House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The Trade Remedies Authority assesses the UK’s trade remedies and makes recommendations to the Secretary of State. This includes the recent review of the UK steel safeguards. The Government accepted the recommendation of the TRA to extend 10 of 19 steel safeguards. The Government also introduced legislation to allow us to extend the current steel safeguards measure for an initial period of 12 months to a further five categories.
Marion Fellows
The Trade Remedies Authority recommended revoking nine of 19 steel safeguards despite calls from the sector and the all-party parliamentary group on steel, which wanted all tariffs extended, but the UK Government will keep only about 15 of them. The UK steel sector is not on a level playing field with competitors because of higher energy costs and the lack of a corporate industrial strategy from this and successive Tory Governments. Is this not another broken Brexit promise to a domestic industry and its workers?
Greg Hands
I remind the hon. Lady that we have invested £500 million in recent years to help with the cost of energy. I also remind her of the welcome from the sector for the Secretary of State’s decision on 30 June, when Gareth Stace, director general of UK Steel, said:
“Today the UK steel sector applauds the Prime Minister…and Trade Secretary…for standing up for steel”
and
“taking back control”.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
Opportunities for UK exporters are significant. We are seeing exports rebounding this year and they are expected to grow by a further 8% next year, and further opportunities are being created all around the world as we have rolled over the existing EU deals, plus the EU itself, and started to negotiate other agreements. Of course, the first from-scratch agreement in principle was with Australia. I hope the hon. Gentleman would applaud and support this direction of travel.
Kenny MacAskill
That is all very well, but food production businesses in my constituency face a loss of trade, challenges with customs, and damage to their supply chains. They require to operate in today’s land, not some promised land that their business might never survive to be able to see. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that their difficulties are minimised and that support for them is maximised? They need butter today, not a promise of jam tomorrow.
Graham Stuart
It would very much help if the Scottish Government and the Scottish National party, of which the hon. Gentleman used to be a member, were to support the trade deals that we do to open markets around the world. He ought to know, as should his former colleagues, although I know they are pretty split even among themselves, that actually Scotland trades more with the rest of the world than it does with the EU. He will also note that EU volumes in May were back to the highest level since October 2019, so we are back to pre-pandemic levels with the EU. The teething problems are being dealt with, other problems are being minimised, and Government support is there. [Interruption.] It is about time that Scottish National party Members, who like to chunter from a sedentary position, got behind our exporters and stopped talking them down.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
Latest monthly figures for UK goods exports to the EU show that in May 2021 exports were £14 billion, up by 8% on the previous month. This is the highest monthly figure, as mentioned by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), since October 2019, and it is £2 billion higher than the monthly average for 2020 and just £0.2 billion lower than the monthly average for 2019. Latest quarterly figures for UK services exports to the EU show exports for the first quarter up by 2% on the previous quarter of last year, but still 2% below the 2020 quarterly average and still some 20% below the 2019 quarterly average.
Alyn Smith
Well, there are lies, damned lies and statistics, and I do hesitate to criticise and rain on the Jackanory story we are hearing from those on the Government Benches, but let us look at some facts from the Office for National Statistics. Comparing quarter 1 of this year with 2019, UK-EU trade is down by 27%. Some of that is accounted for by covid; much of it is accounted for by Brexit. Make UK reports that 96% of its members are having problems with the new trading regime. These are facts. What is the Minister’s secret? How does he maintain his Panglossian optimism for the future while ignoring such pain and hurt in the here and now?
Greg Hands
I was quite deliberate in the use of those statistics. We do need to take care with monthly statistics. None the less, the first quarter data is already two months out of date. The hon. Gentleman is right that there was a dip in January, but that was due to the closure of the border at that time due to the prevalence of the alpha variant in this country. Since then, there has been a very significant recovery. The latest data from May shows £14 billion of exports, up by 8% on the previous month, and only just lower than the monthly average from before the pandemic. He can quote the ONS, but perhaps he might want to look at the latest data, refresh his briefing, and ask his questions according to the latest available data.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Three weeks ago, Lord Frost rejected the EU’s offer of a veterinary agreement, saying:
“We are very ambitious about CPTPP membership… That is the problem.”
Since we cannot ask Lord Frost himself, can the Minister perhaps tell us why the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership is incompatible with reaching an agreement with Europe on food standards? From which of our current food standards do the Government wish to diverge?
Greg Hands
I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing a number of different things, but let me start by saying that the UK proposed an equivalence agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary rules in negotiations—that was proposed by Lord Frost—but the EU refused. The EU does have agreements with, for example, New Zealand and others that still respect regulatory autonomy. We are very happy to discuss with Brussels an agreement on SPS rules so long as it respects UK regulatory autonomy and we do not sign up to dynamic regulatory autonomy. That is the read-across to other trade agreements; it allows us to have an independent trade policy while maintaining the high-quality trade deal that we have with the European Union.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Minister can defend his Government’s Brexit bourach all he likes, but EU-UK trade fell by 27% in quarter 1, with Scotland punished even further. He cannot blame covid, as the fall was over three times worse than the global comparison. Official statistics show that for every £245 that Brexit cost in lost trade, even if the Government were to agree multiple free trade agreements, it will bring in only around £18 in return. The UK is virtually alone in facing this kamikaze blow to its exports. Scotland voted against this trade catastrophe. When will the UK Government renegotiate this disaster—or do they intend to continue to be anti-trade?
Greg Hands
I take that with a bucket of salt from the SNP about being anti-trade. As we have heard so often in this House, the SNP has failed to support any trade agreement negotiated either by Brussels or by us in Westminster. I do not think there is a single party in this House that is more anti-trade than the Scottish National party. I urge the hon. Gentleman to have a look at the latest data. Trade with the EU is recovering—it may not yet be fully recovered, but it is recovering—and the latest data, in May, shows a very significant 8% improvement on the previous quarter. I refer him to last Friday’s data.
Drew Hendry
Mr Speaker, you can see why we do not support any trade deals from this Government—because they always sell Scotland out. Let us hear what industry is saying. Fishing representative bodies continue to say that the Prime Minister has betrayed them and that they have been sold out. Individual losses of tens of thousands of pounds are commonplace due to export delays. A perfect storm of red tape, driver shortages and other Brexit issues are destroying businesses across the board, but especially in food and drink. According to the Road Haulage Association, almost a third of UK hauliers say they are having to avoid working with the food and drink industry due to increased checks and admin. Costs are up everywhere on materials, admin and transport—20% in distilleries. What compensation is planned for those affected—or, when the Prime Minister said “eff business”, was that an instruction?
Greg Hands
There was a lot in that further supplementary. May I just remind the hon. Gentleman that most of the trade deals that he and his party have not supported are actually the EU’s trade deals? His party’s policy is to re-join the EU. The SNP was against the EU-Japan deal in the European Parliament and abstained here; it was against the Canada deal; it was against the Singapore deal; it abstained on South Africa, and it abstained on Korea.
When it comes to fisheries, I refer the hon. Gentleman back to what the ONS said, not this past Friday but in relation to February’s data—he is so out of date. This is what the ONS said in April:
“The disruptions to food exports in January 2021 appear to have largely been overcome and may have only had short-term impacts on trade.”
That is what it said in April, yet he is still not up to date. On hauliers, we are discussing all the time with the Department for Transport what extra action needs to be taken.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asks for compensation. Perhaps he can come to this House and account for the £180 million given by this Government to the Scottish Government for dealing with the consequences and the impact of Brexit at the end of the transition period, because we are not at all sure where that money has gone.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
The reality on the ground is quite different from what the Minister may be claiming. I recently met many manufacturers and businesses in Warwick and Leamington, such as Bravissimo, Vitsoe and young British designers, and they are desperate. Their concerns are underlined by surveys by the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors and Make UK showing the serious and lasting damage being done to UK firms trying to maintain their trade with Europe in the face of the inadequacies of the Government’s Brexit deal. Can I ask the Minister of State whether he thinks Lord Frost has the bandwidth to fix those problems, on top of the Northern Ireland protocol, or do we need someone else in Government to get a grip?
Greg Hands
The Government have full bandwidth on all these aspects. We are satisfied with the trade and co-operation agreement. It is an agreement that is working well. In terms of adding support to exporters, that is the role of this Department and other Departments. We have helplines in place. We have the Brexit business taskforce. We have the DIT internationalisation fund. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a £23 million seafood disruption fund. We have recently opened trade hubs in Edinburgh and Darlington, and we will open hubs soon in Cardiff and Belfast. We have a refreshed export strategy coming later this year. The Government are fully engaged on assisting exporters to get their goods and services into the European Union.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
I wish the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) a happy birthday. I hope he has had all the answers he was looking for today.
We now have trade deals with 68 countries around the world, plus the EU, covering trade worth £744 billion last year. Last week, I signed a trade deal with the European Economic Area-European Free Trade Association countries Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. It is one of the new generation of trade deals we are signing, which Britain has struck as an independent trading nation. It shows that Britain is a pioneering partner of choice when it comes to trade. They have gone further with us than with any other FTA partner, benefiting every corner of our country. From fish feed to cheese, sausages to strawberries, tariffs have been cut, backing jobs across Britain.
Mr Speaker
Let’s go to Karl MᶜCartney. [Interruption.] Maybe not. So we will go to Sir David Amess.
Sir David Amess [V]
While I wholeheartedly congratulate the Government on the agreements negotiated so far, as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the Maldives, I urge my hon. Friend, following our meeting, to negotiate something that is slightly different, an economic partnership agreement, with the Maldives Government, which would benefit not only our country but the core industry of sustainable tuna fishing in the Maldives in the light of COP26.
Mr Jayawardena
It was a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend recently to discuss trade policy regarding the Maldives. He will know that we have agreed trade deals covering 31 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries already, showing our belief in trade for development. I can confirm to him that I am keen to find a route to short circuit the process of agreeing more trade deals like these with Commonwealth friends around the world.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
I concur with the previous speaker on the Maldives.
Some seafood companies in Scotland have seen their costs of selling to the continent treble from 32p a kilo to about £1 a kilo. Also, UK exports to Ireland have fallen by 47.6%. All that illustrates the current damage Brexit is doing. We know from Government figures that, for every £490 lost to GDP, trade deals are not bringing in very much, unfortunately: an Australian trade deal makes up only £2 of that; a New Zealand trade deal £1; an America deal, if it happens, £20; and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership will bring in £3 to £8, depending on the way the cards fall. Has the DIT identified any other trade deal that might make up merely 0.1% of GDP, the odd £10 for every £490 of Brexit loss? Is there a figure for India yet? It has been a number of weeks since I asked the Minister this, but is there a GDP figure for a trade deal with India, if it happens?
Mr Jayawardena
The question has been asked and it has already been answered. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, in the EEA-EFTA trade deal, we have secured great benefits for Scottish businesses exporting to Norway. According to the figures I have seen, Orkney Scottish Island cheddar could see its duty reduced by two thirds. There will also be an important new opportunity for fish feed exporters to export tariff-free to Norway—it will see previously high tariffs on fish feed slashed to nought—providing a potential boost to the aquaculture industry in Scotland.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
Her Majesty’s Government formally began negotiations on the UK’s accession to CPTPP on 22 June. Negotiating teams will be working hard over the coming months to ensure a good deal for businesses, producers and consumers across the UK. The UK’s accession would make CPTPP a truly global free trading area and strengthen the UK’s relationship with 11 dynamic economies across four continents.
Paul Bristow [V]
Taiwan is one of the top 20 trading nations in the world, a vibrant democracy, a member of the WTO and an Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation member economy. Could the Minister confirm that the UK welcomes Taiwan’s intention to join CPTPP alongside our own application and update the House on efforts to deepen our bilateral trade ties with Taiwan?
Greg Hands
Taiwan is a subject close to my heart, and we know that it is an important and growing trading partner for the UK. It is a highly valued member of the WTO as well. Future membership of CPTPP is a matter for the members at that time, but I note that Taiwan is looking to align itself to CPTPP’s high standards and is continuing its long-standing commitment to rules-based trade and the global trading system. We expect CPTPP to grow in size, and future members will be a matter for future consideration. I am looking forward to our next round of Joint Economic and Trade Committee talks with Taiwan, hopefully as soon as travel becomes possible again.
Martin Vickers [V]
I very much support the Government’s efforts to become a member of CPTPP, which, as the Minister mentioned, offers great prospects. Indeed, my constituency is a major centre for renewable energy and has links with, for example, Taiwan. Does he anticipate that the renewable energy sector will gain great advantage from CPTPP membership and boost those industries in my constituency?
Greg Hands
Yes. CPTPP will of course liberalise trade in goods and services in the fast-growing markets in the Pacific, and fast-growing markets have fast-growing needs for clean energy. In recent times, I have been in Vietnam, Korea and Taiwan, pushing UK expertise and exports, for example, in the offshore wind sector. I remind the House that the UK has the world’s largest offshore wind capacity. I am sure there will be opportunities for that and other renewable sectors in Yorkshire and the Humber, including in Cleethorpes.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Government are relying on increased trade with Malaysia for three quarters of the forecast benefits from joining the CPTPP. That may explain why Ministers have turned a blind eye to the growing use of slave labour in Malaysian factories. If the Minister disputes what I have just said, perhaps he can tell us what proportion of the 760 million medical gloves bought by the Government from Malaysia during the pandemic were manufactured using slave labour?
Greg Hands
We take our obligations and any allegations of the use of slave labour extremely seriously. I am happy to look into it if the hon. Member has specific allegations in relation to Malaysia. I might add that the Malaysian supply of latex gloves last year was extremely important for this country, but I am happy to look into it if he has specific evidence of the use of slave labour. Of course, Malaysia has not yet ratified CPTPP. We hope that it will and I remind him that CPTPP has a comprehensive chapter on labour and workers’ rights.
Bill Esterson
The Minister really was not in a position to answer that question because his Department failed to act on warnings last year from the high commissioner in Kuala Lumpur telling them that their slavery audit function for glove manufacturing was not up to the task. It simply cannot be allowed to continue, so if I write to the Minister with the Government’s current list of glove suppliers—I have a list of 19 companies so far—will he agree to conduct a proper audit of their factories? Bearing in mind what he just said about accession to CPTPP and Malaysia having yet to ratify it, will he also reconsider signing any trade agreement with Malaysia as long as its reliance on slave labour persists?
Greg Hands
I repeat my offer to have a look at the specifics, of course. The UK Government take all such accusations, allegations or reports extremely seriously. When it comes to Malaysia joining CPTPP, they have signed and it is up to them to ratify. The UK is not currently a member of CPTPP so it is not up to us who joins it at the moment, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that CPTPP does include a comprehensive labour chapter that ensures that the parties protect and enforce labour rights, improve working conditions and strengthen co-operation on labour issues, all of which would be very helpful in the sort of cases that he is talking about.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss) [V]
At the May Trade Ministers’ meeting, we committed to a global trading system with open markets that are not undermined by unfair trade. We agreed to work together to reform the global trading system to be free and fair for all.
Tom Randall
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that she is doing to improve global trading. Does she agree that the international community needs to get tough on China and improve the reputation of global trading?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right that we need to tackle unfair market practices, such as subsidies by state-owned enterprises in industries such as steel and aerospace. On Tuesday, I met my US counterpart, Katherine Tai, and we agreed to work together on this issue.
Ms Ghani
In the G7 Trade Ministers communiqué, issues around free and fair trade were balanced on transparency and supply chains being free of slave labour. Can the Secretary of State provide us with an update on the conversations that she has had with G7 leaders and, in particular, can she possibly let me know whether she will be congratulating the US Senate on passing a law last night that will ban all imports from Xinjiang because, of course, they are full of Uyghur slave labour?
Elizabeth Truss
I agree with my hon. Friend that forced labour is an abhorrent practice. We have already taken action in the UK to ensure that there is no forced labour in our supply chains and G7 Trade Ministers are committed to tackling this issue. We are working on best practice to prevent, identify and eliminate forced labour in global supply chains ahead of the G7 October trade ministerial.
Henry Smith [V]
I welcome the work that my right hon. Friend is doing with her G7 counterparts to reform global trading and encourage a rules-based multilateral trading system. Does she agree that a free and fair trading system will help countries, including the UK, to build back better from the covid-19 pandemic as part of a strong economic recovery?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a worrying rise in protectionism in recent years and I am proud that the UK is leading the way in liberalising trade, striking new free trade deals to bring more jobs and growth as we seek to build back better after covid. At the same time, we are defending UK industry against unfair practices.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I hope that the Secretary of State has had a productive visit to the United States. She will have seen the example set by the Biden Administration when it comes to taking concrete action against the use of slave labour and the abuse of workers’ rights in countries ranging from Malaysia to Mexico. By contrast, may I ask her to name a country—one will do—with which the UK has a trade deal where she has taken any action of any kind to enforce the rights of workers?
Elizabeth Truss
We are extremely committed to making sure not only that we stand up for high standards across the globe, that our workers here in the United Kingdom are protected and that we do not diminish our workers’ rights, but that we work together with other countries to do that. I point to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which has a very strong labour chapter, for example insisting on minimum wages and the recognition of trade union rights. I look forward to the right hon. Lady’s support for our accession to that agreement.
Emily Thornberry
The shocking reality is that more than a third of our non-EU deals have been with countries where workers’ rights are systematically denied or violated, and in not a single case has the Secretary of State done anything about it. That is not good enough when slave labour is on the rise around the world and it is women, children, migrants and minorities who are too often the victims. Will she take a lesson from the Biden Administration, stop turning a blind eye to the abuse of workers’ rights by our own trade partners and start taking action against them instead?
Elizabeth Truss
I am very proud of the role that the United Kingdom has played in setting very high labour standards and looking for them in the trade agreements that we are working on. That is part of our discussions with the CPTPP countries. I have also been talking to leading figures in the US about how we can ensure strong labour rights in future US agreements.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
China now produces 28% of carbon emissions—more than the US and the EU combined—with more than half the world’s coal-fired power stations and a third more planned. To stop carbon-intensive Chinese products such as steel displacing greener alternatives, will the Secretary of State ensure that with the G7, at COP26 and with Katherine Tai we pursue the carbon border tax being developed in the EU so that trade can help to save the planet, not destroy it?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about carbon leakage. We need to make sure that when we work to achieve our net zero target, we are not simply exporting carbon production elsewhere. That is why I am working with G7 partners on the issue of carbon leakage, but I think it is important that the solution is multilateral and embedded in the world trading system rather than unilateral from each individual country, so I am working with like-minded partners across the globe to make sure that we take account of carbon emissions.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
While the detail of free trade agreements is necessarily sensitive, we have committed in our public mandates to protecting our world-leading labour standards. For example, in our agreement in principle with Australia, a commitment was made to a chapter on labour that will lock in high domestic protections for our workers.
Kate Osborne
Colombia remains the deadliest place in the world to be a trade unionist, with 22 union activists murdered in the past year alone, according to the latest global rights index. Does the Minister now regret the agreement of a trade deal with Colombia that is so utterly toothless when it comes to the protection and enforcement of workers’ rights?
Mr Jayawardena
The hon. Lady will know that that was originally a deal negotiated by the EU. We provided continuity to businesses in this country and in Colombia to make sure that on our exit from the European Union, businesses could continue to trade. The truth is that some of the most vulnerable people will be affected by some of the knee-jerk policies suggested by the Labour party. In all our trade deals, we will uphold Britain’s high standards for businesses, workers and consumers, and we will continue to meet our obligations under the International Labour Organisation.
Sir Mark Hendrick [V]
The Minister has made perfectly clear the Government’s efforts to engage with Australia on the question of workers’ rights in the run-up to the trade agreement. Countries such as Australia and New Zealand already have decent workers’ rights. However, more than half—that is, 14 out of 24—of the countries where the Government are currently negotiating trade deals have very poor track records on labour rights, including Brazil, Malaysia and India. What pressure or influence will the Government bring to bear when negotiating a deal with those countries whose labour standards and rights are extremely poor, so that the trade can benefit UK workers and the workers of our trading partners too?
Mr Jayawardena
Again, the question seems to have been asked and answered already. The comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership has a comprehensive labour and workers’ rights chapter, and I would have thought that the people of Preston would welcome the fact that the CPTPP offers Britain access to two thirds of the world’s middle classes by 2030.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss) [V]
We have a strong bilateral trade relationship with Israel worth £5 billion a year. On my recent visit to Israel, I discussed our ambitions for a new free trade agreement to create further opportunities for British business.
Michael Fabricant [V]
My right hon. Friend will know from her visit to Israel that it has the highest number of high-tech start-ups in the world. Moreover, the latest Intel chips in all our computers were designed in Israel by Intel. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to enhance the trading relationship in high-tech products with the state of Israel?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is completely right. The UK and Israel are both leaders in technology, from agri-tech to gaming to med-tech, and there are huge opportunities for us to work together. What we will be seeking in the new trade deal with Israel is an advanced digital data and technology chapter that looks to the industries of the future to give both countries more opportunities.
Scott Benton
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to sign an advanced free trade agreement with our close ally Israel, and I hope she enjoyed her first ever visit to the country this month. Israel is a growing export market for UK companies, so what steps is she taking to champion UK-made products being sold in Israel, and what more can be done to boost UK exports of things such as cars, machinery and clothing?
Elizabeth Truss
The current UK-Israel partnership is already worth £5 billion a year, but we want to turbo-charge that. We are providing practical assistance for UK firms through our trade adviser network, as well as strong support from UK Export Finance to help to finance those exports into Israel.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
We all welcome the prospect of an enhanced trade deal with Israel, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on her efforts to secure it. Among the many improvements that we hope the new deal delivers, will she guarantee to remove the clause mistakenly included in the 2019 UK-Israel agreement that prohibits manufacturers in UK freeports from sharing in the benefits of that deal? Can she tell us when we can expect revised deals with the 20 other countries, including Switzerland and Singapore, where the same freeport blunder still applies?
Elizabeth Truss
The clauses that the right hon. Lady is referring to are absolutely standard in free trade agreements. Every agreement is the result of a negotiation with the relevant country, and of course we secure the best possible outcome in terms of tariff reductions and rules of origin, but I will be absolutely clear that firms locating in our freeports are free to take advantage of whichever is better for their company: a given free trade agreement or the additional reductions from being in that freeport.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
I was delighted to devise the enhanced trade partnership concept last year, and after much work across Government, the Prime Minister agreed the ETP with his counterpart on 4 May. Trade with India has averaged around £20 billion over recent years, and with its population bigger than those of the EU and US combined, the scope for growth is great, so I am looking forward to discussing our future trade deal with my new counterpart very soon.
Andy Carter
I warmly welcome the work the Minister is doing to secure a trade agreement with the world’s fastest growing economy. Does he agree that a trade deal with India will open the door for British goods—whisky from Scotland, fine wines from the vineyards of south Wales and handcrafted gin from Warrington, the best in the world?
Mr Jayawardena
I am in absolute agreement with my hon. Friend and I must make a visit to Warrington to sample some of this superb gin. India is projected to be the world’s second largest economy by 2037, so the opportunities for British businesses, from financial services to pharmaceuticals, form food and drink to film and music, are huge. This people’s Government are determined to make sure that every corner of our country benefits from international trade, securing growth and creating jobs.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
The United Kingdom has long promoted her values globally. Although our approach to agreements will vary between partners, our strong economic relationships not only allow us to have open discussions on a range of issues, including rights and responsibilities, but secure jobs across our country, including in Hampshire.
Stephen Morgan
Successive UK Governments have believed in the principle that new trade treaties should contain essential human rights clauses. That makes the whole of the treaty conditional on the commitments relating to human rights. Will the Minister confirm whether that principle remains under his Government or whether it has disappeared, along with the commitment to a 0.7% international aid target?
Mr Jayawardena
We promote international objectives, including rights, through a mixture of approaches. On the point the hon. Gentleman made towards the end of his question, there has been much talk about global Britain this week and trade is the route to prosperity, for Britain and her friends around the world. Although others may be content with offering only handouts, we are determined to give our friends a hand up. So having taken back control of our trade policy, I can confirm that we will be looking to go further than the EU and we will be setting out our plans and launching a consultation on this very soon.[Official Report, 19 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 4MC.]
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
There will be more UK export opportunities for our food and drink industry with the removal of all Australia tariffs. We have considered the impact of additional market access for beef and lamb on UK farmers, which has been balanced by a lengthy 15-year staging period. An independently scrutinised impact assessment will be published prior to implementation.
Mr Carmichael
Patrick Krause, chief executive of the Scottish Crofting Foundation, recently made the point that the real risk for Scottish crofters from the Australia deal comes from the fact that other countries with which we do trade deals will want the same good terms that we have given to Australia. As he said,
“Crofting is good for food, and also has very impressive environmental and climate-change mitigation credentials. And crofting is about the people—crofting has maintained communities in remote rural places.”
How much of that does the Minister think will be said of the products that will be imported to replace crofted lamb?
Greg Hands
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his engagement and his interest. I have engaged extensively with Scottish farmers, crofters and Martin Kennedy of the National Farmers Union Scotland. I have done various roundtables with constituency MPs as well. On the impact of Australian beef and lamb imports, we think it is very unlikely that there will be a surge in imports into this country. Currently, there are strong incentives for Australia to sell into Asia. For example, the lamb quota is not currently fully used. Beef production prices in Asia are twice what they are in the UK. Australia exports 75% of its beef and 70% of its lamb to Asia, which is why I would expect that pattern to be continued. But this is also why we have built safeguards and a staging period of 15 years into the deal.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
We are seeking environmental provisions with all partners with which we are currently negotiating to ensure that future trade is sustainable and upholds the UK’s high environmental standards. The precise deals of any free trade agreement are a matter for formal negotiations.
Rachael Maskell
Despite what the Minister says about calling for more control over trade, he has completely failed to advance the “polluter pays” principle through the carbon border tax, failed to advance the agenda at the G7, failed to put it into any of the trade agreements that he has drawn up and failed to put it into any of the negotiation frameworks that he is currently discussing. Can he tell me whether he will fail at the next stage when it comes to COP26? Is he already engaged in pre-negotiation talks with all the partners, and how will the principle fare on the COP26 agenda when the summits meets in November?
Greg Hands
We take a strong interest in carbon leakage and in how trade deals with carbon. We are studying carefully, for example, EU proposals on the carbon border adjustment mechanism. At the World Trade Organisation in general, we are looking to advance our environmental agenda. The hon. Lady will know of the different measures taken by the UK Government; for example there is the UK global tariff, which reduced and eliminated tariffs on 104 environmental goods. We are also seeking good environmental chapters in all of our future free trade agreements.
Kerry McCarthy
Thank you for sneaking me in, Mr Speaker.
Today, we heard the devastating news that the Amazon is now a carbon source rather than a carbon sink. With deforestation at a 12-year high, it is emitting more CO2 than it absorbs. Is the Minister following the progress of the land-grabbing legislation, which has been dubbed the destruction package, that is going through the Brazilian Parliament at the moment? What discussions has he had with his counterparts, and what impact would that have on trade negotiations with Brazil? May I urge him to rule them out if this package goes through?
Greg Hands
We are not currently negotiating a trade agreement with Brazil. We follow the position in Brazil very closely, and we engage strongly on a bilateral basis on all of these issues with the Brazilian Government. We have very good diplomatic representation not just in Brasilia but across different parts of Brazil, to make sure that the UK position and the importance of deforestation for the UK, particularly in this COP26 year, is upheld.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss) [V]
The United States is our largest single country trading partner and an important ally. We have already made progress in the Airbus-Boeing dispute, getting tariffs removed on great British products such as machinery and whisky. I am now working closely with my US counterparts to tackle global issues on steel, aerospace and technology to make sure that trade is fair as well as free.
Brendan O'Hara
We are six months into Brexit and the sea of opportunity that the seafood producers of my Argyll and Bute constituency were promised has turned out to be swamp of bureaucracy. Alongside a mountain of paperwork and red tape, they all report falling prices, loss of markets, labour shortages and major transport and logistical problems. Six months into Brexit, they are facing an existential crisis. How has the Secretary of State’s Department allowed that to happen?
Elizabeth Truss
We have seen trade with the EU bounce back after some initial issues. In particular, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has offered support to seafood producers to ensure that they have what they need to be able to deal with those issues.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
My hon. Friend is correct. The Australia deal is a fundamentally liberalising agreement that removes tariffs and supports millions of jobs. It will strengthen the bonds of friendship—I speak as the parliamentary president of the Conservative Friends of Australia—for example by championing youth mobility, which he referred to. The deal also paves the way for joining the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and the growing middle-class markets of the Pacific rim. We are realising the vision of a global Britain that looks to one of the most dynamic trading areas in the world.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
Greg Hands
HSBC is an extremely important company and employer in this country. I do not have a problem with Ministers meeting HSBC, let us put that on the record. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the very strong action we have taken in relation to China and the measures announced by the Foreign Secretary in this House in January in relation to supply chains in Xinjiang and actions in Hong Kong, which had broad agreement across the House. We will continue to make vigorous representations in relation to China, and we are monitoring the situation very closely.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Services are 80% of the UK economy. We are the world’s second largest exporter of services, and a huge number of those are digitally enabled. The digital economy agreement between the UK and Singapore will be a model for global digital trade rules, and I met Singapore Minister Alvin Tan just yesterday to discuss it. Singapore is a global leader in this area. We are looking forward to signing an excellent agreement with Singapore.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) [V]
Greg Hands
We are following developments on the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism closely. The UK has ambitious carbon pricing through our emissions trading scheme and carbon price support mechanism, and we expect the EU CBAM to take account of that in its implementation. The COP President-designate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), has said that he does not anticipate carbon border adjustment mechanisms becoming an issue within the COP26 negotiations.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her championing of her constituency and Cornwall’s farmers. We are opening markets, as we have discussed. We are activating farmers with our “Open Doors” campaign, and we are grateful for the support of the National Farmers Union and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. We have a mentoring scheme, which I was delighted to launch in the south-west, and we are leading trade missions such as “Spring into Japan”, to make sure that on a greater scale than ever before we are engaging more farmers’ produce with global markets, leading to jobs and prosperity in her constituency and beyond.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Greg Hands
We have been absolutely categorical in our commitment on food standards and food safety standards. There will be no compromise on UK standards in relation to any trade agreement. That has been the case—[Interruption.] Our commitment is absolute. If the hon. Member were to take a look at all the trade agreements we have done with 67 countries—if she looked at the Australia trade deal agreement in principle and the Japan deal—she would see no diminution in our food safety and animal welfare standards so far.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) [V]
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind) [V]
Greg Hands
I can absolutely give that commitment to the people of Delyn. The Government have been very clear that any trade deals must work for UK consumers and businesses, upholding our high regulatory standards. The Government, as I mentioned earlier, have manifesto commitments to no compromise on standards in animal welfare, food safety and the environment.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
The Secretary of State had a successful visit to Israel herself in the last week of June, and she had productive discussions with her Israeli counterpart, focused on ambitions for upgrading our current trade relationship. As my hon. Friend suggests, I am very keen personally to strengthen our £5 billion trade relationship even further, and I look forward to taking these discussions forward to create further opportunities for British businesses in tech and beyond.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
Greg Hands
We will be responding in due course to the call for input on going further on a trade deal with Canada, and we are looking forward to that negotiation starting in the autumn. I would remind the hon. Member that there are no ISDS provisions in the UK-Australia deal, but I would also remind her that the UK has never lost an ISDS case. We do have ISDS provisions in quite a number of our existing agreements, and the UK has never lost any such case.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
Graham Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question. I am tremendously proud of UK Export Finance and its staff for the innovative way in which they have responded to the pandemic, with the record level—more than £12 billion—given to UK businesses supporting more than 100,000 jobs up and down the country. Behind those 549 companies, of course, stand 10,000 or more supply chain companies. UKEF, at no cost to the taxpayer, makes an enormous difference to the prosperity and success of this country.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) [V]
Mr Jayawardena
My Department continues to defend the interests of British industries in all parts of the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State is currently in the United States building on the historic arrangement that we secured in the Airbus-Boeing dispute, ensuring that the British aerospace sector can take off again after covid-19. Confidence in our fantastic aerospace manufacturing capability has never been at such heights. The United Airlines order of 70 A321neo aircraft last month will feature wonderful Welsh-made wings, and I look forward to further success in the future.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s ambitious strategy for growing exports needs to include more agricultural councils in our embassies, a UK export council to help co-ordinate that strategy, and better promotion and marketing of brand Britain abroad so that we can ensure that farming and food companies in Eddisbury and right across the country can embrace the undoubted benefits and opportunities that UK free trade deals can deliver?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend cleverly tempts me to list the recommendations of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which constructively seeks to improve our support for UK farmers. We look forward to responding to that as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker
I am glad you were not tempted. I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Newport Wafer Fab Sale
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) [V]
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the sale of the Newport Wafer Fab semiconductors plant in Duffryn, Newport, to the Chinese-owned firm Nexperia.
Thank you very much for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister also for being present to answer it. I understand that the Government cannot comment on security matters, but the purpose of the urgent question is to give Parliament an opportunity to make its views known about the strategic importance of the Chinese takeover of Wafer Fab, a semiconductor manufacturer based in Newport.
The Chinese firm Wingtech Technology has a controlling stake in the acquiring company Nexperia, which supplies Chinese companies that create smartphones, including Huawei. The Prime Minister stated at the Liaison Committee last week on 7 July:
“This Government is spending a huge quantity of taxpayers’ money to make sure that we get Huawei out of our telecommunications networks.”
Would it not therefore be completely inconsistent if Government policy allowed the takeover of a firm creating microchips of such importance to our national security? The Prime Minister also stated that we need to be more self-reliant, and that he was told that it costs £9 billion to build a semiconductor factory. Why would we allow such sophisticated national infrastructure to be sold?
Finally, while I agree with the Prime Minister that we do not want an
“anti-China spirit to lead to our trying to pitchfork away every investment from China into this country”,
in this particular case the security issues should be paramount. China considers this matter vital for its national security, as do other countries, including our ally the United States. Why are our Government not taking the same view?
Mr Speaker
We have gone slightly out of order. The hon. Member was meant to just ask the urgent question, and then come back. If the Minister can roll the two together, I will then go to the shadow Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
Of course, Mr Speaker. The Government recognise Newport Wafer Fab’s value as a company, and its contribution to consortia based at the south Wales compound semiconductor cluster. The Government are committed to the semiconductor cluster and the vital role that it plays in the UK’s economy. The Welsh Government have previously provided financial support to the company, as economic development is devolved and the responsibility of the Welsh Government.
Under the Enterprise Act 2002, the Government have powers to intervene in mergers and takeovers that raise national security concerns. We have recently strengthened those powers in the National Security and Investment Act 2021, which is expected to come into force at the end of this year, but it is right that commercial transactions are primarily a matter for the parties involved. The Government have been in close contact with Newport Wafer Fab, but do not consider it appropriate to intervene in this case at the current time.
We will continue to monitor the situation closely, and, as part of that, the Prime Minister has asked the national security adviser to review this case. Separately, work is under way to review the wider semiconductor landscape in the United Kingdom. As I am sure the House will appreciate, I am unable to comment on the detail of commercial transactions, or of any national security assessment of a particular case.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing the urgent question.
Newport Wafer Fab is a symbol of British innovation and world-class employment—not just its 450 employees but the wider regional semiconductor cluster. It is also a testament to the long-term role of public investment in strategic economic planning by the Welsh Government, so the priority must be to secure a viable long-term future for what is the UK’s largest semiconductor manufacturer. With European automotives protesting over chips shortages and promising to ramp up domestic production, it is clear that Newport Wafer Fab is a strategic economic asset.
Labour welcomes investment in the business, as we welcome almost all inward investment in thriving British industries, but, given the importance of semiconductors to our country’s critical infrastructure, there is a clear case for examining this on national security grounds, and it is a pity that the Minister did not make it. Global competition to secure microchip development is accelerating. Our national security interests require a strong position in this contested market, so how will the Minister now ensure that this vital national economic and technology asset is protected? Will she use the powers in the National Security and Investment Act 2021 to urgently scrutinise this takeover? If the sale is blocked on national security grounds, will the Government work creatively and urgently to secure the financing that the business needs? All options must be kept on the table, including a role for potential public equity investment.
As Labour argued during the passage of the NSI Act, the Government have consistently outsourced British national security and economic interests, because Ministers have prioritised market zeal over British security, as in 2012 when they let the Centre for Integrated Photonics, a prize British research and development centre, be taken over by Huawei. That is why Labour is calling for the national security and public interest test regime to be strengthened. This is a critical test of whether the Government are willing to use these new powers or not, which goes to the heart of what kind of industrial strategy we have and what kind of country we want to be.
Amanda Solloway
As laid out in the integrated review, China is a systemic competitor. The scale and reach of China’s economy, the size of its population, its technological advancement and increasing ambition to project its influence on the global stage, for example through the belt and road initiative, will have profound implications worldwide. Open, trading economies such as the UK will need to engage with China and remain open to Chinese trade and investment, but they must protect themselves against practices that have an adverse effect on prosperity and security. Co-operation with China is vital in tackling transnational-type challenges, particularly climate change and biodiversity loss.
The UK wants a mature, positive relationship with China, based on mutual respect and trust. There is considerable scope for constructive engagement and co-operation, but as we strive for that positive relationship, we will not sacrifice either our values or our security. It has always been the case that where we have concerns, we will raise them, and where we need to intervene, we will. The Government have a range of legislative and regulatory powers to protect infrastructure and critical services, including the new National Security and Investment Act 2021. The NSI Act is nation-agnostic: acquisitions should be considered on a case-by-case basis, which will help to ensure that the Act is not discriminatory and that we uphold our World Trade Organisation obligations.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for the timing of his urgent question—which is clearly rather better than my timing. May I ask the Minister—who is very kindly in her place—about the National Security and Investment Act 2021? The Act set forth various conditions for securing various elements of British industry, but as set out, that was all to be done by central Government, not by devolved Administrations. Clearly this is one of those moments, because there is a global semiconductor chip shortage, delaying the production of white goods, cars and, indeed, military equipment.
I am told that Newport Wafer Fab is a key partner for the development of—I am afraid I will have to use the technical terms, because I am not qualified to translate them—RF MMIC high-frequency GaN designs for defence 5G radar systems. This is a £5.4 million project led by the Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult and Cardiff University, with Newport Wafer Fab providing process development expertise and a route to scale up within a proposed expansion of Newport Wafer Fab 10.
If that does not put Newport Wafer Fab into the national security bracket, I do not know what does. The idea that this is a matter for the Assembly or the Government in Wales is, I am afraid, simply not the case. The Prime Minister seems to have pre-empted that, as he has asked the National Security Adviser, as he told the Liaison Committee the other day, to have a look into this. Will the Minister now commit, on behalf of her Department, to present the National Security Adviser’s report to Parliament, to allow us to hear the evaluation of Her Majesty’s Government and to debate it?
Amanda Solloway
I acknowledge the work that my hon. Friend does, which is greatly appreciated. As he will know, the Act focuses on acquisitions of control over qualifying and entitled assets. That means that once the Act is commenced we will be able to scrutinise and, if necessary, intervene in takeover companies and in the purchase of individual assets, such as intellectual property. The Government are absolutely clear that where concerns are raised we will intervene. However, my hon. Friend and the House will appreciate that I cannot go into any detail or comment on commercial transactions or national security assessments.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Seventy-seven days have passed since the National Security and Investment Act received Royal Assent. In the previous months, I and colleagues across the Chamber sought to work constructively with the Government to ensure that that legislation was as robust as it possibly could be. Notwithstanding the fact that the Government rejected most of our suggestions, we all backed the Act because it was in our collective interest to do so, yet it appears to have been rendered almost useless at its first hurdle. I respectfully suggest that had it not been for the intervention of the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, it is doubtful that the Prime Minister would have sought national security advice on this matter. Why did it take an intervention from a senior Government Back Bencher for the Government to take this matter seriously? Is the National Security and Investment Act as it stands simply not up to the task? Is it not worth the paper it is written on?
Amanda Solloway
The Government have looked closely at the transaction and do not consider it appropriate to intervene at the current time. However, as the Prime Minister made clear at the Liaison Committee last week, he has asked the National Security Adviser to review this.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) [V]
The pandemic has shown us the importance of supply chains and of the ability to produce the materials we need here in the UK. We also know that semiconductors are a vital component of many of the day-to-day items that we use and take for granted. A disruption to the supply chain of semiconductors will have far-reaching consequences. Will my hon. Friend set out what steps the Government are taking to strengthen their powers in relation to the threat of hostile investment?
Amanda Solloway
In 2020, the Government amended the Enterprise Act 2002 so that we could intervene in mergers and takeovers that threaten our ability to combat a public health emergency such as coronavirus. As the House will know, we have recently overhauled our investment screening system through the new National Security and Investment Act so that we can intervene in takeovers of companies or purchases of assets that pose a risk to national security. The NSI Act will allow the Government to scrutinise and intervene in acquisitions that may pose national security risks. It also provides businesses and investors with predictable, legally defined timelines and processes for decisions on acquisitions. The Act requires particularly sensitive acquisitions to be approved by Government before they are completed, but the vast majority of acquisitions will be unaffected by these powers.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for this morning’s urgent question and for speaking to me about it last night. Newport Wafer Fab is in my constituency and I have in recent days had a number of meetings about the issue, and have spoken to many people across Newport West who are watching events very closely. Newport Wafer Fab is part of the unique semiconductor cluster in Newport West—the only one in the world, and I am so proud. It employs more than 450 people who are highly skilled, well paid and need job security. I fully understand the need for scrutiny of any deal involving potentially hostile foreign takeovers and national security is of course paramount, but my constituents and I want to see an open, transparent and fair deal. Will the Minister meet me at the earliest possible opportunity so that we can ensure that whatever happens next, those jobs, the impact on the people of Newport West and the strategic nature of this plant will be kept in mind every step of the way?
Amanda Solloway
The hon. Lady makes an important point. The Government have looked closely at the transaction and do not consider it inappropriate, but as the Prime Minister has made clear, the National Security Adviser will review it. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady or at least facilitate a meeting with the appropriate Minister.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
My hon. Friend talks about mutual respect between ourselves and the Chinese people, which I believe is correct, but the Chinese Government do not respect rules-based order, particularly in enterprise and commerce. This semiconductor plant is critical to our UK economy, particularly at a time of rising demand for semiconductors, and the 450 jobs at Duffryn are also very important. Does she agree that the protection of those jobs, that plant and the UK-owned intellectual property is critically important to her and to this Government?
Amanda Solloway
Like my hon. Friend, I am of course totally committed to skills, as are the Government. In fact, the Government have invested £800 million in compound semiconductor research. In 2018, through UK Research and Innovation, we established a compound semiconductor applications catapult with £50 million of funding to collaborate with large companies and start-ups to develop and commercialise new applications utilising this technology. To date, the catapult has initiated projects worth more than £100 million. The UK has over 100 companies actively working with compound semiconductors. About 5,000 UK companies, 90% of which are small and medium-sized enterprises, are designing and making electronic components, devices, systems and products. The catapult is a national body dedicated to compound development across the United Kingdom. The UK Government, via UKRI and the Welsh Government, have additionally provided significant funds to help to establish south Wales university structures such as the Institute for Compound Semiconductors.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
This is a very important question. A few years ago, I fought the takeover of Syngenta in my constituency—one of the top world leaders in plant protection, fertiliser and all that complicated research stuff. It was taken over quickly by the Chinese—not by the Chinese, but by the Chinese Communist Government. There is nothing on the stock exchange; it is owned by the Chinese Government. Most people in this country do not realise just how widespread this insidious Chinese takeover of so many strategic assets in our country is. Will the Minister ask her bosses to have an audit of how far this takeover of British companies has now gone? As most people know, the whole of the electricity transmission in London and the south, with 10 million customers, is owned by the Chinese—or, again, the Chinese Government. How far can this go before we wake up to what is really going on? It is insidious, it is dangerous, and it is a real threat to our national security.
Amanda Solloway
The Government do have a wide range of legislative and regulatory powers to protect infrastructure and critical services, including the National Security and Investment Act 2021, which will allow the Government to scrutinise and intervene in acquisitions that may pose national security risks. It also provides businesses and investors with predictable, legally defined timelines and processes for decisions on acquisitions. The NSI Act requires particularly sensitive acquisitions to be approved by the Government before they are completed. However, the vast majority of acquisitions will be unaffected by these powers.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
When it comes to issues of national security, there can be no compromise. I am one of those who believes in the free market and believes in companies being bought and sold where appropriate, but national security must trump that. In these circumstances, this is such a vital aspect of both our industry and our national security that the Government must intervene. I understand that my hon. Friend cannot comment on issues of national security to the House today, but will she undertake to return to the House when a final decision is made and inform the House so that we can scrutinise it both for value for money and on national security grounds?
Amanda Solloway
As laid out in the integrated review, China is a systematic competitor. The scale and reach of China’s economy, the size of its population, its technological advancement and its increasing ambition to project its influence on the global stage through programmes such as the belt and road initiative will have profound implications worldwide. Open trade economies such as the United Kingdom will need to engage with China and remain open to Chinese trade and investments, but they must protect themselves against practices that have an adverse effect on prosperity and security. Co-operation with China will also be vital in tackling transnational challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss, as I have mentioned.
The UK wants a mature, positive relationship with China based on mutual respect and trust. There is considerable scope for constructive engagement and co-operation, but, as we strive for that positive relationship, we will not sacrifice either our values or our security. It has always been the case that we raise concerns where we have them, and where we need to intervene, we will. The Government have a range of legislative and regulatory powers to protect infrastructure and critical services including the New National Security and Investment Act 2021, which is nationally agnostic. Finally, acquisitions should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and that helps to ensure that the Act is not discriminatory. We will uphold our World Trade Organisation obligations.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
At a time when the Chinese regime is stepping up its human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, Britain should be increasing its sanctions. Instead, we are giving the CCP a bigger stake in our economy. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that state pension funds are not investing in companies linked to abuse of the Uyghurs? What actions will she take to further censure the CCP?
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The evidence of the scale and severity of human rights violations perpetrated in Xinjiang against Uyghur Muslims is far reaching and paints a truly harrowing picture. China must be held to account for its human rights violations. As the Foreign Secretary set out in his statement to the House on 22 March,
“the evidence points to a highly disturbing programme of repression”
in Xinjiang, and the world
“cannot simply look the other way.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 621.]
He announced the imposition of global human rights sanctions alongside the EU, US and Canada on the perpetrators of the gross human rights violations taking place against the Uyghurs and other minorities in China. He also, on 12 January, announced a series of measures to help ensure that UK businesses and the public sector are not complicit in human rights violations.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware of what the Chinese have promised as part of the deal? I recognise the need to make semiconductor producers more efficient and, if she looks at Taiwan, she will see a company that has had billions poured into it to make it more efficient. Have the Chinese promised that for Wales?
Amanda Solloway
The Government have looked closely at the transaction and do not consider it appropriate to intervene at the current time. However, to reiterate, the Prime Minister made it clear at the Liaison Committee last week that he has asked the National Security Adviser to review that. Of course, the Government are reviewing their policy in the industrial sectors following the publication of “Build Back Better” and the introduction of the National Security and Investment Act. Significant support has been available through research and development funding. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is keen to support developments in supply chains and specific markets for UK growth.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I had the great pleasure of living in Newport for more than a decade. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and would not want to say anything that would deter investment in that great city, but I am also concerned about national security. The excellent Minister said that the Government have looked carefully at the sale. Have they done an impact assessment? If so, have they published it?
Amanda Solloway
As I have said, the Government have looked closely at the transaction and do not consider it appropriate to intervene at the current time. The Prime Minister made it clear at the Liaison Committee that he would ask the National Security Adviser to do a review. I am afraid that I will have to get back to my hon. Friend on an impact assessment as I do not know that.
Mr Speaker
I think that was a hint that the Government should provide them when they are promised.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on his question.
May I say to the Minister that I think the Government are in an unholy mess over this? It is no good their telling us that there is a very clear definition of what is strategic and what is not strategic. In the course of this failure to make a decision, did they look at what China thinks of semiconductors? China is the biggest exporter in the world and is busy buying up semiconductor technology everywhere it can find it. It has identified semiconductor technology as one of the key areas that it needs to dominate globally, and it is busy stealing technology, getting other people’s intellectual property rights and buying up companies. The idea that a semiconductor is not strategic! The technology will be used in almost everything we do—in everything we produce that is electronic.
My simple question is: are we now in a kind of Project Kowtow, where we just have to do business with the Chinese no matter what? That is outrageous. The Minister must take back to her Cabinet colleagues that it is not going to pass. We should have used the Act and blocked the deal.
Amanda Solloway
I reiterate that the Government have looked closely at the transaction and do not consider it appropriate to intervene at the present time. The Prime Minister made it clear at the Liaison Committee last week that he has asked the National Security Adviser to review this. The Government are committed to the semiconductor sector and work is under way to review the wider semiconductor landscape in the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I concur with the comments of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I ask a question along the same lines: in relation to national security and jobs, is this beneficial for the UK?
The Chinese Government have been, and are, responsible for human rights abuses—including of Christians, Falun Gong and Uyghur Muslims—on a level that is unknown in the rest of the world, despite world opinion and despite our representations on the matter. However, they do listen to economic arguments. How can we use this opportunity to challenge them to ensure that they act? We do not want the hollow words that we always get from them; we want action. Before any deal goes through and before any sale happens, let us make sure that human rights abuses are reduced and that they are totally committed to that.
Amanda Solloway
As I mentioned, the Government are completely committed to human rights and are mindful of everything we need to do on that. We have looked very closely at this transaction. I can give the hon. Gentleman my reassurance that the National Security and Investment Act will allow the Government to scrutinise and intervene on any acquisitions that may pose a national security risk. I reiterate that the Government want a mature, positive relationship with China based on mutual respect and trust. There is considerable scope for constructive engagement, but as we strive for a positive relationship, we must not sacrifice either our values or our security.
Mr Speaker
I now suspend the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Business of the House
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 19 July will include:
Monday 19 July—Second Reading of the Nationality and Borders Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 20 July—Conclusion of Second Reading of the Nationality and Borders Bill (day 2).
Wednesday 21 July—Second Reading of the Building Safety Bill.
Thursday 22 July—Debate on a motion relating to the fifth report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, entitled “A Public Inquiry into the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic”, followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee and the Liaison Committee.
At the conclusion of business on Thursday 22 July, the House will rise for the summer recess and return on Monday 6 September.
The provisional business for the week commencing 6 September will include:
Monday 6 September—Remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions Bill.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the business. Visiting the covid wall of red hearts of remembrance across the Thames is a raw reminder of the pain and loss of the past year, and, of course, we all want to go back to the before times. Sadly, we cannot undo what has happened, but we want to look forward to better times and, to do that, we need our Government to learn lessons fast. I am afraid to say that the House business, as ever, tells its own tale: of a Government who seem to have learned nothing; a Government who decided to scrap all protections at once as if this is over, when they know it is not. If it is over, why is there nothing in the business statement about an announcement of a realtime, urgent public covid inquiry? If it is over, why are regional leaders, including Tory ones, deciding that it is essential to continue the compulsory wearing of masks on public transport? If it is over, why are we seeing a rise in infection rates? On Monday, clinically vulnerable people will experience not freedom, but fear.
Why have we still not got the Prime Minister’s plan for social care? Why are the Government imposing another top-down reorganisation with the Health and Care Bill on already exhausted NHS and care staff, rather than giving them the pay rise they so deserve? Where is the disability strategy promised in the Queen’s Speech in 2019, planned for 2020 and then delayed because of covid—which I understand—to early spring 2021? To spring—it is summer now. Is this strategy so poor that the Government intend to announce it with a whimper rather than a bang and without any debate?
Where is the plan for supporting schools and pupils to catch up on a lost year and to give them clarity about exam requirements for next year? I am afraid to say that the evidence seems to suggest that the Government are driven more by online trolls than socially conscientious British values, yet the Prime Minister said yesterday:
“I do not want to engage in a political culture war of any kind; I want to get on with delivering for the people of this country”.—[Official Report, 14 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 364.]
I have already listed just some of the ways that the Government are failing to get on with delivering for the British people.
On the culture war, we have the Bill on free speech in universities, a classic example of a pointless skirmish in a pointless culture war. Why is the Prime Minister unable to read the mood of this country? Last week, a Tory MP said he boycotted the football because of the players taking the knee—not because he does not like football but because he does not like footballers opposing racism. Another Tory MP criticised Marcus Rashford for campaigning to feed hungry children, a problem that the Government have created and exacerbated. Do the Government not want footballers to be good role models? Marcus Rashford has helped to get the England team to the Euro finals while feeding hungry children. The Tory MPs cannot manage to do their job properly and I know who the British people see as the more worthy role models. Maybe some of them should visit Withington in Manchester, where ugly, racist vandalism on the mural of Marcus Rashford was rapidly restored this week with love and admiration from people far and wide coming to wipe out hate. That is who we are. Racists and their apologists are not living out British values. All the Prime Minister had yesterday was that there will be a ban on racists at football matches. Okay, that is good, but will it be for one match, two matches or for life, as the campaigners want?
The Leader of the House has committed to closing the current loophole in legislation so that constituents of known sexual harassers can decide whether or not they want them to continue as their MP, so I am naturally disappointed not to see any mention of this on the timetable for next week. Does he wish to table the Labour motion for debate next week? While we are on staff safety, can I please encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to continue to wear masks next week in the Chamber and with social distancing, especially given rising rates and that young people in particular are not double-vaccinated?
Finally, guidance has been issued only today on what businesses are supposed to do from Monday on the covid risk. No wonder businesses such as those in the Bristol Food Union are telling me that all this chaos with the rules is putting the hospitality sector under massive strain. With just two working days to go, where is the Business Secretary? And today, we find out that Ministers are going to have a get-out clause and will not have to isolate when they have been pinged. Well, how very convenient for them, when up and down the country, people trying to do the right thing—which is leading to staff shortages from the NHS to cafés, from the public sector to businesses struggling to get going again—find that, once again, it is one rule for them and another for the rest of us.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady made a number of points, so let me try to take them in turn. First, however, let me deal with the very serious issue of racism in football. It is disturbing to the whole country and it is something that unites the whole House. The racist tweets and abuse of a number of our footballers after the match last week were simply wrong, and people who have behaved in that way should be banned from attending football matches, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday. It is a determination of this Government to ensure that the legislative framework is correct, which is why my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary has been in discussions with a number of footballers. The Online Safety Bill, which is going to have pre-legislative scrutiny soon, will be focusing on this. It will give Ofcom the power to fine social media firms up to 10% of their global turnover if they fail to ensure that their spaces, their social media outlets, are free from this type of improper, wicked racist abuse. It is important that the House tries to show a united stance on this, because I think the reality is that the whole House is united.
The admiration that the House feels for the English football team is very widespread. I am no expert in football, nor, I know, is the hon. Lady, but the team did its best and they jolly nearly won. This country does have a history of heroic defeats that lead to great victories. Dunkirk led to victory in the end, as did Corunna, and we can therefore look to great things from this team.
While we are discussing football, may I say how proud I am, as a Somerset man, of Tyrone Mings, who is only the second player from God’s own county to play football for England? My whole county rejoices in that about our fellow county man, and we wish him every success, regardless of any comments he may make about my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Coming on to freedom day, 19 July, let me say that 87% of the population have had one vaccine and two thirds have had two vaccines. Having two doses of the Oxford vaccine reduces the chance of getting an infection by 80%. This is a fundamental change in the risk from the risk that existed prior to the vaccine being rolled out.
We know that the risk of infection among the young, who are the most likely not to have had the vaccine, is much lower than among the elderly, who, by and large, have had it. Therefore, it is right to allow people to make choices. The hon. Lady complains that guidance has not been issued early enough. That is not the point—people will make choices for themselves, because the risk has been lowered.
It is, of course, very easy when the Government say everybody should stop, everybody should go home and nobody is allowed to see anybody. Saying no, as the socialists always want to do, is easy. It is always very easy to say no and to tell people they are not allowed to do anything at all, or to tell them how their life should be run: when to have breakfast, when to get out of bed, when to have lunch and what to eat for lunch. The socialists want to run every detail of our lives—that is what underpins their philosophy. The Conservatives believe in individual responsibility. The risk is much lower because of the success of the vaccine, and this is fundamental.
In this Chamber next week, looking around now, I would say that it would be pretty safe not to be wearing masks; the Chamber is not very full. On the other hand, if we were to have a Budget day special, which I am not announcing as business, Mr Speaker, people might feel that the closeness, proximity, hugger-mugger nature of the House would make a mask sensible. But that is something we can decide for ourselves. After all, we, as legislators, are asked to make decisions for the country at large, so surely we have the mental capacity to work out whether or not it is suitable to wear a mask. On this broad issue, let me reassure the hon. Lady that the rules for Ministers are not different from those for other people. There have been tests, which are being considered, about how the pinging operates, but there are no different rules for Ministers, and nor should there be.
As regards education policies, £3 billion is being provided for catch-up. This is really important. It is crucial that children who have lost so much schooling should have the opportunity to get back some of the lost time. That is why there is an important programme to deal with that. It is fundamental that we help to rebuild the economy, having protected it with £407 billion of taxpayers’ money over the last year, and education will be a key part of that.
The hon. Lady referred to decisions by the Commission. She is aware of the motion that was approved by the Commission. There are discussions continuing. It is very important that the independent expert panel is fully informed as to what is going on. There has been correspondence between Mr Speaker and the chairman of the IEP. I will bring forward a motion as soon as it is reasonable to do so because I think what the position should be is agreed by the Commission, but I will be acting for the Commission and not—I emphasise—as Leader of the House.
On free speech in universities, we on the Conservative Benches believe in freedom. We on this side believe that defending freedom is crucial. As we rebuild from the pandemic, yes, we need money to help students, but the whole point of university is that ideas should be challenged. There should be a great clash of intellects as people discuss what is right and what is wrong and as they put arguments from one side to the other, as we do in this House. A political correctness has been waving over our universities to try to stop this type of debate. We need to ensure that there is genuine freedom of debate and freedom of speech, one of the lynchpins of our constitution, in our finest world-beating educational institutions. It may be sad that we need to do it and it may be a shame that the universities have not been defending free speech themselves, but it is an even greater shame that the Opposition actually wish to limit our freedom of speech and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I welcome the announcement of personal choice and independent health management being restored next week. I pay tribute to the young people who have been very negatively impacted throughout the pandemic. Jobs and opportunity are so important for their future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that opportunity for young people must be at the heart of our covid recovery strategy, and that apprenticeships and our kickstart programme are key to unlocking that growth for their future?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do indeed agree. We have put young people at the heart of our economic recovery plan. They are absolutely at the centre of the circle. It is the right thing to do. I have the greatest sympathy for young people, who have made great sacrifices over the last year. The kickstart scheme has created over 230,000 jobs across the country and over the past month around 2,000 young people have started a kickstart job each week. This is just one part of the plan to build back better and help young people into good jobs after the pandemic. We are also providing a hire incentive payment of £3,000 for employers in England for each apprentice they hire, at all ages. We are increasing the number of traineeships, backed by £126 million of taxpayers’ money.
I just want to add how successful apprentices can be. I am much looking forward to meeting a former apprentice tomorrow, a gentleman called Steve Pickston, who is the vice-president for support and services at Airbus Helicopters. He started at McAlpine Helicopters as a helicopter airframe and engine apprentice in 1985, which only goes to show that becoming an apprentice can really help your career lift off.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I suppose it is a case of what could have been: if only that shot from Stephen O’Donnell had gone in when England were holding out for a draw, how different it could have been.
What should have been a look back at a successful tournament has descended into dealing with the multiple issues around the appalling racist abuse received by those fine young England players. Will the Leader of the House agree to an urgent debate next week so that can be properly addressed and to hold everybody to account, whether it is the anonymous thug on Twitter or the Prime Minister himself in The Daily Telegraph?
Monday brings the sense of freedom day—as I think we would call it now—as England opens up to allow covid in to do its worst. It also marks the end of our virtual proceedings. Monday could see the start of England heading towards 100,000 cases per day, with the prospect of a Johnson variant 2 emerging anytime from anywhere. Are we seriously going to do away with all these wonderful facilities when we have no clue where we will be when we come back in September? This has been a true parliamentary innovation. It has been led by the Leader of the House. Surely we want to retain some of these wonderful features, particularly if we do not know where this is going to go.
We in the SNP are still celebrating our stunning success in seeing off English votes for English laws on Tuesday evening, but now that we have beaten that anti-Scottish measure, there is still much work to do. Can we now deal with the anti-Scottish provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, the ones that put constraints on our parliamentary democracy and allow the British Government to determine priorities in Scottish devolved areas? Getting rid of EVEL is a good start. Can we now work together to deal with all the other anti-Scottish stuff, and give our nations what they seem to want?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is always nice when he can be here, rather than sending one of his many very able deputies in his place. I reiterate what I said to the shadow Leader of the House: the whole House is united against racism, not just in football, but in the country at large. Racism is a scar upon society and, although it has much declined in recent years, the fact that it still exists remains a scar. That is why the powers that will be in the Online Safety Bill are important. In the most serious cases, Ofcom will have the authority to limit or prevent a company from operating in the United Kingdom. It has always seemed to me obvious that the online and social media companies, which can see what people have searched for and said, and ping them an advert directly linked to that, have the technological sophistication to work out when people are putting racist abuse online. It is important that they follow their responsibilities.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about opening up. He raises the level of infections, but that is not the point; it is hospitalisation and death rates, and that link, that chain, has been broken. There is now a much lower death rate and much lower entry into hospital. There is still an effect of infections, but there is not the direct link that there was prior to the vaccination programme.
Therefore, to allow freedoms to return is the right thing to do. That is the fundamental philosophical difference between the Conservatives and the parties of the left. All parties of the left are always determined that the collective should tell people how to live their lives, whereas we on the right think that mass decisions made by 60 million individuals across this country lead to better outcomes for the country than ordering people about.
As I said in the debate on EVEL, I was strongly against it in 2011, before it had been introduced. I only supported and voted for it, when it came in in 2015, on the basis that, as it was only a Standing Order, it could be abolished. So I was pleased to be the Leader of the House who did abolish it. I am delighted by the conversion of the hon. Gentleman. I think we are all coming to the conclusion that he does really like being here, and therefore he has shown great commitment to a Union Parliament. That is an enormous public service for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
As we speak, the Prime Minister is delivering a crucial speech on levelling up, which for me has been a key motivator since I became an MP. Wherever people are from, be it Bishop Auckland, Bath or Birkenhead, they should have the same opportunities to get on in life. On that note, I am currently working on a key project to bring geothermal energy to Bishop Auckland, making the town cleaner and greener, but also creating good, sustainable jobs and incredible research opportunities to help our locals. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Business Secretary to meet me in Bishop Auckland, to see the proposed site and talk about that incredible opportunity to truly level up?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am slightly disappointed that my hon. Friend is extending invitations to Bishop Auckland to other Ministers but is not giving me the opportunity to visit her fantastic constituency. I notice that she mentioned Bath in her list, along with Bishop Auckland, which of course also has geothermal energy, with the most famous spa water, which was much enjoyed by the ancient Romans when the city was called Aquae Sulis—the waters of Sulis, who was the god they worshipped.
Geothermal projects can seek capital funding from the Heat Networks Investment Project from 2018 to 2022. In terms of future support, the Government are currently considering geothermal energy as a low-carbon technology to be within scope of our new £270 million Green Heat Network Fund from 2022 to 2025. The eligibility criteria for the fund were the subject of our consultation, which closed on 29 January, and the response will be published in due course.
So there are things going on. It is really important that we level up across the whole country and have a triangulation across the map of the United Kingdom to ensure that every part of the country benefits from the levelling-up process.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business and for our cordial meeting yesterday. I look forward to the time for Backbench Business debates that will undoubtedly flow when we return from the summer recess.
As Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, may I express my concern at the proposals to cut by a third the number of staff working in the BBC Regional Political Unit, based at Millbank? The unit is the eyes and ears of the BBC English regions in Westminster, co-ordinating political news gathering for the BBC’s early evening regional TV news programmes, as well as the regional breakfast, lunchtime and late evening TV bulletins, the Sunday political programmes and all the local radio output. It is an important resource for our national and local democracy and should not be facing such a threat from BBC management.
The cuts will have a detrimental impact on Back-Bench MPs across the House, who get airtime on their regional BBC TV and radio outlets and regional coverage due to their activities in the House being covered by that unit. Will the Leader of the House and his Cabinet colleagues ask the BBC to rethink that proposal, which is detrimental to our democracy?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It would be wrong of me to tell the BBC how to run its commercial operations, but I will say this. In Somerset, we are lucky enough to have “Points West”, and I remember being told by it that its early evening programme is better watched, proportionally for the region, than “Eastenders”, which I understand is a popular soap opera that some people enjoy watching. It seems to me that if there is a really popular, well-watched programme, it is quite wise and commercially sensible to invest resources in it, but as I say, it is not for me to give the BBC advice on how to run itself.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
May I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating Somerset’s son, from the finest county in Britain, on making it to the English football team and doing quite so well?
My right hon. Friend has been very helpful in chasing Ministers about an answer on the local government consultation in Somerset. Unfortunately, the Government still refuse to tell us how many people in their consultation supported One Somerset and how many backed the council plan. I really cannot understand why—it is not secret. We know that 5,000 people filled in the questionnaire, which is somewhat pathetic given that 111,000 took part in the referendum, but surely honesty is the best policy. I am reminded of the English writer Samuel Johnson, who said:
“Where secrecy or mystery begins, vice or roguery is not far off.”
Can we have a debate?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The great Dr Johnson said so many fantastic things. The pages of “The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations” are full of his bon mots. I am not allowed a prop, but I were to bring in to the Chamber my very well-thumbed copy of “The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations”, you would see, Mr Speaker, that the pages around Dr Johnson are particularly well thumbed.
I will always try to facilitate answers being given to Members, but I suggest that if my hon. Friend wants a detailed, specific answer, written questions are a very good way of getting one, because Ministers are obliged to give at least as much information in a written answer as would be given under a freedom of information request, and they are expected to do it faster.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I hope the Leader of the House is planning his holidays, and if next week’s free-for-all does not force him into self-isolation, can I suggest that he makes time this summer to visit the reopened Nottingham castle? If he comes by train, he will understand why his Government must get on with a rolling programme of rail electrification, starting with the midland main line, as they promised six years ago. When he walks past the beautifully restored heritage shopfronts on Carrington Street and confronts the half-demolished eyesore that was the Intu Broadmarsh centre, he will know why his Government need to approve our levelling-up fund bid to support its regeneration. But most importantly, he will understand why, as Labour’s Deputy Chief Whip, I am so very proud to represent the city of rebels.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I was actually in the Chamber when the hon. Lady made her maiden speech and said how proud she was of her constituency, and that has been a constant theme of her contributions in this House. I am very grateful to her for inviting me to her constituency—unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), who invited somebody else to hers—to visit Nottingham castle. Had she invited me to Trent Bridge, I might have been even more tempted, but the offer is none the less a very tempting one.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend is always welcome to Southend-on-Sea, which is hopefully soon to become a city. Will he find time for a debate on the links between human, animal and environmental health? As we look forward to the easing of lockdown restrictions next week, we cannot overlook the fact that 60% of the emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic. Given that it is likely that the coronavirus pandemic is linked to the trade of wild animals, it is more important than ever to improve our relationship with animals, to prevent a future global health, climate and biodiversity crisis.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As always, my hon. Friend not only gets in a plug for Southend’s request to become a city but raises an important point. We are of course concerned about the origins of coronavirus and links to the trade in wildlife. Mankind and the animal kingdom have had a long and close relationship since the very beginning of our creation, and it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we remain responsible stewards of the Earth. I remember as a child hoping to be given a parrot—Mr Speaker, I believe that you keep a parrot—but my father warned me that there was a danger of psittacosis. Then, I fear, it would have been Polly gone.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
Nearly 2,000 people in Luton North, including students at Challney High School for Girls, have contacted me over the past few weeks about the worsening situation in Palestine, where international law has clearly been broken. We have had Westminster Hall debates and urgent questions on this, all of which have been so oversubscribed by MPs that I have been unlucky in the ballot every time. Will the Leader of the House be able to offer Government time so that MPs like myself can put on record the massive strength of feeling on this issue and call for action on the human rights issues facing the Palestinian people?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I know that this is a matter of concern to a large number of Members of Parliament, and indeed to our constituents, who correspond with us regularly about it. The Government have long been committed to a two-state solution and we encourage conversation, diplomacy and moderation in the activities of everyone involved. I am aware of the demand for debates, but I would point the hon. Lady in the direction of the Backbench Business Committee, which I know is aware of the demand and interest in this subject.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
This week we debated and voted on the important issue of compulsory vaccination for care home staff. On 22 June, the draft statutory instrument was published, along with the words:
“A full impact assessment of the costs and benefits of this instrument is available from the Department of Health and Social Care, 39 Victoria Street”.
That would have been very useful because, as the Leader of the House will know, an impact assessment helps Members to decide on the merits or otherwise of the Government’s policy, but no such impact assessment was published. During the debate, the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said that
“the impact assessment is being worked on”.—[Official Report, 13 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 271.]
It seems to me that either there was an impact assessment, as the Department said there was on 22 June, or there was not, as the Minister said in the debate. But a third option came along, which was that in fact there was a full impact assessment but it was deliberately withheld from this House. Whichever is the case, this seems to be a very disappointing episode for scrutiny. This is a genuine request: could we have a statement from the Health Minister next week to clear up the situation, please?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, I can assure the House that it was a matter of considerable concern to me that, when an explanatory memorandum said that an impact assessment was being published alongside it, no such impact assessment was published. I did make inquiries and am assured that the impact assessment was, as the Minister said, and as far as I am aware, still not complete. I reiterate the apology to the House given by the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), towards the end of the debate that inaccurate information was given to the House. That sort of mistake should not happen and is taken very seriously by the Government. I add only one caveat and that is a general caveat about impact assessments: they tend to try to predict with certainty the fundamentally unpredictable.
Mr Speaker
Just to add to that, if there was not a statement and someone was to put in for an urgent question, it might be looked upon favourably.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
This morning, a contributor on Radio 4 said that it is only ever posh people who say that the less fortunate people in our communities do not want to be told by posh people what to do, but in fact they do, or, at least, they want some responsible guidance. The complete abdication of responsible guidance from this Government is shameful, and I for one, Mr Speaker, will continue to wear a face covering in this Chamber.
I do not need an excuse to talk about Bath’s two excellent universities. I offer my congratulations to the University of Bath, which has recently been named as one of the top 100 universities in the world at which to study maths. Last Friday marked the 80th anniversary of the cracking of the Enigma Code. Alan Turing’s great achievement continues to inspire the next generation of mathematicians, including those studying in Bath. Will the Leader of the House add his support to the Protect Pure Maths campaign and to renaming the Science and Technology Committee to the Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths Committee, so that the value of pure maths is better reflected in Parliament?
Mr Rees-Mogg
First of all, it is amazing how illiberal the Liberals nowadays are. They used to believe in freedom and Mill and all of that, who was closely associated with the Liberal party of old, but the modern version is very dour and controlling. I am happy though to be in absolute agreement with the hon. Lady, my neighbour, on the importance of mathematics. As she knows, Bath University is in her constituency and Bath Spa University is in mine, so we are fortunate to share in our area two very good universities. Mathematics will be at the forefront of how this country competes in future generations. I see that the Protect Pure Maths campaign places a great emphasis on the achievements and legacy of Alan Turing, as the hon. Lady mentioned, so it is good news that he is on the £50 note, which I am sure all of us wish to see more of in our daily lives for all sorts of good reasons. Unfortunately, it is not within my authority to decide the naming of the Committee; it is a matter for the House. I encourage the hon. Lady to have a word with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and see whether he, as Chairman of the Committee, is open to such a suggestion. I am sure that, if he were, the House would facilitate such a move.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]
Is the Leader of the House aware that 2 million people rely on cash for every transaction that they make and that access to cash is a necessity for countless individuals and small businesses across the UK, particularly for many who are elderly, vulnerable or live in rural areas? Does he accept that people should need to travel only short distances to pay in or take out cash and that cash back without a purchase must be made widely available. On 1 July, the Government published a consultation on plans to protect access to cash. Does he agree that this initiative is not only welcome, but vital?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend’s question follows perfectly from our previous discussion of £50 notes. The Government indeed recognise that access to cash remains important to millions across the UK, and we are committed to legislating to protect access to cash and ensuring the UK’s cash infrastructure is sustainable in the longer term. Already, as part of the Financial Services Act 2021, legislative changes have been made to support the widespread offering, by shops and other businesses, of cashback without a purchase. On 1 July, the Government published a consultation that sets out proposals for new laws to make sure people only need to travel a reasonable distance to pay in or take out cash. So I think Her Minister’s Government and my right hon. Friend are very much at one on this issue.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I would like to make the House aware that I am going to quote some offensive remarks, and that you, Mr Speaker, have been given advance sight of this question.
On social media, I have been told that I should not be involved in politics because I am not a Brit, but a “Paki”. That is of course wrong on both accounts: I am neither a Brit, nor a “Paki”; I am a proud Scot. On social media, I have also been told to “fuck off home”. That of course does not make sense—I was born in Edinburgh. Scotland is my home. I am not unique, however, in any sense, and we saw this with the horrific racial abuse that black England players have received on social media.
Every day, people are racially abused online because of a false narrative built on prejudice and assumptions—one that Ministers in this Government have encouraged, I am afraid to say. Yesterday, the Prime Minister admitted that there is a systemic issue of racism, particularly on social media. The House may be united against racism, but we need to see real action. What do the Government intend to do about this? I therefore ask: there was an urgent question yesterday, but will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate in this Chamber next week so that MPs of colour can also make their contributions?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by saying how appalling it is that the hon. Lady has been treated in that way? Anyone who has sent her a message of that kind should, to use the Prime Minister’s words,
“crawl back under the rock”
from which they came. They are people who should not behave in this way.
There is one fundamental thing that we should all know: in this country, there is a fundamental equality in every respect of every single British citizen—whether somebody who received a British passport a minute ago or somebody descended from the Picts. There is a fundamental equality, and this is so important. Every British citizen is equally honourable, justified and placed before the law in the same position as every other one. That must be fundamental to our understanding, and I think it is something the whole House agrees on.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady wishes to make this party political, because I really think it is not. I think the whole House is outraged by the way that she has been treated, and action is being taken. As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, he has had discussions with the social media companies to remind them of their responsibilities and of what will happen under the online safety Bill if they do not live up to their responsibilities. Regrettably, social media is a sewer and some of the most disgusting bits of life get washed through it, but it is a sewer that is in need of cleansing.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The volunteers at the Blackpool station of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution have been particularly busy during the pandemic and their bravery has saved a number of lives. The charity is an incredibly important part of many coastal communities, but it does of course rely on the generosity of the British people to survive. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the incredible volunteers who put their own lives at risk to help others, and does he think it would be in order to have a debate in this place to recognise them and to discuss how their work can best be supported?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I join him in thanking all the RNLI volunteers across the country, who show great dedication and bravery in the work they do keeping our communities safe at sea. In April last year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor put forward another £750 million of taxpayers’ money to support such charities through the pandemic.
It is one of the most wonderful things about our country; I went to speak once in Sutton Coldfield, which must be one of most landlocked constituencies in the country, and met a lady in her 90s who had been collecting money for the RNLI for almost her entire life. Over that long life, she had raised the best part of £1 million. The charitable work people do is so remarkable.
I note that there was a Westminster Hall debate entitled “RNLI and Independent Lifeboats: Covid-19” in October last year. If my hon. Friend thinks the time is right for another Adjournment debate, perhaps he will lobby Mr Speaker.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
The Leader of the House may know that between 1952 and 1991, an estimated 22,000 men were involved in 45 nuclear weapons tests overseas. Many have reported rare cancers, sterility, miscarriages for their wives, or birth defects in their children. Sadly, the UK is one of the only nuclear powers on earth that has so far denied recognition of any sort to its nuclear test veterans. Will the Leader of the House request that the Prime Minister meets nuclear test veterans, as the Leader of the Opposition has, and subsequently arrange for the Defence Secretary to make a statement to the House outlining the steps he will take to ensure that these veterans and their families finally receive the recognition and support they deserve?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The nation owes a great debt to those who keep us safe, and we have been kept safe by our nuclear deterrent now for many decades; it is a fundamental part of our defence strategy. The 22,000 men involved between 1952 and 1991 are people who deserve the thanks of a grateful nation. I will of course pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence what the hon. Lady has had to say about any proposals or anything that can be done for the people who were involved in these tests.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know, because I have raised the matter with him in the House on a number of occasions, that residents living in Steinbeck Grange in Warrington believe they were mis-sold leasehold properties by David Wilson Homes more than 10 years ago. I welcome the work that the Competition and Markets Authority is undertaking to investigate these complaints, but my constituents and others around the country have an understandable need for the Government to take action to legislate to tackle historical problems.
May we have a debate in Government time on what actions the Government can take to support my constituents, particularly by looking at the use of incentivised solicitor arrangements, where discounts are offered for homebuyers to use friendly law firms that then disappear, leaving homebuyers with no opportunity to challenge their lawyers if they did not disclose the facts at the time of purchase?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The last point that my hon. Friend raised sounds almost like fraud. If somebody is proposing a solicitor who is not a real solicitors company and there is no comeback on the firm, that sounds like an extreme level of malpractice.
I can assure my hon. Friend that Her Majesty’s Government are committed to promoting fairness and transparency for homeowners and ensuring that consumers are protected from abuse and poor service. The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill is currently making its way through the House of Lords and will end ground rents for new qualifying long residential leasehold properties in England and Wales, which is a major change to property law. It is encouraging that the Competition and Markets Authority is taking enforcement action to tackle certain instances of mis-selling, but I encourage my hon. Friend keep campaigning on this and particularly raising that very troubling issue of vanishing solicitors.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
The tireless campaigners of the South East Northumberland Rail User Group say that the recent proposals for changes to the east coast main line timetables will make our national, regional and local journeys more difficult, and that the consultation supposes that the only place we want to travel is London. I can guarantee the Leader of the House that that is not the case. Morpeth station will lose 21 daily services, while Pegswood will add none to its total of three stops. The consultation is fragmented, disjointed and inaccessible. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on the detrimental impact of these proposals, and on how cutting links between northern towns and cities simply to shave 15 minutes off the travel time from Edinburgh to London helps level up our region?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Obviously the only place that people want to travel to is Somerset. The idea that everyone wants to travel to London is, I think, a mistaken one, so I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I think he raises a really important point. These timetabling changes are very difficult, and he is also right that it is important that there are good connections within regions and not just to London, so I will take up his points with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
Recently I had the pleasure of visiting Culvers House Primary School in Hackbridge in my Carshalton and Wallington constituency, after pupils wrote to me to raise concerns about the levels of plastic pollution around the world. They told me more about why this issue is so important to them, so can we have a debate about plastic pollution so that we can discuss and hear more about the UK’s efforts to crack down on it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his assiduous work in his constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting not that long ago. The Government have done many things, with some inconvenience to consumers. We have accepted the price to be paid in banning plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds, and also in increasing the tax on plastic bags to 10p per bag. The 5p tax has cut usage by 95%, and there will be a new tax coming in from April 2022 for products that do not have at least 30% recycled content, so great steps are being made for unnecessary plastic, but I think he is right to suggest that the subject should be debated, because one should not forget how important it has been to have plastic for personal protective equipment during the course of the pandemic. It is about ensuring that plastic is used for good and essential purposes, and not ones where other materials are available, but I am afraid it will not be a debate in Government time; I think this is another request for the Backbench Business Committee.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Yesterday, this House debated for an hour the horrendous abuse suffered by three young black England players at the hands of, in the main, anonymous, faceless trolls. While I accept the intent—perhaps the good intent—of the Government to bring forward the online harms legislation later this year, does the Leader of the House agree that the main issue pertaining to online abuse is anonymity? Unfortunately, the Bill in its current form does not deal with those who want to hide behind the cloak of anonymity for purely abusive reasons. Does he agree that if this Government really want to get serious about tackling online abuse, the Bill must take anonymity into account?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady raises an important, but complex point. It is right to say that anonymity allows people to behave on social media in a way that they would not behave if they were named, and it is fascinating how many people, when something embarrassing has gone up, insist that their social media account was hacked to try to pretend that it was not them. As soon as people get found out, they immediately try and get away from responsibility for it, so I think anonymity is a problem, but there are occasions when anonymity could be important. It could be important for a whistleblower—somebody exposing corruption or other wrongdoing—so it is right that there should be pre-legislative scrutiny so that we can try to get this balance right and allow for anonymity where it will actually be beneficial. But if people want to say things on social media, they should have the courage of their convictions and put their name to it. As Members of this House, we all know that when we get anonymous letters, they are usually the rudest ones. They are usually the ones where people are ashamed really of what they are saying, which is why they do not dare put their name to it.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) [V]
Since taking control of North East Lincolnshire Council two years ago, the Conservative administration had made great strides in delivering what was the first town deal and attracting new investments, particularly in the renewable energy sector. A vital part of the area’s levelling up agenda is to improve the education and training of our young people in practical skills and academic performance, and also to overcome losing the scores of pupils who travel a few miles down the road to the county council area, which has retained its grammar schools. With that in mind, the council would like to establish a school based on academic selection. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement explaining the Government’s policy and how it can assist the council in delivering on its ambitions?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I first congratulate my hon. Friend, who is absolutely tireless? He is very modest in giving all the credit to the local council, because everyone in this House knows that everything that goes right in Cleethorpes is thanks to his campaigning efforts, energy, vim and vigour. He is right to say that existing grammar schools continue but that the law prevents the establishment of new selective schools. Wherever a local authority has identified a need for a new school, it must run a competition to establish a new free school. The local authority publishes a specification for a new school and invites bids from sponsors to run the school. However, he makes a very valuable point that I will of course take up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, although I encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate to raise this specific issue, on behalf of his council, on the Floor of the House.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House ask Ministry of Justice Ministers to make a written statement about what is happening in the probate service? My constituent Mrs Dixon started probate in May 2020. Fourteen months on, she has yet to receive a satisfactory response from the probate service. This is not because of disputes within the family or because of issues with wills; it is because her paperwork has been lost by the probate service and has then been transferred between offices across the United Kingdom so that staff within the service were not able to confirm who was leading on her probate. This is clearly not acceptable in what can only be described as a truly distressing time under normal circumstances, never mind in a pandemic. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could make some inquiries and ensure that this is not a wider problem within the probate service, which is under enormous pressure because of the scale of the number of loved ones lost over the past 18 months.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My deepest sympathies go to Mrs Dixon. It must be terribly difficult when dealing with a death in the family then to find that probate is not working efficiently and that she is being passed from pillar to post. On the assumption that the hon. Gentleman has already been in touch with the Lord Chancellor and his Department, I will take this up with the Department immediately after business questions to try to ensure that at least he gets an answer in relation to Mrs Dixon, although I cannot necessarily promise a statement on the wider issues concerning the probate service.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now go by video link to James Murray. [Hon. Members: “He’s here!”] Oh, we don’t. It tells me here that you are virtual, Mr Murray, but here you are.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is a pleasure to be here in person.
We in Ealing North could not be more proud of our local hero Bukayo Saka. He grew up in Greenford, he went to Edward Betham Primary School and Greenford High School, and at the age of 19 he has now shown courage and bravery that is inspiring to us all. In the last few days, local people have rushed to thank him and honour him and to stand united against those who have subjected him and his teammates to online racist abuse. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to come to the House of Commons so that they can finally apologise for not backing the England team when they took the knee to oppose racism?
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on managing to achieve what Padre Pio used to do, which is bilocation. It is an indication of great sanctity; that he should be both virtual and physical at the same time is a miracle in this very House. To come to his issue, he takes the same pride in Mr Saka from his constituency as I do in Mr Mings being a Somerset man. I think across the country we take pride in the British football team, even those of us like me who normally do not know one bit of the shape of a football from the other. It has united the whole country in an interest in football even for those who have not previously had it. When he was here yesterday, the Prime Minister made absolutely clear not only his support for the team but his condemnation of racism in football, which is likewise something that unites the House.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Even after lockdown release, the events industry will take some time to properly get back on its feet. It was fantastic to see the Great Yorkshire Show taking place in Harrogate this week, but it is operating at 50% capacity. There are other important events and event organisations, such as Harrogate International Festivals, that have been severely impacted. I am aware that we have talked about this sector before, but events and circumstances are evolving, so could we have please a further debate on long-term support for the events industry? It adds so much to the quality of life in the United Kingdom and it may need extra help in the future.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I very much sympathise with my hon. Friend. Business events are vital for the UK economy, directly contributing over £31 billion each year prior to the pandemic. They also support a vast supply chain and stimulate valuable trade opportunities. The events research programme plays an important role in our work fully to reopen the sector, with another business event pilot set to take place at the Harrogate Convention Centre next week. The Government know how badly the sector has been hit by the pandemic and will continue to encourage and engage with people to monitor the situation and try to support a recovery plan. I accept that this will be a longer-term effort, but I think that beginning to get back to normal from Monday will begin to be helpful.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Can we take it from the Leader of the House’s comments in response to the shadow Leader of the House that if this Chamber is indeed a crowded place next Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, he will be following his own Government’s advice and wearing a mask?
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the campaigners Natasha Rattu and the team at Karma Nirvana, Sara Browne and the team at IKWRO Women’s Rights Organisation, and Natasha Feroze and the team at MEWSO, the Middle Eastern Women and Society Organisation, who have been working with me and my team on a private Member’s Bill last year and amendments to the Health and Care Bill in this Session to end so-called virginity testing and hymenoplasty. I pay particular tribute to Naomi Wiseman and Dr Charlotte Proudman, who have been helping me on that. However, along with many other Members, I did not get the chance to speak in yesterday’s Second Reading debate on the Health and Care Bill, so will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on so-called virginity testing and hymenoplasty, along with other issues of violence against women and girls, at the earliest opportunity?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I would point my hon. Friend to the end-of-session Adjournment debate next Thursday, which will be an opportunity to raise any issues that he wishes to. May I commend him for the work that he is doing to bring forward a private Member’s Bill? I am sorry that he did not have the opportunity to speak in the debate yesterday. I am aware of the pressures on time, so I am quite pleased that there will be two days for the Second Reading debate on the Nationality and Borders Bill next week, because supply and demand do not always match in this House.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
May we have a debate in Government time on the issues surrounding quad bike use, with a view to exploring the banning of their on-road use? Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing both Castleford Tigers and St Helens the very best of luck this weekend at the rugby league challenge cup final at Wembley, where I am sure we will see the very best of our sporting values at play, both on and off the field?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, indeed, I would love to wish both sides every good fortune at the challenge cup final, and I am sure there will be impeccable behaviour. I hope that the hon. Lady will be in the box, watching and cheering on one of the sides.
