and many shipowners probably say that they cannot afford it.
I went on to look at what a bilge alarm is. Going on the web and googling “bilge alarm” shows that they are available for £100. I find it incredible that we have been waiting 13 years for some legislation requiring such ships to fit bilge alarms which will cost only £100, plus the fitting costs if you do not do it yourself.
This could have affected over 400 ships with two, three or four people on board and there have been nine similar incidents in the last 25 years. The industry must have been aware of this but, clearly, some of the owners did not think it a very good idea. It is therefore good to have the regulations to install these alarms. My concern is that it has still taken 13 years, and people who operate these ships often think “It’s not going to happen to me”. I have seen that, and it is the way life is.
The other concern is that many people are beginning to feel that the Department for Transport puts maritime issues low on its list of priorities. It runs the railways in minute detail; it gets very involved in air and airports, rightly; it is getting involved in net-zero carbon for many elements of transport but not so much, I think, for UK- registered vessels. I am not sure it has really given seafarers the support they needed during the Covid pandemic.
The Environment Bill, which is going through your Lordships’ House at the moment, says that it covers inshore and offshore regions, but I am not sure how seriously the Government are taking the needs of ships and ferries when it comes to maritime conservation zones, et cetera. I am worried about the minimal budget that the MCA has to do these essential safety and inspection works. I am sure that if this had been an air incident, it would have happened a lot more quickly than in 13 years.
This is a story of a £100 bilge water alarm not being installed. Ministers may say that the crews of the 425 vessels did not die, so there was no hurry. But this is the basic philosophy of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the subject of safety regulations, which noble Lords are all familiar with. The whole safety culture is based on what the Act says about compliance, to ensure that this never happens. If it costs only £100 for the piece of equipment, why has it taken 13 years?
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says. I will not divide the House against this regulation, which is very welcome, but I think it is right to draw the attention of the House to such unacceptable delays in requiring a small but essential piece of safety equipment, in the hope that, if this Motion is accepted, it may incentivise the Government to allow more resources for essential safety issues. Even though they are not as high-profile as air and rail, they still affect people. I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response, but I may wish to seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, I have only three points to make. First, I welcome the eventual bringing forward of these regulations, which have been on the shelves of successive Labour, coalition Liberal-Conservative and Conservative Administrations since 2008. It is good that they have come forward and, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, just said, it is good that no one suffered in the interim. I do not think that legislation should be left to lurk, even in draft form, in the way these regulations have, so I warmly welcome them.
Secondly, I have one positive suggestion to put to my noble friend the Minister who will be winding up this debate. I am not a marine surveyor, nor a marine engineer, and I am ashamed to say that I have never been down a bilge, but the universal vessel to be fitted under these regulations by warning systems and guards of one sort or another is relatively small. There is a serious suggestion that the equipment should include alarm alerts linked directly to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency at times of potential danger for seafarers—perhaps at night or in challenging weather—who might be on the move and not lucky enough to be moored alongside. I would like this to get proper consideration.
Thirdly, I believe that seafarers feel quite voiceless about these issues. The men and women are not listened to; they are well down the queue behind the ship managers and owners, ship insurers, P&I clubs, legal firms and others. They are often heard only by and through the efforts of voluntary organisations and charities. So it was interesting to see in the impact statement in the Explanatory Memorandum, at paragraph 12.1—let it not be said that no one has read these regulations—that there is no significant impact from the regulations on charities or voluntary bodies.
In practice, it is the other way around. These voluntary bodies make a great impact on behalf of seafarers, including those men and women working inshore, dredging or fishing, who are indeed generally voiceless. If it were not for the voluntary organisations, I do not think their voices would be heard much or at all.
The work of voluntary organisations in the maritime world, whether it be with small boats like these or vessels at the other end of the size scale, such as those lumbering container ships or cruise liners, includes always trying to help keep the crew in touch with their families, which is very welcome. We should be thankful that the voluntary organisations do this, as well as helping the crew if they are in need of medical or dental treatment or a dockside chaplain to come and give them counselling.
We are very lucky to have outfits such as the Sailors’ Society, the excellent Anglican Mission to Seafarers and indeed my lot—the Roman Catholic Apostleship of the Sea; they all play their part in helping people in need of help. By coincidence, it was only this past Sunday, two days ago, that the Apostleship of the Sea held its Sea Sunday. It is part of the largest global seafarers’ charity, known as Stella Maris—I know that noble Lords are all accomplished Latinists and will know that that means “star of the sea”. Stella Maris works globally in nearly 60 countries, with many staff at the dockside in some 335 ports, the last time I looked. Many of those are in the UK and deal with small vessels, which may not always be particularly well maintained. They make a real impact. If it were not for the voluntary organisations and the organisations that I have listed—it is a very long list, and I have pointed out only a few of them—I do not believe that the voice of seafarers would be heard. These charities very often listen to the voiceless.
I ask my noble friend and her department, where she does very important work, to do all that is possible to make sure that the Department for Transport decides to ensure that, challenging though it is sometimes, the voice of the average man and woman seafarer is heard, as well as the normal statutory list of invitees—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will remember this from her time in the Welsh Office—who are always wheeled out by civil servants, who say, “We must consult this or that organisation.” We need to consult the people really concerned—the seafarers; I do not think that they have a voice.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for securing this debate, which is, at the level of detail, about a specific and very disturbing case. As the noble Lord outlined, there was a known, clear, evident solution to a dangerous safety risk, one that the crew of the “Abigail H” escaped without serious injury and risk of deaths only through the luck of a vessel rolling one way rather than another. It has taken 11 years to implement. In the meantime, we have subsequently seen nine similar incidents, while 425 similar ships on the UK ship register remain at risk.
I support this regret Motion while noting the conclusion of our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, but it is a matter of concern that the Department for Transport has failed to follow up promptly Marine Accident Investigation Branch recommendations.
I note also that the subsequent sinking of “Abigail H” led to the release of 100 litres of lubricating and diesel oil into the marine environment—our already pollution-choked, much-damaged marine environment. It is hard to believe that, had this been a safety issue with cargo planes or with HGVs, we would not have seen far faster action, or certainly a greater outcry until action was taken. This raises a far broader issue than bilge alarms, as crucial as they are to hundreds of vessels. It raises the whole issue of safety—human and environmental—in the marine environment.
Last week, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked an Oral Question on human rights at sea. Human rights are supposed to be universal but it is only now that human rights at sea campaigners are seeking effectively to secure those rights because they are not in place. Although there have been some improvements regarding fishing, it is acknowledged as being one of the most dangerous jobs on these islands. The Fishing Industry Safety Group has a commendable vision of zero deaths but given that there have been 71 deaths in the past decade, we are a long way from that.
I note that working on cruise ships in the pre-Covid age—ships that regularly polluted our ports and caused enormous environmental damage—was notoriously exploitative and unsafe for the crew. Covid has only helped to expose the conditions faced by so many of those working on cargo vessels, the crucial foundation of so much of our lives in our import-based society: safety is terrible, pay is low and flags of convenience make it a wild west with no sheriff in sight.
What is going on? Why do we have that lack of knowledge? Certainly now, few people in the UK go to sea, are employed in maritime jobs or know someone who is. According to the latest figures that I have found, there are about 220,000 such jobs in the UK. That is a change from the past when, for good or ill, many Britons went to sea or came into contact with seafarers from all around the world who went to sea in their service.
However, it is hard not to think that this is not a question of “out of sight, out of mind” but deliberate, careful ignorance. We bear a responsibility for what happens in the vessels that sail from or arrive at our shores, whichever flag of convenience they fly—certainly if they fly our own. Their environmental impacts, too, are our responsibility. In your Lordships’ House, when we next debate trade, I invite noble Lords to consider that issue and think about the underpaid, overworked seafarer putting their life in danger to bring us the latest must-have toy or fashion item to be worn casually and discarded. They should think about the climate impact of the fuel that brings them, the damage done when containers fall from vessels, as they regularly do, or when rust-bucket ships break up and sink, spilling their cargos into oceans, to drift and endanger animal life, and sometimes human life, as they do.
We cannot say that that is a cost over the horizon. Overall, it is a real and present danger, which the “Abigail H” highlights our current failure to attend to.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very happy to follow the previous three speakers—my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. In 1974, I made my maiden speech on industrial safety and served on the Standing Committee that introduced the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, so I appreciate the broad encompassing nature of that legislation. I do not intend to repeat anything that the previous speakers have said, but to ask six questions. I will expect answers probably not from the Minister today but at some point by letter.
First, how many other delayed orders are lying around in the department? What is the list of current issues about which the department says, “Oh, we are waiting for parliamentary time. This is something we need to do”?
Secondly, has the Minister asked any questions about the delay? In some ways, I would expect the answer to that in her wind-up. I am keen to know because there are obviously different Ministers with different responsibilities in the department. Have Ministers asked questions about delayed orders that have been put on the rack over the 11 years of slothfulness?