As regards quad bike use on roads, I notice in North East Somerset that it is sometimes convenient for farmers to go on roads on their quad bikes, so I would be reluctant to advocate a complete ban, but it is obviously important that all road users are safe.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Millions of people across the United Kingdom depend on the BBC for impartial news being pumped into their living rooms. Indeed, people across the world depend on the BBC and trust it to be truly impartial. I have regularly received complaints about the lack of impartiality, about BBC News and about the bias that seems to be held in particular ways, but there is clear concern about the potential appointment of the ex-Huffington Post editor Jess Brammer as news editor for the BBC. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time on the requirement for BBC News to be impartial, and to reflect the news rather than the opinions of those who preside over it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. I think the message to the BBC is that Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion. It is crucial that the BBC is not only impartial but seen to be impartial. The BBC must ask itself, if it is going to make an appointment from the Huffington Post, whether it would make an appointment from the Guido Fawkes website, a similar news outlet, except a rather more accurate one, on the right rather than on the left. I think the BBC would be astonished by my suggestion. Would it make an appointment from Conservative Home or from The Daily Telegraph? It seems unlikely, and therefore it is problematic when the BBC looks at left-wing outlets and thinks that that is impartiality.
I also think that it is more serious than that, because the BBC has a number of dedicated, really good quality journalists, who are genuinely important—the Laura Kuenssbergs, the Martha Kearneys and the James Landales of this world. One has no idea of their political opinions at all, and rightly so. That is the model of the BBC. That is the best of the BBC, and people like that are undermined if Caesar’s wife is seen to be suspect.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
The night-time economy is very important for Liverpool, and the Baltic Triangle is hugely important to Liverpool’s cultural offering and nightlife. The agents of change principle was embedded in the national planning policy framework in 2018. It was designed to protect music and cultural spaces from noise complaints and potential closure in the event of new residential properties being developed beside venues. However, it is only advisory and not working in practice, so a well-loved and important music venue in my constituency, 24 Kitchen Street, now faces closure owing to neighbouring property developments. Will the Leader of the House provide a debate in Government time on how to strengthen the protection of pre-existing venues and businesses within the planning system?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I understand the importance of the night-time economy more broadly, and note the hon. Lady’s reference to the Baltic Triangle in her city. My concern may be equal but different. People move into villages and then complain about the church bells and the church clock chiming. I think frankly that is idiotic. If one moves in somewhere, one must put up with what is there already, and one should not be able to stop things that have been going on for hundreds of years, in some cases. Some people move to the countryside and complain about cocks crowing. Why on earth did they move to the countryside? Why did they not stay in a town, or put ear plugs in or something? I am very sympathetic to what the hon. Lady is saying. I cannot promise her a debate in Government time, but I will ensure that her very good point is raised in the right quarter.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
On Monday evening, my constituency suffered from extreme flooding, with Portobello Road in effect becoming a river and more than 2,500 reports of flooding being logged. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our drainage and sewerage systems need to be able to cope with thunderstorms, and the water companies need to do everything to achieve that end?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Indeed I do. Flooding causes devastation for communities, homes and businesses. Local flood risk management, including surface water, falls to local flood authorities—county and unitary authorities—which must identify and manage those risks as part of their local flood risk management strategy. I understand that Thames Water is building a huge super sewer around London, which I hope will be better able to cope with flooding or sudden storms when they come, rather than having the marvellous sewer built by Bazalgette in the 19th century overwhelmed. My hon. Friend raises a point that is of great concern to Members across the House. In a country such as ours, with the rainfall that we have, we need to be able to cope with storms.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now suspend the House for three minutes in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Backbench Business
Northern Ireland Protocol
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), I have to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution, which repeats the position taken on these matters yesterday.
Mr Speaker has been advised that there are active legal proceedings on the legality of the Northern Ireland protocol and active legal proceedings and open inquests in relation to historic troubles-related deaths. I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters sub judice to allow full reference to the challenge to the Northern Ireland protocol as it concerns issues of national importance. Further, I am exercising that discretion to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings and open inquests in relation to historic troubles-related deaths. However, references to these cases should be limited to the context and the events which led to the cases but should not include details of the cases themselves nor the names of those involved in them. All hon. Members should, however, be mindful of matters that may be the subject of future legal proceedings and should exercise caution in making reference to individual cases.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House supports the primary aims of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, which are to uphold the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in all its dimensions and to respect the integrity of the EU and UK internal markets; recognises that new infrastructure and controls at the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic must be avoided to maintain the peace in Northern Ireland and to encourage stability and trade; notes that the volume of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland far exceeds the trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; further notes that significant provisions of the Protocol remain subject to grace periods and have not yet been applied to trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and that there is no evidence that this has presented any significant risk to the EU internal market; regards flexibility in the application of the Protocol as being in the mutual interests of the EU and UK, given the unique constitutional and political circumstances of Northern Ireland; regrets EU threats of legal action; notes the EU and UK have made a mutual commitment to adopt measures with a view to avoiding controls at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible; is conscious of the need to avoid separating the Unionist community from the rest of the UK, consistent with the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement; and also recognises that Article 13(8) of the Protocol provides for potentially superior arrangements to those currently in place.
Thank you for that statement, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would like to record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate. I am also very grateful that so many right hon. and hon. Members have put in to take part in it. I believe that this is a debate of significance, and at a time of significance.
The purpose of the debate is for the House to agree on how the Government should approach the issues that have arisen in Northern Ireland since the UK left the European Union. I remind the House that the Northern Ireland protocol was part of the 2019 EU withdrawal agreement, not part of the trade and co-operation agreement, which was ratified only this year. It is the protocol that is creating strains on power sharing under the Good Friday agreement, pressures on political stability and an upsurge in tension between the two communities in Northern Ireland.
Let me just say what this debate is not about. There is absolutely no value in point scoring about past divisions and disputes that we have had in this House. That would just further undermine public confidence. This debate is about looking forward, about what we must now agree to do to set things right. The proposals I will come to are in the interests of the EU as much as they are in the interests of the UK.
The motion sets out
“the primary aims of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, which are to uphold the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in all its dimensions and to respect the integrity of the EU and UK internal markets”
and states that
“new infrastructure and controls at the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic must be avoided to maintain the peace in Northern Ireland and to encourage stability and trade”.
The motion then points out an indisputable fact—that
“the volume of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland far exceeds the trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland”.
Why is this significant? In 2019, the Northern Ireland Executive found that over 90% of medicines, fruit and vegetables, books, clothes, household goods and baby equipment sold in Northern Ireland was arriving from other parts of the United Kingdom. In 2018, Northern Ireland sales to Great Britain were two and a half times greater than those to the Republic.
The protocol is clear: it is not intended to create what it refers to as “diversion of trade”. On the contrary, article 16 states:
“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Is it not significant that since the protocol came into operation, there has been a dramatic increase in imports from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland and a fall in trade between GB and Northern Ireland? Indeed, Irish Ministers have boasted that one reason for having a delay in further border checks is to encourage further diversion of trade towards the Irish Republic.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I could not be more grateful for that intervention, and I will amplify the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes, because he is absolutely right. Have no doubt that there has been and continues to be diversion of trade due to the protocol. Article 16 exists in order that either party can take unilateral action to prevent that.
The Central Statistics Office Ireland reports that Republic of Ireland exports to Northern Ireland in the first four months of this year increased by 25% and by 40% relative to the first four months of 2019 and 2020. Northern Ireland exports to the Republic increased by 59% and 61% on the same comparison. Some are heralding that as the birth of an all-Ireland economy, but that is wholly contrary to the letter and spirit of the protocol.
The motion in my name continues by noting that
“significant provisions of the Protocol remain subject to grace periods and have not yet been applied to trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and that there is no evidence that this has presented any significant risk to the EU internal market”.
Those grace periods, applying to chilled meats, medicines and the requirement of export health certificates, are intended to lapse in the coming months. The UK Government may choose to extend them, as we already have, with or without the EU’s permission, and they would be justified in doing so because the grace periods are not doing any harm, but that is not a long-term solution.
The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Simon Coveney, says that the grace periods exist
“to give supermarkets in particular, the opportunity to readjust their supply chains to adapt to”
what he refers to as “these new realities”. I am afraid that confirms in the minds of many that the protocol is being used to create diversion of trade.
Diversion of trade as a goal can form no basis for the rebuilding of trust and public confidence in both communities in Northern Ireland. Article 6 of the protocol requires the EU and the UK to
“use their best endeavours to facilitate the trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom”.
I regret to say that, thus far, there is little evidence to suggest that the Republic of Ireland or the EU are attaching any importance to that vital commitment, and that is what is destroying trust.
The motion then states that this House
“regards flexibility in the application of the Protocol as being in the mutual interests of the EU and UK, given the unique constitutional and political circumstances of Northern Ireland; regrets EU threats of legal action; notes the EU and UK have made a mutual commitment to adopt measures with a view to avoiding controls at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible; is conscious of the need to avoid separating the Unionist community from the rest of the UK, consistent with the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement; and also recognises that Article 13(8) of the Protocol provides for potentially superior arrangements to those currently in place.”
That is the real point of the motion: that the protocol is only one solution to the challenge of avoiding a hard border in Ireland while also respecting the integrity of the EU and UK internal markets.
There always was more than one way to skin a cat, and the EU agreed to that in article 13(8). Unfortunately, the EU seems implacably opposed to any discussion about how a subsequent agreement under article 13(8) of the protocol could supersede the protocol in whole or in part. Paragraph 25 of the political declaration accompanying the withdrawal agreement also envisaged:
“Such facilitative arrangements and technologies will also be considered in alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland.”
Sadly, the protocol was not superseded by the trade and co-operation agreement, but now is the time for the EU to accept that its application of the protocol is not achieving its legitimate aims. Either the protocol must be changed by agreement or the UK must exercise its sovereign right to jettison the whole thing as a fundamental threat to peace and stability in Northern Ireland and to the integrity of the United Kingdom.
The EU could start by agreeing to an expanded category of goods that are not at risk of onward travel to the Republic of Ireland. We already have an authorised trader scheme for supermarkets; that could also be expanded, creating far less paperwork than there is now and a permanent exemption from unnecessary sanitary and phytosanitary checks. The EU could also agree to allow non-EU-compliant UK products to be imported into Northern Ireland if they are not at risk of moving into the rest of the EU internal market. The question is whether the EU is capable of being flexible and pragmatic, or whether it will continue to insist on imposing its rules, whatever the cost to peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, was one of the two leaders who won the Nobel peace prize for negotiating the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. He has proposed a new solution: replacing the protocol with a system of mutual enforcement. This would mean that the UK and the EU would each ensure and guarantee that goods travelling across the shared border would be compliant with each other’s standards. Light checks would occur, but away from the border, and both sides would share relevant data on exports.
That proposal would remove the need for direct EU jurisdiction over Northern Ireland; Northern Ireland would be under UK law and fully restored as part of the UK internal market. It would ensure the absence of any new infrastructure on the border itself, it would guarantee the integrity of the EU internal market and, most importantly, it would accord equal respect to the concerns of both communities in Northern Ireland in a way that the present protocol utterly fails to do.
The proposal has not yet been tabled by the UK Government, but my understanding is that they broadly support the sentiments of the motion. Ideally, the EU would accept its obligations under paragraph 25 of the 2019 political declaration and agree in principle that the protocol will be superseded by these pragmatic and practical proposals.
We must hope that the EU lives up to its own ideals. Article 8 of the treaty on European Union obliges the EU to
“develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness…based on cooperation.”
If the EU refuses in principle even to open these discussions, the UK will have no option but to resort to article 16 of the protocol and take unilateral action. The world is watching how the EU is dealing with the United Kingdom.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Sometimes, over the course of this, the view is taken in the EU, or even in Ireland, that somehow the rest of the UK, or Great Britain, has no regard at all for the status of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. May I just read back to my hon. Friend two facts from a recent poll, which shows that to be completely wrong? When asked whether it is unfair to Northern Ireland that it is treated differently from the rest of the UK, over 50% of the residents from the whole of the United Kingdom said, yes, it was unfair. The second question, which is really important, was: how important or unimportant is it that Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom. Again, well over half—53%—said “important”. Interestingly, that is a margin of 41% over those in the United Kingdom who said it was unimportant. We want Northern Ireland to remain a part of the United Kingdom.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
My right hon. Friend puts down an important marker. We can dismiss any idea that the United Kingdom as a whole is not interested in the interests of Northern Ireland or in Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom. That is an established fact and he has dealt with that very capably.
In conclusion, the world is watching how the EU is dealing with the United Kingdom. The UK will offer agreement on what the problems are and how they must be resolved. Together, the EU and the UK can look for common ground about how to do so; otherwise the rest of the world will see that the grounds for invoking article 16 have indeed already been met, and action will have to be taken.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I have to impose an immediate six-minute time limit on Back Bench speeches, but that is quite generous as compared with recent times.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on securing this debate today and on giving Members the opportunity to express their views.
For people in Northern Ireland, the political and economic stakes could not be higher, as the protocol presents the greatest ever threat to the economic integrity of the United Kingdom. The rigorous implementation of the protocol that some anti-Brexit parties in Northern Ireland have called for would be bad for consumers and bad for business. It would be socially disruptive, economically ruinous and politically disastrous for Northern Ireland. As Lord Frost has repeatedly pointed out, the Northern Ireland protocol in its present form is unsustainable, and it needs to go.
Over the last 50 years, if we have learned anything in Northern Ireland it is that, if our political arrangements are to last, they will require support from right across the community, and there is not a single elected representative in any Unionist party who supports the Northern Ireland protocol. The Government have promised that they will publish their plans for the future of the protocol before Parliament rises for the summer recess, and that cannot come a moment too soon.
Much has been said about how we got here, but, today, I want to set out where we need to go from here. My party will not prejudge what the Government have to say, but I want to make it clear what any new approach needs to achieve. That is why, today, I am setting out seven tests that I believe are important for any new arrangements. Our tests are grounded not in a Unionist wish list, but in promises that have already been made in one form or another to the people of Northern Ireland. It is not too much to ask that the Government stand by these promises.
First, new arrangements must fulfil the guarantee of the sixth article of the Act of Union 1800. That Act of Union is no ordinary statute; it is the constitutional statute that created the United Kingdom for the people whom I represent. The sixth article essentially requires that everyone in the United Kingdom is entitled to the same privileges and to be on the same footing as to goods in either country and in respect of trade within the United Kingdom. Under the protocol, this is clearly no longer the case. The House will be aware—you made reference to the legal challenge on this point, Madam Deputy Speaker—that the High Court has held that the protocol does not put the people of Northern Ireland on an equal footing with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. In defending their position, the Government lawyers made it clear that the protocol impliedly repeals article 6 of the Act of Union. That is a matter of grave concern to us, and it is a matter that needs to be put right.
Secondly, any new arrangements must avoid any diversion of trade, and I welcome what has been said already. It is simply not acceptable that consumers and businesses in Northern Ireland are told that they must purchase certain goods from the EU and not from Great Britain. In this regard it is notable that article 16 of the protocol already permits the UK to take unilateral safeguarding measures to ensure that there is no diversion of trade, and the Government must do that.
Thirdly, it is essential that any new arrangements that are negotiated do not constitute a border in the Irish sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In line with the Act of Union, there should be no internal trade border in the UK. Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market must be fully restored. Fourthly, new arrangements must give the people of Northern Ireland a say in making the laws that govern them. That guarantee is implicit in article 3 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights, which clearly states that where people are subject to laws, they should be able freely to express their opinion on those laws. Northern Ireland does not have that in relation to EU regulations being imposed on it. Fifthly, new arrangements must result in no checks on goods going from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, or from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister gave that commitment on 8 December 2019, and it should be honoured.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
On that point about goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB unmolested and unhindered, was my right hon. Friend as shocked as I was when Retail NI, Manufacturing NI, Ulster Farmers Union and haulage representatives confirmed before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee this morning that from January 2022, they will have to put in place documentary evidence of what they are moving from one part of the United Kingdom to the other part of the United Kingdom? Moving those goods does no damage and places no impediment on the European single market. My right hon. Friend must be appalled by that requirement.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
My hon. Friend makes the point very powerfully.
Sixthly, new arrangements should ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, unless agreed by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. That commitment was made in paragraph 50 of the joint report by negotiators from the European Union and the United Kingdom Government in December 2017. Our Government sadly failed to honour that paragraph when they concluded the Northern Ireland protocol. We expect that commitment, which was made by the Government, to be honoured.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
On those last two points about no new regulatory barriers and the checks on goods going between GB and NI, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, as it would be helpful for the House, that there were already checks on animal health, given that the island of Ireland was a single animal health zone? Is he saying that the checks that already existed pre-Brexit are not encompassed by his point, and he is talking about new checks that have come along as a result of us leaving the European Union?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course we accept that checks that were in place before Brexit should continue, and goods that are proceeding on from Great Britain through Northern Ireland to the EU may of course have different arrangements. We object to goods that are moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland being subject to new checks under the protocol.
Seventhly, new arrangements must preserve the letter and the spirit of Northern Ireland’s constitutional guarantee, set out most recently in the Belfast agreement, which requires in advance the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland for any diminution in its status as part of the United Kingdom. Our consent was not sought for the diminution in our status and the repealing of a key element of the Act of Union that changed our status with the Northern Ireland protocol. To reduce the constitutional status to our having a say in the final step of leaving the United Kingdom would mean that, in effect, it is no meaningful guarantee at all. If the constitutional guarantee for Northern Ireland is to have any meaning, it applies not just to the question of whether we are part of a united Ireland or remain in the United Kingdom. The Belfast agreement is clear that it is about any change to the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, and our consent was not sought and has most certainly not been given.
In conclusion, there is no practical or pragmatic reason why arrangements cannot be put in place that satisfy those tests and prove no meaningful threat to the integrity of the EU single market. We require that Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market is restored and we expect that the Government will take steps to do that in line with the previous commitments that they have given, from the Prime Minister down. My party will assess any new arrangements against these seven tests. I hope that for the sake of the integrity of the United Kingdom and the people of Northern Ireland we will not be disappointed.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for instigating the debate. It is nice to see a mainstream debate on the affairs of Northern Ireland taking place on the Floor of the House.
Let us remind ourselves of two things at the start. Lord Frost confirmed to our Committee, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, just a few weeks ago that he negotiated the protocol, he understood the protocol and he signed off the protocol. How people have interpreted one or two parts of it may be surprising, but it is not legitimate for the Government effectively to say, “This was new, it was an impost, it crept up on us.” This was a negotiated document between the two parties.
Without the protocol, there would still have to be checks. We are talking about the defence, for want of a better phrase, of an internal market and a single market. Those alternative arrangements, as some called them some little while ago, would, according to HM Revenue and Customs, be likely to be as, if not more, complicated and possibly more costly. For those who may be thinking that, if we get rid of the protocol, everything will go back to being normal, that will not happen. We are all in a new normal now.
This is important because there are a lot of concerns, predominantly among the loyalist community, that this is in some way a stepping stone to a united Ireland or a move to a border poll. Everybody, from the Taoiseach to the Prime Minister—at last week’s Liaison Committee, in response to a question from me—to those in Brussels and anywhere else, has to recognise that the integrity of Northern Ireland as an intrinsic and key part of the United Kingdom remains. The protocol does not change that constitutional balance one way or another.
I take the point just made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). I have yet to be persuaded that anybody, in their heart of hearts, ever defines their sense of belonging or loyalty by invisible trading arrangements. Citizenship, a sense of belonging and a sense of nationhood are far more powerful and emotive than that.
We should remind ourselves that there are some—there will be none in this House, I know—who refuse to accept the referendum result on the Good Friday agreement itself, and have gone around saying, “Unless we get our way on the protocol and unless it is scrapped”. Let us pause there for a moment to say that there is no majority view in support of the scrapping of the protocol. Nobody by the same token is saying that it is perfect; there is scope for change and improvement. But let us not inadvertently fall into the trap of using this debate on the protocol as a Trojan horse to undermine the Good Friday agreement. Everybody knows that, without that bedrock, there can be no progress in Northern Ireland, and none that we have seen over the past several decades.
Business wants to be engaged. Let me say to the Minister, and I look forward to her summing up: let us have that investment conference. Let us maximise those opportunities. Invest Northern Ireland is dealing with 30 requests at the moment. The business engagement forum needs to be formalised with a set agenda and regular meetings.
Trust is so important here. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex talked about the need for the EU to change. I agree in many respects. We need to see flexibility on goods at risk. We need to see flexibility on the precautionary principle and the differential of how we use laws. It is either illegal unless it is made legal, or legal unless it is made illegal. The benefit of the extensions of the grace periods has illustrated that the single market does not collapse as a result of that. Common sense is required.
I am not here to act as an apologist for the EU, but from all my conversations with them I think the issue is one of trust. They still remain uncertain as to whether Her Majesty’s Government are intent upon implementing a reformed protocol using the offices of the Joint Committee. Without that trust or certainty, there can be no progress. We need to switch our mindset from negotiate or renegotiate, to reform and implement. Let us remind ourselves that the Vice President has no mandate to renegotiate. That would have to be given by the member states and any hope for that would come only if we see that trust rebuilt. I therefore urge the Government to have that joint investment conference, build on the trust and formalise business engagement.
The Select Committee heard today from two witnesses. Let me quote both of them. Aodhán Connolly, from Northern Ireland Retail Consortium said: “The most frustrating thing for business in Northern Ireland is we can see the solutions, we just don’t see the political will to do them.” From the Ulster Farmers’ Union, Victor Chestnutt said: “Solutions are sitting there.” Well, let us not just let them sit there; let us grab them. Let us make them work and let the twin benefits of access to the UK internal market and the European Union’s single market be that blue touch paper that will reignite and light a post-covid Northern Ireland economy where the benefits to business and to citizens can be fully felt.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
To confirm the answer to the question which is being silently asked, there is no mechanism whereby Members can intervene on someone who is speaking virtually. I just ask for patience from hon. Members. Hopefully, we will only have three more days of this arrangement—we all hope.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
It is a genuine pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), whose very sensible and pragmatic approach to the issue of the protocol is one I commend to his hon. and right hon. Friends on the Government Benches.
It is remarkable that it is the Prime Minister and Lord Frost who negotiated the protocol. I now read that Lord Frost is saying things like, “I had not really understood the chilling effect of the agreement.” We have to ask whether he did understand, really, what he was signing up to, or whether this is now part of political rhetoric and the unfortunate cycle of distrust and increasing mistrust between not just the United Kingdom and the European Union, but the United Kingdom and the United States and even, alas, the population in Northern Ireland. I understand that only 6% of the population in Northern Ireland have any trust in our United Kingdom Government. That is a staggering statistic. On the answer to this, I share the Select Committee Chair’s view that we have to rebuild trust in our relationships.
One of the bizarre things is that for an awful lot of industry and commerce in Northern Ireland, the reality is that the world is going on very well. If we cast our minds back to 9 January, I think it was, the Belfast News Letter carried an article that quoted the Road Haulage Association saying that we were within five days of our supply chains to Northern Ireland breaking down. We are now in day 208. Those supply chains have not broken down and most businesses are getting on with getting around some of the undoubted issues that arose through the protocol.
Manufacturing Northern Ireland tells me that its members are overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the protocol, not necessarily entirely as is, but as the basis going forward. They do not want to see another big change. The Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry recently reported in its quarterly economic survey that two thirds of its members believe that Northern Ireland’s unique status post EU exit presents opportunities for the region. These are not the cries that we have heard today about business and commerce being savaged by the protocol.
I accept that there are specific circumstances that are difficult. These are technical issues and technical issues require technical answers. Some of that can happen by us agreeing to adopt veterinary standards that are compatible with the EU. That would be a very sensible way forward. It would mean that even chilled meats could travel through Great Britain into Northern Ireland. If we make sure that we have that alignment, that is not necessarily against our interests, not simply with regard to Northern Ireland but in allowing GB produce from our farms to be sold into the rest of the European Union. We have to look for a common-sense solution.
These technical issues can be resolved only if we build back the relationship of trust between Brussels and London, and, as the Chair of the Select Committee said, recognise that we need to extend that climate of trust to all 27 capitals of the European Union countries if we are to go forward. The real tragedy is that the erosion of trust has been built on political advantage in terms of domestic politics by our Prime Minister. He has to turn away from that because it is so dangerous. The threat to the Good Friday agreement does not come through the protocol; it comes through the drip-drip erosion of trust in governance in the United Kingdom on the part of the people of Northern Ireland. The 6% who do trust this Government are now a remarkably small minority. We have to rebuild that trust now. Dial down the rhetoric, Prime Minister, and, yes, dial down the rhetoric in Brussels as well. We must recognise that the erosion of trust is damaging for the United Kingdom not simply in terms of UK-EU relations, and not even simply in the context of Northern Ireland—it is also massively damaging in our relationship with, for example, President Biden. We know that he reported that strong words were spoken advising the UK Government to dial down the climate of antagonism and distrust.
Let us get the technical solutions sorted out. Let us get issues around common veterinary standards sorted out. That would be popular in both GB and Northern Ireland. Let us dial down, as I say, this climate of mistrust. Let us begin to rebuild capacity to have these negotiations on the basis of not public rhetoric and public diplomacy, but the hard work that we expect our diplomats to do in quiet rooms. In that way, we can all move forward.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on landing this debate at a very timely time. It is a really important debate that I hope the Government are listening to carefully. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd). I do not entirely agree with his analysis but I do admire his intentions.
I still go to Northern Ireland on a regular basis having been Secretary of State, and shadow Secretary of State before that. I am detecting real concern and a sense of bewilderment in Northern Ireland. Businesses are having trouble getting materials. Basic products are not available in the shops: not just food but simple gardening equipment and other elements of everyday life. My concern is that that sense of bewilderment is turning to anger. That is justified, because the people of Northern Ireland are in a different constitutional place owing to the protocol.
It is not just a Northern Ireland issue. I am the chairman of the Centre for Brexit Policy, which is an all-party think-tank—I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Between 2 and 4 July, we commissioned Savanta ComRes to do some national polling and the results are very interesting: 53% of UK adults say it is important that Northern Ireland remains part of UK; 50% say that the protocol is unfair to Northern Ireland and that it is treated differently from the rest of the UK; 57% say that the protocol is a threat to peace and stability in Northern Ireland; and 42% agree that by tying Northern Ireland to the EU single market rules, the protocol acts in way not to implement Brexit. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) should listen to that comment carefully.
All of that goes back to the issue of the border, which was always hugely exaggerated by those who wanted the UK to stay in the EU. In the last recorded total of all Northern Ireland’s sales, 68% were local, 17% went to Great Britain and only 6% went to the Republic of Ireland. Going the other way, the Republic of Ireland’s sales to Northern Ireland were only £2.6 billion in 2017—that is 0.16%, or one six-hundred-and-twenty-fifth of total EU exports. It is simply inconceivable that that trade could utterly pollute the single market’s integrity. That trade is being conducted by big international companies such as Diageo and Lactalis—highly competent, professional people who already dealt with the currency border, the excise duty border and the VAT border. The border was always massively exaggerated. There were always other solutions, and certainly better solutions than those we have in the protocol.
Let us look at what is happening. The permanent secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland said to the Stormont Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that Northern Ireland’s population
“is under half a percent of that across the European Union, yet the documentary checks…represent one fifth of the equivalent documentation right across the EU.”
A monster has been created around a very limited problem. Everyone should listen carefully to the noble Lord Trimble, who won a Nobel prize and put his whole career on the line to work through the peace agreement that was signed as the Belfast agreement with John Hume. He has pointed out that Northern Ireland has 2.5 times more customs checks than Rotterdam. When President Biden was here recently, Lord Trimble made it clear in The Times that the Good Friday agreement is threatened by the protocol because the constitution has been changed and the vital principle of consent—the basis on which he got the Belfast agreement through—has been breached. It is quite clear that laws are now being imposed on citizens in Northern Ireland on which they have no say.
A couple of days ago, Lord Frost of Allenton, who has manfully tried to make the protocol work, reported to the House of Lords that 800 new pieces of legislation have been dumped on Northern Ireland from the EU. It did not have to be like this. Back in October 2018, I took Lord Trimble and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) to see Michel Barnier and Sabine Weyand. We explained that we would respect the single market. We said, “If we sell goods to the US market, we respect their regulations. If we are to sell into the EU’s single market as a third country, we would always respect the regulations.” That is the way forward. They listened carefully, but, sadly, that approach was not pursued by the then Government.
Lord Trimble helped to write an important paper on mutual enforcement, published recently by the Centre for Brexit Policy. It says, in simple terms, that under UK law, and justiciable in the UK courts, all exports into the EU will meet EU standards and vice versa. All the fuss about regulation would therefore apply only to the tiny number of exports. We are not going to see some Indonesian tyre manufacturer trying to smuggle containers of tyres through to west German car plants from Larne and out through Dublin—that is simply not going to happen. Many of these problems could be sorted out through the concept of mutual enforcement. I take my hat off to Lord Frost, who has really tried to make the protocol work, but the EU has been obtuse and pig-headed and rebuffed every attempt.
When something clearly does not work, is causing damage in Northern Ireland and, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) pointed out, is clearly a breach of the Acts of Union, we should recognise that, not fight it. We should not overrule the result of the EU referendum and adopt a whole lot of EU law just to sort out a tiny problem on the Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland border. Mutual enforcement is the way ahead. Everybody in the debate should respect the views of a Nobel peace prize winner, and that is his solution. I would like to see the Government adopt it.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on getting this matter on to the Floor of the House. I also welcome the comments from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the encouragement he has given with the survey results he has put on the record today saying to all the people of the United Kingdom that we are all as one in this. I would say, and I encourage my Conservative colleagues across the House to say, that Brexit cannot be properly done or properly completed until we resolve the issue of the Northern Ireland protocol, because it is an outstanding matter that does need to be resolved.
Daily, I am horrified whenever parcels arrive from GB to my constituents in Northern Ireland with a label on saying “Northern Ireland” and “foreign parcel”. Coming from post offices in GB to my constituents, this is reminding them day and daily that they are receiving foreign goods in their own country, when they are not; this is about ordinary commerce within the single market of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has in effect been partitioned by this protocol, and that is why we welcome this debate and why we welcome the fact that it must be fixed.
I must put on record my declaration—and I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—that I am currently engaged as part of the commercial case in the High Court against the protocol on behalf of commercial entities in Northern Ireland.
For all of the litigation that has been ongoing, it really will not solve this issue. What we actually need is political determination. The courts of the land are not there to drive this matter forward; it is for this House to do so. This House is sovereign for all of the United Kingdom, and the sooner this House and the Government determine that they are going to change the protocol, the better for us all. We are, in effect, at a fork in the road.
The protocol, of course, contains its own recipe to fix this: under article 16, it can be unilaterally removed where there is seismic social, community and commercial activity detrimental to a part of the United Kingdom. Section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 also allows for it to be changed unilaterally by the Government, because this House is sovereign. So let us urge the Government to use their majority and to use the sovereignty of this House to fix this matter and to get Brexit done, as we all want to see it done, and let us use this House to put in place the mutual enforcement agreements that we know will be better for all of Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland Minister for the Economy recently wrote to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee saying that he had “significant concern” about the protocol because of the economic divergence that it is clearly creating for British firms in GB trading with British companies in Northern Ireland. He went on to say that this was creating “commercial discrimination”—commercial discrimination because of a protocol that was supposed to help us and that was supposed to give us the best of both worlds. It is not acceptable, and it has got to be changed.
At the heart of this protocol lies confusion. When a President of one of our European neighbours does not even know and acknowledge that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom—Monsieur Macron—how could there not be confusion? The essence of the protocol is not constructive ambiguity. The essence of the protocol has been confusion about Northern Ireland’s place: is it in the EU customs union; is it out of EU territory; is it in UK territory; what is its actual status? That has confused the mix, and we have to make sure we move away from that confusion.
We do not in Northern Ireland have the best of both worlds; we are essentially in a commercial no-man’s land. Let me put some issues to the House on that basis. One of the last-minute revisions made to the protocol on 10 December last year—one that was shoehorned in under the radar—was aspects of the EU’s single-use plastics directive. That means that on top of the already burdensome, costly adaptations that businesses are having to make to continue to sell products in Northern Ireland, regulations will widen even further in January. This will mean that plastics labelling requirements will be imposed on producers for a range of items from wet wipes to drinking cups to tobacco products—a whole host of products that contain plastic—but no transposing regulations have yet been put in place, so we do not know what companies are going to have to do. We now have even more confusion and nonsensical red tape over the trade of wet wipes from GB to Northern Ireland. This will pose incredible problems for Northern Ireland.
Other commercial realities were identified this morning in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, when manufacturing, haulage, retail and farming all came together and gave us the sorry picture that over 77% of their base is still experiencing daily problems with the operation of the protocol. There is an increase in wage inflation and an unacceptable spectre coming down the tracks that will mean Northern Ireland having to put in place even more red tape in January 2022 whenever it comes to putting its goods into GB. The overwhelming consensus is that this is not acceptable. Words have been very good, but we now require action by the Government.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
I very much welcome this debate. A lot has been said about the Northern Ireland protocol over recent months. Particular attention has been given to the concerns expressed by Unionists and loyalists, and there has been a focus on street protests and the risk of wider tensions and even violence, but it is worth stressing that this does not reflect Northern Ireland as a whole. Indeed, it does not reflect the majority viewpoint in Northern Ireland politically.
It is fair to say that no one in Northern Ireland particularly likes or wants the protocol, but the majority of people, businesses and elected representatives understand why it is there and why it is necessary to protect the Good Friday agreement. They are not calling for it to be scrapped. Instead, they recognise that there are genuine problems, but they want to make it work through reform and change, and to take advantage of some of the relative opportunities for Northern Ireland from having a footprint in both the UK and EU markets.
The protocol reflects the choices made by the UK Government and Parliament, and also by the DUP, in relation to Brexit. It was not imposed upon the UK; it was a free choice in order to facilitate a choice around Brexit. Those advocating for the protocol to be scrapped need to answer the question as to what their plausible, realistic alternative is. We are seeing a lot of wishful thinking on supposed alternatives, including from a number of speakers today, but alternative arrangements, mutual enforcement and Ireland leaving the single market are nonsensical avenues, all of which have been raised, discussed and dismissed over the past number of years. It is like a trip down memory lane, hearing them all being recycled. We have to get real and focus on the general parameters for getting this sorted.
This is also not a constitutional or identity issue, and those who are framing it as such are making a fundamental error in doing so, as well as backing themselves into corner from which they will have difficulty extracting themselves. Rather, it should be seen as a genuine economic issue and challenge. The nature of the Union has evolved over the past 200 years. It was never a fixed entity. The fact that we have seen the union with Ireland become the union with Northern Ireland and then seen the Good Friday agreement are key testaments to that change. However, Northern Ireland remains as much a part of the United Kingdom as it did on its creation 100 years ago this year.
There has also been a lot of talk about the issue of consent. I have to say that there was very little consideration of the issue of consent when Northern Ireland was dragged out of the European Union against the wishes of majority of the people there, but if we are talking about consent today, we have to recognise that once again the Government and Parliament have consented to the protocol. The issue of dual consent inside Northern Ireland does not apply in this case, because this is an issue that pertains to what is an excepted matter in terms of the devolved settlement, in that it is a matter of international affairs.
All that said, there is much we can do to make what is otherwise a solid line down the Irish sea into a dotted line. That involves finding as many flexibilities and mitigations as possible, consistent with the respective legal requirements of both the UK and the EU. That must be done by agreement; unilateral action leaves us in a very difficult position, particularly our businesses, which have to trade on a firm legal footing.
Fundamentally, it must be understood that there is a trade-off between the degree of alignment between the UK and the EU, and the level of checks and frictions across the Irish sea. The solutions do not lie simply in pushing the boundaries in relation to the protocol. In many respects, the trade and co-operation agreement is a minimal trade deal, especially in relation to non-tariff barriers. The UK has the option of making supplemental agreements with the European Union, including a veterinary agreement.
That is imperative, not just to address the issue across the Irish sea but to help all UK agrifood exporters to the EU, who are currently suffering from major drops in sales. Many independent sovereign states have concluded veterinary agreements with the EU, and so can and should the UK. Every MP who today professes concern for Northern Ireland but at the same time insists on Brexit purity needs to reflect very strongly on this. A Swiss-style deal would be optimal, but there are other options. I call for much responsibility and creativity in this regard from both the UK and the EU.
However, in reaching an outcome, there is one key ingredient: trust. That is a particular challenge for the UK Government, who face a trust paradox. Flexibility and pragmatism requires the EU to trust the UK as and when we seek to bend the rules to accommodate the particular challenges facing Northern Ireland, but so far we have seen the Government fail to honour existing agreements, make unilateral moves, and even have legal action taken against them. Next week, we are expecting another statement from Lord Frost in relation to uni- lateral actions.
Indeed, we have seen Lord Frost and others seek to rewrite history and deny the reality of what they negotiated and signed up to regarding the protocol, and we have seen mixed signals, with acknowledgement on the one hand of the need to fix and work the protocol, and the suggestion on the other hand that article 16 could be invoked and the protocol suspended or even ditched. That is not viable and would bring huge consequences for the UK.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) [V]
The United Kingdom left the EU lawfully and democratically under our own constitutional arrangements by sovereign Acts of Parliament, including a referendum, all based on our fundamental internal domestic law of sovereignty under our own unwritten constitution. The EU has always known that.
We left the EU and the European Communities Act 1972, in the light of previous centuries of democratic self-government and contribution to European peace, because of long-standing concerns about European integration, undemocratic majority voting for law making behind closed doors without even a transcript, EU regulations incompatible with our desire for competitive global trading, and awareness that there has never been a level playing field.
Our sovereign Acts of Parliament are Acts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. They cover trading co-operation, withdrawal itself, and the Northern Ireland protocol, which was made during parliamentary paralysis in 2019 before the last general election. There is also, of course, the Good Friday agreement, which is important. It is in the mutual neighbourly interests of the United Kingdom and the EU to recognise that we have left the EU and are no longer in its legislative and judicial sphere.
Crucially, in addition to article 16, section 38(2)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed by a large majority—what is known as the “notwithstanding” section—expressly enacted, after the protocol was made, that we are able to pass our own primary legislation to override the withdrawal agreement and the protocol should Parliament so decide, notwithstanding those instruments. That is within our sovereign constitutional framework of national interest and the constitutional and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and to maintain peace and stability.
Indeed, Mr Lauterpacht and other great authorities have made it abundantly clear that, as far as they are concerned, international law and the Vienna convention include provision for terminating treaties and for recognising fundamental errors in their composition and implementation. Section 38, therefore, is consistent with clear universal recognition of our fundamental internal constitutional domestic law of sovereignty and fully respects international law. It is in our mutual interests, therefore, with mutual enforcement, to protect the constitutional integrity of the UK and to maintain trade stability and order, and to protect the peace process, as is clearly stated in the legal instruments. We also need to do that, as has been stated, given the unique political circumstances of the constitutional and political situation in Northern Ireland.
The Government will be well aware of all this and, I believe, will not be deflected from insisting on our sovereignty when the EU persists in its current attitudes. Therefore, I urge the Government to continue negotiations in the short term, bearing in mind what I and others have said in this debate, and mindful of the necessity in our national interest to take such action as is our right if the EU does not alter its current approach, as Madame von der Leyen has previously indicated repeatedly, along with the leaders of some of the member states, in a way that is consistent with how the protocol should be interpreted.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I am grateful to the Members who tabled the motion.
The rigorous implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol would be economically disastrous for Northern Ireland and an affront to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. Concerns about the protocol are not limited to Unionists in Northern Ireland, but are shared by businesses and consumers from right across the community. For the sake of Northern Ireland, the protocol cannot stand and must be superseded or replaced. With the Government stating that they will announce their plans for the protocol before the summer recess, I hope this will be the last time that many—indeed, any—of these arguments need to be rehearsed.
Unfortunately, discussions of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol and Brexit have too often been characterised by fundamental misapprehensions, which have in part led to the present difficulties. It has been said so often that Brexit or any hardening of the border with the Republic of Ireland is a breach of the Belfast agreement that people could be forgiven for believing it. Some have made these claims out of ignorance, but it is hard to believe that others could be given such a fool’s pardon. No matter how many times such sentiments are expressed by those in Ireland, the EU, the United States or even this House, it does not make them true. To those who make such claims, I ask one simple question: what specific provision in the agreement does Brexit or a border hardened in any way offend against?
In the High Court in Belfast in 2019, Lord Justice McCloskey made it clear that Brexit was not contrary to the Belfast agreement, nor did the agreement require a customs union or continued regulatory alignment. It is not Brexit but the protocol that offends against Northern Ireland’s constitutional guarantee in the Belfast agreement. Yet there is barely a mention, by those who were prepared to weaponise the Belfast agreement against an imaginary breach, when a real one is evident. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the prospect of a border on the island of Ireland is being cynically used by the EU.
I have no greater wish to see a hard border in the island of Ireland than anyone else, but the fact is that there is no realistic prospect of such a border. Politically, no one wants it; it would be difficult practically; and even from an EU perspective it is not necessary to protect the integrity of the single market. For three reasons, it is clear that even the EU does not believe that the Irish sea border is not required to protect its single market. First, the grace periods have operated without any obvious damage to the single market. That demonstrates that the application of single market laws for goods is not necessary, and is a political choice, not a law of nature.
Secondly, article 16 of the protocol agreed by the European Commission makes provision for unilateral steps to be taken by the EU where, for example, there has been a diversion of trade. Given the low threshold for such intervention, it must have been within the contemplation of the EU that certain safeguarding steps would be required that presumably would not have resulted in a hardening of the Irish border.
Thirdly, the EU agreed a consent mechanism for the Northern Ireland Assembly—although it was completely unacceptable from a Unionist perspective—that could see articles 5 to 10 cease to have effect. Again, it must have been assumed that a lack of consent for these provisions would not result in the restoration of a border on the island of Ireland.
The reality is that there are solutions that allow the EU to protect its single market in a sensible and pragmatic way that is consistent with the economic integrity of Northern Ireland and does not require a border on the island of Ireland. If the EU is not prepared to take such a course, it is incumbent on our Government to prioritise the interests of this country over the unrealistic demands of the European Union.
Today, this House has had the opportunity to debate the protocol, but the real test for this Government and their commitment to the Union will come in the next week. Only then will we know whether their words are met by their actions.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing it; it is long overdue, but through his persistence we have achieved it.
It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). Before I get on with my own thoughts, I want to pick up on something she said. She is quite right that if anyone reads the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, they will see, first and foremost, that the border is not specifically mentioned in it. We have had all the wonderful great and good wandering around demanding that the agreement stand, when in fact the border is never once mentioned. Secondly, there has always been a border—my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has made the point that there is a border for VAT, excise and currency. The whole point that the hon. Member for Upper Bann makes is right, and it stands, but that is the bit that has gone missing.
The more something is said and the bigger the lie, the more people believe it—but it has been a lie from start to finish, which has meant that there has been no rational discussion of exactly what will happen under the protocol and thereafter. The protocol itself has failed to support the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, is creating division and does not really keep an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Lord Trimble has been quoted several times. I have to say that it is only in this country that a Nobel peace prize winner is not really given great distinction. Interestingly, when we took Lord Trimble to Brussels, he was treated with the utmost respect; when he spoke, Mr Barnier and everybody else fell silent and agreed with him. He said that the arrangements that needed to be in place were those that I will come to later—essentially, mutual enforcement. As he says, not only does the protocol
“shatter Northern Ireland’s constitutional relationship with the UK,”
as has been referred to, but it subverts the very agreement that they keep on saying that they want to preserve: the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is breaking that agreement and directly setting one part of the community against the other because of the way in which it is implemented and because of its very nature.
The protocol simply cannot stand. I disagree with the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare); I do not think that this is just about a group of people picking away at it and trying to object to it on ideological grounds. The reality is that, practically, it does not work—and if it does not work, it has to be radically changed or replaced. I am for replacing it.
The other bit that has come out of this is that the EU has become very partisan. A claim was made that somehow the British Government have to be completely independent of this, but they are the Government of Northern Ireland as well. The reality is that the European Union has become very partial. It has sided with one side of the argument and has driven this as a weapon aimed at the Brexit negotiations from start to finish.
I went with a team of people to see Monsieur Barnier, and, as was said earlier, we presented mutual enforcement to him at the table. That was before the British Government got in a mess over their arrangements in 2018 and came up with that poor resolution. The EU team listened, and we corresponded with them for at least another two to three weeks about where this could go. It was interesting that they were open-minded about it until the UK Government decided that they were going to go for equivalence and all the rest of it, and it did not work. They were very keen on the proposal and knew it would work. This is the point I make: there is another solution that will work.
It is worth reminding those who keep saying, “Well, you all voted for this,” that we voted for it because we knew it was not permanent. That was made clear in every single article: article 184 of the withdrawal agreement, article 13 of the protocol and, importantly, paragraph 35 of the political declaration, which envisages an agreement superseding the protocol with alternative arrangements. The idea that this is somehow set in stone and we only have to work to make it better is an absurdity in itself.
It is something to watch the Irish Foreign Minister almost boasting that diversion of trade is taking place which will only settle the natural order of things through the supply chains—these new realities. This is a breach of article 16, and it is very clear that he has admitted that. That is exactly what is going on, and it should have never been agreed to in the first place.
I want to turn my attention now to what the alternative is. We now have a situation where there are two and a half times more checks at the border in Northern Ireland than there are in Rotterdam. Northern Ireland represents 0.5% of the total population of the EU, but it now has 20% of the EU’s customs checks and more checks than France in total. This is quite ludicrous and an utter disaster. The solution, therefore, is to move to mutual enforcement, where both sides take responsibility for their own requirement to uphold the other side’s regulations. We do not need a border, but if prosecutions need to take place, the UK will prosecute those who transgress, and the EU will do the same.
Sammy Wilson
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the most important part of mutual enforcement is that there will no longer be any need for EU law to automatically apply to Northern Ireland, and therefore the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom would not be compromised?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am going to refer to the right hon. Gentleman as my right hon. Friend for this because he is absolutely right. That is the key point about mutual enforcement. We have been working with a group of the brightest and smartest lawyers—experts in European law, experts in trade law and experts financial regulations—and it is quite fascinating. They believe that if we make it an offence to export items in breach of EU law across the north-south border, that becomes our responsibility and the EU’s responsibility. That is exactly the point that my right hon. Friend makes. The EU does exactly the same for us, and it does not breach our sovereignty since the exporters are opting to comply with the importers’ laws anyway from the moment their goods cross the invisible border.
I simply say in conclusion to my right hon. Friend the Minister that the Government now have to make the point that this is the way forward. They have to present this to the EU, and the EU has to recognise the damage it is doing in Northern Ireland and here in the United Kingdom. I urge her to press forward with these arrangements and agree that this is the solution to an outstanding problem.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the opening portion of the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), specifically where it states that he
“supports the primary aims of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, which are to uphold the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in all its dimensions and to respect the integrity of the EU and UK internal markets”.
We should all support those aims. In this Parliament, we have a historical and moral responsibility in relation to the whole of Ireland, yet we debate Government policy on this matter too little. It is a reminder that both the Good Friday agreement and the protocol are solemn and binding international treaties. From a moral point of view, this country should uphold the treaties that it signs. Supporting our commercial and other self-interests also dictates that we should follow the spirit and letter of these treaties.
I am afraid to say, however, that the Government have not fully upheld either treaty. Please do not just take my word for it—this is what the EU negotiators and the US Government believe. Why else would they issue this country with a formal diplomatic reprimand or a démarche? Otherwise, most importantly, it is what parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly believe. They think that this Government are trying to rip up the Northern Ireland protocol, which is a part of the Brexit treaty. They believe, too, that the Government are behaving recklessly in terms of the effect of undermining the Good Friday agreement. They also think that if loyalists commit violence on the streets of Belfast and in other areas, they believe that they are encouraged by the British Government in their joint aim of tearing up the protocol. What other inference are they supposed to draw when Ministers go to Belfast, meet members of the Loyalist Communities Council and say afterwards that the protocol they signed is not sustainable in its current form?
The motion also talks of upholding the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, with which I wholeheartedly agree, but I think we may mean very different things by that. The Good Friday agreement is 23 years old, but large parts of it remain unimplemented. Where is the Bill of Rights that was promised? Where, too, is the recourse to the European convention on human rights in the courts of Northern Ireland that was also promised, or the convention’s full incorporation in British law, or the language Act? I could go on.
I fear that opponents of the protocol want to rip out one phrase of the Good Friday agreement regarding not changing the constitutional position without consent, but this cuts both ways. It was the determination of Government Members to have a disastrous Brexit that changed the constitutional position, and it was against the will of the people in Ireland who voted clearly to remain in the EU. Consent was not given. It is this Government who have upset the status quo, this Government who signed the treaty and this Government who now want to change elements they do not like. I am afraid that that is not how treaties work. If they continue to try to have their cake and eat it on the protocol, they will come up against opposition from Labour Members, the EU Commission, President Biden and from the people of Ireland.
In conclusion, the Prime Minister personally negotiated this protocol. He has a personal responsibility to make it work for communities, and the peace process must always come first, yet this Government’s actions repeatedly destabilise it. This is a reckless path and they should cease and desist.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
If I may, I shall begin by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for so ably introducing this very important debate and by agreeing with him that we should thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding valuable time for it, especially as our Prime Minister is now due to meet senior members of the Irish Government on these matters only next week.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex has pointed out, the Northern Ireland protocol contains a safeguarding clause in article 16 in the event that the protocol is not working as intended. Either party can activate article 16, in which case they then have to proceed under the provisions of annex 7. It should be remembered that the European Commission, not the UK Government, invoked article 16 on the evening of 29 January 2021. If the rumours were to be believed, Dublin was not even consulted about this action. Dublin found out from London, not from Brussels. The supreme irony is that, in doing so, the European Commission, which took the decision, effectively sought to create a hard border on the island of Ireland for medicines and, crucially, vaccines, despite having sworn blind for three years, during what I describe as the battle for Brexit in this House, that that was absolutely the last thing that they ever wanted to do. I am sure that the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who has helpfully reassured us this afternoon that he is not an apologist for the European Union, will be the first to acknowledge that.
Invoking article 16 in that way was, I think it is fair to say, widely derided as a mistake, and the European Commission withdrew it by the cold light of morning. The Commission was really doing it for internal reasons, because of, among other things, the slow roll-out of vaccines, unfortunately, on the continent; nevertheless, the fact that it did it, when it clearly should not have done, means that our Prime Minister is absolutely entitled, as he has said many times, to keep article 16 on the table if the European Commission refuses to be reasonable in renegotiating the Northern Ireland protocol, or even replacing it.
One thing, though, that all protagonists in this debate seem to agree about is their willingness and, in fact, strong desire to uphold the 1998 Good Friday agreement, which has indeed been crucial in bringing peace and stability to Northern Ireland for over two decades. It is fundamentally based on the principle of consent, as the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and his colleagues have reminded us, but it is now as plain as a pikestaff that the Northern Ireland protocol no longer enjoys the consent of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland.
If the House will not take that from me, it could take it from the new leader of the DUP, whom I wish all the best with his onerous responsibilities at this time. If the House will not take it from him, it could take it from the Nobel prize winner Lord Trimble, who has pointed out, importantly in this context also to audiences in the United States, who follow these matters closely, that the Northern Ireland protocol no longer enjoys the consent of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. Very wisely, in my view, he has recommended a system of mutual enforcement as a far better alternative.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that Lord Trimble is not just a Nobel peace prize winner, but one of the two architects of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the other of whom is now dead, and therefore the greatest authority on what is going on? I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Is it not the reality, therefore, that those who had nothing to do with it now say they are experts, when the real expert says that it is exactly what it is—damaging?
Mr Francois
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Lord Trimble helped to create the Good Friday agreement, at great risk not just to his political career but arguably to his own life, and not least because of that he is respected around the world. If people will not listen to me or even, though I find it difficult to believe, to my right hon. Friend, they should listen to David Trimble.
In February 2021, the European Research Group, which I have the privilege to chair, produced a detailed report on the Northern Ireland protocol, entitled “Re-uniting the Kingdom: How and why to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol”. A copy has been lodged in the Library of the House of Commons. The executive summary of that document says:
“The European Commission’s bungled invocation of Article 16, regarding vaccines, in late January 2021 has, rightfully, been widely criticised. Nevertheless, it has created a unique political opportunity for the United Kingdom Government to seek to negotiate a replacement of the Protocol with alternative arrangements, based on the concept of ‘Mutual Enforcement.’…If the EU remains unwilling to contemplate this, the U.K. Government should retain the option of invoking Article 16 itself and/or consider instigating domestic legislation, to replace the Protocol, via utilising Section 38 (The Sovereignty Clause) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act, 2020.”
We want to renegotiate this, and we hope that the European Commission and member states will be reasonable. After all, it swore blind that it would never remove the backstop, but after three months of negotiation it did, so there is a clear precedent for it. We would rather do this in a spirit of mutual negotiation, but I am reminded of the words of the late Baroness Thatcher, who famously said: “Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley”. Baroness Thatcher may no longer be with us, but her spirit lives on. We must retain Northern Ireland as a fundamental part of the United Kingdom. If, when push comes to shove, that means that the Northern Ireland protocol has to go, so that the vital principle of consent within the Good Friday agreement can be maintained for the peace and wellbeing of the people of Northern Ireland, then so be it.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
After all these months, it is hard to know what is left to say on the protocol. It was nobody’s first choice. It was the last thing left on the table after a series of choices made by the UK Government based on votes made by the Conservative Party and the DUP. Having a very hard Brexit and frictionless trade are regrettably not both possible, and they never have been, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise. People and businesses in Northern Ireland do not wish to leave the single market, with all that that would entail. It was discussed for years, and the protocol, voluntarily signed by the UK Government, was the outcome. All that remains to do is calmly, as adults, leaders and good neighbours, work through the challenges that Brexit has generated, streamline processes where possible and find workarounds where not.
I am pleased at least to see commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement on the face of this motion, because there are those who never supported it and who are only too keen to try and throw the agreement baby out with the protocol bathwater. Members have referred to the right hon. David Trimble. My party colleague and former leader John Hume also got the Nobel peace prize, as well as the Gandhi peace prize and the Martin Luther King peace award, and he knew a thing or two about interdependent relationships and statecraft. I urge all Members to widen their sources on this issue.
Brexit has, as the Social Democratic and Labour party cautioned for years, sharpened lines around identity, sovereignty and borders that we worked hard to soften. It has created perceived winners and losers in a place that lives or dies on compromise. The SDLP is very alive to the sense of many, particularly Unionists, that this is a parity of esteem issue, but we also see how those fears have been exacerbated and exploited, with the protocol being used as a receptacle for decades of grievance and frustration about everything from power sharing to minority languages.
In all the discussion about consent, it is also important to reiterate that the Brexit that many who have spoken on this motion seek, has never been consented to by people in Northern Ireland. Our constitutional status is a matter for people here, by referendum, and it is a dangerous conspiracy theory to pretend that that is being changed over their heads.
We all have our views on Brexit and its outworkings, and goodness knows we have discussed it plenty, so I want to reflect on the views expressed by some of those for whom this is not just a hobby horse, but who are dealing with the consequences—people in the business community and people working on peacebuilding and picking up the pieces of this fallout.
This morning at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee we heard from representatives of agriculture, logistics, retail and manufacturing. None of them loves the protocol either, but they all want it to work because they know that there are no alternatives. All spoke about changes that the UK Government and the EU could make to their own choices and behaviour to ease the burden. Crucially, they all made clear that the best solution available was an EU-UK veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. If the aim of those who brought this motion really is to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and to protect the UK internal market and to protect against a hard border, that is the only and obvious solution. Business representatives could not have been clearer about that, and no Northern Ireland Executive party opposes it. It would be a rational choice for a sovereign UK to make for itself in its own political and economic interests.
Last week, our Committee heard from women working in peacebuilding and community work in rural and urban communities—from people of all political outlooks and none. Their words were a rebuke to all of us in politics. Elaine Crory of the Women’s Resource and Development Agency spoke of a perception among the women that she works with that these issues are not in the hands of people
“that are thinking primarily of the effects…on me, my community and my family. It is in the hands of people driven by a particular perspective that…does not care about the effects it might have on me”.
Eileen Weir of the Shankhill Women’s Centre spoke openly about the challenges that Brexit and the protocol are bringing to identity, to community relations and to domestic budgets, but she wanted to hear more about the positives, too. She spoke about the need to
“encourage industry to come into Northern Ireland, to give our young people a future. We need hope within these communities…If we are able to attract industry…and fix the outstanding issues with the single market trade. There are ways of fixing it.”
However, we are only hearing the negatives, because many, including the UK Government and the DUP, are only looking for the negatives and doing nothing to harness the first economic unique selling point we have had in the history of Northern Ireland by being at the crossroads of the EU and UK single markets.
Elaine also said:
“When you hold a microphone out and point it directly at the people who oppose it…but you hold it only in that direction, you get the impression that everyone opposes it, when…they do not.”
Rachel Powell warned of
“outright manipulation of working-class communities across Northern Ireland.”
and said that the unrest we saw in April was not organic. She spoke further about the attacks and risks for those who tried to counteract those narratives. Kate Clifford of the Rural Community Network spoke about the challenge of upholding a culture of lawfulness when senior politicians such as the Secretary of State stand up and say that they are willing to break international law. She said:
“The difficulty for us is when the language of Parliament and the language of Governments is one of brinkmanship and posturing, and that is almost testosterone-driven. That then plays out in our communities… My plea to…all who are doing the negotiation is that, although it makes great headlines to talk about the ‘great British banger’ and all of that, the reality is that there are lives at stake on the ground…and it is not fun.”
It is not fun at all. It is deeply worrying to all of us in Northern Ireland who value cohesion and economic and political stability. The best way to address that is an SPS arrangement, and the second best way is not to manufacture a crisis, but to accept responsibility and the choices, be honest with people, engage with businesses and the EU, and make the situation work.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this important debate, which highlights the problems sadly afflicting the people of Northern Ireland as a consequence of the protocol. As he pointed out, the purposes of the protocol ostensibly are benign. The problem is the effect that the application of the protocol is having on the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom, and the day-to-day lives of the people of Northern Ireland.
It should not be necessary to state this, but it is fundamental to remember that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. It became so as a consequence of the Act of Union 1800, article 6 of which effectively provides that citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall be entitled to the same privileges in respect of trade. I am conscious of the proceedings currently going on in Belfast, but it is fair to say that equal treatment and trade with the rest of the UK, as a consequence of the 1800 Act, became a constitutional right of Northern Ireland citizens, and so it should be.
There is little doubt that the European Union is insisting on an over-assiduous interpretation of the protocol, which is resulting in disruption to trade and everyday life in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, and arguably even more worryingly, the protocol is imperilling the Belfast agreement, which for more than 20 years has been the guarantee of peace in Northern Ireland. It must be perfectly apparent to the European Union that the officious, over-punctilious application of the protocol is having those effects.
We are not talking about major movements of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland; by and large we are talking about small movements of goods, frequently for personal consumption, which are necessary for the continuation of life in Northern Ireland. This is already having a profound and adverse effect on the stability of civil society in Northern Ireland, which must be a matter of huge concern.
As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) pointed out, the Belfast agreement is being threatened by the EU’s purist approach to the protocol. Even more ironic is the fact that the EU justifies that approach by saying that it does so in order to defend the Belfast agreement. There have, of course, been some extensions to the grace periods provided for in the withdrawal agreement, but in reality those will be of no long-term benefit, and may result in a permanent diversion of established trade between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
It is fortunate that the protocol itself foresees that such problems may arise and therefore makes provision for addressing them. Article 16 sets up a safeguards procedure, which may be invoked unilaterally by either side in the event that the application of the protocol is leading to
“serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade”.
It is clear that those conditions currently prevail in Northern Ireland. I therefore also urge the Government to consider very carefully invoking article 16 in order to address and, it is to be hoped, to cure the problem, but this could be avoided if the EU were to adopt a more proportionate approach to the protocol’s implementation. The EU might also wish to consider the sensible proposals that are outlined in the excellent document to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has just referred.
What is absolutely certain is that we simply cannot continue like this. For the good of Northern Ireland, for the maintenance of the Belfast agreement and for the integrity of the Union, this issue must be resolved, and if the EU continues to refuse to co-operate then the only course remaining to the Government is to invoke article 16, and that is what I strongly urge them to do.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this debate, and thank him for the continued support that he has given to us in our opposition to the Northern Ireland protocol and the effects that it has had on Northern Ireland.
The protocol, if it continues to exist, is a threat to Brexit. Indeed, that was borne out by the survey carried out last weekend by Savanta, in which 57% of those who were surveyed indicated that they believed that the Northern Ireland protocol was designed to frustrate Brexit. Indeed, 40% of remainers made the same point. It represents a bridgehead that the EU still has on the United Kingdom, a salient from which it will continue to attack our sovereignty and try to claw back the influence that it lost when this country decided to leave the EU.
There are three reasons why the protocol must go. The first is that it will be an ongoing means by which Brexit will be frustrated. We have already seen how the EU has used the protocol. In fact, it is taking the UK Government to court because the UK Government will not accept the EU’s interpretation of the protocol and how it should be implemented to impose the kind of restrictions that the EU demands. The British Government argue that the protocol was meant to deal with only those goods that could be at risk of going into the EU through the Irish Republic; any other goods were not at risk. The EU takes the view that we must prove that goods are not at risk before we can avoid the checks. In other words, 97% of goods that are currently being checked do not need to be checked. They do not go any further than Northern Ireland. Yet the EU is insisting that there is a risk that they might go into the Irish Republic. That is why we have such a high level of checks. There will be future laws that will create more need for restrictions. For example, the EU is bringing in changes to the law regarding the testing of lawnmowers. Lawnmowers could be the next goods that are refused entry into Northern Ireland because they do not comply with EU law, which now applies to Northern Ireland. That is the first reason. If we do not get rid of the protocol, there is always that opportunity for friction in relations between the UK and the EU.
Secondly, I do not care what people have said about there being no constitutional impact. Of course, there is a constitutional impact. The Act of Union has been changed. The Government’s own lawyers argued in the courts that the Act of Union was changed—that when this House voted for the protocol it voted impliedly to change one of the fundamental pillars of the Act of Union, which is that there should be unimpeded and equal trade between the different countries of this nation.
The protocol’s other constitutional impact has been to take powers from the Northern Ireland Assembly. I find it amazing that those who have representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly, such as the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), can argue that there is nothing to worry about. His party has a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly and his party has Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, yet 60% of the laws that will govern manufacturing in Northern Ireland will never be discussed, cannot be discussed, and, indeed, have to be implemented by the Northern Ireland Assembly without its having any say. The democratic responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Assembly have been undermined, and, of course, there has been a change in the Act of Union and in the constitutional position, and that contravenes the Good Friday agreement, which says that any change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland has to have the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
The last reason, which people have outlined very well, is the economic impact that all this is having on Northern Ireland. We already see the disruption to trade. Indeed, just this month the Ulster Bank purchasing managers index survey indicated that inflation in Northern Ireland is significantly higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom and about 50% more than the lowest region in the rest of the United Kingdom. Although that does not lie completely at the door of the protocol, it indicates that costs are rising higher in Northern Ireland because of the costs of the protocol—the delay in supply chains, the additional costs in administration and so on.
The protocol has a real impact on the future ability of Northern Ireland to compete. Of course, as laws in Northern Ireland change because EU laws are imposed, that will make it much more difficult for us to compete in our biggest market in GB. There will be those who say that we will get the best of both worlds, with a foot in the EU camp and a foot in the GB camp. That is not true, of course.
Ian Paisley
On the issue of having a foot in both camps, at today’s Northern Ireland Affairs Committee the Ulster Farmers’ Union made the point that Northern Ireland agriculture is now in a no man’s land and does not have the best of both worlds. How does my hon. Friend respond to the fact that that multimillion pound industry, our most successful, is now placed in that terrible situation?
Sammy Wilson
I have heard time and again the argument that we have the best of both worlds, but I have not heard any examples of where being in the EU single market and being cut off from the GB market has had any beneficial effect. Indeed, any examples I have heard of improved trade have been a result of the trade agreement that the whole of the United Kingdom has with the EU. That is all that has ensured that those markets are open to companies in Northern Ireland.
There are alternatives. We have heard them mentioned today, including the mutual enforcement of each other’s rules. It is not that it is technically impossible—it is technically possible. It is not that it is economically impossible—it is possible. It is not that it is constitutionally impossible—it is simply a question of whether there is political will. Lord Frost must push this with the EU. There are alternatives that can satisfy both sides and ensure that the single market of the UK is maintained while the single market of the EU is protected.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
As long ago as 2016, the British people voted to take back control. We voted to re-establish our sovereignty. The last Parliament sought to subvert and undermine that view, so in 2019, given the opportunity, the British public voted again, by a substantial margin, to take back control. They elected, with a decent majority, a Government of a party pledged to do just that, and this Government moved with speed and purpose to take back control. Unfortunately we still need to debate this matter today because of the conduct of the European Union. There is outstanding business. We still have not taken back proper control in Northern Ireland or over our fishing grounds. I am glad to take the opportunity provided by this Back-Bench debate to urge the Government to fully implement the mandate of the British people given to them both in the referendum and in the general election to take back that control.
I have been angered, but not surprised, by the conduct of the European Union. There is a long history of the European Union antagonising neighbours and potentially friendly states and attempting to use distorted, twisted or simply wrong legal arguments to force things in its own direction against the interests of its neighbours. The EU, in the long negotiations with the UK, always said that it respected the UK’s wish to restore its sovereignty and did not wish to deny it, and yet here we have a case where the EU is trying to wrestle our sovereignty away from us in an important part of our country. The EU always promised to respect our internal market, as is reflected in the agreements that we are currently discussing, yet now it wishes to hijack it. It wishes to divert a substantial proportion of GB-to-Northern Ireland trade to the EU for its purposes against the spirit and the letter of the agreement.
Above all, the EU promised to respect the peace agreement. It went on and on about an imaginary border that the UK had no intention of making more complicated or more difficult, and denying the actual border that was already there that was necessary for its purposes and the UK’s purposes for taxation, currency and regulatory matters. It has gone out of its way to antagonise the loyalist majority community in Northern Ireland. That is the very opposite of working with us to promote the peace and to reduce the tensions within those important communities.
So what should we do now? Our Government have shown enormous tolerance, restraint and flexibility. I make no secret of the fact that I would not have shown as much flexibility or restraint as they have done, because I am already very angry about the EU’s conduct. But they are right that we need to show that we have tried to negotiate a settlement, and I hope they will have one more go at trying to get the EU to agree to a common-sense approach to these border issues whereby proper trade can be sustained and promoted so that GB-NI trade is also restored and not interfered with by the EU, because that was never part of the idea behind the original agreement.
I hope the Government will have success in these matters, but we do need to be ready now, as soon as possible, to make our own decisions and to make our own moves if the EU is not yet ready to negotiate a sensible solution, of which there are several on offer in this debate and in the discussions that have been held over the years. The agreement makes it clear that we can indeed move unilaterally and assert our sovereignty where our internal market is being violated and trade is being diverted, and where there are other failures by the EU to comply with the agreement, which are now several and manifest.
I say to the Government: do not delay over the whole of this summer. Take action now. The trade is being diverted now. The community sentiments are being disrupted now. The peace agreement is being wobbled now. The sovereignty of the United Kingdom is being deeply infringed now. There is plenty of evidence for that, and a good case can be made in the court of world opinion for those who are interested. But this is, above all, a matter between the Government and the British people—the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. We, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that they are fully part of our single market and country, just as we wish them, with us, to have friendly and good trading relations with the EU.
But if there has to be a choice between peace and our internal matters on the one hand, and our trade with the EU on the other, of course we must put Northern Ireland, peace and the integrity of our country first, whatever threats the EU may make. The EU is the disrupter of trade; the UK is the promoter of free trade worldwide. The EU is the one that is doing harm to the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland. We must be rock-fast in our support for the people of Northern Ireland, for the constitution of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, and for a good solution that allows the restoration of our internal market.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
It is a privilege to take part in today’s debate on an issue of profound importance to the future not just of Northern Ireland but the rest of the United Kingdom. I appeal to Members to—to paraphrase the President of the United States—dial down the rhetoric a little and listen to the many contributions that we have heard from hon. Members from Northern Ireland about the importance of making the protocol work for the people of Northern Ireland. Listening to them, I am reminded of how much the people of Northern Ireland have endured and I feel perhaps more strongly than ever that it is our responsibility, on this issue but also every issue, to do whatever we can to support them in avoiding any further suffering of any kind. That is why, as I will explain, the Liberal Democrats believe that, despite its faults, we have to defend and make the protocol work.
The unique circumstances in Northern Ireland and the absolute necessity of protecting the Good Friday agreement demanded something special and deserved special attention on our withdrawal from the European Union. The reality of Brexit is that it was always going to mean changes—a border somewhere, new arrangements to deal with. What we have in the Northern Ireland protocol is an agreement that, as many Members have pointed out, is deeply flawed. Those on both sides involved in creating it must not only recognise their responsibility for it, but do what they can to mitigate and alleviate the issues that have been raised by hon. Members from Northern Ireland today.
While the Government might wish to, they cannot deny that having to deal with this is the inevitable outcome of the decision to leave the customs union. However, focusing now on blame and recriminations will help nobody. While we might all have doubts and complaints about the protocol, we have to recognise that it was, as other Members have said, the least worst option left on the table. Most significantly, the protocol protects the Good Friday agreement, which is paramount.
Within the protocol is a commitment that it should have as little impact as possible on the everyday lives of communities in both Ireland and Northern Ireland. We have already seen clearly demonstrated how difficult that is in the unique circumstances that I have spoken about for businesses and consumers. We have heard the frustration of farmers and food producers, but hon. Members have also mentioned that Ulster farmers say that there is a solution there and they want it to work. I believe it is up to us to support them in that and ensure that they get that solution, not just for the farmers but for all businesses and all the people of Northern Ireland.
It is also undeniable that there are issues for businesses in the rest of the UK in trading with Northern Ireland, and we have figures showing that trade has fallen. Some blame that on the resultant problems with the protocol. There is also the thorny issue of the veterinary agreement, which is one not just for the protocol or people in Northern Ireland, but one that must be addressed for the good of all UK agrifood producers.
We must do this in a positive way. We must do it in a way that supports the people of Northern Ireland and ensures that we move forward. We should focus on nothing else but finding workable, pragmatic solutions, not just for the sake of the people of Northern Ireland, but for the future of the United Kingdom. We as the Liberal Democrats hope that the UK Government will do everything they can to pragmatically reflect what we have heard today and the unique circumstances. Let us be clear: we do not believe that we should seek to renegotiate, but the UK Government and the European Union should be working to implement in good faith. We know that the EU needs to protect the integrity of its internal market and customs union, and Northern Ireland and its businesses too need clarity and, as I have said, pragmatic solutions, but most of all we need trust. We need everyone to agree as many flexibilities and mitigations as possible.
Northern Ireland and its people have faced and overcome many challenges in past decades. We must ensure that on this one we give them the utmost support and find the pragmatic way forward that addresses the issues in the way they wish to see them addressed.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) [V]
This debate is about the future and we should focus on that, not the past. Article 6 of the Northern Ireland protocol states that the Joint Committee of the EU and the UK shall adopt appropriate facilitations that will aid the functioning of the UK’s internal market. The EU could agree to expand the trusted trader scheme. It could agree to use the simplifications that are available under its union customs code. It could agree that the performance of SPS checks and controls should in the main take place within firms’ facilities. It could agree product-by-product agreements that could streamline the need for checks based on mutual recognition, such as the EU has with nations such as New Zealand. That is possible and can be made even more secure, as we have heard, by concepts such as mutual enforcement. There is no need for regulatory alignment by the UK and that will not be accepted in either the short or the long term.
Insisting on alignment unreasonably stops the reaching of agreement on facilitation, which is the EU’s legal obligation. Diversion of trade, as we have heard, is contrary both to the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol and to the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. So is the now explicitly stated aim of the previous Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland to use the EU’s diversion of trade in Northern Ireland as a means to achieve a united Ireland. Many in the world are aware of the EU’s regular attempts at regulatory imperialism and do not find it reasonable. I ask: is this reasonable in the context of Northern Ireland and the sensitivity there of needing to respect all communities’ desires?
Would it be reasonable for Canada to insist that the US aligned to Canada’s regulations in order to enable Alaskan goods to move into the Yukon or British Columbia? Would it be reasonable to hope that such a policy would lead to Alaska being united with Canada? I would say no, as I hope most reasonable people in the world would.
I hope the EU will change its stance, be reasonable and make the Northern Ireland protocol work, while respecting the fact that the UK will, as a sovereign nation, not take its regulation from the EU. If it will not do so, the UK would be within its rights and have no real world option other than, in good faith, to take realistic and reasonable unilateral action to implement facilitations, in the interests of all in the island of Ireland, which help the EU and the UK to preserve their internal markets.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on setting the scene and on all right hon. and hon. Members on their incredibly important, vital and very detailed contributions.
Where do I start? How do I condense my thoughts into the short time that has been allotted to me? What fresh words do I use to elaborate on the terrible deal that has been made for Northern Ireland that I have not used on the 21 other times I have raised this issue in the House in the last number of months? What can I say to ensure that the intelligent and respected Members grasp what we as a party have warned about and argued against since the inception of the Northern Ireland protocol?
Because the title of the debate is “Northern Ireland Protocol”, I will give some examples of the issues that have affected my businesses. Small businesses have been unable to order stock from the mainland and unable to source pet supplies, and they are paying additional fees to the companies that will send the goods to Northern Ireland. A local discount shop owner told me that every order has an additional £30 administration cost. That does not sound like much, but, as his profit margin on a £1 good is 15p, he must sell an additional £200 of goods to pay for the Northern Ireland protocol fee.
Ask any importer and they will say that the increase in container costs from China, which range from $2,800 to $14,700, has seen prices increase to cover the difference to ship goods from 55p to 75p. That is difficult for businesses as it is. They try to absorb costs if possible, but Northern Ireland businesses are under additional pressure due to the insidious protocol. While big stores such as Tesco and Asda have used their exemption to continue to supply pet food and treats, smaller high street businesses have lost another income stream.
Does that feel like the best of both worlds? It does not to Cotters in Newtownards and so many other decent businessmen that have survived covid, only to fall victim possibly to the outworkings of what was proposed to be a paper exercise only. That is what we were told. Seven months in, businesses are in a worse position, not a better one. So, too, is the constituent who went to order a knee support on Amazon Prime day, only to be told that, as they live outside the recognised zone, the supplier would not send it to them. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) gave an example of that earlier. My constituent must therefore purchase knee supports that cost an extra £9 due to their postcode. It does not feel like a better position for them, does it?
We think next of those who want to enjoy a staycation on the beautiful shores of Strangford, or of course anywhere in Northern Ireland. This guy is from across the water. He would come to my constituency regularly with his dog. His words sum up perfectly what the Northern Ireland protocol has done. He says:
“I write to you as a UK citizen who enjoys holidaying in Northern Ireland with my pet dog. This year, despite moves by the Northern Ireland Minister Edwin Poots to withhold checks at ferry ports until October, it would seem that I still must be in possession of certificates for rabies and tapeworm, which haven’t been recorded in the United Kingdom since 1922 at a total cost in excess of £200. Therefore I am not prepared to obtain these and I am unable to get a definitive answer to my question, namely, ‘Can I travel with my dog without the said certificates?’…This really will do much harm to Northern Ireland tourism.”
It does not feel better to him. Nor, indeed, does it feel better to my local economy, where he would have come on holiday. It would have benefited from his bed nights and spend in local shops and restaurants.
It does not feel better to the Unionist who has felt the abandonment—I say that respectfully—of the Government like at no other time in living memory. It is a harder pill to swallow when we have a Government who proudly state their belief in this United Kingdom. That is not a reflection on those who have spoken, because they are committed to the Union. Unfortunately, it has to start at a higher level.
I have not got time to give all the examples, but there are many others from businesses in clothes, food, farm machinery, cars, steel and engineering as well as nurseries and farmers. There are even individuals who used to order products but now cannot, or find the cost to be prohibitive. It is a difficult position for people when their own Government are a party to severing ties that affect not simply their business and income but their constitutional position. That causes those loyal to the Queen and Crown to ask why they cling to that when their loyalty is not reciprocated. The sacrifice of Ulster to the slavish demands of Europe engaged in petty warfare is clearly an acceptable sacrifice to make.
This is absolutely not the best of both worlds—unless that world is the eradication of the Union. For those who cherish the Union and honour the blood shed to stand against terrorism, and for the democratic right of the people of Ulster to determine their nationality, this is not the best of any world whatsoever. I have deliberately not referenced bangers from Bangor, although I could, because people in my constituency work for the company in Bangor that produces sausages. They are also on the frontline. I stand by the phrase “we are better off out”, but the preface of this is that we are better out together, and that is what I want to see—we are a package deal.
I am asking Government once more to put into action their phrase, “stronger together” and, for that to happen, to trigger article 16. Save the day in this Chamber and they will have the support of the Unionist community. Stop the European nonsense, allow Northern Ireland her rightful standing as an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland once more, and give us the same rights in Northern Ireland as the rest of the United Kingdom—parity and equal rights for all.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for choosing this debate. Something I have learned in my time in this House is that the importance of the Back Benches—and the voices on them—is not as well appreciated outside the House as it is within. Of course, I pay my compliments to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this debate, which is of great importance. Of course it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
For hon. and right hon. Members’ interest, I am the chairman of the Conservative Union Research Unit. We are a Back-Bench group and we were formed for one simple purpose: to strengthen the Union. I speak here in my capacity as the Member for Aberconwy, but I think that is an important interest to declare. We are of course delighted that the Government share our interest in strengthening the Union.
Our interest then, to be clear, is in the Union. I differentiate that from the protocol, important though that is—and, indeed, it brings us here today—and from the Belfast agreement, again, important though that is. My comments, therefore, will focus on the Union and the impact of the protocol on the Union. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) referred earlier to the Good Friday agreement as the bedrock. I suggest that the bedrock is the Act of Union of 1800, which has been an enduring cornerstone of this United Kingdom. Indeed, we stand here in this Parliament—the Parliament of this United Kingdom—today.
Interest in the Union of course extends beyond any party; it is not the possession of any one party. I note the contributions from many different parts of the House to the debate today and I am encouraged by that. But on this side of the House we are of course the Conservative and Unionist party. If we are not concerned with the Union, then what are we?
The group I chair has over 80 Back-Bench Members, each of us active on account of the Union to promote it in this House and among our constituents. So when we heard Mr Justice Colton agree with Government counsel that article VI of the Act of Union had been impliedly repealed by the protocol, Members can imagine our concern. It is, as Madam Deputy Speaker said earlier, a matter of national concern and a matter for the whole of the UK to take note of.
I acknowledge the complexity of this situation and these circumstances. I also acknowledge the mechanisms wisely placed within the protocol for remedying its shortcomings and the considerable efforts of Lord Frost and others in Government to do so. But in the light of Mr Justice Colton’s remarks, I am bound by duty and urged by many to ask: what is the Government’s plan for remedying that change to our Union? If not in this House, where are we to consider this, and if not at this time, in the light of his remarks, then when? I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some direction in her response to this.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Can I add my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this debate, otherwise we would not be here, and to the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for us to have this debate on the Floor of the House, so that we can debate these important issues and of course listen to the Minister’s response on behalf of the Government?
Having listened to the debate, I think the points I would want to make are these. The first point, which has been made by others, but I think was not really debated in an even way during the Brexit debate, is that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement has to be supported by both communities in Northern Ireland. I had a sense during the debate that, certainly from the EU’s perspective, an enormous amount of weight was perfectly understandably put on the border, or rather the lack of a physical border, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and on the views of the nationalist community, but there was not an enormous amount of focus from the EU on the views of the Unionist community and the border, or the lack of one, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In this debate, we are trying to redress that balance and reinforce the fact that for the Belfast/Good Friday agreement to be maintained—it is my strong view that it should be, and I know that is the Government’s view—it has to command the support of both communities in Northern Ireland.
The danger with the Northern Ireland protocol is that it potentially puts at risk the support of one community, which could fatally undermine the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and that is in the interests of nobody except the men of violence. That is why it is really important that we address this issue. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, the warnings that Lord Trimble set out should be taken very seriously. He is a man who put not just his reputation but his life at risk to deliver that agreement, so we should listen to his words. He knows the power of words and will have chosen them with care. That is the importance of that.
I do take seriously the EU’s concerns about its single market, but we need to focus on what is the actual risk to the single market, not the theoretical risk. It seems to me that the EU is concerned largely about a theoretical risk that does not actually exist, partly because of the geography. It is not reasonable to assume that physical products would move from Great Britain or Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland and then be re-exported from the Republic of Ireland into the rest of the European Union in volumes that would significantly damage the single market. The key word here is “proportionate”. It is about ensuring that any measures that the EU wants in place to protect its single market are proportionate not to the theoretical risk to the single market but to the actual risk. Several of my hon. Friends, on both sides of the House, have set out clearly that the checks and controls in place between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are simply not proportionate to the actual risk involved. That is something that the Government need to address with the European Union.
I note that in the justifications for using article 16 that, although serious economic, societal and environmental difficulties have to be liable to persist to allow the Government to use that article, diversion of trade simply has to exist at any point. I certainly think the Government should not take that option off the table in order to secure agreement from the European Union. I would prefer us to reach agreement. It is much better if we can reach agreement and have something that both sides wish to enforce, but in order to get a better outcome we must not take the unilateral option off the table.
Mr Francois
My right hon. Friend kindly referred to me earlier and, far more importantly, to Lord Trimble. Does he agree that, although there are often risks in doing something, in this situation there are also risks in not doing something? If we do not address the serious discontent in one community in Northern Ireland, there is a real risk, as he hinted, that people with a dark past will seek to exploit this for their own ends and use violence rather than democratic debate to advance their objectives, which are not in the interests of the Good Friday agreement.
Mr Harper
My right hon. Friend puts it very well. There are serious risks here, which is why we need to address the perfectly reasonable concerns that many people have in Northern Ireland.
It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate when the Government will set out their thinking—obviously, there is not long to go before the recess—and whether that will be announced in such a way as to give us the chance to question Ministers. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), who leads the Democratic Unionist party, set out its checklist for how it is going to test any proposals that the Governments bring forward. It would be helpful to know—I do not expect the Minister and the United Kingdom Government to completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr Harper
Well, they may. My request was going to be for the Minister to set out which of the tests that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley set out the Government agree with and which they perhaps do not. Listening to his objectives, I do not think that that list can have come as an enormous surprise, so it would be helpful to get a bit of a steer about the extent to which there is some commonality.
My final point is that, very clearly, as several of my hon. and right hon. Friends have said, there was envisaged in the protocol and the political declaration the idea that the protocol was not a permanent solution but a temporary solution. Certainly, both sides—the British Government and the EU—said that they would take seriously alternative arrangements that could be put in place to enable businesses in Northern Ireland to have unfettered access to the Great Britain market, but just as importantly, to enable businesses in Great Britain to trade freely with Northern Ireland, for the benefit of both Northern Ireland businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland.
Even if one accepts—and I am not sure that I do—that those arrangements could not have been put in place several years ago when we left the European Union, saying that they can never be put in place and that, as technology and business procedures develop, we cannot develop our arrangements, seems unreasonable. Both the EU and the British Government should, working together, be able to take those forward. I look forward very much to listening, in the not-too-distant future, to the Minister’s response to what has been an excellent debate on both sides of the House.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for this timely debate.
It is probably fair to say that we urgently need a fresh protocol that meets the needs of all the parties in a sensible and practical fashion. Tinkering with the text or seeking to apply it pragmatically will not do the trick. Shakespeare staged the scenario 416 years ago. From Shylock’s—sorry, the EU’s—point of view, a contract is a contract and must be implemented to the letter. Alternatives were of no interest. It may be possible legally to avoid the protocol, just as Portia avoided Shylock’s contract as it did not allow a drop of blood to be lost, but that is not the issue. If we do not want this protocol, then we need a sensible and practical replacement that delivers what all the parties require. The question now is: how can we bring that about?
The Irish protocol was devised to avoid customs posts on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. It may be a small island, but the border is longer than that between France and Germany and more difficult to police. Although customs border posts worked perfectly well for 70 years from 1923, the idea that reinstating them would infringe the Belfast agreement is worthy of debate in itself, but that will have to wait for another day.
A protocol that would allow free trade between the north and the south of the island makes sense, especially as the master trade agreement stipulates tariff-free trade between the EU and the UK. Unfortunately, tariffs are not the issue; non-tariff barriers are. I will come to that at the end.
The EU refused to understand how Northern Ireland could simultaneously be part of the EU and UK regulatory regimes, especially as the UK was promoting divergence. Note that no Northern Ireland politicians were involved in the original protocol negotiations, nor the renegotiations since. The UK Government think that it is purely a matter for London and Brussels, but excluding Ulster politicians, sensible as it seems from the London side, almost ensures that any protocol will receive a negative response in Belfast. It is a bit like going to the pub on a Sunday to find that the menu has been devised by the landlord and the owner, but no one has involved the chef. The relationship these days between Dublin and Belfast is good, and it is far more likely that they could find a solution, or at least a proposal that could be put to London and Brussels, and believe that they own it. At present, the DUP is focusing on the removal of the protocol, but I think it should be thinking about a replacement. If Dublin is going to buy it, the DUP needs to work it up with Dublin and possibly with other Ulster politicians, too.