Thirdly, in relation to these regulations, have there been representations at any time over the years from the Welsh, Scottish or Northern Ireland Governments? These regulations cover the UK and, therefore, the devolved Administrations are involved and affected. Have those Governments raised the issue of the delay with the Westminster Government and the department?
Fourthly, is there any record of trade union representations made over the years regarding why this statutory instrument has been delayed? From what the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, we are dealing with an area that is probably not well unionised. Nevertheless, representatives have a legal responsibility to be asking the questions. Have there been any trade union representations over the years about the 11-year delay?
The fifth question is whether any Select Committee ever raised the delay, over the years, during other inquiries. These things pop up from time to time, as I have found from sitting on the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee. All kinds of ancillary issues were raised, which we sometimes went off at a tangent on and inquired about ourselves, so it would be interesting to know about that pressure.
My sixth question is whether the issue of this order and its going to Parliament, because that recommendation was there, was covered in any of the new Ministers’ briefs for the 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 general elections. In my cellar, I have the first-day briefs for the departments I was moved to in Whitehall—six of them. I have a big one for 1997, when there was an expectation of a change of Government, but that is not the issue. This still happens when the Government do not change. The department has to produce briefs for incoming Ministers—the Government might change, but departments do not know that until election day—of the current workload on the department, the current issues and what requires parliamentary time. I want to know whether this order and the recommendation requiring it to go to Parliament were covered in any of the first-day briefs for new Ministers, after any of those four general elections, because it is the responsibility of the accounting officer in the department to make sure that those briefs are full and comprehensive.
I do not expect the Minister to answer these questions now, but they are quite specific, so I would like detailed answers that the House can see, in due course.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for ensuring we have this opportunity to press the Department for Transport about the lengthy backlog of maritime safety legislation. I also thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its work in diligently drawing our attention to the frequent shortfalls in this Government’s attitude to legislative rigour. It usually criticises the Government for taking excess powers for themselves, with too little parliamentary control or scrutiny but, for the backlog in maritime legislation, the problem is the opposite. The committee first drew our attention to this backlog a couple of years ago. I recall a Moses Room debate in which it featured strongly.
When challenged about the backlog, there has been no real explanation from the Government so far. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in its report on the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) (Amendment) Regulations, draws attention to the Department for Transport’s original aim to deal with the backlog by the end of last year. Since the backlog goes as far as 2008, the problem is obviously nothing to do with either Brexit or Covid. The committee is clear that it wants an explanation of why the Department for Transport has not dedicated more resource to clearing the backlog. Listening to noble Lords this evening, I think we are united in that view.
Let us be clear about the impact this has. We are supposed to pride ourselves on being a seagoing nation. The Government trumpet global Britain as their aim. Later this year, they will host COP 26, no doubt pushing the view that they are tackling climate change head on, yet they are knowingly allowing our maritime industries to work with outdated safety and environmental standards.
In respect of the air pollution regulations that I referred to earlier, it has left the Maritime and Coastguard Agency without adequate enforcement powers for over five years, since 2016. In relation to the bilge alarm regulations that are the subject of this Motion to Regret, the situation is even more grave. First, the rest of the backlog relates to implementing international standards, but the bilge regulations are the product of a domestic maritime accident, and of recommendations made in 2009 by the Maritime Accident Investigation Branch. That was 12 years ago. The Explanatory Memorandum states that this life-saving measure—which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, points out would cost £100—would apply to 425 ships on the UK register. It also notes that there have been nine similar incidents since 1996, so this is not an overcautious approach.
The response of the Department for Transport is that
“only a relatively small number of vessels are in scope of this proposal so it was initially viewed as disproportionate to advance this regulatory package on its own.”
Since this is a negative instrument, if it had come to us a decade ago, it would have been almost unnoticed and almost certainly not debated. No one here this evening is opposing these regulations. This delay represents an approach which values human life very cheaply. It is unacceptable.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I finish with some questions for the Minister. Why is there such a backlog? Exactly how many pieces of legislation are we waiting for? Can the Minister please undertake this evening to place a list of all the overdue legislation in the Library, for public record? Why has the Department for Transport not assigned more staff to clearing this backlog, and what is its target date for doing so? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of our outdated maritime safety and environmental legislation on working practices aboard UK-registered vessels, and what has been the impact on our international reputation as a maritime power? Finally, the Minister will be aware of the phrase “flags of convenience”. Do the Government have any evidence of ships seeking to register in the UK specifically because our maritime legislation is out of date and does not adhere to the highest and best standards?
Those engaged in our maritime industries, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and other noble Lords, have indicated, feel overlooked and disregarded. The Government need to put that right.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley on securing this debate. These regulations came into force on 30 June, following the sinking of the vessel “Abigail H” at Heysham in November 2008, introducing new regulations on the installation of bilge water alarms on merchant vessels of a certain size to provide warning when the accumulation of bilge water threatens their buoyancy or safety. As we have heard, there has been a long gap between the 2008 incident and the introduction of these regulations, suggesting that the Government have been slow to act to prevent similar accidents.
The Maritime Accident Investigation Branch, which said that the crew of the “Abigail H”
“were extremely fortunate to escape without injury”,
made recommendations in 2009, including that vessels greater than 24 metres in length but less than 500 gross tonnes be fitted with bilge alarms. In 2020 the Maritime and Coastguard Agency consulted on proposed regulations intended to introduce a requirement in line with the MAIB recommendation. Just two responses were received, one from a marine surveyor and the other from the Law Society of Scotland. Can the Government comment on the significance or otherwise of the low number of responses? Is it a reflection of the length of time—over a decade—between the MAIB recommendations on the specific incident involving the “Abigail H” and the consultation on the subsequent regulations?
The regulations that we are discussing have now followed, largely unchanged, from the consultation exercise. The intended outcome of the regulations, as we know, is that all ships greater than 24 metres and less than 500 gross tonnes will have to be fitted with a bilge-water detection and alarm system that will alert the crew to any ingress of water so that any necessary action can be taken. This requirement will apply to new ships from the date the regulations come into force and to existing ships from a year later. The requirement covers relevant UK ships, wherever located, and applies to all other relevant ships when within UK waters.
Can the Minister confirm the anticipated cost per vessel of implementing the terms of these regulations? Currently, vessels that are under 500 gross tonnes and are 24 or more metres in length fall outside the requirements of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and existing workboat and fishing vessels codes. The lack of regulations for these vessels has led to accidents, including the sinking of the “Abigail H”. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee queried why the regulations had taken this length of time to implement, given that the “Abigail H” sank in 2008 and the MAIB recommendations were made a year later, in 2009.
In response, the Department for Transport indicated that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, an executive agency of the DfT, continually reviews the priority of the regulatory changes needed, then added:
“As only a relatively small number of vessels are in scope of this proposal, it was initially viewed as disproportionate to advance this regulatory package on its own.”
I may be interpreting these words harshly but they sound suspiciously like saying, in a more roundabout way, that administrative convenience in bringing forward these regulations took priority over ensuring the safety of vessels affected and their crews as soon as possible. The Explanatory Memorandum talks about exploring “alternatives to mandatory regulation”, but that does not explain away a delay of over 11 years. Can the Minister comment on my interpretation of the meaning of the words used by the Department for Transport?
The SLSC noted that 425 ships of a similar type to the “Abigail H” are listed on the UK Ship Register, and that nine instances of flooding on such ships have been reported to the MAIB since 1996. As a result, the committee said:
“We do not regard 425 as a negligible number of ships and crews and it is a matter of concern that the DfT has failed to follow up promptly the MAIB’s safety recommendations.”
Can the Minister say whether the Department for Transport regards 425 as a negligible number of ships and crews? How many, if any, of the 425 ships now already have the required bilge-water detection and alarm system fitted?
The SLSC referred to
“an acknowledged backlog of international marine legislation”
that the DfT has yet to implement, and added:
“As this recommendation in relation to bilge alarms comes from a UK source, it would appear that there is also a separate backlog of domestic legislation yet to be implemented”—
an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Rooker and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The SLSC has said it wishes to see a fuller explanation of why the department has not dedicated more resources to resolving this long-standing backlog problem, which it initially aimed to address by 2020, as well as an explanation setting out the extent of the remaining backlog and how long it is estimated that it will take to clear it completely.
Could the Government in their reply respond to all the SLSC’s requests for information and explanation I just mentioned on the legislative backlog? Is the backlog related only to international marine legislation or is there also a backlog of domestic legislation? If so, what is its extent and by when will it be cleared?