For Northern Ireland to be in two competing regulatory regimes at the same time would be feasible if UK regulations applied to goods supplied from Britain for consumption only in Northern Ireland, whereas EU regulations applied to goods created in Northern Ireland for consumption in Northern Ireland or the EU. The contentious issue has been goods supplied from Britain to Northern Ireland that are intended for the Republic or are at risk of being consumed there.
The problem could be largely solved by shipping goods intended for the Republic directly to the Republic and labelling goods intended for Northern Ireland in ways that would make them unsaleable in the Republic, such as pricing in sterling, not euros, or marking as for sale in Northern Ireland only. Pricing is a factor: it is only when goods imported from Britain are much cheaper in Ulster than the equivalent goods in the Republic that any incentive to smuggle them south across the border exists.
EU trading officials, not UK officials, should deal with offenders within the EU—that is key. Each country should only police its own laws in its own country. If French brandy were illegal in the UK, the importer, not the French exporter, would be the lawbreaker. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs insists on the ludicrous VI-1 forms—I should know, because I used to fill them in—to prevent perfectly good EU wine from entering Britain, penalising British wine merchants, not the EU. The existing protocol, however, seeks to make British officials enforce EU law within British territory. We left the EU to escape that.
No doubt Portia could make a better job of unravelling the matter than I have, but what should be obvious to negotiators, but seems not to be, is that the protocol is fundamentally unfair. It will cause serious troubles until negotiators stop tinkering with it and replace it with something more sensible and practical.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure indeed to speak in this debate. I begin, as other speakers have done, by congratulating the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing it, although I am bound to point out that it is no surprise that we are here debating the subject—in many ways it was an inevitability. The hon. Member said that he wants us to look forward rather than back; I can certainly understand that sentiment, but I hope he will forgive me if I take an inevitable look backwards as well, to get the waypoints and to get some bearing on how we go forward.
We are here because of the way Brexit was won in the referendum and then negotiated—if that is the word—in the years that followed. Perhaps through necessity, it had to be all things to all people; that was the only way that it could secure the narrow margin it secured. Since then, whether they are in favour or, like myself, very strongly against it, people have had to watch as one by one the promises made to secure it turned to dust—promises to the fishing industry, promises to the farming sector, promises to maintain freedom of movement and even a promise that we would maintain our membership of the single market once we were out of the European Union, as I believe the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster once claimed.
We are here today to discuss the impact of Brexit in Northern Ireland. All of it was predicted and predictable, foreseen and foreseeable. What makes it so disappointing that we have reached this juncture is that those in the UK Government who have taken us to this point have twisted, obfuscated and misrepresented at every stage to persuade the population to believe that the consequences that we now face would simply not arise.
Throughout that period a profound British exceptionalism has been on display, with the UK Government and their supporters noisily asserting their own sovereignty and expressing a wounded surprise that any other EU state that also still had sovereignty should not only have that sovereignty but have a willingness to use it to defend their own interests, including the integrity of the single market. Part of the problem was that the UK Government spent considerably more time negotiating among themselves than they did with European partners, and that allowed a fundamental set of questions to go unanswered for political convenience for too long. Those questions were: what kind of Brexit exactly, specifically, is it that we want? How are we going to get it? What implications will arise from that once we get it?
It was quite possible to leave the European Union and remain in the single market and the customs union. We would have become a coastal state with control over our fisheries, and we could have withdrawn from the political project of ever closer union that seems to cause such existential angst on the Conservative Benches. We could have left in a way that would have not created the present issues in Northern Ireland. Any form of Brexit that went beyond that made the risk of creating trade and regulatory borders a very live one indeed, with any such border having to fall either in the Irish sea or across the island of Ireland itself. After the unceremonious defenestration of the backstop and its political architect, the cry of the current Prime Minister to “get Brexit done” and the ensuing undignified stagger towards an agreement have left us with the protocol in its current form.
Part of the problem we have with that results from the philosophy that the Prime Minister and his advisers at the time had, which was to move fast and break things. There can be no doubt that the protocol was agreed simply to get the Government out of a big political hole at the time, and to allow them to say in Great Britain that they had got Brexit done and worry about the consequences for Northern Ireland after the event. This demonstrated cynicism and short-sightedness in equal measure. Nevertheless, it is an agreement that resulted from the negotiating objectives that Her Majesty’s Government held at the time. It was entered into freely, and if it is not to be implemented fully in its current form, it has to be renegotiated in good faith and in the proper way. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex observed in his contribution that the world was watching. I agree: the world was watching during the G7 conference and the world will still be watching to see how the protocol is implemented, whether in its present form or in an amended and agreed form.
The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) pointed out that Northern Ireland did not vote for Brexit, and it would be remiss of me not to point out that Scotland also did not vote for Brexit. Allow me to be the one to point out—I hope other Members will appreciate this—the great irony in the fact that if Scotland were to become independent and join the European Union, it would once again enjoy free unfettered trade with Northern Ireland. Our businesses would enjoy that in a way that they simply no longer have under the terms of the protocol.
Sammy Wilson
Scotland might have free unfettered trade with Northern Ireland, but does the hon. Gentleman not think it would be a far bigger problem that it would not have free unfettered trade with its biggest market, England?
Richard Thomson
I think there is a shared interest in making sure that there is as close to seamless trade as can possibly exist across these islands, within these islands and with the European Union. In that sense, the right hon. Gentleman and I are on the same page.
An agreement on animal welfare, sanitary and phytosanitary standards would eliminate the need for very many of the checks and reopen that trade. It is that sort of pragmatic renegotiation of the protocol, in the light of experience and of everything that has come from the nature of Brexit, that would be desirable in order to remove not just the barriers but the symbolism that the frictions that are being felt so keenly in Northern Ireland represent.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
May I just point out that if there was an independent Scotland inside the European Union, it would not be that independent, because it would be bound by all the rules of the European Union and the European Union customs code? Scotland would be obliged to have a hard border with the rest of England—not being independent from the European Union, it would have no choice in that matter whatsoever. It was a spokesman for the Scottish nationalist party who said that that would be good for Scotland because a border would create jobs. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that was actually said?
Richard Thomson
I knew that mentioning Scottish independence in this context would wake up hon. Members on the Government Benches. Nobody in the Scottish National party wants to set up hard borders with anywhere. It is simply because we are having to live with the consequences of this English nationalist dream and misguided venture that the question arises.
While it is fine and necessary to set an objective of restoring that frictionless trade, it must be done in the correct way. [Interruption.] Being mindful of your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will draw my remarks to a close. We need to identify practical ways in which that can happen. Above all, the UK Government must stop the empty sabre-rattling. They must stop blaming their predecessors for the misfortunes that they have created for themselves. They must stop blaming everybody else for the misfortunes that they have landed themselves in and for the outcomes of their own choices—[Interruption.] A little bit of self-reflection and self-awareness on the Government Benches would not go amiss at this juncture.
More to the point, the Government need to work to rebuild trust and to secure a durable solution that works in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland and across these islands.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). I add my thanks to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and the Backbench Business Committee for securing this debate. It has been an important debate to air the issues with the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal and the subsequent Northern Ireland protocol. It is clear that there is agreement across this House on the text of the motion in front of us today and the need for flexibility, for the checks to be proportionate, and for solutions to be found through agreement and compromise with the European Union. It has been helpful for that to be made clear today.
The issues are clear. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex laid out very clearly in his opening speech, there has been a strain on power sharing and increasing tensions. Brexit has always had the potential to unsettle the delicate balance of identities across these islands. It was helpful for the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) to put on record her acknowledgement that there are parity of esteem issues at play here. It has been important for us all to acknowledge the real hurt and pain that was expressed by our DUP colleagues on behalf of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. This has caused real pain and hurt in Northern Ireland, and it is important that we all acknowledge that.
The Prime Minister made promises to the people of Northern Ireland that there would be no border with Great Britain, knowing full well that his Brexit deal would introduce barriers across the Irish sea. He made promises to the Unionist community, because he knew that economic separation would be unacceptable, and the political instability that we have seen over recent months has its roots in the profound loss of trust that that has caused.
As the leader of the Labour party and I heard loud and clear in Northern Ireland last week from Unionist leaders, trust is at rock bottom. The language that has been repeatedly used is one of betrayal that they and the economic integrity of the United Kingdom have been sacrificed to narrow party interests.
Trust is absolutely essential in Northern Ireland; it is what has secured and has always sustained the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. In moments of instability, what Sir John Major, Tony Blair, Mo Mowlam and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith)—Labour and Conservative—all understood was that trust, leadership and partnership are paramount to finding a way forward in Northern Ireland.
As a co-guarantor of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the Prime Minister owes it to the people of Northern Ireland to restore the trust that he has squandered, but his custody of that precious agreement has been designed to shore up his own party advantage, and nowhere can we see that more clearly than on the Northern Ireland protocol. It is reckless and foolish that, after insisting that he would never place barriers down the Irish sea, he negotiated just that, and after denying that he had done it for an entire year has now started to renege on his own deal.
The strategy of brinkmanship and picking fights using Northern Ireland as a political football is not the work of a serious politician, and led to diplomatic rebuke from one of our closest allies, the United States. Communities are sick and tired of this in Northern Ireland. They just want to see serious solutions, and as we have heard today, solutions are available. We have heard plenty of suggestions, and I would welcome the Minister’s response and her assessment of how feasible many of those suggestions are.
Several political parties in Northern Ireland, the CBI, farmers and businesses right across the UK have all advocated for the Government to negotiate a veterinary agreement with the EU. Just this morning, Aodhán Connolly told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the solution is a veterinary agreement with a guillotine clause. That would bring assurance to Northern Ireland and benefit food exporters right across the UK. The Prime Minister promised an agreement of this kind, drawing up trade negotiations with the EU, but has failed to deliver, when countries such as New Zealand and Switzerland have succeeded. More than a quarter of all trade to Northern Ireland is subject to onerous SPS checks, largely on food and agricultural products. Such an agreement would lower the overwhelming number of checks across the Irish sea.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Lady has, interestingly, reopened the issue of mutual enforcement and recognition. She referred to the New Zealand agreement on SPS foods and so on. That agreement is clear: it recognises the authority of New Zealand veterinary organisations to approve their products with the regulations in force in the European Union and the single market. That is exactly what we have been proposing today with mutual enforcement, and I am glad the hon. Lady is on side with that.
Louise Haigh
Of course we have studied the suggestions made by Lord Trimble, who we all thoroughly respect as a co-author of the Good Friday agreement. I would welcome the Minister’s comments and remarks on the Government’s strategy to propose and negotiate such an agreement with the European Union. Mutual enforcement relies on trust, and we need a veterinary agreement that respects the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland. Although we can look to New Zealand and Switzerland as potential models, we need a new model that recognises this unique circumstance, with its own regulatory mechanism to enforce it.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I thought the hon. Lady started her speech extremely well. We have had a few party political points, but I understand what it is to be in Opposition. She is making an interesting contribution about a proposal for a veterinary agreement. Of course, the EU is demanding not a veterinary agreement based on mutual enforcement; it wants a veterinary agreement based on alignment, which is just taking back control. That would prevent us from making any free trade agreements with other countries on any of those matters. Is it now Labour party policy to support a veterinary agreement based on mutual enforcement? That would be a very positive step.
Louise Haigh
We are very happy to see such proposals negotiated. I suggest that the EU is highly unlikely to accept such an agreement, given the profound loss of trust that has resulted from the way this Government, Lord Frost and the Prime Minister have approached negotiations. We want to commit to good food standards—indeed, world-leading food standards, as we were promised in the Conservative party manifesto in 2019. In objecting to alignment, which food or animal welfare standards does the hon. Gentleman wish to lower? What food standards is he prioritising over the protection of the economic integrity of the Union?
The agreement must be based on a commitment to high standards. As I said, the Government made that commitment in their manifesto, and it remains hugely popular in the United Kingdom. No one wants our food or animal welfare standards to be undermined. As the CBI has said,
“a dramatic increase in paperwork, compliance costs and delays for firms”
is coming, even while we maintain the same animal welfare standards as the EU.
Sammy Wilson
When she talks about food standards, does the hon. Lady find it odd that the EU is now proposing to reintroduce the offal that gave us mad cow disease for feed for animals in the EU, and for export to this country? The EU is reducing food standards while the UK Government have animal welfare proposals such as banning the export of live animals. We are the ones upholding food and animal welfare standards, not the EU.
Louise Haigh
For us to have higher food and animal welfare standards than the European Union would not be a barrier to a veterinary agreement. The EU has a long precedent for making such arrangements with other countries. Under the New Zealand veterinary agreement, just 1% to 2% of its goods are subject to physical checks on arrival, as opposed to the current rate of around 30% for UK agrifood products entering the EU. The United States has made clear that such issues are not a fundamental barrier to a free trade agreement.
I know that the governance of such an agreement is contentious, but it would not be necessary for the European Court of Justice to get involved. A regulatory mechanism could be agreed that would not limit the UK’s ability to make future free trade agreements. A modern mechanism, designed for GB-EU and NI-GB agrifood trade flows, could be designed to meet the circumstances of Northern Ireland. Such an agreement would also unlock a permanent trusted trader scheme, which would resolve the significant issue of export health certificate requirements, which will come into full force in October when the grace periods expire. I urge the Minister to set out exactly the strategy to find such solutions in the long term. Inflammatory op-eds and contradictory remarks from Lord Frost are not getting us any closer to agreement with the EU, and it is imperative that the mechanisms of the protocol are used to find such an agreement. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road by extending grace periods. This needs to be future-proofed, and Northern Ireland needs to be reassured that as we negotiate more free trade agreements we will not diverge still further.
I also press the Minister again on how the Government are intending to bring Northern Ireland’s political representatives into the discussions and negotiations with the EU. A huge part of the problem is that people feel that this has been imposed on them without proper engagement or consent. That is totally unsustainable. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) made suggestions around the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and those should be considered carefully.
Fundamentally, peace in Northern Ireland is still fragile. These issues require careful, responsible leadership and for the Government to be honest with the people of Northern Ireland about the choices they are making and what they are prioritising. We can protect Northern Ireland, but it requires a drastic change in strategy from this Government.
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
I thank all Members who have spoken in this debate from all parts of the UK, from Essex to Edinburgh, from Lagan Valley to Clwyd West, and from Sheffield to Stone.
As Members of this House, we represent more than a geography; we represent the ambitions of our constituents—ambitions for themselves and their families and businesses, and their ambitions for our country. All of us in this place are ambitious on behalf of those who placed us here. It is those ambitions that the past few years have been about. Echoing what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said when he opened this debate, there are some who still have not come to terms with the fact that we have left the EU and wish to relive the past. They did not understand those ambitions of the British people and it baffles them still. The decision our country took showed faith in democracy and a trust in all of us here to deliver. When people trust us in this way, we cannot let them down.
That is why many Members have been right to focus on the future. That is why we have stayed the course as a country and why we will continue to do so. It took principle, courage and determination, and it took us making an exceptional compromise. We agreed to apply EU law and to control the movement of goods within our own country without any democratic say beyond a vote in four years’ time—all in the interests of peace. No other country has agreed to such a thing. It was a hard thing to do. Brexit was an ambitious decision by an ambitious country. We believe, however, that we share many ambitions with our EU friends. My hon. Friend pointed out why that ought to be the case. We have ambitions to maximise peace, prosperity and security for us all as we emerge from a turbulent few years and from this terrible pandemic.
The protocol specifically states that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should be
“protected in all its parts”
and that
“the application of this Protocol should impact as little as possible on the everyday life of communities in both Ireland and Northern Ireland”.If the situation in Northern Ireland is to be sustainable, it must be compatible with those principles, and in theory there is no good reason why that should not be the case. Look at how other trade boundaries operate. Look at how trade can be facilitated through a risk-based approach and through the use of technology. Look at the exceptional case that the UK is, having traded as part of the EU bloc for decades. Look at the obligations and commitments from all parties concerned—the commitments they made to protect
“the essential State functions and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom”,
as stated in article 1 and repeated in article 6, which underlined
“the importance of maintaining the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom’s internal market”,
and said that the UK and the EU
“shall use their best endeavours to facilitate the trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom…with a view to avoiding controls at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible.”
The trade and co-operation agreement said that any measures to protect the integrity of the EU’s single market should be pragmatic and risk-based.
Those principles and provisions are not being reflected in practice. Members have raised the issues this afternoon: Northern Ireland officials processing 20% of the EU’s total checks and controls on consignments from third countries of products of animal origin for a population of 0.5% of the EU’s; critical medicines at risk of being discontinued; companies who have given up delivering; unique disadvantages for Northern Ireland in facing little access to UK or EU tariff rate quotas for certain important products; long-standing trade flows being disrupted and firms struggling to cope with increased bureaucracy and costs, despite facilitations and grace periods; and the absurd prospect of a ban on chilled meats moving within the UK.
How is that situation compatible with those shared principles of ambition and pragmatism to promote prosperity and peace? How were the commitments that the EU made in 2017 and 2019 to specific solutions and alternative arrangements, and that the protocol could be superseded, compatible with the refusal to replace the Northern Ireland protocol or engage on alternative arrangements? How is this compatible with those principles in granting extension periods only the day before, or not extending the trusted trader scheme, or not focusing on goods at risk, or insisting that the only way to reduce burdens on the movement of food products is for us to accept EU law outright on SPS despite, as my hon. Friend has said, our putting an ambitious veterinary agreement on the table based on our respective high standards? I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) for her support for the Government’s proposals on that measure.
How is it compatible with, perhaps worst of all, triggering article 16 with no notice to create a hard border on the island of Ireland for the most sensitive of products—vaccines—feeding the perception that the EU’s years of claims to be prioritising the delicate balance in Northern Ireland were little more than lip service, and fundamentally undermining the confidence of many in Northern Ireland that the protocol could be made to work, or threatening legal action at the first sign of any disagreement instead of seeking to resolve problems consensually, or saying that Northern Ireland must be the price of Brexit? Never, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In contrast, we have worked hard to support those ambitions on prosperity and peace. For our part, we have honoured our commitments, with new IT systems as part of a world-leading customs system; £500 million for a range of support schemes—the trader support service, the movement assistance scheme, the digital assistance scheme—new facilitations by 1 January, such as the UK trader scheme, even though they were only agreed in December last year; temporary facilities for agrifood goods entering Northern Ireland and £60 million for the Northern Ireland Executive to administer them; and access to several UK customs databases, despite the technical challenges associated with data protection. The UK Government are working hard and in good faith to find solutions to the problems that many have mentioned. Those problems, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said, cannot stand.
We have provided over a dozen papers with detailed proposals on how these problems can be addressed. In addition to that, we have made numerous proposals in other areas, including on tariff rate quotas and customs, and we have had a very limited reaction from the EU to these proposals. We have done all this because we know that we need to show that politics works. We must respond to people’s concerns and that means the EU working with us to ease the burdens on Northern Ireland, not prioritising the single market.
Mr Harper
On the point about prioritising the single market, it is less about that and more about the proportionality point that I mentioned. Is there either any agreement between the British Government and the EU or at least some move to some shared understanding of what the actual risks are to the single market, as opposed to the theoretical ones, so that we can move to a much more proportionate balance of checks and controls on both sides?
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend is right that a seriously unbalanced situation is developing in the way that the protocol is operating. The protocol can be sustained only as long as it retains support in Northern Ireland; therefore, making it work is, you would think, in everyone’s interest. We need to focus on those shared and stated principles and common ambitions for prosperity and peace. It was ambition for our country that brought us to this point, and ambition is the parent of courage and determination. As we now need to think creatively, we have to find a new balance.
We need an approach to implementation that respects the delicate balance between the interests of all communities in Northern Ireland, and the economic and cultural links, east and west, as well as north and south. That is the thrust of the motion that we have been debating. The Government are ready to do that, and colleagues will not have long to wait. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, who opened the debate, and all Members who have spoken, have done a service by demonstrating that support for such an ambition is the overwhelming mood of this House.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I thank my right hon. Friend for her strong speech. This has been a thoughtful and meaningful debate. I am particularly pleased that the Opposition Front Bench has given its support to the motion that has been tabled. That will strengthen the Government’s negotiating position considerably.
I will pick up one or two points. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) talked about the need for flexibility, but then seemed to say that that could be achieved without any change to the protocol. That is just not realistic. The idea that the President of the Commission cannot change his mind because member states would have to agree may be a problem for the European Union, but it cannot be a problem for the paralysis of the British Government—the British Government will have to take action.
I invite all those who have almost signed up to what I call the Macron doctrine, after he said at the G7 summit that nothing was negotiable and everything was applicable—this attitude of “You’ve signed it, so you’re stuck with it,” whether or not that is good for the British people or the Northern Ireland peace process—to consider that that is a kind of blindness that we really have to drop. What we are looking for is flexibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, asked for—real flexibility. The EU will not win respect around the world for adopting a head in the sand approach to this, and we will not shoehorn the whole of the United Kingdom back into the single market to resolve these problems, because that is not what the British people voted for.
I leave my right hon. Friend the Minister with this fundamental thought. She talked about working hard and in good faith, and courage and determination, but I am afraid that we are reaching the point very quickly where the Government will have to take action, and it will be a question of letting the European Union know that its failure to respond in reasonable good faith to the entreaties with which the Government have been presenting it will lead to consequences. That needs to happen soon, because the longer this situation persists, the more economic disruption is caused in Northern Ireland and the more the faith and trust in the Good Friday agreement are ebbing away. Everyone has to accept that the protocol is bad for the peace process in Northern Ireland, and it must change or be changed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
This House supports the primary aims of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, which are to uphold the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in all its dimensions and to respect the integrity of the EU and UK internal markets; recognises that new infrastructure and controls at the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic must be avoided to maintain the peace in Northern Ireland and to encourage stability and trade; notes that the volume of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland far exceeds the trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; further notes that significant provisions of the Protocol remain subject to grace periods and have not yet been applied to trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and that there is no evidence that this has presented any significant risk to the EU internal market; regards flexibility in the application of the Protocol as being in the mutual interests of the EU and UK, given the unique constitutional and political circumstances of Northern Ireland; regrets EU threats of legal action; notes the EU and UK have made a mutual commitment to adopt measures with a view to avoiding controls at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible; is conscious of the need to avoid separating the Unionist community from the rest of the UK, consistent with the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement; and also recognises that Article 13(8) of the Protocol provides for potentially superior arrangements to those currently in place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am suspending the House for a few minutes to make the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Beijing Winter Olympics and Chinese Government Sanctions
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I intend to impose a time limit of seven minutes to start with and see how we go on. It may have to be reduced, but we will try that to start with.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the 2022 Winter Olympic games should not be hosted in a country whose Government is credibly accused of mass atrocity crimes; and calls on the UK Government to decline invitations for its representatives to attend the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games unless the Government of the People’s Republic of China ends the atrocities taking place in the Xinjiang region and lifts the sanctions imposed on UK Parliamentarians, citizens and entities.
I presume the time limit does not apply to me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must first declare an interest, as one of the sanctioned—I wear my badge of honour today—although any financial interest that I would have to declare would no doubt have been frozen by the Chinese Government. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time for this very important subject.
As a spotty school student back in 1980, I proposed a motion at a local school debating competition that the UK Government should not boycott the Moscow summer Olympics, following the invasion of Afghanistan over the previous Christmas, and that politics should be kept out of sport. As it turned out, Mrs Thatcher, the Prime Minister at the time, recommended a boycott, but it was left up to the individual sporting bodies whether they sent athletes from their sports to the games. Those who competed did so under the Olympic flag, and the few gold medals that we won were collected to the strains of the choral cantata that is the Olympic anthem. My overriding memory of those Olympic games was the image of Daley Thompson emotionally collecting his decathlon gold medal and belting out “God Save the Queen” to the tune of the rather dreary Olympic hymn. Sixty-five countries carried out a full boycott of the 1980 Olympics, including such strange bedfellows as the US and Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia, and China. China condemned the Russians, sent no athletes and subsequently did not appear on the medal table, so China really does not have a leg to stand on when it finds itself on the end of the same treatment that it meted out to its neighbour back in 1980.
My view on sporting boycotts and keeping politics out of sport has not changed, which is why this motion does not call for a full sporting boycott, which victimises most the elite athletes who dedicate so much to compete every four years, however niche the UK’s medal prospects might be at the winter Olympics compared with the summer version. But the simple reality is that in this day and age sport is inextricably linked with, and often tainted by, politics whether we like it or not, and that taint sometimes can be no greater than when the event is hosted under the Olympic banner.
Most countries will bid for the honour of hosting the Olympics so that they can showcase their nation to the world as an impressive player on the world stage—a land of progress and plenty, where everything is just rosy and all the criticisms that we hear about them are baseless propaganda. I am sure we were guilty of some of that when London hosted the 2012 Olympics, especially in the visually and financially extravagant opening and closing ceremonies, which reminded the world why the United Kingdom is the top nation. The difference was that our people were free to criticise that extravaganza if they disapproved. Our press was free to caricature or lampoon it, as some did, especially Paul McCartney’s singing, and we in this place were free to tackle Ministers about whether it was money well spent and whether we actually wanted it.
In the same way, hon. and right hon. Members in this House are free to speak out against abuses at home or abroad, human rights or otherwise, as freely happened, including with the recent reports by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Uyghur situation. In the same way, the House has spoken out about the grotesque oppression, torture and murder of more than a million peace-loving Tibetans at the hands of the Chinese Communist party since the occupation of 1959. In the same way, too, we have called out the industrial-scale human rights abuses against the Uyghur people—the slave labour camps in Xinjiang, the forced sterilisation of Uyghur woman—all leading to a motion unanimously passed in this House on 22 April, thanks to the good services of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), which called out those inhuman acts for what they are, namely, genocide, committed by the hand of the Chinese Communist Government, who in just 200 days’ time will be welcoming the world to the temporary mirage that is a free Beijing, as the goose-stepping battalions of the People’s Liberation Army take ownership of the Olympic rings and run the Olympic flag up their flagpole.
Any dissent, any protest and any adverse publicity will be cancelled, crushed and disappeared, just as the Chinese Government tried to suppress the free speech that is the hallmark of parliamentary democracy and to bully five Members of this House, including me, and two noble Lords, by responding to our exposé of their abuses by sanctioning us in the misguided belief that we would shut up and go away. Now we are apparently to be subject to China’s new counter-foreign sanctions law, too.
Of course, the opposite was true; we have been louder than ever. The crimes of the Chinese Government have been under more scrutiny in this place and beyond, as China’s counterproductive miscalculation of what democracy counts for in the west has instead acted as a recruiting sergeant for decent people across the globe determined to call the Chinese Government out as the murderous bully they are.
We should be in no doubt about the real agenda behind China’s enthusiasm to host the Olympics for the second time. The Chinese propaganda machine is being ratcheted up for this historic event, which will make the Chinese capital the first city to host both a summer and winter Olympic games. The spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Wang Wenbin, has been boasting that
“the majority of countries and people in the world recognise the fact that China’s human rights conditions are constantly improving and China has achieved notable progress in its human rights cause”—
a claim that would embarrass even the Iraqi spokesman Comical Ali, of Gulf war notoriety.
We know what the Chinese Government will use the Winter Olympics for, as they showed quite clearly at the summer Olympics in Beijing in 2008. They proudly boasted that with 105 Heads of State and Government there, it was the largest gathering of world leaders for a sporting event in world history—until 2012, that is. The People’s Liberation Army Navy Band performed the nationalistic “Welcome March” and goose-stepped across the arena. Some 56 Chinese children, representing supposedly the 56 ethnic groups of ethnic China in their respective costumes, danced across the arena to the strains of “Ode to the Motherland”, lip-synced by a nine-year-old to the pre-recorded voice of another girl who had been told that she was not pretty enough to appear on the stage. To add insult to injury, it later turned out that all 56 of those children claiming to be representatives of China’s diversity were, in fact, all Han Chinese.
The spectacular $100 million opening ceremony lasted four hours and nine minutes as the 91,000 audience enjoyed a panoply of everything Chinese. They saw everything the Chinese Communist party wanted them and the rest of the world to see. Indeed, that was made easier by the notorious use of weather modification technology to prevent clouds and rain—just one of the more extreme examples of the Chinese Communist party manipulating the environment.
It was feted as a spectacular and unforgettable ceremony. It was
“the spectacular to end all spectaculars and probably can never be bettered”,
in the mesmerised words of one Tony Blair, but it was all a sham. The awarding of the 2008 Olympics to Beijing was accompanied by the International Olympic Committee promising that the games would act as a catalyst for human rights reform in China. One widely acknowledged genocide in Xinjiang later; thousands of Tibetans arrested, imprisoned, displaced, tortured and killed later; the snuffing out of free speech, the free press and political freedom and the trashing of the Sino-British joint declaration and imposition of the national security law later—that went well, didn’t it?
To help win the 2008 Olympics, China promised to allow space for Chinese citizens to protest during the games. Spaces were indeed allocated, but those who applied for permission to protest were in fact arrested, making a mockery of the undertakings to the IOC, and no doubt the same will happen again next February, as China remains the world’s largest jailer of journalists.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am delighted to be in the Chamber listening to this extremely important speech from my hon. Friend. Does he recall that we had our own contribution to the silencing of debate, sadly, at the time of the Olympics in London? Some of the so-called guards of the Olympic flame turned out to be operatives from the Ministry of State Security, and dealt with citizens and individuals in this country rather more brutally than we would ever tolerate of our own police.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Furthermore, I remember mentioning in this House the fate of Tibetans who had been protesting in the Mall and were arrested and stuck behind crowds and, in some cases, had their homes raided by the police, and were arrested before they could go and protest. That is not the way we do things in this country, yet for some reason we kowtowed to the Chinese authorities at that stage. That must never be repeated, and we must not resile from calling out those sort of tactics, which the Chinese will use in their own country and wherever they can gain influence.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I was reflecting on my hon. Friend’s earlier comments about the Olympics in Beijing. We were told in 2008, as I recall, that the awarding of the Olympics would be a key moment in the movement to get China to acknowledge and uphold human rights to a greater degree. That was in 2008. Does he think that it has made much progress?
Tim Loughton
That is exactly the point that I have been labouring to make. It was all a sham, and we all know how human rights in China have gone from bad to worse.
Back ahead of 2008, the Chinese authorities also had to clean up the environment around Beijing, as it looked at one stage as if everyone would have to compete in masks. Thirteen years on, China remains the world’s largest polluter, responsible for some 26% of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions. It has burnt more coal over the past 11 years than the rest of the world put together and now imperils the world’s third pole, the Tibetan plateau glaciers that service the water needs of billions of people. Of course, the energy needed to produce artificial snow in Beijing for the winter sports, as will be needed, will not exactly win any environmental awards.
Like it or not, China will make this global sporting event a global political spectacle. It is incredible, frankly, that the winter games were awarded to China in the first place, a sign of the much-too-cosy relationship between the Chinese Government, the IOC and its president, Thomas Bach, who during President Xi’s visit to the IOC headquarters in Lausanne back in 2017 claimed that he wanted to give the Chinese President a set of medals because
“he is the true Olympic champion for the youth”.
Yuck.
On virtually every level, the awarding of the games to China should never have happened. It flies in the face of the Olympic principles as encoded in the Olympics by the IOC, which states that
“Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles... The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity…sports organisations within the Olympic Movement shall apply political neutrality. They have the rights and obligations of autonomy, which include freely establishing and controlling the rules of sport, determining the structure and governance of their organisations, enjoying the right of elections free from any outside influence.”
Finally, it states:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
How on earth does a genocidal, industrial scale human rights abusing, free speech intolerant and planet vandalising regime square with those principles?
In 2017, Xi Jinping claimed the international Olympic movement, in its over 100 years, had played a positive role in enhancing all-round human development, deepening friendship between nations, and promoting peace, development and progress. Everything that China has done since then and is still doing makes a mockery of that claim if the Beijing Olympics are allowed to go ahead in the form that the Chinese Communist party wants, its behaviour is allowed to be normalised, and it is allowed to score the major soft power propaganda victory it craves.
That is why a motion passed by this House urging a diplomatic boycott is so important, emphasising again that we will not turn a blind eye to industrial scale human rights abuses, and hopefully impressing on the Government the need to enact such a boycott so that no Ministers, diplomats, royal family members and other VIPs dance to the tune of the Chinese Communist party. The loss of face it will suffer will show how serious the United Kingdom is.
To date, the Chinese Government have taken no notice. Just last week, the Chinese tech giant Tencent’s WeChat social media platform deleted dozens of LGBT accounts, sparking fears of a crackdown on gay content online and gay rights generally, again in defiance of Olympic principles and echoing the actions of Russia suppressing LGBT organisations ahead of the 2014 Sochi winter Olympics.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I apologise for missing the first few seconds of what is a very powerful speech. I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman has said. He is completely right that the Chinese Government intend to use these winter Olympics as a propaganda exercise. Does he agree that it should be possible to turn this around if we—I just put this forward as an example—start referring to these winter Olympics as something like the “Genocide Games”?
Tim Loughton
If they are going to go ahead, that would be a very effective label to put on them to really force the point. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.
To go back the LGBT point I was making, remember that homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in China until 2001 and earlier this year a Chinese court upheld a university’s description of homosexuality as a psychological disorder. How does that square with the principles I quoted in the Olympic charter?
There are also fears that Beijing merchandise will be made with Uyghur forced labour. I hope that the British sponsors of the games will have no truck with that if they continue to offer sponsorship and that some pressure may be applied there.
In bringing this motion before the House today, we are not alone. Through the good services of IPAC—the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China—and other like-minded organisations, motions are being put before the US House of Representatives, Parliaments in Germany, Canada, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Lithuania and others. On 8 June, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on member states and the Commission to decline invitations to the games in the absence of human rights improvement. For once, the EU did the right thing and voted for that unanimously. US Secretary of State Blinken has already mooted a diplomatic boycott, which has incurred the wrath of China, while Congressman Tom Malinowski of the House Foreign Affairs Committee has said:
“The International Olympic Committee should not be validating the Chinese government’s international standing while that government is committing genocide and crimes against humanity. This coordinated effort by legislators in multiple democratic countries sends a message the IOC cannot ignore: if it can discuss postponing the Tokyo Games over public health concerns, it can certainly move the China games over the mass incarceration of millions in concentration camps.”
In return, when celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist regime earlier this month, President Xi cheerily threatened that any foreigners attempting to influence China
“will have their heads bashed…against the Great Wall of steel”.
President Xi can bash away all he likes, but this House must not and will not be bowed.
This House will soon be invited to vote on a motion calling for the UK Government to institute a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members vote Aye and that the Government act on that strong hint. But it must mean something and it must lead to more action and consequences for China’s behaviour beyond just a 16-day sporting event in February.
The Foreign Secretary has been robust in his condemnation of industrial scale human rights abuses in Xinjiang. The sanctions against a small number of officials and the restrictions on businesses dealing in Xinjiang are welcome, but they must be just a small start to a much broader programme of tangible action co-ordinated with our allies who champion democracy and human rights. Today, I re-tabled my Tibet (Reciprocal Access) Bill and extended it to apply to Xinjiang. The US Congress unanimously passed the Bill on which it is based—why can’t we?
Earlier, we heard concerns about the proposed Chinese takeover of the UK’s largest semiconductor producer, which must surely be blocked under the powers that the Government have under the National Security and Investment Act 202.
I am coming to an end now, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I know you want me to. The latest move makes it even more imperative that we have a full, holistic audit of the throttling grip that the many tentacles of the Chinese state is taking in British boardrooms, on British research and infrastructure projects, on British university campuses and in British classrooms. When will the notorious Chen Quanguo, the architect of oppression in Tibet and genocide in Xinjiang, be added to the sanctions list, along with other Chinese Communist party officials and politicians?
Acting on the motion today is not a discretionary option. It is imperative, and we are duty bound legally. The UK is a party to the genocide convention. All state parties to the genocide convention are under an obligation to refrain from taking an active part in the crime of genocide and, additionally, to prevent the commission of genocide by others using all means reasonably available and within their power. That includes situations where one state alone would be unable to prevent genocide but where its actions in combination with the efforts of others may do so.
A diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics is a measure available to the UK that may contribute to preventing genocide from being committed in the Xinjiang region. That is precisely because the Olympics has been identified as a key pressure point on China. China is seeking to use the Olympics to portray a positive image to the world and has already threatened a robust response to the suggestion that US diplomats may decline to attend. Such comments reveal its acute sensitivity to the spotlight that a diplomatic boycott would shine on its human rights abuses, and highlight the corresponding leverage that the international community has.
We are therefore under an obligation to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, as set down in the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. This House has already determined that a very credible case exists that atrocities have been carried out by the Chinese Government against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, amounting to crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide. In passing the motion today, we will be therefore fulfilling our obligations and doing our job. I very much hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government will now take their obligations seriously and do their job by implementing the terms of the motion.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing this debate and for his excellent, powerful speech.
The repression of Uyghur Muslims by the Chinese Government has a long and dark history, but in the past few years the Chinese Government have ramped up their persecution of Uyghurs. It is estimated that more than 1 million people are being held in internment camps in Xinjiang, and the Chinese Government are showing no sign of pausing their haunting campaign. Yet despite condemnation from all sides of the House, including the Government, there is still a gaping chasm between rhetoric and action. We cannot on the one hand recognise genocide and on the other send dignitaries and diplomats to the Beijing Olympics. We must be robust in our condemnation and send a message to the Uyghur Muslims that we are on their side.
Calls for a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics are gaining momentum internationally. It is high time that the UK demonstrates leadership on the issue and follows in the footsteps of the EU and America to send a strong message to the international community that the UK condemns the shocking human rights abuses taking place in Xinjiang and in Hong Kong. We cannot let China divert attention away from international criticism of its human rights abuses and oppressive policies.
A diplomatic boycott is a basic ask. Frankly, we should not even be having a debate on this. Out of sheer principle, the UK Government must support a boycott and press China to allow the UN unfettered access to conduct an independent investigation.
There are many more much-needed practical steps that the Government could take. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking in response to those parliamentarians who have been sanctioned by the Chinese Government? Will he provide an update on further Magnitsky sanctions for those committing human rights abuses in Xinjiang? The Government should also be investigating claims that UK universities could be inadvertently supporting the development of facial recognition and surveillance technologies that are then used by the Chinese Government in the oppression of Uyghur people. What representations has the Minister made to UK universities on that matter?
In conclusion, the point is not the UK’s withdrawing support from a sporting event. It is about condemning the ongoing crimes against humanity taking place in Xinjiang. It is about ensuring that UK supply chains are not linked to forced Uyghur labour. It is about making sure that Chinese companies complicit in the surveillance of Uyghurs in Xinjiang are not sponsoring research in British universities. It is about taking a stand—a stand that I hope, after today’s timely debate, will be taken.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
It is a great privilege to speak in this debate. It echoes some of the comments that the Foreign Affairs Committee, which I am privileged to chair—one fellow member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), is here with us today—was able to put into the report that we published only a few days ago, “Never Again: The UK’s Responsibility to Act on Atrocities in Xinjiang and Beyond”.
In that report, we looked at the Olympics, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, because of course they ask some very specific questions of us. It is not just that they are a global event and therefore an opportunity for PR, for awareness, for broadcast, for propaganda even. The Olympics are much more than that. They were, of course, reinvented in the 19th century, but their origins go back to the idea of competition as an avoidance of war. Their origins go, indeed, to the origins of our own civilisations, emerging as they did from the great Greek city states.
The Olympics set, in a constructive and organised fashion, a set of rules—a set of structures—that allowed people to compete equally and fairly among one other. That is a huge achievement. It is a quite remarkable achievement when we think how early it happened. It took a long time before we saw that same peaceful competition in trade, ideas, innovation and technology in our world. In fact, that really only emerged after the last war—in the last 80 years—and it has only really come to fruition since the fall of the cold war and the end of the Soviet occupation of so much of the world. It is quite a remarkable achievement that in 30 years we have been competing on the basis of rules, not force.
So this event really does matter, because this event reinforces that point that the rules matter, fairness matters, equal opportunity matters, access matters, voice matters—and the truth matters. Sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has already cited so many areas where the truth points in a direction that Beijing wishes it did not.
That is a great shame. It is a great shame not just for the people of China, who are of course the first prisoners of the Chinese Communist party, and for the people of the region, who of course suffer from the numerous abuses and indignities that the Chinese state has been imposing upon them; it is actually a shame for the entire world. It is a shame for us in this country, despite the freedoms we enjoy and the luxuries we are blessed with, because we lose out.
We lose out on the ability to share equally and fairly with a people that has given the world so much: 5,000 years of amazing civilisation emerging from that extraordinary plateau around the Yangtze valley and from the emergence of ideas, people, culture and economics. What wealth came from those people, what ideas have the people of China given humanity, and what richness have we enjoyed from their imaginations, minds and freedoms. So we all lose when they lose. We all suffer when their ideals are stolen, we all suffer when their innovation is silenced and their culture is curtailed, and we all suffer when their voices are locked away, and that is what we are seeing today.
There are few ways in which the UK can respond directly. It would be wrong politically, militarily, economically, socially and culturally to threaten force. It would be wrong to seek to punish individuals whose crime is simply to be citizens of a dictatorial state—they are already punished enough—and that makes it very difficult to know how to respond. However, one way we can respond is by standing up and making it clear that we do not accept the legitimacy of the regime, and that we do not accept its right to so change the truth and so violate the reality of the world in which we live that it can use the ultimate evidence—the ultimate moment of propaganda—of the global success of rules, fairness and integrity, and twist, contort and divert it to its own nefarious ends.
So I think we should attend the games, but only as athletes, and at the moments when the games have a propaganda element—at the beginning or at the end—we only need a single athlete to hold a single flag to make clear the point that the team stand together against this tyranny. In seeing that single individual, it will be clear to the world that Britain’s voice is there and present at the games, but not participating in the propaganda gains that go with them.
These are going to be difficult decisions for the Government, because they have to factor in many different areas. Sometimes people say that gesture politics is no politics. I would say no. I would say that this is a gesture that does make a difference. It is a gesture that defends the rules that keep us all safe, defends the cultures that keep us all free and defends our own ability to co-operate fairly and to avoid conflict. The rules matter: they make us richer, they make us safer, they protect Britain, they protect our friends and, if they are allowed to, they will once again protect the people of China.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I, too, want to congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and thank him for securing this debate. He knows how much I support him in his very active campaigning in calling out the human rights abuses of the Chinese Communist party against millions of its own people, and it is such a very important debate that we are having today. I do not want to repeat everything that has already been said, and indeed everything that has been said so far in this Chamber I fully support.
We have already heard in today’s debate about the significant and substantial evidence of the terrible treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, with arbitrary detention, mass incarceration, forced political indoctrination, re-education and Orwellian levels of surveillance. Most horrifying of all are the accounts of sexual abuse, torture and forcible sterilisation. It is a pervasive assault on human rights. It must be challenged; we cannot stay silent.
The UK has to do all it can, working with our international partners including the EU. I listened carefully to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), about the limitations on intervening as a foreign state—being strong without going as far as threatening force—but we do have an opportunity. It starts with calling out what we see as what it is: genocide. There is clear evidence that the treatment of the Uyghur Muslims meets the legal definition of the crime of genocide, as set out under article 2 of the genocide convention and article 6 of the Rome statute. Parliament has recognised that, and now the Government and we in this Chamber must follow suit.
We must continue our calls for investigation by the UN, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, but we cannot afford to wait for that to happen. It is vital that we take other meaningful steps to stop these atrocities. We should work in lockstep with our European allies on sanctions and co-operate with them to expand the reach and scope of our Magnitsky sanctions regime.
That brings me to the topic of our debate: the role of the Beijing winter Olympics and human rights abuses by the CCP—to repeat what has been said many times, it is the Chinese Communist party that is committing these atrocities, not the people of China. I have already touched on the terrible crimes in Xinjiang, but we must remember the context of human rights abuse in places such as Tibet, the CCP’s attempt to dismantle democracy and liberty in Hong Kong, the ever more dangerous rhetoric around Taiwan, and the CCP’s ongoing activities in the South China sea in the face of UN rulings.
Western countries have to take a stance. We must be aware that the Olympics next year will be used to give credibility to the regime, as we have heard several times today. Whether we like it or not, they will serve as a propaganda tool. It would be absolutely unacceptable for the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or senior diplomats and officials to give credibility to such an event.
If the games go ahead, it is vital that the International Olympic Committee adjust its own rules. Rule 50 of the Olympic charter prevents athletes from speaking out or making peaceful demonstrations or protests in the field of play or during medal ceremonies. It is totally unacceptable that competitors should be gagged in that way under the threat of sanctions from the IOC. The justification for the rule is to keep politics out of sport, but as we have heard, the event will be used politically by the Chinese communist party. The reality is that a protest-free games would be just as political as one in which athletes were allowed to express their opinions.
Finally, we must be realistic about whether it is at all appropriate for the games to go ahead in Beijing, given the ongoing human rights abuses. I want to go a little further: is it at all justifiable for the games to go ahead? In such grave circumstances, it is vital for the option of a full sporting boycott of the games at least to remain on the table. There is growing consensus about the diplomatic boycott of the Beijing winter Olympics, but I wonder whether we should dare to go further.
Across the House, we are outraged about the horrific human rights abuses by the CCP against millions of its own people. Critics are becoming more and more aware, but the Chinese communist party is becoming more and more emboldened the longer the rest of the world stands by. Let’s get real—and let us start today by supporting the motion.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing it. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I had a discussion last year with the UK Olympic committee. I had been making a bit of a fuss about why we were holding the Olympics, so they asked to come and see me. They asked what my position was. I said, “Look, as far as I am concerned, it is up to individual athletes what they choose to do. I would like them to understand where they are going and what they will be involved in. I expect the Government to take a position, and I expect they will take the view that attending, giving the games diplomatic credibility and having UK officials, Ministers and so on at the games is no longer feasible given the nature of the Chinese Communist party regime.” That was before a lot of the stuff that we now know came out. The committee’s reaction was, “We could live with that. We can understand that. That’s fair. We won’t complain about that. We understand why you would do that and leave it to individual athletes.”
My view is reinforced by what we know now. Since that conversation, Adrian Zenz laid bare the evidence of the abuses through the documentation he produced showing that the Uyghur atrocity is really a genocide. We eventually managed to publish that through the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China and other institutions. We also know much more about the forced labour camps in Tibet, where we think there are 1.5 million or even more than 2 million people. My hon. Friend deserves due credit for raising that long after anyone else cared again to raise it. The list goes on. The Chinese Government are aggressive abroad and aggressive at home. They have killed Indian soldiers as they seek to dispute the border with India, they have taken over the South China sea even though the UN has said they have no historical right over the area, and they have threatened and continue to threaten Taiwan.
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee was in his place for the urgent question earlier about the UK semiconductor company to be sold to a Chinese company. One thing I did not raise but we know is that China has strategically said that semiconductor production must come to China and that it must dominate globally. More importantly, it wants to use that production as a weapon against Taiwan, which is probably the biggest single producer of semiconductors. China wants to stop that cash flow to Taiwan, so one of China’s reasons for taking over the UK company is to increase its own capability and stop Taiwan. Not a single thing that the Chinese Communist party does has not been thought through to the final degree. It knows where it is going, and it does not even hide it. It was said that the Chinese Government threaten that anybody who affronts them will have their head bashed against a wall of steel. I do not think that when something like that is said, everybody laughs. Imagine if the British Government were to say that about anybody who disagreed with them. We would all be up in arms and everybody around the free world would be complaining.
Tom Tugendhat
I am delighted to support my right hon. Friend in his powerful speech. Does he remember the words of the Chinese ambassador to Stockholm, who said only a few months ago:
“We treat our friends with fine wine, but for our enemies we have shotguns”?
Has he ever heard another diplomat use such language?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
No, I really have not. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. The funny thing about the Chinese Government is that President Xi says exactly what he is going to do and, intriguingly, he does it. Sadly, Governments such as my own to some degree and those around the western world think he does not really mean it, and they hope that, because he did not mean it, there will be a different outcome. They make stupid excuses such as to say, “Do you know what? If we give them these games, they will uphold human rights.” That is what they did in 2018, and I do not recall much of that. Then they say, “Don’t worry. If we trade more with China in a golden decade, they will liberalise their politics and head towards democracy.” That is what was done in a Government of which I as a member.
I tell hon. Members who is naive in all of this: it is all of us. It is the western democracies who set policy for what they wish would happen. They do not remember the history of the 1930s. We have forgotten what happened when we appeased another ghastly dictatorship: 60 million people died as a result of our failure, and we are bound on the same course today.
This debate today about boycotting the Olympics is not just a token; we know that China is sensitive when it gets global criticism, when people shine a torch on what goes there. We know that it reacts. Why do we know that? Because it sanctions people such as myself and many of my colleagues in this Chamber and in the European Parliament.
I applaud the Members of the European Parliament and the members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China who have been sanctioned, because they have stopped the European Union having a trade arrangement. What have we done? Our Government now talk about doing more trade arrangements, while we sit here as sanctioned individuals. I want the Government to act. It is simply not good enough for us, on the one hand, to say that we are horrified about what China does, and then, on the other, to make plans to seek more trade relationships with it and to say that we do not want to interfere with the Olympics.
Everything is political in a communist regime. Every single aspect of people’s lives is governed by a communist political regime. Our Government must recognise that they are no longer dealing with a decent organisation that would uphold freedoms; they are dealing with a dictatorial, militaristic, intolerant and oppressive regime. Every time that we give China public demonstrations such as the Olympics, we do ourselves and, worse, the Uyghurs, the Tibetans and all those oppressed people a disfavour. Let us stand up for freedom, democracy and human rights and not back these games.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
I want to start by thanking the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing this important debate. The work that he does, alongside the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), on the all-party group for Tibet is vital in raising awareness around the human rights abuses committed by the Chinese Government.
I am grateful that the debate has been called, but it is depressing that this matter even needs to be discussed at all. This Parliament has recognised that genocide is taking place against the Uyghurs in north-west China. The motion debated in April called on the Government
“to act to fulfil its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide and all relevant instruments of international law to bring it to an end.”—[Official Report, 22 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 1211.]
Yet here we are discussing whether it is acceptable for this country’s athletes to participate in games held in a country committing those atrocities.
I would like to draw the House’s attention to the situation in Tibet. At the time of the last Olympics held in China, in 2008, thousands of Tibetans took to the streets to protest and were brutally suppressed, with hundreds killed. The full total of deaths remains unknown. Since then, we have seen the forced erosion of Tibetan culture, from the replacement of the Tibetan language with Mandarin in schools to the repeated use of arbitrary detention and widespread torture. In addition, large religious communities have seen thousands of residents forcefully removed and their homes demolished. The rich Tibetan culture, Buddhist religion and Tibetan language are being forcefully eroded, and freedom of thought, opinion, expression, religion and conscience is being not just undermined, but actively eradicated.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the organisation Free Tibet. The work that it does in raising awareness of the oppression of the Tibetan people, culture and language should be placed on record. None the less, it remains unacceptable that more has not been done by this Government to call out these hideous abuses that have been going on for decades. They have pursued a foreign policy of complacency that pans out as a foreign policy of complicity.
Following the vote in April, where were the Government sanctions against China? Why have the Government not made a commitment to boycott these Olympics? What measures are being put in place to support those fleeing the oppression of the Chinese state? These are not just rhetorical questions, but points that should have been considered right back when these issues started to raise their ugly heads.
These winter Olympics provide a choice for this country: to stand up for oppressed people and human rights or to turn a blind eye to atrocities. Shamefully, this Government’s continued silence speaks a thousand words. When the HSBC bank repeatedly refused to unfreeze the assets of Hong Kong activists, including one activist who fled to our country, after they had been crowdfunding for lawsuits against police brutality, did the Government speak out? I am sure we can all guess the answer. Now we have a chance to take an international stance determined by human rights and one that recognises people’s rights to practise their religion freely, to worship, to express their views and to use their language. I would urge the Government to follow that path and call for a boycott of the winter Olympic games.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing this debate, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow a fellow Greater Manchester MP, the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra).
When people say “Olympics”, there’s me thinking about jumping hurdles, hitting archery targets, Usain Bolt breaking records and our wonderful Team GB cycling team, but then I realised it is not Tokyo that we are on about today, but rather the Beijing and Hubei 2022 winter Olympics. You know what? I know absolutely nothing about the winter Olympics, yet here I am today speaking in a debate about them, though I am confident in observing that the absence of a background in something does not necessarily deter anyone from waxing lyrical in the Chamber.
I have to declare an interest in China, and that is that I know a wee bit about the country. I worked and lived there for over a decade, and I spent around 14,000 hours learning Mandarin Chinese—Putonghua—along with the Shanghainese dialect. I also hold two master’s degrees on China, as well as currently reading for a PhD in China-related studies. Unfortunately, over the last year, nearly all the debate on China has been extremely one-sided. It is not multifaceted, it fails to see much of the nuance that exists, and ultimately it does not depict the country that I came to know, although it does have many problems.
I know even less about the Olympics. I worked at the embassy during the Beijing 2008 Olympic games as the Olympic and Paralympic attaché, and helped to promote our wonderful country to the Chinese during the London 2012 Olympiad, when I was based at the British consulate in Shanghai. From these experiences, my view is that we should not be boycotting the upcoming 2022 winter Olympics, because it is now more important than ever for us to push for as many people-to-people and governmental exchanges as we possibly can. I am a firm believer in the UK being open to the world, as that is the only true way to maintain influence and project the interests of our people. The alternative is an introverted stance in international politics that, quite frankly, reeks of a seeping of confidence in our ability to influence and attract on the ice rink of international affairs.
I saw this at first hand in 2012 when Mr Wu Chengzhang wrote to me when I was at the British consulate two months before the London 2012 games. He really wanted to go to London to see the Olympics, because he had been there for the 1948 Olympiad playing basketball for the Chinese team. He even played against the British team. Through working with different partners, we were able to get him on a plane—he was 88 years old at the time—to go to London, where he met the man who had been his arch-nemesis at the time, Mr Lionel Price from the British team, who has sadly subsequently passed away. They spent the day together in London, where they went to the London Eye, among other things. This created so much good will between the peoples of the UK and China, and it was widely hailed as a bilateral success.
A British Chambers of Commerce report presented this week to the all-party parliamentary China group made the point that—I paraphrase—the resumption of travel and openness can help to create opportunities to build common ground and enhance intercultural understanding. This is exactly why we should be in attendance, come February 2022.
Today’s debates also makes me think about why, covid faff aside, there is no real opposition to Tokyo hosting the summer Olympics this month. When we think back, there was much anxiety in the 1980s about the economic rise of Japan, especially from the United States. Then we think of the last 30 years. Japan not only has maintained its position as one of the top three largest economies, but has a soft power capability that is truly astonishing. Along with the UK and the USA, it can boast one of the most influential youth cultures on the planet. I cannot help but feel that China can definitely take inspiration from its neighbour across the east China sea. It has done so before in its economic model, sometimes known as the developmental model for economics.
Certain developments obviously have not been helpful of late, including a tilt to a more aggressive tone in diplomatic engagement, sometimes referred to as wolf warrior diplomacy, and the sanctioning of my colleagues in the House. The sooner we can move away from such tools and tone of diplomacy the better. I welcome the arrival of Ambassador Zheng Zeguang to the UK, and hope that, if he happens to see today’s debate, he can work with our Government to ensure an easing in tensions. There is a long way to go in how China presents and communicates itself with the rest of the world. We must, however, ask ourselves what a boycott would achieve. In the case of the 2022 Olympics, many experts say that a boycott likely will not work and could make it even harder to gain concessions from China.
Experts found that boycotting the 1936 Berlin summer games and the 1980 Moscow summer games did not change the direction of state policy. I do not believe that a boycott will lead to China changing its policy on ethnic relations, particularly with the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang autonomous region, or zìzìhqū. If anything, the Government may dig in further. The only thing that it will achieve is potentially some loss of face on the organisers’ behalf, and those boycotting may feel virtuous for a few moments.
The Olympics should not be politicised, but obviously they have always been a medium through which to see the ebbs and flows of international relations. However, if we cannot engage in healthy competition on the slalom or in the bobsleigh, then what—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry, Mark, but we have to leave it there.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
No, we have to move on. Sorry, Mark; you have had seven minutes.
We now go to Christine Jardine, by video link. We are having a bit of a glitch with the clock, as you may notice, so hopefully you have another device there. If not, just give your wonderful speech, and I will stop you after seven minutes or so.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker; I will do my best.
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing this crucial debate, because it is about much more than it might appear at first sight. It is not about sport. It is not about the Olympic games. It is about human rights, and sending a clear message to the Government of China that we will not take part in what will be a celebration of their regime, which, as he so clearly demonstrated, is exactly what it will become.
We have already heard some amazingly erudite contributions, particularly from the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). Although I have not been sanctioned in the same way that he and many other hon. Members have, my constituency of Edinburgh West is home to the Chinese consulate in Scotland, and in the past it has been made clear to me that my comments and criticisms of the regime’s actions in Xinjiang, Hong Kong or Tibet were less than welcome. Nevertheless, I wish to make it clear that I do not support any indication of this country’s approval of China’s action that might be inferred from diplomatic support of the games.
I am someone who has always believed that politicians should not interfere in sport and doubted, like the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan), the value of sporting boycotts, but this summer, like so many others in these islands, I have been swept up in the amazing buzz and excitement that surrounded Wimbledon, Euro 2020, and the anticipation of the Open championship and the Tokyo Olympics—each of them a great celebration of sport, bringing so much happiness to so many young people in pursuit of the goals of sporting achievements, which have already been detailed. So it should be with the winter Olympics next year, but I fear that it will not be.
I am in agreement with those who believe that it is not appropriate for a sporting celebration, and the Olympics in particular, with their declared high ideals and spirit, to be taking place in a country against a background of widespread human rights abuses and undermining of democracy, which is why I am in complete agreement with today’s motion. Indeed, I might be tempted to go even further.
Just a few days ago, the Foreign Affairs Committee released a report urging the UK Government to partially boycott the 2022 Beijing winter Olympics. Earlier, in February, our party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), announced that we would call for Britain to boycott the 2022 Beijing winter Olympics over alleged ethnic cleansing against Uyghur Muslims, who have been imprisoned and subject to political re-education in Xinjiang. Who could fail to be moved by the TV pictures last year of adults forced to kneel on railway platforms before being loaded on to trains to be taken to who-knows-where and with an intent that I do not even want to think about? At the same time, we see a threat to democracy in Hong Kong and the Chinese Government failing to respect the joint agreement, which was a precursor to the end of British involvement in the territory in 1997.
Against that background, for us to offer any official Government backing for the winter Olympics would be to send the wrong message to Beijing. It would be telling it that we are fine with its behaviour—that we will turn a blind eye to the reports of a million Uyghur Muslims in detention camps and will not defend democracy in Hong Kong. I do not believe that is a message we want to send.
I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) speak about what might now be regarded as the sham of Beijing’s opening ceremony—a dazzling, hypnotic sham. Do we want once again to provide such a promotional opportunity for a regime whose approach to human rights is the antithesis of everything we believe in in this country—human rights, democracy and respect—or a positive platform to show off and display the regime in a positive light? I do not believe so.
After my party leader made his call for a boycott, there were warnings that this might mean sanctions from the Chinese Government, but to give in to that threat would be to give way to bullying, which is why I back the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath to go further. We should go further than the growing consensus in support of a diplomatic boycott and boycott the winter Olympics in Beijing completely. We should not allow the Olympics to return to China until the regime begins to change and to respect human rights and democracy. There has been enough hand wringing and prevarication. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past. The treatment of Uyghur women and children forced to undergo procedures that they feel they have no choice in meets the criteria for genocide as set out in the genocide convention.
The Liberal Democrats want our Government to send a message that the UK will stand up against such crimes against humanity. We will not indulge the Chinese Government by offering diplomatic credibility to the games. We will not help them to promote the regime on world stage. We will not support the Olympics in Beijing. We do not believe that the Government should do so, and we support the motion before the House today.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for bringing this important debate to the House.
The Olympic games uses sport to bring nations together, guided by the core values of excellence, friendship and respect. The games and its core principles hold a special place in the heart of Rother Valley, as Lesley Ward, a resident of Brampton-en-le-Morthen, represented Great Britain on our diving team at the Olympic games in 1992, 1996 and 2000. Needless to say, everyone in Rother Valley is immensely proud of her. The Olympic charter’s noble values are cherished in Rother Valley and across the world, which makes the International Olympic Committee’s decision to award the games to Beijing incredibly odd indeed.
Outrage and horror in this place and around the world have rightly followed the reports of mass atrocity crimes in Xinjiang. The UK Government and this Parliament cannot stand by and watch. The Foreign Secretary himself said of the Chinese Communist party’s actions in Xinjiang:
“Internment camps, arbitrary detention, political re-education, forced labour, torture and forced sterilisation—all on an industrial scale. It is truly horrific...We have a moral duty to respond.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 160.]
In April, this House voted to declare that China’s actions amount to genocide and crimes against humanity, so why are we in this situation, even debating the Olympic games next year?
The People’s Republic of China is a cause for concern beyond the Xinjiang crisis, too. Commercially, companies fear upsetting the Chinese government and Chinese consumers, so they will often bend to Chinese demands. It is simply not right that British and American companies, based in the UK and the US, accept the diktat of a foreign dictatorship.
The misuse of economic soft power is directed against sovereign states, too. Australia has had tariffs imposed because of its refusal to toe the line. African nations are the victims of coercive economic neo-colonisation. The belt and road initiative is a Trojan horse for debt-trap diplomacy. The distribution of the Chinese covid-19 vaccines is being used as diplomatic leverage, and the remaining allies of the Republic of China—Taiwan—are being financially induced to switch democratic recognition to the PRC.
Elsewhere in business, the Chinese run roughshod over rules of intellectual property, copying western technology and innovation. They manipulate the renminbi and provide unfettered state aid to their industries and companies to put western businesses at a disadvantage. The recent Chinese Government crackdown on Didi, Alibaba and Tencent demonstrates their intention to control all aspects of Chinese life, threatening our citizens’ data security and the competitiveness of western companies.
It is clear that, on covid-19, the Chinese are not being fully open and co-operative with the international community. All this is without mentioning the PRC’s disregard for the rules-based international order in its treatment of Tibet; its aggression on the Indian border; its persecution of Chinese Christians, Falun Gong and other minorities; its militarisation of the South China sea; its threats towards the Republic of China; its banning of pro-democracy candidates running in elections in Macau; and, of course, its outrageous and illegal national security law in Hong Kong, trampling on the rights of millions of British nationals. In the UK, we face constant threats to our national security from cyber-attacks, espionage, Chinese ownership of vital infrastructure and key companies, as well as infiltration of our universities and institutions. In the light of all this, why is the global community acquiescing in the 2022 winter Olympic games being hosted in Peking? And why are the UK Government even considering sending British representatives to attend the games?
The PRC uses international events such as the winter games to cultivate its image and bolster its legitimacy, both at home and abroad. We must not hand China a propaganda victory. Unless the PRC ends its oppression in Xinjiang and elsewhere and lifts sanctions on British companies and individuals, we must consider action in relation to the games. A possible option is one where Great Britain would still participate in Beiping and we would still cheer the team on to glory, but no state officials would attend. Our stance would send a message to both Peking and the wider international community that the UK unequivocally stands against the horrendous crimes occurring in Xinjiang and elsewhere and would ensure that Beijing realises that it cannot commit these crimes with impunity.
As a result of the PRC’s conduct towards the United Kingdom, its own people and the international community, we cannot and must not provide a veneer of diplomatic respectability to the Chinese regime. I call on the International Olympic Committee to look at moving the 2022 winter games from the PRC and I urge the UK Government to consider not sending official representation if the games do go ahead in Beijing. I shall always celebrate and support the Great Britain Olympic team, but we must not celebrate or support the Communist party of China, which is currently oppressing people both in China and abroad. We must look at all and any options to stop this awful regime.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Nusrat Ghani—just take it to 4.30 pm.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I must put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) for cutting his speech short to allow me to speak this afternoon; I am incredibly grateful for his generosity. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)—my good friend—for bringing this very important debate to the House. He has been a very passionate and powerful campaigner on Tibet, Hong Kong and the Uyghur, and his integrity on some of these key issues of the day continues to be a source of inspiration to all of us.
Before my words are misinterpreted, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not generally for boycotts—that is not the kind of Conservative I am. I am rising to speak in favour of a diplomatic boycott, which is very different from a sporting boycott. A diplomatic boycott of the Olympic games is nothing new, as has been mentioned in many speeches today. I also put on record the fact that these Olympics will no doubt take place and that I will be supporting our British athletes and hoping that they win gold in every competition that takes place. But that is very different to supporting the CCP as it sportswashes what is happening in Xinjiang.
As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am one of the MPs sanctioned by the Chinese Communist party, and not for committing gross human rights abuses or being a terrorist or a warlord—unless my colleagues who have been sanctioned too have something that they wish to share about themselves—but speaking up against genocide. If my Government think they have any way of persuading the CCP to conduct itself any differently in the face of our values and norms, I am afraid they have lost the plot completely.
If there is any confusion on this House’s views on genocide, let me say that just three months ago this Parliament took an unprecedented decision, based on the evidence, to unanimously declare that all five markers of genocide were being met at the hands of the CCP against the Uyghur in Xinjiang. Let me just remind people about this. Of course one of the markers is killing members of a group. Others are causing serious bodily or mental harm; inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births—we know that is happening, with the forced sterilisation of Uyghur women; and the barbaric act that is taking place against Uyghur families, with Uyghur children in their hundreds of thousands being separated from their parents. That is what is taking place in China and this is what they do not want us to talk about as these games take place.
Of course we are signatories to the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, which is why I would never use the word lightly. Before the Minister at the Dispatch Box has to hold the embarrassing position that only the UN can declare genocide, I must point out that we know the UN is broken when it comes to preventing or even researching genocide when it comes to China.
We should also reflect on what this House has said. We are not the only ones in the world who recognise that the evidence exists that genocide is taking place. The Netherlands, Slovakia, Canada and the Czech Republic have all debated their own motions, and Biden’s Administration have continued to declare the situation in Xinjiang an ongoing, active genocide. More importantly, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether you could take a message back to Mr Speaker, reflecting on what the US Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said about the Olympic games. She is on the record as saying that she supports a “diplomatic boycott” on those grounds. Mr Speaker may have an opportune moment at some point to let us know what his position is, because somebody in this place has to reflect the view of this House; unfortunately, I am worried that the Government may not be bold enough to hold that line.
My anxiety is that if we have diplomats and politicians attending the Beijing Olympics—the genocide Olympics, as they have been referred to—it enables the CCP to sportswash what is happening in Xinjiang and it makes a mockery of everything we stand for. When the Foreign Secretary talks about:
“Internment camps, arbitrary detention, political re-education, forced labour, torture and forced sterilisation—all on an industrial scale”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 160.]
what does it mean if we then turn up to these genocide Olympics? I know it is difficult for the Government, but politics is about choices and at some point we have to defend our values and our British laws. A diplomatic boycott will have an impact and is a low-risk, high-reward way of establishing global Britain’s values. As the Foreign Secretary has already been on record to say
“We have a moral duty to respond.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 160.]
And we can, by making sure that we do not have a diplomatic presence at the Olympics.
Such a measure is nothing new. A former Prime Minister, David Cameron, did not attend the 2014 winter Olympics after the country in question passed anti-LGBT laws. Let us remind ourselves that the CCP believes that homosexuality is a mental illness and it is killing or destroying millions of Uyghur people. The situation is no better—I would argue it is much worse—so we should not be turning up diplomatically at the genocide Olympics.
There is some anxiety that we cannot take action unilaterally, but that is also nonsense. Many Parliaments around the world are currently debating, discussing or putting motions in place to ensure that politicians and diplomats will not be turning up at these Olympics. It is also quite exciting to note how forceful and bold the Biden Administration are being on this. Just last night, a motion was moved in the Senate to declare that all goods coming in from Xinjiang are slave labour goods and will now be blacklisted and not allowed to be imported into America. These are the motions we should be moving in this House; our position should not be to say, on the one hand, that this is an industrial-scale version of human rights abuses and, on the other hand, that there is nothing we can do.
Politics is not for the fainthearted. Every decision has consequences, but a diplomatic boycott would enable us to stand by what this House and our allies believe—that a genocide is taking place in Xinjiang.
The games last 16 days, or about 1.3 million seconds. That is a second for every Uyghur imprisoned, abused or forced into labour under President Xi. We as global Britain have to make a stand. Do we stand by those oppressed, or do we stand by President Xi? A lifetime ago, the 1936 Olympics were not boycotted, and that did not stop the slaughter of millions of Jews. We cannot make the same mistake again. I urge this House to support this motion and push for a full diplomatic boycott of the genocide games.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Gavin, I do not know whether you got the message. You have up to eight minutes.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on bringing this very important debate before us today, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. We have heard a lot of fantastic speeches with a lot of great points made, none more so than the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani). She was an extra speaker, and we were very grateful to hear from her because her closing remarks hit the nail on the head.
We have heard a lot recently from many about how sport and politics do not mix, but with all due respect, that is rubbish. The international community came together —well, in the most part—and isolated apartheid South Africa from international sport until it gave full human rights to all its citizens. I say “in the most part” because there were still those who regurgitated the phrase “sport and politics don’t mix”, even while the rest of the world stood against obvious injustice and repression in South Africa. Of course, sport should be free of state interference and political parties or figures meddling in its day-to-day organisation, but that does not mean that we cannot apply political ideals such as human rights and liberal democracy to the governance of sport and to where governing bodies choose to hold events.
Those ideals were thrown under a bus when the 2022 Winter Olympics were awarded to Beijing. We now know from leaked Chinese Communist party documents that, even before the games were awarded in 2015, the Uyghur people were the target of systematic and brutal repression. The party’s general secretary called for a period of painful interventional treatment, education and transformation. That education and treatment has involved up to 2 million people being detained, used as slave labour and forcibly sterilised, and the Muslim population forced to drink alcohol and eat pork as part of their so-called education. That is undisguised, unmitigated barbarity at a scale we have not seen on this continent since the second world war. Those are crimes against humanity, which the rest of the world has a moral duty to stand up against. We must deny the Chinese Government’s attempts to bask in the warm glow of international sport.
The SNP supports the calls for the UK Government to withhold support for the event by not sending any Government officials, politicians or members of the royal family. Of course, it is always solely for the Olympic associations to take decisions about the attendance of athletes themselves. We encourage the UK Government and the international community to call out the egregious human rights abuses being committed against the Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We note that the international community did that most recently at the UN Human Rights Council. The UN human rights commissioner or another independent fact-finding body must be given unfettered access to Xinjiang. The genocide in Xinjiang and the human rights abuses elsewhere must not escape an international response.
In a report published last week, as has been referenced, the Foreign Affairs Committee called for big boy politics on China. Boycotting the games was one of the manifold recommendations it made to the UK Government, who have so far dragged their feet on robust action on China. Last week, Members of the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on diplomatic officials to boycott the ’22 Winter Olympics in response to continuing human rights abuses by the Chinese Government. It was passed by 578 votes to 29 and was supported by all of Europe’s mainstream political groups, including the centre-right European People’s Party—the group of the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel—and the centrists of France’s Emmanuel Macron. The resolution calls for EU officials and member states to decline all Government and diplomatic invitations to the Winter Olympics unless the Chinese Government demonstrate a verifiable improvement in the human rights situation in Hong Kong, the Xinjiang Uyghur region, Tibet, Inner Mongolia and elsewhere in China.
The Prime Minister, when asked about a boycott, recently said:
“I am instinctively, and always have been, against sporting boycotts.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2021; Vol. 698, c. 901.]
That is not the question that was asked of him or what the motion before us seeks.
As we saw during the back-and-forward with the genocide amendment to the Trade Act 2021, the Government cannot be trusted to stand up for human rights when push comes to shove. The global community has failed to stand up to human rights abuses in the past that have coincided in time and location with prominent sporting events, and that mistake should not and must not be repeated. The UK Government have a moral responsibility to diplomatically boycott the games, which in many ways will be used as a propaganda tool for a regime committing genocide. It must be remembered that the CCP is a master of propaganda.
It seems pretty clear, from the speeches today and various other remarks outside this Chamber, that the Government are somewhat isolated in their thinking. That being said, we support the UK’s action to sanction Chinese Government officials for crimes committed in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. The SNP welcomed the UK Government’s decision to begin to impose Magnitsky-style sanctions, but there are few Chinese leaders involved in abuses on the current list.
A report by the Foreign Affairs Committee notes that the Government’s
“current framework of UK policy towards China reflects an unwillingness to face this reality”
of widespread and merciless state-sanctioned abuse. Wider trade sanctions are necessary to avoid UK corporate and consumer complicity and to hit the Chinese economy.
As the US has done, the Government should ban the import of all cotton products known to be produced in whole or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, in line with WTO rules. We also believe the ban should be extended to other industries where abuses are known to be taking place: namely in tomato, protective personal equipment and solar panel production. The Department for International Trade should publish an urgent review of the export controls that apply to Xinjiang, because currently we have no import controls whatever in place to prevent goods from Xinjiang arriving on our shelves, despite the Prime Minister’s claim to the contrary.
It is sad in a debate about the winter Olympics not to be concentrating on the sport itself, the athletic endeavour and the sheer hard work that athletes have put in over the previous four years in preparation for the competition. Of course this country has not had the success in the winter version of the games that it has had in the summer games, but growing up I well remember the exploits of Rhona Martin and her team on the curling rink and their gold in Salt Lake City, of Torvill and Dean—well, their comeback, because I am too young to remember their initial “Bolero” dance in 1984—and of Eddie the Eagle and many others.
Sadly, because of the abhorrent situation in Xinjiang, alongside the Chinese Government’s gradual erosion of civil liberties in Hong Kong and what we already know about the decades-long suppression of democracy and freedom of expression in China, and the incomprehensible decision by the IOC, we are talking about something far different and far darker. When the current IOC president says that his organisation must stay out of politics—an echo of his Francoist predecessor and all those who supported apartheid South Africa’s sporting links with other countries—we can see the challenges that those who support human rights and dignity are up against.
The IOC website has the temerity to claim:
“At all times, the IOC recognises and upholds human rights, as enshrined in both the Fundamental Principles of the Olympic Charter and the IOC Code of Ethics.”
Only an institutionally arrogant organisation can make those claims and yet award next year’s games to China, but this is not just an issue for the IOC. Too many international governing bodies have been happy to turn a blind eye to repression and state-sponsored violence when choosing who to host their latest event. One only has to remember the uproar when FIFA awarded World cups to Russia and Qatar.
In conclusion, I fear that we or, rather, the IOC and sport’s governing bodies are too far down the track for next year’s winter Olympics to be moved, but that should not stop future bids for Olympics and other major sporting events from being assessed not just on their stadia capacity or segregated car lanes for VIPs, but on their human rights record and their treatment of their own citizens. History shows that the IOC has not been fussy in the past about who leads them—installing a senior member of Franco’s Falangists as their president should still be a source of shame—but it has a chance in future games to properly incorporate human rights into any assessment of candidate cities in future and to put humanity, rather than cold hard cash, at the heart of sport.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
First, I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for putting forward his motion today and for securing this important debate. Today, I want to set out the Labour party’s position on the genocide that is taking place in Xinjiang—according to all the available evidence we have, it is happening—and to also set out why we wholeheartedly support the motion before the House today.
In a little over six months, the global spotlight will fall on Beijing as the city plays host to the 2022 winter Olympics. The games should be a celebration of sporting achievement and a powerful symbol of our shared humanity, but next year’s event will take place under a dark shadow. There is now an extensive and undeniable body of evidence pointing to the relentless state-sponsored persecution of the Uyghur Muslim minority in Xinjiang province, including the mass detention of more than a million people, first-hand accounts of forced labour camps, the enforced separation of children from parents and harrowing reports of forced sterilisation. We have heard first-hand testimonies from brave Uyghur women speaking out about their experiences, and we have seen the important in-depth research from academic Adrian Zenz that uses the Chinese Government’s own publicly available data on Xinjiang’s population change. Who can forget the film shown to the former Chinese ambassador on “The Andrew Marr Show” of shaven-headed, blindfolded Uyghur being hoarded on to trains by Chinese officials at gunpoint?
The evidence is both compelling and overwhelming, and until the Chinese Government allow UN investigators full and unfettered access to Xinjiang to carry out their investigations, this is the evidence that we in this House and this Government must use as the basis for our opinions and subsequent actions. In April, it was this evidence that led this House to determine that genocide was being committed against the Uyghur people, a matter on which Conservative Members were shamefully instructed to abstain by the Government.
Now we are approaching the point at which a decision must be made regarding the Beijing winter Olympics. There are some who would argue that politics and sport should not mix, but from National Football League star Colin Kaepernick taking the knee and Marcus Rashford shaming the Government into U-turning on free school meals to the England football team’s united stance against divisive dog-whistle politics this week, we have seen that many issues do transcend the divide between sport and politics.
This is not a new phenomenon. We only need to look back to the 1980s, when the sporting world played an integral role in piling pressure on the South African Government to end its racist apartheid agenda. I am not sure how Conservative Members feel about this given the position that the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, took on the matter, but as a huge British and Irish Lions rugby fan and as an internationalist, I still feel tremendously proud of the stance the Lions took. Their refusal to tour South Africa throughout the 1980s is irrefutable evidence of the power of sport to deliver progress and positive change.
Now is the moment to harness that Lions spirit and send a clear message to the Chinese Communist party that oppression and discrimination can never be tolerated. Today, Labour is calling for a political and diplomatic boycott of the Beijing games, as set out in a letter from my hon. Friends the shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Culture Secretary to their opposite numbers on 7 July.
The Olympic games have of course become a symbol of our global interconnectedness, bringing together athletes from across the world to compete under the Olympic values of excellence, respect and friendship. At their best, they are a testament to sport’s ability to bridge divisions of culture, language, geography and race. Yet while many sportspeople have chosen to use their platform to show solidarity or to amplify the message of causes and movements, it would be wrong to expect them to sacrifice years of hard work and dedication to make up for the inaction and failings of their Government, nor would calling for a sporting boycott or for the cancellation of the 2022 games be fair on the Chinese people, who are not responsible for the atrocities being committed by their Government. We need to be absolutely clear that Britain stands in solidarity with the Chinese people against oppression, and that this solidarity can be strengthened by enhanced cultural understanding between western and Chinese people and communities. This is why a political and diplomatic boycott is without doubt the position the Government must adopt.
Over the past year, along with international allies, the UK Government have rightly supported calls from the United Nations for unfettered access to Xinjiang in order to conduct a full investigation into the treatment of the Uyghur, yet China has remained unmoved. That is not to say that the UK Government’s demands have been particularly strong. As is so often the case with this Conservative Government, strong rhetoric is yet to be matched by meaningful action, and I will come back to that in my questions to the Minister shortly.
On the assumption that access to Xinjiang will not be granted by 14 September, the start of the next United Nations General Assembly, Labour has made it clear that no member of the royal family, UK politician or senior official should attend the games, as we cannot expect those individuals to be put in a position where they are serving to legitimise attempts by the Chinese Government to sportswash, to take the word of the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), the genocide that is being perpetrated against its own people. In short, sending royals or officials to Beijing in February would not be fair on those individuals, would not be right for our country and would be a betrayal of the Uyghur people.
Today’s debate is an opportunity for this House and the Government to take a clear and unambiguous stance against the atrocities being committed by the Chinese Government by supporting the motion. I urge all those on the Government Benches to support the motion and send a clear message about what kind of country we are—a nation that stands against genocide and for human rights.
It is clear that Conservative Members are divided on this issue. I commend any hon. Member on the Conservative Benches who takes a stand against the Government’s weak approach on China, which is rooted in the type of naivety and complacency that have epitomised the approach of successive Conservative Governments over the past decade, from the so-called golden era to the present day.
With that in mind, I have the following questions for the Minister. Does he think it is right that the Prime Minister is set to put members of the royal family and, by association, Her Majesty the Queen in the awkward and uncomfortable position of appearing to endorse a regime that is responsible for genocide? Why are the Government doing all they can to avoid votes in Parliament on China? Is it because they recognise that they are on the wrong side of public opinion and on the wrong side of opinion in this House?
What recent pressure have the Government put on the Chinese Government to allow UN investigators to enter Xinjiang province? Where are the Magnitsky sanctions on Chen Quanguo? It has been a full six months since the Foreign Secretary announced a supposedly urgent review of export controls on UK products sold into Xinjiang. When will we see that report? When will the Government make genuine, substantive legislative changes to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to toughen up supply chain due diligence?
Will the Minister send a clear message that, by the time of the next UN General Assembly meeting, China must have not only granted full and unfettered access for the UN to Xinjiang, but removed the entirely unjust sanctions that have been placed on Members of this House and of the other place by the Chinese Government? And will he take steps to ensure that China is not awarded the 2030 World cup, bidding for which begins in June 2022?
If global Britain is to mean anything, it should mean upholding our values and defending human rights, no matter where in the world they are under threat. For too long, the Government have been naïve, complacent and inconsistent in their approach to China. Today’s debate should be a turning point that leads to actions, not words. To do otherwise would be to hand the Chinese Government the propaganda coup that they crave, at the expense of our country’s reputation and obligations.
A genocide is taking place in Xinjiang. This Government now have a choice. Are they going to look the other way and send senior representatives to Beijing in February, or are they going to take a stand and understand that sending those representatives would be a betrayal of our values? Enough is enough. It is time to draw a line in the sand. We on the Opposition Benches recognise that, and that is why we shall be supporting this motion today.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing this debate? We have heard some passionate and well thought-through speeches throughout the afternoon. I am grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions, and I will try to respond to as many of the points raised as possible before I hand back to my hon. Friend.
On the substantive issue of whether there should be a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 winter Olympic games, as I made clear at the Dispatch Box a couple of weeks ago at oral questions, and as the Prime Minister has previously made clear, no decisions have yet been made about UK Government attendance at the winter Olympics in Beijing.
One or two Members have mentioned that they would not like to see the games go ahead at all. Of course, the participation of Team GB at the Olympics and Paralympics is a matter for the British Olympic Association and the British Paralympic Association. They operate independently of Government, as is absolutely right, and as is also required by International Olympic Committee regulations.
The Government have consistently been clear about our serious concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang. In response, we have taken robust action, as has been pointed out by a number of hon. and right hon. Members. We have led international efforts to hold China to account for the gross human rights violations in Xinjiang. We have imposed sanctions on those responsible, and we have announced a package of robust domestic measures to help to ensure that no British organisations are complicit, including through their supply chains.
The Foreign Secretary has consistently raised our concerns directly with Chinese State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, most recently at the end of May. He has also, on 22 March, announced asset freezes and travel bans under our global human rights sanctions regime against four Chinese Government officials and one entity, who we believe are responsible for the gross human rights violations in Xinjiang. Importantly, those measures were co-ordinated alongside sanctions from the United States, Canada and the European Union. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said that we should be working alongside the European Union. We have done, and that is why we have delivered those sanctions alongside the EU.
We believe that those actions send a clear message to the Chinese Government that the international community will not turn a blind eye to such serious and systematic violations of basic human rights. It speaks for itself that, while 30 countries were united in sanctioning those responsible for the violations, China’s response was to retaliate against its critics, a number of whom are in the Chamber today.
As the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made clear, China’s attempts to silence those highlighting human rights violations at home and abroad, including its targeting of right hon. and hon. Friends and peers in the UK, are completely unwarranted and unacceptable. The freedom to speak out in opposition to human rights violations is fundamental, and the Government stand firm with all those who have been sanctioned, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and other right hon. and hon. Members.
On that point, on 26 March, I summoned the Chinese representative in the UK to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, where I lodged a strong formal protest at the actions of China. The sanctions we imposed in relation to Xinjiang followed the Foreign Secretary’s announcement on 12 January of a series of measures on UK supply chains. Those measures, which included a review of export controls, the introduction of financial penalties for organisations that fail to comply with their obligations under the Modern Slavery Act and robust guidance to UK businesses on the risks faced by companies with links to Xinjiang, will help to ensure that no British organisation—Government or private sector, deliberately or inadvertently—profits from or contributes to human rights violations against the Uyghurs or other minorities.
We have also consistently taken a leading international role in holding China to account, and we have used our diplomatic influence to raise the issue up the international agenda. On 22 June, a global UK diplomatic effort helped to deliver the support of 44 countries for a joint statement at the UN Human Rights Council. That underlined our shared concerns and called on China to grant unfettered access to the region for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The growing caucus of countries expressing concern about the situation in Xinjiang sends a powerful message about the breadth of international opinion. That caucus of international countries, which has called out China’s actions, has grown from 23 countries to 44 in just over a year, which is a tribute to it. I pay tribute to the UK’s diplomatic leadership, including our network across the globe, and the Foreign Secretary’s influence with his counterparts. Under our G7 presidency, both G7 leaders and Foreign and Development Ministers registered strong concern about the situation in Xinjiang. We will continue to work with partners across the world to build an international caucus of those willing to speak out against China’s human rights violations and to increase the pressure on China to change its behaviour.
I turn to some of the points raised by hon. and right hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, in his powerful and eloquent speech, made a very strong case. I thought he was a little unfair on one of my heroes, Sir Paul McCartney, when he sang at the opening of the London games, but he also raised the issue of sanctions, as did the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford). It speaks volumes that, while we join the international community in sanctioning those responsible for human rights abuses, the Chinese Government sanction their critics. If Beijing wants to credibly rebut claims of human rights abuses in Xinjiang, it should allow the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights full access to verify the truth, a point the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) agreed with.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do not want to hold him up for very long because he is in the last part of this speech. With regard to slave labour chains and supply in Xinjiang, on two occasions in the last four weeks, the Prime Minister has, from the Dispatch Box, said that the UK Government have import controls on those who are suspected of being suppliers through that chain. I have asked a series of questions of both the Minister’s Department and the Department for International Trade. The one answer that comes from the Department for International Trade is that it has no import controls and no plans to make any. Could the Minister tell me what Government policy is on import controls?