Like my noble friend Lord Rooker, I would like answers to the questions I have raised either today or subsequently in writing. We await the Government’s response, but if the background picture to these regulations is broadly as has been set out then we will support my noble friend if he decides to seek a vote on his regret Motion, albeit, like my noble friend, we support the regulations themselves.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for providing the opportunity to debate these regulations—or, more correctly, the timing of the regulations and the circumstances in which they have now been made. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will focus on the regulations and matters relating to them and will write with further details, particularly on the excellent points raised by my noble friend Lord Patten, and the very detailed questions from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and many other noble Lords.
I turn first to the content of the statutory instrument. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring the safety and welfare of seafarers, which I believe is reflected in the volume of regulations that the department brings to your Lordships’ House. These are but one of a set of such regulations that came into force on 30 June 2021. We know that they increase safety by introducing a requirement for cargo vessels of 24 metres or more in length and under 500 gross tonnes to fit bilge alarm systems. I will not go into further detail around that, so let us turn to the background to the regulations.
The regulations fulfil the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, or MAIB, recommendation 2009/141. It was raised following the sinking of the grab hopper dredger “Abigail H”, as many noble Lords noted. Many noble Lords also noted that there were no fatalities as a result of this incident, which was, of course, very fortunate. To prevent a less fortunate outcome, these regulations make it mandatory to install the bilge alarm systems that were advised in marine guidance note 425, which was issued in September 2010 in response to the MAIB’s 2009 “Abigail H” incident report.
There was a consultation on these regulations. It was a 10-week public consultation from 2 October to 10 December 2020 via the GOV.UK website. There was a press release announcing the public consultation, which went to marine trade press and industry press. Notice of the consultation was posted on the MCA’s Twitter account. Of course, we cannot force people to respond to a consultation; sometimes they do not for any number of reasons. It may be that the people who run these vessels are very focused on it and therefore do not want to or do not have time to respond to a consultation. But these regulations are not controversial, so it does not surprise me that we did not get a massive response to the consultation.
The regulations improve the safety of seafarers and were long expected. It is worth reinforcing that the guidance to introduce bilge alarms had been in place since 2010. In the pandemic we have done many things to protect public safety by guidance rather than mandating in law, so I do not feel that, given that the guidance was in place for such a long time, getting these regulations in place now was as big an issue as potentially noted by noble Lords today.
But I will comment on the delay, because it is right that I do so. I accept that there has been a delay in implementing this mandatory requirement, but I remind noble Lords that the guidance was out there a very long time ago. The delay in making that guidance mandatory reflects the thorough and complex nature of the process, as well as the wide reach of regulations that the MCA is responsible for, and the need to continually review the priorities of regulatory changes in order to meet our international obligations and domestic safety and environmental obligations. In this case, the potential risk to the 425 vessels and their crews, to which these regulations apply, and the fact that only two similar incidents occurred after this guidance was published, meant that, as priorities changed, including as a result of the UK’s exit from the EU, other regulatory developments took precedence.
Given that the guidance was issued back in 2010, and the industry was advised and consulted on the development of this mandatory guidance, I believe it was reasonable to expect that a good proportion of the 425 vessels referred to would have already had bilge alarm systems fitted prior to the regulations coming into force, although we cannot know that. Although the guidance issued was not mandatory, we expect responsible owners and operators to take guidance from the MCA very seriously, and that they would look to enhance the safety of their vessels even in the absence of a mandatory obligation.
Further, of the nine incidents to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred, seven occurred prior to the publication of the MAIB report into the “Abigail H”. Of the remaining two incidents, accident investigation data indicates that both were minor and neither needed investigation by the MAIB. There have been no further similar incidents.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said that 425 vessels was a relatively small number. It is a small number in the context of the 63,230 vessels currently listed on the UK Ship Register. Furthermore, many of the cohort of 425 vessels would be of lower risk anyway, since crews do not customarily sleep on board or because they would already have had the required equipment fitted. I also point out that the MCA will not customarily collect information on the number of vessels with this required equipment on board, but it will monitor compliance with this requirement through the survey and the inspection regime it usually carries out.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned how cheap these systems are. I do not know which website he was looking at, because I have slightly different figures. I believe the cost of installing a bilge alarm is roughly £2,500. That is what we assumed in the impact assessment. Given that, I possibly would not buy one for £100, but it will of course vary from vessel to vessel. To verify this cost, the first question of the consultation specifically asked for evidence of the costs associated with the installation of the water level detectors and bilge alarms needed to comply with the regulations. But, as noted previously, we did not receive very much response to that consultation, and I suspect that was because the industry had either already complied with the regulations or knew that they were coming down the track.