Nigel Adams
We are making good progress. Our guidance to businesses is being updated. We have launched a regular programme of ministerial engagement with businesses and trade bodies, but my right hon. Friend will understand that much of this work is incredibly complex and requires the introduction of new legislation and co-ordination with our international partners.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) raised the issue of Tibet. We are deeply concerned at reports of coercive control, restrictions on freedom of religion or belief and labour transfer schemes in Tibet. We have drawn attention to the human rights situation there, including most recently in a ministerial statement at the UN Human Rights Council.
I am going to be timed out, I am afraid, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had a number of points to respond to. I thank all hon. Members. If I could just raise the point made by the hon. Member for Bath, who wondered whether we should go further and have a full boycott of the games. We are clear that the participation of the national team is a matter for the British Olympic Association and the British Paralympic Association. She also mentioned amendments to IOC rule 50 forbidding athletes to protest. Again, that is a matter for the BOA and other national Olympic committees to agree.
Let me end by saying that no decisions have yet been made about ministerial travel to the Beijing winter Olympics. If there is a Division on the motion today, the Government will therefore abstain. However, our approach to China remains clear-eyed and rooted in our values and our interests.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to the Minister and to all hon. and right hon. Members who have made such impassioned speeches here today. I think we have spoken virtually as one voice, although I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) would want to put it on record that he is a funding patron of the UK National Committee on China. We have heard great phrases: sportswashing; the genocide Olympics, which it will become known as; and the veneer of diplomatic respectability. Let us reinforce the point that our argument is not with the people of China, but with the murderous regime of the Chinese Communist party Government.
I am glad no decisions have been made so far. I hope the Minister will take very seriously the clear words he has heard here today. May I say gently to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), that the enemy is not other democrats in this House? He has had a pop at the Government on several occasions, but the enemy is the Government of China, who are abusing their own people.
I go back to the principles of Olympism:
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion.”
It is the people of China who are not allowed those privileges. It is for them that we are standing up. That is why we need a diplomatic and political boycott to make that point loud and clear. I hope that the House will pass the motion today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that the 2022 Winter Olympic games should not be hosted in a country whose Government is credibly accused of mass atrocity crimes; and calls on the UK Government to decline invitations for its representatives to attend the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games unless the Government of the People’s Republic of China ends the atrocities taking place in the Xinjiang region and lifts the sanctions imposed on UK Parliamentarians, citizens and entities.
Alternative Student Finance
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
While we wait for Stephen Timms to come on the video link, the Dispatch Box will be sanitised. I know that the Minister will not touch it until that has happened.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to have been granted this Adjournment debate today. Eight years ago, the Government pledged to introduce alternative student finance. That promise has still not been delivered, which has prevented large numbers of Muslims from entering higher education. The problem became serious in 2012, when tuition fees were drastically raised and it became impossible for most students to take a university course without a student loan.
For a significant number of British Muslims, having to take an interest-bearing student loan meant that they could not go to university at all. Riba—interest—is prohibited in Islam, as it was in Christianity until the middle ages. Some Muslim young people defer university until they have saved to pay their fees outright; some, with a heavy heart, take out a loan and feel bad about it ever after; others do not attend at all. That is the reality for young British Muslims today.
As Prime Minister, David Cameron promised to change that. In a speech at the World Islamic Economic Forum in London in 2013, he proposed alternative student finance, saying:
“Never again should a Muslim in Britain feel unable to go to university because they cannot get a Student Loan—simply because of their religion.”
The promise was clear. Eight years later, there is still not even a timetable for keeping it. It looks to young Muslims as if Ministers simply cannot be bothered.
A year after David Cameron’s speech, a Government consultation attracted 20,000 responses, a record number at the time. It showed that the loan system was deterring many Muslim students; 94% of the respondents believed that there would be demand for a sharia-compliant loan and 81% believed that the model proposed was acceptable. That model was a takaful system in which students would pay into the system to guarantee each other against loss, in a co-operative structure generally recognised as sharia-compliant. Repayments, debt levels and the cost to the Government would be the same as for conventional student loans.
The Government’s response to the consultation said that because of technicalities, the solution would take at least two years to deliver. Unfortunately, progress over the seven years since then has been glacial. In November 2015, a Green Paper said that
“we are looking to develop the ‘Takaful’ product more fully.”
A White Paper the following year said that there was a
“real need for a new option for students who feel unable to use interest-bearing loans...we will introduce an alternative student finance product for the first time. This will...avoid the payment of interest”.
That was six years ago.
The Higher Education and Research Act received Royal Assent in 2017, which campaigners hoped would allow implementation of the takaful loan model. Then Ministers said that the May 2019 Augar review would cover it. It did not; it just restated that
“students should be able to access finance support that is compatible with their religious beliefs. The government will need to consider carefully how the changes we are proposing...affect plans to introduce a system of alternative student finance for students who feel unable to access interest-bearing student loans for reasons of faith.”
Despite not addressing it, Ministers ever since have used the forthcoming response to the report as a justification for still not doing anything.
My constituent Fatima Khan contacted me. She wrote:
“The current pandemic only serves to intensify these challenges for Muslim students; with part-time jobs being lost and the economic decline affecting the livelihood of many of our families.”
Fatima did attend university, but has friends and family who were unable to do so.
I have been speaking to the campaigner, Asha Hassan, who is in the final year of her medical studies at the University of Exeter. She told the BBC in January that many Muslim students take out a student loan, but
“with a very heavy heart, and that also affects their studies as well.”
She managed to turn her A-level grades round at college in order to go to university, but then felt that she could not apply because of the interest problem. Fortunately, she had heard of the Government’s consultation in her first year after leaving college; she applied, and then deferred her entry in the hope that something would be available by 2016-17. It was only the promise of alternative student finance that meant that she managed to get that far. She kept going for years with the hope that, if she could just get through this year, alternative student finance would be available next year. She says now:
“Many miracles later, I’m going into my final year studying medicine, but it shouldn't take miracles for a student to want to progress and use their lives to contribute to society.”
And she is right.
Her oldest sister, Zainab, finished college in the first year of the tuition-fee hike. She wanted to go to university. When it became so costly, and taking out an interest-bearing loan was the only way to pay for it, she decided that she could not and took a job instead. Asha’s other older sister, Sumaya, wanted to study education and become a primary school teacher. She wrestled with whether to take out a loan. She applied, and was offered a place. Her friends persuaded her instead to study nursing as it was funded, and so she signed up through clearing at the last minute. Asha’s younger sister, Amina, wanted to study physiotherapy. She was unconcerned because the course was Government funded. She took a year out for volunteering. Unfortunately, the following year’s intake was no longer funded, so she was forced to give up. She would have loved to have become a physiotherapist, but she has not done so.
Asha has assembled on social media this week responses from others. The comments she has received include these:
“I regret taking an interest-based loan, and wish I had chosen other options.”
“Interest loans are forbidden in my religion (Islam). I do not have any alternative as I am not wealthy enough to pay the fees without taking out a loan.”
“I am always thinking about how to pay back quickly to get rid of the interest.”
“I’m going to have to work quite a lot to keep up with payments and living costs which may have an effect on my university experience.”
Asha is organising a demonstration, led by school children and students, outside the Department tomorrow to highlight this long-standing injustice of Muslim students being unable to attend university, or suffering anguish if they do so. I hope the Minister will be able to get a message to those who join that demonstration.
British Muslims make up nearly 5% of the UK population. In the borough that I represent, it is about a third of our population. It is very hurtful that the Government simply cannot be bothered to keep the promise they made eight years ago to so many people in that community. Muslims make up around 10% of students. The number could and should be higher. Young people want to take part in higher education, and the prospects for our economy demand that they should be able to do so as well.
In 2018, the Sutton Trust’s “Home and Away” report recommended what they called a “halal student loan” to give more Muslim students the chance of higher education, and to give those who do more choices by allowing them to choose to live away from home—to make that affordable for them without taking an interest-bearing loan. It argued for Muslim young people to have the same social mobility chances as non-Muslims, and surely we should all agree with that.
David Cameron made his promise in 2013 and young Muslims have waited patiently. How much longer must they wait? Many have given up. Some think that the Government will never deliver what has been promised.
The “Alternative Student Finance” report, commissioned by the Department and published in 2019, set out the key attraction factors of alternative student finance as follows:
“a ring-fenced pot where contributions fund the education of others and so benefits future students rather than go to a profit-making organisation; does not accrue interest but instead involves a fee or contribution; available to everyone regardless of background or religion; is straightforward…permissible under Islamic law and would be approved by a council of scholars; fair, as it neither advantages nor disadvantages individuals in comparison to the mainstream student loan.”
It concluded that the takaful model would be a
“positive move on the part of Government.”
The report included pen portraits of some of those affected. One was a young woman who went straight from her A-levels to university and studied a subject she had not considered before because the course was funded by the Government, so she would not need an interest-bearing student loan. It was a demanding course and she was insufficiently interested in the career that it was leading to, so after six months she dropped out. She said:
“I ended up doing a course that I didn’t want to do, at a university that I didn’t want to be at, I inevitably didn’t enjoy it and that’s why I dropped out”.
She still hopes that she might get to university one day.
Last month, I tabled early-day motion 227, which calls on the Government to introduce alternative student finance in time for the 2022-23 academic year. The Minister will tell us that the Government remain committed to solving the problem at some unspecified future date, but I want her to be clearer about the timetable. Will students who want to start university in 2022-23 have access to alternative student finance?
I commend the efforts of Lord Sharkey and Lord Sheikh in the other place on this issue. Lord Sharkey tabled an amendment to the Financial Services Bill that would have given the Government six months to introduce a sharia-compliant finance product for tuition fees. In moving it, he noted the repeated failure to take the issue seriously, citing Ministers’ “absurdly unfriendly and unfeeling” responses that make
“no attempt to reassure or comfort the Muslim community.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 1329.]
In response to the debate, the Minister, Lord True, said that, before that could happen,
“complex policy, legal and systemic issues need to be resolved”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 1332.]
However, Governments have repeatedly promised to sort it out and it is more than eight years since David Cameron made the first promise. I hope that the Minister will not simply read out a list of departmental excuses that boil down to: we cannot be bothered.
The all-party parliamentary group on Islamic finance recently wrote to the Prime Minister. I was one of the 50 signatories along with other parliamentarians, Muslim organisations and student groups from across the country, and we are awaiting his response. I hope he recognises, as his predecessor did, the need for and benefits of alternative student finance. For eight years, British Muslims have been given hope that such interest-free loans will be provided. David Cameron’s promise gave rise to optimism and confidence that the Government would remove financial barriers for those wanting to attend university, but, time after time, those hopes have been dashed.
Muslims are missing out on university and Muslim young people are left to struggle and wrestle over the conflict between what they believe in and their hopes for university study. As the Government recognised eight years ago, our system should not be doing that to people. Will the Minister commit not just to the principle of alternative student finance but to a clear timetable for delivering it in time—I hope—for the 2022-23 academic year?
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing this important debate on sharia-compliant student finance. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for being present today.
I assure the House that I understand the issue and the concerns held by some in the Muslim community about student finance, which were carefully and articulately delivered by the right hon. Member for East Ham. Islamic finance is well established in the UK. Financial institutions have been providing sharia-compliant financial services for nearly 40 years, and the UK is the leading western centre for Islamic finance. This Government continue to promote the growth of the Islamic finance sector, supporting domestic financial inclusion and our connections with key markets abroad.
As the right hon. Gentleman stated, in 2013 the Government announced their intention to introduce a form of student finance compatible with Islamic finance principles. That was followed by a consultation and a Government response in 2014, which confirmed the chosen model for sharia-compliant product. As he outlined, the Government took new powers in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to enable the Secretary of State for Education to provide alternative payments in addition to grants and loans, and appointed specialist advisers in October 2017 to design the product.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for bringing this debate forward. I believe there should be no financial discrimination for our students; they should all be able to avail themselves of equal opportunity, regardless of religion. Does the Minister agree that ensuring that all students have the means to afford further education is one thing, but that because of their religion they may have difficulty doing so? Does she feel there is a clear equality issue to be addressed here, so that nobody is directly discriminated against?
Michelle Donelan
Of course this Government want our education system to be open and accessible to all, no matter what their religion, race or background. This Government have been considering the alternative student finance product very carefully, alongside their other priorities, as they conclude the post-18 review of education and funding and respond to the detailed recommendations of the independent panel chaired by Sir Philip Augar. We had intended to respond to the Augar review in full, along with addressing ASF, but the last spending review was only a year’s spending review and we intend to respond in full in due course. We decided to align a decision on the implementation of ASF with the outcome of the post-18 review, to ensure that the terms of any eventual package under ASF are the same as those for mainstream student support. We will provide an update on sharia-compliant student finance products when we conclude the post-18 review of education and funding.
Looking more broadly, I can assure hon. Members that this Government are committed to ensuring that higher education is accessible to all—everyone can then benefit, no matter where they come from, their religion or their race. That goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford.
In 2020, the proportion of English 18-year-olds entering higher education had increased to a record entry rate of 37.9%. Even more encouragingly, the proportion of English 18-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds entering higher education had more than doubled, increasing from 11.3% in 2006 to 24% in 2020. In 2020, 18-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds were proportionally 80% more likely to enter full-time higher education than in 2009.
Looking at Muslim students in particular, we know from the latest published Higher Education Statistics Agency data that about 11% of the student population were known to identify as Muslim, with more than 62,000 first-year undergraduates in England doing so in 2019-20. There were also a further 28,000 Muslim first-year postgraduates in this academic year. In total, looking across all years, levels and modes of study, there were more than 200,000 students identifying as Muslim in the same academic year. Although these figures are encouraging, there is clearly so much more to be done, as the right hon. Member for East Ham has pointed out.
Participation in higher education is, of course, not the outcome in itself. We need to do much more to ensure that the whole system focuses on outcomes that students achieve so that we can put students, their needs and their careers ambitions first, be that in higher education, further education or apprenticeships. I want the whole of our post-education and education system to help people to fulfil their potential by equipping them with the skills and the knowledge to pursue their careers, be it as a teacher, electrician, lawyer, entrepreneur or nurse. That is at the heart of our reform agenda.
Last year, the Prime Minister announced the lifelong loan entitlement, which recognises the realities of a fast-moving economy and the changing world of work. People need and want to be able to study and train in different ways and at different times of their lives under a flexible system. That will make it easier for students to access courses much more flexibly throughout their life. It will be available for both modules and full years of study, at higher, technical and degree levels—levels 4 to 6. It will also enable people to fit study around work, family and personal commitments or, equally, to retrain and upskill as their circumstances and the economy change.
Turning to the existing student finance offer, I would like to take this opportunity to explain the existing loan offer and the other forms of financial support available. The current student finance system is not profit-making. Unlike commercial alternatives, student loans are available to all eligible students regardless of background or financial history. Loan repayments are linked to income, not the rate of interest or the amount borrowed. For undergraduate loans, repayments are calculated at a fixed rate of 9% of earnings above the payment threshold, or the weekly or monthly equivalent. Borrowers are protected. No repayments are required when borrowers’ earnings drop below the threshold, and any outstanding debt, including interest accrued, is written off after 30 years, with no detriment to the borrower.
No commercial loans offer that level of support and protection to the borrower, with income-contingent repayments and outstanding debt written off after the loan term ends. However, I reiterate that I understand and recognise the concerns of the Muslim community and those echoed by the right hon. Member for East Ham about these loans. That is very much why we have looked into this issue, and we pledge to report back.
Looking beyond student loans, the Government provide a range of non-repayable grants to assist students with particular needs. Grants are available to support childcare, where a student has an adult dependant or where a student is disabled. Universities also provide students with a range of support under their access and participation plans, which are designed to encourage participation from under-represented groups. Higher education providers wishing to charge tuition fees above the basic fee level of £6,000 must agree a plan with the Office for Students that sets out their targets and planned expenditure to improve access and participation. Through these plans, higher education providers deliver a range of support, including bursaries and grants to assist with fees and living costs, as well as activities such as school outreach, attainment-raising activities, summer schools and support targeted at key groups such as care leavers. These plans are designed to deliver greater and faster progress in accessing participation in higher education.
Looking at the financial system as a whole, a key aim for the Government is to ensure a sustainable balance of contributions towards the cost of the system between the student and the taxpayer, and to ensure that support is targeted most at those who need it. The Government’s contributions towards the cost of higher education are significant. More than half of the value of higher education undergraduate loans is forecast to be written off. This subsidy is a conscious investment in the long-term skills capacity of the people and the economy of this country.
As I mentioned earlier, the Government are still carefully considering our response to the post-18 review. I assure the right hon. Member and the House that alternative student finance is an important part of those considerations. I thank him for his passionate speech today and the individual stories that he shared. I would like to assure him and members of his community that, as we have previously committed to, we will provide an update on alternative student finance as we conclude the post-18 review of education and funding, and I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss this further.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Medical Devices (Northern Ireland Protocol) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to observe social distancing and sit only in places that are clearly marked—I think this is the last time we are saying this; it will not apply from Monday. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. That does not apply to me because I might have to say something at any second. Our colleagues in Hansard would be most appreciative if you emailed your speeches to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk. I call the Minister to move the motion.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Medical Devices (Northern Ireland Protocol) Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
Today we are debating an instrument that is necessary to maintain the regulatory landscape for medical devices in Northern Ireland following a change in European Union law. It reflects the recent application of Regulation (EU) 2017/745 on medical devices in Northern Ireland, which applies to all general medical devices, but not to in vitro diagnostic medical devices. For simplicity, I will hereafter refer to the EU medical devices regulation. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that this instrument does not itself cause the EU medical devices regulation to apply within Northern Ireland. That legislation took automatic effect in Northern Ireland on 26 May this year under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol.
Through this instrument, the Government deliver their commitment to the pragmatic implementation of the protocol by introducing provisions that minimise the impact of the EU medical devices regulation on economic operators and the public in Northern Ireland. The EU medical devices regulation contains some areas where states have the discretion to make their own policy choices. This instrument therefore legislates in those policy areas, and where possible seeks to align the position in Northern Ireland with that in Great Britain. The Medical Devices Regulations 2002—hereafter referred to as the 2002 regulations—will continue to be the relevant regulations for in vitro diagnostics devices in Northern Ireland. They will operate alongside the EU medical devices regulation itself and this instrument on the regulation of general medical devices.
The instrument achieves the Government’s commitment to align Northern Ireland with Great Britain where permitted in four areas. First, it implements national adjustments for Northern Ireland in areas where the EU medical devices regulation grants member states the ability to make national policy decisions. This has been done in a way that will align with policies in place in Great Britain. Secondly, it sets out the fee structures that keep fees charged by the Government aligned with those applied in Great Britain. Thirdly, the instrument sets out the enforcement regime for activity and violations under the EU medical devices regulation in Northern Ireland. Finally, it makes an amendment to existing regulations so that they take account of the application of the EU medical devices regulation in Northern Ireland.
Several aspects of this instrument are, as will become apparent, technical. I therefore might not be able to address all the elements in detail in the time that we have available. I will, however, provide the Committee with details on the most important provisions. I will first set out the provisions that the instrument makes to change default positions under the EU medical devices regulation where permitted.
Re-manufacturing single-use devices, which the EU refers to as reprocessing, is currently permitted in the UK as long as the re-manufacturer adheres to strict requirements. The EU medical devices regulation does not permit re-manufacturing, but grants member states the ability to make national allowances, which this instrument also does for Northern Ireland. That means that the re-manufacturing of single-use devices can continue to take place in Northern Ireland as it does in Great Britain as long as all requirements of the EU medical devices regulation are adhered to.
The instrument also introduces provisions so that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency can continue to require the registration of custom-made devices. That means that a range of devices such as, for example, dental appliances or orthopaedic moulds must be registered before being placed on the Northern Ireland market, as is currently the case in Great Britain.
The instrument also ensures continued alignment between Great Britain and Northern Ireland so that the safety of participants continues to be protected in clinical investigations. It does so by maintaining the MHRA’s ability to authorise clinical investigations for all risk classes of medical devices before they can commence. It also upholds the requirement for custom-made-device clinical investigations to be subject to MHRA assessment.
As well as these provisions, which amend the default positions of the EU medical device regulation where permitted, this instrument also sets out the fees that the MHRA may charge for activity under the EU medical device regulation in Northern Ireland to continue covering the costs associated with certain aspects of the regulation of medical devices. All fees outlined in this instrument are identical to those charged for similar services in Great Britain under the 2002 regulations, thereby maintaining alignment.
The Government are maintaining identical fees as part of our commitment to ensure that, where possible, there are no disadvantages to economic operators in Northern Ireland as a result of the protocol. To that end, no new fees are introduced in this instrument for any new requirements under the EU medical device regulation.
The enforcement provisions introduced in this instrument provide the Secretary of State with enforcement powers to ensure that patient safety is prioritised and high standards are maintained for the people of Northern Ireland. It does so by creating a specific offence that relates to breaches of certain provisions of this instrument and of the EU medical devices regulation; by amending the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015; and by granting the MHRA and district councils in Northern Ireland inspection powers and powers to serve enforcement notices for breaches of the EU medical device regulation within Northern Ireland. These powers allow the MHRA to respond to concerns and to constantly deliver improvements to patient safety.
Finally, the instrument includes technical amendments to other legislation, including the 2002 regulations, to reflect the application of the EU medical device regulation within Northern Ireland. In doing so, it ensures that the regulatory landscape operates effectively in Northern Ireland.
I should put on the record that I am grateful for the continued collaborative approach of officials in the Northern Ireland Executive, who have been kept informed of and engaged with the progress of this instrument. I also inform the House that, due to the very technical nature of this instrument, it has not met the threshold for an impact assessment and therefore one is not provided.
By introducing this instrument we are upholding the Government’s commitment to minimise the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol on the activities of the public and economic operators in Northern Ireland. The pandemic has shown that public health considerations are more important than ever, and by introducing this instrument we are taking steps to ensure that the UK’s exceptional standards of safety continue to be maintained within Northern Ireland.
I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.
The Minister and I have had a touring show in Committee, implementing various parts of the Northern Ireland protocol, and this instrument is very much in the same vein. However, unlike the Minister himself, the Northern Ireland protocol is not ageing well. [Laughter.]
Lord Frost said last week that it is wrong to view the Northern Ireland protocol as a “definitive” text. I would say that when we consider instruments of this nature—I have done an awful lot of them now—the things that we are doing feel rather “definitive”, and it is an extraordinary failure of statecraft to characterise an agreement that the UK entered into willingly in this fashion. I recommend that hon. Members read the transcript of the consideration of this instrument in the other place. It is quite something to read the level of criticism of the status of Northern Ireland now with regard to instruments such as this one, with much of it coming from some of those who were the most enthusiastic about our embarking on this course in the first place.
So why are we here today? As the explanatory memorandum says, it is not to implement the EU medical devices regulation, which came into effect from 26 May; Northern Ireland has taken those rules in a way that the Government said it would not have to. Within that regulation, there is latitude for individual countries to diverge from the MDR where national law differs and in the areas that the Minister talked about: on single-use devices and custom-made devices, we differ. This instrument is therefore necessary to ensure that we can do that across the whole of the United Kingdom. Of course, we support that idea, so I will not seek to divide the Committee today. However, I will briefly pick up a few points with the Minister regarding alignment, enforcement, and the conformité Européenne or CE mark more broadly.
First, the instrument addresses the fact that, although the EU MDR is fully applied, our MHRA remains the regulator. Therefore, we need to give it—again, this is why we support the SI in front of us—provisions for enforcement of fees and so forth where national divergences exist, so that we can have alignment. However, I wonder what this will mean in practice for the people of Northern Ireland. What impact will there be if the European Medicines Agency and the MHRA depart markedly from each other’s regulatory regimes, and what would that mean for businesses and their products? What conversations has the Minister had with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive?
While the Northern Ireland protocol is in effect, and very definitively so, a CE mark is required to go to market. That is potentially advantageous for patients in Northern Ireland versus those in Great Britain, as the vast majority of products—for example, 600,000 medical devices—that have been approved in the EU are already CE-marked across the whole of the UK. That would continue to be the case under the protocol, but the situation could change in Great Britain after 2023. Indeed, I believe that the plan is to introduce the new UK(NI) mark. At the moment, we have access to 600,000 devices with the CE mark, but we do not know what the plan will mean in years to come.
Will the Minister give some detail about parliamentary opportunities to scrutinise and improve plans for the relationship between the CE mark and the UK(NI) mark? That will become a fundamental question of patient safety across the UK in years to come, and we really ought to have a very strong plan for it, all lightness aside, even if there are elements of the Northern Ireland protocol that the Government think will be dropped at some point. This element definitely will not be, because it is a core part of our medical devices regime going forward. We would benefit from having more opportunity to discuss that point.
On enforcement, the SI will give the MHRA powers to serve notices for breaches of the EU MDR, so manufacturers will need to take a number of steps to ensure that their goods can still be sold after the deadline, as noble lords mentioned in great detail when they considered the SI. What discussion and consultation have the Government had with the sector? I agree wholly with the judgment that the SI does not pass the threshold for an impact assessment, but ongoing consequences may do so in the future, so I am keen to know what sorts of questions the Government have received.
My final point is on an issue that I raise every time we have a matter relating to the MHRA, but I am never quite sure that we get a strong answer. There was a similar issue in Committee yesterday. What enforcement capacity does the MHRA really have for the range of duties that it has acquired through our exit from the European Union, through the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, through the SI on coronavirus tests that we discussed yesterday, and through the responsibilities picked up in the SI we are debating? Are there more people doing enforcement than there were three years ago, when none of those responsibilities existed? Is the funding for that on a sustainable footing? Is it something that can be built around? Can people be trained and developed and become real experts on this issue? We will need that to have a secure regime, because we will lose all our protections from working in a flock with our colleagues on the continent. The Minister mentioned that the SI does not apply to in vitro devices and that we still rely on the 2002 regulations. Are there plans to update that in due course?
This is the tip of a bit of a whopper of a mess. Approving the SI is the right thing to do today to ensure that, to the best of our ability, Northern Ireland can be part of our medical devices regime. In the conversations that we are having outside this place on issues relating to this matter, the central question should always be patient safety, but the central question is now about borders and bureaucracy, which is what we were told it would not be about. I hope the Minister can address my questions.
Edward Argar
As ever, I am grateful to the shadow Minister—not only for adopting a typically sensible and pragmatic approach to these issues, but for his kind, if perhaps slightly inaccurate words, about my greying hair and my ageing.
The regulations are particularly about allowing the Government to meet their commitment to implement the Northern Ireland protocol, and doing so in a pragmatic way to minimise the impact on the activities of the public and, indeed, operators in Northern Ireland. We believe they do this while—quite rightly, as the hon. Gentleman said—maintaining the highest standards of patient safety for the people of Northern Ireland, as we would expect right across the United Kingdom.
One of the shadow Minister’s key themes was regulatory divergence and differences. As a Government, we are committed to adopting a pragmatic approach to regulatory divergence, seeking to minimise impacts wherever possible. He will have seen, from what I said just now, that the changes contained in this instrument are essential to delivering on that by providing, where possible, consistency and continuity between regulations in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, where of course we are not constrained by the EU medical devices regulation.
The shadow Minister raised a specific point about the scrutiny of CE and UK(NI) marks. As an experienced Member of Parliament, he will know that there will be many opportunities for the Opposition to table debates on these issues, either in the main Chamber or in Westminster Hall. If they wished to do so, Ministers—probably me—would be delighted to continue our touring double act on issues relating to the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol.
The shadow Minister also talked about conversations and engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive, industry and others. That engagement continues on a wide range of topics relating to the Northern Ireland protocol and, more broadly, the implementation of the TCA, including continuity of supply and how industry is finding the implementation of the protocol. Not only have fora been hosted within the Department across the broad range of industry suppliers and the bodies representing them, at which we discuss these issues and seek out their views, but in the case of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive, as I mentioned, we are very grateful for the collaborative working at an official level on these regulations and on other aspects of the implementation of the protocol. I have regular—at the moment, almost monthly—virtual meetings with my opposite number, Robin Swann, the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland. We discuss a range of topics, and as one would expect, the implementation of the protocol and measures such as these are among them so that we ensure as smooth an implementation and a result for the people of Northern Ireland as possible.
The shadow Minister mentioned the Northern Ireland protocol more broadly, and his views on the Government’s approach to it. It has always been the case throughout history that once international treaties and agreements are reached, tweaks are made to ensure they can be practically implemented on the ground. That is nothing new. It is true of treaties throughout history, and that is what we continue to work with our colleagues in Northern Ireland and the Commission to address.
Turning briefly to possible areas of regulatory divergence—I know this area has interested the shadow Minister in other debates on regulations—as I said, the instrument generally retains all the requirements of the directives it repealed, and indeed adds some additional ones to ensure consistency with GB. Those include additional rules for the designation of notified bodies, additional control and monitoring requirements for competent authorities, and additional clarifications of the roles of different economic operators. The EU medical devices regulation reclassifies some devices and has a wider scope than the directives. That includes devices for sterilising other medical devices and certain devices with no evident intended medical purpose, which is annex XVI of that regulation. A new unique device identification system is also introduced to enhance traceability and post-market activities related to safety. Additional requirements are also introduced for the publication of information on devices and clinical and performance studies relating to their conformity, and the new European database for medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices—which I think the shadow Minister mentioned, and which I will come on to in a second. EUDAMED is also introduced to make data available in increased quantity and quality.
The UK will shortly consult on the future of the Great Britain medical devices regulations, which will benefit patient safety and access. That work on the future GB regulatory regime will explore any risks around regulatory divergence between GB and NI in that context. I hope that addresses the shadow Minister’s concerns, but I can reassure him that there will be opportunities for this issue to be debated and discussed—more broadly in the House, but probably in Committees such as this—when we get to that point.
I hope I have dealt with at least the majority of the shadow Minister’s points, but if there are any others he wishes to raise, he knows that he is always welcome to write to me. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
BACKBENCH BUSINESS
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Planning
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates.
I remind Members participating, physically and virtually, that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall. They are expected to remain for the entire debate. I remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on at all times during the debate. They will be visible at all times during the debate both to each other and to us here in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks email address, westminsterhallclerks@parliament.uk.
Members attending physically should clean their spaces before using them and before leaving the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the planning system and the upcoming Planning Bill.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummings.
I thank the Minister for being present and Members for taking part in the debate. I am very respectful of the Minister and I do not underestimate the challenges that he faces in changing a complex system. We need sensible reform, but we need to get it right, and it is in that positive spirit that I intend to speak. I will speak for no more than 10 minutes, because I want to get as many people in as possible.
I will reiterate some concerns and, significantly, suggest as many solutions as I can; some have been made by me and some by near 100 Members on the WhatsApp group. I sent those ideas to the Prime Minister and to the Housing Department a few weeks ago for thought, and I look forward to a response. I put forward an approach to planning based on three principles: that it should be community led, levelling-up led and environment led. I commend those to Ministers. First, however, I will outline some concerns.
Reform, I believe, is better than scrapping and starting again. Scrapping threatens to misdiagnose the problem. Nine in 10 planning applications are approved, but only 60% of permissions are built, so there are more than 1 million unbuilt permissions in a decade. The basic fact is that we have a flawed market. The building cartels, which build the majority of homes, restrict supply. That is not a secret; it is in their building model. They act to prevent prices falling. That is why using housebuilding alone, or predominantly, to lower prices will not work.
Furthermore, the standard method damages the levelling-up agenda. That is critical, especially given the Prime Minister’s excellent speech today. Levelling up is a moral and economic imperative. It is also a political imperative for the Government. However, a flawed planning Bill will undermine that levelling-up process. Some red wall colleagues are now beginning to see that.
Knight Frank reported that the current methodology, the standard method,
“systematically disadvantages poorer parts of the country, particularly in the North and Midlands”.
The north has 23% of the nation’s population, but its housing need is estimated at not even 16% of the total, and its share of public expenditure on housing is barely 18% of the total. The housing infrastructure fund spends £115 per head in the east of England and an astonishingly low £4 per head in Yorkshire.
The standard method directs investment away from levelling up communities. It heats up the already hot and it cools down those people who need to be cooking on gas—pardon the analogy. Other people will talk about the potential loss of democracy and other concerns, so I will not dwell too much on them, because I want to focus on one or two specific issues, but it is clear from talking to colleagues that there is much variation in people’s concerns. For some it is green fields and damage to tourism or quality of life, and for others it is suburban density, building height or the absolute absurdity of building on floodplains. For others, it is a system that is simply not delivering affordable homes.
I will say that there is a slight frustration. Opponents of reform—well, opponents of scrapping the system rather than reforming it—are sometimes portrayed as nimbys. On the Island, on the Isle of Wight, we have been yimbys for 50 years—we have been in our backyard. We have increased our population by 50% in 50 years. In that time, the cities of Newcastle, Sunderland, Hull, Liverpool, Manchester, Blackpool, Birmingham and Stoke have all declined—not relatively declined but declined in absolute percentage and numbers. So when people say that opponents of a developer-led system in the south are nimbys, I respectfully argue that they should acquaint themselves with some basic facts about the history of development that has taken place in this country since world war two. We have barely no new infrastructure on the Isle of Wight, and our key gas supplies, water and electricity interconnectors are already operating at near capacity.
So what are the solutions? I want most of this speech to be positive. I will look at our three principles and suggest perhaps a dozen or 15 ideas in the time I have available. Some of them are community led, some environmentally led and some levelling-upled, but they all gel together to look at ways we can support the Minister in the important work that he is doing, which we want to support.
Our reforms are: first, enshrine the ability to object to individual planning applications; secondly, give greater weight to reforming neighbourhood plans; thirdly, outlaw gazumping. We know that communities with neighbourhood plans accept higher housing allocations because they see what is in it for them. We know that gazumping slows down the market and imposes costs. Good democracy and good law help good development.
On levelling up, there are many things one could say, but I will stick to one. We need to fundamentally reform the standard model and redirect infrastructure funding and house building jobs to levelling-up areas as a deliberate act of policy. Without that, we will have to explain to our voters in a few years’ time why all that infrastructure funding, or so much of it, is going down south, and it will not be a pretty conversation with southern colleagues and voters or red wall and levelling-up communities.
Finally, a series of ideas linked to the environment. We need to end the use of lazy greenfield development. I know Ministers want that, but it would be great if they could want it more. We need a recycling culture in land use. I am aware that some good ideas in the White Paper are about infrastructure levies, but it needs to price in the true cost of using up very valuable rare greenfield land. For many areas I fear that will be a markedly higher price than will be factored into the Bill. We need, in short, to change the economics of land use.
We need a greenfield tax so that money goes into brownfield clean-up in a dedicated way. If we are using, especially in a place such as the Isle of Wight, rare greenfield land, we need to get a greater good out of it than Persimmon’s bottom line. We need to zero-rate brownfield development, encourage it and build in financial incentives, especially for small-scale brownfield in small towns and communities, to make it work.
There are many loopholes that I could suggest closing, but I will not, given the time. I will just say that we need greater powers of compulsory purchase to force people to act more quickly. There are 600 unused and derelict properties on the Isle of Wight. If the Minister wants to get 600 extra properties on the Isle of Wight, he should give the Isle of Wight Council more power. Make it easier for us to enforce action on derelict and unused properties in order to force sale or to force use. Introduce a character test to screen out dodgy developers. If he wants to clean up the system, let him be the sheriff who gets rid of cowboy developers.
Buyers who turn homes—I think this was suggested by a colleague who will be speaking shortly—into Airbnb or holiday homes should be required to apply to councils for change of use. Councils should be allowed to frame localised plans to reverse and lower the percentage of long-term holiday and commercial holiday rentals in specific communities.
We help first-time buyers, so why not last-time sellers with stamp duty exemption? It will cost money. One in five over-65s would be, according to facts and figures, more likely to move. That could affect 2 million people—£900 billion-worth of property. That would free up the market and allow market-driven solutions where there is not market failure. Clearly, there is an element here.
Finally, land banking. If we want to boost supply, we need to create a use-it-or-lose-it rule for permissions within a realistic time bracket. That means more than starting a development by digging a trench six foot by six. Agreeing a start date means agreeing just that and making council tax payable on all plots after a given date, regardless of whether they are built. If the purpose of the Minister’s planning Bill is to help developers, these ideas will not be attractive to many of them, but if its purpose is to get people into homes and to help first-time buyers—I am sure it is—these ideas, and many others suggested by colleagues, will help him produce a markedly better planning Bill, or a planning Bill that is as good and as attractive as we all want it to be.
We need solid principles behind the planning Bill. It should be community led, levelling-up led, and environment led. We need to be sensitive to local democracy. We need a levelling-up agenda that spreads prosperity and hope around our country. To make it environment led, we have to move away from unsustainable, lazy, car-dependent and carbon-inefficient greenfield development, and we need to build for communities and in communities.
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
I ask hon. Members to limit their contributions to around three to four minutes, because I plan to start calling the Front Benchers at 2.38 pm.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins, and I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing the debate.
I wanted to speak in this debate because I want the Minister to succeed and I want my community to succeed. I am here to offer support and help where we can get the solutions right. There are four key elements that I want to address: how we maximise economic opportunity, how we meet housing need, how we have transport integration and sustainability, and how we engage the community. Those are all equal partners and are all needed in how we take developments forward.
Looking at this issue, I think about our 45-hectare brownfield site in the middle of York. It is adjacent to the railway station and it is publicly owned land, so we can really do something innovative there for the future of our city, in order to address the huge inequality in our economy and to ensure that we get the investment right. Tragically, whereas 36,000 jobs are being created at Curzon Street and 37,000 jobs at Crewe, York Central will have just 6,500 jobs. That is only two and half times the number of houses being built; in Birmingham, nine times as many jobs are being created than there are houses being built. That says to me that we need to understand how we can use such sites for economic growth, and that we need consistency.
What is not happening? Housing is not talking to the economy, to transport or to the environment, and it is certainly not talking to our communities. That is what matters to take us forward, which is what I want to do. People in my city are being priced out of it, which is skewing the local economy. We cannot get the care workers we need and people to work in our hospitality sector and tourism, which is a major economic driver, so we have a negative cycle. Unfortunately, building luxury apartments, which clearly provide a quick receipt from public land sales, pushes up the rest of the market and drives people further away from our city, meaning that people cannot have the amenities and services that they need. We are moving into the wrong spaces, and it just does not work. It is a broken system, which is why I am looking for reparation, so that we actually use such sites to drive economic opportunity.
Given its connections to the east coast mainline, the trans-Pennine route, Northern Powerhouse Rail and High Speed 2, we are told that York will be one of the best-connected sites in the country, and we need to take advantage of that. On housing, we need to ensure that we have a real match between the need in a local community and what is built. We are seeing luxury apartments that no one can afford, when we have a real housing crisis. We need to get the balance right. There is a requirement for 80% of developments to be family homes, yet they are not being built. Instead, we will see luxury homes, which will be moved on for holiday lets and Airbnb. Our city really does not want more Airbnb.
On transport, we need to ensure that the site in the middle of York is sustainable, yet 2,697 new car parking spaces are being placed in the heart of the city, which is sucking in traffic, making our air quality worse and jamming up our city. We cannot have that. All the people on the strategic board are not from York, and they do not understand our community. We need community voices right at the heart of planning decisions, to ensure that they can talk about their aspirations and their future. That is what levelling up has to be about, and that is what the planning Bill has to be about. I trust that this is what the Minister will enable to happen in the future.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing this debate. He has already highlighted many of the points that I intend to raise. Like him, I am keen to work with the Minister to ensure that we have a solution that works for local communities.
Planning is broken in North Devon. We can illustrate why we need reform quite dramatically. We have a local plan, yet our local community does not believe in it; our local council votes against developments in the local plan, even though it is on brownfield sites. We have exceeded the number of houses that are built in the community, yet we have nowhere for local people to live. For over four years we have built more than we required, yet we still do not have places local people can live in. We have a conservation office and a planning department from which most developments take up to a decade to emerge.
We have always been a community that welcomes tourists and second home owners, but unfortunately that dynamic is now slightly tilted in the wrong direction. New builds are snapped up as second homes or holiday lets, sometimes by locals because they can make so much money. Why would they rent out a property for a few hundred pounds a month when you can make several thousand a week up here in North Devon?
Post pandemic, North Devon is one of the top 10 places in the country to move to, and I agree that it is a fantastic place to live. However, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, we need people to move here, to get jobs, to stay here and to build communities here with their families. Building homes is not about houses; it is about communities. It is not about a winter ghost town. Croyde, which boasts one of the best surf beaches in the country, is currently 64% second home-owned. During the pandemic, in the village where I live—where I am speaking from this afternoon—mine was one of just six houses out of the 30 in my close that was occupied. We also have derelict homes, as well as second homes and Airbnbs.
We really need the council to have more teeth to stop new developments going to more second homes or additional Airbnbs and put in place covenants to ensure that local communities can build more family homes here in North Devon. We need them to be affordable so people can live here. Developing in North Devon is difficult; we are remote, we are rural, we do not have a big work force and it is hard to transport materials here. Overlay that with the time it takes to get things out of planning, and actually it is quite a hostile environment for developers. That is not to mention the opposition from many locals, who see that we do not need additional homes; we need the ones we have here already to be available to local people. We have developers facing death threats here in North Devon. We really do need some interventions to enable communities to reform.
The market is broken. In the village where I am this afternoon, a two-bedroom apartment in need of renovation is currently on the market at £750,000—with a communal garden. Something is not working here in North Devon. The final point I will make is that we need to find a way to ensure that councils can raise revenue when people wish to convert a property into a holiday let, and that there are more protections in the market. The private rental sector is now non-existent here; we need to find a way to ensure that there are more privately rented properties, as well as homes that are affordable for local families to buy. There is no point in coming on holiday to North Devon if we have nobody working in our bars and restaurants and nobody able to service visitors when they get here. Communities should not be full of empty houses for half of the year, they should be full of family homes.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mrs Cummins, to serve with you in the chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this debate. I agree with his opening comments on the broken housing system and the stranglehold of the volume house buildings.
It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby). It was east Devon where Labour secured a memorable by-election win last week. I congratulate councillor Jake Bonetta and the Labour team. It is, perhaps, wins such as these that are sending a shudder through the Government at the moment. Perhaps this is why the Prime Minister today ignored the unveiling of the hugely important national food strategy, in favour of trying to reassure Conservative MPs in the south that planning changes are not the political dynamite they fear. However, he has a job on, because if the mantra is “build, build, build”, and one characterises those who care about our countryside as newt counters, then one can hardly be surprised when they turn away to people who take a more considered view. It is not only in Devon: many newspaper columns have been written about the battle going on in Horsham, where the legendary Knepp estate fears that Horsham District Council will approve thousands of homes, while the council says that central Government have put it in this position.
We all agree that there is a problem with the current system, but many of us are deeply suspicious of the suggestions put forward in the planning White Paper last year, not least when one sees the level of donations made by developers to the Conservative party. According to The Times, the developer behind the plan at Knepp, Thakeham, has donated more than £600,000 to the Conservatives since 2017. “Build, build, build”—it is not hard to see why. Be in no doubt that I want people housed, I want affordable homes, I want council homes and I want homes of high environmental quality, none of which has been achieved by this Government.
There is much more to be said about planning and housing than can be said in three minutes, but I will highlight one glaring contradiction in Government policy that remains unresolved. I have challenged Ministers on this repeatedly and will try again today. In the Government’s much-delayed but initially worthy Environment Act 2020, there are good proposals to secure biodiversity net gain. They may not be as ambitious as some of us would like, and we have raised some practical concerns, but the principle is right and we support it. However, no one on the Government side has been able to explain how to get biodiversity net gain in a zonal planning system. When challenged, they evade the question. I do not blame them, because there is no obvious answer.
That is not me saying that; it is the planning experts. I refer to an excellent piece in The Planner last summer by Huw Morris, who asked how individual schemes will be environmentally assessed to provide the mitigation. They will not, will they, Minister? That is one reason why Conservative MPs are right to be worried. People in England want homes, and homes for their children, but they want our precious land protected too. I just say: beware the Prime Minister’s bulldozer—it is out of control and it is coming for some green space near you.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this important debate.
Before I consider the future planning system, perhaps hon. Members will allow me a minute or two of nostalgia. When I was first elected as a councillor to Great Grimsby Borough Council in 1980, just about every planning application went before the planning sub-committee, which met every two weeks and decided whether plans—large or small; a conservatory or a large-scale industrial development—should go ahead or be refused. During the intervening years, more and more decisions have been delegated to planning officers. One thing that people expect from those they elect to represent them is that they actually participate in those decisions and have a vote. Democracy has suffered and voters feel more and more that those they elect to use their judgment have been sidelined, and confidence in the system has waned. There is no going back to what may or may not have been the halcyon days of the Grimsby planning sub-committee, but what of the future? Communities feel that they need to be involved, but they recognise that their influence is limited. If they feel that the proposals that may come forward will further limit that influence, they will be apprehensive and oppose those changes. This is a massive challenge.
Thanks to the Government’s levelling-up agenda, areas such as mine are becoming more and more attractive to businesses. New jobs are created regularly; we have record funding through the Greater Grimsby town deal, tipping over the £100 million mark since the last election; we have gained freeport status for the Humber ports; and the Budget this year announced tens of millions of pounds for a new marine energy park. The end result will be more highly skilled, well-paid, sustainable jobs, which will create greater investment in the area, improving living conditions and requiring more housing.
Like previous Governments, this one is faced with the demand for more housing and the resistance of local people to excessive development. I use the word “excessive” deliberately, as on the whole most people recognise the need for more housing. I also appreciate that, in rural communities, limited growth is required to support local services and facilities such as schools, post offices, pubs and churches. However, they also know that excessive development will overload local services, such as GP practices. It was good to hear the Prime Minister acknowledge that in his speech this morning.
I will give a current example from my constituency of how essential community involvement is to the whole process. North Lincolnshire Council has applied for levelling-up funding to deliver one of the council’s main projects—the western relief road, which is crucial to the continued expansion of the local economy. That road was included in the council’s local plan, but that local plan is unknown to most people: the whole process is a mystery, and they have more important things to do, getting on with their lives. Only last Saturday, I visited two constituents whose property could be severely affected by the road. I spent an hour with them, explaining the local plan and how it had been advertised and they would have been able to submit objections, but of course, like most people, it had passed them by.
I could take the Minister to the village of Wootton in my constituency, where he will see that every other house has an estate agent-style board in its front garden, objecting to another local application. If we are to involve communities, they must be part of the local plan process. Of course, we have to recognise the need for more housing, particularly for our younger people, but on balance I must urge the Government towards caution on this issue. They have the best intentions, and I will gladly work with them to achieve their aims, but caution is the watchword.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair for this important debate, Mrs Cummins, and I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing it. As other hon. Members present will know, planning is an issue that really impacts our local communities and attracts a great deal of attention when contentious applications are made. However, the Government’s proposals limit accountability and local input in the planning system. The proposed changes will lead to local people no longer having the ability to formally object to inappropriate developments in their own street or neighbourhood, with participation limited to consultation on the area’s local plan every few years. They would remove the public’s right to comment on those individual applications, cutting opportunities for public engagement by half. That does not seem fair.
I will give the example of Ryton ward in my constituency, where we have a local plan for Gateshead, and where there is a very contentious housing development. It has been through the local plan, with land allocated for housing, so that was one leg of the argument gone at the application stage, but there is lots of detailed engagement on very specific proposals and conditions. I know, for example, that the people of Stargate—a small mining village—who are most affected, are seeing huge changes. Those changes are not to their direct benefit, but are having a huge impact on their lives. We need to ensure that people have the right to participate in those local decisions, not just at the principle level but at the detailed level, when something happening next door affects an individual’s life.
With nine in 10 planning applications approved by councils and—according to the Local Government Association—more than 1 million homes given planning permission but not yet built, it is clear that it is the housing delivery system that is broken, not the planning system. Raising the number of homes required without incentivising or compelling developers to actually build them will not lead to the provision of more homes, which brings me to an important point: a number of parties have identified that we really need to be funding our planning system effectively, so that the planners can deal with the applications. They are being held back by a lack of staff on some occasions, and I believe the Royal Town Planning Institute has made that very point and believes that zoning is not the answer.
I want to speak specifically—the Minister would be surprised if I did not—about accessible housing, and the need for planning reform to promote accessibility. We must do much more to ensure that older and disabled people can live in homes suitable for their needs: that is essential for people’s independence and quality of life. Over the past year and more we have all spent a lot more time at home, especially vulnerable people, both older people and those with disabilities. However, sadly, new Government data published just last week—on 8 July—as part of the English housing survey revealed that a growing proportion of older and disabled people are forced to live in homes unsuitable for their needs. The Government launched a consultation on accessible homes almost a year ago, in September 2020, but we are yet to hear the outcome.
I will touch very briefly on the environment and the climate emergency. The planning system has a central, vital role in both addressing climate change and facilitating nature’s recovery, but the Government’s proposed changes do not properly address the needs of the natural environment. I fully support the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in calling for the Government to strengthen protection for sites already designated for nature, giving local nature recovery strategies material weight in the planning system and ensuring robust and fit for purpose environmental regulations.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
It is a huge privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, and I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for raising some massively important issues for all our constituents. I am speaking from just outside the Lake District in Westmorland, where we have always had a huge problem of excessive second home ownership and, indeed, the pressure that too many holiday lets can put on a local community. However, over the past 12 months that problem has become catastrophic.
We have been deeply concerned that Governments over the years have failed to acknowledge this problem, but surely now it is unmissable. To give an idea of the problem, over the past 12 months, estate agents I have spoken to say that up to 80% of all house sales have been into the second-home market. There are communities in my constituency where 90% of the homes are not lived in. We do not need to think too hard to work out what the consequences of even 30% of a community not being lived in all year round will be: they lose the local school because nobody is going to that school from the homes within that community, and they lose the local bus service, pub, post office and all the other facilities as well. These beautiful places can become ghost towns, but the problem has got so much worse in these last 12 months.
We have also seen the massive growth in the number of holiday lets. Here in the south lakes, we have one of the highest proportions of holiday lets anywhere in the country. That huge number has gone up by 32% in a year. As hon. Members have said, that has come about due to a variety of different sources, but in particular the Airbnb market.
Anecdotally, what does that mean? Constituents that I have spoken to in Ambleside, Kirkby Lonsdale, Grange-over-Sands and other places who had a private rented property costing maybe £600 to £700 a month find they are being kicked out, now that the evictions ban has ended, and they discover that the property is on the market for £1,000 a week on Airbnb. That is outrageous, and it is something that Government have the power to do something about through planning reforms that would actually make a difference.
What I am asking the Government to do—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight alluded to this earlier and I completely agree with him—is to change planning law. The Government should change planning law so that holiday lets and second homes are separate categories of planning use, and they should give the Lake District national park, the Yorkshire Dales national park, South Lakeland District Council and all planning authorities the power and the resource to police that, so that the leakage of those homes out of the family home market is prevented.
It seems outrageous that these beautiful places that we are so proud of, in our rural parts of the United Kingdom, can end up bleeding local talent and families and becoming places where only the wealthy can stay or visit. We wanted these radical interventions to happen years ago, but surely now these extreme circumstances mean that extreme and radical action is necessary. I add that the Government could copy what the Welsh Government have done—give local authorities the power to increase council tax on second homes to well above 100% and up to 200%, and use that revenue first to dissuade people from having second homes in certain areas, but also to invest in the schools, post offices and bus services that would otherwise close, so that we do not, by letting the market let rip, see communities like mine in Cumbria die through the lack of intervention.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this important debate. Generally speaking, I find the proposals outlined in the White Paper to be positive, but there is much to be done to refine our approach to make it a solid foundation for a 21st-century planning system.
First, as a local councillor for 15 years, I want to emphasise the importance of engaging local communities to get it right from the very start of any planning system. Of course there is a practical side, in terms of context, utilities and amenities, as well as the need to protect well-loved conservation areas, particularly in a constituency like mine.
In my personal experience as a councillor, local people are not nimbys, but want and deserve quality homes that are appropriate to where they live. I know from speaking to constituents in the Cities of London and Westminster that the vast majority of people who live there are keen for their children and grandchildren to be able to remain in the area, but sadly, at the moment that is not always the case. I recognise that the Government are paving the way on bricks and mortar, but there is still a long way to go to reach the Government target of 300,000 homes a year.
It is not just about the numbers. My constituents want homes that they can grow up in and remain in when they have families. We want our children to know a range of people from all walks of life. In the Cities of London and Westminster there is a perception that the housing market is polarised between the multimillion-pound properties for oligarchs and very wealthy people, and council-run estates and housing association homes. What we need, and what local people want, is affordable and appropriate homes in the middle ground that keep neighbourhoods as thriving, friendly communities.
I urge the Minister to ensure not only that local residents are sufficiently consulted, but that there is a concerted effort to increase local democracy when it comes to the final planning reforms, which we will see when the legislation comes forward. On a practical level, one way of doing so is to address the issues of change in use class between residential and different types of commercial activity. There have been recent changes in planning legislation that are already having a major effect on constituencies like mine and not giving local authorities the flexibility that they need. For example, the introduction of the commercial, business and service use of class E, as well as permitted development rights, makes it now significantly more difficult for local authorities to influence the way in which areas develop.
These changes have also removed the funding that used to be provided through section 106 and the strategic industrial locations process. If every commercial use is considered to be the same use class, then any change of use requires little or no approval and provides no funding, even for the infrastructure that is so badly needed to make all of this work.
The same goes for the permitted development rights process. We have an increasing number of class E premises that are changing from shops to restaurants, without any requirement for planning permission to manage issues such as servicing and hours of use. That means that licensing has to take up the slack. Planning is pushing the problem over to local authority licensing committees, and that is not on. It is important that the planning process should listen to residents. It should take into account their views and the appropriateness of changes in residential and commercial uses for communities and local authorities.
A second way to bolster local democracy, which the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government should consider, is improvements to the appeals process for planning applications. That is much in the spirit of the Prime Minister’s stated ambition to give constituents
“a greater say over what gets built”
in their community, but allow me to quote the Covent Garden Community Association, which wrote that we need
“to rebalance the appeals process in the current planning system. The fact that applicants can appeal to the Planning Inspector but local communities can only appeal to the High Court sets up an imbalance of risk”.
There is much to welcome in the planning reforms, but local democracy still needs to be at their very heart.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate and thank him for his valued contribution to the all-party parliamentary group for council housing, which I have the privilege to chair.
We could do much to address the considerable inequality in our society by tackling the housing crisis. Many of us across the House understand that housing is vital to enabling a decent quality of life. In turn, we appreciate that it hinges on a planning system that is fair. I take that fairness to comprise wide-scale access to affordable housing, strong local democratic controls on housing developers and the prioritisation of local communities. Sadly, that is distinctly absent from the Government’s proposed reforms to the planning system.
Although I accept that there is a severe need for housing in this country, a planning system that does not take into account those markers of fairness will do nothing for local people up and down the country, including those in my constituency. The issue is about what housing is required and where. I have more faith in the old system, which had greater powers for authorities and local development corporations, but the Localism Act 2011 greatly denuded the powers of local authorities and, in particular, muzzled the voices of our communities.
Let me give one example that is going through the system and relates to Warwick District Council’s local plan, which runs to 2029. The application for what is labelled the East Whitnash housing development is currently being considered by the planning inspector. The proposed housing development has no regard for local traffic issues or the wishes of residents. It is far from being a sustainable development; it has everything to do with over-development. Our local plan estimates that 20,000 new homes will be delivered, representing an over-development of 3,500 dwellings.
Forgive me, but the common theme throughout the debate has been over-development coupled with overestimation. The challenge has been great enough under the existing planning legislation, which already stifles local voices. The Government’s plans to stop local opponents blocking developments in designated growth zones mean that the concerns raised by the local community in Whitnash and elsewhere will hold no sway—so much for local accountability.
More specifically, I am deeply concerned by the advent of a new planning system in which affordable housing will be increasingly out of reach. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) stated, there is real unaffordability in many areas across the country. With an increasing amount of power centralised in the hands of housing developers, I struggle to see how the Government’s proposals will turn the tide of the declining number of affordable houses.
I suggest some improvements to the Bill: keep prioritising local government so that local officials will not be stripped of their power to assess building applications; establish regional development corporations led by local authorities, as well as community-led proposals; on community-led housing, ensure that senior Government figures actually take on board that, as we have heard, most communities welcome housing provided that it is truly affordable for young people; and prioritise local, affordable homes—for too many areas, the cost of housing as a ratio of local incomes is way too high. We must also ensure that there are enhanced powers for local authorities. We need to proscribe land banking and provide greater powers to local authorities to buy sites at existing land prices. All too often, developers control land, making millions on land options, while landowners ride off into the sunset, pocketing tens of millions of pounds.
The planning Bill needs to ensure that we build communities, not houses. All too often, there are no shops, pubs or community centres, as has been demonstrated south of Warwick and Leamington. Infrastructure needs to be built in advance, and all that is possible. I urge the Government to listen to us and the public, and to stop listening to the developer-donors who are destroying our countryside, denying communities the right housing and leaving generations impoverished as a result.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins, as I join the debate from here in West Sussex. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate.
I welcome that, as much as some may try to make it so, this is not a party political matter. We know that the Lib Dems’ housing policy is for an identical 300,000 homes, while the Green party plans 500,000 homes a year—that is before factoring in the extra building from their open-door policy on settlement.
The Minister is well aware of my opposition to the large-scale and inappropriate development proposals on greenfield land across my constituency, in Adversane, Ashington, Buck Barn, Barnham, Eastergate, Mayfield, Kirdford, Rustington, Westergate and Wisborough Green.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the 556 local residents who, over just the last few weeks, have signed a petition against a development on Rock Road in Storrington. The development is opposed by the parish, the district council and, of course, by me, the Member of Parliament. As a site, it is a spectacular example of the wrong homes in the wrong places. It would put unsustainable strain on infrastructure, such as medical services, GPs, schools and transport. None of that is a surprise, given the very rural setting of Heath Common. The developer Clarion Homes masquerades as a provider of social housing, but so far it appears to be anything but.
Today is about how we move forward. I offer the Minister a five-point plan out of this crisis—one that will give the nation the homes it needs, while protecting the environment we love. First, we need to level up. The economic activity of development has to be spread more evenly across the whole United Kingdom. I know algorithms are not his Department’s strong point, so let me use some basic percentages. Before the second world war, only a fifth of the population lived in the south of England outside of London, while twice as many lived in the north and Scotland. Now, equal numbers live in both.
By piling on even more growth in the south-east, the algorithm is locking the north and midlands into permanent economic disadvantage. That was something the Prime Minister talked about earlier today. He said,
“By turbocharging those areas, especially in London and south-east, you drive prices even higher and you force more and more people to move to the same expensive area. The result is that their commutes are longer, their trains are more crowded, they have less time with their kids.”
I agree.
Secondly, we need to turn consents into homes. We need a time-based levy between consent and completion with real bite to deliver those 1 million new homes before we have to give planning permission on a single extra green field. Third, we need a truly muscular approach to brownfield first—actions, not words, and a real distinction in the planning system to tilt the playing field brownfield. Fourth, we need to go up, not out. As the Minister knows, we have some of the lowest density urban areas in Europe, yet the London Mayor clearly suffers from acrophobia. The construction rates of tall buildings under his tenure have more than halved. He is a mouse, not an eagle. The failure of leadership is so significant that I am afraid the moment is coming when the London Mayor will need to be stripped of any say on planning.
Fifth, we need a tax system that helps, not hinders, the problem—a stamp duty break for downsizers, which will help free up the market. There is much to commend in the planning White Paper, but there is very much more to fix in today’s planning system. On behalf of all my concerned constituents in Arundel and South Downs, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply—not just today, but as he thinks about bringing forward a planning Bill in the autumn.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this important debate.
After 10 years of devastating austerity, the infrastructure and housing of communities up and down the country are in a perilous state. I am concerned that the Government’s planning Bill prioritises wealthy landlords and developers over working people. The Government’s plan for a new developers’ charter will remove powers from elected local representatives, thus silencing the voices of local people and communities and tipping the balance of power further in favour of profit-seeking developers.
The Government’s plan to scrap section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy, which currently results in 49% of all affordable homes, will sell our communities short. In 2018-19, 10 times as many social homes were delivered through section 106 agreements, compared to homes delivered with grants from Homes England. We must improve section 106 to make it more transparent, consistent and certain, and to get a larger share for social housing. Scrapping it altogether risks abandoning one of the chief drivers of affordable living, community empowerment and engagement. Rather than making it harder to build homes that are fit for the many, the Government must rapidly increase the construction of council housing, family homes and genuinely affordable properties to urgently address the housing crisis.
There are insufficient sustainability measures in the proposals; this was an opportunity to focus on sustainability, but the proposals fall way short of that. There is no mention of climate or the ecological emergency—not one—and there is nothing to support biodiversity.
The Government’s plans refer to good design and appearance, but they fail to address the need to make homes safe after the Grenfell Tower fire, with a properly funded fire safety fund and a legal requirement to enforce the replacement of dangerous Grenfell-style cladding on all high-rise and high-risk homes.
There is nothing in the planning reforms agenda to protect renters. Renters must be supported with new indefinite tenancies, an extended eviction ban, rent controls and strong enforcement of decent property standards.
The eradication of rough sleeping and homelessness must also be enshrined at the heart of the Government’s planning system. Rough sleeping in England increased by 141% between 2010 and 2019, while deaths of rough sleepers more than doubled in the most recent five-year period.
The Government must realise that they do not exist only to govern in the interests of landlords and property developers, but to ensure that everyone in the country is able to access secure, affordable and decent homes.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing this debate.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I will start on a more positive note—I welcome the reforms in the planning system, particularly those for more local engagement with communities. Only 1% to 3% of the public engage with the current system. It had to change; something had to give. I will now explain why it had to change.
We face a monolithic urban extension of 6,000 dwellings on green belt in the west midlands—the plan started in 2012 and was adopted in 2017. In total, 6,000 comments were made, but not one single comment was listened to, and they were all constructive comments. Residents have been left with a plan that fails to address the real housing need and a plan widely known for the political opportunism of Birmingham City Council. The last remaining green lungs will be ripped out of the city.
The relevance of my mentioning this controversial development today is that it has been delayed and downsized —if only the city council had listened to those 6,000 comments. It really is shocking. It is now anticipated that only 2,000 dwellings will be delivered by 2031, which is the end of the plan, and I suspect that, in fact, the number will end up being only 1,000. Some 6,000 residents said this site was not suitable; 6,000 voices were not listened to. But those voices were right. This was, unfortunately, a lamentable failure of planning. We need planning reform to ensure that it never happens again, so I welcome the reforms on consultation.
My own metropolitan borough council is about to start consultation on the Black Country plan. I hope that it listens to the voices of residents and the comments they make, and I also hope that residents come forward and have their say. After all, this process is about them and their future homes; it is about young adults and their futures. Local authorities seem to forget this, but I am sure my local authority will be listening.
Finally, we must stop building monolithic estates that do not reflect the land they take up. I am passionate about this, as are my constituents. We need to rewrite how we build, and move away from urban sprawl, sprawling concrete suburbs and crammed cities. We must build better; local authorities must plan better. We need renewed vigour in how we build our villages and towns of the future. For many years, urbanism has been turbo-charged with a mandate for place-making on the edge of our cities. We must let the environment be the turbo-charge for future place-making and build homes for the future that are truly environmentally led and that reflect both the surrounding community and the land that is actually used. Communities must be a huge part of that process.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure, Mrs Cummins, to serve under your chairmanship, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing such an important debate.
In the short amount of time available to me, I will talk about two issues: first, the green belt; and, secondly, the standard method for calculating housing need. I will speak in support of the Government position, in many ways. I think the Government are being unfairly blamed by many local authorities who use the blame game to get away from their individual responsibility to set housing need in their own areas. My constituency in Bury North is very different from those of other hon. Members. We have different needs and priorities. We are not an area with many second homes. The best place for decision making lies in a localised planning system that responds to local needs. Our local politicians have to step up to the mark to decide what housing is required, where it should be built, and the type of housing that we need. That is why we elect local politicians.
In the planning White Paper, three categories of land type are identified: growth areas, renewal areas and protected areas. Green belt is part of a protected area. “Planning for the Future” states that the standard method will determine housing requirement, but the green belt will be a constraint on that. In discussing the standard method, the White Paper goes on to say,
“The standard method would make it the responsibility of individual authorities to allocate land suitable for housing to meet the requirement”.
However, the existing policy on green belt will remain in place.
That is taken even further in the Government’s response to the consultation on local housing need proposals, which was updated on 1 April this year, and which makes it clear that
“meeting housing need is never a reason to cause unacceptable harm”
to the green belt. I think all hon. Members would agree with that. It is further made clear that the standard method—the use of 2014 figures—
“does not present a ‘target’ in plan-making, but instead provides a starting point for determining the level of need for the area, and it is only after consideration of this, alongside…constraints…such as the Green Belt, and the land that is actually available for development, that the decision on how many homes should be planned for is made.”
So the position is crystal clear. It is for local authorities to determine precisely how many homes to plan for and where those homes are most appropriately located, taking into account the local circumstances and constraints.
Too often we see local authorities, as I said at the start of my speech, avoiding responsibility. In Bury we have not had a local plan since 1997. Not one elected ruling body at Bury Council has been able to come up with a thoughtful, ambitious plan for jobs, growth or infrastructure for the housing that we need—we need affordable housing—and that is an indictment of local democracy rather than an indictment of the Government, who are handing the decisions for building, the green belt, and how a local area wishes to view itself to local councils and officers who are actually employed to do that.
The standard method is from 2014. There is an argument that the figures are out of date, and I would prefer the 2018 Office for National Statistics figures to be used. We cannot ignore the fact that the Government are giving each local authority in this country the legal tools to protect the green belt and to ensure that the housing that is required for our areas meets local need. If local authorities are incapable of meeting that responsibility, that is not the Government’s fault.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins.
Far from tackling the housing crisis, the Government’s planning reforms will end up delivering fewer homes, and more of the homes that very few people can afford. The reforms mean less local decision making, and they are less strategic and less democratic. We Liberal Democrats believe in community empowerment. It is incomprehensible that the Government propose to remove local input into development applications. My constituents and their local representatives understand the needs of our community far better than Ministers in Whitehall or developers whose main interest is to make a profit.
My Bath constituency is a UNESCO world heritage site. A key part of that listing is not just the architecture of our buildings but the beautiful natural setting that reaches right into the city with its steep, undulating hills. How can a centralised housing algorithm ever reflect the local context of Bath?
Local authorities approve about nine in 10 planning applications. There are more than 1 million homes with planning permission in England that have not been built. The real reason for delay in housing delivery is land banking by housing developers, who make a significant proportion of their profit when land is allocated and then all too often wait for an increase in land value.
The Government’s proposals for a zoning system will in one stroke allow a great deal of land to be released for development without any obvious mechanism to ensure that increases in land values benefit the local community. How will that help us reach our house building targets, and how will it ensure that we build 100,000 much-needed homes for social rent each year? The private sector has completely failed to build the homes for social rent that we need. We need a Government committed to the building of council housing, as progressive Governments did in the past. Only that will address a housing crisis that has created deeper and deeper inequalities. If the Government were truly committed to levelling up, they would start by building social homes, and they would make that a public sector infrastructure programme, instead of building more roads or expanding airports.
However, any review of our planning system should go beyond the delivery of housing alone. Planning authorities play a huge role in creating places for their communities, from connectivity and accessibility to local infrastructure and affordability. The Government should concentrate on such measures, for instance adopting the 20-minute neighbourhood concept or updating guidance to create active neighbourhoods that prioritise walking, cycling and public transport. Domestic heating accounts for about 14% of our emissions—the Minister is not listening—so we must have a proper plan to decarbonise heating. The future homes standard is still not fit for purpose. It is a system for building regulation, not for place making, and it goes nowhere near the challenges of addressing sustainable location and layout. Will the Government commit to binding the Planning Act 2008 and the Climate Change Act 2008 together?
Instead of undermining local authorities and local communities, the Government should direct their energy towards building greener, more resilient, more sustainable homes. Communities must have the right to shape places for themselves. That right must be protected.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)[V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this important debate and on his work with colleagues to make positive suggestions, as he outlined at the start. I thank the Minister for the efforts he has made to listen to colleagues. I welcome the proposals to make changes to the planning system, with the emphasis on a national building design code and locally produced building guidelines. I also support the Government in making building rules clearer and getting local and neighbourhood plans in place everywhere. I understand and support the drive to get more people on to the housing ladder, but we need to do it in the right way. I will make three main points.
First, people tell me time and again that they are not opposed to development but they want the public services and infrastructure to match. For all the new developments we have had in Crewe and Nantwich, how many new GPs and hospital doctors do we have? How many traffic congestion points have been tackled or new roads built? The population rapidly increases, but the services do not increase as quickly to match, if they ever do at all. There is not enough in the White Paper to address that. Simplifying the system may help, but it will not magically recruit new GPs overnight. Secondly, it is crucial that we encourage developers to build on land they already have permission to develop, rather than land banking to maximise prices in what is essentially a broken market. The Government need to focus on the 1 million homes that have been granted permission but have not been built. I put on the record again my desire for the Minister to introduce measures to tackle this. Thirdly, I emphasise the importance of local knowledge and input into planning decisions. I worry that the changes being made may limit the input that councillors and residents have into individual planning decisions. I do not see how loading all the decision making up front and taking away input into individual decisions will secure community support.
We all know that, too often, residents and even local authorities end up locked in legal battles with developers that want to go ahead with something and are often equipped with deep pockets and big legal teams to match. I can see it now: the full weight of their resources will be piled into securing the most aggressive developer-biased decisions on zoning, which will not be in the best interests of our communities. Well-developed neighbourhood plans, and the individual decisions within them, should remain the bedrock of how we approach this issue. I understand the importance of continuing to build more homes, but we need to do it in the right way and in the right places so that it does not negatively impact on our local communities.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Cummins, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), both on securing this debate and on the many constructive and positive suggestions he made about how the planning system could be reformed, in contrast to the way it is going to be done by this Government. Like many of the Members who have spoken today, I am extremely concerned that the Government are intent on replacing with a developers’ charter a planning system that, although not perfect, has served this country well. In fact, the process of reform is well underway; regular additions to the permitted development rights, making it easier to change use without scrutiny, have been going on for most of the past 10 years.
The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) described an example of what she sees as a failure in what is effectively developer-led planning under the current system. This trend has been going on for much of the past 10 years, and unfortunately, the Government seem to want to complete that process. They seek to silence residents and stifle the voice of communities up and down the country, as many Members have said today. Under the proposed plan for growth and renewal zones, residents, local community groups, civic groups and parish councils will lose their right to object to new planning developments. The power of local people’s involvement has been so well described by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), as well as by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken)—I should declare an interest in her speech, as my first proper job was with the Covent Garden Community Association. The very people who know their local area—who know what their neighbourhood, village or town needs, and what needs to be protected—will be silenced. We are not saying that people should have a veto, but that they should have a voice.
What can they do once they have been gagged? Well, they could try writing to and meeting their local elected councillors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) said, applications are very often approved by councils—nine out of 10 applications are approved—but the Government have already started to gag local councils as well through the changes to permitted development rights, and will do so further. Democratically elected councillors who understand their communities and the complex and, yes, hard decisions behind planning applications will be denied the chance to stand up and fight for their residents in the way that they have been doing for many years, both with planning applications and through the local plan process, as the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) described.
People and their representatives are being sold down the river to enable a new developers’ charter. In his response to the Opposition day debate last month, the Secretary of State said that the Opposition wanted to “do absolutely nothing”. That could not be further from the truth: just yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) presented a ten-minute rule Bill to the House—the Planning and Local Representation Bill—that would guarantee the right of local residents to have a say over new developments in their community. It tackles the long-running issue of land banking and addresses the blight of permitted development reforms so that local councils can at least set local design standards on permitted development changes and avoid the cramped, poorly lit, rabbit-hutch housing that we have seen spring up. The Government’s own advisor labelled this process as building
“the slums of the future”,
which is why my hon. Friend’s Bill sought to address it.
The ongoing and proposed planning reforms also make it harder to tackle the challenges facing society now and in the future, whether that is the climate crisis, sustainability—as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe)—or the future of high streets. Surely with the challenges we face, Government should want to work together with local authorities, civic groups, and many other highly skilled groups in the community, locally and nationally, to address those challenges in the planning system. That system grew out of a need over 100 years ago to address public health concerns in the expanding industrial towns and cities, and the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was introduced to ensure that public good was at the centre of all development. No one would argue that the planning system is perfect, or that it needs to remain frozen in stone. There are many things that can and do improve the system, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, and would enable the high-quality, truly affordable homes that we need to be built, but the Government reforms are wrong and they are the wrong answer to the question of how we build more homes.
I will pause to describe what colleagues have told me about some new housing developments in their patches: housing estates with no other facilities that are a car drive away from buying a pint of milk or taking the children to school; estates with roads with no pavements and massive traffic congestion in the area, no broadband and inadequate water, sewerage and even electricity. What is going to happen when the target number of people in this country own electric vehicles and need to charge them overnight? Will our electricity system be able to cope?
It is not the planning system that is preventing 1.1 million homes that already have planning permission from being built, so why not address that challenge? We know that local councils up and down the country are already taking bold steps to tackle the affordability crisis in housing. My local authority is doing that with new council homes that are built with air source heat pumps and good insulation.
My hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the need for planning to deliver affordable housing, but also jobs, transport and schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon talked about accessible housing and housing for people in our communities with different needs.
The hon. Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned the need to ensure that the new homes built are not just flats or houses but affordable homes for local people who are not crowded out by the holiday business. Let the planning process decide that determination, not the free-for-all that the market provides.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) talked about the loss of basic rural services such as buses and post offices, which need to be protected and enhanced. The hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) reminded us of the importance of the green belt and the need to protect that.
We need not just bricks and mortar but homes, including affordable homes. We need not just housing estates but communities. The planning system is there to address that and it needs to be protected and enhanced, not decimated, to address not just the numbers game on houses but the climate crisis, the north-south imbalance in this country, traffic congestion and much more.
In fact, the Minister appears to have united many of his Back Benchers against the Government plans and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said, many voters in a growing number of areas are punishing the Government for this very programme, as described in the White Paper. Surely the Government should listen to the universal condemnation of their proposed planning reforms, drop their developer’s charter and listen to the constructive voices about what needs to be done, not only about planning or in the Minister’s Department.
This cannot be done in isolation. We need to consider development in the context of other issues such as transport, including providing pavements to new stations; the local economy and jobs; affordable housing of decent quality and designed for the different needs of different people; climate change and biodiversity; community services, including schools, doctors, parks and post offices; and basic infrastructure, as I have mentioned, including power, sewerage, broadband and so on. We need to positively change the planning system, not rip it apart.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate. He is a doughty campaigner for his constituents in the Isle of Wight, and I know that he thinks deeply and for a considerable length of time on these important, and sometimes intricate, planning matters.
I am very happy to look at the proposals that he has written to us about, because we all agree that we want to get our planning reforms right. We also all agree, including representatives from Shelter and KPMG, that we need more homes in our country. Both organisations will say that we need to build north of 250,000 new homes a year in our country to address our housing challenges. However, the present planning system, with all the plans calculated as a total, represents less than 180,000 new homes planned each year, so we do need to build more homes in the right places, and of the right quality, to serve our constituents. That is why we launched two consultations last year; that is sometimes, I think, forgotten. We launched the consultation on planning reform, because yes, we do want there to be more homes, but we also want a planning system that is more transparent, more predictable, easier to navigate and more speedy and that delivers good-quality, well designed homes. That is what we intend to achieve through our planning White Paper and the reforms that we will introduce later this year, and also a White Paper on local housing need in order to ensure that local authorities are planning for 300,000 homes each year. But the LHN—local housing need—number is not binding and is not an end to the process; it is a beginning point from which local authorities can then identify constraints, if they have them, or opportunities, if they want them, to build fewer or more homes than their target local housing need. The green belt is one example that local authorities can use as a constraint on building.
What is important is that local authorities keep their local plans up to date, because if they do not, they expose their constituents—all our constituents—to speculative development from applications that come forward, which the Planning Inspectorate will give great weight to if the local authorities do not have a plan, and do not have control of their local housing supply. I have to tell you, Mrs Cummins, that the local authorities in York, Gateshead, South Lakeland, and Bath and North East Somerset have plans that are out of date. They need to get them “in date” in order to protect their constituents from speculative developments. I say gently to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) that it is little use lecturing me about planning; what she should be doing is encouraging her local authority to get its plan in place and protect her constituents from speculative development.
We are keen to build a planning system that works for the 21st century and that moves faster than the present glacial pace of planning. It takes local plans seven years in many cases—on average—to be instituted. It then takes five years for many planning applications to see a spade in the ground. It is taking far too long. The process needs to be speeded up. But crucially, it needs to engage more people. That is a point that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has mentioned and that my hon. Friends for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) have also raised as an issue. Right now, sometimes as little as 1% of the local population in a planning authority area gets engaged in plan making. That rises to a whopping 2% or 3% when it comes to individual applications. And as we have heard, nine out of 10 planning applications—90%—are passed anyway. That is not particularly empowering; it is not particularly engaging. We want to do better.
Christopher Pincher
I will give way in a moment to my hon. Friend, but I am conscious, if I may say so, that I have a lot of questions to answer that he and others have asked and he does get a second bite of the cherry later.
We do need to ensure that more people are engaged, and we believe that by digitising the planning process, by creating map-based plans of local areas, we can engage many more people in the planning process, and they can get more engaged up front, making real decisions about the sorts of buildings that they want in their local geographies—the densities and the designs—and about the infrastructure to support those homes. That is real power, given to people much earlier in the process, so that they can become much more engaged.
Christopher Pincher
I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment, but I will make a little more progress first.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight suggested that we are scrapping the planning system. We are not; we are proposing to reform it—and I will give him an example of what I mean by reform, rather than scrappage. These are our proposals. In areas that we have designated as growth sites, a local plan can set design and density standards, and describe the infrastructure expected from developers in those areas.
If the developers tick all the up-front boxes agreed in the plan and consulted on with local people, they will get their outline planning permission to begin their building process. They will still need to keep coming back to the local authority for consents, but they will get their outline planning permission. However, if they do not put forward an application that conforms with the local plan, they will have to put forward an application in the normal way under the present rules.
If developers bring forward an application in what we have described in the White Paper as the protected areas, they will have to bring it forward under the present system. The present system will remain, but we want an accelerated process to identify places where local authorities want to see development taking place, and to bring forward in those places designs and infrastructure requirements that the local communities want, need and have bought into.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is he open to considering a process of deliberative democracy around planning, which really involves engaging with all parts of the community to work through the very difficult challenges in planning and come up with solutions that work for everyone?
Christopher Pincher
I think that I am describing exactly that process. We want more people to be involved and we want them to have a say earlier on about specific matters that should concern them, including what areas may be sites for accelerated development in their areas and what the designs, the design codes and the infrastructure should be. I think that is deliberative democracy.
Bob Seely
I am not for one second trying to catch the Minister out, but at the beginning of the White Paper the Prime Minister said that he wanted to tear the system down and rebuild it. We are now evolving into a reform process rather than a scrapping process, as part of the very sensible evolution and listening process. Is that correct?
Christopher Pincher
As I said, we want to reform the system. If my hon. Friend listens to what I have said and to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, he will know that we are keen to make sure that we have a process that reforms our planning system, which is outdated and needs change. However, we are not proposing to scrap it, to use the term that he used.
Christopher Pincher
I will not give way, because I am conscious that I do not have long left—
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Please sit down. That is not a point of order.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful, Mrs Cummins, for that ruling. I am conscious that I probably have only about six minutes left in which to conclude my remarks, to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight time to sum up the debate.
A number of Members have raised the issue of infrastructure. We all know that when we build homes, those homes need the requisite infrastructure to support them: the GP clinics, the parks, the schools, the roads and the roundabouts. We want to make sure that we have a system that provides those things when they are needed and not way down the line. We do not believe that the present system—a mixture of section 106 agreements and community infrastructure levy payments—meets that requirement.
Indeed, 80% of local authorities tell us that section 106 does not work for them. It is loaded in favour of developers, especially the bigger guns, and often means that infrastructure comes late or not at all. If it does appear to be coming, it is often negotiated away in a manner that local authorities and local communities do not want. That is why we have proposed an infrastructure levy, which will provide up front the infrastructure that local communities want and need. We will make sure that, in doing so, we deliver just as much affordable housing as is delivered in the present system.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) made the very important point about the challenge that some rural communities face. I am open to considering ways in which we can help local people to remain living close to where they come from or where they work. One of the initiatives that we have announced is the first homes initiative, paid for through developer contributions, which will ensure that local people will be able to buy, at a discount of at least 30%, a home in their local community. Those homes will be covenanted, in perpetuity, to ensure that when or if they are sold on, the buyers, who will be local people—they could be key workers—will also buy at 30% at least below the then local market rate. However, I am open to hearing from colleagues about what other opportunities there may be to encourage local people to stay close to their communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight also raised the issue of neighbourhood plans. I am very keen that we build, and bake, neighbourhood plans into the new planning system. They can be very effective and engaging. The trouble is that there are fewer of them the further north—or further into urban areas—we go, so in our planning reforms we are looking at ways to ensure that more neighbourhood plans are produced across the country so that additional housing is identified, with good designs and local infrastructure, to support those communities.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of recycling. We have already made it very clear—in our national planning policy statements, and in the national planning policy framework—that brownfield ought to come first. We have backed that up with fiscal spending to ensure that we are paying for remediation in and around our country. Some £400 million was made available last year for the remediation of brownfield sites in mayoral combined authorities, with a further £100 million made available by the Chancellor in the latest Budget. We are determined to put brownfield first.
In our permitted development rights reforms—I know some colleagues are not so very keen on those—we also encourage the development of redundant sites, or shops that are no longer viable, in towns and city centres. That means we are building homes in the places where people need them, which takes the weight off the transport infrastructure as they are close to GP clinics and other services that people want and need. We are addressing that issue of recycling, too.
In the short time that I have left, I will speak about build-out. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), talked about a ten-minute rule Bill. I would suggest that it is a “ten-minute thought” Bill, because we do not really know from their proposals how the Opposition would deal with issues like gaming or whether they would help and support small and medium-sized enterprises, rather than making the system more difficult for them. We do not know whether they are proposing that the timetable system should relate to the permissions granted or the building commencement date.
However, we are keen to ensure that we find sensible mechanisms to encourage the build-out of permissions where they exist. We have heard what people have said, both across this Chamber and in response to the consultation, and we are determined to ensure that, where appropriate, permissions are built out rapidly.
Wera Hobhouse
On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. I want to put on the record the fact that the Minister gave this Chamber incorrect information. Bath and North East Somerset Council has a fully updated local plan in place. It is going through a partial revision and is halfway through the terms of its current plan. But while the partial revision is taking place, the local plan is fully updated.
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
The Minister is here and your point of order is now on the record.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful, Mrs Cummins. I can tell you that the information I have is that the plan was last updated in 2014—some seven years ago.
We are determined to ensure that our reforms meet the tests that my hon. Friend, and others, have set—to speed up the planning system to make it more effective, engaging and transparent. I look forward to the support of all colleagues across the House when we bring our proposals forward later this year.
Bob Seely
I thank you very much, Mrs Cummins, for your contribution and for keeping order. I thank everyone for taking part in this debate, and I thank the Minister. I am sorry that he does not have a copy of my letter; I will send it immediately. I just highlight the greenfield tax, the windfall taxes and the many other great ideas from myself and other colleagues in it. Finally, I am glad to see that we are moving from scrapping the system to reforming it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the planning system and the upcoming Planning Bill.
Colombia
(2 years, 11 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
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practices to support the hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate, and there will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of the debates in Westminster Hall, although I am aware that two Members have been detained in another debate. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate.
I remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their cameras on for the duration of the debate, and that they will be visible at all times—both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room.
I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall unless you are speaking. Members attending physically who are in the later stages of the call list should use seats in the Public Gallery at the end of the room and move into the horseshoe when seats become available.
Members can speak only from where there are microphones. Members who are not on the call list but who wish to intervene can only do so from the horseshoe, and I remind Members that those on the call list have priority for spaces on the horseshoe. Those who wish to intervene should not prevent a Member on the call list from speaking.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered peace and human rights in Colombia.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller, and to lead this important debate.
The human rights situation in Colombia is out of control; state violence in Colombia is out of control. The 2016 peace agreement has mechanisms to address those issues, but it has not been implemented anywhere close to the levels that it should have been. The Colombian Government are refusing to recognise the scale of the problem; instead, they are seeking to present a squeaky clean image internationally while innocent civilians are being murdered.
Let us be clear: recent events in Colombia have been condemned internationally by Governments, the UN, the Organisation of American States, and politicians from Parliaments across the world. It is essential that our own Government do everything that they can to hold the Colombian Government to account. We cannot support trade deals and training programmes for the Colombian police without also condemning the state violence. We need to increase our practical support for the peace process.
I have visited Colombia on two occasions—in 2013 and more recently in 2018—on delegations to review the human rights situation and the implementation of the peace agreement. On those visits, I met a wide range of stakeholders. What I heard then and what I see now is incredibly worrying. I know that many in this House follow closely the situation in Colombia, and we need to keep doing all that we can to improve the human rights situation and to ensure that the hope given to so many by the peace agreement is not destroyed.
The timing of the debate is pertinent in the light of the recent protests and horrifying police repression of the protesters. Earlier this year, millions of Colombians took to the streets. The response of the Colombian police was to treat the protesters, who were from all sectors of Colombian society, as if they were an enemy to be defeated. The police responded to the protests as if they were at war. The images and videos have been horrifying.
Between 28 April and 26 June, Colombian humans rights organisations documented that between 26 and 44 protesters were likely to have been killed by the police. Twenty-eight cases of sexual assault were reported. There were 257 cases of violence against journalists who were covering the protests, including more than 100 physical assaults. The UN documented that 56 people were killed during the protests, including 54 civilians and two members of the police.