I turn to maritime regulations more broadly. The maritime sector is highly regulated and has to take into account international obligations, amendments to previous EU regulations and the development of domestic legislation. Each strand is usually complex and highly technical and requires transposing to domestic law by way of secondary legislation, which is both time- consuming and resource-intensive. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, assumed you could knock off a negative SI in an afternoon. That is absolutely not the case; it takes many weeks and months of intensive work to ensure that even a negative SI, which will not necessarily receive parliamentary scrutiny, is up to the standards we would expect for our statute book.
Keeping pace with international amendments, often issued annually, is extremely challenging and results in many of the domestic SIs always being in need of updating. So, over the years, priority has been given to the implementation of the EU directives and regulations to avoid EU infraction proceedings, and this has resulted in the backlog of international obligations, with our domestic regulations becoming out of step with the latest requirements.
The MCA has recently provided a progress update to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on its road map of international maritime legislation that is required to be implemented into the UK domestic regime by SI; it should all be completed by the end of 2023. Significant progress has already been made. We have made 12 SIs in 2020 and early 2021, and a further 10 proposed SIs are well progressed and are either at consultation stage or the final stages prior to making and laying.
I trust that noble Lords agree that the introduction of these regulations is important to ensure the safety of crews on board small cargo vessels—indeed, I will take that as a given, because I believe that they do. I hope they will also appreciate that we have to continually assess our priorities to meet our international and domestic obligations, given the availability of resources within the department, within government and, of course, within Parliament.
The MCA has commenced an ambitious programme of regulatory updating which, in the last two years, has reduced the number of outstanding recommendations by the MAIB by 30%. This leaves 14 recommendations which are actively being worked on at present, eight of which will be completed later this year. I hope I have been able to explain the Government’s position and I therefore ask noble Lords to vote against this regret Motion.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and of course to the Minister for her response. It has been a very interesting debate—I was really surprised and enthused by some of the comments. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, talked about the voiceless seafarer and admitted that he had not been in the bilges; going into the bilges is not a thing you would want to do unless you really had to. Both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about the crews and the fact that they need looking after. Many of us thought that they were probably suffering, particularly during Covid.
My noble friend Lord Rooker asked six really excellent questions. I have to say that I do not think the Minister answered many of them, but I am sure she will be writing to him and we will all see copies. However, the delays are still there. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also talked about the delays and mentioned the word “disproportionate”. I think there are many, including in the Department for Transport, who think that this is not that serious: they are small regulations and do not matter very much. I hope I am not right.
My noble friend Lord Rosser also asked a number of questions, including another version of whether this is being done just for administrative convenience. The Minister was interesting in her response, because she said that the guidance on these issues had been published in 2010 and I think she liked to believe that most of the ships involved in this category would have already fitted bilge alarms. If that is the case, and she has not presented any evidence for or against it, why have the Government brought these regulations at all? It has taken 10 years, but if the guidance has forced or encouraged all the shipowners involved to install bilge alarms, why do we need regulations?
My gut feeling is that for ships like this—I have seen quite a few of them—for whatever reason the shipowners do not like doing things they do not have to do. One can understand it. I may have got the price of a bilge alarm of £100 wrong, compared with the Government’s estimate of £2,500—you could probably spend £500,000 on one if you wanted to. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, suggested that there should be online alerts to the MCA, which probably would cost about that, but the point is that, in terms of the cost to the operators, it is not great.
I go back to my noble friend Lord Rooker’s comments about when he was involved in creating the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, and the ALARP principle—as low as reasonably practicable. I would suggest that installing a bilge alarm, whether for £100 or £2,500, it is certainly something that could be done to comply with the ALARP principle, on which on all our safety regulations, as my noble friend said, have been based.
I am afraid we did not really get an answer from the Minister on why there were so many delays to the legislation. There were lots of them—some caused by Brexit, some international and some domestic. I know of one situation, drawn to my attention by a Cornwall council that wanted to create a new harbour authority there to look after all the little harbours that nobody else owns. It is not big job but it is very important. It has been waiting several years for this to go through, so that it can do things with the harbour to help the local economy.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have added to the discussion of these regulations. We need to put more pressure on the Department for Transport and the Government to provide resources—to give the MCA resources—so that we have no more of this. It may affect only a few people. Do they matter much? I believe they all matter, but there is a view that they are just tramp steamers going around the coast and nobody sees them much, compared with an airline or anything else. We have to change the attitude. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, but I would like to test the opinion of the House on this Motion.