There were numerous incidents and videos showing the close collaboration of armed civilians—or para-state actors—and the Colombian police. That has been highlighted for decades but repeatedly denied by supporters and defenders of the Colombian political elites. In Cali on 10 May and 28 May, armed civilians came on to the street to shoot at protesters while standing alongside members of the police. The response of the Colombian President was to tell the protesters to go home, while remaining silent about the fact that apparent paramilitaries and the police were operating side by side. I hope the Minister can tell me what steps the Government are taking to review their training of Colombian police, to ensure they are not supporting units or personnel who have been involved in cases of human rights abuses during the protests.
The response of the Colombian Government to the protests and violence of the police only highlighted further that they are more determined to stigmatise protesters than ensure their protection. As protesters were being killed, the Defence Minister and the Vice President made statements trying to link protesters to criminal organisations, while the Justice Minister—unbelievably—tried to claim that the protests formed part of an international criminal conspiracy to tarnish the image of Colombia.
These slurs are unacceptable and we must unreservedly condemn them. I give my full support to all those protesting peacefully in Colombia, and I will do whatever I can to defend their right to protest. I hope everyone in this debate will give their full support to that sentiment.
I welcome the investigations opened into the abuses committed by state agents over recent months, but they are not enough. The police are alleged to have killed 13 people during protests in 2020 and to have violently attacked protesters in 2019, but in almost all those cases there has been no justice for victims and their families. Will the Minister join me in fully condemning the violence against protesters and in calling for judicial and disciplinary processes for abuses during these protests and in previous years?
Colombia has long been one of the world’s most dangerous countries in which to be a human rights activist; according to the UN, 133 people were killed in 2020. It is still the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists, with 22 killed last year. Colombia was also the most dangerous country in the world for environmental defenders in 2019, with 64 killed and a further 44 killed between 20 July 2020 and 30 April 2021. The British Government have been signing environmental agreements with their Colombian counterparts, but we must ask what is being done to ensure there is protection for those on the frontline.
Now I turn to the cause for hope in Colombia. The 2016 peace agreement was a historic moment that brought genuine optimism to many, particularly in the most impoverished regions of the country. Although overall implementation has been slow, and in some areas non-existent, there have been important advances. I congratulate everyone, on all sides, who has played a role.
The advancement of the transitional justice system should be particularly celebrated, and I congratulate FARC on its unwavering commitment to the peace process. The former combatants are trying to create new lives under enormous difficulty, and the former commanders are fully engaged in the peace process by accepting responsibility for their roles in crimes committed during the war.
Just last week, the transitional justice court issued its first accusations against a former general and nine other members of the military for their role in the murder of civilians. It is essential that there is full engagement with this process from state actors who stand accused, and international support from the UK Government for the transitional justice system is also essential.
I hope that the Colombian Government will honour their numerous declarations of commitment to the peace process during their final 12 months in office. I hope that the Minister will reiterate the Government’s support for the transitional justice court and its recent steps to investigate crimes committed by FARC and the Colombian state.
It is extremely worrying that former FARC combatants continue to be targeted. Over 270 have been killed since the deal was signed. In April of this year, eight former combatants who were inside the peace process were killed in just nine days. Their protection is an absolute priority, as is the advancement in the many areas of the agreement that have seemingly stalled, particularly the implementation of the rural development programmes and the illicit crops substitution programmes.
The cocaine economy is often pointed to as the cause of the insecurity and violence in the countryside, yet of the 99,000 families signed up to the mutually agreed crop substitution programme, only 7% have actually received support for alternative crops. Without an alternative economic option, the coca growers have no way of surviving.
The peace agreement is comprehensive, and we must do all we can to ensure all its chapters are fully implemented. I welcome the UK Government’s repeated statements of support for the peace process over recent years, but I am sure we all agree that that must be backed up with maximum presence and pressure wherever, and whenever, necessary. As we approach five years of the peace agreement, I will finish by calling on the Minister to ensure we honour our role as penholder, taking a lead in international efforts to support a full implementation of the Colombian peace agreement, which is undoubtedly the best hope we have to bring an end to the human rights crisis and see Colombia truly in peace.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. I intend to move to the Front-Bench speeches at 4.13 pm, so the maths dictate around four minutes each if everybody is going to get to speak Perhaps, hon. Members could bear that in mind and show courtesy to others.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Thank you, Mrs Miller, for your guidance on the four minute limit, which I will try my very best to adhere to. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this debate, and for the House authorities for allowing it to take place.
Colombians are a good-natured and democratic people, who love liberty and life. However, they are experiencing a prolonged crisis, the roots of which lie deep, both in Colombian society, but, above all, in the current failing economic model. The economy is in freefall, and the Government wanted to raise taxes on the hardest hit, so social cohesion is breaking down as inequality accelerates in this wonderful country.
Almost half of all Colombians now live in poverty—15% in the most extreme conditions. Meanwhile, the richest 10% in Colombia earn two fifths of all the country’s income. Many Colombians will speak of endemic elite corruption, and of the power of the cartels in the economy. There is little surprise that throughout the country, civilians, in very large numbers, have become increasingly active in fighting for justice. I am sure that all parts of this House express our solidarity with all those citizens fighting for a just settlement in Colombia, or anywhere else in the world.
Undoubtedly, wealthier Colombians, and the international corporations that have become implanted there, have felt threatened by this citizen activity. Therefore, this very right-wing Colombian Government have done what such Governments always do, everywhere, which is to defend extreme privilege, wealth and power, even at the expense of their own people’s freedoms and, sadly, at the expense of some people’s lives.
The Colombian criminal justice system has, too often, been used as a Government tool to attack human rights in an attempt to supress this insipient citizen movement. We have heard the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow about the number of deaths: 5,000 cases of police violence; 44 police killings; 2,000 arbitrary arrests; 77 protesters who have been disappeared—and that is only in the last three or four months. The ITUC —International Trade Union Confederation—and Amnesty have declared that Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist fighting back or an environmentalist. They might have added being an indigenous activist or an LGBTQ rights activist.
Let me turn to the involvement of the British Government. The UK’s College of Policing has been training Colombian police officers. Our very own Crown Prosecution Service provided so-called criminal justice advisers. The British Government spent £2.3 million training specialised cadres of police in Colombia. There are other programmes as well, too lengthy to mention. British policing, however, is meant to be based on the principle of consent, so what on earth have we, the British, been doing, apparently in cahoots with a Government that seems to remove civil liberties and human rights from what ought to be a central role in their criminal justice system in Colombia?
Finally, I turn to the Minister. The British Government need to come off the fence and to do so clearly. There is no evidence that the situation in Colombia is improving—in fact, it is deteriorating—so there can be no justification in offering words of good will, in effect, to a President who is a human rights abuser on the grandest scale. Minister, please condemn the abuse of civil rights in Colombia and ensure that all UK programmes either comply totally with democratic values henceforth or cease immediately.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. I should have pointed out for the benefit of Members, a stopwatch has been put on the screen, in case that is of assistance.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing the debate and for introducing it so skilfully. What she outlined matters; it matters to anyone who respects things such as the right to peaceful protest or even the most basic human rights. What has been going wrong in Colombia in recent months is shocking, even for a country that is used to shock.
The demonstrations against Government policies have, in sheer scale, been unprecedented over the many years that I have known Colombia, and yet those demonstrations have been overwhelmingly peaceful. That has been acknowledged by the United Nations, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the European Union. Even the Colombian Government have accepted that they were, overwhelmingly, peaceful demonstrations.
As my hon. Friend said, however, that was met by the Defence Minister calling the demonstrations a “terrorist threat” by “criminal organisations”. That is not simply ludicrous, but dangerous, because that has led to the death toll following the protests, which my hon. Friends talked about, and to the arbitrary arrests and use of massive levels of violence by the Colombian police who, frankly, have been out of control. That included 28 sexual assaults on people held in custody, as my hon. Friend pointed out, including the sad case of 17-year-old Alison Melendez who was raped by the police and then went home to commit suicide. Nothing can bring back Alison or undo that damage to her family. It matters, and it matters to those of us who care about Colombia, as we should.
The peace accords in Colombia were a wonderful step forward, but as we have seen in the use of violence by police against the demonstrations, we have seen in effect in a denial for those who gave up guerrilla warfare: 278 members of FARC have been murdered since the peace accord was signed and there has been a lack of progress on land reform and on things such as funding those who give up the growing up of coca leaf for manufacture into cocaine. Those are deliberate policies of the Colombian Government and, being deliberate, they are sabotaging the peace effort.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), I must say to the Minister, I have seen condemnation from different sources—the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has condemned such levels of violence recently and even in the United States, there have been calls for restraint—but few words from Ministers in the British Government. The Minister must stand up and make it clear that we denounce the kind of violence we are seeing from the Colombian police and military.
We need to look at our relationship in terms of police reform. Yes, it is right and proper that we push for police reform and, as penholder at the UN, the British Government have a unique role in bringing forward verification missions to see that that takes place. However, the big prize has got to be that we look at the capacity under the democratic clause in the UK-Andean pact, which makes it clear that human rights violations trigger certain consequences. It is about time that our Government looked at that human rights clause and considered whether now we have got to trigger it.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing the debate. It is the first we have had on Colombia since 2019 in Westminster Hall, and timely to have it before the recess and while the situation in Colombia is deteriorating so seriously. It is unfortunate that the Minister is all by herself on the Conservative Benches. It would be nice to see some Government Back Benchers show an interest in this, and perhaps they might reflect on whether they have any activists or, indeed, expat Colombians in their constituencies whose voices should be heard.
Some of those voices are communicated to us through organisations such as Justice for Colombia, and ABColombia and its partner organisations, Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, Christian Aid and others. I thank them for their support in helping us prepare. For many years, I heard about Colombia and met people from Colombia through SCIAF, and in 2018 I finally had the privilege of visiting the country. Such a lush, beautiful country, rich in its diversity of peoples as well as natural resources and rich in the potential to be a model of sustainable development and conflict resolution. However, it is also at risk of the exact opposite: backsliding from the progress that has been made and falling into the hands of those who would exploit and strip the country of its bounty, oppress its people and destroy their cultures. We are hearing about that in the debate today.
The context caused by the pandemic and the tax rises to pay for economic support are leading to dreadful outbreaks of violence, and we have heard some of the statistics. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reckons that at least 56 people—54 civilians and two police officers—were killed up to 16 June. In recent meetings by the all-party parliamentary group for Colombia and Justice for Colombia, we have heard first-hand testimony from people caught up in that violence in the country. That simply demonstrates what we have heard already: that it is one of the most dangerous country in which to be a trade unionist or any kind of human rights actor or defender.
As the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, some of the ongoing frustrations among the population, particularly among younger generations, are very deep rooted. When constitutional rights and processes exist on paper but are not followed in practice, it is perhaps not surprising that this leads to increased frustration, which ultimately expresses itself in violence. That sense of powerlessness when communities see the land that their ancestors have worked for generations given over to mining or monocropping, and especially for indigenous communities, for whom the land has important religious or spiritual significance. We can understand how a sense of desperation leads to the lure of the quick buck that can come from coca production, and the country is now sadly producing more cocaine than it did in the 1990s—a very serious challenge for all of us.
The country is moving into the ranks of developed countries, yet there is massive inequalities. There is lively downtown Bogotá, all built up, and then there is the Chocó region, which is one of the poorest in the world, let alone in Latin America. That tension becomes palpable, but where there is risk, there can also be reward. That is why there is a need for action and support for all sides of the disputes.
I support the proposals that have been put forward by CAFOD, ABColombia and others that the UK should be looking to activate the democratic clause in the UK-Andean free trade agreement, that it should be pushing for civil society participation in the implementation of the peace accord, and the points about police reform, which have already been made.
This is the opportunity to prove what a soft power superpower is like. This is the opportunity to prove the worth of the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that so many of us were concerned about. Yes, step up diplomatic efforts, but also support crop diversification, supporting education, and tax and regulate multilaterals and hold them to account, especially if they are based in the UK or listed on our stock exchanges. Peace is possible and the rewards could be great, but equally, if the scales tip the other way, the results would be devastating. As others have said, the UK has a special responsibility as the UN penholder on Colombia. It should live up to that responsibility.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this timely debate. I will continue on the theme of the recent abuses committed by the Colombian police against protesters, which are absolutely appalling. Millions of Colombians—mostly young people—came on to the streets during April and May this year to call for an end to the growing poverty and state violence and for a full implementation of the peace agreement. The response from the Colombian police was violence.
As has already been said, up to 44 protesters were killed, according to human rights organisations. There were also reports of sexual violence, and thousands of arbitrary arrests. As young people are beaten, killed and sexually abused on the streets of Colombia, we need the UK Government to step up to the plate and send a clear message that such blatant human rights abuses will not be tolerated or accepted. We must immediately review our training programme with the Colombian police and suspend it immediately if it is going to units involved in the repression of peaceful protests.
The Colombian Government have continually failed to accept responsibility for the violence carried out by the police. Instead, they have tried to hoodwink the international community. Just yesterday, during a session at the UN Security Council, the Colombian Foreign Minister and vice-president, Marta Lucía Ramírez, bizarrely blamed the killing of protesters on people who infiltrated the marches and committed vandalism. We should not be fooled: we have witnessed the Colombian police attack peaceful protesters over the last few years, not just the last couple of months. We cannot stay silent in our calls for justice as the Colombian Government try to deflect our attention. I hope that the Minister might make representations to the Colombian authorities to ensure full investigations of all alleged killings by the Colombian police during recent protests.
I was in Colombia in 2014. I visited the city of Buenaventura. I was there with a local human rights organisation, a church organisation, and I went into a neighbourhood where paramilitaries were using local houses to chop people into pieces while they were still alive. I met the communities—predominantly Afro-Colombian—whose children had to listen to the screams of the victims, and who had then organised to remove the paramilitaries from the streets. It was horrifying, but it was inspirational in equal measure.
Even though that was seven years ago, sadly we know that violence against activists from these communities continues. The facts and the figures have been recited by colleagues already. We really need an immediate implementation of public policy to dismantle paramilitary successor groups, as stipulated in the peace agreement. If there is true commitment to bringing an end to the killings of human rights defenders, why after their three years in government have we still not seen a plan of action to dismantle these illegal armed groups that have such deep, historic links to the Colombian state?
Will the Minister reiterate our Government’s commitment to ensure the full implementation of the peace agreement and explain what steps they have taken as the penholder at the UN Security Council, as described earlier? I also call on the Colombian Government to use their last year in office to do everything they can to advance as much of the implementation as they possibly can. I know that many of my colleagues will continue to monitor the situation closely.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller, and I will try my best to speak as fast as I can in my thick Scottish accent. I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this important debate.
We have seen poverty increase around the world as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. In Colombia, however, the resulting economic suffering has proved all too much to bear in a country that has pre-existing social and political discontent. Since protests began this year, the demands of the Colombian people have increased beyond economic reform. Protesters have been calling for the dismantling of the riot police, the creation of a universal basic income programme and free university tuition. Those demands have grown out of increasing inequality, lack of social mobility and what many deem to be the oppression of marginalised groups by police forces and the Government.
As the hon. Member for Jarrow mentioned in her opening remarks, there have been a number of deaths in Colombia. It has been reported that more than 220 social and community leaders were killed in 2020 alone, with claims that the majority were killed at the hands of the Colombian state security forces. At least 18 trade unionists have also been killed. According to the UN verification mission, a total of 133 human rights defenders were murdered. The deaths have led to the condemnation of the country by rights groups such as Amnesty International, which has stated that Colombia is widely recognised as the most dangerous country in the world for people who defend human rights. Military intelligence has also been found to be spying on human rights defenders, journalists, High Court magistrates and members of the opposition. In fact, information has been sold to neo-paramilitaries.
The response of Colombia’s riot police to the ongoing protests exemplifies the country’s failure to protect and uphold the human rights of its people. The police have responded to overwhelmingly peaceful social protests with excessive force and violence, as confirmed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. It has been confirmed that at least 30 protesters have been killed, and over 100 people are reported to have disappeared. Hundreds have suffered serious injury, and over 800 arbitrary arrests have taken place. As many Members have spoken about, there have been reports of cases of sexual violence at the protests.
It is evident that the Colombian people’s cry for the dismantling of the riot police is not unfounded, and comprehensive police reform is urgently needed to prevent significant violations in the future. We must urge the Colombian Government to take urgent measures to protect the human rights of their citizens and to initiate a comprehensive police and security reform effort, to ensure that officers respect the right to peaceful assembly and bring those responsible for abuse to justice.
In the midst of the horror and unrest taking place in Colombia, it was heart-warming to note that members of Edinburgh and Glasgow’s growing Colombian community have taken to the streets of Scotland in solidarity with those in Colombia. This act of international solidarity is representative of the people of Scotland, the Scottish Government and the Scottish National party’s care and commitment to social justice around the world.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this important debate, and for her powerful contribution. I also thank my constituents in Liverpool, West Derby who have been in touch with me regularly and have asked me to raise their concerns about human rights violations in Colombia directly with the Minister.
I previously raised my concerns in the House on 20 April, both about the alleged involvement of Colombia’s security forces in the deaths of at least 30 protesters last year, and about worrying reports of an increased number of protesters losing their sight after being hit with projectiles fired by police, including 19-year-old Yuri Camargo and 22-year-old Miguel Angel Linares in 2019. I asked the Secretary of State whether he would raise the importance of full legal and disciplinary investigations of those cases with his Colombian counterpart, but no firm commitment was given. So will the Minister today confirm whether those cases have been raised and will she update us on their progress?
Since late April the situation has become worse. There has been a violent police response to mass protests organised to object to the proposed tax reform and in response to longer-running demands about growing poverty, the murder of social activists and the failed implementation of the peace agreement. Between 28 April and 26 June, Temblores—a Colombian human rights non-governmental organisation—has registered 4,687 cases of police violence and 73 killings, at least 44 of which appear to have been carried out by the police; more than 2,000 arbitrary arrests; 82 victims of eye injuries, principally caused by police projectiles; and 28 victims of sexual assault.
There has been international condemnation of the Colombian Government’s response to the mass mobilisation and protests. The UN has condemned the use of excessive force, and the EU has called for the disproportionate use of force by the security forces to stop. Will the Minister today join those calls and issue a full condemnation of the violence of the Colombian police and of the Government’s comments undermining the right to protest?
I visited Colombia with JFC—Justice for Colombia—in 2018, and I met some of the most inspiring people I have ever met: trade unionists, mainly mothers, who put their lives in danger every single day to fight for a more equal society. The sight of them getting into vehicles with armed guards is something that will not leave me when I think back. I left with the impression of a beautiful country and a proud nation who had seen the glimpse of a chance of peace, but who distrust that the Government would honour their side of the agreement. The past two years have proved them heartbreakingly correct. Overwhelmingly all parties in 2018 said that international pressure would be needed to eventually achieve the peace that they all sought. Will the Minister work with her Colombian counterpart to bring about the implementation of the 2016 peace agreement that gives hope and a real chance to end the human rights violations taking place now?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this important debate, particularly because recently I spoke to students at Saint Gabriel’s College in Camberwell, where I am proud to be a governor.
South London, where my constituency of Streatham is, is home to one of the largest Colombian communities in the UK, and many will have attended the solidarity protests that we saw recently in London. I was so proud of the students and their lobby, and I want them to know that, as young as they are, they have power as citizens and their words can make it directly to Parliament, so I will use mostly their words today.
Gabriel explained to me how Colombians feel the Government are not listening to them. He talked about the sheer force and unity of the protests recently organised by the country’s largest trade union, joined by teachers, university students, trade unions, Afro-Colombians and indigenous groups; about a united demand to withdraw the proposal that originally levelled a sales tax on public services and some food; and how years of inequality and injustice, combined with covid lockdowns with no support, had thrown even more people out of work and left many Colombians destitute.
Juan-Pablo was born in Cali, at the epicentre of the violence. He explained how important the place is for the whole country because of agriculture, and that that is why the paro nacional started, and that the Government were using it to make food more expensive. The students had done their research, and Juan David explained how the UK’s College of Policing has been training Colombian police over the past three years. They questioned how the UK, the country that some of their families had come to after fleeing human rights abuses, could be so openly complicit in the human rights abuses committed in Colombia.
Yeray, Sara and Alexia, some of the youngest in the group—11, 12 and 13—along with Manuel, explained how worried they are about family members in Colombia. Students at Saint Gabriel’s College are particularly affected. Many have family members who have been shot or injured, and some have even gone missing—one young man’s father has been missing since March. Lucas, Manuel and Alejandro spoke to me about human rights abuses and inequality, and about the widespread police brutality, sexual assault and murders. They were particularly concerned about the ongoing violence against the LGBT community, and said that even though Colombia appears on paper to have strong rights for LGBT people, those rights are not put into practice there. Women in particular are disadvantaged, with 12 in every 1,000 babies dying before their first birthday, and almost 39% of the country’s Afro-Colombian population live in extreme poverty.
Valentina was particularly concerned about not just the mental health of Colombians there, but that of Colombians in the UK who are watching their families go through many of these things and are helpless to change it. Elisa spoke with pride about Colombia, as did all the students—how they felt about the country in which some of them were born and some of their parents were born. Some, like Santiago, spoke about people their age in Colombia who did not have the same opportunities that he now has, because of the economic situation and because of how exacerbated the violence has become.
Colombians in the UK are calling on the UK Government to promote reform of the Colombian security services and full implementation of the peace accord, and to review the UK’s training of the Colombian police and suspend the selling of riot control equipment and arms exports to Colombia. That is a simple demand.
I will end by paraphrasing the words of Nicolas. He said, “As young Colombians in the UK, we are asking the UK Government to not forget Colombia; to open their eyes to the violence and injustice; and, last but not least, to remember that the United Kingdom acts as the penholder for the Colombian peace process, and to live up to what it has promised.” I ask the Minister to please live up to what the UK has promised, on behalf of those young students who lobbied me so well earlier this year.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on securing this hugely important debate.
Since April, Colombia has been experiencing huge, popular citizen mobilisation against unfair tax reform, poverty, corruption, the murder of social justice activists and the failed implementation of the 2016 peace agreement. These mass protests have included many young people, people from poor urban neighbourhoods and other marginalised groups, and of course the organisation of civil society through the national strike committee.
These demonstrations have been met with unacceptable state violence. According to Colombia’s Foundation for Press Freedom, there were 257 cases of aggression towards journalists covering the protests, with the majority committed by state agents. Since protests began, we across the world have witnessed images and videos of police shooting live ammunition at crowds, firing gas canisters at people’s faces and beating isolated protesters, as well as arbitrary arrests, indiscriminate use of high-grade weaponry, and the launching of tear gas into enclosed spaces. Several videos have shown people in civilian clothing shooting protesters, often while standing alongside police, including an incident that left 10 indigenous protesters injured.
Colombia remains, as others have said, the world’s most dangerous country for environmental defenders: in 2019, 64 environmental activists were murdered. Colombia has also once again been confirmed as the world’s most dangerous country for trade unionists, with 22 killed so far in 2021, according to the International Trade Union Confederation. Community activists also continue to face extremely high levels of violence.
The attempts by the Colombian Government to engage with protesters have been criticised for being so cosmetic, unsubstantial and, in some cases, dishonest. There has been widespread international condemnation of the Colombian Government’s response to the protests, from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Union, the American embassy and others. It is therefore shameful that the UK Government have not condemned the unacceptable violence perpetrated by the Colombian police and Government.
The UK embassy in Colombia and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have said that they are “saddened” by the violence. That neutral, passive language does very little justice to the suffering of the Colombian people at the hands of their own Government. I urge the Minister to rectify that by unequivocally condemning the Colombian state for its deadly and violent treatment of peaceful protesters. I encourage the Foreign Secretary to call on the Colombian Government to engage properly with the proposals of the national strike committee.
It is also essential that the UK uses its diplomatic strength to encourage the Colombian Government to uphold the 2016 peace agreement. It is vital that the UK Government immediately review any aid or training support to the Colombian police and suspend any element linked to human rights abuses. We must immediately cease the sale of weapons, including water cannon, tear gas and batons, that could be used against protesters in Colombia. Just as it was morally reprehensible for the UK and other countries to export to America riot equipment that was used against Black Lives Matter protesters following the murder of George Floyd, it is wrong for peaceful Colombian protesters to be brutalised by equipment sold by Britain.
Ultimately, the UK must use its diplomatic might to protect Colombian protesters, who are exercising their democratic rights and making their voices heard.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Before I call Mary Kelly Foy, I point out that we have three more speakers before the Front-Bench speeches start at 4.13 pm. I suggest three minutes each so that everybody can get in.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Mrs Miller. I am glad to serve under your chairmanship. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this important debate.
The right to protest is a fundamental right that must always be respected. It is therefore extremely alarming that Colombian security forces continue to use lethal force against unarmed protesters. Although we have witnessed widespread human rights violations since April this year, violent repression of public protest has been a constant theme under the Government of Iván Duque. Security forces have regularly attacked and killed protesters, but there have been few visible attempts to curtail their actions, and most abuses remain unpunished.
Last week’s Inter-American Commission on Human Rights report found that there was disproportionate use of force by the public security forces. The commission had warned in 2019 that the use of force must be guided by
“legality, strict necessity and proportionality.”
Yet just four days later, ESMAD riot police killed 16-year-old Dilan Cruz as he ran from their attacks.
It is so worrying that the Colombian Government have already said that they will not implement the latest recommendations from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on how to improve the policing of protests. Will the Minister tell us what assessment the British Government have made of that report and of the disproportionate force used during the recent protests?
In September last year, police killed up to 13 unarmed people during protests following the killing of a man in police custody. Shortly afterwards, the Colombian Supreme Court referenced those killings and others when it was declared that the ESMAD riot police systematically violate citizens’ democratic right to peaceful protest, due process and freedom of expression.
The army has also been responsible for the deaths of unarmed civilians in protests. In March 2020, 20-year-old peasant farmer Alejandro Carvajal was killed during protests over the army forcibly removing coca crops in operations that appear to contravene the 2016 peace agreement’s prioritisation of mutually agreed substitution. Several other peasant farmers have been killed in recent years while protesting against military operations in their communities.
In 2019, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called on the Colombian state to stop using the military in situations of public protest, while recommending an in-depth transformation of the Escuadrón Móvil Antidisturbios riot police and independent investigations into its conduct towards public protest. Sadly, these recommendations are far from being met.
Instead, Colombia’s inspector general recently opened investigations against Opposition Congress Members over their attempts to protect citizens from police violence, after they had criticised the Duque Government’s response to the protest. Last year, Transparency International warned of a concentration of power across Colombian institutions that blurred the separation of powers and threatened the democratic process. Can the Minister say what the British Government will do to promote greater respect for the rights of people to protest in Colombia?
Finally, I am concerned about the continuing targeting of trade unionists and environmental defenders. Historically, Colombia has been the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists, with 3,200 killed since the 1970s. Since the peace deal was signed, 35 members of FENSUAGRO—the Federación Nacional Sindical Unitaria Agropecuaria—the agricultural workers’ union, have been killed. We must start to see justice for those crimes. Rather than seeking to crush protests, silence the demands around human rights and peace, and target critical politicians, the Colombian Government should respect their citizens’ rights to mobilise and protest peacefully.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on setting the scene and giving us all the chance to participate in this debate.
Recent protests have brought international attention once again on the human rights situation in Colombia. There is considerable concern internationally about the response of the police to protesters and reports of several protesters being killed. The actions of the riot police are particularly alarming—I want to put that on record. I send my condolences to all the victims and their families. I hope that there will be a full and exhaustive investigation, and that those responsible will be held accountable.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) has a particular interest in Colombia, and so have I. Over many years, I have had a number of invitations to visit Colombia, but I have never had the chance to go due to other commitments. I hope someday that I will have the opportunity to get there.
After a visit to Colombia, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, part of the Organization of American States, said that the Colombian police had used “disproportionate” force, that there was gender-based and racial violence and that there were reports of people being disappeared. Concerns were also expressed about the use of the military during the protests.
One of the commission’s recommendations was to echo the demands of Colombian human rights organisations to move the jurisdiction of the police away from the Ministry of National Defence into a civilian department, such as the Ministry of the Interior. Does the Minister think that can be pursued? I believe it is a necessary step in the context of the ongoing peace process.
I want to speak about the situation for human rights defenders in Colombia. I congratulate them on the great work they have been doing to defend human rights. It is essential that they do not have to put their lives at risk to carry out their work. According to Colombian organisation Somos Defensores, 2020 was the most dangerous year to be a human rights defender in Colombia for more than a decade, with 199 people murdered. According to the organisation Indepaz, over 300 social activists were killed. What can this Government—my Government—do to ensure human rights defenders are more protected in Colombia? We must not drop our focus and commitment to international support to ensure that the Colombian peace agreement is fully implemented.
The recent advances in the transitional justice system are welcome and must be supported, as are the reports of almost 50% of former FARC combatants who have been able to initiate economic projects. However, it is concerning that so many former FARC combatants are still waiting to initiate projects. What has been done to help them? I understand that there needs to be rapid action to ensure they access land to accelerate the process. I have always been supportive of making land available so let us make sure that happens.
Equally, the distribution of land to small-scale farmers, as stipulated in the agreement, has so far unfortunately not advanced fast enough. All advances in the peace process will benefit the work to improve the human rights situation and, conversely, all the work focused on improving the human rights situation and tackling the illegal armed groups that still exist will massively assist efforts to implement the peace agreement.
Coming from Northern Ireland, as I do, let me say that if anyone knows how important peace talks are, it is us in Northern Ireland. I urge the Minister to grasp the opportunity for peace on behalf of those in Colombia, and I sincerely hope we can do something for them.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, and I want to raise again, as I have done in previous debates on Colombia, the plight of journalists—the abuse of their human rights and the violations of press freedom. The International Federation of Journalists has recently published another report highlighting the targeting of journalists by the Colombian authorities, in particular the killings, physical attacks and obstruction of their work, as well as the undermining of basic press freedoms. This is coming from the national police, public officials and reactionary elements associated with the current Government.
I want to leave the debate with at least some of the words of practitioners in the field in Colombia. Adriana Hurtado Cortés is the president the Colombian Federation of Journalists. Let me quote her directly and briefly:
“There’s an evident regression in the causes of violence against journalists; they are spied on in the traditional way and they’re harassed on social media.”
She says that politicians stigmatise them through messages on social media and accuse journalists of
“spreading misinformation, damaging democracy and polarizing society.”
Aggression against journalists has again increased. There are threats, physical attacks, killings, smear campaigns, legal actions aimed at censoring their work, illegal espionage, and many journalists forced into exile. There is a lack of labour protection for journalists. As a result of the pandemic, they are in a particularly weak economic situation, but their main concern is the loss of the rule of law, the Government acting with impunity and the slowness of justice when crimes against journalists are investigated.
I repeat what others have said: we now need an extremely strong statement from the Government, which links up with European and other international parties, to condemn the human rights abuses of the Colombian Government. I would like inserted in those condemnations the demand for a free press and the protection of journalists, which is essential for any democratic society.
In the past, we have not had the use of other powers in this country. I would therefore like the Government to start mentioning to Colombian Government officials that we now have the Magnitsky clause and, if necessary, we will use that to target human rights abusers through our own legislative system.
Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)
We now move to Front-Bench speeches. I ask everybody to keep to about 10 minutes to allow the proposer of the motion a couple of minutes to wind up.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I always make my speeches short. Nobody ever criticises a speech for being too brief, so I always try to be succinct. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller, and to wind up for the SNP in a very constructive and consensual debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on bringing the matter forward, on her contribution and on the timing of this debate. It is a very opportune moment to consider the situation in Colombia. I was also struck by the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed).
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North stressed what is at stake if we get this right: the sustainable development potential for Colombia to be a world leader in all sorts of positive societal changes. He also noted, of course, that coca production is now greater than it was in the 1990s. That has immediate consequences domestically for Colombia, but also for us here and in the wider world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts stressed, very correctly, how dangerous Colombia is for journalists and activists and the deterioration in their lives in recent months and years.
The SNP stands four-square with the people of Colombia. We are not pro-Government or pro-protester; we want a durable peace for everybody. We acknowledge that we do not have all the answers from this part of the world, but this is an important moment. We need to recognise that the already fragile peace process has been almost overwhelmed by covid. Of course, covid has brought concomitant disasters in the form of health and economic consequences, exacerbating an already very fragile domestic situation.
We are glad that the—to my mind—rather cack-handed tax reform proposals that were the trigger for the recent protests have been shelved for the moment, but we also acknowledge that there remains a financial crisis within Colombian public finances that risks chaos and further deteriorations. We acknowledge the problems facing the Colombian Government, but we firmly state that the response of the Colombian Government to the protests must be condemned and the right to protest must be defended. That is a crucial point to make, because the figures are very stark. In 2020 alone, as we have heard, 220 community and social leaders were killed. Twenty-two trade unionists were killed, and according to the UN Verification Mission in Colombia, at least 133 human rights defenders were killed. Thousands more are currently in jail or suffering harassment.
The UK is in a position to do more on this. As we have heard, the UK is the penholder in the UN on the Colombian peace process, and there are more things that we can do. I hope that today we can make some concrete suggestions to spur more activity. There have been several concrete suggestions, and I have much respect for the Minister; I hope she engages with the constructive nature of this debate. There are a lot of good ideas from all points of the political compass in the House.
In terms of the macroeconomic crisis that Colombia is suffering, if there is not direct assistance, what capacity do we have to offer advice to stabilise the current economic crisis and to help its people through that process? There is also the issue of support in dealing with the covid disaster. It is one that we are all suffering, but perhaps we can assist with theirs. We have heard concerns about the training of the security services and the policing of public order. What consideration have we given to whether that has been misused or abused? With regard to Magnitsky sanctions—we really should have called that something easier—what consideration has been given to targeting individuals within the Colombian regime or elsewhere who have acted poorly? We would like to see greater financial and practical assistance for human rights defender organisations. They are doing a power of work and need more support. We want to see more facilitation of dialogue with FARC and pressure to implement the 2016 peace agreement more actively from the Government. Of course, there is more than one party to that discussion, but the UK could play a greater role.
There are no easy answers to or quick fixes for Colombia’s problems, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said, this is a test for the UK’s new and, we are told, improved—merged—foreign and development policy at a crucial time for Colombia and for a number of other partners in the region as well. The progress made in 2016 could be lost, and that would be a disaster not just for the people of Colombia but elsewhere. If the Minister and the Government are serious about protecting that, I will just say that there have been a number of constructive suggestions this afternoon. If the Minister is serious about taking those forward, she will continue to have SNP support.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) on bringing this debate to Parliament today. In a very powerful opening speech, she told us that the peace agreement in Colombia was not working. I am sure that every hon. Member present would certainly agree with that. She also said that recent events have been condemned across the world. That is absolutely true. Every day, I receive emails and messages from other countries and from other activists, saying that the peace agreement is not working and that the violence must be condemned. My hon. Friend made a very important point that this Government—the Government of our country—cannot support trade deals with Colombia without condemning the appalling violence that we have all seen on our television screens. The police response, she said, was as if there was a war between the police and their own population—the human rights activists and the people demonstrating against the breakdown of the peace deal and the murder and violence. It was a very powerful opening speech, and I thank her for this debate.
My close friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who is not in his place at the moment, then made his contribution, talking about the prolonged crisis in Colombia, with the economy in freefall and the Government wanting to raise taxes from the poorest members of the population. He gave us a startling statistic: the richest 10% of Colombians own 40% of the economy, which is quite extraordinary. He said that citizen activity was seen by the state as a threat to the Government, and that the Colombian criminal justice system, which should be there to defend those who are innocent, is actually used as a weapon against the demonstrators.
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), with whom I work closely on Colombian issues. He said that demonstrations have been peaceful, yet the Defence Minister was calling them dangerous. He said that the Colombian police have engaged in a great deal of violence against their own population, and that 278 members of FARC have been murdered since the peace accord was signed. That is a startling figure, yet FARC is still committed to the peace accord.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made a powerful contribution, which the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) mentioned several times. The hon. Member for Glasgow North visited Colombia in 2018, and he mentioned that tax rises were one of the factors leading to street demonstrations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) talked about the Colombian Government repeatedly failing to condemn police violence. He said we must ensure that the paramilitaries are dismantled immediately, and he is absolutely right about that.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed), who is new to the House. She made a powerful contribution and talked about increasing inequality in Colombia. She said that 220 social and community leaders were killed in 2020, as were 133 human rights defenders. Those are statistics that any Government or nation should be deeply ashamed of.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) talked about individual cases that he wanted the Minister to respond to. He reeled off some horrifying facts about the assault and killing of those individuals, and he asked whether the Minister would condemn the violence. I will obviously let her speak for herself shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro -Addy) talked about her experience with young Colombians living in her constituency. She spoke about the police brutality and the assaults on women and LGBT activists, and the effect that this has on the mental health not only of victims and their families, but of people living safely in the United Kingdom, which is something that we often forget.
The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) talked about the failure of the implementation of the 2016 peace agreement, the unacceptable state violence—a theme that ran through the debate—and the aggression towards journalists. She talked about gas cannisters being fired in people’s faces. Can you imagine that, Mrs Miller? It is absolutely horrifying.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) talked about the right to protest being a basic human right, and she mentioned the role of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and its guidelines, which are clearly being breached.
We also heard from one of my old friends, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). In his typically generous fashion, he sent his condolences to all the victims of violence in Colombia and their families. Pertinently, he asked what the United Kingdom can do to help defend human rights in Colombia.
We also heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who was previously one of our most senior Front Benchers and who has a long and proud record of protecting and defending journalists all over the world. Again, he talked about the targeting of journalists and the undermining of press freedom. A basic tenet of democracy is press freedom, yet the politicians and leaders of the current Colombian Government are stigmatising journalists and undermining the press freedom that is so important to guaranteeing democracy.
The violence that we have seen across Colombia over the past few months has run completely out of control. The country’s police and security forces have used unnecessary violence to contain widespread protests, which has put the historic 2016 peace agreement at severe risk.
Between 28 April and the end of June, at least 73 civilians, including many trade unionists, human rights activists and indigenous people, have been killed in the protests, with hundreds more injured. Colombian human rights NGO Temblores says that 44 of those killings were allegedly carried out by the police, which is extremely disturbing, and many hon. Members have mentioned that this afternoon. Alongside the killings Temblores registered 4,687 cases of police violence, 2,005 arbitrary arrests and 82 victims of eye injuries principally caused by police projectiles.
Since the protests began, videos posted to social media have shown police shooting live ammunition at crowds, firing gas canisters into people’s faces, beating isolated protesters, making arbitrary arrests, indiscriminately using high-grade weaponry, and launching tear gas into enclosed spaces. Such behaviour, we all agree, is entirely and completely unacceptable. We must be clear. The protests were largely peaceful; the violence was by the Colombian police and security forces.
So far, all that the British Government have done is to sign a trade deal with Colombia in which both parties guarantee to respect democracy and human rights. Worryingly, despite that, two years on from signing the deal, the UK Government have not directly criticised the violence committed by the Colombian police. I urge the Minister to take this chance to condemn it fully today.
Not to embrace our role as the penholder and not to use our considerable influence could lead to further violence and further needless loss of life in Colombia. I urge the Minister, therefore, alongside condemning the violence, to commit to starting a review of any training support given to the Colombian police, and to call on the Colombian Government to ensure full disciplinary and legal investigations against all perpetrators of violence, especially considering the lack of advancement in cases from 2019 to 2020, when 2020 was the bloodiest year on record since the peace agreement was signed.
I also urge the Minister to call on the Colombian Government to listen to the proposals set out by the national strike committee. Finally, will she tell us what representations she or the United Kingdom Government have made, if any, to the Colombian ambassador to London and her counterparts in the Colombian Government, in particular with regard to increasing the Colombian Government’s efforts to implement the 2016 peace agreement?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this debate. Peace and human rights in Colombia is an issue that means a great deal to her, as it does to me, and judging by this afternoon’s debate and the correspondence that I receive as a Minister, it means a great deal to hon. Members throughout the House. I am grateful for the contributions of all Members today. I will do my best to respond to as many of the points as I can.
Let me start by saying that the UK is a key supporter of Colombia’s historic 2016 peace agreement. We are proud to lead on the issue at the United Nations Security Council. Colombia is also a human rights priority country for this Government and an important partner to the UK in Latin America. Members may read our assessment of the current state of human rights in Colombia in the annual human rights report that was published by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office last week, on 8 July.
This debate is set against a backdrop of worrying protest, which has spread across Colombia. Starting on 28 April a national strike, accompanied by widespread demonstrations, was carried out with the support of a broad range of civil society actors. The strike was mostly characterised by peaceful protests, with demands revolving around a range of issues. However, the protests also led to violent clashes between the public security forces and protesters, the deliberate destruction of public infrastructure, lengthy road blockades and alleged abuses by public security forces.
From 28 April to 16 June, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights registered allegations of 56 deaths—54 civilians and two police officers—in the context of the protests, and hundreds were injured. The British Government understand the deep concern about the reports of human rights violations in relation to the protests, and we engaged with the Colombian Government at an early stage of the protests to raise our concerns. On 14 May I spoke to the then acting Foreign Minister, Adriana Mejía, to express our concerns and to welcome Colombia’s commitment to transparent investigations into allegations of excessive use of force by the police.
On Monday this week, I spoke to the Colombian ambassador to the UK for an update on the investigations and was pleased to learn that more than 200 investigations into alleged misconduct by police are now open. We have made it clear that we look to the Colombian authorities to fully investigate any reports of excessive use of force, and to take appropriate action against those responsible. We firmly support the right of all Colombians to protest peacefully, and the Colombian Government know that we look to them to guarantee respect for the rights to peaceful assembly and association. I reiterated that message publicly on 6 May, and in doing so mirrored the messaging from our embassy in Bogotá on 4, 5 and 7 May.
Some hon. Members asked about police training. The UK’s engagement goes beyond ministerial and official discussions. We work closely with the UN verification mission and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia, as well as the wider international community, in support of their efforts to reduce tensions and to promote dialogue. We are firmly committed to our programmes to help implement the peace agreement, to support peace, stability and security and to build a more prosperous Colombian society. President Duque’s promise of police reform, including increased oversight of officers, is an important step in response to the protests. One of our programmes supports the modernisation of the Colombian national police and is being implemented through the International Organisation for Migration, with strategic support and advice from Police Scotland. Like all our training of overseas law enforcement officers, the project is supported by the cross-governmental International Police Assistance Board and received an overseas security and justice assistance assessment to gauge and mitigate any human rights risks that arise from providing training to specific forces. We are not aware of any police units in Colombia that had received UK training support being involved in human rights violations.
One of our top priorities for Colombia is to support the Government to implement the 2016 peace accords. Since 2015, the UK has spent more than £63 million in support of peace, stability and security in Colombia. As hon. Members have highlighted, we lead on the issue at the UN Security Council, and we are the largest donor to the UN trust fund supporting the implementation of the peace agreement.
We recognise the important progress that has been achieved so far. Security conditions in much of the country are considerably better than over the past five years, and strides have been made towards the reintegration of former combatants. Our work at the United Nations in New York as penholder on Colombia’s peace process is making a real difference. In May, the Security Council unanimously adopted a UK-drafted resolution to expand the mandate of the UN Verification Mission in Colombia. This is a significant step, tasking the mission with verifying compliance with the transitional justice sentences of the special jurisdiction for peace.
On transitional justice specifically, which was raised by the hon. Member for Jarrow and others, the UK has always supported the vital work of the transitional justice elements of the peace accords, and we are extremely pleased that those institutions have been able to continue their work despite the challenges posed by covid-19. The UK Government have contributed over £26 million towards transitional justice mechanisms and victims of the conflict in Colombia since 2016, which includes supporting the truth commission’s work to gather testimony from Colombians—both in Colombia and abroad, including here in the UK—as well as working to enhance the investigatory capacity of the special jurisdiction for peace, Colombia’s post-conflict special court.
The transitional justice institutions established by the peace agreement are now reaching a critical phase in their work, with the special jurisdiction for peace due to hand down its first sentences, and the truth commission due to issue its final report, later this year.
Colleagues have also raised the issue of human rights defenders, so let me just say a few words on that issue, because despite what I have said and despite the fantastic progress that has been made, the situation in Colombia remains challenging and fragile. The country is in the grip of a prolonged third wave of covid-19. During 2020, Colombia saw a 6.8 percentage point increase in poverty levels and 7.4 million people, which is 15% of the population, now live in extreme poverty.
The continued presence of illegal armed groups in Colombia, and the impact that their violence and intimidation have on the vulnerable population, is a serious concern. In 2020, the UN confirmed that 133 human rights defenders had been killed. Since the signing of the peace deal with FARC in 2016, over 275 community leaders and former FARC members have been killed.
The UK has funded programmes to help Colombia tackle the conditions that make people susceptible to recruitment by armed groups, and that foster the persistent level of violence towards human rights defenders, social leaders, former FARC-EP combatants, trade unionists and others.
Jim Shannon
I will not delay the Minister for too long. I asked about the transfer of land, because I believe that if we tackle the real bread-and-butter issues, such as giving the land to the people who should be getting it through the agreement and the peace accords, that would also help to take away some of the sting.
Wendy Morton
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and I was just about to come on to the issues of sustainable recovery, trade and economic opportunities, all of which are important.
As for raising our concerns, I can assure Members that we regularly raise specific cases of concern with the Colombian authorities. In February, the UK ambassador for human rights, Rita French, conducted a virtual visit to Colombia to discuss human rights issues. That followed on from Lord Ahmad’s human rights-focused virtual visit to Colombia in October 2020.
As Colombia begins its recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, the UK is committed to supporting the promotion of sustainable economic opportunities that will help tackle some of the root causes of the ongoing violence there. Our international climate finance commitments play a vital role in addressing that challenge. Since 2011, we have provided over £237 million in Colombia to help halt deforestation, improve land use and create profitable, sustainable supply chains that protect the environment. Last year, we announced a £64 million programme to support the Colombian Government in reducing deforestation, specifically in conflict-affected areas.
I am also pleased to say that this year marks the second anniversary of the signing of the UK-Colombia partnership for sustainable growth. As we look forward to COP26 later this year, that partnership is a concrete example of how a bilateral commitment for nature and sustainable growth can foster climate ambition globally.
Let me assure Members of our continued commitment to prioritising human rights in our relationship with Colombia, and I thank colleagues from across the House today for their interest, concern and activism, as well as for sharing their many ideas with me today. We welcome your perspectives, all of which help us to build a productive dialogue with the Colombian authorities and civil society groups to address the ongoing challenges in the implementation of the peace accord and to shore up the gains made since 2016.
Kate Osborne
I thank hon. Members for all their powerful contributions. I take the opportunity to thank Justice for Colombia and Grow Colombia for everything they do to help bring peace to the Colombian people.
Anyone who has been to Colombia—I know that a lot of us here today have had at least one opportunity to visit the country—will know that it is truly a beautiful country, with warm and welcoming people. So it is an absolute tragedy that it has been, and continues to be, the site of so much violence. It is a tragedy that all those who stand up to ask for an end to the huge disparity in wealth, for an end to the human rights abuses, for justice for crimes committed against their loved ones, for the protection of the environment, for their right to remain on ancestral lands and for the right to live in peace must risk their lives to do so.
However, there is hope: there is hope still in the peace process and in the advances that have already been made; and there is hope in seeing so many people in Colombia continuing to stand up in the belief that they can build a better future, in spite of all the risks that they face. So we must continue to do all that we can, as MPs and as a Government, to support everyone in Colombia who is working to improve the human rights situation and to make peace a reality for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered peace and human rights in Colombia.
Written Statements
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018: Report on Regulations Made
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
My hon. Friend the Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) has made the following written ministerial statement:
I am today laying before Parliament a report, “Report under section 32 of the Sanctions and Anti- Money Laundering Act 2018 on the exercise of power to make Regulations under section 1 of the Act”.
The report details the regulations made under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 during the reporting period from 23 May 2020 to 22 May 2021, with a focus on those regulations which are aimed at dealing with gross violations of human rights.
We have also included information on additional actions the Government have taken related to human rights sanctions, including information on certain designations made in relation to serious human rights abuses or violations.
[HCWS184]
Government Hospitality Wine Cellar Biannual Report 2018 - 2020
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
I have today placed a copy of the Government hospitality wine cellar biannual report for the financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20 in the Libraries of both Houses.
Following the outcome of the review of the Government hospitality wine cellar in 2011, this biannual report continues our commitment to reporting to Parliament on the use of the wine cellar, covering consumption, stock purchases, costs, and value for money. The wine cellar has been self-funding since 2011-12, through the sale of some high-value stock and payments made by other Government Departments for events organised by Government hospitality.
The report notes that in 2018-19:
The highest consumption level by volume was again of English and Welsh wine, at 53% of the total (cf. 57% in 17-18);
Purchases amounted to £46,906 (ex-VAT), a decrease of nearly 18% by value cf. £56,976 in 17-18;
The highest volume of purchases was of English and Welsh wines at 49% of the total;
Consumption by volume increased by some 2.8% in FY 2018-19;
Sales of stock amounted to £44,200 (cf. £50,600 in FY 17-18);
Further funds from other Government Departments added £16,985 to the overall receipts (cf. £26,494 in 17-18).
The report notes that in 2019-20:
The highest consumption level by volume was again of English wines, at 56% of the total;
Consumption by volume fell overall by 17.5% in FY 2019-20;
The highest volume of purchases was of English or Welsh wines at 73% of the total;
No sales were achieved due to the advent of the coronavirus pandemic, but funds recovered from other Government Departments added £23,220 to the overall receipts;
Purchases amounted to £73,091, due to major purchases of English still and sparkling wines.
[HCWS179]
Government Transparency and Accountability
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
Since 2010, the Government have been at the forefront of opening up data to allow Parliament, the public and the media to hold public bodies to account.
Despite the need to reprioritise resources to respond to the covid-19 pandemic, central Government Departments continue to publish core transparency data. Such online transparency is crucial to delivering value for money, cutting waste and inefficiency, and ensuring every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent in the best possible way.
Following the recent declaration on Government reform, the Government will continue to look at how the range of information published by Government can be improved and made as useful as possible to the public, press and Parliament.
The following subject areas include documents and information that the Government is due to publish. This statement also includes updates on cross-Government work on outcome delivery plans, business appointment rules, information management guidance for public authorities and policy work on ministerial absences.
Outcome delivery plans
The Government are today publishing outcome delivery plans for the financial year 2021-22. Outcome delivery plans form the basis of the revised Government planning and performance framework, building and improving on the previous single departmental plan framework.
Outcome delivery plans set out how each UK Government Department is working towards the delivery of its priority outcomes, which were first and provisionally published at spending review 2020. Priority outcomes capture the Government’s most important long-term policy objectives, from maximising employment and improving skills to achieving net zero by 2050.
In areas where closer working between Departments would achieve better results, 16 outcomes were agreed on a cross-cutting basis between Departments, reflecting the Government’s commitment to breaking down silos and enabling stronger collaboration between Departments. Outcome delivery plans place a greater emphasis on joint working between Departments, enabling Departments to plan together to deliver shared outcomes. The Government have also identified provisional metrics for each outcome at spending review 2020, against which progress towards delivering these outcomes will be measured.
Since the spending review 2020, these priority outcomes and metrics have been further refined and revisions to those are reflected in outcome delivery plans. Priority outcomes and metrics will be reviewed again where appropriate at the next spending review later this year.
In addition to setting out the strategy for achieving priority outcomes, Departments also identify plans for delivering critical enabling activities, which are crucial to the successful delivery of outcomes. These enabling activities include: attracting and investing in skilled people; embracing innovation; and strengthening functional expertise to support the delivery of outcomes. To ensure we deliver on our sustainability commitments and make the civil service the UK’s most inclusive employer, the plans set out how Departments are driving sustainability, how their work contributes to the delivery of the United Nations sustainable development goals and the Government’s equality objectives.
The new plans also place greater emphasis on high-quality evaluation, which is critical to understanding what works. This builds on the detailed overviews of evidence bases and valuation plans that Departments provided to inform decisions at spending review 2020.
The Government use regular reporting to monitor progress against outcome delivery plans. Parliament and the public will be able to review how each Department is performing against its priority outcomes in its annual report and accounts, which Departments publish annually after the end of each financial year. More regular performance information for many of the metrics agreed for priority outcomes can be found in official statistics and other public datasets.
Hyperlinks to these datasets have been included in outcome delivery plans to make this data more accessible to the public.
Transparency in delivery of major projects
The Cabinet Office is publishing the “Annual Report on Major Projects 2020-21” (and accompanying quarterly Government Major Projects Portfolio data taken as a snapshot at 31 March 2021). The annual publication on the Government's major projects raises awareness of how Government is improving public services, providing value for money and benefits for citizens through its major projects. The report and accompanying spreadsheets detail the 183 projects on the Government’s major project portfolio.
Ministerial transparency
Departments will be today publishing the routine quarterly ministerial data on external meetings, gifts, hospitality and overseas travel.
Transparency on special advisers and senior officials
Special advisers are a critical part of the team supporting Ministers. They add a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers while reinforcing the impartiality of the permanent civil service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support.
In line with legislation, each year the Cabinet Office publishes a list of special advisers and their costs. Today, the Cabinet Office will be publishing the list of special advisers in post along with the cost of special advisers from the previous financial year (April 2020 to March 2021).
The Cabinet Office will also be publishing quarterly data on gifts and hospitality received by special advisers, as well as information on special adviser meetings with senior media figures and business appointment rules advice.
Departments will also be publishing routine quarterly data on the travel, expenses and meetings of senior officials and on business appointment rules advice.
Transparency in the civil service
Alongside routine workforce management information and sickness data, Departments will shortly be publishing updated organograms.
Transparency on correspondence
The Cabinet Office is publishing correspondence data on the performance of departments and agencies in responding to correspondence from Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords during the calendar years 2018, 2019 and 2020.
Transparency in public bodies and public appointments
The Cabinet Office will today be publishing “Public Bodies 2020”. Public bodies play a vital role in the delivery of public services for all our citizens, covering wide-ranging functions. Well-governed, effective and efficient public bodies enable the Government to deliver its priorities. “Public Bodies 2020” is an annual directory that provides a single transparent source of top-level financial and non-financial data on all Executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and non-ministerial departments across Government.
The Cabinet Office will also be publishing public appointments data. The public appointments data report provides a breakdown of the diversity of public appointees who were in roles covered by the governance code on public appointments on 31 March 2020 and those appointed to such roles between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2020. The latter data is a subset of the information published in the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ annual report.
Management of public authority records and information
The Government are publishing a revised code of practice on records management. Under Section 46(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport has a duty to publish, and a right to revise, a code of practice providing guidance to relevant authorities on the management of their records. The code is a technical document aimed at supporting information management professionals in public authorities to discharge their duties under the Act.
In 2018, the National Archives was commissioned to undertake a routine review of the code. The code has since been revised and updated on a principles-based, format-neutral basis, bringing the existing 2009 code up to date with contemporary information management practice and the modern digital working environment. The revised code places information management in the context of broad principles, providing a more accessible framework which outlines how authorities should best manage their information to support appropriate public access under the Act. The code also clarifies the basis on which the Advisory Council on National Records and Archives operates.
Ministerial absences—further work
Following the passing of the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act in March of this year, the Government have continued work considering the practical and policy considerations surrounding other forms of ministerial absence. We are specifically considering whether provision can be extended in circumstances of paternity leave, adoption leave, shared parental leave and sickness leave. These are complex issues which require careful consideration, taking into account modern working practices and the wider constitutional context. The Government have continued to make progress in its consideration of these issues as they relate to Ministers but is mindful of related work in other areas looking at the wider workforce and provisions for MPs, led by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The Government will present a report focused on ministerial leave provision to Parliament in the autumn, setting out considerations and proposals.
Improving the business appointment rules
As the Government have previously set out, the Cabinet Office is working with the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments to improve the operation and efficacy of the business appointment rules. The work will consider and implement improvements to the scope and clarity of the rules, including the enforcement of the rules with an update to the rules later this year. The Cabinet Office is also working closely with Departments to improve the consistency and proportionality of the implementation of the rules, including improving training on and communication of the rules.
Copies of associated documents are being placed in the Library of the House and will be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS185]
Government Chemist Review 2020
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
The 24th annual review of the Government Chemist has been received. The review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses plus those of the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland. The review will also be laid before the Scottish Parliament.
The Government Chemist is the referee analyst named in Acts of Parliament. The Government Chemist’s team carry out analysis in high profile or legally disputed cases. A range of referee analysis work was carried out during 2020, which included the evaluation of genetically modified organisms in rice products, honey authenticity and the labelling of a novel food supplement. The Government Chemist continues to work closely with Government Departments, their governance group, devolved Administrations, non-governmental organisations and industry, to address strategic cross-Department issues such as cannabidiol (CBD) and SARS-CoV-2 viral detection.
[HCWS182]
European Union Finances: Annual Statement
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
I have today laid before Parliament the “European Union Finances 2020: statement on the 2020 EU Budget and measures to counter fraud and financial mismanagement” (CP472). This is an annual publication and is the 40th in the series. This edition of the statement is the last in this publication series that will cover the period of the UK’s membership of the EU (which lasted until 31 January 2020) and also covers the 11-month transition period that ended on 31 December 2020.
This year, annex E of the statement provides additional detail on the assurance arrangements that HM Treasury has introduced in relation to the financial settlement under the withdrawal agreement, and which were reflected in domestic law in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. HM Treasury has worked with the European Commission and its implementing partners to ensure their systems and controls over financial reporting are suitable for the specific requirements of the withdrawal agreement.
The first invoice under the financial settlement was received in April 2021 in relation to payments to be made in the period June to September 2021. The net UK liability under the first invoice was €3.74 billion and the first of four equal monthly instalments was paid at the end of June. A second invoice, covering payments due in the period from October 2021 to April 2022, is due in September.
The document also provides an updated HM Treasury estimate of the total value of the financial settlement. HM Treasury estimate that the current value of the financial settlement is £37.3 billion. This remains within the Government’s previously published reasonable central range, adjusted to take into account the UK’s 31 January 2020 exit date. In annex E, HM Treasury provides an updated summary of the financial settlement, other costs set out in the withdrawal agreement and short-term public expenditure costs.
The 2020 statement also includes a new annex F on UK participation in EU programmes under the trade and co-operation agreement. This sets out an update on the EU programmes the UK is set to associate with later this year.
[HCWS181]
UK Carrier Strike Group: Phase 1 Update
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
On 23 May the UK Carrier Strike Group (CSG21) set sail on her maiden operational deployment and has now completed the first phase. The strike group’s route has taken them through the eastern Atlantic, the Mediterranean and in the final weeks of June, they were operating in the Black sea and delivering combat missions from the eastern Mediterranean concurrently.
During the first phase CSG21 has undertaken an impressive array of exercises working with NATO allies and key international partners. Exercise Steadfast Defender was the principal NATO exercise during this period, but we also participated in dual-carrier operations with our French allies, with HMS Queen Elizabeth sailing in company with the FS Charles de Gaulle.
The carrier air wing has undertaken a range of air exercises including Atlantic Trident and Gallic Strike with the US and France; Falcon Strike with Italy, the US and Israel; and Tri-Lightning with the US and Israel.
This was also a period of concentrated operational activity and development of the carrier strike capability. We provided support to ongoing NATO operations in the Black sea and NATO’s maritime security operation—Sea Guardian—in the Mediterranean. For around two weeks, CSG21 provided support to Operation Shader, the UK contribution to the coalition effort to defeat Daesh in Iraq and Syria. While in the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean we had to deal with persistent and often irresponsible harassment by Russian forces. This unfortunate continuation of Russian aggression was dealt with exceptionally by our forces, demonstrating not only the capabilities of the CSG, but also the professionalism and restraint of our service personnel.
Ships from the strike group have conducted port visits to Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Georgia, Israel, Italy, Montenegro, Romania, Spain, Turkey and Ukraine. The programmes and ministerial attendance around those visits helped enhance security, diplomatic and trade relationships that will make the world safer, and will protect and promote prosperity and the rule of law.
We extend our enormous thanks and our great respect to all those nations and armed forces with whom we have engaged and worked alongside. This deployment is the integrated review in action and demonstrates the friendships and alliances that we have in place across the globe. Together with our allies we are developing a joint capability that is cutting-edge.
Phase 2 of the of the deployment, began on 7 July, and will involve transiting the Suez canal into the Red sea ahead of the group crossing the Indian Ocean and on to the Indo-Pacific.
Whilst operating in the eastern Mediterranean HMS Diamond experienced some technical issues and has detached from the task group for maintenance, inspection and defect rectification. She is expected to rejoin the task group during the Indo-Pacific phase of the deployment.
During phase 1, as part of routine testing, covid-19 cases were detected on four vessels within the strike group. All deployed personnel on CSG21 are fully vaccinated and tested regularly and appropriate protocols were put in place to isolate the cases where possible.
All personnel who are symptomatic are experiencing mild symptoms only and to date there has not been a single covid-19 admission to sickbay. The strike group is currently at sea, has only contactless activity planned for the coming weeks, and will have had at least two weeks at sea before its next planned visits. We take nothing for granted in that regard and are working closely with partners to understand how we can balance engagement and interaction with safety for all concerned.
It is also with deep regret that the Ministry of Defence can confirm that a Royal Navy sailor from HMS Kent died on 10 July 2021. The individual’s next of kin have been informed and have requested privacy at this difficult time. The Ministry of Defence offers its profound condolences to the individual’s family and friends. The ship’s company of HMS Kent are in our thoughts during this difficult time.
[HCWS188]
National Lottery Products: Consultation on Sales by 16 and 17-year-olds
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Media and Data (Mr John Whittingdale)
The national lottery has made a huge contribution to life in the UK since it was launched in 1994, raising over £43 billion for arts, sports, heritage and community projects. More recently, it has contributed over £1.2 billion to those affected by the coronavirus pandemic, supporting everything from our outdoor spaces to our museums, theatres and sports clubs, helping to keep us active, entertained and safe.
Following a consultation, the Government announced last year that they was raising the age at which national lottery tickets can be bought and sold from 16 to 18, protecting young people from the possible risk of gambling harm. The legislation comes into force on October 1 and the operator and retailers have already stopped selling tickets to anyone aged below 18.
Since then, it has emerged that the increase to 18 for the minimum age to sell in particular may lead to operational difficulties for some retailers who employ young people aged 16 and 17.
In order to balance the need for a smooth transition for retailers with the intent of the original policy, this consultation published today seeks views on a minor technical easement which would introduce an approved sales mechanism for national lottery products. This will be based on the systems already in place for alcohol sales in England, Wales and Scotland, and sales of tobacco and nicotine vaping products in Scotland, through which a designated person aged 18 or over can approve a sale by someone under 18 years old. This approach therefore builds on an existing framework and maintains the intent of the original policy.
I look forward to hearing views of interested parties during the consultation.
[HCWS180]
Skills for Jobs
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
Today, as the Government continue to build back better from the pandemic and begin the critical work of levelling up our country, the Department for Education is announcing the next steps towards delivering the ambitious reforms set out in the skills for jobs White Paper.
This includes announcing the skills accelerator trailblazer areas, a further expansion of skills bootcamps, publishing the national skills fund consultation, and launching a consultation seeking views on simplifying funding for adult skills and strengthening the accountability of colleges.
These reforms will help to put employers at the heart of the system, making sure people have the skills they need to get good jobs in the areas our economy needs. They will also ensure people have the opportunity to train, retrain and upskill at any stage, while empowering and enabling providers to deliver these reforms.
Skills accelerator
The skills accelerator programme will give employers a central role working with colleges, other providers, and local stakeholders to shape technical skills provision so that it meets labour market needs. It establishes partnerships led by employer representative bodies, developing local skills improvement plans that will drive investment in the skills sector.
We are now taking the next step towards delivering the skills accelerator, by announcing 18 development fund pilot areas, of which eight will also be local skills improvement plan trailblazer areas. Details can be accessed here at Skills Accelerator, trailblazers and pilots - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)'>www.gov.uk)'>www.gov.uk)'>www.gov.uk).
The new employer-led plans will ensure that technical education and training is well-aligned to what employers need. Ultimately, this will support learners to develop the skills that will enable them to get a well-paid and secure job, no matter where they live, and in the sectors that are critical to our future economic success.
Members of the pilot development fund collaborations will deliver their proposals, which will enable and enhance strategic partnerships between employers and post-16 providers, and test how these alliances will help shape future technical skills provision.
Skills bootcamps expansion
Since the Prime Minister set out his vision for the lifetime skills guarantee last year, the free courses for jobs and skills bootcamps have been helping adults to gain valuable skills that employers need. Both these adult skills offers are funded through the national skills fund, a long term, substantial investment of £2.5 billion to drive adult retraining at the advanced and higher technical skills levels the nation needs.
The national skills fund has successfully delivered the first wave of skills bootcamps and we are pleased to announce the next wave of this exciting, transformational programme, this expansion will roll out more in-demand skills to approximately 16,000 adults by the end of March 2022.
These innovative, flexible courses of up to 16 weeks will continue to give adults aged 19 and over the opportunity to build up sector-specific skills and fast-track to an interview with a local employer. These skills bootcamps cover a wide range of digital, technical and construction skills, including software development, data analytics, construction site management and retrofitting.
We are expanding the skills bootcamps so they are available to adults across the country and registration for the first of these is open now, with more becoming available over the coming weeks. Details are available here at Free courses for jobs - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)'>www.gov.uk)'>www.gov.uk)'>www.gov.uk).
National skills fund consultation
Through the national skills fund, we are already delivering the free courses for jobs offer which provides adults across England with the opportunity to achieve their first full level 3 qualification by giving access to around 400 fully funded courses. While free courses for jobs and skills bootcamps are already enabling thousands of adults to gain valuable skills, we know there is much more to do and the potential for what we could do through the fund is great.
That is why today we are launching a national consultation to help us ensure that we use national skills fund investment effectively to meet the skills needs of adults and employers to the end of this Parliament.
We are keen to hear from a wide range of stakeholders in response to the consultation, as it presents stakeholders with an excellent opportunity to feed back on the free courses for jobs and skills bootcamps which are already being funded through national skills fund investment. The consultation also requests views on meeting critical skills needs to help us ensure we deliver valued skills that will help us build back better.
The consultation closes on the 17 September and can be accessed via National Skills Fund - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)'>www.gov.uk)'>www.gov.uk)'>www.gov.uk).
Funding and accountability consultation
Today we are also launching a consultation seeking views on simplifying funding for adult skills and strengthening the accountability of colleges. This consultation delivers a key commitment of the skills for jobs White Paper. The proposed changes aim to:
make sure colleges and other providers are better supported to focus on helping their students into good jobs employers are recruiting for, now and in the future;
reduce the complexity of adult funding through the skills fund;
define clearer roles and responsibilities for Ofsted and the Further Education Commissioner. The consultation closes on 7 October and can be accessed via Reforms to further education (FE) funding and accountability - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Conclusion
Today's announcements are key milestones in the delivery of our ambitious skills for jobs reform programme which will transform the whole skills system so that we can train the dynamic and flexible workforce needed to rebuild our economy, build back greener, and compete globally.
[HCWS186]
Mental Health Act Reform: Consultation Response
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
The Government have today published the joint Department of Health and Social Care and Ministry of Justice consultation response to the White Paper Reforming the Mental Health Act, published in January this year.
The publication of this report represents a significant milestone on the road to reform of the Mental Health Act, a once-in-a-generation reform programme. It summarises the invaluable and constructive responses that we have heard from the public and stakeholders, and takes us a step closer towards the fulfilment of two manifesto commitments:
That we “will legislate so that patients suffering from mental health conditions...have greater control over their treatment and receive the dignity and respect they deserve”.
That we “will make it easier for people with learning disabilities and autism to be discharged from hospital and improve how they are treated in law".
In January we published a Mental Health Act White Paper, responding to the independent review of the Mental Health Act which was conducted by Sir Simon Wessely and published in 2018.
This White Paper set out that we will be accepting the vast majority of the recommendations and asked a series of consultation questions on the detail and implementation of the proposals.
Since the consultation closed in April, we have analysed more than 1,700 responses. In parallel to the consultation, our Departments have held policy development workshops to get richer insights from service users, clinicians, and those with lived experience of detention under the Act, on the details of the proposals.
The consultation response, published today, includes no new policy announcements, and instead reports on the feedback from clinicians, service users, those with lived experience of detention, and other key stakeholders on the 35 questions posed in the White Paper to gather views on the best way to implement the reforms and ensure they achieve their aims, and inform further policy development as we progress towards a Bill to reform the Act, which we will bring forward when parliamentary time allows.
The response has been overwhelmingly positive, with general support for the proposals and direction of travel set out in the White Paper. The responses have provided valuable insights on the practicalities of implementation, which our Departments will work through, and continue to engage as we do so. We are committed to continue the open policy making approach, in order to bring forward a Bill which will improve how the Act works for everyone. There are a small number of areas where the consultation response did not support the direction of travel set out in the White Paper, or there were mixed views on the proposals. We will reflect on the feedback received, and continue to engage with key stakeholders, prior to taking final policy decisions to inform the Bill.
[HCWS189]
Delivery of Food and Essential Goods
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
I wish to update the House on the measures the Government are taking to ensure the availability of food, sanitary and other essential goods.
The food sector is facing a new, exceptional challenge resulting from the acute shortage of HGV drivers across the distribution network. This is resulting in missed deliveries of food and other essential goods and has the potential to lead to significant shortages. The Government want to respond to this proactively by ensuring the industry has the tools available to effectively respond to these pressures to minimise any disruption to the public.
My colleague the Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), introduced measures on 12 July 2021 aimed at proactively addressing this issue, through the temporary relaxation of HGV driving time regulations. I wish to complement these measures by making this written ministerial statement about the enforcement of planning conditions relating to delivery hours to retailers of food, sanitary and other essential goods. This will allow for both measures to work in tandem, providing the industry with much-needed logistical flexibility. We believe these measures will provide supermarkets, other retailers of food and essential goods and their suppliers with increased flexibility over deliveries to ensure a consistent supply of essential goods.
Many supermarkets, food retailers and distribution centres in England are subject to controls which restrict the time and number of deliveries from lorries and other delivery vehicles, particularly at night. These include planning conditions, which are necessary to make the development acceptable to local residents who might otherwise suffer from traffic, noise and other local amenity issues as a result of these deliveries.
The national planning policy framework already emphasises that planning enforcement is a discretionary activity, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.
The purpose of this written ministerial statement, which comes into effect immediately, is to make clear that local planning authorities should take a positive approach to their engagement with food retailers and distributors, as well as the freight industry, to ensure planning controls are not a barrier to deliveries of food, sanitary and other essential goods.
Local planning authorities should not seek to undertake planning enforcement action which would result in unnecessarily restricting deliveries of food, sanitary and other essential goods during this period, having regard to their legal obligations. The Government recognise that it may be necessary for action to be taken in relation to the impacts on neighbours of sustained disturbance due to deliveries outside of conditioned hours, particularly where this affects sleep. In this case a local planning authority should consider any efforts made by retailers to manage and mitigate such disturbance, taking into account the degree and longevity of amenity impacts.
On 13 March 2020, I made a similar statement to the house in response to the covid-19 pandemic. We kept this under review and extended the provisions with additional statements as necessary. This statement will replace all my previous statements on the matter.
This written ministerial statement only covers England and will expire on 31 January 2022, giving direction to the industry and local planning authorities over the next six months. We will keep the need for this statement under review.
[HCWS187]
Traffic Light System Update: Foreign Travel
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
From 04:00 BST 19 July, the following countries will be added to the Government’s green list:
Bulgaria
Croatia
Hong Kong
Taiwan
Croatia and Taiwan will also be added to the green watchlist, signalling to passengers that these countries are potentially at risk of moving from green to amber at short notice, should swift action be required in order to protect public health in England. Passengers arriving from green list destinations need to provide evidence of a negative covid-19 test result prior to travel and take a further test on day 2 of their arrival in the UK.
The following countries are being added to the amber list:
Balearic Islands
British Virgin Islands
As announced on 8 July, arrivals from amber list countries who have been fully vaccinated under the UK vaccination programme (plus 14 days), will no longer need to quarantine or take a day 8 test if they can provide proof of their vaccination status to carriers in advance of travel to England. This policy will also apply to those on a formally approved UK covid-19 vaccine clinical trial, and children under the age of 18. These changes will also take effect from 04:00 BST Monday 19 July.
Non-vaccinated passengers arriving from amber countries need to provide evidence of a negative test result prior to travel, self-isolate at home for 10 days, and take a test on day 2 and day 8 after arrival. As before, these passengers will have the option to take a further test on day 5 and end their 10-day self-isolation early, upon receipt of a negative test result.
The following countries are being added to the red list as they present a high public health risk to the UK from known variants of concern, known high-risk variants under investigation or as a result of very high in-country or territory prevalence of covid-19:
Cuba
Indonesia
Myanmar
Sierra Leone
Passengers arriving from these destinations, irrespective of vaccination status, will be required to self-isolate in a managed quarantine hotel, provide a valid notification of a negative test result prior to travel and take a test on day 2 and 8 after their arrival.
All arrivals into the UK must continue to complete a passenger locator form.
As health matters are devolved, the devolved Administrations will confirm their respective positions in due course.
[HCWS178]
Bereavement Benefits Remedial Order
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
My hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (The Baroness Stedman-Scott) has made the following written statement:
We have today laid the draft proposal for a Bereavement Benefits (2021) Remedial Order. Copies of the draft proposed remedial order and explanatory memorandum are available in the Journal Office and the Vote Office (Commons) and the Printed Paper Office (Lords).
[HCWS183]
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 must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering, except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other 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.
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 groupings 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
Thursday 15th July 2021
(2 years, 11 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-III Provisional third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (14 Jul 2021)
Lord Coaker
“Horizon-scanning body
(1) Within three months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must establish a body corporate with a remit to consider emerging and future developments for the telecommunications sector for the purposes of identifying current and emerging security threats.(2) The body must include representatives from, but is not limited to— (a) the National Cyber Security Centre;(b) the intelligence services;(c) the National Cyber Force;(d) the Ministry of Defence(e) the Home Office;(f) the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport;(g) the National Security Council;(h) the Investment Security Unit;(i) the Armed Forces;(j) OFCOM;(k) relevant industry bodies and companies;(l) relevant telecommunications and security experts.(3) The body must publish a report annually which is laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Good afternoon, everyone. I am looking forward to the Committee session this afternoon. Two days ago was my first Grand Committee sitting as a Member of the House of Lords, and I was impressed by the quality of the contributions. I have been moved by the intellectual power of the people here and I look forward to that. I was grateful to the Minister for her contributions and the way she tried to answer the questions, even if one or two of them were not as well put as her Civil Service brief. I appreciated that, and it helps the Committee enormously when we have that positive, constructive engagement, even if there is a measure of disagreement at times. As I said at the beginning, a Bill like this unites us all in wanting to contribute in a way that defends and secures our country and democracies across the world. It is in that spirit that I move Amendment 18 and table Amendment 25 in my name, and I know the Minister will take it in that spirit.
I also thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, very much for supporting both the amendments. I know the Committee is looking forward to his informed and experienced contribution to our discussions. Although the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not present—he will no doubt read Hansard—I also thank him for his support for Amendment 25.
These are probing amendments that challenge the Government to explain to the Committee and the wider public their thinking and why these amendments are not necessary. Their various measures are contained elsewhere in the Bill, but it is an important debate for us to have because, as all of us have said, national security is the first duty of any Government and that includes Her Majesty’s Opposition and other parties. That is what “Government” means in total—the responsibility of us all to our citizens.
These amendments are also saying that, to secure democracies across the world in the face of the autocratic challenges and threats we see, it is necessary for us to work well not only in our own country but with our allies. That is clearly something the Government wish, as well.
Our telecoms infrastructure, as I saw yesterday when I went to Airbus—a brilliant company in Portsmouth—is clearly critical to our defence and security as well as our economic prosperity. The Bill’s impact assessment rightly highlights the threats we face, stating that the
“most significant cyber threat to the UK telecoms sector”
comes from other states. It is not a terrorist threat in the normal sense of a threat from individuals; but when powerful states can take action against us, that is significant for our country and for democracies across the world. The impact assessment continues:
“The UK Government has publicly attributed malicious cyber activity against the UK to Russia and China as well as North Korea and Iranian actors”.
That is worrying and significant for all of us.
Both amendments say that our approach to security has to be co-ordinated domestically and with our allies. That is, frankly, a challenge for any Government. As to the list of bodies I have included in the amendment, I am sure the Minister could say that I have not mentioned this or that body. However, those that I have listed are based on my own research. I am sure that other significant bodies should be on it. However, the point is that the challenge is significant. How will cross-departmental co-ordination on the current security infrastructure work at a domestic and international level? I know that the response is often that we have the National Security Council and that is why it was set up, and the Prime Minister chairs it. It is obviously incredibly important and it would be ridiculous to say that it is anything other than an effective co-ordinating body. However, that does not alter the fact that coming to the table are significant actors in their own right within the sphere. It is right to ask, how do the Government expect the new duties placed on the telecoms sector to work and be policed by all the various bodies?
The amendments also highlight the question of how we future-proof this legislation against current and emerging threats. To be blunt, it is hard enough to deal with the current threats as we understand them. At security levels far higher than those we have in this Committee, there will be those who will not only be trying to deal with the current threats but looking at what might happen, five, 10 or 15 years down the road. That is a real challenge for anyone. How do we stop those threats?
We have come to a view about Huawei. Some may argue that perhaps we should have done so two, three or four years ago but we are where we are and we have now concluded that all Huawei equipment should be out of our country’s networks by 2027. Would it not have been better to have predicted that several years ago, so that we would not have to try to stop that company’s involvement now? How does the Minister believe that the current structures and those envisaged in the Bill will deal with not only current but future threats?
The concern is shared by our allies. The recent NATO summit communiqué stated:
“NATO and Allies…will maintain and enhance the security of our critical infrastructure”,
including “communication information networks” such as 5G. I should say to the Minister—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, will have much greater understanding and awareness of this issue—that one of the most significant moves that the alliance made in that communiqué was to confirm that a cyberattack, including on our own telecoms networks, could trigger an Article 5 response.
With the Committee’s permission, I will read from paragraph 32, as it is so important:
“We reaffirm that a decision as to when a cyberattack would lead to the invocation of Article 5 would be taken by the North Atlantic Council on a case-by-case basis. Allies recognise that the impact of significant malicious cumulative cyber activities might … be considered as amounting to an armed attack.”
I emphasise “armed attack”. We and our allies are saying, quite rightly, that the theory of deterrence is now being applied to the world of cyber. The Minister will understand the principle that an attack on one is an attack on all, so theoretically it could be one of our allies that is subject to that attack and that we come to the defence of. Again, I think that is quite right. Does the Minister have any comment highlighting how the Government see that being taken forward?
Amendment 18 seeks to establish a horizon-scanning body for our telecommunications sector, to identify current and emergent threats and produce an annual report for Parliament. The body would include representatives from the Armed Forces, relevant departments, the intelligence services and the National Cyber Security Centre, as well as industry and security experts. Can the Minister explain how the Government will watch out for future threats without such a body? How will cross-departmental work be managed? Will the new telecoms advisory council include security experts or ex-military personnel?
The Spectator is not a magazine whose political opinions I agree with, but this is so serious. The front page this week features the relationship between China and Cambridge. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, I am just reporting to the Committee what is said in a well-regarded magazine that I and many other noble Lords read. To have that on its front page, and then inside, significant articles about the relationships and the potential difficulties that they may cause for us on a security level, shows to the Committee and the wider public how difficult this is becoming. You have one of the most brilliant universities in the world being questioned in terms of its relationship with China, in a well-regarded publication. That is a challenge for us as we take this Bill through and what it means for us in maintaining our security to defend our democracy.
Amendment 25 seeks to ensure that the Government publish a long-term strategy for our telecommunications security and resilience. Can the Minister outline how she expects that to happen? We should consider how to collaborate more effectively with our allies—NATO and the Five Eyes—and consider proper resourcing of UK security infrastructure. I believe DCMS is now developing a long-term strategy to consider how international standards can be developed. Can the Minister explain how the UK will work with our allies on R&D or adoption and deployment? This is critical for the security of our nation, so it would be helpful for the Committee to understand.
I hope that the Minister takes my contribution in the spirit in which it is meant, which is to challenge in a way that I hope is helpful to the security of the nation and of our telecoms infrastructure and businesses. The last year or two have been a bit of a wake-up call for all of us, including me, as to the potential threats that there are. Given the security level that we are all at, what some people working at STRAP levels know and understand about the threats to our nation one can only begin to imagine. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to the contributions of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and other Members of the Committee. This is meant to be a probing, challenging amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond in that spirit, and that we can all look forward to seeing how the security of our nation can be effectively maintained against the threats as we understand them now and as they may emerge in the future. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to bang on for a long time because, in a way, this falls in with things such as the technical advisory committee. It is all part and parcel of the same thing, and we have to keep our eyes open and start forward scanning and see what else is out there.
Ofcom is not in fact a department; I seem to remember that it was set up by Europe through regulations and that originally, it reported via Parliament to the European regulators. I am not entirely sure what Ofcom’s chain of command is; I must do some research into it. Having this buried inside such a body without proper parliamentary scrutiny is unwise, so it is only sensible to embed the principle of having proper advisory committees. This is an obvious no-brainer: we need people with these abilities and skills to be advising on this stuff, and I cannot understand why there would be any objection to it.
Amendment 25 covers the very good point about long-term strategy. As was pointed out on Tuesday, our relationship with the Five Eyes could easily change. There have been efforts from time to time to drive a wedge between us, and we need to start looking at that. One cannot assume that the status quo regarding who is an ally or friend will continue for ever. The fact that we are in different parts of the globe and therefore perhaps in different trading blocs could cause undue pressure, so we must have this horizon-scanning, long-term attitude.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, reminded me of the Tallinn Manual and the question of when cyberwarfare escalates to actual warfare because your entire infrastructure and systems have been taken down. It is a very interesting document. I skimmed through it a long time ago, but it was very eye-opening and before we just leap in, people should take a look at it.
That is really all I have to say. This is so obvious, and I just hope that the Government are going to do something about it.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 18 and 25, to which I have added my name, I have in mind the very purpose of the Bill itself, which is, I take it, to ensure the security and resilience of our telecommunications capability here in the UK. The Bill as drafted places certain duties on the providers of those capabilities and gives powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations and issue codes of practice. This is all well and good, but these somewhat mechanistic, albeit welcome, measures will not by themselves result in the necessary degree of security and resilience.
As I said at Second Reading, things move quickly in the world of technology, and they will move even faster during a determined attack on our telecommunications infrastructure. If we are to respond successfully, we will need to be both agile and adaptable. The measures in the Bill will, by themselves, not ensure this.
One of the reasons why we are even considering this Bill is concerns over the position of Huawei in our telecommunications architecture, the clear channel that runs through that company to the Chinese Communist Party, and the ensuing vulnerability of our system. None of this comes as a great surprise, but we have allowed ourselves to get into a position where we are now having to play catch-up. This is largely because we spent the first half of the last decade thinking almost exclusively of the economic opportunities offered by China and very little about the associated security risks; in other words, our decision-making process was unbalanced and distorted. Without proper safeguards, we could easily find ourselves in a similar situation with regard to some future threat.
What sorts of safeguards might help prevent such an occurrence? There is no single answer to this question but at the very least we need a process that provides an appropriate degree of horizon scanning and that, importantly, draws in expertise from across technology, business and security organisations and, indeed, from across different government departments, to give us the best chance of coming to a balanced view.
That is what Amendment 18 seeks to do. It will not cure all ills but it will provide us with a mechanism to drive adaptability, not just in our architecture but in our thinking, something that is traditionally hard to achieve. Of course, the Minister may say that the Bill is not the place for setting out this kind of thing. My response to that would be: if not here, then where? The responsibilities outlined in the amendment must be met if we are to achieve the Bill’s laudable purpose.
Amendment 25 is in many ways a follow-on from Amendment 18. It calls for the deliberations of a horizon-scanning body and the ensuing policies and actions to be presented to Parliament in the form of a comprehensive strategy. Most importantly, it seeks to ensure that such a strategy is coherent with other elements of government policy, as set out in various documents, such as the integrated review, and in other legislation, such as the National Security and Investment Act. It also seeks to encourage international co-operation in this regard. I believe this is essential, since we rely so heavily on collective security for our national safety. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has already highlighted the importance that NATO now attaches to the whole area of communications and cyberspace.
Taken together, these two amendments put in place measures that would improve our agility and adaptability and thus strengthen the Bill in terms of its ultimate purpose. If the Government are going to set their face against such measures in this legislation, I ask the Minister to explain how the essential functions they prescribe are to be carried out and how Parliament can be confident of their success.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I support Amendment 18, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and Amendment 25, which is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
These amendments propose a pathway forward that would ensure we are well equipped to handle the challenges that will inevitably come our way in the next decade. Amendment 18 places a requirement on the Secretary of State to create a body designed to analyse and consider existing and emergent threats in the telecommunications sector, incorporating representatives from the major bodies of our national security matrix. This body would then be required to lay an annual report before all Members of Parliament, ensuring adequate parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. Indeed, if not for Back-Bench agitation, we might still be aimlessly integrating Huawei into our critical infrastructure, lagging behind our Five Eyes allies in recognising the security threat that such high-risk vendors pose.
Amendment 25, building on the horizon scanning outlined in Amendment 18, requires the Secretary of State to publish a long-term telecommunications strategy in partnership with the aims and outcomes of our closest Five Eyes and NATO allies. In alignment with the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, this strategy would ensure that long-termism is built into our thinking across both our economic and strategic aims in the coming decade.
We have one of the most sophisticated and advanced intelligence-gathering apparatuses in the world. We are a significant asset to our Five Eyes and NATO allies and a crucial linchpin in ensuring the international order. Yet we have been slow to respond to the rapidly changing digital landscape that we find ourselves in.
An obvious example of this is the much-discussed high-risk vendor, Huawei. It is extraordinary to think that all the way back in 2013 a report from the Intelligence and Security Committee concluded that Huawei posed a risk to national security and that private providers were responsible for ensuring the security of the UK telecoms network. Yet now, according to Ofcom, Huawei accounts for about 44% of the equipment used in providing superfast full-fibre connections directly to homes, offices and other businesses in the UK.
In a Statement to Parliament last year, the Foreign Secretary made the welcome announcement that
“high-risk vendors should be excluded from all safety- related and safety-critical networks in critical national infrastructure”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/20; cols. 710-11.]
and yet, due to how embedded this vendor has become in our critical infrastructure and the lack of competition, Huawei, as we have heard, is not set to be removed as a provider until 2027. It should never have reached this point. A horizon-scanning body and deeper parliamentary oversight would ensure that we are not left sleeping at the wheel again. How was it that our Five Eyes allies were significantly more alert to this risk than we were?
Furthermore, without cross-body co-ordination, the rapid advances in technology we are set to witness over the coming years will make it even more difficult to adapt to threats as they manifest themselves. GCHQ Director Jeremy Fleming suggests that the UK needs to prioritise the advances in quantum computing, as well as working with allies to build better cyber defences and shape international standards and laws in cyberspace. With quantum computing becoming more mainstream, there is a risk that a sudden increase in processing power could render existing encryption methods useless.
These are just some of the challenges we face. The future of our security and sovereignty will depend on the steps we take in this Bill. According to MI5, at least 20 foreign intelligence services are actively operating against UK interests. We have a remarkable security and intelligence community but, as we enter this new era, we must accept that our ability to adapt to emerging challenges will be the defining feature that drives us forward and keeps us ahead of other nations that would challenge our national interests.
We have seen how easy it is for a digital attack to break down our critical systems. Just last month, a ransomware attack in the US took down the entire Colonial Pipeline infrastructure, which transmits nearly half the east coast’s fuel supplies. Analysts have suggested that hackers could have been inside Colonial’s IT network for weeks or even months before launching their ransomware attack.
This issue extends into the digital space. A 2018 report commissioned by the US Senate intelligence committee, The Tactics & Tropes of the Internet Research Agency—a Russian propaganda unit—revealed that there was:
“A sweeping and sustained social influence operation consisting of various coordinated disinformation tactics aimed directly at US citizens, designed to exert political influence and exacerbate social divisions in US culture”.
I posit that we may not even be aware of the scope of the disinformation and destabilisation occurring online that is challenging our sovereignty and internal security.
I support these amendments in light of the fact that it has taken considerable Back-Bench activity to alert us to the security issues posed by high-risk vendors; that we are still not thinking clearly on China; and that we need systems and structures to ensure that long-termism is built into our thinking across both our economic and strategic aims in the coming decade.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 18 would require the Secretary of State to
“establish a body … to consider emerging and future developments for the telecommunications sector for the purposes of identifying current and emerging security threats.”
Amendment 25 would require the Secretary of State to
“publish a long-term strategy on telecommunications security and resilience.”
These are very sensible proposals, and the speakers have made a cogent case. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his wide-ranging and positive introduction to these amendments.
This is an extremely complex area, as we have heard, not only within our discussions of the Bill but beyond. We know from bitter experience that something can be flagged as a risk and then, without proper focus on it—given all that Governments have to focus on —follow-through is less than systematic. Think of pandemics, flagged, not least in the 2015 strategic review, yet followed through with little or no preparation. This picks up a theme that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, emphasised in relation to Huawei: awareness but lack of action. Therefore, the case for a body that looks at this area in the widest sense is compelling.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for tabling these amendments and for his very generous opening remarks. He reminds us that we must remain vigilant about current and emerging threats to our telecoms networks. Rightly, he also urged the Government to communicate how we will do that in a way that makes sense to the public. Today, we are focusing on this Bill and how it is designed to protect our networks now and into the future.
As we heard, Amendment 18 calls for a body to be set up for the purposes of monitoring current and emerging threats to our telecoms sector. The amendment lists a number of committees, departments, organisations and agencies that should be represented on this body.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, asked: if not here, where? I will try to answer that question in my remarks.
I assure noble Lords that we already have established procedures to monitor current and emerging threats to the telecoms sector. The National Cyber Security Centre undertakes regular risk assessments of such threats, and those assessments are used to inform government policy. For example, the code of practice the Bill will allow us to issue will be informed by the National Cyber Security Centre’s assessments.
In addition, the Government already have forums in which emerging threats and new technological developments are discussed with industry. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me to give examples of a particular domestic focus. This is one of them. For example, the National Cyber Security Centre’s network security information exchange is a trusted community of security professionals from across the telecoms sector who come together on a quarterly basis to discuss openly and share information on security issues and concerns. There are also established channels for the kind of cross-government and interagency working that the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to formalise. The Government do not see that it would be necessary to establish a new body corporate, which would simply risk duplicating the work of existing forums.
The noble Lord’s amendment would also make provision for Parliament to receive annual reports on current and emerging threats from this new body. The National Cyber Security Centre already publishes guidance as and when threats develop. Furthermore, as noble Lords are aware, the Intelligence and Security Committee is able to see and scrutinise the National Cyber Security Centre’s assessments of current and emerging threats. Given that there is already this provision for parliamentary oversight, I do not consider that laying a report before Parliament annually would be necessary.
Amendment 25 would require the Government to publish a long-term telecoms security and resilience strategy, covering various topics set out in the amendment, within six months of the Bill’s Royal Assent, and would require this strategy to be laid before Parliament. The Government share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that this country is fully prepared to overcome future challenges to the security of our telecoms networks. However, the publication of such a strategy is, we feel, unnecessary because recent government reports and announcements, publicly available, already address these topics. The noble Lord will be aware that the Bill is the result of the recommendations put forward in the UK Telecoms Supply Chain Review Report, published in July 2019. That report, along with the Government’s announcements last year, has already set out our strategy for addressing telecoms security risks, particularly relating to supply chains.
In addition, we published our 5G Supply Chain Diversification Strategy last November. This includes our strategy for collaborating with allies on future network research and development, and influencing global telecoms standards. As I will touch on when we debate Amendments 24 and 28, this work is progressing well and the Government’s response to the recent diversification taskforce report, published earlier this month, sets out the steps we are taking to deliver on our goals.
More broadly, the Government’s approach to telecoms security and resilience is informed by cross-government priorities. These include the integrated review, published in March, which committed to launching a new comprehensive cyber strategy this year. The strategy will set out how we will build up the UK’s cyber resilience, deter our adversaries and influence tomorrow’s technologies so that they are safe, secure and open.
Alongside this, a national resilience strategy will ensure that our suite of systems, infrastructure and capabilities for managing the full range of resilience risks becomes more proactive, adaptable and responsive to future threats and challenges. Work is well under way to develop these cross-cutting strategies, and we will ensure that our approach to telecoms security and resilience continues to take them into account.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, know very well that there is a tension between having a greater degree of focus in a strategy and a wider scope. We believe that we have struck the right balance in this area.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about cyber deterrence. He may be aware that the Government will shortly bring forward legislation to counter state threats of the type he described. It will create new offences, tools and powers to detect, deter and disrupt hostile state activity by states targeted at the UK. He also referred, in the context of future-proofing, to the National Security Council. Among its responsibilities is examining forward-looking strategies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned the role of the FCDO. Of course, she will know that the First Secretary of State provides leadership across departments to ensure that the Government’s response to cyberthreats and our ambition as a cyberpower are fulfilled.
My noble friend Lady Stroud talked about the Government being asleep at the wheel in relation to Huawei. I think that is a little harsh. The Government have always considered Huawei to pose a relatively high risk to the UK’s telecoms networks compared with other vendors. A risk mitigation strategy has been in place since Huawei began to supply equipment to UK public telecoms providers. Obviously, the Government have announced extensive advice to manage those security risks based on the work of the experts at the National Cyber Security Centre. Most recently, the Secretary of State announced advice that providers should remove all equipment made by Huawei from 5G networks by the end of 2027.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the presence of security experts on the recently announced diversification council. I can confirm that a senior official from the National Cyber Security Centre will attend to provide that expertise.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, asked what parliamentary scrutiny there was of Ofcom. The chief executive and other senior officials from Ofcom give regular evidence to parliamentary Select Committees, including an annual scrutiny session with the DCMS Select Committee, and it also lay its annual report and accounts before Parliament.
I hope I have managed to address most of the points raised and to reassure your Lordships that, while we recognise the very valid questions that have been asked, we believe that we have the balance right in terms of co-ordination and strategy. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister and other speakers for this debate, which is really important. The Minister was basically saying in her response, “Don’t worry, we’ve got this covered.” If the Government did indeed have it covered, I suggest that ripping out 40% of the 5G network at the cost of several billion pounds to the industry is a pretty poor cover. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, that it took Back- Benchers to highlight this rather than the Government was particularly apposite.
The Minister portrayed the decision to remove Huawei almost as if it was a success of the process. Will she acknowledge that these billions of pounds are growth that we will not get, that they are investment in this country that has been wasted, and that it has put the country in danger in the process? Will she further acknowledge that there might be others who are able to help in the process of avoiding a repeat of what is a huge debacle?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I tried to present the breadth and depth of approaches that the Government are taking to address this incredibly serious and complex problem. If I may borrow the word used by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, we have tried to show some agility in responding to changing circumstances. The noble Lord will be aware that there were changes to the US foreign-produced direct product rules in May 2020 which changed the risk profile of our engagement with Huawei, and we acted on that, so I do not feel that I have to apologise at this point.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply and for again seeking to answer the questions. We may well have to come back to some of this, but I take the point that the Government are seeking to address current and emerging threats; I just think that this needs to be more clearly stated in the Bill. The Minister gave examples of cross-government working. We all know that there are examples of cross-government working, but the Committee is saying—I think that there was agreement across the Committee—that sometimes there is a need for a mechanism to ensure that it happens. It may be that another body will do that more effectively in the face of the threats that we face now or may face in the future—it may be that we seek to replace rather than add a body. The Government may want to consider that.
Lord Coaker
“Provision of information to the Intelligence and Security Committee
The Secretary of State must provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable with a copy of—(a) any direction or notice (or part thereof) that is withheld from publication by the Secretary of State in the interests of national security in accordance with section 105Z11(2) or (3) of the Communications Act 2003;(b) any notification of contravention given by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 105Z18(1) of the Communications Act 2003;(c) any confirmation decision given by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 105Z20(2)(a) of the Communications Act 2003;(d) any reasons for making an urgent enforcement direction that are withheld by the Secretary of State in the interests of national security in accordance with section 105Z22(5) of the Communications Act 2003; and(e) any reasons for confirming or modifying an urgent enforcement direction that are withheld by the Secretary of State in the interests of national security in accordance with section 105Z23(6) of the Communications Act 2003.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is provided with any information relating to a designated vendor direction, notification of contravention, urgent enforcement action or modifications to an enforcement direction made on grounds of national security.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I apologise to the Committee for having to hear so much of me in the first 48 minutes. This is a really important amendment and I will make a couple of general remarks before making some more specific comments.
Concern has been expressed throughout consideration of this Bill about the extent to which the Bill provides for parliamentary scrutiny. Parliamentary scrutiny is the important area that Amendment 22 seeks to address, and I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Merron and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.
Amendment 22 seeks to improve and prioritise national security. We have all said that we support the intention behind this Bill and the need for national security, but the sweeping powers that the Bill gives the Secretary of State must be used in the interests of securing our critical national infrastructure. Removing Huawei does not in itself do that, so there is a question of accountability here. Amendment 22 is designed to ensure greater scrutiny, focus and transparency and address the deepening hole in accountability presented by the Government. At its heart, it would
“ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee … is provided with any information relating to a designated vendor direction, notification of contravention, urgent enforcement action or modifications to an enforcement direction made on grounds of national security”
by the Secretary of State, as soon as reasonably possible.
The Minister knows that, during the passage of the National Security and Investment Bill, noble Peers from all sides of this House repeatedly tried to ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee had oversight of national security issues. To be frank with the Minister, it was difficult to understand why the Government were so determined not to give the committee a role. This amendment says to the Government that the ISC is the appropriate place to discuss matters of national security and that it has a unique role in assessing security implications, as even Ministers accept.
The key point is to ask the Minister how this would work. This is the nub of the amendment and goes to the heart of what many noble Lords have said. The DCMS Select Committee and many of the people who will be looking at these documents do not have the required clearance to scrutinise highly classified evidence, so should the ISC, which does have the necessary security clearance, not have a role? It is the only committee of Parliament that has regular access to documents marked “information sensitive for national security reasons”.
I am sure that many of us simply do not understand that when you look at the state security threats to the telecommunications infrastructure that have been identified by the Government, the level of clearance will not be official-sensitive, STRAP 1 or STRAP 2, it will be STRAP 3. No one in this Committee will see that. Some Members of the Committee may have seen it in the past. So how can Parliament be reassured without knowing that the Intelligence and Security Committee has looked at it? Who has oversight of it? Even the Minister will not have the level of clearance to see all of it, yet she will tell the Committee that Parliament has oversight of these matters, when none of us—or very few of us—have the security clearance to actually look at and scrutinise those threats. So how will Parliament scrutinise it if we do not have the security clearance to do that? It is logically inconsistent. Yet time and again, the Government refuse to allow the committee set up with that express purpose—namely, the Intelligence and Security Committee—the function that it was set up to do on behalf of Parliament. With respect, I simply do not understand why the Government are so resistant to that. On many of the other things that we mention, there is a debate and opinions are exchanged. But this is completely and utterly illogical.
I ask the Committee to consider this. Given that the level of security clearance needed to protect our country, its telecommunications structure and that of our allies from the threats posed by other states is above that of the vast majority of Ministers of the Crown, Members of the House of Lords and civil servants, who is to scrutinise these matters if not the Intelligence and Security Committee? I fail to understand what the answer to that is. Parliament deserves to scrutinise these matters and it should be done by the committee set up to do that because it is the only committee of Parliament that has the necessary security clearance. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has summed up an important recurring theme that was raised at Second Reading. The Government should take this very seriously indeed.
Oversight by a body with top-level security clearance is essential. I certainly would sleep safer if I knew this was happening. Part of this comes from the Minister’s reply when I started to query the status of Ofcom and its relationship to the Civil Service department. I gather that the relationship of Ofcom is similar to that of an agency—if it is not actually set up as an agency; it is set up as a regulatory body, I think. I remember the huge problem—debacle would be a better word—when Defra failed to bring in the new mapping system back when we were changing the way of paying farmers. Everyone knew that it was about to be disastrous. Everyone could see the train crash coming. The Minister could not do anything about it except stand at the Dispatch Box and say, “I’m not allowed to interfere. It is a separate company. We can only call it to account at the end of the year.” As a result, when it all went pear-shaped and farmers suffered disastrous and severe financial problems, the Minister was retired—and it was not any fault of his. He knew perfectly well what was going on but had no power under the structure.
This is my problem with the agency structure that was set up, I think under Mrs Thatcher, when she was trying to cut back the Civil Service so she took things off the Civil Service books to make the figures look better. We have to be very careful when we are handing huge powers or these momentous decisions to an agency. Therefore, it is important that we get into the Bill mechanisms by which we can know what is going on at the time and make sure that it is not going wrong. This oversight, certainly by the Intelligence and Security Committee, is essential—a no-brainer.
I will just mention that the same principle applies in Amendment 29 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, which I did not put my name to because I thought that was unnecessary. Exactly the same thing applies to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Rather than me wasting time speaking again, I will say it now: please will the Government start looking at this more seriously?
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name in support of Amendment 22, which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, explained so comprehensively and so well. He has picked up an ongoing theme that has been so agitating noble Lords—especially, I note, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—about the Executive increasingly and simply bypassing Parliament. I think that the noble and learned Lord will be very interested in this matter when we come to Report in the Chamber.
In this regard, I can do no better than refer the Minister to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord West, at Second Reading. He is the Lords representative on the Intelligence and Security Committee. He pointed out that this is exactly what that committee is for. It is clearly vital that Parliament has a role in what is covered under the Bill, but we also understand the potential security sensitivities here. This is where that committee can play a vital role on behalf of Parliament, but under the strict security rules under which it operates. If there are matters that the Secretary of State is withholding from publication in the interests of national security and in related areas, these must be reported to the ISC. I therefore urge the Minister to accept this amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lady Northover for this amendment, which I would have signed had she not done so already. We heard at Second Reading an excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord West, explaining not only why this amendment is important but why certain figures who would normally speak in this debate are not doing so. He explained that the ISC is seeking to change its MoU. As such, he and others would not speak in this particular debate.
However, we have an analogous debate to refer to, which has already been mentioned. Those of us who are veterans of the National Security and Investment Bill have been through this already. I think the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, is the only other person in this Room who was involved in it. I certainly spent some of my life on that Bill.
We sent back to the Commons an amended version of that Bill. Your Lordships adopted an amendment not dissimilar from the one in front of the Committee today. That decision was made, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, because the BEIS Select Committee is not enabled to deal with the level of security information it needs to properly scrutinise the operation of BEIS for the National Security and Investment Act. There is exactly the same situation here. I gather, anecdotally, that the BEIS Committee is already hitting issues with getting the information it needs under that Act.
We also heard anecdotally on Tuesday of the debacle over the Newport Wafer Fab, where the BEIS Secretary of State has failed to use the power given to him by the National Security and Investment Act to do something around national security. The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, is no longer in her place, but once again the ministry was forced by Back-Bench action to reconsider what it was doing. This should not be how things work. It is beginning to look like these are rhetorical points, rather than actually being usable. I hope the same fate does not befall this legislation and that it actually gets used rather than shelved. But in the same way as BEIS, DCMS will have a Select Committee that cannot access the information it needs to scrutinise the activities covered in this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, notwithstanding the stifling atmosphere of this Committee Room, managed to do a very close approximation of complete incredulity over why the Government should not listen to this fantastic advice. I can say that, having gone through the last Bill and seen how resistant the Government are to advice of this sort, this is neither an accident nor a sin of omission. This is a sin of commission. The Government are very clear that they do not want proper scrutiny of what they are doing, and if this Bill remains as it is, there will not be the scrutiny that is needed. Neutering of that scrutiny is not an accident but a deliberate act of the Government.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for tabling this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for moving it. The role and remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee, as noble Lords have remarked, have been raised a number of times in the other place and at Second Reading of this Bill, so I welcome the opportunity to clarify how appropriate oversight of the Bill’s national security powers will be provided for in the Bill and through existing mechanisms.
Amendment 22 would require the Secretary of State to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee with copies of designation notices and designated vendor directions when such notices, or parts of them, are withheld under Section 105Z11(2) or (3) in the interests of national security. It would also require the Secretary of State to provide copies of notifications of contraventions, confirmation decisions, the reasons for giving urgent enforcement directions when withheld under Section 105Z22(5), and the reasons for confirming or modifying such directions when withheld under Section 105Z23(6).
I will try to correct the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the Government are trying to avoid parliamentary scrutiny on this particular point. That simply is not borne out by the way that the Bill is drafted. We are very clear about where parliamentary scrutiny should take place. I recognise the desire of your Lordships for the Intelligence and Security Committee to play a greater role in the oversight of national security decision-making across government, including in relation to this Bill. As I mentioned earlier, through the oversight of the National Cyber Security Centre, the Intelligence and Security Committee can request information around NCSC advice on, and activities relating to, high-risk vendors.
However, this amendment would extend the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee in an unprecedented way. As noble Lords are aware, the activities of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are not within the ISC’s remit. That committee’s remit extends to the intelligence agencies and other activities of the Government in relation to intelligence or security matters, as they are set out in its memorandum of understanding.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked what he called the “central question” of how this will work in practice in terms of security access. My understanding is that according to the Osmotherly rules detailing how the Government may share information with Select Committees, members of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee are able to view and handle classified and other sensitive material, subject to agreement between the department and the chair of the committee on appropriate handling. Documents may also be shared with the chair of the DCMS Committee on Privy Council terms, subject to agreement between the committee chair and the department.
The advice of the intelligence agencies will not be the only factor that the Secretary of State will take into account when deciding what is proportionate to include in a designated vendor direction. As well as the advice of the National Cyber Security Centre, the Secretary of State will consider, among other things, the economic impact, the cost to industry and the impact on connectivity caused by the requirements in any designated vendor direction. The ISC does not have the remit to consider non-security issues such as the economic and connectivity implications of the requirements in designated vendor directions. The Digital, Culture Media and Sport Select Committee can consider those wider aspects and that is why it is the correct and appropriate body to see copies of designation notices and designated vendor directions that are not laid before Parliament. Any future changes to the ISC’s remit would be best managed through consideration of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the associated memorandum of understanding.
For the reasons that I have set out, I am unable to accept the amendment and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will therefore withdraw it.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply. The Government are going to have to reconsider this matter. The explanation of what can or cannot be looked at is very unclear. The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear through the legislation that the Intelligence and Security Committee would have an automatic right to look at some of the threats, rather than it being the judgment of someone, who has to consult someone else to make a decision. That is the whole point. It should not be a question of someone deciding after discussion whether the matter should go forward; there should be a requirement in the Bill that that be done.
The point that I keep making is that at security clearance level 3, hardly anyone in the country could look at this matter, but there may well be aspects of a threat to telecommunications from a state that are at that level. All that any of us is saying is that of course Parliament should not be openly told about it, but that does not mean that there should be no scrutiny by the committee set up with that express purpose, so that we have oversight and scrutiny of even the most highly classified information. It would be a great credit to our democracy if the even highest level of security threat were subject to a check, set up by Parliament.
I and the Committee are saying to the Minister that this matter needs to be reconsidered. Even the Government, in response to the debate in the other place, have said that they are going to look at the next annual report of the Intelligence and Security Committee to see whether its remit should be extended to include the DCMS Committee. The Government are therefore aware that there is a problem here and say that they will look at this issue. We are trying to horizon-scan here and are saying that this will be a problem if this proposal is not included in the Bill.
I honestly believe that the Government really are going to have to look at this. I am going to repeat that because it is so important. The Minister herself, even the Secretary of State, will not know of some of this. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, knows how many people know, but it is very few. Yet the Intelligence and Security Committee was set up to consider this issue and we are saying that there should be measures in the Bill to deal with it.
The reason why the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and I are incredulous is that this just does not logically hold together. This is not an opinion but a fact: if the Bill goes through unamended, we in Parliament will not be able to look at the security threats that people are making decisions about. It is accepted that not everybody should be told about such things—of course not—but I doubt whether Parliament thinks that this situation is acceptable. I ask the Minister to reconsider that.
Baroness Merron
“OFCOM’s Annual Report
After section 105Z29 of the Communications Act 2003 insert—“105Z30 OFCOM’s Annual Report(1) Every report under paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002 (OFCOM’s annual report) must include a statement on—(a) the adequacy of OFCOM’s resourcing in fulfilling its functions under the amendments made to this Act by the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021;(b) OFCOM’s determination of the adequacy of measures taken by network providers in the previous 12 months to comply with sections 105A and 105B of the Communications Act 2003 and regulations made thereunder; and(c) OFCOM’s assessment of emerging or future areas of security risk based on its interrogation of network providers’ asset registries.(2) The statement required by subsection (1)(a) must include an assessment of—(a) the adequacy of OFCOM’s budget and funding;(b) the adequacy of staffing levels in OFCOM;(c) any skills shortages faced by OFCOM.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause introduces an obligation on Ofcom to report on the adequacy of their resources and assess the adequacy of the annual measures taken by telecommunications providers to comply with their duty to take necessary security measures. It also requires Ofcom to assess future areas of security risk based on its interrogation of network providers’ asset registries.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 26, which stands in my name. As I recall raising at Second Reading, the whole point about this legislation is not just its intent but whether it can be delivered in practice. Can it do the job that it intends to do? These amendments are intended to ensure that we know we have the resources, whether in people, funding, infrastructure or whatever, to deliver the protections that the Bill is intended to offer. There are considerable questions about that.
I will focus first on the new responsibilities, remit and powers that are being given to Ofcom. As we know, there has been a vast expansion of Ofcom’s remit over the past 10 years, so it is most important that it is appropriately resourced to carry out its duties and to be very forward-looking. As my noble friend Lord Coaker said earlier, for us, the whole issue of looking forward is a particular concern in the Bill. That has been echoed by many noble Lords this afternoon. I note that reassurance is often given by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, as the Minister and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will also seek to reassure me. But I am sure he will have picked up the feeling in the Room today that we need to go rather further than words of reassurance.
What we know about Ofcom is that experience in national security measures is not its natural and current territory, so the expansion of these duties will absolutely require people with the required level of security clearance and experience. I recall the comments of Emily Taylor of Oxford Information Labs during the debate in the Public Bill Committee in the other place. She has considerable expertise in cyber intelligence and she said at that time that Ofcom
“will have to acquire a very specific set of skills and capabilities, and that will require substantial investment and learning as an organisation”.—[Official Report, Commons, Telecommunications (Security) Bill Committee, 19/1/21; col. 72.]
I also note that a memorandum was published recently by Ofcom and the National Cyber Security Centre about how they will work together as part of the new regulatory regime. On the face of it, I thought that might provide some of the reassurance that I am sure the Minister will wish to give to noble Lords. However, I observe that while the National Cyber Security Centre will indeed be able to provide advice on national security matters, the question is whether Ofcom has the resource and the greater expertise to understand that advice. It is one thing to receive advice but another to be able to work with it. I am sure noble Lords know their own limitations. I certainly know mine when it comes to advice and expertise. For me, that memorandum did not show understanding of the limitations that there are.
Amendment 23 would require Ofcom to report annually on the adequacy of measures taken by network providers to comply with changes introduced in the Bill, empowering the Government to track the effectiveness of the legislation. That seems to be good legislation: to put it in place, to make sure it does the job it ought to do, to resource it and then to track its effectiveness.
Amendment 23 would also ensure that Ofcom will have the human and informational resources to provide an assessment of security risks based on its interrogation of network providers’ asset registers. This needs to include things such as a reference to the adequacy of Ofcom’s budget, funding and staffing levels and any potential skill shortages that might mean that it cannot do the job it is intended to do.
It is interesting to look at the Government’s own impact assessment, which states that the costs of monitoring compliance with the telecoms security requirements could be up to £49.4 million by 2029. Allied to that, Ofcom’s current budget for telecoms security for this financial year has been increased by £4.6 million; that is intended to reflect its enhanced security role under the Bill. The first obvious question to the Minister is whether this funding will be sufficient to meet the demands and to engage those with the right security skills. As a supplementary question to that, what targets does Ofcom have to seek the numbers of new staff it needs?
On staff shortages and funding shortfalls, how does the Minister consider that the Government will be aware of these problems without some kind of annual report? Furthermore, where do the public fit into this? How will they know that everything is in hand without such a reporting requirement being met? In my view, if Ofcom is to do more on security, the Government absolutely have to make sure that it is secure and able in its new role.
We spoke earlier about the absolutely crucial aspects of future proofing and horizon scanning. It seems that Ofcom also needs to be able to assess future risks to the security of UK telecoms. We know that new types of threat have emerged over recent years; for example, attacks on healthcare systems. We are also sensitive to potential future risks; for example, the dependence of cloud computing infrastructure on Amazon Web Services, the dominant vendor in this market. Clearly, dangers could arise if AWS was bought by a hostile foreign state or hacked by a hostile operator. In all these ways, we need to ensure that Ofcom is equipped not just for the present but for the future.
Amendment 26 looks at the very important matter of skills in the wider sector. We know from the Institute of Engineering and Technology that the UK economy is suffering a loss of £1.5 billion per year due to STEM skills shortages, and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has found that two-thirds of employers who have vacancies report that some are proving hard to fill, with engineering being one of the most prevalent.
Amendment 26 seeks to require the Government to publish a review of the implications of skills shortages and training support for the security of the tele- communications network and its supply chain. Again, this amendment looks forward to ensure that we can protect our security capability.
I have a few specific questions for the Minister. I would be interested to know whether he is concerned that the 2027 target for Huawei removal might be delayed due to skills shortages. Can he comment on what skills shortages have been identified as a security risk? What action are the Government taking to fill them? I look forward to hearing from him regarding these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 23 and 26 touch on the critical issue of skills, in Ofcom and then more widely in the supply chain. They are right to do so, but in my view they are too constrained and do not go nearly far enough. This is not the fault of the drafters—they have to propose amendments that fall within the scope of this particular legislation, and they have done so admirably—but the problem they expose goes much wider than the field of telecommunication.
We find ourselves in this discussion at least in part because of our current reliance on Huawei technology and on the associated vulnerabilities that this introduces. But why have we become so dependent on Huawei? I said earlier that in the first half of the last decade we made unbalanced decisions about our trade and security relationship with China, and that is true. But it is also a fact that Huawei was—and still is—one of the very few companies to have brought the necessary technology to market. Frankly, there were not many options open to us, so our supply chain is anything but resilient in this area.
There are two elements to this problem. One is the level of industrial commitment to and investment in critical technologies; the other is the skills base to support such industries. Both of these interlinked issues must be addressed if we are to resolve the weakness in our supply chain.
The answer does not, of course, have to be wholly national. Industrial capacity and skills that are sufficiently widespread internationally, particularly among responsible countries that abide by international law, norms and standards, would provide us with an acceptable degree of resilience. This will undoubtedly have to be part of the solution, at least in the short term, but we have to ask ourselves why, in technologies that are so important to our security and that promise such future advantage to the companies involved, we are lagging so far behind. I acknowledge that we cannot lead everywhere and provide everything ourselves, but surely an important part of our national strategy should be to put ourselves in the van of those capabilities that will shape and guard our future.
This is certainly not about direct government involvement in business decisions; that approach already has a quite sufficiently inglorious history. It is, though, about government incentives—not least through a clear strategy and consequent procurement decisions—for the appropriate industries and a national effort to provide the necessary skills base to support those industries.
Amendment 26 makes some modest proposals in this regard and I welcome them, as far as they go, but we need to go much further. Telecommunication is not the only area to be hampered by such problems, and I believe we should take a more holistic approach. I have no doubt the Minister will reject the amendment, although I stand ready to be surprised. If, however, he lives up to my expectations, I invite him to say whether the Government agree with my analysis and, if so, how they propose formally to tackle a problem that is so central to our future security and prosperity.
Lord Fox (LD)
Once again, this is a short but important debate, and one of a continuing series. In response to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, we had a short discussion that, to some extent, was crying over spilt milk about why industrial capacity in telecommunications in the United Kingdom is where it is. I think the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, largely agrees with me that it is to do with the purchasing decisions made by near-monopolistic private sector companies based on price. If that is not a lesson for the Government to take forward, we are all doomed anyway.
To turn to the detail of these two amendments, as both the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have set out, they are about people. Without overrepeating it, I come to the point I was talking about earlier, which is that BEIS is going through a similar process. It is setting up a unit that is supposed to scan the entire industrial landscape for supposed security problems and alert the Minister to decisions that should be made about the future of those companies. These people will have many of the same skills and face many of the same issues, going forward.
First, does the Minister think there is a sufficient pool of people available to cover both these units? Is it sensible to have two units operating in parallel to, and probably in isolation from, each other, with the BEIS unit setting up a telecoms capability, which DCMS will also have? Perhaps the Minister can tell us what conversations are going on between DCMS, Ofcom and BEIS to avoid that duplication. We have already heard that there are too few people so, frankly, it does not make much sense to have two departments competing for the same people.
More broadly, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, is completely correct that there is a huge issue with the availability of people. Unless the Government pick up major programmes to train and retrain people and look at skills that are completely necessary to move forward, we will be left high and dry without the skills we need to create the sorts of industries that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, suggested we need. That will take time, so perhaps the Minister can say what the plan is. What is the process and what discussions are going on with trainers, universities and employers to deliver the skill set we need?
Of course, we would want to review all this annually, which is why these amendments are here, so the Government necessarily come to Parliament to explain how they are getting on and what they are doing. I am sure the Government do not want us to be suspicious of what they are doing, and the best way to avoid that suspicion is to be open and transparent, rather than try to operate in a black box.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, these amendments, both tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, highlight the two important issues that our short debate covered—the role of Ofcom in relation to the Bill; and skills and training, and their effect on telecoms security. I am pleased to have the opportunity to outline some of the work that has already been done in these areas, which I hope explains why we consider these amendments not to be needed.
Amendment 26 would require the Government to complete a review of, and publish a report on, the impact of levels of skills and training on the security of the telecoms network and supply chain. It would require the Government to publish the report within six months of Royal Assent.
The Government certainly agree that it is crucial that public telecoms providers and organisations such as Ofcom have access to people with the skills that they need to keep our networks safe. DCMS published research this year as part of its annual survey, Cyber Security Skills in the UK Labour Market, which found that 50% of UK businesses have a basic technical skills gap. It also found that they do not have confidence in their ability to carry out basic cybersecurity functions and do not outsource these skills.
That is why the Government have a range of programmes already in place to support the growth of cybersecurity skills. Over the past five years, work funded by DCMS has supported over 160,000 young people to forge a career in the cyber sphere. The department has also funded a range of schemes to help adults or career changers to acquire new skills, most recently through the Cyber Launchpad initiative and projects sponsored through the fast track digital workforce fund.
Clearly, there is still much more work to be done to close the cyber skills gap. However, we are making progress. When compared with the 2018 survey, Cyber Security Skills in the UK Labour Market 2021 found that organisations were less likely to report a basic cyber skills gap in areas such as firewall configuration, restricting administrator rights and patching.
Specifically on skills in the telecoms sector, we know that telecoms providers need to have access to people with the right skills to ensure that their networks and services are secure, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, rightly said. That is why we are creating a pipeline of these skills for the future, with telecoms apprenticeships currently available across the sector, and over 4,500 people starting this year alone.
The creation of the UK telecoms lab, as announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place last November, will facilitate knowledge sharing and promote skills development in telecoms security. The lab will collaborate with DCMS, the National Cyber Security Centre, the newly established UK Cyber Security Council and industry. It will develop and deliver training packages and support the establishment of professional bodies and communities. I hope that these initiatives demonstrate how seriously the Government take the task of supporting telecoms skills, and cyber skills in particular, and why we feel that the review proposed in the amendment is not needed.
I will speak more broadly about our skills agenda. The Department for Education has targeted specific investment in key areas of learning, such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics—STEM—and technical and digital subjects, which could support careers in telecoms. That includes: £2.5 billion of investment in the national skills fund to support adults to retrain and gain the skills they need for the future; nearly £2.5 billion made available for high-quality industry-designed apprenticeships; £500 million a year towards T-levels; up to £290 million to establish institutes of technology across the country, which will be the pinnacle of technical training; and a new £18 million growth fund to support further and higher education providers to expand high-quality higher technical education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked about the impact of skills on the removal of Huawei equipment. We have no plans or intention to delay the 2027 target for the removal of Huawei equipment from 5G networks. Indeed, BT, for example, has already shared in the media that it is making good progress on removing Huawei from 5G networks, starting in Hull. We believe that we are on track.
Amendment 23 would require Ofcom to publish an additional statement as part of its annual report, under paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002. This statement would contain information about the adequacy of Ofcom’s resourcing, and telecoms providers’ compliance with their security duties. It would also contain Ofcom’s assessment of any future or emerging risks to telecommunications networks, identified by interrogating telecoms providers’ asset registries.
I reassure the Committee that this amendment is also not needed. The Bill already contains a range of reporting mechanisms that will ensure that Ofcom’s role can be properly scrutinised. I will address three of these mechanisms in particular.
First, Ofcom will need regularly to report to the Secretary of State under new Section 105Z, providing information to assist him with the formulation of policy on telecommunications security. New subsection (4)(a) makes it clear that this report must include information on providers’ compliance with the duties imposed on them by the Bill.
Secondly, Ofcom will need to report on telecoms security in its annual infrastructure report. Clause 11 specifies that this should include information on the extent to which providers are complying with their security duties under new Sections 105A to 105D. Thirdly, by virtue of Clause 14, the Secretary of State will need regularly to report to Parliament on the effectiveness and impact of the new telecoms security framework.
The amendment would address three issues. I will take each in turn. The first concerns Ofcom’s resources, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, began. As my noble friend the Minister mentioned at Second Reading, Ofcom’s security budget for this financial year has been increased by £4.6 million. This funding will allow Ofcom more than to double its headcount of people working on telecoms security, ensuring it has the necessary capacity to deliver its new responsibilities under the Bill. The noble Baroness asked specifically about staffing. Ofcom will work with a recruitment partner to secure the specific cyber skills needed to implement this work. This will include seconding in technical expertise to develop its capability further.
As we discussed earlier in the Committee, Ofcom will also work closely with the NCSC, which will share its expertise to support Ofcom’s implementation of the new regime. The noble Baroness mentioned the relationship between Ofcom and the National Cyber Security Centre. As she noted, the two organisations are in the process of developing a memorandum of understanding and have published a statement summarising how they intend to work together. The three key principles set out in that statement are, first, that the NCSC will provide expert technical cybersecurity advice to Ofcom to support implementation of the new telecoms security framework; secondly, that Ofcom and the NCSC will exchange information where necessary and permitted by law; and, thirdly, that the NCSC will continue to provide incident management support during serious cybersecurity incidents to telecoms operators and to Ofcom as necessary. That statement can be found on Ofcom’s website.
The second area of the amendment is a requirement for Ofcom’s annual report to include information on providers’ compliance with their duties under new Sections 105A to 105D. This reporting would duplicate provisions elsewhere in the Bill. Ofcom is already required to report publicly on providers’ compliance with those duties in Clause 11.
The final point in the amendment is about publishing information on emerging and future security risks. This has also been accounted for in the Bill. New Section 105Z(4)(f) already requires that Ofcom report to the Secretary of State any emerging risks it becomes aware of in its annual report on security. The noble Baroness asked about informing the public. It would be at the discretion of the Secretary of State whether to publish this information.
I can assure the Committee that Ofcom takes a forward-looking approach to regulation to ensure that it is robust in the face of market and technological developments. For example, its recent Technology Futures report looked at innovative technologies that will shape the communications industry, with input from the world’s leading technologists.
I hope that I have provided assurance that adequate and detailed reporting requirements for Ofcom are already outlined in the Bill. As I have set out, it already includes provision for reporting on Ofcom’s work, so additional requirements about skills and training are not necessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore be content not to press her amendments.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords and to the Minister for his reply, which referred to various items in some detail. What I take from this debate is that, although I am sure that noble Lords are interested to hear of the various initiatives and actions that are in place and which the Minister has rightly emphasised, the question still remains of whether this is enough. Is this exactly what we need? I feel again that this is something of a theme in our debates throughout Committee. Nobody is suggesting to the Ministers that nothing is being done, but is it being done coherently, is it sufficient and is it what is needed? That is again left hanging in the air.
I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who referred to—these are my words—the need for a national strategy which would, in his words, shape and guard our future. That is exactly the point of these amendments. Indeed, the Government do not do everything, but it is only the Government who have a role in bringing all the parties together and have the ultimate responsibility for security in this country, of course.
I note the helpful remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who referred to the need to work with other government departments. I would feed that into my point about the need for a strategic approach. My sense from this debate is that this is the part that is not quite clear. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked, what is the plan? We have insight into actions, but whether that is a strategy or a plan is hard to make a judgment on. The Minister indicated that 50% of companies in the relevant sector—that seems a lot—are reporting that they have a lack of cybersecurity skills. Something else that I thought was important was when the Minister spoke of a lack of confidence. We all know that a lack of confidence in any sector, particularly this sector, is problematic and must be addressed.
It is disappointing that the Minister’s response is, again, that this is not necessary and we do not need to publish or to report to Parliament, because I feel it is a missed opportunity to satisfy the country and, within that, noble Lords. It is a missed opportunity to satisfy those who have the security of this country at heart, as the Minister does, about whether the measures are enough and whether they will go fast enough, fully meet the needs of the necessary part of the industry and provide the security needed. Although I am disappointed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
“Network diversification
(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the impact of progress of the diversification of the telecommunications supply chain on the security of public electronic communication networks and services.(2) The report required by subsection (1) must include an assessment of the effect on the security of those networks and services of—(a) progress in network diversification set against the most recent telecommunications diversification strategy presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State;(b) likely changes in ownership or trading position of existing market players;(c) changes to the diversity of the supply chain for network equipment;(d) new areas of market consolidation and diversification risk including the cloud computing sector;(e) progress made in any aspects of the implementation of the diversification strategy not covered by paragraph (a);(f) the public funding which is available for diversification.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament.(4) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than two months after the report has been laid before Parliament, move a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the Government’s diversification strategy on the security of telecommunication networks and services, and allows for a debate in the House of Commons on the report.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I move the amendment in my name and thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Alton—he could not join us today —for their support.
The amendment is about ensuring that the intent of the Bill can be delivered, and the measures that we are all in favour of will actually happen. There is therefore a link to the earlier debates. Throughout these debates it has become clear that diversity of suppliers is needed at different points of the chain, with sufficient support for the UK’s own start-ups. That will be the only way in which we can secure proper telecoms security.
Even the Government’s 5G diversification strategy demonstrates how diversification and security are inherently linked. It states that if the status quo remains with market consolidation, it will lead to
“an intolerable security and resilience risk”.
However, as was said clearly in earlier debates, the Bill does not even mention supply-chain diversification or the diversification strategy, even though we would all agree that we cannot have a robust and secure network with only two service providers—Ericsson and Nokia—which is the number that will be left once Huawei is removed from our networks. I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will have the opportunity to address that concern.
It is of course right to remove high-risk vendors from the UK’s networks and enable the Government to designate vendors and require telecoms operators to comply with security requirements. However, as seems obvious, our networks will not be secure if the supply chain is not diversified. All that will happen is that there will be a shift of dependency to another point of failure.
Therefore, the amendment requires that network diversification is reported on annually. That can include an assessment of likely changes of ownership of existing market players, new areas of market consolidation and available public funding. The report could also provide proper accountability for the strategy’s progress, which will lead to real action. That is what we need. We know that that was called for by the Science and Technology Committee, which criticised the current diversification strategy for not having an action plan with clear targets and timeframes for how that funding will be spent.
The Minister will expect a question on how the announced £250 million funding will be spent. We all know that there are small start-up suppliers in this sphere which are desperate for this kind of support. I should also refer to the new advisory council, which, as she knows, I will come to in a later group. There are many unanswered questions about the adequacy and independence of its advice.
We cannot have a secure network with only two service providers, which is what we will effectively be left with after the removal of Huawei. So we need a diversified supply chain, which means diversity of supply at different points in the supply chain and networks not sharing the same vulnerability of a particular supplier. That is incredibly important for network resilience. That is why the amendment has been tabled. We are concerned to ensure that national security is not put at risk due to a lack of diversification. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, this point is very important and has been put across very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. Network diversification will increase resilience and security for various very obvious reasons. The main thing is not just the supply chain. How the internet works is that messages are split over a whole lot of different routers going all over the place. Two things happen. First, because it is split up, if they are all going across different vendors, it is impossible to intercept the entirety of the messages. If it is all over one vendor and there is a clever way of monitoring that, it might be possible to put it together. Funnily enough, if you have lots of vendors, it does not matter whether Huawei is in there or not, and you will end up with flaws.
Also, the resilience of the internet is such that if you knock out a good chunk of the routers, it will still work and automatically route around the ones that have not been knocked out. If they are all from one vendor and all have the same flaw in them at some point, whether they are friendly vendors or not, you can take the whole lot out at once. The very fact that you have a good mixture gives you greater resilience and security. Everyone seems to think that it still runs over a copper wire from one end to the other, but it does not. The IP world is very different from that. That is the main thing.
Amendment 20 is also about long-term strategy. My noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup is right about all these things. Although the amendments are not in this group, I might as well say now, rather than waste the Committee’s time later, that this lies with the principle of Amendments 18 and 25, that we need the right advisers, who can then advise on the issues that we are now discussing in Amendment 24. It all hangs together. We should not be chopping this up and structuring the Bill in a way that makes us vulnerable.
We may think that we have got the right people in, but we have clearly failed to do all this so far. This is the place to rectify our blindness. From the Minister’s comment, I think that the major change is the diversification and proliferation of civil service departments that are involved in security. That really does reduce our security. The lack of coherence will cause confusion like nobody’s business and will be very expensive.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, which adds a new clause to the Bill that would tackle the pressing issue of network diversification.
As we have heard, the amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to produce an annual report to Parliament on the progress that has been made in diversifying suppliers for our critical infrastructure in our telecommunications networks and services. The report would then be debated in the other place, ensuring that there is sufficient parliamentary oversight of the successes, challenges and opportunities of our diversification strategy. As I think about it, I am not sure why the Government would not want to commit to such an undertaking. As we have already heard this afternoon, the diversification of our telecoms networks needs to be a priority for this Government and an integral part of Ofcom’s reporting on the progress of these networks.
However, it is important to note that we have a Government who understand the seriousness of this issue. Indeed, the Secretary of State told the other place on 30 November 2020:
“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.]
This should never have been allowed to happen, and as I have mentioned, I fear that without the adequate parliamentary oversight that this amendment could give us, it is at risk of happening again.
Despite the reassuring statements from the Foreign Secretary, as highlighted in Tuesday’s Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we have seen new vendors come to market that are also high risk. The noble Lord said:
“Last week, we learned that, in a deal estimated to be worth £63 million … 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.”—[Official Report, Lords, 13/7/21; col. GC 461.]
On Wednesday, this led to the Prime Minister expressing concern after the Business Secretary had said that the Government were monitoring the situation closely but did not consider it appropriate to intervene at the current time.
This new challenge is set against the backdrop of the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who is at the Department for International Trade, telling the House that he wants to deepen trading relations and trade deals with China, and of China having just overtaken Germany to become the UK’s biggest single import market for the first time since records began. Goods imported from China rose 66% from the start of 2018 to nearly £17 billion in the first quarter of this year.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the various noble Lords for their contributions. I will speak to Amendment 24, which bears my name, but I recommend that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, reads the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech, in which he calls for a nuanced relationship with China. Failing that, she could read my speech on the first group of amendments, in which I challenged how nuanced a relationship can be with a country threatening both our security and that of its own people. At the heart of the Government’s challenge is to be all things to everyone in this argument. They are doomed to fail if they try to do that.
I turn to the amendment I am supposed to be speaking to. As we discussed at Second Reading, there are essentially three strands to the diversity strategy. The first leg is supporting incumbent suppliers. I was corrected by the Minister: this refers not to domestic suppliers but suppliers we already have, presumably— although it is not explicit—with the ones we do not want having been weeded out. The second is attracting new suppliers into the UK market, and the third is accelerating open interface solutions, which I assume helps the second of those strands in particular.
There is not a strand about growing a domestic industry; some of us—I am one of them—were confused about this. It mostly seems to be about taking advantage of other countries’ businesses that we can trust—or think we can at the moment; I refer the Committee to earlier comments by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about today’s allies not always being tomorrow’s allies—rather than massively growing our own national capability. Bearing in mind those three legs, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the improvement in the domestic share of this market is planned.
In her letter to many of us on the subject of diversification, the Minister made the point that Vodafone has already attracted six new suppliers, two of which were Samsung and NEC, into the market through the open RAN deployment. I think I asked her at Second Reading when open RAN would become a significant player in telecoms delivery in this country. If she gave an answer then I am afraid I mislaid it, so can she tell us when open RAN will become a significant player or whether it is something of a sideshow? I do not mean that in a bad way; it is a recognition of where it really is in the market at the moment.
The biggest challenge I have with this is that the Government have launched a lot of strategies. They usually come with a glossy document and a picture of a smiling Secretary of State. I can confirm that this strategy is no exception. We have a very nice picture of the Secretary of State, Oliver Dowden, on page 3, but it does not come with a timeline and a delivery plan. The Government would not issue a strategy if they did not have a delivery plan, so I am sure there must be one. I think it would help us all if we understood what the delivery plan is. Perhaps the Minister could share with the Committee the timeline for the delivery of this strategy, otherwise many of us might suspect that it is something that gets only launched, not delivered. I understand that money has been put into it but, again, that does not guarantee that outcomes will be forthcoming.
This amendment has been tabled to reveal how that timeline is going and how the outcomes are being delivered. That is what it is for. It would enable the Government’s spending of taxpayers’ money on delivering this strategy to be tracked by Parliament. That seems a perfectly reasonable function for Parliament to have.
The Minister might come back and say that DCMS is being asked to lay all sorts of things before Parliament. If that is the case, I think that all of us, including me, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, who spoke very capably on this, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and others are quite capable of coming up with a composite annual report that covers not just the items in Amendment 24, but those in Amendment 25 on strategy, Amendment 23 on Ofcom’s performance, and Amendment 26 on skills. Taken together, I am sure we could put together a composite annual report in the next round of discussions that would save DCMS having to make several different annual reports. I suspect that that might be a way forward and look forward to the Minister embracing this idea, because of course DCMS wants to demonstrate how it is delivering its diversification strategy.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate and consideration of the Government’s ambitious diversification strategy. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, raises the important issue of diversification, which I know is of great interest to your Lordships, as it was to Members in the other place. Diversification is a key part of the Government’s broader approach to ensuring that our critical networks are healthy and resilient. That is why the Government set out their 5G diversification strategy last autumn, and we are fully committed to ensuring that this strategy comes to fruition.
Our long-term vision for the telecoms supply market is one where, first, network supply chains are disaggregated, providing network operators more choice and flexibility; secondly, open interfaces that promote interoperability are the default; thirdly, the global supply chain for components is distributed across regions, creating resilience and flexibility; fourthly, standards are set transparently and independently, promoting quality, innovation, security and interoperability; and finally, security and resilience is a priority and a key consideration in network design and operation. However, the Bill focuses on setting clear security standards for our public networks and services. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, pointed out, although diversification is designed to enhance security and resilience, not all diversification activity is relevant to the security and resilience of our networks. That is why we believe the amendment would not be appropriate.
The Government have already made progress since the publication of our strategy, including the creation of the Telecoms Diversification Taskforce, which set out its recommendations in the spring. Work is already under way to implement several of those recommendations. Research and development was highlighted by the task force as a key area of focus in order to promote open-interface technologies that will establish flexibility and interchangeability in the market. As raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, it will also allow a range of new smaller suppliers to compete in a more diverse marketplace.
That is why the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport was delighted to announce the launch of the future radio access network competition on Friday 2 July. Through this, we will invest up to £30 million in open radio access network research and development projects across the UK to address barriers to high-performance open deployments. This competition is part of a wider programme of government initiatives, which includes the SmartRAN Open Network Inter- operability Centre—more friendlily known as SONIC Labs—a facility for testing interoperability and integration of open networking solutions, which opened on 24 June. A number of leading telecoms suppliers are already working together through this facility.
We welcome recent announcements from operators including Airspan, Mavenir, NEC and Vodafone to introduce open radio access networks into their infrastructure. This demonstrates that industry is working alongside us, here in the UK, to drive forward the change needed in the sector. We continue to work with mobile operators, suppliers and users on a number of other important enablers for diversification; for example, we are developing a road map for the long-term use and provision of legacy network services, including 2G and 3G. Alongside this, the Government have led efforts to engage with some of our closest international partners, including the Five Eyes, to build international consensus on this important issue.
We are also working to deliver on UK issues in standard- setting bodies, and working with industry, academia and international partners to ensure that standards are set in a way that aligns with our overall objectives. Ensuring that standards are truly open and interoperable will drive market growth and diversification. Through the UK’s G7 presidency, we took the first step in discussing the importance of secure and diverse supply chains among like-minded partners and the foundational role that telecommunications infrastructure, such as 5G, plays.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked how we were planning to spend the initial £250 million, which we announced to kick off work to deliver our key priorities. These priorities have been informed by the recommendations of the Telecoms Diversification Taskforce and include: establishing a state-of-the-art UK telecoms lab; exploring commercial incentives for new suppliers; launching test beds and trials for new technologies such as open RAN; investing in an R&D ecosystem; and seeking to lead a global coalition of like-minded partners on an international approach to diversification. In response to questions from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the growth of UK businesses, we have been clear that we are focused on investing in the UK and in UK businesses, but do not think that a UK-only solution is a wise or realistic option.
We are working closely with operators and suppliers to develop targeted measures that address the needs of industry to deliver our long-term vision for the market. We responded to the task force’s findings in July and outlined our next steps and the use of that initial investment. If the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, has not seen the government response, I am sure he would find it interesting. It also sets out our plans to create a diversification advisory council, which will meet quarterly. I hope that responds to his question.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a short debate but it has been valuable in shining a light on the requirement for diversification and the need to be sure that we are in the right place. I thank the Minister for her reply and the details she gave in response to various questions, including my own. Of course, as ever—I am beginning to feel like a stuck record—the requests to ensure that there is a reporting facility, so that we know all the things in place actually work, have not been accepted.
I was interested in the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, when he suggested to the Minister that there could be great creativity employed by all noble Lords. I am sure that is indeed the case, but I say to him that I fear our creativity is perhaps not required on this occasion, although I am sure we will stand ready should it be so.
I welcomed the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who spoke about the shifting sands of alliances and allies. That is an important point when we consider diversification. I did of course hear the Minister say, rightly, “Of course, this is not just a UK solution to our security”, for a range of excellent reasons. However, we have to be able to take our place and it is that which is of concern. It is not just that the chain is in reference to the UK but that it should take account of those shifts which the noble Earl referred to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, again asked: “Why on earth would the Government not want to have more parliamentary oversight?”. I will leave that to others to answer, but it seems that it is not flavour of the month in the debate that we are having.
The Minister referred to my question about how the £250 million would be spent, and I am sure it was of great interest to all noble Lords to hear that. Yet it still leaves the question as to why it cannot be matter of report, of why Parliament cannot be not just reassured but informed, and have the opportunity to interrogate and to add. I have a sense that parliamentary oversight—and not just in this area—is not regarded as something which assists process, when in fact the whole experience is that it does. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Merron
“Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council: security function
(1) The Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council must discuss the impact of diversification on the security and resilience of public electronic communication networks and services at their quarterly meeting.(2) The Telecoms Supply Chain Diversification Advisory Council may advise the Secretary of State based on those discussions, and this advice must be published. (3) The membership of the Council must include members with expertise in security.(4) The appointments process for the Council must be transparent and consider the previous security experience of applicants.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to probe the function of the Advisory Council in relation to the Bill.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendment 28, which stands in my name. It is the result of a number of recent developments, which I shall refer to. Noble Lords will be aware that on 2 July the Government published their response to the Telecoms Diversification Taskforce’s report and in it announced that the taskforce was now to transition into the Telecoms Supply Chain diversification advisory council, which came up earlier today. The Minister will recall that in response to a Written Question from me she said:
“The Advisory Council will play a key role in overseeing and offering scrutiny to the delivery of the 5G Supply Chain Diversification Strategy. We will also draw on the expertise of the Advisory Council for wider telecoms supply chain diversification issues beyond the RAN (Radio Access Network).”
That is all well and good. However—and this is the point that the amendment seeks to unravel—the Government have also announced that Mr Simon Blagden will be the new chair of this permanent council. Noble Lords will be aware that Mr Blagden was the non-executive director of Fujitsu UK during the Post Office scandal and has donated more than £215,000 to the Conservative Party.
As we have all discussed, diversification is inherently linked to security, so the new advisory council has to provide sound, expert advice that will secure our telecoms network, and we need confidence in that. The point I want to explore with the Minister, as she is already aware from Written Questions that I have submitted, is that the appointment of Mr Blagden raises a number of serious questions about the council’s independence and how the appointment will be able to benefit national security.
In addition to tabling Amendment 28, I have a number of questions to tease out all these points. It is also worth noting that in the past 24 hours there have been reports of a telecoms company, IX Wireless, having given—it has come to light through correct declarations of course—more than £20,000 to Conservative MPs, while the Secretary of State has given this same company glowing endorsement at a launch event, with a promotional film, which I have seen, showing him in his ministerial office with the executives of that company.
I should say to the Minister that it is a question not just of how things are but of how things look. Of course there will be facts on which I am sure the Minister can enlighten us. I have a number of questions in that regard for her relating to an inquiry about the appointment process that was in place for Mr Blagden. Who was involved and which Minister made the final decision? Will there be payment for Mr Blagden in his role as chair? How will the council give independent advice and what happens if Ministers reject that advice? Will there be security experts as members of the advisory council? What knowledge did Mr Blagden have of the faults with the Horizon system during his time at Fujitsu? Can the Minister confirm that Mr Blagden has no remaining financial interests in Fujitsu?
I know that the noble Baroness may not be in a position to answer those questions now. In which case, I hope that she will write to me before we go into the Summer Recess. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
Before I comment on that excellent speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, I want to return to the answer that the Minister gave on the Newport Wafer Fab issue, which proves the point that we were making on the need for the ISC to be involved. Regarding the ISC issue, the Government furnished themselves with the National Security and Investment Act, which was supposed to deal with issues such as this. However, the Prime Minister has chosen to refer it back not to the people running that unit but to the National Security Adviser, which proves the point that someone with access to national security information is needed to make decisions of this nature, rather than an organisation that does not have access to the information. It absolutely proves the point that our amendment on the ISC is completely appropriate, just as it was appropriate for the BEIS analogue of what is happening here.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, made an excellent speech and I am not going to attempt to adorn it either with my normal flippancy or with detail. There is just one issue that I wish to raise regarding Simon Blagden. Are there any outstanding legal liabilities from his time at Fujitsu? In other words, has his activity been fully exonerated or is there potential legal recourse? Other than that, I echo the point that perception of these issues is as important as reality. If the Government continue to operate in a black-box way, everybody will assume that things are going on that they cannot see and that should not be happening. It is therefore in the Government’s interests to be transparent about how that person in particular was appointed and how the advisory council will operate.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for tabling the amendment and for giving me an opportunity to provide an update on the work of the Diversification Taskforce and the new diversification advisory council.
The Government recently announced the council, building on the work of the Diversification Taskforce, chaired by my noble friend Lord Livingston of Parkhead. I should like to take this opportunity to offer my thanks to him and the taskforce members for volunteering their valuable time and knowledge to their excellent review. Their recommendations and expertise will remain crucial to helping us bring greater resilience and competition to our future networks as the taskforce now transitions to the new diversification advisory council.
The Government recognise that diversification is a broad and complex issue relating to matters of security and resilience, technology and geopolitics. It is for this reason that we sought the advice of the experts appointed to the diversification task force. Many of the task force members will continue to provide advice as part of the new advisory council. In appointing the membership of the advisory council, the Government have followed all standard processes. The Government have ensured that the council comprises experts from both industry and academia across a wide range of subject matters, including security, of course.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I will of course read it carefully so that I can again appreciate her answers to my various questions. There are some questions that I think are still outstanding, which also chime in with the question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, regarding Mr Blagden’s links with Fujitsu and continuing potential issues in relation to that. I feel there are still some unanswered questions and would be grateful for a reply to those. I am absolutely sure that the Minister will write to me about those points.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for making the point, as I did, that there is reality and perception, and they both matter. There are clearly concerns about this appointment and about the need for assurance regarding security advice being impartial and appropriate. It is undoubtedly the case that sunlight is always the best disinfectant so, if there are any chinks of sunlight not yet coming through, I am sure that they will be forthcoming. With that, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
“Oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner
(1) The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is amended as follows.(2) After section 229(3)(j) insert—“(k) the exercise by the Secretary of State of functions under section 105Z1 of the Communications Act 2003”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give the Investigatory Powers Commissioner oversight of the power given to the Secretary of State in this Bill to outlaw the use of individual vendors.
Lord Fox (LD)
I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, in whose name it is, who unfortunately could not come today. He figured that this would be taken on day three of the process, but we have got ahead of ourselves. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for his support for this amendment when he spoke to the second group. It is appreciated. I know that he has had to leave.
As Comms Council UK has pointed out, new Clause 105E is not the only new clause to give the Secretary of State extensive powers; there are others. New Clause 105Z1, for example, gives powers to the Secretary of State to outlaw the use of individual vendors, potentially with no parliamentary oversight, if the Secretary of State considers that it would be contrary to national security.
Clause 15 creates a scheme for dealing with particularly high-risk vendors by inserting new clauses into the Communications Act 2003. These empower the Secretary of State to give designated vendor directions where they consider it
“necessary in the interests of national security”
and the requirements imposed are
“proportionate to what is sought … by the direction.”
The designated vendor direction can impose wide-ranging requirements on providers on their use of
“goods, services or facilities … made available by a designated vendor specified in the direction.”
While vendors are entitled to notice of their designation if “reasonably practicable” to do so, they are not entitled to be consulted or informed of the reasons for the designation if the Secretary of State considers it contrary to national security. Vendors are also entitled to notice when directions are imposed on providers or when a designated vendor direction is revoked, but this right does not apply if the Secretary of State considers it contrary to national security.
The effect of all this is that, while a vendor may know of its designation, the providers with which it does business can have various restrictions imposed because of their relation to the designated vendor without the vendor knowing the reasons or possibly the existence of such directions. This is complicated but serious, and in several scenarios the vendors would have no real prospect of mounting any legal challenge, even under the closed material procedures provided for in the Justice and Security Act 2013.
Cutting to the chase, this amendment would give the Investigatory Powers Commissioner oversight of the power given to the Secretary of State in the Bill to outlaw the use of individual vendors. Without this, we are telling suppliers that they essentially have to operate without full legal protection. I cannot help thinking that this will discourage the future investment we need. I am interested to hear how the Government think they can mitigate an essentially Orwellian situation in which people find themselves in an adverse legal position but they do not know why, and sometimes they do not even know that they are there. I beg to move.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, for tabling this amendment. I do not have too much to add to this brief and interesting debate, but I take the opportunity to thank the Constitution Committee for its report on the Bill.
At Second Reading the Minister said:
“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 national security powers in this Bill are very different from those in the Investigatory Powers Act”.—[Official Report, 29/6/21; col. 747.]
However, she did not say why it would be wrong for the commissioner’s remit to change. This is the one point I put to the Minister, and it would be helpful to have a response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is a victim of the speedy progress we have made in this Committee.
Like them, I recognise the importance of proper oversight and scrutiny in the use of the Bill’s powers. The amendment they tabled aims to give the Investigatory Powers Commissioner oversight of the Secretary of State’s power to issue designated vendor directions. The Bill already contains effective mechanisms for oversight of the Secretary of State’s use of those powers to give a designated vendor direction or designation notice. It requires the Secretary of State to lay copies of designation notices and designated vendor directions before Parliament. That will provide Parliament with the opportunity to scrutinise their use.
As the Committee has heard, on very rare occasions the Secretary of State may choose not to lay a designation notice or direction before Parliament because to do so would be contrary to the interests of national security. Where this is the case, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee will be able to view such directions and notices, so there will be oversight there.
On the legal point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised, designated vendor directions and designation notices are subject to ordinary judicial review principles. The Secretary of State will issue designation notices and designated vendor directions only where they are necessary in the interests of national security and the requirements in the directions are proportionate.
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 provides a frame- work for use by the security and intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies and other public authorities to obtain communications and communications data. The role of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is independently to oversee the use of these powers, ensuring that they are used in accordance with the law and in the public interest. The regime set out in the Investigatory Powers Act is not directly comparable with the new powers and framework set out by this Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, noted. The reason for that is that oversight of activity by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, as authorised by the Investigatory Powers Act, is considered appropriate because these powers often involve balancing important questions regarding the right to privacy.
The national security powers in this Bill are very different from those in the Investigatory Powers Act. They focus on protecting public telecommunications networks and services from the threats posed by high-risk vendors. That is different from questions about individual citizens, their communications and their communications data. That is why we respectfully disagree with the suggestion by the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House and feel that it would not be appropriate for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to have an oversight role in respect of this Bill.
Briefly, that is why the Government disagree with this amendment and hope that the noble Lords, Lord Fox, will be content to withdraw it.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response—but not much. There is a tendency, which has come through in this and lots of other Bills, for representatives of Her Majesty’s Government to stand up and completely ignore important committees of this House. The Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee are not any old committees; they are very serious. The way in which their advice—or rather more than advice—has been dismissed across the board by both Ministers in this debate is a serious development. I implore representatives of Her Majesty’s Government to take those committees more seriously, because their not being observed is somewhat an abuse of process.
That said, I will read the Minister’s response in detail, with a suitably socially distanced lawyer to advise me. I do not think we have heard anything that makes this amendment less needed but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Definition of public electronic communications network
In section 151 of the Communications Act 2003, in the definition of “public electronic communications network”, at the end insert “, including—(a) landline communications systems;(b) mobile data, audio and video networks;(c) digital surveillance networks;(d) satellite delivered networks;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the definition of “public electronic communications network”.
Lord Fox (LD)
We are down to the irreducible minimum. During my Second Reading speech, I asked the Minister about the range of technologies covered by the Bill. I do not recall getting a meaningful answer, so I thought I would try again using this as a probing amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, talked about the creativity of your Lordships. I am now going to test your memory functions, which I know can sometimes be stretched in this House. I would like your Lordships to cast your minds back to 2003, the year when the Nokia 1100 mobile phone was introduced. Few noble Lords will remember the number, but most of you will remember the phone. It was an iconic phone that took over mobile telephony. For those who would like to see one, I have two and, for as long as 3G is available, they will continue to work. More than 250 million of these basic GSM phones were sold. It was the best-selling consumer electronics device in the world at that time—the state-of-the-art communications device—and was discontinued in 2009.
Meanwhile, at the same time, the Communications Act 2003 was introduced to regulate machines such as the Nokia 1100. This has not been discontinued but has enjoyed several patches along the way. As I have said, this is a probing amendment seeking to clarify the definition of “public electronic communications network” within the 2003 Act. I think you see what I have done; I have tried to illustrate that the world has changed a bit since 2003.
The amendment seeks to amend Section 151 of the Communications Act by adding a contemporary definition of the range of communication networks that increasingly have emerged since the Act was conceived, when Nokia ruled the roost. It would introduce a new clause to the Bill that would define the “public electronic communications network” as
“landline communications systems … mobile data, audio and video networks … digital surveillance networks … satellite delivered networks”.
My first question to the Minister is: in her opinion and that of the department, which of these categories is covered by the Bill and which is not? I also have some specific scenarios that I would like the Minister to consider. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, will be pleased to note that they are focused on the consumer—an issue she addressed earlier in the week.
First, when broadband or 5G are delivered by satellite, whether by the BEIS-owned OneWeb or the Musk-owned SpaceX, to what extent is the satellite element covered by this legislation?
Secondly, when a facial recognition camera captures an image, sends that image to a database using a closed network and, in turn, contacts either a public sector or private sector operative via a smartphone, which part of this—if any—is covered by the legislation?
Thirdly, data is being relayed back and forth over smart speakers—Alexa and its, or her, colleagues—so do these transactions fall within the purview of the Communications Act or the Bill? For example, with smart speakers, does the Bill cover only the transmission and not the speaker itself? If that is true, what, if anything, covers the security integrity of the speaker and its software?
My fourth question concerns data travelling between smart meters, home thermostats, camera doorbells and the ever-increasing internet of things. How is their security and integrity protected by the Bill? If the answer is that they are not protected, where do these modern manifestations of communications fit in? How is the security of these things being protected for the consumers of today?
This is not just a piece of legislative housekeeping. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised other potentially risky companies in his speech on Amendment 1; at Second Reading I raised a range of other companies. I will not repeat them but they are in Hansard. These are just a few of the businesses involved in the sorts of activities that I have just outlined, so by understanding which activities are included in the Bill we may start to understand which companies and technologies it includes. It is about how satellites, cameras, smart speakers and the internet of things fit in the purview of what is now called communications. Times have changed since 2003. Can the Minister please update us? I beg to move.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Alton, for tabling this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has set out why they believe this definition of a public electronic communications network is needed. I also appreciated his reference to the importance of consumers, who, after all, are core in all our discussions.
It is important to hear from the Minister whether she believes that this definition is limiting for security purposes and what impact it would have. Perhaps she can advise on whether she feels that anything is missing which should be in there. Would this definition inhibit the future-proofing ability of the Bill? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Baroness Barran (Con)
This amendment seeks to clarify the definition of a public electronic communications network contained within Section 151 of the Communications Act 2003. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for moving it. It aims to do this by including specific examples of networks and systems covered by that definition.
In response to the noble Lord’s first question, three of the suggested examples in the amendment are already covered by the current definition of public electronic communications network, to the extent that they are electronic communications networks
“provided wholly or mainly for the purpose of making electronic communications services available to members of the public”.
These three examples are: landline communication systems; mobile data, audio and video networks; and satellite-delivered networks.
However, as the noble Lord explained, the amendment also refers to “digital surveillance networks”. I understand that the noble Lord is referring principally to CCTV and other similar technologies of the kind used by law enforcement and local authorities for specific surveillance purposes. These types of technologies have been raised by a number of noble Lords in previous debates, including the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Fox. Such closed networks do not fall within the definition of a public electronic communications network as set out in Section 151 of the Communications Act. That definition refers to an electronic communications network that is provided
“wholly or mainly for the purpose of making electronic communications services available to members of the public”.
I emphasise “wholly or mainly”, because the noble Lord gave examples of where services might be provided which could reach a member of the public, but not “wholly or mainly”.
The powers in the Bill are intended to create a stronger regulatory and legislative framework to protect against the security threats to our public electronic communications networks and services, such as those provided by companies such as BT and Vodafone. Public networks are those most widely used by businesses and the public and it is right that the Bill should focus on the protection of those networks. Furthermore, any change to the definition of public electronic communications networks to include CCTV and other similar networks to which the noble Lord referred would affect other sections of the Communications Act beyond those relating to security. That is because the current definition of a public electronic communications network is used across Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Act, and not only in Sections 105A to 105D, which this Bill replaces.
The consequences of such a change would be wide-ranging. For example, Section 127 creates a criminal offence of improper use of public electronic communications networks, as defined by Section 151. If the definition changed, the scope of those caught by that offence would also change. It would also affect other legislation that makes reference to the Act’s definition, such as the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 or the Insolvency Act 1986. Any such change to the definition would therefore have substantial unintended impacts for providers of digital surveillance networks and for many other entities, including Ofcom, of course.
The noble Lord also asked how the security of digital surveillance networks could be assured. There is of course already legislation and extensive guidance in place to assure security and prevent the abuse of information gathered by CCTV and surveillance camera networks. As noble Lords will be aware, the Information Commissioner’s Office is the UK’s independent regulator for data protection and is responsible for providing advice and guidance on compliance with the UK’s data protection laws. All organisations in the UK that process personal information must comply with the requirements of the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. The Information Commissioner’s Office has issued a specific data protection code that provides recommendations on the use of CCTV systems to help organisations comply with the Data Protection Act.
The Information Commissioner’s Office’s code and the Data Protection Act ensure that any personal data gathered via CCTV and similar networks is kept confidential and subject to the highest protections, including secure encryption of data. Where closed networks, such as CCTV and other similar surveillance technology, are used by public bodies or within critical national infrastructure, there are specific arrangements in place. Lead government departments, advisory partners —including the National Cyber Security Centre—and regulators work with infrastructure owners and operators to manage and mitigate the risk of security issues. There are, therefore, already adequate measures in place regarding safe deployment of CCTV and other similar surveillance technologies within the UK. Indeed, we are strengthening the actions we can take in this area.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, there are more Bills to follow; I fear that I am being drafted into the purchasing Bill and the other Bill that the Minister just mentioned.
The Minister is wrong to conflate data protection with security—we are talking not about data protection but about security. There is a big difference between the role of the ICO and that of security. I do not think that that helps answer the questions that I was asking.
Perhaps this is for the Bills to come rather than today’s Bill, but there is something about the collective threat. If everybody’s smart meter is shut down that is a national emergency, not a personal emergency. There is a national security issue around personal data devices and somewhere, whether in this Bill or those to come, there needs to be the recognition that collective security happens when everybody’s systems are secure from threat. If I were a terrorist, it would be much easier to do those kinds of things than doing some big, national thing that is protected by the National Cyber Security Centre.
That is the point of what I am putting forward. The internet of things increases the security risk to every home all the time. Similarly, every time someone turns on their GPS locator, they are putting themselves into a system that is followed. The Minister carefully used the phrase wholly or majority use data. Increasingly with cars and satellite navigation systems, and when we move to electric and autonomous locations, all that data is becoming publicly available. In other words, my car is fed into your car, which is fed into her car to make sure that we do not run into each other. The idea that somehow you can draw these lines and say that only 10% of the data is used in a public way and 90% is not starts to become irrelevant, if it is not already. That is what I am trying to highlight.
I did not expect for a minute the Minister to say that the Government would amend Section 105 of the Act. The point was to really highlight this issue, because if the Government do not address it in this way or another then personal security on a mass level is compromised, which then becomes a national security issue. That was the point of the amendment. Having raised it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, that concludes the Committee’s proceedings on the Bill. May 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 while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing and wear face coverings when in the Chamber, except when speaking. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I shall immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Railways: East Coast Main Line
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with London North Eastern Railway about proposals to change the frequency of services north of Newcastle on the East Coast Main Line.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con) [V]
My Lords, my department has had regular discussions with London North Eastern Railway about the May 2022 timetable proposals for the east coast main line. LNER and the department are committed to improving services for passengers served by this important route, and I encourage all noble Lords with an interest to engage with LNER’s public consultation to ensure that their views are considered.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the consultation document to which the Minister has referred says that the structure of the timetable for May 2022 is fixed, which leaves little opportunity for change to be made. Given that it involves halving Berwick-upon-Tweed’s hourly service to London to a train every two hours, with longer journey times, can she assure me that she will personally take steps to secure a proper review of these plans, which cannot be squared with the Government’s levelling-up agenda?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Rail Minister has challenged the department to investigate all options for increasing regional connectivity. It is the case that Berwick-upon-Tweed will retain its current level of service, but there will be a change to the balance of the services. Yes, there will be fewer fast trains to London, but there will be more services to the Midlands and the south-west on CrossCountry.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a regular LNER user. I have a lot of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Beith. I recognise that connections from Darlington, Durham and Newcastle are northwards as well as southwards. Will the Minister comment on how local services such as those from Bishop Auckland to Middlesbrough and the possible reopening of Durham to Sunderland need to be invested in for the economic growth of the north-east as a whole?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con) [V]
My Lords, this Government are investing billions of pounds in the railways, particularly in the north, through the Restoring Your Railway Fund and the other schemes that we are bringing through the rail network enhancements pipeline. Of course we are looking at regional connectivity of the type that the right reverend Prelate mentioned, and I will take his comments back to the department.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, as a resident of Inverness, I have a great interest in being sure that there will be one train each way from Inverness to King’s Cross in future.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble and learned friend knows that there are daily services at the moment between Inverness and King’s Cross, and I reassure him that they will and are proposed to remain in operation under the May 2022 proposals.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest, in that I live a mile and a half from Berwick station. Most of us find these cuts to be stringent in terms of the daytime service, going from a train every hour to a slower train every two hours. Locals are shocked, as are businesses, tourism and residents—and I am one of them. Knowing that it is good to use the train instead of our cars because of the environment, how can we have confidence that these services, which are being so slashed, will be there for us to use them? Will the Government really look carefully at what is proposed and, since this is a public utility, will they as guardians protect it? I just hope that this is not the beginning of the resurrection of the spirit of Richard Beeching.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con) [V]
I welcome the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, back to your Lordships’ House. In doing so, I recognise the concerns that he has raised about Berwick-upon-Tweed. I am sure that he will join many other people in responding to the consultation. It is true that we have had to make difficult trade-offs within the timetabling options, given the capacity available, but we are trying to maximise the benefit of the £4 billion that we have invested in infrastructure and rolling stock. The proposals on the table now actually increase revenues by £60 million a year, so we feel that we are getting good return on taxpayers’ funding.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, although the LNER proposals help my local station, Alnmouth, which I am pleased about, none the less I support the comments by my fellow Northumbrians, the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. Surely, if levelling up means anything other than warm words, we need far quicker action on rail and road network investment north of Newcastle.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con) [V]
The noble Baroness is quite right, in that we have an ambitious programme in the rail sector but also in roads. She will know that we have a programme of work on the A1 and on several projects around the north-east. She makes a very important point. The Government are well aware of the opportunities to invest in the north-east.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, it is estimated that Berwick could see a cut of 72 trains a week. Does the Minister agree that this is totally contrary to the principles behind the Government’s transport decarbonisation plan and the principles behind levelling up? The root cause of the problems is inadequate infrastructure capacity, long past its date for upgrading. What are the Government going to do about that?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con) [V]
The Government have already invested, and are investing, billions of pounds in the railway system, including in the north-east. The noble Baroness mentioned once again the changes to the services in Berwick, and I will not dwell on that because I believe I have covered it, but I will say that there always difficult decisions to make. For example, Edinburgh gets more services out of this, which improves union connectivity. Edinburgh will have additional, faster trains to London. There will be a four-hour journey time. That will be highly competitive versus taking an aircraft.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
As part of these proposed timetable changes, which LNER says
“involve a series of trade-offs,”
services on the TransPennine Express between Newcastle and Manchester will be reduced from twice an hour to once an hour, and an increase in the frequency of services between Teesside, Sunderland and Newcastle will be postponed. Given that Northern Powerhouse Rail has still not been confirmed, is this not further evidence that the Government are backing off from increasing direct interconnectivity of northern cities? Is it not unfortunate that, in the trade-offs, local and regional services would lose out to increase services to London and the south-east?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con) [V]
I am not entirely sure that the evidence supports the noble Lord’s last comment, but I accept that there are difficult trade-offs. Railway capacity is not expandable immediately, so one always has to work with the capacity available. We have spent £4 billion on upgrading the infrastructure and the rolling stock. We must make sure that we use that capacity to best effect. As I have already said, there would be a significant increase in revenues from these proposals.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The LNER services southwards from Northallerton, my local station, and Darlington are being severely cut in the 2022 timetable. Darlington to Stockton was the first railway line in the country and very much serves the levelling-up programme. Effectively the Government own LNER, so please could they help to make sure that the effective service we currently have carries over to 2022?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con) [V]
As my noble friend will know, there will be some service changes. She has outlined what they are, as have many other noble Lords. Other areas will see an increase in services. I reiterate that there is an opportunity to respond to the consultation. I know that my colleague in the department is pressing Network Rail, the train operating companies and our officials very hard to make sure we can retain as much regional connectivity as possible.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, following the remarks of my noble friend Lord Rosser, is the Minister aware of the comment from Transport for the North in Rail magazine, which states that the east coast mainline revisions mean that the north-east is losing trains to Leeds, Manchester and Edinburgh in favour of trains to London, and that this does not reflect the levelling-up agenda? Does she agree it is important to focus on the local and regional services, where the demand is greatest?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con) [V]
Unfortunately, I did not see that comment, as I do not read Rail magazine; potentially, I should. We have to reach a balance here. We cannot focus on only one type of travel. What we and LNER have tried to do is get the right balance to ensure we are meeting customer demand and providing value for money for the taxpayer.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the 9.30 am from Edinburgh to King’s Cross yesterday, on which I was due to travel, was cancelled. The stories going around were that this was because there are continuing problems with cracks in Azuma trains, which would be extremely worrying. Can the Minister confirm whether this is the case?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con) [V]
I can confirm that safety is paramount on our railways. At the moment, there is just one LNER set out of service. Repairs are obviously ongoing and will probably be finished by the end of the summer. I reassure noble Lords that this is being done in a fashion that is safe and that minimises disruption for passengers.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Bahrain: Human Rights Abuses
Lord Scriven
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Prime Minister discussed human rights abuses in Bahrain when he met the Crown Prince of Bahrain on 17 June.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, with the permission of my noble friend Lord Scriven, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Prime Minister and the Crown Prince discussed a wide range of measures, as outlined on the GOV.UK website. We regularly raise human rights priorities and any areas of concern with the Government of Bahrain, including at senior levels. The Foreign Secretary raised social and justice reforms with the Crown Prince during their meeting on 17 June, and the UK continues to engage with the Government of Bahrain to support their reform agenda.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. The UK has a close relationship with Bahrain but is pressed on what it raises on human rights. I flagged to the noble Lord last night the case of human rights defender Dr Al-Singace, who has a PhD from Manchester University and who was arrested on his return to Bahrain in 2010 and sentenced to life imprisonment for his peaceful opposition to Bahrain’s Government during the Arab spring. He is currently on hunger strike. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others have called for his immediate and unconditional release; the UK has never done so. Can the noble Lord tell us whether the Government will now do this before it is too late?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the noble Baroness says, our relationship means we are able to raise cases directly with Bahrain. We continue to monitor the case of Dr Al-Singace. We have raised the case at a senior level with the Bahraini Government, and we urge anyone with concerns over a particular case to raise those with the oversight bodies in Bahrain. We continue to encourage the oversight bodies to carry out swift and thorough investigations into any such claims.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, of course, there are proper concerns about human rights in Bahrain, as there are in all Middle East countries. Does the Minister agree that these concerns should be put in the context of the continuing efforts by Iran to destabilise the country by propaganda and by shipping vast quantities of arms, including explosive devices, to the country, and in the context of the very positive role that Bahrain has in the Middle East, particularly in respect of the Abraham Accords?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we remain committed to the promotion of universal freedoms and human rights, and are more likely to bring about change through engagement, dialogue and co-operation. Our strong relationship with Bahrain has flourished for more than 200 years; we co-operate on defence, security, trade and regional issues, such as those the noble Lord mentioned.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, a year ago this week, Bahrain’s courts upheld the death penalty for Mohamed Ramadan and Hussain Moosa. Following commitments made in the other place by the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, what representations have Her Majesty’s Government made to the Government of Bahrain on the death penalty?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The UK remains opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances and all countries as a matter of principle. The Government of Bahrain are fully aware that we are firmly opposed to the death penalty, and our good relationship allows us to have honest dialogue and raise points on that. We raise the matter regularly, both at ministerial and official level, publicly and privately, including during the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa’s most recent visit to Bahrain.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that influence can often be exerted through the interchange of culture and sport. Amnesty International has identified the Grand Prix in Bahrain as being a huge event through which we should try to put pressure. Are efforts being made in this direction with, for example, Formula 1?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will have to double-check the point that the noble Lord raises about Formula 1 and write to him to confirm that, but he is absolutely right to highlight the role that cultural exchange—sport, music and the arts—plays in strengthening our relationships and standing up for our fundamental values.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, earlier this year I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, the detention of children in Bahrain, following reports of their physical abuse and forced confessions. What assessment have the Government made of the Bahraini authorities’ response to these reports of alleged human rights abuses against children? Will they make further representations to ensure this does not happen?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, if the noble Lord will bear with me, I have an answer on that point. There are many pages and a lot of information and I want to make sure the noble Lord gets an answer.
In response to the recommendations in the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry report and by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Bahrain has undertaken reforms of its juvenile justice system. We have consistently promoted and supported Bahrain in adopting a whole-system approach to youth offending, from diversion and prevention through to rehabilitation and resettlement of young people. We welcome the recent ratification by His Majesty the King of the corrective justice law for children and will be monitoring its implementation.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware of the recent report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Democracy and Human Rights in the Gulf on the Integrated Activity Fund and the Gulf Strategy Fund—I declare an interest as an endorsee—which concludes that Her Majesty’s Government have been deceptive and misleading about the £50 million in funds, putting the UK at risk of complicity in human rights violations in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Will he respond to the report, consider its recommendations and tell this House why the Government refuse to be transparent about how this money is spent?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the FCDO’s international programme and, within it, the Gulf Strategy Fund, is a vital tool in promoting positive change and reforms across the world, including in the Gulf. We now publish an annual summary of the GSF work on GOV.UK. We will not publish further information where doing so presents risks to our staff, programme suppliers and beneficiaries, or where it may hinder our relationships with our international partners and therefore our ability to influence their reform efforts, but we will provide annual updates.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, do the Government accept, informally, double standards applying to human rights in the Gulf versus the UK?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, if we want to bring about change in the world, we have to engage with those we wish to see improve their records on human rights. We do not shy away from raising human rights concerns with other countries, and we make this point very clearly in public and in private.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred to the plight of Dr Al-Singace, and 73 year-old Hassan Mushaima is in an identical position. Both are political prisoners, obviously, and have been detained for 10 years for their peaceful political opposition to Bahrain’s dictatorship. Both, in fact, participated in an event held in this House in 2010, and in 2012 the Foreign Office said it was “very disappointed” over a decision to uphold their life sentences, due to the court’s reliance on torture-tainted confessions. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the European Parliament have called for their immediate release. Why have our Government failed publicly to call for their release? Is the Minister willing to do so today? Did the Prime Minister raise our continued disappointment—presumably—at their continued unjustified detention with the Crown Prince when they met?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we continue to monitor the cases of Mr Mushaima and Dr Al-Singace and, where we have concerns, we have raised them at senior levels with the Bahraini Government. The policy of Her Majesty’s Government on torture is clear: we do not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or mistreatment for any purpose. We urge all allegations of this nature to be reported to the appropriate national oversight body, whose duty it is to carry out a full and independent investigation. We will continue to raise concerns about human rights with the Government of Bahrain wherever we have them.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now move to the third Oral Question.
Police and Crime Commissioner By-election
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Thomas of Gresford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government (1) what estimate they have made of the cost of Thames Valley Police’s investigation into Councillor Jonathon Seed subsequent to his election as the Police and Crime Commissioner for Swindon and Wiltshire on 6 May, and (2) following the finding that Councillor Seed was ineligible to stand, what estimate they have made of the cost of the resulting by-election.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the police investigation is ongoing and the Home Office does not hold details of the cost. A by-election is due to take place on 19 August. We will not know the exact cost of running the PCC election until all election expense claims have been submitted by the returning officer and have been scrutinised and settled.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
The estimate by the council is that the cost will be £1.4 million. Are we talking in those terms? The Electoral Commission was perfectly clear in the advice that it gave, and drunk-driving has been an imprisonable offence since 1925. Mr Seed says that he disclosed his conviction to the Conservative Party when applying to be its candidate and was told to go ahead. He refused to answer questions from ITV News, which could have given him time to withdraw, but then he did withdraw. So who is paying for all this? Does the taxpayer have to stump up every time a disqualified candidate stands in an election? Where is the power and what is the process for recovery from the party or person involved?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, as to who pays the bill, it is fair to say that public funds, wherever they come from, ultimately come from the taxpayer, but the polls are funded out of the Consolidated Fund. On disclosing his conviction to the local party, I have no information on that. I really do not know whether that is the case or not. The issue is that it is entirely up to the candidate to disclose that conviction—albeit it was many decades old, it is still incumbent on the candidate to disclose it.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, must we not hope that, when the new PCC for Wiltshire is finally elected, they prove to be someone who keeps their word—unlike the previous incumbent, who announced an independent inquiry into the fatally flawed Operation Conifer, which treated Sir Edward Heath so shamelessly, and then reneged, saying it was up to the Home Office? The Home Office then said it was up to the police and crime commissioner, playing a disgraceful game of pass the parcel with a dead statesman’s reputation. Is it not the duty of the Home Office to take action to rectify injustice where a commissioner fails to do so?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have every confidence that the new PCC, when he or she is elected, will have the confidence of the public.
Lord Bach (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in the opinion of many, the provision under Section 66 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, which states that
“A person is disqualified from being elected as, or being, a police and crime commissioner if … the person has been convicted … of any imprisonable offence (whether or not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in respect of the offence)”,
is far too wide in scope? It has meant that individuals, however young they were and however minor the offence may have been, are automatically excluded, for life, from being a police and crime commissioner. Of course, it goes without saying that any serious conviction involving actual imprisonment should disqualify an individual. Will the Government look at this issue again, and might they consider a minor government amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which will be debated in your Lordships’ House later this year?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
I think that what has happened in this election has thrown up some obvious gaps in the process. On what the noble Lord says about the stringency of standing for office, he is absolutely right—PCCs have the most stringent requirements of all UK elections. But it is right that we should be quite strict about the people who are elected to uphold law and order.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, Members of Parliament guilty of misconduct can face a recall procedure. What plans do the Government have for a recall procedure for police and crime commissioners?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is not a recall procedure, but the noble Lord will know that there have been PCCs whose conduct has been called into question, and there has been remedy in that.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, can I suggest that the Minister looks also at the Elections Bill coming before both Houses in the near future? This is another opportunity to narrow the extraordinarily wide range of reasons for barring candidates for PCCs. They are so wide that they are far broader than reasons for banning Members of Parliament or the Prime Minister.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My noble friend is right; they are incredibly stringent. They were set out in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and would, of course, require primary legislation to be amended. That is not within the scope of the Cabinet Office Elections Bill. My noble friend outlines that there certainly appear to be gaps in the process, and the Cabinet Office is looking at that.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Previous convictions do not necessarily preclude anyone from appointment as a police officer, as account can be taken of the nature and circumstances of the offence, age at the time the offence was committed and the number of years since the offence was committed. Neither do previous convictions for an imprisonable offence preclude a person becoming Home Secretary, and thus accountable to Parliament for the police and having regular direct contact with chief constables and commissioners, as happened following the pulling down of the Colston statue in Bristol and repeatedly during the Sarah Everard vigil in London. In view of this, do the Government really have no plans to review the strict rules on convictions for an imprisonable offence that preclude people from standing for and taking up the position of police and crime commissioner?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
I remind the noble Lord that the high standard was set with cross-party agreement and with the support of senior officers, because PCCs hold police forces, whose duty is to uphold the law, to account.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, my good friends and relations who live in Wiltshire are incandescent at the thought that they might have to pay for the rerun of this election. Is this not the worst example of a party—in this case the Conservatives—failing to exercise due diligence in selecting the ineligible candidate in the first place? What plans do the Government have to introduce legislation to deter and penalise this sort of attack on democracy?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I said earlier, it is entirely up to the individual to declare convictions, whether recent or historic. As I have said before as well, setting such a high bar for election had cross-party agreement. The Cabinet Office will look at some of the gaps inherent in this first and most recent situation that has happened.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister advise on whether the Government are working with the Electoral Commission and other bodies to look at whether the advice and guidance to candidates seeking election needs to be enhanced or revised to help avoid the recurrence of this sort of costly error in the future?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, we will work with appropriate parties to ensure that we can iron out some of those gaps which have taken place over recent months. It is clearly not a good situation for the public, as the electorate, or indeed the taxpayer.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Policing: European Championship Final
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the policing of the 2020 UEFA European Championship final on 11 July.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con) [V]
My Lords, we condemn the scenes of violence and disorder that took place at Wembley Stadium and in central London on Sunday. I am grateful to the police for their efforts to restore public order in hugely testing circumstances and to deal with those committing violence and other criminal offences.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is easy enough to condemn these actions, but it is quite clear that there was a breakdown in intelligence on the part of the police force and that the stewarding arrangements and the police support at the stadium were inadequate. What steps will the Government take to make sure that this is corrected, bearing in mind the damage that this has done to our bid to host the World Cup in future?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord touches on a point when he says that some of the stewarding was deficient on the day. However, I would like to put this in the context of the whole of the Euros tournament. The vast majority of events ran smoothly, and it is a real shame that a few people have ruined it for the majority. It is also of great regret that some 19 of our brave police officers were injured on the day.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister agree that stewards are not paid, trained or kitted out to be substitute security staff, let alone riot police? Many were incredibly brave, sustaining injuries and trauma. Will the Government ensure that every single steward who worked last Sunday—for the minimum wage, I might add—is provided with counselling from the public purse?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
I understood the noble Baroness to say that stewards were not paid, and then that they were paid the minimum wage. However, no matter what, yes, they should be trained; yes, they are brave and we are grateful to them; and, yes, there are lessons to be learned from that event.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, however one looks at this sorry state of affairs, there is no doubt about the fact that the stewards at the ground and the police in and around it behaved with great professionalism to protect the safety of fans. However, there were obviously grave failings that go to the top of the Met, and surely someone, including the Commissioner, must take responsibility for these failings, apologise and explain how this will be improved in the future.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, as I said, there are certainly lessons to be learned, but I for one am incredibly grateful to the police for the role that they played. Some 19 of them were injured, and of course there are lessons to be learned from that day. However, there was a surge event and on the whole the police did incredibly well to manage it.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, the Minister and I come from the north-west of England—Greater Manchester—where clearly we have tribal loyalties to football clubs. But this is about information. On the day that Manchester United’s football ground was invaded and broken into and a Premiership match was abandoned, that was fully on the internet, everybody knew what was going on and very little happened. What happened at Wembley is a mirror image of that. These people see this happening, see that there are few consequences, with no arrests or prosecutions, and try it again. It is only by the grace of God that nobody was killed at Wembley, and I just hope that, instead of apologising, the Minister actually does something.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will not at this point state which team I support, because that might get us into another row. However, I agree that lessons have to be learned. I understand that there was very regular communication on what was going on, and I think the police on the whole did a very good job. As the noble Lord says, it is a very good thing that nobody was more injured than they were, particularly the police officers. Nineteen officers were injured but, thankfully, none died.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con) [V]
My Lords, I attend a lot of football matches in London and went to two of the European Championship games. The police do an exemplary job in policing football matches, and let us not forget that arrests have fallen by 50% in a decade. I was astonished to learn that the police can reclaim policing costs from football clubs only if they are in the ground, and that of the £48 million a year it costs to police football matches, they get only £5 million back. Will the Minister look at this legislation so that the police can start to reclaim the costs from the football clubs and not have this artificial situation where the football clubs keep them out of the grounds in order to save money?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
I totally agree with my noble friend in praising the police for the exemplary job they do, and I will take his point back.
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
My Lords, people who attended the match told me that the chaos, the threats and the violence caused by thousands of drunken and ticketless fans outside the stadium, many of whom forced their way inside, made this a frightening experience. That was especially because there were very few police officers to be seen. I do not understand how the Minister can say that the police did a good job on this occasion. It is surely all very well for the Minister to say that lessons need to be learned, but I suggest to her that the lesson that should be learned is that someone in the police service should take responsibility for all this and should resign.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, as regards the chaos outside, the noble Lord is absolutely right. In fact, I understand that many of the people who did not have tickets had no intention of watching the match; they came to cause trouble. On the numbers of police, I understand that almost 2,000 officers were deployed to Wembley on Sunday. To put that in context, it is the size of an average police force.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The scenes at Wembley were frankly appalling, and they ask serious questions of the police and the authorities. Given the risk, why was there not a greater police presence at the gates and turnstiles? All of us have seen the shocking scenes and images on social media, so what people in the country want to know is how many of these individuals are being investigated and how many have been arrested so far.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
The noble Lord will know that this is obviously an ongoing investigation, and therefore I cannot comment on exact figures at this point. However, as I say, almost 2,000 officers were deployed to the stadium on Sunday. It was a very unfortunate episode and I am not in any way trying to defend it. What I am trying to defend are police’s efforts to restore law and order when chaos broke out.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
I hope the Minister has seen the videos shown on Italian media of Italian fans being beaten, apparently as they came out of their stand, by so-called British “supporters”—better described as “thugs”. That video shows it taking place for a substantial time before any stewards arrived. The stewards do then intervene, rather bravely, but there is no sign of the police. These individuals are clearly identifiable on the videos. Can we have some assurance that all these videos from social and professional media are being circulated to the police and that prosecutions will take place where individuals are identified?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
I can certainly assure the noble Lord that all the evidence that is being put forward from Sunday is being considered and taken forward by the police. Perhaps I may join him in saying that it is an appalling situation where our non-home fans are beaten and I reassure him that the police will do all they can to bring these criminals—“thugs”, as he says—to justice.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I spent many years focusing on ways to tackle hooliganism and subsequently on the preparation for a secure and trouble-free London Olympic Games. Does the Minister agree that it is incomprehensible that the FA and the police did not erect barriers hundreds of metres away from the stadium, as we did in London 2012? That would have prevented tailgating, which was flagged as a major concern in the semi-final. Does she also agree that such an approach must be comprehensibly built into the bid documentation for the 23rd World Cup, to demonstrate that security firms, stewards, the police and volunteers are far better prepared for that tournament, along with far tougher lines against racially provoked attacks, both physical, verbal and online, which quite simply have to be stamped out if we are to earn the right to host the World Cup?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
I totally agree with my noble friend. On the racial attacks, the Prime Minister could not have been clearer about his abhorrence for and willingness to deal with them than he was yesterday. On lessons learned from the Olympics, I agree with my noble friend. I am sure that that will be considered and that the House will be kept updated on the progress made.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to Oral Questions to the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, the noble Lord, Lord Frost. There will be three Questions, with 10 minutes allowed for each, and we will proceed in the same way as for other Oral Questions.
Before I call the first Question, it may assist the House if I make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that there are active legal proceedings on the legality of the Northern Ireland protocol. I assure the House that Members may make full reference to the challenge to the Northern Ireland protocol, which is a judicial review of an issue of national importance.
I am also advised that there are active legal proceedings and open inquests in relation to historical Troubles-related deaths. Mr Speaker made a Statement in the House of Commons yesterday; I share his view that this is an issue of national importance. When cases relate to issues of national importance, the Lord Speaker can allow reference to the cases in the House. I am exercising that discretion to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings and open inquests in relation to historical Troubles-related deaths. However, references to these cases should be limited to the context and the events that led to the cases and not include details of cases nor the names of those involved in them. Members of the House should be mindful of the matters that may be the subject of future legal proceedings and should exercise caution in making reference to individual cases.
I also remind Members of the presumption that court orders, such as anonymity orders, will be respected in Parliament. I draw attention to the report of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, which made clear that
“privilege places a significant responsibility on parliamentarians to exercise it in the public interest. The presumption should be that court orders are respected in Parliament; and that when a Member does not comply with one he or she can demonstrate that (it) is in the public interest.”
Post-Brexit Financial Settlement
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have made of the European Union’s consolidated budget report for 2020, which states that the United Kingdom has liabilities of €47.5 billion as part of the post-Brexit financial settlement.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s regular update to Parliament on EU finances has been published today by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Treasury estimates that the current cost of the net financial settlement is £37.3 billion. This remains within the previously published central range. The €47.5-billion figure is an estimate produced on a different basis by the EU for its internal accounts processes.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, these are large sums—larger even than those we were discussing yesterday when we discussed the cuts to overseas aid. It appears that the EU is the final arbiter of what we should pay. I understand that there are circumstances when you might want to give a trusted friend details of your credit card, including the three numbers of the back, but if that trusted friend is abusing the card, is it not the right policy to cancel it?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, it is of course a legal obligation to make the payments to the EU that were agreed in the withdrawal agreement. They were heavily negotiated in some detail at the time, and of course we stand by them. It was a general difficulty, with a very large sums that we were paying to the European Union, that underlaid the referendum vote in June 2016.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Surely the Minister is not surprised by this figure, which was predicted not just by the European Union but by the OBR and other organisations. He will recall the campaign that claimed we were paying £350 million a week to the European Union when the reality was less than half that. How can we now believe Ministers in a Government where the Prime Minister is a stranger to the truth?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, we are not surprised by these figures. As I said, the details of how they are calculated are set out in the withdrawal agreement in exhaustive detail, through several dozen articles. The question to which the noble Lord alludes has been sufficiently debated. There are different views on this question but what is clear is that, before we left the EU, we were paying very substantial net sums into it.
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My Lords, RTE reports that our 2021 payment is to be €6.8 billion whereas, in the latest Budget Red Book, table C.6 on page 97 shows our 2020-21 sum as £10.4 billion—nearly twice as much. The sum for 2021-22 is £11 billion, so the discrepancy is not likely to be due to year-end differences. The difference is several billion pounds, which is a big number by any standard. As Senator Everett Dirksen said 60 years ago:
“A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”
Can the Minister explain the discrepancy?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that any of us on this side of the House feels particularly comfortable paying large sums to the European Union, but it is an agreed outcome in the withdrawal agreement and we stand by it. There are differences in the calculation methods between the EU arrangements and ours. For example, their figure does not include all the receipts we will receive in future, there are different ways of forecasting and so on. We are not surprised that there are some differences. What matters is our own calculations and that we are comfortable with the bills when they arrive, which we are.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
Does the Minister accept any responsibility for failing to negotiate this bill properly, or are he and the Prime Minister unfamiliar with how divorce works?
Lord Frost (Con)
This is one of the occasions when I can disclaim direct responsibility for that particular part of the negotiation in the previous withdrawal agreement. I have been known to be a little uncharitable at times about every aspect of the work that was done by my predecessors but, in this case, on the withdrawal agreement, they did a good job. Given the legal framework and commitments, it was always likely that the outcome would be in this broad area.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The Minister negotiated at length to agree a formula for calculating the UK’s contribution. Whatever we think of the amount, there was some degree of transparency in this. In the interests of transparency, can the Minister tell us whether he played any role in advancing the interests of Aquind Ltd, owned by a former Russian executive, in the Brexit negotiations? I would welcome an answer to my letter to him on this important matter, but perhaps he could tell the House now whether he ever raised the Aquind project in negotiations with the EU.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to the Front Bench. I look forward to debating such issues with her on what I hope are many occasions in the future. The link between the EU budget and the question she asks is possibly a little tenuous, but nevertheless I am happy to say that I received her letter and obviously will reply shortly. I have never met Mr Temerko and I have no recollection of discussing his business with any Ministers or anybody else. We are establishing what correspondence, if any, there was with me or my office last year, and will reply.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, certain people have tried to make mischief with this figure. What we need—I think we have now had it from the Minister—is a clear statement that we will stand by the agreement that we negotiated. If he can say that, I am sure that it will find favour on both sides of the negotiating table.
Lord Frost (Con)
We certainly stand by the financial agreement that we negotiated in the withdrawal agreement. As I said, it was very carefully negotiated at some length, and of course we stand by it and the payments that are due under it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for committing the Government to this legal obligation; that is very welcome. Will he further confirm that the sums of money being discussed in this Question are going towards the Horizon programme, which is in the present spending review, and from which many UK companies will benefit greatly?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, yes, these are significant sums, and the sums involved in the Horizon project and programme are also significant. We have a difficulty with the Horizon programme, in that, at the moment, our participation is still being blocked by the EU, even though all the legal processes behind it are in place. We very much hope that that block can be lifted soon and that UK universities and others with an interest can participate in the programme.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, just this week, the Minister told the protocol sub-committee in this House that the European Union had dumped 800 regulations on the UK to apply to Northern Ireland without any consultation or prior warning. As the European Union continues to show intransigence and a determination to show no flexibility whatever to the working of the protocol, is it not time for Her Majesty’s Government to hold back any more payment until the European Union shows itself to be more reasonable?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, where threats have been made in this process, they have overwhelmingly come from the European Union side, and we regret that. I do not think it would be right for us to hold this legal obligation in hock to progress on the protocol, which is not to say that we do not think the progress on the protocol and implementing it in a pragmatic, proportionate and appropriate way is not important. It is extremely important, but it is not the same thing as the exit bill.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we move to the second Oral Question to the Minister of State.
Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) what steps Her Majesty’s Government will take to promote the benefits and opportunities of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, I have spoken to many businesses and business organisations in Northern Ireland about this issue. The reality is that Northern Ireland’s economic links are overwhelmingly with the rest of the UK, rather than with Ireland or other EU members. The way that the protocol is currently operating means that any economic benefits it may generate for some are more than counterbalanced in general by the barriers it currently creates between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
Has the Minister met the new Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland, Invest NI and other promotional agencies, including the Northern Ireland chamber of commerce, and, if not, when will he meet them? Is he aware that in its latest quarterly review, the Northern Ireland chamber of commerce said that 67% of its members believed that
“Northern Ireland’s unique status post EU Exit presents opportunities for the region”
and that 47% believe that
“Northern Ireland’s trading status will present benefits for their business”?
That includes Northern Ireland biggest wine wholesaler, which said in today’s newspaper that business has grown exponentially due to the new trading arrangements.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting the new Economy Minister in Northern Ireland, although I expect to do so soon. To be fair, there is a range of opinion on the benefits of the protocol, even in the business community in Northern Ireland. All I can say is that I do not think I have spoken to a representative of that community who has not expressed some concern about the barriers that are placed on movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The degree of concern may vary, but it is always there, and it is a matter of significant concern to us, too.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as one who has consistently pressed for the defects in the Northern Ireland protocol to be remedied, I very much look forward to seeing the Government’s proposals on the way forward next week. Does my noble friend agree that a good start would be to remind the EU of its obligations to ensure that the protocol
“should impact as little as possible on the everyday life of communities in both Ireland and Northern Ireland”,
as well as
“the importance of maintaining the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom's internal market.”?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend’s comments. It is very clear that the obligations set out in the protocol to which he refers are not being fully met at the moment. There clearly is an impact on the everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland, goods are clearly not circulating as freely as they could or should, and we need to find a new balance in this question. We will be setting out our proposals to that effect next week.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister clarify the highly charged phrase that he and a director in the Cabinet Office used before the Lords protocol sub-committee yesterday—namely, that the European Union “dropped” 800 new measures on Northern Ireland last week without notice? Are those measures technical amendments to the existing legislative instruments that apply mainly through Annexe 2 to the protocol, or are they new legislative instruments that the EU thinks should apply to Northern Ireland? In either case, can he explain how the Northern Ireland Assembly, as the legislature responsible for implementing them, is being kept informed of such developments?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that was highly charged language; I think it was an accurate description of the situation when we received a communication containing 600 to 800 pieces of legislation and pages. That is a significant event. New legislation not within scope of the protocol is obviously covered in a different way; this is obviously legislation that is within scope. Technical amendments can of course be quite significant, and the task of assessing that and ensuring that we understand the statute book in Northern Ireland is significant. That is why we should like more warning, more process and more discussion of this matter.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Can my noble friend confirm that the overall balance of benefits and disadvantages of the protocol is tilted against Northern Ireland at present, given that Northern Ireland trades more with the rest of the United Kingdom than with the Republic of Ireland, the rest of the world and the European Union put together, a phenomenal statistic that should always be borne in mind? Does he agree that firm action needs to be taken to deal not only with that trade imbalance but the societal and political instability which also need to be taken into account when one assesses the benefits and disadvantages of the protocol?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. The balance of advantages and benefits in the protocol is not solely economic, although the economic links are clearly very strong with Great Britain. They are to do with society, politics and the sense of identity, which, it seems, has been undermined in places by the operation of the protocol. It is reasonable to take that into account in our overall assessment. Diversion of trade, societal disturbances and so on are obviously very important factors when we come to consider what action is necessary in this matter.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Yesterday, the Minister told the Northern Ireland Sub-Committee that in his view the protocol was causing societal disruption and weakening of identity, as well as trade friction. If he is right, it is vital that Her Majesty’s Government do nothing to make that precarious situation worse. Does he agree that any trade arrangements involving significant relaxation of import checks could make his problems with the protocol harder to resolve, and will he therefore ensure that the impact on communities in Northern Ireland is properly taken into account by his colleague, the International Trade Secretary?
Lord Frost (Con)
We agree, of course, that it is very important that the situation in Northern Ireland remains calm, and we are very glad that it has. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is a high level of political concern about the situation that currently subsists. It is very important that all of us—this Government, the European Union and everybody else with an interest—act to respond to that political difficulty and show that we can respond politically and solve problems that have arisen, rather than suggest that they do not exist.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
I am puzzled by the Minister’s reply to the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—it almost sounded as if he is not very proud of his protocol. It seemed to me and to many in Scotland that Mrs Foster had a point when she talked about the best of both worlds. However, looking ahead, there clearly is a problem with the democratic deficit in relation to new EU single-market laws applicable in Northern Ireland thanks to the protocol. How does the Minister propose to mitigate this problem? Does he agree that the Partnership Council and the parliamentary partnership assembly could play some role and will the Government endorse strong Northern Ireland representation in both?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I learned a good deal of what I know of negotiation at the feet of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, so wherever we have got to is at least in part thanks to his tutelage over the years. On the issue of the parliamentary partnership assembly and the Partnership Council, the parliamentary assembly is, of course, a matter for Parliament. We are in close touch with those involved as to how it should work but its composition is not a matter for the Government, although we obviously strongly support its work. On the institutions created by the withdrawal agreement and the TCA, we seek to ensure that all the devolved Administrations, including Northern Ireland, can participate in the most appropriate way.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just said, it is a peculiarity of our times that the Opposition Benches are left to defend the imperfect protocol that the Minister himself negotiated. Does the Minister agree with Julian Smith, who said in May this year that Northern Ireland is in a
“unique position … compared to other parts of the UK to maximise two major markets, Britain and the EU”?
Do the Government have an action plan to promote these opportunities for businesses in Northern Ireland?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I obviously have the highest respect for my right honourable friend Mr Smith but the problem with that analysis comes back to the point made earlier that Northern Ireland’s economic links are overwhelmingly with the rest of the UK. A bargain in which there is greater access to a smaller part of the trade in return for difficulties with the larger part is obviously not a bargain that totally stacks up.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Question to the Minister of State and I call the noble Lord, Lord Liddle.
Trade Agreements
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps Her Majesty’s Government are taking to ensure future trade agreements (1) are compatible with the terms of the United Kingdom-European Union Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and (2) take into account relevant regulatory changes by existing trading partners and international organisations.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, the trade and co-operation agreement that we have agreed with the European Union does not require us or the EU to align rules with the other party. This ensures that the UK is in control of its own legislation and that we are free to make other free trade agreements around the world. All these trade agreements are capable of accommodating the consequences of regulatory changes by either party, now and into the future.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. The purpose of my Question was to explore the priorities and processes that determine the Government’s trade policy. In a way, what I am asking is the mirror image of the replies that he gave on the Northern Ireland protocol. As far as I can see, the Government’s trade policy is focused very much on the Asia-Pacific region, which brings benefits but not terribly big ones by comparison with the overwhelming importance of our trading relationship with the European Union. Do the Minister and the Government’s trade policy recognise that fact and that it will be the case for decades to come? Do the Government take into account that any divergences that we negotiate from EU standards in other trade agreements are bound to cause some friction in the EU relationship? Does he accept that they are going to make the Commission more reluctant to explore—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord has asked his two questions.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
—the flexibility that he is seeking in the Northern Ireland protocol and does he want to build on the spirit of the trade and co-operation agreement to deepen the trading relationship with Europe?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, this is clearly an extremely complicated issue and a lot can be said on the subject. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Lord’s underlying judgment. Our trade with the EU has been falling fairly consistently for a decade or two now. Our trade with Asia is rising. Most people think that that is likely to continue to be the case and that the strategic emphasis on Asia is right. As regards the relationship between our regulation and other countries’ regulation through FTAs, of course there are choices to be made, but they are the same choices that every country in the world engaging in an independent trade policy undertakes. They seem to manage it and I am sure that we will as well.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, when granting the data adequacy decision, the European Commission imposed a four-year sunset clause over fears of UK divergence from GDPR standards, especially in transfers of data to third countries. The Government are none the less forging ahead with international agreements on data transfers such as with the US, the trans-Pacific partnership and Asian countries. Their recent digital policy paper envisaged the Information Commissioner having a key role in communicating the benefits of data sharing—there was me thinking that the Information Commissioner’s role was to safeguard privacy rights. Have the Government done an assessment on the dangers that their data policies could pose to the adequacy decision?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, we are obviously very pleased that the EU granted us data adequacy last month. We think that that was the right thing to do and a correct reflection of the situation. The EU grants data adequacy to other countries around the world as well which do not operate identical or close analogues to the EU’s legislation. That does not prevent the grant of adequacy. We think that it is entirely consistent with security of data to look at our own ways of doing these things and that is exactly what we are reflecting on.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the UK does not intend to align its regulations with the EU’s in order to help the situation in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that there are other ways of reducing the administrative controls between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, such as a veterinary agreement based on mutual recognition of underlying product regulations, as the EU has agreed with New Zealand?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I have said it before and I will say it again: we will not align dynamically with the rules of the EU on agri-food or in other areas. That was the approach that we took into the negotiations last year and that is the consistent approach now. My noble friend is absolutely right that there are other ways of doing this and he is absolutely correct to point to an equivalence-based veterinary agreement as the way forward. That is exactly what we have proposed to the European Union and I am very hopeful that we can discuss that at the Specialised Committee created by the withdrawal agreement when it meets on Monday.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the free trade agreement between the UK, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein was signed on 4 June. This is a most important agreement between friends and trading partners of the UK, yet Parliament to date has had no opportunity to scrutinise it. Does the Minister regret that? Can he tell us when the agreement will be laid before Parliament?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, this is a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade rather than for me. There are, of course, procedures under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, which sets out how such treaties will be considered by Parliament; I think that is the intention. Obviously we welcome the fullest possible debate on the contents of that treaty.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
The Minister had to sit through some very difficult negotiations and, some would say, a lot of attempted bullying by the EU. Can he confirm that any trade agreements are for the benefit of the UK and will avoid alignment where it is not to our benefit, and that enormous benefits will flow in the course of time from the trade extensions and the deal with Japan, the deal with Australia and now the potential deal with the CPTPP, which begins to be tantalisingly close? Can he assure the House that he will be looking at them and the benefits and not listening to the EU?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade is obviously responsible for most of those negotiations. I am in 100% agreement with her that they offer huge opportunities for this country. The ability to trade freely with a larger number of countries around the world, while setting our own rules in a way that suits us and this economy, will be of huge benefit to us in years to come and we are all looking forward to that.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The Minister has admitted that the extra barriers caused by the protocol have had a dampening effect on free trade, but he does not seem to accept that the extra barriers between us and the EU similarly have an effect on the freedom of trade and the amount we will export to the EU, which is still our nearest and biggest market. Indeed, exports of food and drink—our major export industry—fell by 47% and increased by a mere 0.3% outside the EU. We have to continue to trade with Europe. Will he set out how the Government propose to reverse the export fall to Europe?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is a little over-pessimistic about where things stand at the moment. The latest trade figures, which came out last week, show that our exports to the EU are now well above the average levels of last year and are almost at the levels of 2019 and 2018. Our business has done a great job in dealing with that. I have never sought to hide the fact that leaving a customs union creates new barriers. I am very happy to see that our businesses are dealing with them very successfully. They are different in nature from barriers within a country, and that is the difference between some of the effects that we are seeing with our exports to the rest of the European Union and the chilling effect on trade within the United Kingdom because of the way that boundaries currently operate.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Hereditary Peers By-election
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill
Thursday 15th July 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2021 View all Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Covid-19
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for taking this Statement, although I have to say—and I know this is not in his gift—that Monday to Thursday is probably too long a gap, but taking the Statement today might in this case prove useful because we have seen the reaction to the nearing of so-called freedom day, nationally and internationally. We have also seen the Government becoming progressively more cautious. That is not surprising because in England 42,000 Covid infections and 49 more deaths were recorded yesterday, hospital admissions have increased to more than 500 a day, up 50% on last week, and we now see routine operations being postponed and cancelled.
The NHS is rightly focused on waiting lists, which are at their highest level over the past decade at 5.3 million, and 336,733 people have been waiting more than a year, more than 76,000 have waited for at least 18 months and more than 7,000 have been waiting for two years. Emergency care is grappling with some of the highest summer demand ever, and this is in the context of NHS staff being exhausted and facing burnout. The NHS is also losing a significant number of staff to self-isolation, which has led to much reduced capacity due to infection control. As infection rates get worse and increase, what is the Government’s plan to deal with this situation?
Since Monday we have seen an increasing number of announcements and questions about how to safeguard against further increases in infection and the impact it is having on our NHS, schools, businesses and communities. Indeed, our own Lord Speaker wrote:
“Members are still expected to wear a face covering both in the Chamber, in indoor crowded spaces and when moving around the Estate, in line with general advice from Public Health England and the Chief Medical Officer. Members are strongly encouraged to use the testing facilities provided.”
On these Benches we intend to follow that advice, and I regret that some Members have already abandoned their masks when moving around the building and in the Chamber. We have staff to look after us who may not yet be fully vaccinated and, anyway, have no choice but to be here and who will continue to wear their masks to protect us. We should afford them the same consideration. Does the Minister agree?
On the “Today” programme a few days ago Professor Graham Medley, the chief modeller for the SAGE committee said: “Wearing face masks is worth it but only if everyone does it, not just 70%. I understand the Government’s reluctance to actually mandate it. On the other hand, if it is not mandated, it probably won’t do any good.” In other words, my understanding is that unless more than 70% wear masks, the protection for those who are still vulnerable will not work.
I fear we have been here before, with the Government back-pedalling and, in doing so, creating confusion and ambiguity—exactly the circumstances for the virus to thrive and mutate. The guidance issued by Ministers yesterday was stronger than businesses expected, many of which feel that they have been led astray, given the Government’s repeated characterisation of 19 July as “freedom day” and the end of most restrictions. The truth is that the guidance is hardly different from the current rules, except that businesses are now “encouraged” to keep many of their Covid adaptations rather than required to do so. Businesses now have just five days to decide how to implement the rules and how to communicate that to their customers. Does the Minister accept that the Government’s mixed messages have left many in legal limbo?
The new guidance gives little clarity to the 3.8 million extremely vulnerable people who are being told to avoid all unvaccinated people. How are they supposed to know whether or not someone is vaccinated? Does the Minister share the concerns raised by charities and patient groups that guidance has effectively told the extremely vulnerable to shield, without backing that up with any formal support from the Government for working or food shopping? Government advice to the clinically extremely vulnerable is to go to the shops at quieter times of the day after 19 July. I am not sure if that can be dignified as “support” for those most at risk of serious illness from Covid-19.
Is it true that the Government have not had anyone in post to deal with the clinically extremely vulnerable for three months, since Dr Jenny Harries was appointed chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency? If that is true, it is deeply concerning and it may explain why the Government have failed to prioritise support for these 3.8 million people.
What are the contingency plans for surging hospital admissions, which may remain high until the end of August, as called for by members of SAGE? The new guidance also says that businesses should encourage customers to check-in using the NHS app or otherwise leave their contact details. Can the Minister confirm reports that plans to reduce the sensitivity of NHS contact tracing have been reduced because of the surge in cases? What assessment have the Government made of the effectiveness of the app as an infection control tool, given reports that more than 20% of adults and a significantly greater proportion of young people have actually now deleted the app and many more are ignoring the advice to self-isolate?
I turn to those working from home. Despite the lifting of guidance to work from home, the Government say they expect and recommend a gradual return to offices. This is very confusing. What protection is proposed for those who are vulnerable, and for whom “freedom day” is not freedom day but a further lockdown day? If their employers demand that they return to work, even if they are immunosuppressed, for example, travel and enclosed places pose a threat to them. Under these circumstances, we need to be grateful for the good sense of the Mayor of London in following the science. Sadiq Khan has said that Transport for London will continue to enforce the wearing of face masks on services in the capital beyond 19 July.
While industry bodies said on Tuesday that no domestic train operators or major bus and coach firms will require customers to wear masks, the city mayors and others are calling for mask wearing on all public transport. Does the Minister agree with them? If Tracy Brabin, Andy Burnham and the other mayors had the power to enforce mask wearing to protect drivers and passengers, they would do so. They are doing the Government’s job for them.
What support are the Government going to give those areas with the lowest vaccination rates? Local authorities in London have, variously, 35%, 36% and 42% of their populations vaccinated. Does the Minister support the leaders of those authorities who say that they wish mask wearing to continue until they have got their populations caught up with vaccination?
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Prime Minister told us 10 days ago that we were heading for “freedom day” and that all the data was going in the right direction; all restrictions would be lifted, and now was the time to take personal responsibility for our behaviour and for the Government essentially to step back. The Secretary of State’s Statement on Monday confirmed that, although with a marginally more cautious note about taking care. I echo particularly the comments made just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the mixed messaging in the new guidance for business and on returning to work, which conflicts with what was said both in the Statement and by the Prime Minister.
However, since the Prime Minister’s and Mr Javid’s confident assertions on Monday, there has been an outpouring of disbelief from senior scientists and doctors. Cases are currently doubling every nine days, and yesterday there were 42,000 new daily cases—a level last seen at the beginning of the January total lockdown. If there is no slowing of that doubling rate, we will have hit 100,000 new daily cases by the beginning of August. And that is before the Government’s expected extra cases as a result of “freedom day” on Monday.
Ministers constantly say that there are fewer people in hospital, that fewer people need ventilation and there are fewer deaths, but what they do not mention is that those numbers are a matter of ratios, and that with the current level of cases our hospitals are already reporting A&Es with the equivalent of a winter surge and more wards being turned into Covid wards for patients. A letter published a few days ago in the BMJ, initially signed by 1,000 doctors, is at over 7,000 signatures and still rising. The data is already clear that the surge in new cases from three weeks ago is increasing hospital admissions right now. So what are the Government doing to support and protect our NHS from this sharp increase and pressure on doctors, nurses and hospitals right now?
While many people are being responsible, still following the guidance and using their face masks, sadly there are many who are not. I was talking to a young security guard who told me that, this week, she is finding it impossible to persuade people to put masks on in their local shopping mall, despite the fact that the rules are still in place. Yesterday, my local community pharmacist told me in despair that two people arrived separately asking him for PCR tests as they each had Covid symptoms and thought all the previous rules had just finished. Not for the first time, much of this is about the Prime Minister’s muddled communication style. In the light of the fact that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are going to retain the face mask mandate, and that the metro mayors, including Sadiq Khan and Andy Street, would like to do so, will the Government please reverse the lifting of the face mask mandate immediately, so that it remains in place, especially on public transport?
I turn to the new guidance for the clinically extremely vulnerable. I have to say that I have never read such an inconsistent and contradictory formal guidance note from the Government—and I have read a few. You should stay at home to be safe but if you cannot work from home, go in; you must remain socially distanced from everyone outside your bubble, even if they do not have to; you must not mix with unvaccinated people, outside or inside. I ask the Minister to tell me how on earth you know who is unvaccinated. As one of the CEV, do I stand in the doorway at opening time at my local greengrocer’s—a quiet time—and shout out to any customers and staff, “Anyone not vaccinated in here”? Of course not. The inevitable logic of this is the restart of shielding but without any of the previous support.
Worst of all, on Friday evening Public Health England put out a press release in which it mixed up advice to the clinically vulnerable and the clinically extremely vulnerable by citing vaccine efficiency research relating to the former in advice to the latter. That paragraph has been repeated in the formal guidance published on Monday. It is plain wrong. In a total administrative muddle, no one has gone through the nine pages of this guidance and updated it, so it is littered with references to the need to follow other rules and guidance for the general public in place at 17 May and 21 June, all of which goes next Monday. Please will the Minister ensure that the guidance is reviewed immediately to remove these anomalies?
All this, and the lack of answers to my questions last week about who the clinical lead is on the clinically extremely vulnerable, tells us 3.8 million former shielders that we have been not just forgotten but thrown to the wolves. Please will the Government actually review the guidance to keep the CEV group safe and provide the support that they need?
I also gave the Minister notice of the following two questions, as they both concern urgent and slightly unusual elements of lifting restrictions. First, for a couple of weeks now, Malta has said that it will not accept UK citizens who have received particular batches of the AZ vaccine manufactured in India, about 5 million doses of which have been given in the UK. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister reassured the press, saying:
“I am very confident that it will not prove to be a problem.”
However, holidaymakers are being turned away from Malta right now. When will the Government resolve this problem?
Secondly, those thousands of wonderful people who came forward to take part in the AstraZeneca clinical trials have been told that their vaccine status cannot be put on the NHS app, which means that they cannot go abroad, either to work or on holiday, or do certain jobs in the NHS that require this evidence. In early June, there was a blog on the BMJ website that set out these problems, but three months on from this issue being initially raised, there is still no resolution. It is utterly wrong that these publicly-minded people have now been left in limbo. Can the Minister say when this problem will be resolved and their vaccine details uploaded?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, for their thoughtful questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, put it extremely well: we are at a delicate inflection point. It is a moment when the whole country needs to be cautious about rushing into change, but it is also a moment when the vaccine is having an enormous impact and change is therefore appropriate.
Infection rates are rising dramatically, but we cannot avoid the fact that hospitalisations and deaths are holding relatively steady. Today, there are 2,970 Covid patients in beds and 470 on ventilators. This is a massively smaller proportion than in the pre-vaccination spikes, when the connection between infection, hospitalisation and death was much firmer and more profound. At the same time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, rightly pointed out, waiting lists are huge and the gap for diagnostics for severe diseases, such as cancer, is extremely concerning. It is our responsibility to step up to that deficit and not be wholly distracted by Covid. This is therefore a moment when we have to balance competing demands on our healthcare; we are trying to hit the right balance.
On masks, I pay tribute to the Lord Speaker for his leadership in this area and on asymptomatic testing. I saw his Twitter post where he was being swabbed for his LFD test—a commendable sign of leadership. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, are entirely right: we should wear masks out of consideration for others, including others who may not have had the vaccine or may not be able to have the vaccine. However, it is also entirely right that central government cannot mandate every aspect of human behaviour for months and years to come. I take great pleasure in the sight of local leaders using their influence to inspire the public in this matter. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that DPHs are able to bring in mandatory measures where there are areas of outbreak. People need to know that the wearing of masks has an impact, and we are hopeful that they will go along with that. Although legal restrictions are being removed, the guidance will recommend that masks continue to be worn in certain situations, and businesses will be encouraged to support staff and customers who continue to wear masks.
In line with businesses, public services have always been free to set their own entry policies as long as they meet their existing obligations, including under the Equality Act. Public services must continue to protect workers and others from risks to their health and safety, including from Covid. That is only right and fair.
On the very important question of the immuno- suppressed and the immunocompromised, both noble Baronesses made extremely powerful points. I want to express in very clear terms my personal sympathy for all those who have concerns about the impact of the vaccine and for whom the rise in infections presents a very real threat to their health. However, I flag the Public Health England report on the clinically extremely vulnerable group as a whole. It makes it clear that there is little reduction in vaccine effectiveness for them compared to those who are not in high-risk groups, with between 76% and 93% effectiveness after a second dose. The PHE data also suggests reduced effectiveness for the immunocompromised and the immunosuppressed, particularly after one dose, but effectiveness after two doses is much higher. These general figures mask substantial variations, which we have discussed before—we would expect this between one set of compromised systems and another—but future studies will provide much more granularity on that. It is not right, however, to suggest that all those with compromised immunities are left unprotected by the vaccine.
The guidance for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable was updated and published on 12 July, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out. This confirms that changes to social distancing rules in step 4 will also apply to the CEV, who are advised to continue considering additional precautions that they may wish to take on board. I hear very clearly the noble Baroness’s points about anomalies in the guidance; I will take those back to the department and try to tidy up the documentation as she advises.
I can inform the House that we are writing to NHS clinicians to update them on them on the latest position regarding vaccine effectiveness for these groups and provide information on potential treatment options currently under development, such as monoclonal antibody therapies and novel antivirals, as well as access to antibody testing. This guidance will support clinicians in their conversations with patients. This is such a variegated group that that kind of personalised advice is critical.
The interim JCVI advice is that all clinically extremely vulnerable people, including immunosuppressed individuals and their household contacts, should be prioritised for a booster vaccine in the autumn. We are continuing to invest in the OCTAVE study, which will provide further data on patients with suppressed immune response. Interim results for the immediate response to the vaccine will be available from the middle of July.
We are absolutely focused on ensuring that the population is given clear guidance. The NHS app is undoubtedly an area that needs to evolve. Its effectiveness as a technological tool in giving people counsel and advice when they have been in close proximity to someone with the infection is extremely valuable. We are looking at ways in which that value can be enhanced.
On the specific question of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about Malta, it is for member states to determine what they accept at their borders regarding vaccines. Foreign travel advice recently published for Malta misleadingly reported that it would not accept the specific batches received from the Serum Institute of India in the UK. This has now been resolved with agreement from the Maltese Government, and Malta is now accepting proof of vaccination from any Covid vaccine administered in the UK.
Turning to those who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, rightly pointed out, stepped forward for the critical AstraZeneca vaccine clinical trials, being on a vaccine trial absolutely should not disadvantage them. The Government intend to take any action available to ensure that that is the case. We are working with clinical research sites to add participant information of vaccine clinical trials to the national immunisation management service—NIMS—to allow participants to access their NHS Covid pass for both domestic and international travel purposes.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, has withdrawn so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, on 9 July a Department of Health and Social Care press release claimed that, for those who are immunosuppressed, vaccine effectiveness after a second dose is 74%, with
“similar protection to those not in an at-risk group.”
But this was based on an extremely small sample size. In response, Blood Cancer UK’s chief executive Gemma Peters said that
“its ‘confident, definitive assertions’ about the level of protection given to the UK’s 230,000 blood cancer patients could not yet be supported by the ‘wider body of evidence on vaccine efficacy in the immunocompromised’”.
I am aware that my noble friend the Minister has already commented widely on this issue, but could he comment specifically on those with cancer, particularly those 230,000 blood cancer patients? What intention do Her Majesty’s Government have to clarify this guidance and ensure that the immunosuppressed have access to the necessary resources to help improve their understanding and decision-making?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the position of the immunosuppressed is one that we have a huge amount of sympathy for. Those who have blood cancer face a particular challenge. I was very grateful to meet Blood Cancer UK and discuss this matter. The PHE report makes the very clear point that those with suppressed immune systems may have a very strong vaccine response, particularly after two weeks after two doses. Just because someone has a suppressed immune system, it does not mean that the vaccine has left them completely unprotected. I completely accept that the responses of one group and another group may be quite different and it is difficult to lump everyone together. That is why we are investing in the OCTAVE study; I am hopeful it will be published by the end of the month. That will provide some, but not all, the information we need to elaborate on that guidance.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, with government scientists predicting that up to 4,800 people a day could be admitted to hospital with Covid if England rushes back to normality at the same time as health experts are predicting a surge in flu and other respiratory viruses likely to lead to severe pressures on the NHS, what contingency plans are the Government putting in place to deal with these pressures without leading to the backlog of other much-needed care and treatment growing ever bigger? Will these contingency plans be published?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we acknowledge the risks. The noble Baroness is entirely right about flu; the relatively low levels of both flu and RSV in the last 18 months mean that many will not have the immune system that they normally would, and flu is a present danger. That is why we are working so hard on the flu vaccine programme and bundling Covid boosters and flu vaccines for those in the right prioritisation lists. I encourage absolutely everyone to make sure they get their flu vaccine when it comes around. Given the range of uncertainties, we are working with the NHS on its plans for this winter. We will ensure that the service has what it needs to meet those challenges.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what progress is being made in negotiations with the USA for double-vaccinated citizens of both countries to travel between the two countries, with non-NHS vaccines being accepted and without quarantine being required?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, following the G7 we pulled together a joint task force with USA colleagues to address the precise point that the noble Baroness alludes to. That joint task force is working extremely hard to resolve the various practical, epidemiological and virological arrangements for the kind of green-list corridor that we would like to have between our two friendly countries. I am hopeful we will be able to make announcements on that shortly.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
I would be most grateful if the Minister could follow on from the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and tell us when these plans will be published. The statement says
“we do not believe that infection rates will put unsustainable pressure on the NHS”,
yet we know that the lambda variant, if it should come into the UK and spread, is probably antibody resistant. We know that already, last weekend, some emergency departments had waiting times of around eight hours because they were under such pressure from patients plus staff sickness. We know that it is completely inhumane to expect parents of a sick baby to go into work if the child has RSV during the winter, so those members of staff will inevitably take unpaid leave if they are not allowed to take leave to look after their child.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The challenge presented by workforce illness in the NHS is acute at the moment. It is one we are very conscious of, and the noble Baroness is entirely right that parents who have a sick child must stay at home. Not only is that humane; it is also infection control wisdom. That puts the pressure on. That is why we have prioritised vaccination among healthcare staff, and we are prioritising the boosters for staff.
In terms of managing emergency services, we are conducting a huge marketing campaign around the use of NHS 111 so that people can book their slot and be directed to the right kinds of services because, as the noble Baroness knows, many people who turn up in emergency departments are not necessarily in the right place for the conditions they present.
In terms of variants of concern, we are keeping an eye on lambda, beta and all those that may present a vaccine escape risk. We will take whatever steps necessary to address their threat.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my interest as deputy colonel commandant of the Brigade of Gurkhas. Since I last raised the plight of unvaccinated Gurkha veterans in Nepal, I am delighted that the Government have acknowledged their duty of care to them under the Armed Forces covenant. Previously my noble friend has said that our priority is to vaccinate “our people” in the United Kingdom. Now that we seem to be struggling to find people to give the first vaccination to, since there are fewer than 50,000 per day, can I simply ask him again when we will vaccinate our people —our Gurkha veterans are absolutely “our people”—in Nepal? When will they get their vaccines?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend for his campaign on Nepal. His remarks are heartfelt, understood and heard clearly. We all recognise the debt we owe, not just to those from Nepal who have served in Her Majesty's Armed Forces, but their families and the entire nation for their contribution throughout Britain’s history. The PM has announced that the UK will donate 100 million doses over the next year, and the majority of those will be donated to COVAX. My honourable friend in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will be best placed to clarify the precise arrangements and where Nepal will stand in that supply chain.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
I wonder if the Minister could help me a little with the Government’s logic. Care home workers on zero-hour contracts are to be forced to get vaccinated without even a single guaranteed paid day off to recover from side-effects. A significant step change on domestic Covid passports is to be decided on by businesses themselves and regulated by them, despite all the problems with testing and tracing. Yet something as light touch and common sense as wearing a mask in shops and on public transport is not to be a legal requirement. What is behind this mask aversion and confusion—scientific evidence or Trumpian culture wars?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, in terms of care home staff vaccination, we are in the midst of a consultation on the subject. The noble Baroness should not necessarily pre-empt the consultation. We take into account the views of those we are consulting with. It is a measure that has caused an enormous amount of concern both here in the Chamber and with the public. It feels right that we should be consulting on a measure that ultimately protects the elderly and vulnerable.
In terms of certification, the ultimate use of certification in domestic surroundings has not been fully decided. At this stage, with the country enjoying the benefit of the vaccine, it seems right to be leaving that to businesses to decide how they wish to use it themselves.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I want to follow on from the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. The Government believe that passive smoking poses risks to individuals; hence they ban smoking in offices, pubs and other public places. The science has persuaded the Government that, during a pandemic, the wearing of masks in public places helps prevent individuals from passing on Covid to others, which even those who have been double vaccinated can do. In the Statement, the Government say that it is expected and recommended that masks will continue to be worn. Can the Minister explain why smoking should be governed by government diktat, but mask-wearing should be a matter of personal choice?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness makes her points extremely well. I support the ban on smoking in public places for exactly the reasons she describes. However, I do not support a mandatory, legal ban on sneezing, although I do not like people sneezing in my presence. We have to strike a balance between mandation and voluntary arrangements. We also have to choose the right people to make these decisions. Central Government cannot make every single decision on every single matter. I recognise the concern of both the public and of noble Lords in this Chamber about masks. It feels right to leave it to local decision-makers, politicians and companies to take the public with them and to enforce this measure which, I entirely agree, is of benefit to us all.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, with the number of infections rising and restrictions continuing to ease, can my noble friend say whether the supplies of vaccines and the capacity to administer them allow the vaccination programme to be further enlarged? This would give us a better chance of overcoming the undoubted risks which, unfortunately, remain.
Lord Bethell (Con)
We have an established vaccine run rate and programme, and we have in place the supplies to meet those targets and to fulfil the commitment to vaccinate all those who step forward for vaccination by the end of July. My noble friend may be referring to either a third or booster shot with a variant vaccine. Negotiations and clinical studies are taking place at the moment. We are cognisant that the vulnerable, elderly and those in high priority groups may need further vaccination in the autumn. We are putting in place all the plans necessary to deliver this.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I return to the confusing advice on masks. In the early weeks of the pandemic, some of the worst levels of deaths occurred among transport workers. They were inevitably faced with potential infection for several hours a day. It was particularly true of bus drivers, including a very good friend and neighbour of mine who died from Covid a few months before his retirement. With the advent of compulsory mask-wearing on public transport, driver hospitalisation and deaths fell dramatically. With rising infections and more unpredictable variants, what on earth is the rationale for not making masks mandatory on public transport and in other situations where staff are dealing with an increasingly maskless public?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that very touching personal testimony about his neighbour who passed away. It is an important account of many who have put themselves at risk. The PHE report on high mortality groups includes bus drivers, taxi drivers and many who perform an important public service that puts them in front of the general public and therefore at risk from this virus. We absolutely support the wearing of masks. Published guidance will continue to recommend that wearing a face covering will reduce the risk not only to yourself but to others, particularly in enclosed and crowded spaces. The noble Lord asked about whether mandation should be in place and for whom, and I do not wish to duck his point The mandation of masks on public transport is best left to those who run it, which is why we have moved away from legal rules to an approach that enables personal judgments and the intervention of businesses and local leaders.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, much uncertainty and changing dynamics surround travel—Malta and the EU have already been mentioned. To flip that around, can the Minister kindly explain the rationale as to why government advice has belaboured ad nauseam travelling from the UK, yet my wife is able to travel to the UK from Portugal?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, our intention is that, later in the summer, those who are fully vaccinated will not have to quarantine when arriving in England from an amber list country. This will benefit the noble Lord’s wife, and I hope she will take advantage of it. When it comes to travel, caution is still the principle because travel exposes us to proximity to people in very confined areas. It also raises the possibility that variants of concern will come back with travellers returning from abroad. We have worked so hard and done so much to keep those VOCs out of the UK that it is not just right to give up these efforts now. Those arrangements are under review and will change if the risk assessment changes.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the Minister but I did not quite hear the answer to the questions asked by the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Finlay, about the forthcoming pressures on the NHS. The hospital I was at on Tuesday morning is, I was told, working at full stretch; it is at winter levels in July. Covid is taking up ICU beds and stopping elective surgery now, even before the pressure starts. There are constant references in the Statement about not wanting unsustainable pressures on the NHS, but we are putting such pressures on it by allowing the figures to rip without seeming to have proper back-up services and resources. Can the Minister answer the questions from the two noble Baronesses?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thought I had answered the questions put by the two noble Baronesses. I will seek to answer the noble Lord. He is absolutely right: our hospitals are working flat out but this is not mainly because of Covid. As of 11 July, hospital admissions in England were running at 502 a day. As of 13 July, there were 2,970 patients in hospital in England with Covid, of whom 470 were on mechanical ventilation. Catching up on all the backlog—not Covid—is what is consuming the hospitals and making them run so red hot. This is the focus of our healthcare system at the moment, and it will remain so for some time to come. We are under no illusions: there is a massive backlog which includes many people who have not come forward with symptoms of severe disease and will need to be addressed and treated. This is a huge national project that we are undertaking.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, in his answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, the Minister made a comparison which suggested an equivalence between mask-wearing and sneezing. The website MedExpress says:
“Sneezing is…an involuntary release of air that helps the body to get rid of irritants in our nose and throat”.
Does the Minister wish to reconsider that comparison and acknowledge that mask-wearing is a voluntary action available to everybody?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness obliges me to confess that, as a young man, I mastered the art of controlling my sneezing, and I am pathetically proud of this. I should be glad to share the skill with her should we have the opportunity to spend some time together.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
I want to return to the question of masks. As we have already heard, the ending of the mandatory wearing of masks is causing anxiety and insecurity among clinically vulnerable people. Would the Minister agree that, given that the wearing of masks reduces the spread of the virus and causes no harm to the economy, it would be sensible to make it mandatory? Secondly, guidance recommends good ventilation in enclosed spaces. What assistance are the Government giving to those who need to install air filtration systems?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I will be crystal clear on this matter. The noble Baroness is right: the wearing of masks is important—for yourself and other people— which is why the Government continue to recommend that people wear them. However, the question was about mandation, and, as I said earlier, it is not reasonable for the Government to mandate minute aspects of our life in perpetuity. We have made a decision on that and passed the responsibility to individuals, local leaders and those who do outbreak management. I completely understand and hear loud and clear people’s concerns, but, were we to mandate it, what is the option for the country? Are we going to issue tens of millions of fines to those who do not wear masks? If they do not wear them, will we lock them up in prison? We tried extremely hard on that policy, but I am not sure whether it had any further rope to run.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the direction in which the Government are now proceeding. I quote from the Statement:
“To those who say, ‘Why take this step now?’, I say, ‘If not now, when?’”
There is regulation fatigue, and the Government are facing up to the need for, let us say, a managed process forward. I draw the Minister’s attention to this statement in the Statement:
“We are today publishing … details of a review that we will be conducting in September to assess our preparedness for autumn and winter.”
Could a copy of that review be placed in the Library so that we can all see what it has to say and, if necessary, offer our observations to the Minister to help the further development of what is turning into a policy that I can be fully behind?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, winter is a challenging time for the NHS, and, during an average winter, seasonal respiratory conditions drive an increased demand for hospital beds, as my noble friend knows. That will add to the already intense pressure that the NHS is under. Plans are being put in place. The circumstances are changeable. If there are any plans whatever that can be published, I will ensure that they are sent to the noble Lord and placed in the Library, as requested.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Statement from the Minister says that the Government will
“expand … capacity for genomic sequencing”,
which would help in the detection of any new variants. Could the Minister define how and when that expansion will take place?
Lord Bethell (Con)
Enormous expansion has already taken place: we have brought together the existing dispersed genomic sequencing capacity of the country and brought it to bear, both at the PHE headquarters in Colindale and in Cambridge, where a huge array of sequencing is going on. We have also brought sequencing into Leamington Spa, where, as the noble Baroness may know, we have a large industrialised diagnostics centre, so that sequencing can be done as soon as we have turned around the PCR testing. We are running at around 30,000 or 40,000 sequences a week, which is a dramatic increase on the past, but we continue to invest in this capacity.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend give consideration to putting a full-page advertisement in every paper, with guidance? This must be clear, coherent and consistent. Would he also—I am sorry to press him on this again—tell me when this consultation over care-home workers will conclude? President Macron has already decided that this will happen in France. A third of the people who died were in care homes; they are the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. It is essential that those who look after their intimate needs are themselves vaccinated.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I will definitely consider the idea of a full-page advert, and I am grateful for that suggestion. I would also be very interested to receive a submission from my noble friend to the consultation, and, if he would like to copy me in on it, I would be glad to make sure that it gets through to the right people.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have listened carefully, and the mask obsession here seems to mask a certain reluctance to ever allow normal to return, even if it means a terrible toll on jobs, livelihoods or non-Covid health—so I am glad to hear the Minister being more balanced. However, I will bend the stick and ask him whether he will concede that many millions are demoralised that the Government’s irreversible freedom day comes with so many caveats that it feels like parole with an electronic tag and house arrest hanging over us like a sword of Damocles? Can we not get a bit more balance? On data, according to PHE on hospitalisations, of those who spent more than one night in a hospital with the delta variant at the end of June, 39% were patients who had gone to hospital with different conditions—so could the hospitalisations data perhaps be clarified, because I think that that would reduce fear and give a bit of perspective?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness slightly underestimates the significant step that the Government have made in order to take advantage of the vaccine, try to get the economy moving and address the very considerable backlog that we have in the NHS. The Prime Minister deserves some praise for the way in which he has moved emphatically in this direction. Therefore, I am a little bit surprised that the noble Baroness has not done more to recognise that point. On the data, I would be glad to look at the number that she describes. It is not one that I recognise, but I would be glad to correspond with her on it.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 12 July be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con) [V]
My Lords, this Government are committed to taking all necessary steps to protect the people of this country. Tackling terrorism in all its forms is a critical part of that mission. The threat level in the UK, which is set by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, remains at “substantial”, which means that a terrorist attack in our country is likely.
Terrorism by its nature is a fluid and changeable threat. It is therefore right that the Government continuously consider whether new action is necessary, adapting our response to the evolving picture. The concerns that this Government have regarding extreme right-wing terrorism are well documented. The use of these hateful ideologies to prey on young and vulnerable people is utterly abhorrent, and we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to crack down on such activity.
The threat posed by terrorist organisations varies, depending on the group’s ideology, membership and ability to train members. Some groups focus on radicalising, and promoting and encouraging terrorism, and some prepare and commit terrible acts of violence against innocent members of the public. 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 the way that we respond to it.
We have a duty to our allies, as well as to our own people, to tackle groups that inspire and co-ordinate international terror. While we can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, we will always do all that we can to minimise the danger that it poses and to keep the public safe. Some 77 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Thanks to the dedication, courage and skill of counter- terrorism policing and our security and intelligence services, most of these groups have never carried out a successful attack on UK soil. Proscription is a powerful tool for degrading terrorist organisations, and I will come on to explain the impact that it can have shortly.
The group that we now propose to add to the list of proscribed terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, is the Base, a predominantly US-based militant white supremacist group. The group’s actions, such as seeking to train members in weapons and explosives, along with an ideology which aims to divide communities and stir up hatred, are entirely contrary to our values.
It may be helpful for me to provide some background on the proscription power. Under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently concerned in terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation.
The Home Secretary considers a number of factors in considering whether to exercise this discretion. These include—and are relevant for this group—the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
The effect of proscription is to outlaw a listed organisation and ensure that it is unable to operate in the UK. It is designed to degrade a group’s ability to operate through various means, including: enabling prosecution for the various proscription offences; supporting take-downs of online material associated with the group; underpinning immigration-related disruptions, including excluding from the UK members of groups based overseas; and making it possible to seize cash associated with the organisation.
It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, support or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation. It is also a criminal offence to wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. The penalty for proscription offences is a maximum of 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.
Given its wide-ranging impact, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence on an organisation. This includes open-source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-government proscription review group supports the Home Secretary in her decision-making process. The Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe is taken only with great care and after consideration of the particular case, and it is appropriate that it must be approved by both Houses.
Having considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that the Base is concerned in terrorism and that the discretionary factors support proscription. Noble Lords will know that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, but I can provide the House with a summary of the group’s activities.
As I have said, the Base is a predominantly US-based, militant white supremacist group that was formed in 2018. It draws influence from a collection of essays by prominent national socialist James Mason that advocate the use of violence to initiate the collapse of modern society through a race war and the subsequent creation of a white ethno-state. This ideology is known as accelerationism.
The Base has links with other internationally based national socialist groups, such as Atomwaffen Division, which was proscribed by this Parliament in April, along with some individuals, and it seeks to provide training, guidance and networking.
The Base almost certainly prepares for terrorism. While it outwardly seeks to promote itself as a self-defence and survivalist group, and refutes any claims that it is involved in terrorist activity, the training that it provides is highly likely to be paramilitary in nature and preparatory to offensive action. This training would almost certainly enhance the intent and capability of trainees to conduct terrorist acts. Members of the Base have engaged in weapons and explosives training.
The Base has almost certainly promoted or encouraged acts of terrorism and elements of its membership will almost certainly continue to do so. In late 2017 the group’s founder released a series of videos that cover topics such as lone-wolf activity and leaderless resistance, and advocate guerrilla warfare.
It is essential that our strategy to counter terrorism allows us to tackle the full spectrum of activity. This includes confronting the threat from groups that prepare for acts of violence and mass murder and unlawfully glorify horrific terrorist acts, so that they are prevented from stirring up hatred and division in our communities.
When groups without a physical presence in the UK are proscribed, particularly groups like the Base, it is important to consider the wider impact that proscription has. Proscription of the Base will aid the police in their work to disrupt the threat that extreme right-wing terrorist groups pose to our national security by supporting efforts to remove online content associated with this group. It will build on the robust action that the Government have already taken in proscribing National Action, Sonnenkrieg Division, Feuerkrieg Division and Atomwaffen Division. Proscription sends a strong statement that the ideology of such groups is unacceptable in the UK, and that the UK is a hostile environment for extreme right-wing terrorism.
Our message is clear: we will always take every possible action to counter the threat from those who hate the values that we cherish. The safety and security of the public is our number one priority. I therefore commend this order to the House.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said in her introduction and I will not repeat the Explanatory Memorandum for this SI. Does the Minister agree that a large proportion of the Muslim community does not agree with terrorism and that these terrorists are acting in their own personal interests?
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
[Inaudible]—the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. I thank the Minster for explaining this order and I again express my thanks to those in the police and security services who work tirelessly to keep us all safe.
We have seen in recent weeks the hideous face of British racism and the disgraceful failure of senior members of the Government to support the anti-racism stance taken by the England football team. I quote from the Times opinion piece by the Conservative noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, published yesterday:
“In the contest between Priti Patel and Tyrone Mings there will only be one winner, and it won’t be the politician.”
As the Minister has explained, that is why proscribing extreme right-wing terrorist groups such as the Base is so important. I quote the Home Office press release:
“The Base has celebrated and promoted the use of violence in an attempt to establish a fascist, white ethno-state by means of a race war, and members are known to have engaged in weapons and explosives training. Its founder has also published a series of videos under his alias covering topics including”,
as the Minister has said,
“lone wolf activity, advocating guerrilla warfare, and leaderless resistance.”
When we considered the last proscription order on 22 April, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark—I warmly congratulate him on his appointment as the Labour Party Chief Whip in this House—and I questioned why it had taken so long to proscribe Atomwaffen Division when a cursory search of various news articles showed that it was linked to Sonnenkrieg Division, an organisation that had been proscribed 14 months previously. The Minister replied:
“The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, pressed me on why we are bringing these measures forward now. Obviously, there is information that the Home Secretary receives that I cannot discuss, and she will make decisions based on the intelligence and legal information that she receives.”—[Official Report, 22/4/21; col. 1978.]
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, if the challenge were that there did not appear to be information in the public domain to justify the proscription, the noble Baroness may have a point, but that is not the issue. The question is why, when there appears to be overwhelming evidence in the public domain that an organisation should be proscribed, it is not proscribed earlier. Any delay in proscribing such dangerous and divisive organisations runs the risk of people being influenced and atrocities being perpetrated. As MI5’s Ken McCallum warned yesterday, racism is fuelling the far-right threat in the UK.
This order proscribes the Base. I quote a BBC article published on 24 January 2020, almost 18 months ago. It says:
“The Base is a major counter-terrorism focus for the FBI. Seven alleged members were charged this month with various offenses, including conspiracy to commit murder. Court documents prepared by the FBI describe The Base as a ‘racially motivated violent extremist group’ that ‘seeks to accelerate the downfall of the United States government, incite a race war, and establish a white ethno-state’ … In social media posts that year”,
which was 2018, “Norman Spear”, an alias used by the founder of the Base,
“posted imagery and videos by the outlawed British terrorist group National Action, praised al-Qaeda, and asked for volunteers possessing various skills, including with weapons, for his new organisation”.
That is not the information that the Minister has just given us; it is information from a BBC article 18 months ago.
An article in the Guardian newspaper, published on 24 January, the same date, states:
“The white supremacy group, which has regional and international cells, extols the virtues of an all-out race war while specifically targeting African Americans and Jewish people”.
Here we have evidence from the FBI that this is a dangerous terrorist organisation, that it was promoting the UK proscribed organisation National Action and had international cells. There appears to have been, in January 2020, almost 18 months ago, sufficient grounds to proscribe the base, yet the Government are bringing forward this order only now.
After the debate on 12 April, the Minister dismissively derided my internet research. In this case, there are various serious questions for the Government to answer. In the face of overwhelming evidence from the FBI in the public domain, published by reputable news organisations 18 months ago, that this organisation should be proscribed, why has it taken the Government until now to ban it? To say that there is information that the Home Secretary receives that cannot be discussed is simply not good enough. Of course we support this order, but we would have supported it 18 months ago, when it should have been introduced.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for explaining this order. As she said, terrorist groups now recruit, radicalise and train individuals from a distance, distributing terrorist material at the click of a button. Young people, mainly young men, are sucked into a world of conspiracy theories, fascist propaganda, race hate and quasi-military action. The use of the internet for propaganda and training purposes has had an impact on this potential threat to our way of life; it also means that the Government have to respond to this threat in a sophisticated and direct way. The Government, quite rightly in the Opposition’s view, have a responsibility to act to protect young people from being sucked into this world and to protect the public from the race hate, bombs and bloodshed that these groups promote. We will support today’s order.
This is the third white supremacist hate group that Parliament has proscribed in the past year. The group, called the Base, was founded in 2018 and has been operational since then. That was three years ago. There have been TV programmes about it and there is plenty of information on the internet on its activities, so the question of delay arises—the central point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made in his contribution. Is the Minister satisfied that this group and far-right groups like it are properly monitored and that action, such as today’s proscription order, is put in place in a timely manner for the protection of the public? My honourable friend Mr McGinn, in the other place, asked about the status of the proscription review group and the Minister, Chris Philp, described proscription as a powerful tool to degrade terrorist organisations. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the work of the review group—for example, on how often it meets, whether she believes that the current review process is working satisfactorily and whether there is there a robust strategy within which it works. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, spoke in some detail on the information available 18 months ago, in January 2020, and made the point that there seemed to be enough information available 18 months ago to ban this group, so why the delay?
As I understand it, ministerial responsibility for dealing with these types of potentially terrorist groups currently lies with the noble Baroness. This is following the resignation of Mr Brokenshire. Yesterday in the debate in the other place, fulsome tributes were paid to Mr Brokenshire, which I am sure were well deserved. My honourable friend the Member for Barnsley East, Stephanie Peacock, in yesterday’s debate expressed a desire to meet the Minister to talk about another far-right group that is potentially terrorist in its nature; she referred to the details of that group yesterday and her work through the relevant all-party group in looking at potential right-wing terrorism activity. I hope that the Minister will meet my honourable friend so that she can explain the nature of the threat as she sees it.
There are 77 terrorist organisations currently proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Four are far-right groups and the majority are Islamist groups. Last October, the new director-general of MI5 warned that violent far-right terrorism was now a 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. Online chat forums and video games are used as recruitment tools. The number of those under 18 among those arrested over the last three years has almost trebled. I believe that this trend is worrying and getting closer to home. The use of hateful ideologies to prey on young and vulnerable people is wrong and abhorrent and the Government have a responsibility to do everything in their power to crack down on them.
I close by paying tribute to the dedication, courage and skill of counterterrorism police and our security and intelligence services. We should be grateful that most of the proscribed organisations have never carried out a successful attack on UK soil.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Just to go to a general point, a decision to proscribe must be based on evidence that a group is concerned in terrorism, as defined by the Terrorism Act 2000, and it must be proportionate.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, challenges me on why we are making this decision to proscribe now. Decisions on whether and when to proscribe a particular organisation are taken after extensive consideration and in light of a full assessment of available information. It is important that the decisions we take are based on robust evidence and do not adversely impact on any ongoing investigations, and, in order to keep the public safe, it is not appropriate for us to discuss any specific intelligence that led to the decision to proscribe. I know that will frustrate the noble Lord, but that is the situation.
The PRG operates as a cross-government group that supports the Home Secretary in her decision-making. It makes recommendations and provides advice to the Home Secretary on issues relating to the implementation of the proscription regime, including on the case for proscription name-change orders and consideration of deproscription applications. We do have several horizon-scanning processes in place to ensure we can tackle emerging threats. It might frustrate noble Lords, but, with those things in place, I think my right honourable friend the Home Secretary makes the right decisions at the right time, based on the evidence available to her.
As for meeting the honourable Member for Barnsley East, I have written to her—perhaps she has not got my letter yet. I am pleased that she is keen on this agenda.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in his praise for the CT police and the security intelligence services. As he says, because of their work, we have not seen a major attack in this country. I join the noble Lord also in his concern about the vulnerability of young men who may be sucked into such organisations while they are impressionable and, as he said, young.
I would also like to refute the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the Government not standing up to racism. I speak for myself: I do not think anyone would ever accuse me of that, and I am part of this Government. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has herself been, on many occasions, the victim of trolling and racism online. I have seen some pretty horrific things said about her. The Prime Minister, only yesterday, talked about the very stern action he was going to take to tackle racism in football.
I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, that a large portion of the Muslim community does not agree with terrorism. Not only do Muslims make a great contribution to this country, but Islam is a religion of peace and Muslims, I might say, are often the victims of terrorism rather than the perpetrators.
I think I have answered all questions and I beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We come now to Committee on the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed during the debate on each group. I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request.
The groupings are binding, and a participant who wishes to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments.
When putting the Question, I will collect the voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their vote counted if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking to the group.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]
Thursday 15th July 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 View all Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 5-III(Rev) Revised Third marshalled list for Committee - (15 Jul 2021)
“(5A) All other post-16 education and training providers, including universities, school sixth forms, sixth form colleges, and adult and community learning providers, must also have due regard to the local skills improvement plan, as it relates to their provision.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the complementary roles of schools, colleges and universities.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I move this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie. This amendment sets out the complementary roles of schools, colleges and universities by joining up the wider education and skills system so that it better meets society’s needs and gives people the skills they need. Delivering this means ensuring that we develop the right balance of autonomy, authority and accountabilities that will enable schools, colleges and universities to focus on the complementary roles they can play together and with other partners over the long term. This must involve a genuine partnership, with providers empowered to stimulate and challenge articulated demand, rather than act as passive policy recipients. It means ensuring that this is meaningfully accessible to all and involves an effectively joined-up wider education and skills system. Colleges do not work in isolation to meet the education and training needs of their communities. Schools and universities are important parts of the system, so they should be part of the planning process. Amendment 8—in the names of my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lord Bradley, as well—therefore sets out the complementary roles of schools, colleges and universities in delivering on LSIPs.
Currently, there is a lack of a comprehensive, long-term education and skills plan that brings together all parts of the system towards the same vision. Different parts of the system have different policy priorities and initiatives. The current reform agenda is not sufficiently addressing this. It deals with only one part of the system—colleges—without exploring the need for complementary alignment with universities, schools and other providers. At the same time, this means that the role of education and skills in addressing wider policy priorities and strategies is not always recognised—for example, the role of colleges in welfare, health and net-zero policies.
There is a lack of any system to co-ordinate the 16 to 18 offer at the local and subregional level between schools and colleges. This leads to insufficient provision and limits student choice of programme—for example, when multiple competing providers concentrate on a narrow offer at the expense of less popular or minority provision.
At the university level, there is contested ground over the higher technical level 4 to level 5 provision and who is best placed to offer this, leading to unproductive competition between colleges and universities. If a whole education system approach is not taken to local skills planning, there will be a disjointed system that is not efficient or effective in its use of public money and does not best meet the needs of students and employers.
There should also be an exploration of a national 10-year education and skills strategy sitting across government, to deliver on wider policy agendas and to give stability to all parts of the system, creating a duty on schools and universities to collaborate with colleges and employers in the development of skills plans, so that the training on offer efficiently meets the need of local areas. I therefore beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
I rise to support this amendment. This is such an important issue, but I can see that is difficult as well.
When I started teaching, which was many years ago, in Coventry, it was very clear which provider offered which course. The advantage was that it was very straightforward for children and schools to know where to go for catering, engineering, electronics or whatever. The disadvantage was that it squeezed out competition, which can raise standards and creativity. It is somehow getting that balance that we are looking for. I would welcome the Minister explaining how far the Government are prepared to go to make sure that there is some sort of co-ordinated provision within each skills partnership. It makes sense to allow providers to play to their strengths and it is also essential that courses that might not be economically viable but are important for the local or indeed the national economy are supported to stay open and be made available. So it is a tricky issue and I cannot recall so far in the debate on this amendment hearing the Minister outline the Government’s views on this.
To bring universities in, my noble friend Lady Wilcox made a very strong point. In the old days, it was just further education courses that were co-ordinated, but now we have a growth in private providers and universities in these contested levels as well. So in the name of clarity for students and users, and for the needs of the economy, we need some guidance from the Government about a co-ordinated approach, making sure all areas are covered. Basically, what happens is that all providers want to provide the cheap courses, and the machinery-heavy courses do not get offered. Schools are happy to go into vocational work, as long as it is classroom-based and they do not need specialist teachers. That very often leaves the college with the courses that need highly specialised tutors and heavy equipment. I would welcome the Minister somehow making sense of all that in her comments.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I support what my noble friends Lady Wilcox and Lady Morris have said. I strongly support the case for more co-ordination. It is not clear to me, in the Bill, how this is going to work, and I would like to hear an explanation from the Minister of how she thinks co-ordination will be made to work at a local level. The idea that a Secretary of State sitting in London can get into the question of which school should offer which course and how we deal with the problem that my noble friend Lady Morris described is not going to work.
There is the Education and Skills Funding Agency. In the period when I briefly had something to do with it—when I was advising my noble friend Lord Mandelson, when he was Business Secretary in charge of skills—I did not get the impression that that body had the capacity to do this job of co-ordination. It was basically responsible for making sure that public money was handled in an accountable way. What I would love to hear from the noble Baroness is an explanation of how central government intends to approach this question of co-ordination at local level. In my view—and here there is a big lacuna in the Bill—this is most effectively done by councils and mayoral authorities. It should be a devolved matter; it is an opportunity, in my view, to strengthen devolution within England. I do not sense that the noble Baroness shares that view. Perhaps she will explain to us, if she does not share that view, how she thinks this task of co-ordination will be carried out.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I intended to support Amendment 40A. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Baker, intends to move it. Has it dropped out of the system? I was not informed.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, has dropped out; Amendment 40A has not dropped out.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
If the noble Baroness wishes to speak to Amendment 40A, she is entitled to do so.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to support Amendment 40A—and I hope it will be moved. It is crucial that this information goes to pre-16 year-olds, because it is at that stage they are making choices about their future. It is important that, before the vocational 16-plus stage is reached, doors are opened and aspiration is fostered and nourished. There is considerable poverty of aspiration in the years between 14 and 16. If we are to enable those young people to move into useful and rewarding further education, we shall be helping not only them but our economy.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am in favour of both Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and Amendment 40A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. These amendments require schools, sixth-form colleges, adult community learning providers and universities to have due regard for local skills improvement plans. This sort of co-ordination between education providers and the community is absolutely essential if we are to ensure that people are armed with the skills they need to succeed in the modern workforce.
There is one omission from these two amendments, and it is one that is all too often forgotten: the contribution of independent training providers. Many of these organisations provide high-quality courses that fill skills shortages in their communities. Unlike other providers, they are not given equal access to funding—for example, in the north-east of England they are, in many cases, filling gaps in skills training but do not have the same access to public funding contracts as non-private education providers. These training providers, where—and only where—they meet the appropriate quality standards, should be included in local skills improvement plans, along with any other providers listed in these two amendments. Further, these local plans should incorporate both public and private education providers if we are to give our communities the best possible chance of meeting their specific skills gaps.
We live in a society that is rapidly changing and we need an education system that can meet the needs of this changing world. Sadly, to date in this country, and in much of the English-speaking world, university degree qualifications have always been viewed as superior and the other, more technical skills and qualifications have been looked down on. They have been the victim of a particular form of snobbery, in my view. It is quite clear that many of the areas where we face skills gaps are in these technical areas, and we must address this by improving the status of education providers that teach these skills, including those that are independent.
We need to change our understanding of education to something that people should participate in at all stages of life. With the changes in our economy, many jobs that people do today will not exist in a few years. Local plans should be considering not only where there are skills gaps but where there will likely be jobs that are going to disappear, and how people working in them can be retrained. Therefore, it will not just be school leavers or younger people who need training but people who may have worked in their current professions for many decades and who are now having to learn new skills if they are to remain employable.
Another factor to consider is how we promote training opportunities in new and imaginative ways to encourage people to take part. Many people, as we know, have not had a very positive experience of the education system and may resist the prospect of having to return to do further study, even if it will benefit them. For others, it may be the first time that they have taken part in any formal education for a very long time, so they may also be apprehensive about taking part. Local skills improvement plans must be cognisant of this as a significant barrier when trying to encourage people to retrain in areas where we currently have severe skills shortages. Once again, this is where including all providers—including those who are independent—is crucial, as their ideas and experience may help to ensure successful skills training delivery.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a non-executive director of the Careers & Enterprise Company. I was sorry not to be able to speak last week on the first day of Committee, particularly in support of Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and on the broader debate about the relationship between local skills improvement plans and national skills needs. I sense that this debate on Amendments 8 and 40A is a continuation of that and I think that the Committee is quite rightly looking for clarification about the relationship between all forms of education and training providers and employers, and identifying skills needs and the careers inspiration that is needed. I hope that on the next day in Committee we will get on to debating Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and related amendments about the vital role that schools will play in shaping the careers aspirations of their pupils and the work of careers hubs.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, I wanted to comment on Amendment 40A. It appears to be drafted relating just to schools providing sixth-form education. However, evidence shows—and it is certainly the aspiration of the Careers & Enterprise Company—that pupils of all ages, even from primary school upwards, benefit from receiving careers interactions and inspiration and hearing about the different careers and jobs that are available. I would not confine the involvement of schools in the work and the shaping of local skills improvement plans just to those with sixth forms.
I hope that the Minister will take from this debate and from what Members are saying that we would welcome further details from Ministers about the way in which the whole careers and skills ecosystem, if I can call it that, will work. That is why the results from the local skills improvement plan pilots will be so important. I do not think that anyone can doubt the critical involvement not only of education providers of all kinds in knowing the need for local skills and national skills—we particularly talked about green jobs and careers in digital, technology and artificial intelligence on the first day in Committee—but also of employers through these employer representative bodies and the local enterprise partnerships too. The sooner Ministers are able to share the results of the local skills improvement plan pilots with Members, the better, as I think that that will help to explain how this whole ecosystem will operate.
My final comment relates to these two amendments. We have to be wary of overloading schools in all ways. As everybody knows, schools are busy places; there are many demands on their time, particularly in light of the challenges from the last 16 months related to Covid and teaching through a pandemic. While schools of course have a vital role to play in facilitating careers inspiration and careers education, it cannot be done without the involvement of employers and businesses from outside. That is the model behind the Careers & Enterprise Company and other local careers initiatives. I hope that Ministers will want to balance that as they continue drafting policies and evaluating these pilots going forward.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I aim to speak succinctly in my contribution and hope that other noble Lords will follow suit. I do not look forward to going on until midnight for the next three days of Committee. My last Tube goes at half past midnight and I might have a sense of humour failure if I miss it.
Amendment 8 brings together schools, colleges, universities and adult and community learning providers to ensure that all those involved with skills learning are working in collaboration. We do not need competition where different providers, including independent ones, cater for different members of the community when they all have the aim of improving skills and employability. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, says, we support the aim of complementary roles and look for a whole-education collaboration style.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, it is often left to the further education providers to provide the resource-intensive programmes. As we all know, further education is poorly served in funding, teachers and so on, so we look to the Government to do much more to support the further education sector, which is vital in any of the skills programmes.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, was not here to speak to his Amendment 40A but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, I will talk to it, because it is vital that sixth-form educators are aware of the full range of skills and employment opportunities. Far too often they are focused solely on academic achievement, which leaves out a whole load of young people whose skills are more practically based. We must take every step possible to ensure that young people are fully informed of all the work-based practical options which the country needs and which may play to their strengths in ways that A-levels do not. I absolutely support what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said; we will come later to amendments to ensure that primary schools are included in careers guidance. Of course, some of the skills in the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, are the very ones that university technical colleges do so much to promote. I hope that we shall get a positive response from the Minister on these two amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the engagement that we have had since the first day of Committee. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, that this legislation is part of the FE sector having its moment and being rescued from often being described as the Cinderella of the sector.
I re-emphasise that the local skills improvement plans will not be master plans that specify in minute detail all the provision that is to be provided by every provider to every learner in the area. They are a vehicle to give employers a more central role in local skills systems by articulating a clear, evidence-based assessment of priority skills needs and working with providers to shape technical education to better meet those skills needs, which many noble Lords have outlined. They are about employers working hand in hand with providers and key local stakeholders, such as local and combined authorities and Jobcentre Plus, and they are about agreeing a limited number of priority changes that, if enacted, will make post-16 technical education and training more responsive to employers’ skills needs.
I would also like to take this moment to update the House that we have announced the local skills improvement plan trailblazers, literally within the last hour, and I will now outline them to noble Lords. In the north of England, we have Cumbria Chamber of Commerce covering Cumbria, Doncaster Chamber will cover Sheffield City Region, the North East England Chamber of Commerce will cover Tees Valley, and North & Western Lancashire Chamber of Commerce will cover Lancashire. In the Midlands, East Midlands Chamber will cover Leicester and Leicestershire. In the south of England, GWE Business West will cover the west of England, Kent Invicta Chamber of Commerce will cover Kent and Medway, and Sussex Chamber of Commerce will cover Sussex. In relation to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and others, if you look also at the strategic development pilots alongside those areas, you will see a multiplicity of providers, including FE colleges, institutes of technology and universities. By the very nature of those bids, we can see that there has been a great deal of co-ordination in these areas, with the support, where relevant, of the mayoral combined authority.
The next update to noble Lords deals with the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, made about how we prevent providers from just going for the easiest, lowest-cost qualifications. We have today announced the consultation on new funding and accountability arrangements to simplify the system and focus on outcomes rather than processes and to avoid this descent to the bottom. It will include proposals for how local skills improvement plans fit into the wider funding and accountability landscape. That is also part of the development. The trailblazers will, of course, start work very soon and I look forward to being able to share with noble Lords details of their early progress ahead of Report.
Amendment 8, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, relates to broadening the duty on who should have regard to these plans; the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, also mentioned this. Clause 1 already provides for the duty to apply to the universities and sixth-form colleges mentioned in the amendment, and the large majority of post-16 technical education and training providers will be captured.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, raised a specific point about independent training providers; they are specifically outlined as a relevant provider within Clause 4, so they are covered. The Secretary of State will be able to lay regulations before Parliament to add local authority providers, 16-to-19 academies and schools to those already identified and subject to the duty.
Amendment 40A would require local authorities to distribute these local skills improvement plans to all schools that provide sixth-form education. The plans will be published by the Secretary of State and publicised to relevant bodies through appropriate communication channels. Obviously, designated employer representative bodies will have worked closely on the ground with the relevant providers, who should be aware of that. I have to say that, of the many criticisms the department has faced over the last 18 months, publicising guidance to the relevant people has not been one of them.
I hope that my remarks provide assurance to noble Lords on the approach we are taking to local skills improvement plans and access to them. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, will feel comfortable in withdrawing this amendment, and that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, will not feel the need to move his when it is reached.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend Lord Liddle that local authorities and devolved Administrations are best placed to deal with local skills planning. I reiterate to the Minister that, if a whole education system approach is not taken to local skills planning, the system will be disjointed and will not be efficient or the best use of public money. I welcome the Minister’s announcement of the trailblazers pilot; I look forward to reading the reports of the projects and, indeed, the early progress reports. Therefore, although the Minister has outlined an amount of detail, I remain somewhat unconvinced. I will wait to see whether that joined-up progress takes place. However, with the approval of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
I cannot call Amendment 10, as it is an amendment to Amendment 9.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 12. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 12
“(5A) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) is to be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires guidance to be laid before Parliament as a negative instrument.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, to the Dispatch Box for the first time in a Bill Committee. May I say how well she is looking? If we do indeed sit until midnight on two evenings next week, as has been suggested, that will be useful practice for her because, in a few weeks’ time, she will discover that you take sleep where and when you can get it.
I will speak to Amendments 12 and 24 in my name; my noble friend Lord Rooker added his name to Amendment 12. The former would simply ensure that the Government’s local skills improvement plan guidance could be scrutinised by Parliament in the lowest form of scrutiny we have: the negative procedure. This guidance, which relates to co-operation with an employer representative body and, crucially, the matters to which the Secretary of State might have regard in deciding whether to approve and publish a plan, would take immediate effect but would allow the House to debate it if it were so minded. That is especially important because, as many noble Lords have said, this is a skeleton Bill so the detail of much of what we are debating at this point is vague or subject to ongoing or forthcoming consultations. I understand that that is why Ministers are unable to circulate a draft of the guidance, which would have been very helpful for all of us. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure your Lordships that the draft will appear well in advance of Report and that those directly impacted will be able to develop and shape it. However, in the meantime, I suggest that this amendment is entirely reasonable and appropriate given that there has been no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is not in the Chamber so I call the noble Lord, Lord Liddle.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I support this amendment. However, I would just like to say, with great respect to the noble Baroness, that she did not answer the question I asked her on the first amendment. Nor was it a great reassurance to me to be told that Cumbria has been chosen as one of the pilot areas and responsibility placed in the hands of the chamber of commerce. I will explain that in a moment because it is relevant to this amendment.
If you are to have an effective local body that represents private sector and public sector employer interests, first, it has to have a clarity of focus on a particular labour market and, secondly, it has to be broadly representative of the businesses in the area. The chamber of commerce in Cumbria, taking this as an example, does a lot of good work with SMEs. It does a lot of training. It basically finances itself through doing local training courses for junior and middle managers, I would say. However, it has absolutely no connection with our major employers in the county: Vickers in Barrow, or the nuclear industry in west Cumbria—that is 20,000 workers to start with. In the area that I represent in Cumbria, there is a firm called Innovia, although its ownership has changed, that makes plastic films and employs about 1,000 people in a small town, but again it has very little connection with the chamber of commerce. The same would be true of the big firms in Carlisle such as Pirelli, which manufactures tyres, and Carr’s, which is now part of a wider biscuit group. I do this little bit of local storytelling because I do not think that putting skills planning in the hands of a chamber of commerce will prove to be a satisfactory solution. I want to see an employer-led approach—I agree with that—but we need to think about how we make this work more deeply than it seems to me the Government have. The areas do have to be relevant.
That is all I have to say, although I could add one point. In 2010, the coalition Government abolished the regional development agencies on the basis that they were not sufficiently employer led and that they were too bureaucratic and covered too big an area. They replaced them with something called local enterprise partnerships. These were intended to be employer led. Initially, in Cumbria everybody said, “Good idea: let’s have the chamber of commerce being the main private sector representative.” Eventually—and this is not a party-political thing at all—it was recognised all round that this body did not actually represent the proper mix of big and small employers. We have a reasonably effective local enterprise partnership running, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—one of the great figures of Cumbria who was a Member of the European Parliament on two separate occasions for the north-west area. He has tremendous local credibility and does a very good job. The LEP has looked at skills and done a lot of work on skills. I hear no mention of what the Government intend to do with local enterprise partnerships. They seem to be too scared to say, or too unwilling to say. I do not know quite what is going on there. I have no confidence that the Government have a grip on this. On the principle that there should be a strong, employer-led presence in determining skills policy, I totally accept that. But I just do not think the Government have thought it through.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green. The noble Lord is not online, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
May I say to whoever’s job it is, it would be useful to have list of people who have withdrawn from speaking; it is really difficult to know when we are about to be called, but that is a different matter. I rise to support the amendments, particularly Amendment 24, and to agree with my noble friends Lord Watson and Lord Liddle.
I understand completely why the Minister and the Government want local voices to have a say in what the nature of the partnership should be. That absolutely makes sense. Our country is very rich in diversity, with urban areas, rural areas, clusters of villages and small towns. I can see that see that the same model for everyone might not work. If the starting point is trying to let local people feel that they have ownership of this, I can see that and I share that starting point. What I think is a recipe for disaster is not to offer any guidance and to explore with everybody exactly what the criteria might be to determine what the local partnerships are.
I am not sure whose job it is to propose what “local” means. Does it have to be negotiated locally? That could take some time. Anybody who has been to a constituency Boundary Commission review will know how tempers can rise when talking about anything that has a boundary. I am not sure who it is who comes up with the idea in the first place of what the local area is. I am not sure what the criteria are that they have been advised they should make their decision against. I am not quite sure of the process by which somebody somewhere says, “Yes, that local partnership is local and covering the right areas.” I am not sure what happens to any geographical area that no one wants and has not managed to get a place in any partnership. There are, very often, left-out areas. There will be some areas that are really popular, and everyone will want them in their area; there will be some that are really tough and challenging, and no one will want them. I am not sure how all that is to be sorted out.
What I would be looking for is to keep that idea of not forcing the same on everybody, but within a much stronger framework of guidance than we have at the moment and a clear idea of process. It puts me in mind of when, some years ago, the Government—I think it was the coalition Government actually—set out regional schools commissioners. They decided to have no regard to any existing boundaries. So, instead of following the local authority boundary or a government office boundary, they made it up as they went along. It was an utter disaster, and there were some poor people having to negotiate with more than one regional commissioner at any one time. All that happened was that bureaucracy flourished. With the number of hours that were spent by one local authority that had schools within two regional schools commissioner boundaries, it just was not a model to follow. The Government, very sensibly, got rid of it and, I think, made sure—I may be wrong about this—that it followed the government office regional boundaries. I may be wrong about that, but it certainly makes sense now, and I know we are not spending as much time trying to chase appropriate regional school commissioners.
Therefore, I cannot see any example of where this decide-it-yourself, let-us-see-what-happens, get-on-with-it model actually works. It might not be something people like but—to be honest—let us get on with the job. Let us not set up a system where we will spend hours fighting about the nature of the structure that delivers it, rather than using our resources, energy and effort on what should be delivered.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has rather pre-empted some of what I intended to say in support of Amendment 24. I very much welcome the announcement of the first group of trailblazers. It is, of course, the intention that all areas of the country should, in due course, be covered by a local skills improvement plan. I very much agree with some of what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, have said about how we make sure the whole system works.
Now that the first employer representative bodies have been designated, and the local areas for which they are responsible defined, it will surely still be necessary for the Government to provide and update guidance on the criteria against which further bids will be evaluated, as required by this amendment and as we learn about the experience of that first group. There needs to be a broad package of guidance addressing all the issues that we have discussed so far in our debates. That is not just on how local areas should be organised to ensure there are no not-spots, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, but also on who should be involved in LSIPs, what their role should be, what resources are available to them, what reporting and monitoring is required and so on.
It remains rather difficult, at least for me, to assess the merits of LSIPs in the abstract. I was very taken by the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, last week that the Government might share one or two model LSIPs with us to help us in our scrutiny of the Bill. Will the Minister clarify as much as she can, in her response, what plans there are for guidance to be provided, not least in time for the next stage of our own debate?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as already discussed, local skills improvement plans will be developed by employer representative bodies working closely with employers, providers and key stakeholders. Guidance to support the publication of the plans will not expand the scope of the legislation but will provide further detail on the process and best practice to support the development and delivery of LSIPs. That guidance will be developed in discussion with key stakeholders and informed by evaluation evidence from the trailblazers announced today and running into next year.
In response to Amendment 12, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, relating to whether guidance on LSIPs should be laid before Parliament and subject to the negative resolution procedure, it is common for this level of detail to be placed in guidance rather than in statutory instruments, so that it can be updated rapidly in response to emerging best practice and changing circumstances. I can also confirm that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise any concerns about this approach to guidance.
The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Aberdare, and other noble Lords asked whether the draft guidance would be made available before Report. Because that guidance will be informed by the trailblazers, as announced today, which will run until 2022, I am afraid that guidance will not be available in advance of Report on the Bill. However, the point about the guidance being informed by the trailblazers brings us to the second amendment, on what is defined as local. We want to use those trailblazers—to learn from how they are working, to inform our approach to LSIPs and to address a number of the detailed questions that noble Lords asked.
Amendment 24 relates to publication of guidance setting out the criteria used to determine a specified area. The geography for local skills improvement plans will be based on functional economic areas and informed by evidence from the trailblazers. The specified area for a local skills improvement plan will be defined in the notice published by the Secretary of State on designation. In the trailblazers, we have allowed a certain amount of self-definition of “local area”. One of the things that we want to test and learn from in the process of the trailblazers is the best geography for plans, so we will be giving some flexibility in this area.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked about the role of local enterprise partnerships. The Government are working with LEPs to refine the role of business engagement in the local economic strategy, including skills, and to ensure that these structures are fit for purpose for the future, including looking at the right geographies. We will consider this work alongside evidence from the trailblazers, where flexibility has been given on geography, before making final decisions about the specified areas that local skills improvement plans will cover. I reassure noble Lords that, as they have already heard from the Minister, every area will be covered by an LSIP and no area will be left out.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has received sufficient reassurance to allow him to withdraw his amendment and not to move his second amendment when it is reached.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I was very taken by the comment by my noble friend Lady Morris about the ways in which local areas will be defined. She made an important point, which I confess I had not considered, about what will happen to areas she described as “tough and challenging”, which are perhaps not particularly in demand by the employer representative bodies. I hope that the Government will insist that employer representative bodies are properly representative not just of employers’ organisations but of their communities as well, to ensure that the potential problems that my noble friend Lady Morris mentioned will be headed off before they properly develop.
The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said guidance will not expand the scope but will provide more detail, and I understand that. It is important that it can be updated, so I take the point. I have to say that she might have given a hostage to fortune by saying that the Government are not going to support the idea of a statutory footing because the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not recommend it. I am pleased to see that the Government will in future be abiding by the recommendations of that committee, and no doubt we will be coming back to them on other issues in the days and months ahead.
I would like to raise another point. Both noble Baronesses mentioned trailblazers. If I caught the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, correctly, she said that they had been announced today. Since she said that, I have tried to find out about that, and the best we can do is that they have been announced this afternoon. We are in debate this afternoon. Why were they not announced at the very least this morning—or yesterday or the day before? This is becoming a pattern. Yesterday we got some of the lifelong loan entitlement amendments from the Government, just a few days before they are due to be discussed in Committee next week. I have to say that the impression being created is that the Government are not on top of all this. Certainly, if the trail-blazers are going to have the influence that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said—I think the trailblazers are interesting and I want them to be successful—we should have had sight of them, so that all noble Lords could perhaps have referred to them in the debate to inform the points that we all wanted to make.
So I cannot say I am pleased with the Minister’s response—I am not surprised, either—but the Government need to bear in mind the points that I and other noble Lords have made. Some of them will certainly arise in future days in Committee and perhaps even on Report. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 15. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate. I must announce that we will move in this group from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle.
Amendment 15
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the employer representative body is required to have an understanding of skills that are required nationally, and that may be required by local potential students but may not yet be required by local businesses.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 33 and 85. All three amendments in this group address the same question of providing access for the local skills improvement organisation to clear and consistent information on skills that are required nationally. I am very grateful to my noble friend for announcing the trailblazers today and am delighted to see that I find myself living in one of them—which is three hours wide, and that is on a good day. It is really quite hard to see how an organisation will hold together a coherent view across the many businesses composed in a spread that wide. It is also hard to see, given the current make-up of the chamber, how it will have access to a deep skills base in areas where Sussex is not currently strong.
There are a lot of skills required in the City of London which are not well represented in Sussex, which is not one of the great centres of the IT industry. There are a lot of areas where it does extremely well, but it is hard to see how you can take an organisation such as the Sussex chamber of commerce, which does very well in trying to knit together the varied economic landscape across this very hard-to-travel region and turn it into something that knows everything about skills in the local area, let alone something that has a real grip on skills nationally, unless we are providing it with a strong source of information on the national picture that it can build into the foundations of what it is trying to achieve locally.
When we last met, my noble friend the Minister referred to the skills and productivity board, which was announced last September and launched in November, with a letter from the Secretary of State saying that within the next 12 months he hoped to have information from the board on what the national skills needs were, how that would change over the next 10 years and how we should be focusing on productivity growth. As of today, as far as I can find, the organisation has no website; it has not reached out to people to discuss these affairs, and the only activity that I can discover is a contract it put out for a scoping study to help it develop a functional skills taxonomy by the end of June. This does not feel like a body that is moving with pace. It certainly does not feel like it is going to get anywhere effective by the end of November.
Perhaps my noble friend can fill us in a bit more than the skills and productivity board has felt willing to do on where it has got to and why a body that is largely composed of professors will be able to fulfil the remit it has been given. It is crucial that the Government get this right, and I am not at all clear that they have.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments. This Bill is full of good intentions and starts with a lot of good will—people want it to succeed and the nation needs it to succeed—but it is becoming increasingly clear that the backbone, the foundations on which we can build other things, is just not there. It is missing.
I understand it is difficult to know what to put in legislation and what to develop as you go along. I understand that that balance is always difficult, but I think the Government are erring on the wrong side. Like almost all the amendments we have been considering today, this is another one asking for clarification of the Government’s role in setting a national skills strategy, and in particular—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has rightly brought up on previous occasions—their role in almost future-proofing the skills needs of the nation.
Local people might know what needs to be done to provide a skilled workforce for the present economy, but I am not sure they have got time to speculate on the what the economic and skills needs might be in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time. That needs a broader discussion and I am left wondering again what the role of the Government will be in their relationship with the local skills plan. Surely the Government are not going to say, “Get on with it, regardless of what we have decided at national level”. The national skills strategy should be what our experts say the skills needs in the next couple of decades might be.
The Bill lacks a clear vision of what the structure is, and as long as that is the case, we will not make progress. I would sooner the Government gave us something that we can amend and debate and move forward with, but they are not giving us anything. The guidance is delayed; it is not there in the Bill. There is hardly anything to debate—it is like whistling in the wind and guessing what the Government might intend. On this amendment, I am not sure how all these different locally determined, local skills plans are meant to fit in to the national skills strategy.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I wholly support what my noble friend Lady Morris has said. There is an emphasis on local skills plans, but even if they are working well with good representation from across the board of employers, we are not certain in the Government’s plans how that will happen. So the first problem is whether these bodies will be representative. The second problem is whether they will have the capacity. My fear—which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—is that even if they are good at it, they will focus on present needs rather than future ones. In a rapidly evolving economy, with artificial intelligence changing everything in the next 10 or 20 years, our education and skills system has to have some leadership from the centre to indicate how education and skills needs are going to change.
There is nothing terribly socialist about this kind of idea. When it comes to government investment in research and innovation, we have elaborate national structures that look at what the key technologies are going to be and invest in what they decide are likely to be the key innovations of the future. If you are doing that with technology and science, do you not also have to think in those terms for education and skills? I find no evidence in this Bill that the Department for Education—I am not going to criticise Ministers—has that long-term vision.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 85 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Blackstone, to which I have added my name. Before doing so, I should say that I support Amendments 15 and 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lady Garden of Frognal. I agree with all the remarks that have been made to date in this group.
I do not often quote a former Conservative Education Secretary so I will take this opportunity to do so, not least because I am in complete agreement with what he says. In the debate last Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, asked:
“How can you fashion an education system if you have no idea what your national economy wants in the way of skilled workers?”—[Official Report, 6/7/21; col. 1236.]
I suppose it is a rhetorical question but it one against which there can be very little argument, particularly given the turmoil of the previous 16 months when the workplace has been turned on its head and changes to working practices that had appeared decades away happened, quite literally, overnight.
There is in addition the urgency of the transformative overhaul that we now know to be necessary to align all sectors of the economy to net-zero targets for carbon and our biodiversity goals. The green jobs task force, which was set up under the 10-point plan, published a report just yesterday—one of a raft of relevant government reports—which says:
“The conclusion reached by this assessment of the evidence is that, if the UK is to grasp the opportunities afforded by a green industrial revolution, we must develop a comprehensive and holistic view of the green jobs and skills challenge.”
A few paragraphs later the report recommends:
“A UK-wide body, including representation from national government and industry, should therefore be established to maintain momentum and coherence in the workforce transition, supported by action from local bodies.”
To me, that reads like a call for a national strategic skills audit, with a focus on aligning with our climate change and biodiversity targets. I think that Amendment 85 would meet that recommendation rather neatly. The purpose of the amendment is to create a structure for an expert panel to provide strategic, evidence-based advice on the skills that employers need now and in future, through a skills audit. It would allow the expert panel to assess economic, social and technical levers, and to disseminate high-quality information to key stakeholders. That in turn would allow all stakeholders, including learners and workers, to make well-informed decisions to support a robust green economic recovery, and would ensure that future skills and qualifications are aligned with the net-zero and nature-positive economy. Lastly, a three-yearly review would keep it up to date and relevant.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. Like her, I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 15 and 33 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal. I agree with the comment on those by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, that the Bill still very much lacks a clear vision of the structure that we are trying to create.
I will speak mainly in favour of Amendment 85 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Blackstone and Lady Sheehan, noting that it has full cross-party and non-party support. Indeed, I would have added my name had there been space available to do so.
It is interesting that the last national skills audit was more than a decade ago but, even then, conservation and environmental protection officers were at the top of the list of a growing area of demand. Town planners were also high on the list. Since then, of course, austerity has hit local government extremely hard and, as we were discussing yesterday on the Environment Bill, they are not currently funded adequately to meet their existing responsibilities, let alone their upcoming responsibilities under the Bill, which has undoubtedly had an impact on the demand for jobs.
I note that this debate is particularly timely, given that it comes the day after the release of the Green Jobs Taskforce report, which does at least some of the job that the amendment proposes. Although it focuses purely on the climate emergency, not the biodiversity crisis or the way in which a systems approach shows how these problems link to many of the other issues in our society, it is also very much a report that reflects a business-as-usual-with-added-technology approach, failing to acknowledge the need for economic and social innovation and the skills that go with those. It talks about engineers and construction workers for offshore wind farms and nuclear plants, retrofitters for homes to make them energy-efficient and comfortable and car mechanics servicing electric vehicles and vans. There are many other jobs that we clearly need that are not covered by that.
With this Bill, I find myself thinking yet again that the narrow focus on jobs is a dangerous mistake. The amendment talks about a strategic audit, but what does the country actually need? Thinking of some examples off the top of my head, we need far more gardening skills for growing food and managing the home gardens that will be so crucial to our biodiversity and the survival and thriving of so many of our species. We need community-building skills for resilience and climate adaptation. I think of the city of Lancaster where, a few years ago, I chaired for the Green House think tank a session examining the experience of the disastrous floods there in 2015 and the community response. A training session based on what Lancaster learned the hard way for every community in this land would be a very good idea. For the kind of resilience that the future is going to demand of us—I point noble Lords to the tragic events happening in Germany as we speak—we clearly need community-building skills. The divisions in our society and the social issues that have come to the fore in recent weeks are real barriers to tackling the climate emergency and the nature crisis. Something else very practical that comes to mind is first aid. These are skills that we need for every community and just about every person in this land.
I am not sure that even this amendment is as broad as it needs to be, but it is a good start as an acknowledgment that we need our skills for jobs, at least, in many different areas and we need to think much more broadly in a systematic, comprehensive kind of way.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in support of Amendment 85 in particular, to which I have added my name.
We had a long debate on the first day of Committee about issues relating to the economy of the future, the new industrial landscape and the overwhelming need to ensure that workers have the skills necessary for the jobs of the future, and that workers who will have to transition from their current employment are given the opportunity to reskill in order to do so. In her response, the Minister was very helpful in assuring us of the Government’s recognition of those priorities, the important role that they will play in future and how they will need to form part of the background—if I can put it that way—to local skills improvement plans.
However, as many others have said already, we do not yet join up the dots in this Bill. We do not respond to the recommendations of the Green Jobs Taskforce, which were just highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, nor those of the Climate Change Committee, which in its recent progress report to Parliament recommended that the Government
“develop a strategy for a Net Zero workforce that ensures a just transition for workers transitioning from high-carbon to … climate-resilient jobs”
and
“integrates relevant skills into the UK’s education framework”.
We do not see the way in which that will be done; nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, do we see how we can ensure that local skills improvement plans look to the future, not just the present. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, we do not see how they fit in or how to ensure that national priorities are understood and integrated into those plans in locally relevant ways.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, spoke about the ecosystem for skills and post-16 education and training. I do not think that we can get the ecosystem right unless we ensure that the national priorities—they are accepted by the Government in the 10-point plan, in all their documentation and in the words of Ministers all the time—have a proper way of filtering down, not by framing it as “a man in Whitehall knows best” and dictating what happens at local level but by providing a coherent national framework in which the essentially local work that takes account of place, as we spoke about last week, can be undertaken.
I very much hope that the Minister will understand our need for mechanisms in the Bill to ensure that this national framework is clearly in place, and that it will support and underpin the work that is done at the local level.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I support these three amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others. It is particularly important that the views and aspirations of individual learners should be taken account of by LSIPs, not least those who find that their ambitions cannot be met by existing employers or employment opportunities within their current environment or circumstances, and those who wish to start their own businesses. LSIPs need to be aware of opportunities relevant to wider national skills needs, as Amendment 33 requires.
I was very struck by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, last week on the views he had heard from unemployed young people. They may need specific personalised help and support to prepare themselves for work and get into the skills system at all after long periods of unemployment or, perhaps, no previous employment. This is most likely to be provided by independent training providers, often within the frame- work of schemes such as Kickstart, but it is not clear to me whether the Bill makes provision for funding such extra support; perhaps the Minister could say how she expects that need to be met.
I also share the view expressed by many noble Lords of the need for a national skills strategy to provide a clear and coherent framework for the education and skills system. The national strategic skills audit proposed by Amendment 85 would be an important part of developing such a strategy, and I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government are planning something along those lines to underpin the new system which they intend to create and for which the Bill provides a framework.
I imagine that this may well be another part of the remit of the skills and productivity board, which the Minister has mentioned from time to time, so I found the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on his attempts to find out more about the board somewhat disturbing. I hope the Minister may be able to tell us more about that.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, as last week, I have added my name to Amendments 15 and 33 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and I support his Amendment 85. He set out very clearly why those amendments are needed and, on the principle that I do not repeat things just because I have not yet said them, I will not go into detail on that. We have already explained why potential students should be taken into account.
Amendment 33 would add a clause to ensure that the employer representative body is required to be aware of skills in demand nationally which may not be in demand in the local area. If young people or adults are enthusiastic to learn skills which may not be available locally but are in demand elsewhere, it is really important that national demand should be recognised and skills training made available, even if the skills are not, or not yet, required locally. If a young person or adult is desperate to become a farrier or an aeronautical engineer but there is nothing in their locality, they should be enabled to follow their talents and interests. We must have a national picture of skills training and, if need be, there should be help with travel for those who want to pursue their skills out of area.
The amendments make it clear that skills needs and shortages must be seen in a national context, even if that means that those training need to move to find work. Again, let us never forget distance learning, which can be valuable in such times and has no barriers.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made the valid point that we must do some blue skies thinking about what will be needed in future, and Amendment 85 mentions medium and long-term national skills. Who would have thought two years ago that we would all have needed to become proficient in Teams and Zoom? It is quite a wonderful advance really, but I do not think anyone predicted it, and we must always respond to unpredictable events in future.
My noble friend Lady Sheehan has given our support to Amendment 85 in this group, because a national strategic skills audit would be an invaluable tool to assess how our skills shortages are being addressed, alongside the invaluable task of working towards net-zero future jobs. This need not be an excessively cumbersome or costly exercise, but having a body with an overview of skills is surely effective for jobs and training. I know that the Government are always reluctant to set up new bodies, but this one would have a co-ordinating role which could prove invaluable in generating skills in the right places. I hope that the Minister will see that this group of amendments is well worthy of government support.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the amendments and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, on reminding us of the bigger picture in skills development. Effectively, these amendments relate to the national skills strategy and seek to ensure that employers, colleges and universities adopt a far-sighted approach by planning to develop the skills and apprenticeships for the jobs of the future and, in doing so, help to shape a more secure and sustainable economy for the country. An employer representative body that did not follow that path should not last for long.
It is crucial that we maximise the power of the economy by delivering on genuine lifelong learning so that people can grasp the opportunity to reskill or upskill when they need it and as often as they need it. Equipping the workforce with new skills for the jobs of the future will help build job security, which in turn will bring sustainability and resilience back to the economy and public services, at the same time helping our high streets to reinvent themselves and, hopefully, begin to thrive again.
From green jobs in manufacturing electric vehicles and offshore wind turbines to fintech, digital media and film, there is a pressing need to grow modern industries to build a long-term economy that provides good-quality and well-paid jobs and is thus fit for the future I am sure that the Minister will be keen to tell noble Lords how the industrial decarbonisation strategy, launched earlier this year, would fit in to this future-proofing approach, which will be enhanced if the Government are willing to accept these modest but, I would say, important amendments. They are complemented by Amendment 85, which would require the Secretary of State to establish a panel to undertake a national strategic skills audit to be updated every three years. The Government's industrial decarbonisation strategy cannot exist in a vacuum. It must interact with the industrial strategy which, noble Lords may remember, was published in 2017, but seems to have been hidden in plain sight ever since, the green jobs task force, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, referred and the broader skills agenda into which the Bill will play.
In fairness to the Government—not something I am characterised by—the industrial strategy was indeed dusted down and updated as recently as January, setting out what are termed “grand challenges”, designed to put the UK at the forefront of the industries of the future and improving the country’s productivity.
That is all good, stirring stuff, and absolutely necessary because, as my noble friend Lord Knight highlighted last week, on our first day in Committee, we currently have a reactive skills system that is too often tortuously slow in responding to new demands, never mind anticipating them. A strategy formulated with an understanding of the need to embrace net-zero future jobs and skills would address that issue and, over time, could open up many more employment markets. I genuinely hope that that is a role that the industrial strategy will adopt, with a national skills strategy a key part of it.
My noble friend Lord Liddle rightly pointed to the lack of evidence that the Department for Education has a long-term vision. If there were one and it were cross-cutting in nature, a national skills strategy could benefit from a comprehensive assessment of our medium and long-term skills needs, with the goal of creating not simply secure employment but, in doing so, achieving the country’s climate change and biodiversity targets. I say to the Minister on these amendments: what is not to like?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling these amendments. We completely agree with him and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that designated employer representative bodies should take into account evidence of future skills needs and national priorities as they develop their local skills improvement plan. Of course, much will be included in guidance, but each employer representative body will be expected to co-ordinate and collaborate with its neighbouring employer representative bodies in writing the local skills plan, and with others across England.
In relation to Amendment 15 and potential student needs, I draw noble Lords’ attention to Clause 1(6)(b), which many noble Lords mentioned. It states that a local skills improvement plan
“draws on the views of employers”.
I hope that that answers some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on what is expected of the Cumbria Chamber of Commerce in reaching out to the big employers that he mentioned. The clause also talks about
“skills, capabilities or expertise that are, or may in the future be, required”.
Although the approval process for the Secretary of State is about whether the relevant people have been consulted, as I outlined to noble Lords, the Bill states that the plan must look at the future. I obviously cannot comment on whether individual plans will pass or fail the Secretary of State’s test, but it is here in the Bill that a plan must look to the future. The future outlined is obviously the “potential students” that are mentioned in Amendment 15. They were the subject of much discussion on the first day of Committee. I remain of the view that, by being focused on the needs of employers, the LSIPs will also, by virtue of this, include the needs of potential students in relation to jobs in their areas. The vision that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, referred to is found within the White Paper that we launched earlier this year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, I think, referred to other employment—it might relate to a skill that is needed for a neighbouring area. There is obviously the wider local needs duty under Clause 5. We are expecting that the trailblazer programmes will not only help to inform the guidance but help us to see how they engage with one another and the national skills priorities. The advice on national skills needs will clearly be part of the guidance. We have also previously discussed, both in this House and outside it, the role of the national Skills and Productivity Board, which will report later this year. This will enable each employer representative body to have access to its high-quality advice. The statutory guidance will highlight the types of evidence that they should have regard to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made reference to the flexibility that people need nowadays in terms of skilling and reskilling. Of course, that will be part of what we discuss later in Committee in relation to the lifelong loan entitlement. A lot of the additional support for young people that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned is provided through Jobcentre Plus. People can sometimes be a bit sniffy about that, but what the work coaches are doing to make young people aware of the opportunities such as Kickstart is amazing. We have also given additional funding for apprenticeship starts in that group in particular and there has been an expansion of the traineeships. However, the National Careers Service and the Careers & Enterprise Company obviously depend on the age of the person. We will also make those young people aware of that. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned the Industrial Decarbonisation Strategy, which, again, will be one of the national strategies that a good local skills improvement plan will look to.
Amendment 85 looks to set up a national strategic skills panel, particularly in relation to our targets on net zero and biodiversity. As mentioned, we have been busy in the department—we have launched the Green Jobs Taskforce, which I hope gives some reassurance to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Bennett, that we are looking at those recommendations now. The recommendations in relation to the response to the need for net zero and biodiversity were not just for government but also for business and the skills sector, as we extensively debated on day 1 of Committee.
On the points made by many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, there is a balance between a framework within a piece of legislation and having so much detail within it that the accusation can then be made, potentially rightly, that Whitehall is trying to fix all. There is a framework to try to set up the appropriate situation so that providers work with the employer representative bodies and that each local area works with the others and the national picture. I do not think that we should be more prescriptive than that. There is strategic development funding to deal with the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on the capacity for these areas.
I hope that I have reassured noble Lords and that my noble friend Lord Lucas will feel comfortable to withdraw his amendment and not press the others when they are reached.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her extensive reply and to other noble Lords for their supportive words on these amendments. I am afraid that I remain entirely unconvinced that the Government have a firm platform on which to go forward in this area. I hope that it may be possible to talk to the Minister and officials between now and Report. In the absence of some further clarification, I think that this is an area where we ought seriously to try to improve the Bill.
Listening to my noble friend, I think that there still seems to be an idea that the interests of local employers and local potential students are automatically aligned. This is a fundamental misconception: within a particular area, there are many skills where employment is not available in the quantities that might be required. Students require a much broader view of what their capacity and prospects are. People follow my noble friend Lord Tebbit’s advice and get on their bike and get around the country, particularly when they are young, and their view should not be restricted to what is available locally.
I am also not convinced by the picture that my noble friend paints of a whole collection of local skills improvement partnerships talking to each other. We are getting into the now-familiar territory of exponential growth, this time in emails and confusion, as these organisations try, in a collection of people that is far too large and diverse, to evolve some view on what the national skills need is, armed with a collection of reports of variable quality from different bits of government and other people. This needs drawing together to make it something that informs not only the local skills improvement partnership but government as a whole. We need a view on where our skills requirements are. That way, we can make an effort to do something about it.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, pointed out, these things change quickly. This is not intended to be a plan that we expect to be worked through but one that we expect to live with, but, unless you are looking a few years ahead, it is impossible to put in the provision that you will need. Unless we are looking nationally, we will find national shortages emerging, because large parts of the country, where these industries are not present, turn out not to contribute to the provision of employees in areas where we need them. I will of course withdraw the amendment, but I very much hope that, between now and Report, we can get to a rather better place.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 27. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate. Before I call the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I inform the House that the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Adonis, have withdrawn from speaking on this group. I ask those after them to be prepared for when they are called, please.
Amendment 27
Lord Aberdare
“(8) The Secretary of State must publish a response to the local skills improvement plans published by the local designated bodies across England.(9) The response must include—(a) a national skills map based on the skills needs identified in the local skills improvement plans, and(b) an action plan outlining how the Secretary of State will support local areas to address the skills needs in their area.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that there is not only a feeding in of national policy into local skills improvement plans, but also that local information and information about skills gaps is fed back into national policy making. This is to ensure that government can identify national skills shortages more easily and more quickly, and act accordingly.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to move Amendment 27, originally in the name of my noble friend Lord Patel, who is unable to be here this afternoon. He has kindly shared with me the points that he wished to make and I will make full use of them. I will also speak briefly to Amendment 30.
Amendment 27 aims to ensure that, in addition to national policy feeding into local skills improvement plans, local information about skills gaps and local skills challenges is also fed back into national policy-making. Real-time labour market data, as well as insights into what is happening locally around education and skills options for young people and those wanting to retrain, is vitally important to ensure that the Secretary of State and his department have the insights and evidence needed to make strategic national decisions about education and skills policy.
I hope the Minister can give us some more clarity about how the LSIPs proposed in the Bill will feed into the work of the DfE and BEIS to develop a strategic approach to addressing the skills gaps on a national level. How will information within LSIPs help shape and inform national industrial policy? How will the Government use the reforms in the Bill to identify and respond to regional skills needs important to the overall strategic goals of the UK, such as specialised engineering skills?
Several proposed amendments to this Bill aim to ensure that LSIPs will take account of national strategies and policy—as they should—but what is missing is a feedback loop from the local to the national, which is what this amendment seeks to achieve. Local skills improvement plans have the potential to provide rich insights into what is going on locally around the skills businesses need and the difficulties they may or may not have in accessing them locally. They should, one hopes, provide insights into how local areas will address any skills shortages and how effective these measures prove to be in the long run.
Local skills improvement plans will provide detail and data that should enable the Government to get a much better picture of the skills situation in this country and allow them to map out where there are potential issues. This will foster an understanding of whether particular skills gaps are localised, and therefore need to be addressed locally, or whether there is a pattern across the country that may require national policy interventions in addition to local action.
This amendment is asking the Government to provide a response to the LSIPs as a whole, including a skills map and an action plan. This is surely a reasonable proposal that can only help to further the Government’s ambitions around productivity and joined-up thinking. Ensuring that there is a functioning feedback loop from national to local and from local to national will enable government, both local and national, to identify and address skills shortages more easily and quicker.
Turning to Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, which I also support, I am rather surprised that it should be needed at all and that the publication of LSIPs is not already in the Bill. Every LSIP needs to be available, not only to all interested parties in the education and skills system within the area it covers, as specified in the amendment—particularly providers of careers guidance—but also more widely, both so that others can learn from different approaches being taken and as input to national skills policy-making.
Apart from the essential publication of the LSIPs, as in the amendment, there needs to be a process for regular progress and performance reporting, not least to promote the sharing of experience and good practice, as well as for monitoring and accountability purposes. This is yet another element of the framework that is not clear. It is not clear if that feedback loop is going to be there, what sort of performance monitoring is going to be in place, and what happens if LSIPs do not reach the standard one might hope from them. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I find myself in a difficult situation with these amendments. I listened carefully to the Minister responding to the last group of amendments, and I feel that she was right: a lot of what noble Lords are rightly concerned about ought to appear in the guidance. I do not want the Bill to be overly complicated, with every prescriptive concern, but I do want an assurance from the Minister that the guidance will address some of the valid points made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and others.
While I have the Floor, I am concerned about the view that, somehow, employers will not be looking ahead. That is not my experience of dealing with employers. They are concerned; they have had to look ahead. Like hanging, the pandemic has concentrated their minds wonderfully, but it was also happening beforehand. Look at all the work in establishing new standards, where employers are involved; they are taking into account their future skills needs and that new green skills will be required.
The Minister was right to remind us about the vitally important work that jobcentre coaches are doing. I would not say that I am absolutely satisfied they have got all of that right, but they are on the right track to ensuring that young people are aware of the skills that they will need in a job market that is changing significantly. We know what some of these are already; we know they need a reasonable standard of maths, English and digital skills—they are absolutely essential. Some of them are fully equipped, certainly on the digital skills front, while others will need some extra assistance and training. The Minister referred to lifelong learning, and we also have traineeships and Kickstart, so there are a number of things the Government are providing. Is everything working absolutely right? No, there are things that I believe—as I have said in a previous debate —need reform, and the apprenticeship levy is one.
I urge the House to be wary of trying to load up the Bill with every single detail. The Minister was right when she said that there is a role for guidance. If there needs to be a reference within the Bill to the fact that some of these points will be covered in the guidance, that is all well and good. I attach a lot of importance to the guidance.
I do not share the pessimism of some that this is a badly framed Bill that will not involve local people as it should. Of course we are going to go through a learning curve, as the participants in creating the local skills improvement plans develop the technique of doing this. What the Government should do on a national level is encourage best practice, looking at examples of where it has been done really well and passing that kind of information on. I suspect I may be in the minority here, but it is no bad thing to have a range of views. I hope that, when the Minister responds, she will take into account the points I have made—she has also made them before—about the balance of what is in guidance and what needs to be in the Bill.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, we should all take notice of what my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green says on these matters. He has vast experience in this area, as a trade union official and as a Minister in the field in the last Labour Government, so I would not dismiss a word of what he says. However, I think he is being a little overgenerous about this Bill, which seems very vague in some of its key points.
We support—certainly I do, and I think my Front Bench does—the principle of a lifelong learning entitlement and reform to our qualifications structure to allow modules. That is a very important reform. We support a stronger role for employers in determining skills. All of that is fine at the level of high principle. The question is how this is going to work in practice. I still have very severe doubts about that. Here we are talking about the role of the Secretary of State in relation to the plans that are produced locally. Can the Minister tell us precisely what that role is going to be, because it relates to these amendments?
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 27 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Aberdare, and Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. These amendments stress the need for local and national co-ordination and place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that local and national skills needs are both involved in national policy planning, which is surely only common sense if the country is to address skills shortages, of which we know there are many, and provide a functioning feedback loop, as the noble Lord said. It is also important that this information should be readily available to all the educational bodies involved in skills training. Like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I find it surprising that this is not already in place.
I wholly support the information being available to schools from the age of 11. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, touched on this in an earlier amendment. But, as we know, 11 is really too late to start careers advice, which needs to begin at primary level, where young people, particularly those whose skills are more practical than academic, can begin to see pathways for progression and to have some confidence in their future. I can understand why the provision in this amendment may not extend to primary schools, but we must never overlook the very young in these discussions.
The local skills improvement plans should be given to all those who work with the education and training of the future workforce. They should certainly be on websites, but steps should also be taken to ensure that these providers actually access them and that everyone within their organisation is aware of them. There is little point in assembling all the information if learners are blissfully aware that it exists. So, for the moment, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is definitely a step forward.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
Amendment 30 requires that the Secretary of State must publish LSIPs and distribute them to schools and all post-16 education providers. However, there is little point in having a plan if no one is aware of its contents. Yet, despite the requirements for providers to have regard to LSIPs, the Bill is silent on how LSIPs will be published or disseminated. I know that the Minister responded that a model LSIP can be provided, but this amendment seeks a much wider and co-ordinated task. Does the Minister intend, as the amendment suggests, for the DfE to take responsibility for this? Does she agree that publishing all local skills improvement plans will allow for areas to draw on each other’s strategies? That would be particularly helpful for a complementary regional approach and would promote best practice. Or does she envisage that such responsibility will fall to ERBs? If so, can she advise whether they will have the resources and a dedicated budget for such a responsibility?
Perhaps the Government believe that the onus should be on providers themselves to track down where LSIPs have been published. If so, where should they look—to the chamber of commerce, or local authority websites? How does that fit with the lack of role of local authorities and mayoral combined authorities in the process? I hope that she can assure the House that there is indeed a plan for publication and distribution, and I further reiterate my noble friend Lord Liddle’s probing question around the role of the Secretary of State in relation to local plans.
I also speak in support of Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which requires the Secretary of State to publish a response to each LSIP, including an action plan for how they will support areas to address their skills need. I agree with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, about where the strategies approach will be developed, using LSIPs to feed into national strategies and creating the feedback loop that is so essential. It is very important, given that LSIPs will need to be responsive to national level strategies, and given the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene if they believe that providers are failing to adhere to LSIPs or not meeting local needs, as seen through the lens of local employers.
I further understand that the notion and definition of “local” has been much discussed during the passage of this Bill already—but I respectfully point out that it continues to be raised by noble Lords because of the still undefined nature of the link between local and national priorities. When I entered local government almost 20 years ago, I was reminded that all politics is local, and I came to recognise that most assuredly throughout my tenure. I would further add that local knowledge and experience is invaluable in feeding into the national strategic overview.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to be able to speak to this group of amendments relating to publication and response to local skills improvement plans. We expect them to be an important resource to inform decision-making by local providers, stakeholders and national policymakers.
On publication, in Clause 1(7) it is clear that a local skills improvement plan means one that has been
“approved and published by the Secretary of State”.
I presume that that will be on GOV.UK. I cannot prescribe that, but I do not think that we need to go into any further detail in relation to that, or to put such matters in the Bill. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young, about what we do and do not put in a Bill and what goes into statutory instruments—and then, of course, what is published in guidance.
Amendment 27 talks about how local skills improvement plans can inform national policy on skills. As outlined previously, we expect the plans to be informed by, and in turn inform, national skills priorities highlighted by the Skills and Productivity Board. This is envisaged to be a two-way relationship. In relation to the collaboration between employer representative bodies and the co-ordination point, which has been quite a theme throughout a number of amendments, the Secretary of State can set terms and conditions for the employer representative body and, should it be necessary, they can be used to mandate in the approval that they collaborate—but, obviously, one would hope that that will not be necessary.
On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, I hope that the trailblazers will reveal whether his doubts will materialise about whether the appropriate national skills priorities are taken into account.
On the approval process by the Secretary of State, it is not about the Secretary of State second-guessing the priorities and actions agreed by local areas but about ensuring that a robust process has been followed. In Clause 3, there are provisions that enable the Secretary of State to remove the designation if he sees fit: if terms and conditions have been broken, if the body is no longer impartial or reasonably representative or if it does not have regard to the guidance. Of course, when one talks about process, one normally thinks about judicial review—but, if a plan says that we are going to invest in coal mining in an area, for example, there might be a case for such a priority that is way outside. But it is a process that he will be looking at; he will not be second-guessing the choices and priorities decided by the employer representative body.
As I have said, we expect the LSIPs to complement the funding system reforms outlined in the Skills for Jobs White Paper. The consultation that I mentioned was launched today, aiming to give providers more autonomy to use government funding to meet the skills needs of local employers, including those articulated in LSIPs. We expect these plans to be a relevant factor for the Secretary of State to consider when making decisions about funding and support for local areas. Again, implicit in that is a co-ordination point as well.
Turning to Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, concerning the publication and distribution of LSIPs, I have mentioned Clause 1(7). The ERBs will lead the development of the plans, and the Secretary of State will approve and publish them. Obviously, if they are defective, there is the remedy I outlined for the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. They will be published on a website to ensure that relevant bodies across England can easily find and access them, and this will be publicised through appropriate communication channels. The department has good relationships with stakeholders, as I say.
I hope that my remarks in relation to these amendments have provided some reassurance to noble Lords. One noble Lord who requested a meeting—it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—in relation to these matters. Of course, I am happy to engage with any noble Lord to give further detail outside of Committee. I hope to be able to report to the House on the progress of the trailblazers, but they are not due to conclude until March 2022. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will feel comfortable in withdrawing his amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will not feel the need to move his when it is reached.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister for her response. This is a Bill whose aims I strongly support. It is absolutely focused in the right direction, and it has lots of great ideas in it. My occasional frustration is that I do not quite see how it is going to work in various aspects that have been raised by a number of noble Lords. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, that it may well make sense to answer a lot of these points in the guidance rather than in the Bill itself, but we do not have the guidance and we do not know what is going to be in it so all we can do is say “We want this to be dealt with somewhere” and keep asking how it is all going to work in practice. Having said all that, I live in considerable hope and expectation, and I am happy to withdraw my noble friend’s amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 39. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate. As I did in the last group, I point out that the noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Baker of Dorking and Lord Liddle, have all withdrawn from this group. I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Amendment 39
Lord Addington
“Review of apprenticeship levy
The Secretary of State may request a review of the apprenticeship levy in respect of eligible costs definitions, in order to ensure that the funding required for the delivery of local skills improvement plans is optimised and reflects employers’ needs.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to create flexibility in the eligible use of employers’ apprenticeship levy funds.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, in speaking on this bit of the Bill and this amendment, I feel like the reserve coming in to fill in for somebody else as my noble friend Lord Storey initially had his name down. When I see that the other co-signatories are here, I am reasonably sure that the team will do the job.
The apprenticeship levy sounds right. It is the idea that if you have a turnover of, I believe, more than £3 million, you will pay into a training levy—apprenticeships through a training levy might have been better in the first place—then you will get something out of it. However, it has never really taken off. We do not really know what it is for or what it is getting in. Of late, we have had a decline in the number of apprenticeships, yet you are still having to pay in. There have been lots of other issues here, such as— although the loophole has been filled—the fact that MBAs have been studied on the money from the apprenticeship levy. Can we have a look at what this is really for? Does it need redefining? Does it need a new level of focus? That is what is behind this amendment. How can we make sure that it is functional and does what we think it was supposed to do? If we actually know that, we will get more encouragement for it and will keep it going forward.
Before I go any further, I want to point out that the Treasury gets money that is not spent at the time. If it is training money, we should make sure that it goes somewhere that trains. Hopefully we will examine questions here, such as would level 1 and 2 activity be taken on here? Should it be for the under-25s if it is supposed to be about youth training? Can we get these things out? Can the Minister, in her reply, let us know exactly what the Government think the future of this institution is? At the moment, it is danger of becoming something faintly ridiculous that is not quite achieving what we think it should. The people are having to look for a way to get the best out of it and get a focus. We could actually use this money to support colleges and institutions in delivering the right type of structure, especially locally, under the course of this Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green. No? I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is an unexpected pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington, with his straight talking. I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in introducing a greater degree of flexibility in the use of employers apprenticeship levy funds.
I am particularly glad to see the involvement of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who brings practical experience of what works from running a training business and of the red tape—my words, not his—of complying with regulatory conditions, which I fear this Bill increases too much. The backdrop to all this is a dramatic fall in apprenticeship numbers in recent years—exactly the opposite of what we wanted and promised to achieve. A great deal of effort has been put into improving the quality and level of apprenticeships but I fear that, perversely, this has excluded many who would have benefited from the discipline and recognition of a successful apprenticeship, for example in my old industry of retail. However, my noble friend the Minister may have a better explanation for the decline and be able to reassure us that the fall has come to an end.
I was at the birth of the apprenticeship levy as the Minister who took the legislation, the child of Nick Boles, through our House. As noble Lords may have sensed earlier, I am passionate about apprenticeships, which were beginning to be a lost art, but I did have some carefully disguised doubts about the design of the arrangements for administering the levy. The system is a bureaucratic one and was led by education, rather than employers, so bigger employers paid a substantial levy. This often came off their existing training budgets; they were then unable to fix their training into the mould laid down by the Civil Service, so the levy ended up as a tax.
Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can explain why things are better now. In particular, where a company has surplus levy credits, can these be allocated to their supply chain or pledged to other companies without the levy payer having to become responsible in any way for the training in that other firm? That requirement was a real barrier to good practice and spreading the levy into the supply chain. What is the current cap on the new arrangements in percentage or other terms? Has the inevitable move to digital made the system more efficient, with fewer requirements to keep unnecessary records for inspection and more trust in employers to lead and train their apprentices? Or have more requirements been laid down in the digital world because, in theory, it is so very easy?
Amendment 39 seems to suggest that the levy funds could be diverted in other ways, which I might be more concerned about if it led to pressure for a rise in the levy. Companies can ill afford a levy increase at present, especially those whose training budgets have been hit hard by Covid. Before we reach Report, I would like to understand better what is planned for apprenticeships. Apprenticeships provide a passport to mobility from one job to a better one. They provide a route to advancement to people who do not need or want to go to university and incur debt doing so. If we could massively increase their numbers and their status on the German model, that would contribute to happiness and to growth.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I suspect that her knowledge of apprenticeships is far greater than mine and I appreciate her remarks. I also strongly agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said at the beginning of this debate.
I have added my name to this important amendment because apprenticeships need to be an integral part of the new skills and education system which the Government are rightly seeking to create. They are employer-led and job-focused, and they cover all levels, from GCSEs up to degree level. Through the levy, they provide a mechanism whereby employers contribute to the cost of skills training—where, at times, they have been less than forthcoming.
However, as we have heard, there is a widespread recognition that the levy is not working as well as it should. Relatively few employers are able to use more than a small proportion of their levy funds. Even for major employers in the energy and utilities sector, it is only just over 50%. So, to maximise the funding they can recoup, they tend to use a high proportion of the funds for apprenticeships that are about upskilling or reskilling existing employees, rather than taking on or training new, young apprentices. This is perfectly understandable and, of course, reskilling and upskilling are good things to do—but the result is that the number of 16 to 25 year-old apprentices has not grown nearly as much as the number of over-25s. Although there are mechanisms for employers to transfer up to 25% of their levy funds to other employers who can use them, the process seems overcomplicated and take-up has been pretty low.
At the same time as levy payers are unable to use all their levy funds—with much of the unused funding going back to the Treasury—there appears to be a shortage of apprenticeship funding for non-levy payers. So the impact of the levy on the total funding available for skills training has been rather less than might have been hoped. It is not even clear whether the total amount of funding going into apprenticeships is significantly greater than before the levy was introduced.
The word that crops up most often in discussions with employers about the levy is “inflexible”. As I have said, apprenticeships will surely be a significant element of LSIPs and they need to be properly integrated. I have felt for some time that it would make sense to recast the apprenticeship levy as a wider skills levy—perhaps with a lower payment threshold to bring more employers into the net of contributing towards training. But, at least, if employers in an LSIP area are not able to use all their levy funds, why should it not be possible for those funds to be used for other, defined LSIP training priorities? In any case, what is needed is a review of the apprenticeship levy system in the light of experience to date. It must be clear how it relates to the wider post-16 education and skills system, as set out in the White Paper and now in this Bill.
Amendment 39 does no more than encourage the Secretary of State to conduct such a review. In my view, that is the answer to the argument that it does not belong in this Bill. Well, it does belong in this Bill—it is fundamental to it—and the review is to ensure that levy funds are used in a way that is integrated with the priorities of local skills plans and properly reflects employers’ needs. Of course, such a review must not reduce the amount of funding available for the apprenticeships that are so badly needed. It should seek to maximise the funding available from the levy and to optimise its use in pursuing local and national skills priorities. I look forward to the Minister telling us how this will be achieved—but the review proposed by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would be a very good place to start.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We will go back to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, to see whether he wishes to participate.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
Thank you, my Lords. I apologise that, on the previous occasion, I committed the offence of forgetting to unmute.
I am aware—as are many other noble Lords—of the deficiencies of the apprenticeship levy. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, almost said, we should be careful before we throw the baby out with the bathwater. It has done a lot of good. It has focused employers’ minds on the importance of apprenticeships. We have an Institute for Apprenticeships which is involving employers in creating new standards. I agree with the noble Baroness who said that there was a need for reform. But a consultative process is going on. I ought to have declared my interest as a national apprenticeship ambassador.
Employers already have the ability to use apprenticeship levy money to support not just supply chain companies but other companies outside their supply chain, and there has been a better take-up of that. Indeed, the Government have made more of the apprenticeship levy available. My concern at the moment is that, if we are really looking for growth in apprenticeships, this needs to be in the area of small and medium enterprises, especially in small and micro companies. Those companies frequently complain that the administration is too complicated, and that they find it a burden. We should bear in mind that many are saying, “Look, I’m struggling just to keep my business afloat and now you want me to take on an apprentice”. My response is to be understanding We need to work on helping them to remove some of that administrative and basic training burden. I also say to them, “Look, having a young person whose digital skills might be a lot more advanced than yours can often be of benefit to your company”.
I agree that some of the apprenticeship levy money has been spent in the wrong place. My concern is the 16 to 18 group, where the levels of youth unemployment are exceedingly high. I have already acknowledged the work of the job coaches, but more needs to be done on that front. So I am in favour of reform of the apprenticeship levy. I do not think that we should call it something else. We are just beginning to see a much better understanding by both parents and potential apprentices of the value of apprenticeships. I was interested in a recent development. UCAS, which used to be the clearing house just for those interested in going to university, has now opened another portal where people will be made aware of apprenticeship routes and vacancies. So reform is needed, but I still think that the basic concept is right. There are always areas where things could be improved, perhaps including the role of the Institute for Apprentices.
The apprenticeship levy is a bit like the curate’s egg—good in parts. I think the Government are aware of that, which is why there is a consultative process. I welcome the opportunity for the Committee to have this debate.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, this seems to be our only opportunity, in considering the Bill, to mention the words “apprenticeship” and “levy” in the same sentence. We should utter these words sotto voce because, at Second Reading, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, made it very clear that the levy was beyond the scope of the Bill. That is not the fault of the noble Baroness, of course, but speeches by several noble Lords at Second Reading, which have been reinforced today, demonstrated that I am not alone in finding it rather perplexing that the levy does not merit a mention in the Bill. This is despite the fact that the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education—which develops and approves apprenticeships and technical qualifications with employers—is quite prominent in clauses that we shall consider in later debates on the Bill.
Apprenticeships are key to ensuring that Britain is equipped with a well-skilled workforce in the years ahead. The levy scheme—which we have supported in principle—has yet to produce anything like the effects hoped for and required. So, while I am happy to support the intent of this amendment—and understand the reasoning behind it on the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said in introducing it—I urge caution at this stage with regard to the levy and using its funds for any purpose other than apprenticeships. In that, I think I am reflecting the comments which my noble friend Lord Young has just made.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, now that I have de-masked myself, I will first make two remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Watson. In my enthusiasm to start my speaking role on this Bill, I did not thank him for his kind words in welcoming me to the Dispatch Box. I also acknowledge completely his point about the timing of various announcements and the need to ensure that noble Lords have as much information as possible to help them to scrutinise proposals for this Bill. We will endeavour to do our best in that regard.
I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for giving us, on behalf of his noble friend, the opportunity to discuss apprenticeships, which are at the heart of the Government’s skills ambitions. As we recover from the impact of Covid-19, apprenticeships are more important than ever in helping businesses to recruit the right people and to develop the skills that they need.
I hope that noble Lords will allow me a little time to outline a few principles of the apprenticeship levy and its funding, as that will respond to some of the points made in this debate. The funds available to levy-paying employers through their apprenticeship service accounts can be used for apprenticeship training or assessment in their own businesses, or transferred to other employers. They are not the same, however, as the Department for Education’s annual apprenticeships budget.
While those unspent funds, therefore, expire from the employer’s accounts after two years, the broader funding contributes to the budget set by the Department for Education, according to its rules, and funds other costs associated with apprenticeships. This includes training and assessment for apprenticeships for employers that do and do not pay the levy, the cost of English and maths tuition and additional payments to support young apprenticeships—as I heard from noble Lords, those are a priority—and those with additional learning support needs.
On Amendment 39, I reassure noble Lords that we keep apprenticeship funding policy under review. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Aberdare, among others, that a key principle of the apprenticeship levy is that we should only pay for apprenticeship training and assessment costs from the apprenticeship budget, as apprenticeships deliver a significant return on investment from the public purse, rather than using the levy to fund wider skills training needs.
We have an ambitious agenda for apprenticeships and we have made huge strides forward with the apprenticeship reforms, but we cannot and will not stop here. We want to grow the programme, drive up quality and improve apprenticeships, to the benefit of all employers and ultimately the economy, through increased skills and jobs. While widening the scope of the apprenticeships budget to pay for other costs or skills training, even for a time-limited period, would not be in line with the Government’s aims for the programme, I hope that noble Lords who have raised questions about how it currently operates will be reassured by some of the improvements that we are making to make it easier for employers to use and to encourage take-up by potential apprentices.
We continue to listen to employers and to adapt apprenticeships to better meet their needs. Work is under way on a package of improvements that respond directly to employer feedback, so that employers can make better use of their apprenticeship funds.
First, we are introducing a new service that will make it easier for employers that pay the apprenticeship levy to transfer funds in their accounts to other employers, including smaller employers. Large employers will be able to pledge funds for transfer and other employers will be able to receive these funds, so that both will benefit from those transfers. In response to a question from, I think, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, the lead employer that is transferring those funds will not retain any responsibility for the provision of training after the transfer. It is not an additional burden on them.
Secondly, we are helping employers to choose more innovative training models, such as front-loaded training and accelerated apprenticeships, which will help apprentices with relevant skills and experience to complete their training more quickly. Finally, we are supporting sectors of the economy that have more flexible working patterns, such as the creative industries. We will shortly launch a £7 million fund to help organisations in England to set up and expand new flexi-job apprenticeship schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked about the funding available for apprenticeships. In 2021-22, the funding available for investment in apprenticeships in England is almost £2.5 billion. That is double what was spent in 2010-11. We have increased the investment available for apprenticeships.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about the aims of the apprenticeships programme and its direction of travel. Our reforms to the programme have all been focused on making them longer and better, with more off-the-job training and proper assessment at the end. Many pre-reform apprenticeships were of low quality and involved little or no training. That is what we have aimed to change.
We know, however, that there is more work to be done and, in addition to the reforms that I have mentioned that will make it easier for employers to take up their levy funds, we have introduced new incentives for those employers, particularly during the pandemic, to take on new apprentices. Until the end of March those incentive payments were £1,500 for those aged 25 and over and £2,000 for those under 25—71,140 incentive payments were paid up to that date. We have increased the incentive to £3,000 and that remains in place until 30 September.
I hope that noble Lords take some reassurance from what I have outlined that we remain committed to the apprenticeship programme. While we do not agree with diverting apprenticeship funding to other forms of skills training, we acknowledge the need to continue to review and adapt the apprenticeship programme so that there is better take-up and it works better for employers and those who will potentially benefit from it. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, feels able to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister so I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to conclude the debate on this amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, wanted to come in.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I have a quick question for clarification. I think what the Minister is saying is that she wants quality of apprenticeships, not quantity—for example, that level 2 apprenticeships are a thing of the past. I was saying that I am rather sorry about that, but I would like to be clear, either now or before Report, exactly what the direction of travel is on the lower grades. I completely support those doing level 6 including even the stonemasons , but I think that there is a place, especially among youngsters—those between 16 and 23 years old—whom we are trying to get to do apprenticeships, to do something perhaps a bit less sophisticated that brings discipline and the sense of attainment that apprenticeships can bring.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I believe the Government are aiming for quality and quantity when it comes to apprenticeships. On the noble Baroness’s specific question about lower-level apprenticeships, I will ensure that I write to her with that specific information before Report.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this has been one of those slightly odd debates. One thing that we have established is that it is complicated—“We are not quite sure what it should do; we think it is quite a good thing, so please do not get rid of it now.” That certainly seemed to be the attitude of the Labour Party. They may be right about that, but at the moment there is a great deal of scepticism about whether this actually delivers. The intentions are good, but that is the thing that paves the way to hell. Can we please just make sure that we get a little more clarity on this? Whether it is worth returning to on Report, I will have to have a word with my noble friend Lord Storey after he has read this debate.
I felt, listening to the first part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that with a bit of tweaking you would get to a classic sketch about bureaucracy in some lofty TV show of my youth when people were being clever. Because it is complicated, but there is an intention behind it. The noble Baroness replied, “Yes, but we are trying to do things.” There was a lack of clarity here and focus at the heart of this. We should keep an eye on this, because if it continues to bring itself into disrepute, it may well be doing more harm than good. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now move to the group beginning with Amendment 41. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 5: Institutions in England within the further education sector: local needs
Amendment 41
Lord Addington
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to make sure that the needs of students and potential students are regularly considered and reviewed in decision-making.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I almost feel that the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield—indeed, as we discovered in a debate in this House, my noble kinsman Lord Lingfield—should be the one opening this debate, because he has the more substantive amendment. Having said that, I think that I know better than to try to put words in his mouth.
My Amendment 41 concerns a part of the Bill that says, and I think it is best if I quote it, although I am beginning to wish I had put my glasses on:
“The governing body of an institution in England within the further education sector must … from time to time review how well the education or training provided by the institution meets local needs”.
I tabled the amendment because I do not know what “from time to time” means. I have absolutely no idea what “from time to time” means. Does it mean once a decade? Every six months? I have absolutely no idea.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 43, 44, 45 and 46 and, in doing so, remind noble Lords of my registered interest as chairman of the Chartered Institution for Further Education, which is a growing Russell-type group of the most distinguished FE colleges in the country.
Briefly, this amendment adds a requirement for institutions to review, from time to time, how well they are meeting the special educational needs of students in their areas. I read the guidance published after I put down my amendment, and it makes a short reference to special educational needs and disabilities, as did the Minister, my noble friend Lady Berridge, in her reply at the end of Second Reading.
The role of further education colleges in developing SEND provision is central to ensuring that those who have the most significant barriers to learning improve their life chances and are given the opportunity to develop new skills, establish independence and contribute to the local economy.
The parents of special needs students find that the best further education colleges provide their sons and daughters with safe, productive and supportive environments in which they can have confidence. I have been struck by the readiness of FE student bodies to welcome special needs colleagues and to extend friendship and help to them.
The best colleges are very good also at progressing special needs and disabled learners into employment. These institutions encourage close co-operation with local employers to provide work experience opportunities for SEND learners, often by supported internships.
All these young people gradually become less reliant on local support services and acquire an ongoing sense of achievement and self-esteem. Many develop a special level of expertise in certain vocational areas and are welcome additions to the local workforces in their areas.
In the past few years, far more companies have become more sensitive to the needs of disabled employees. There is no regulation in this country that requires the employment of a quota of staff with special needs, as there is in certain European countries, but I know a number of firms that have made the gratifying effort to ask colleges to steer disabled students in their direction.
We tend to think of FE students with some kind of special needs as being in a very small minority. Last week, I received the statistics from four excellent colleges in various parts of the country. They support the figures quoted briefly on Second Reading of around 20% of students requiring special support, rising to 25% of those under 19 years old.
For far too long, further education has been, as my noble friend Lady Berridge underlined earlier this afternoon, the Cinderella of this country’s education service, underfunded and often neglected as it has been. Too much of its provision has become mediocre today. If that were not so, this Bill would not have been necessary. The Government have woken up, at last, to the fact that high-quality vocational education is absolutely essential to our country’s competitive performance in a post-Brexit world, and all this is very welcome indeed.
However, too many colleges have still to improve, and as special needs and disabled students’ numbers are visibly on the increase, the regular legal requirement for review of the needs of SEND students becomes even more needed. With such a considerable proportion of the FE student population in this category, it is clear that we owe them a special duty of care. It is my view that the face of the Bill should reflect this in the way my amendments make apparent.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the next three speakers—the noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Young of Norwood Green and Lord Liddle—have all withdrawn from the debate, so I call the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
My Lords, I first need to declare my interest as chair of the National Society. I should also apologise that I was unable to take part in Second Reading because of other engagements; my noble friend the Bishop of Leeds spoke in my stead. I also need to apologise for a complete error on my part in not being available to speak to Amendment 11, to which my name was added, during day one of Committee; that was entirely an administrative error at my end.
However, I now enter into the debate on a very small matter, on Amendment 41, on which I simply want to endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about the phrase “from time to time”. The language seems too loose. The word “regularly” implies something more frequent without expressing exactly what that regularity is. Put simply, regular review that connects with potential changing local needs makes good sense. The amendment simply tightens this up.
But I want to connect Amendment 41 to Amendment 43. My local college, Bishop Auckland College, which is an excellent example of FE provision, in reviewing the support for SEN in its own context, also found itself reviewing the wider provision for the students with SEN who were coming into the college. That led it to recognise that there was a serious gap in provision locally, which has led it further to now open a campus for a school specialising in special educational needs support for those who need the provision of a specific school with all the facilities provided. That means that the local FE has now added to the provision in the area. It also means that it has developed, or is developing now, a much longer-term vision for support for these students. It will see them through their secondary education and then into the FE itself. There are potentially all sorts of long-term advantages, I believe, for some of the students in this provision.
I think that Amendment 43 makes complete sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, has so helpfully outlined. I wish to add my support to both Amendments 41 and 43.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, my role in this group is really to add support to my noble friend Lord Addington, who knows more than I ever will about special educational needs. He and the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, are a formidable team for these amendments. Obviously, these two noble kinsmen disagree on the use of “from time to time”, but that is not as important as the fact that they call for reviews to take place on these matters.
What matters is that colleges should be fully aware of the skills, talents and opportunities, but also the limitations, of those with special educational needs. As I said previously in this debate, FE does lend itself to those with SEN because of the breadth of practical subjects that can be studied. I hope the Minister will appreciate how important it is to have those with SEN on the face of the Bill.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure I am not alone in finding that there are times when I come across something that makes me look at it and look at it again and think, “Well, that’s stating the blindingly obvious.” That was my thought when I read Clause 5(1), which says:
“The governing body of an institution in England within the further education sector must—
(a) from time to time review how well the education or training provided by the institution meets local needs, and
(b) in light of that review, consider what action the institution might take (alone or in conjunction with action taken by one or more other educational institutions) in order to meet those needs better.”
Certainly, any principal or governor of an FE college reading that would have reacted with genuine astonishment, along the lines of: “Wow, that’s a great idea—why didn’t I think of that?” Actually, any principal or governor of an FE college would have reacted with astonishment, probably with language that might politely be described as “unparliamentary”.
I am not going to claim that every one of more than 200 FE colleges in England are faultless in how they go about their business or in the quality of their teaching. They employ around 120,000 full-time equivalent people and have a key role in developing career opportunities, enhancing skills, creating future leaders, transforming lives and serving businesses.
Not satisfied with having dug themselves into a hole in the form of Clause 5, the Government and the DfE then managed to dig even deeper with their attempt at an explanation for this clause in the Bill’s policy summary notes. On page 11, they ask themselves the question: “Why is legislation needed?” They answer their own question:
“Creating a statutory duty will ensure that aligning provision with local needs is a priority for the governing body of the relevant providers, alongside their other statutory duties, and strengthens accountability for this aspect of their performance.”
I have read that two or three times, and it always reads, to me, like gobbledegook.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, Clause 5 places a duty on governing bodies of institutions within the further education sector to periodically review their provision against local needs and to consider changes that might improve the way that those needs are met. Regular reviews of provision should be a key part of strategic curriculum planning within every college, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, pointed out. As well as reflecting the priorities set out in any local skills improvement plan, the reviews should cover the whole of the education and training offer and the needs of both current and future learners.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that this clause is not introduced with the intention of second-guessing practices that already take place within local providers or their value. But by placing a legal duty requiring reviews to be published, Clause 5 strengthens transparency and accountability around decisions on provision that are vital for local communities.
I turn first to Amendment 41, from the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points he made on clarifying the timing of reviews, including their frequency and regularity. In the draft statutory guidance—which we have been able to produce for this clause and which supports the new duty proposed in Clause 5—we set out the principle that reviews should be timely and undertaken at least once every three years. The term “from time to time” is often used in legislation, and can have the advantage that it can accommodate reviews that may, for very good reason, take place at different intervals and therefore could not, strictly speaking, be described as “regular”. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, himself asked whether you could have more frequent reviews or a review at a different point, perhaps in response to changing local needs or circumstances, and so “from time to time” is aimed at allowing for such circumstances.
I hope that there is a broad level of agreement across the Committee around the importance of reviews taking place on a timely basis, and that my explanation of the Government’s approach and the contents of the draft statutory guidance provide some reassurance that the proposals in Clause 5 will achieve that goal.
On Amendments 43 to 46 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lingfield, I completely agree with his remarks on the importance of provision for students with special educational needs, including those with an education, health and care plan. Provision for these students is an integral part of the education and training provided by an institution. Again, the draft statutory guidance published by the department makes clear that the review should include consideration of the needs of learners with SEND, including those with education, health and care plans, when governing bodies are considering the needs of different groups of learners locally. The existing statutory obligations on colleges relating to SEND, including the public sector equality duty, are a key reference point for the governing body when carrying out the review.
Colleges and other FE sector institutions already do fantastic work for students with SEND, and that provision is an integral part of the education and training that colleges offer. For that reason, we consider it essential that it is considered as part of any review of their wider provision, rather than through a separate or parallel exercise. To re-emphasise, in reviewing the college’s education and training provision under Clause 5, the governing body must do this in a way that is consistent with its existing statutory obligations in relation to SEND, and that is underlined in the draft statutory guidance supporting the review.
I hope that I have provided some clarity to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the use of the term “from time to time”, and he will feel able to withdraw his amendment, and sufficient reassurance to my noble friend Lord Lingfield that he will not move his amendments when they are reached.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. I understand the Government’s views. I particularly thank my noble friend and kinsman Lord Addington for his support. He is one of the House’s experts in the area of special needs and always worth listening to. However, it is a sad fact that not all further education colleges and suppliers of further education are up to the level of the very best ones, and a regular review, clearly required by the Act instead of being hidden in guidance and regulation, would be an important incentive to those that are mediocre to improve their offering to these vulnerable young people. I hope that my noble friend might think again, and I hope to return to this at the next stage of the Bill, but I shall not press my amendments.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I think we are in agreement on the importance of special educational needs being included in the reviews undertaken by providers. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked what the point of the provision of this clause is. The regular production and publication of these reviews might enable noble Lords and others to hold colleges more easily to account on how they have taken on that guidance, which is clear that the special educational needs of students have to be taken into account, and how they have taken that on in the conduct of their own reviews. I am sure that many colleges do an excellent job in that respect, but the additional transparency of having these reviews produced and published on a regular basis will aid in that job.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have now received a second request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green. No? I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to conclude this debate.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. My probing amendment got the reply, “Yes, we actually know what it means: it’s in the guidance”. If it had been put on the face of the Bill, I would not have asked. So, there we are.
As I have said, the more substantive amendment was from the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield. We should have a look at this. As we started speaking, we both went to different groups in that very big group that has special educational needs. As the Minister will accept, that means you have two different sets of needs, or different groups that have a variety of needs that interlock and overlap. It is a very difficult thing you are expecting an institution to do to meet all of those needs. It is not easy. If it was, we would not be banging on about it. It is difficult. The Minister said that they have to have a plan. I shudder every time I hear that, because most disabled youngsters do not have a plan. Most do not have parents who can fight to get one for them, or they have very severe needs, which are dealt with.
People who have a moderate difficulty and who may well, with a little bit of help, find a place in training, are the group we are worrying about here. Certainly, I am, and I think my noble kinsman is talking about the same thing as well. We need to have more clarity on this. It is a way in to giving a better description of what is supposed to be done, so that everybody knows. The Minister should listen to her noble friend; some colleges are not as good as the best. Aspiring to get there is what they should be doing. I agree that we should look at this again on Report, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now move to the group beginning with Amendment 47. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 6: Functions of the Institute: oversight etc
Amendment 47
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to test what level or type of education or training will fall within the Institute’s remit.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I think it fair to say that more than a little concern has been expressed about the role of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education in relation to qualifications. We seek to address that through the amendments in this group.
Turning first to Amendment 47, at present, education and training is currently within the institute’s remit if the training is or may be provided
“in the course of an approved English apprenticeship … for the purposes of an approved technical education qualification, or … for the purposes of approved steps towards occupational competence.”
The Bill proposes to add a fourth category to this list to enable a person to
“enter work within a published occupation (whether in the course of training of otherwise).”
However, it is not clear what level or type of education or training it is intended to capture. Can the Minister confirm that, essentially, this decision will be left in the hands of IfATE in publishing a list?
Amendments 48 and 49 require IfATE
“to report to the Secretary of State”
and for that report to be laid before Parliament. This is important for both ministerial and parliamentary oversight and scrutiny. The arguments are rehearsed regularly on Bills in Committee and I do not propose to rehearse them here, but accountability is really what is at issue here.
Amendment 55 is a probing amendment regarding IfATE’s new powers to implement fees and charges for the cost of technical qualification approval. The Bill’s impact assessment says that by giving
“the Institute powers that could allow it to charge for approval and to manage proliferation, we will ensure that the future qualification landscape is clear and straightforward for users to understand … This will avoid a return to the proliferation identified in previous assessments of the technical qualifications market.”
The Government’s impact assessment also admits that this will add significant extra cost to the awarding and FE sector. It states: “we would expect” awarding organisations
“to face more of these costs upfront, as initially”
awarding organisations
“will have to resubmit the majority of non-defunded qualifications.”
Can the Minister provide more detail about exactly how the charging regime is expected to work? What consideration has been given to the adverse impact it may have, particularly on niche providers of qualifications that may, in future, withdraw from occupational markets because the business case for investment is simply too prohibitive.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 47A requires that:
“In performing its functions in relation to technical education qualifications, the Institute must have regard to apprenticeships policy, including any future reform of the apprenticeships levy, in order to promote growth in apprenticeships opportunities.”
I believe that for many years, as a country and an economy, we have overextended educational qualifications and we have certainly underaddressed colleges. I hope that this Bill will be the catalyst that puts those things right. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, had to say today. I view it as disappointing and shameful that the number of young people taking apprenticeships is now down to 160,000 in a year, and the Government have a tax revenue from the apprenticeship levy of £2.1 billion per annum.
Alignment on apprenticeship policy is needed urgently. This will be the third Bill extending the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education’s remit—the first created it in 2016 and the second extended it to T-levels in 2017—but there is still a complex four-way relationship between DfE, covering oversight, funding, intervention and the provider side; Ofqual and qualification regulation; Ofsted, the inspector of the provider side; and the IfATE and the development of programmes and their regulation. The Government should set out their approach to the apprenticeship levy alongside this wider skills agenda.
If the apprenticeship programme is to function successfully, it needs to remodel itself, with the offer of secure ongoing employment to apprentices upon successful completion of their programme, training and studies. This would be along the lines of the support and training offered when selecting officer recruits into the services. They are appointed in advance of taking up university courses and are supported through their degrees on the basis that, post qualifying, they devote a minimum number of years’ work to those who have sponsored them. Effectively, for an apprentice, this system could mean guaranteed support through study, with guaranteed work at the end. Similarly, the employers get exactly what they want in terms of skills and, equally importantly, a real return on their investment.
I hear employers are becoming increasingly dissatisfied at paying the apprenticeship levy without any guarantee of securing suitable training staff. This is particularly so in the context of niche, high-end skills, since apprenticeship programmes are designed to suit the masses. What works in terms of the necessary skills base for an employee at Wimpey Homes will not work for a high-end and very exclusive building company that requires not just a standard brickie but a true craftsman. Approaching apprenticeships in the way outlined above, in a bullet point, would go some way to addressing this concern. SMEs in particular have an understandably jaundiced view of apprenticeships, where they have often been left to pick up apprenticeship unpaid training plans.
Community adult education is a key part of the post-16 education landscape, supporting many adult learners to progress towards qualifications or into work and bringing many social and economic benefits. This is not prominent in the Bill as drafted or the White Paper which preceded it. There is a risk that some of the key objectives of the Bill, such as supporting adults to obtain level 3 qualifications, may not be fully recognised unless community adult learning is supported as well. It provides the stepping-stone for many adult learners returning to education and training.
There is a profound need to put right the balance between universities and colleges and to revive successfully the principle of apprenticeship. I hope that this Bill will be a major force towards achieving these things.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 51 and 53 in my name, my job has been made a great deal easier by the very comprehensive and thorough introduction by my noble friend Lord Watson. I echo all that he had to say, including my support for Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who will follow my contribution.
Before speaking to Amendments 51 and 53, I just say that I welcome today the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s step back regarding clawing back resources from colleges. I hope it will do so again with those residential colleges which are so crucial to what the noble Lord, Lord Flight, has just spoken about in terms of adult education and the ladder of opportunity. Reducing or clawing back their funding would be a very major mistake. I hope the Minister might be prepared to write to me about that.
I want to deal with the issue of defunding on the one hand and overlap, or duplication, on the other. It arises, of course, from what has become a rather sterile debate about whether A-levels and T-levels are the qualification of choice at level 3—by the way, “qualification of choice” is the term constantly used by the department both in written material and in responses. I just pose this question to the Minister: choice for whom? If there is not a choice, you do not have one. If, as was originally mooted following the report by Lord Sainsbury, we were going to have two tramlines running alongside each other and no opportunity for anyone else, whether walking or riding, to carry forward along the same road to qualification and success, we would have been in really deep trouble. As an ambassador for further education, I am pleased that there has been some movement, including on the back of the consultation and the Government’s report yesterday. There is great ambiguity, however, and it would be very useful—if we are going to avoid having to move and carry amendments on Report—if the Minister would be prepared to go back to the Department for Education to get a much clearer understanding, and therefore clarification, on what we are talking about.
At Second Reading—I will not tediously repeat what I said—I illustrated my own experience of being able to take a vocational qualification which also had elements that allowed me to take A-levels in the evening. I saw no problem—in fact, I saw a massive advantage— in having a vocational qualification and academic qualifications at the same time, and it stood me in very good stead. It is true that industry or occupational standards are absolutely crucial, but too narrow an occupational standard, which defines what is to be funded and therefore seen as a success in a way that applies solely to a very current application in industry or commerce, would be a very grave mistake. Therefore, my appeal is that, if we do not want to have to move amendments on Report, we must get these matters clarified, both the issue of overlap or duplication and the issues around defunding, which have been addressed so ably by my noble friend already.
We must also listen not only to those who already have the Government’s ear but to those who often do not, out there in the sticks. For instance, it has been put to me—and I would be very interested in having this refuted—that in the development of T-level engineering, we do not so far have a perspective on electrical engineering. This is a remarkable situation, given that the whole move in engineering is towards that area, not least because of climate change and all its knock-on effects. I would be very happy to be contradicted, but I have had it from very good sources that we are nowhere near down that line that I referred to earlier—the very narrow line—in providing that option.
Lord Willetts (Con) [V]
I will speak to Amendment 54 in my name. I reflect some of the concerns that have already been expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Blunkett. It goes back to the very significant powers being provided to IfATE in the Bill, especially the simple and stark statement:
“The Institute may withdraw approval of a technical education qualification.”
I understand the need for that power. I would not justify every technical qualification currently in existence, but it is a significant power and I think we all want to know how it will be exercised and under what constraints. My anxiety is that power may be exercised in a way that does not serve the long-term interests of the economy or individual learners. For example, the Government have invested a lot in T-levels. I very much hope that T-levels will succeed. However, it would be tempting, if T-levels were not quite achieving lift off at the speed that was hoped. to close down the alternatives in order to drive people, not through personal choice, into T-levels. That would be very regrettable.
We also know that the Government believe in trying to divide young people into the sheep and the goats—the two routes. They are either going for a qualification that leads directly to skilled employment or one that leads to further study. Sadly, life is not that tidy, nor is the modern economy. There are enormous overlaps between the paths and there are qualifications that straddle that divide of which the BTEC—already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—is a conspicuous example. It would be a great pity if BTECs lost out simply because they have an employment value as well as being accepted by universities.
I say to Ministers that expecting young people to give up on the option of university if they go for T-levels seems to me the wrong way of trying to promote them. In reality, young people do not want to close off their options. Of course they have a subsequent decision to take, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Flight, that they must have vocational options in apprenticeships, but expecting them to take a course that explicitly makes that impossible for them will not improve and encourage the take-up of T-levels.
Finally, we have to think of employers. Those of us who are veterans of these education and skills debates know how frustrated employers are by frequent changes in qualifications and frequent changes in the systems. Some qualifications, such as BTECs, have gradually achieved acceptance over decades. Employers are familiar with them and it would be very dangerous for IfATE simply to defund them when employers have become familiar with them and trust them.
All my amendment really does is ask the Minister to set out a process of consultation to be followed. The Minister has on several occasions during this Committee stage—and I commend her on what she has been saying—made it very clear how keen she is on a role for employer representative bodies. Would it not be a natural, logical result of the Government’s own approach that employer representative bodies should be consulted before IfATE exercises the powers that are being given to it?
I hope that as well as the designated employer representative bodies, the public consultation might also involve others, such as LEPs. I am not totally clear why LEPs appear to have fallen out of favour; they have a good understanding of the local economy and would be an obvious group to consult. There are also colleges—it is noticeable how the Association of Colleges has expressed some of its concerns about these powers—and students, whose choices we must trust. I very much hope that the Minister will accept that these powers need to be used in a way that reflects the needs of employers and the choices and preferences of individuals and that therefore the framework for consultation is entirely consistent with the underlying philosophy which she has been expounding.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendment that my noble friend Lord Willetts has just spoken to and the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, concerning T-levels. This gives us an opportunity to discuss T-levels, probably for the first time.
The Bill gives the Institute for Apprenticeships far too great a power in that it can decide, without any constraints, to abolish a qualification. In the past, this has lain with Ministers. Some Ministers have used it in a very absolute way and done it without consultation, while some have consulted. The power to cancel qualifications was probably seen best in Michael Gove when he abolished all technical qualifications in 2012, which determined the curriculum of all schools thereafter. It determined the basis of EBacc and Progress 8. The cancellation of qualifications is a very important political, as well as an educational, issue.
The Government are now promoting T-levels as the technical qualification at 18. I do not think they will ever abolish A-levels because no T-level that has been announced so far has been required to guarantee A-level maths as the level of maths at that level. There will be many engineering and manufacturing companies that will still require someone who is 18 to have passed A-level maths.
The practice under which T-levels has been established is that each subject has to be 20% practical and 80% academic. That is quite a small element for a technical qualification. At university technical colleges, students from 14 to 16 do 40% practical and 60% academic. When they become 16, they do 60% practical and 40% academic because by that time they will have mastered a series of tools and machinery—drilling machinery, turning machinery, lasers and all the very complicated equipment of engineering companies. They will have also learned to make things with their hands doing projects. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, asked whether the engineering T-level will give students that degree of experience at 18. It seems highly unlikely that it will not.
There is a digital T-level. We are trying to make it work in UTCs, and we are still experimenting with it. Once again, the general feeling is that it is very academically based with far too much concentration on coding and not digital skills, which are much wider than coding and relate to things such as cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and robotics. T-levels will succeed only if they are accepted by two groups: universities at one end and industry at the other.
For decades, industry has been accustomed to BTECs. Engineering and manufacturing companies up and down the country know exactly what they will get for a BTEC qualification or a BTEC extended diploma. In fact, the extended diploma is so important that it is one of the two subjects that industry requires to be provided to appoint an advanced or higher apprenticeship. Two qualifications are needed: A-level in maths, physics or chemistry and a BTEC extended diploma. This means that employers know that the students whom they employ will have had wide experience of using tools and machinery, making and designing things and problem solving. I have no idea whether that can be provided by the T-level engineering, but, if it is only 20% technical, I would have thought that the chances are slender.
My other point is that, technical qualifications have to be very wide, not narrow; they are not as narrow as academic qualifications. Over the years, industry has recognised their quality. The bedding in of T-levels will take some time. Not only universities but also businesses will have to see whether they are in fact providing the degree of technical expertise that they require. That will take some years to establish. Therefore, I hope that we have less talk of abolishing BTECs early on in order to give preference to T-levels before people really know what constitutes a successful T-level and what does not.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, have both withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, who has done so much to keep the candle burning for technical and vocational education through many difficult times. This group on the role of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education is one of the most important and it has widened out in discussion.
In considering these amendments, I would like to understand more about the leadership of the institute and its level of independence from the department. I would like to know the extent of business representation, which has barely had a mention in that context, and understand any plans to change its governance or composition as the Government’s very welcome new emphasis on skills and post-16 education takes shape. How does it compare to the set-up in Germany, Switzerland or Austria? My concern is that it is much less employer-based and flexible than the arrangements that I have encountered there, but I would of course be happy to be proved wrong.
Is small business, the backbone of British innovation, properly involved? I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on the importance of encouraging small business apprenticeships. Will there be a culture of simplicity and speed, or is this a very bureaucratic organisation, as, I am afraid, the impact assessment suggests? It would be helpful to have an answer on some or all of these points today or, if it is easier, in writing.
With his Amendment 55, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is I believe right to explore the issue of charging for approval of qualifications, pointing out that the deterrent effect on providers might be a problem. That might lose us useful innovation and competition in the provision of qualifications. Should this not in fact be a public service, rather than a charged-for service, as I suspect it is in universities?
I also support the simple Amendments 51 and 53 of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which probe plans to cancel some qualifications to avoid duplication. It is always a great pleasure to hear from him and to be reminded that he is a brilliant product of vocational education. Against a background of declining achievements in technical education, is the proposed moratorium wise? Could we hear which employers are likely to be affected? We have heard quite a bit about individual qualifications, but what kind of employers are likely to be affected? For example, I recall that at Tesco we were able to frame qualifications in a way that suited our work patterns and needs, and we helped many thousands of apprentices to get on and indeed rise up within the retail sector. Is that kind of arrangement now at risk? One of the reasons why I loved working there with my public sector background was that it was a great provider of opportunity for some of the most disadvantaged in the land.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I very much share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friends Lord Willetts and Lord Baker in particular.
The last legislation that we had in this area was the Technical and Further Education Act. There was a belief then in the perfection of the new—almost a post-modern belief that destruction was the necessary precursor to success. The Government had just destroyed the sector skills councils and they have not yet managed to recreate the complex relations and understandings that led to their successes. In the run-up to the technical education Bill, the Bill team said they thought that this would probably result in the destruction of City and Guilds, as if that institution and all its reputation and quality had no value for the future in the face of their newly-created ideas. Now we seem to be destroying the local enterprise partnerships, which in many areas have established a pattern of understanding and reputation that has enabled projects to be undertaken that would have been very hard otherwise.
I do not share this disdain for the old; I think that it is best to work with it where we can. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, pointed out, the reputation that qualifications have built up with employers is a thing of great value. It means that employers know what they are getting but it also means that, when a young person gets that qualification, it is something with strong currency. People know exactly what to expect. It has a high reputation and is a highly tradeable asset.
This is not yet true of T-levels. As noble Lords may know, I have run the Good Schools Guide for many years. I cannot yet imagine advising a parent to let their child do a T-level. It still seems a misconception that you should have to spend the whole of your sixth form years doing this one qualification to the exclusion of everything else. If one is aiming for parity of esteem then it ought to be through the route of being able to mix academic and other qualifications. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, that would allow the technical qualifications to be heavily technical to carry the sorts of skills an employer is looking for, rather than being overly general and not directed towards making someone instantly employable when they come out of school.
Doubtless we are all going to put a lot of effort into making things succeed. We are where we are; we have to make the best of where we have got to. But to give powers to IfATE and others to continue on a path of destruction without consultation and care, and in particular to give them the direction of this Bill without the permission of employers seems wrongheaded. I very much hope that, between those who have proposed amendments to this Bill, we will get something on Report that will help change the Bill’s direction.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those occasions where I thought I knew what I was going to say before the debate started, but I have changed my mind—or, at least, my words—considerably having listened. When the Minister replies to this, I feel that the audience behind her might be the most worrying. I suggest that when the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Baker, are saying “beware of this”, any sensible Minister would listen. I know the noble Baroness falls into that category.
The Minister has to pay attention to what has been said. Everybody here said, “We are not sure what you are doing yet”. T-levels may sound neat, but we do not quite know what they are. Are they doing something else? Are they a replacement? I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who asked if they are replacing BTECs, which are an established way forward and allow flexibility, university entrance and other qualifications. That is the sort of thing we want, especially as we are giving more power to level 4 and 5 qualifications, which is overly due. Can we have some assurance that there is no government thinking that T-levels will be used to replace all this? They will simply not lead to these places; they cannot.
Other institutions with qualifications which are understood and known, such as City & Guilds—if I do not mention City & Guilds, I fear that my noble friend might well have a few words with me afterwards—will be saying, “Everybody knows what these are.” If you are going to bring in T-levels, do it slowly and make sure that you are adapting them to take over these functions. A one-off exam at this age cannot do what these do because they do wonderful and flexible things. A few employers cannot find their way around them, but others can. You could simplify them a little and not sweep them away to do something else.
I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, into his very intellectual comments about the destruction of post-modernism because we have quite enough on our plates without thinking about the centre of Glasgow and its planning issues. But I hope that when the Minister answers she will say that we are not getting rid of all of these good and established things straightaway, just because we have a lovely new toy that sounded good when we first put it forward. T-levels, I am afraid, will have to earn their stripes. They may become something that replaces or works into the rest of it, but further education deals with a diverse range of subjects and paths. It will never be that straightforward. I look forward to the Minister’s response and do not envy her task.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, these amendments relate to the measures that support the implementation of the Government’s reforms to align the majority of technical qualifications to employer-led standards by 2030. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, we are aiming here for all qualifications for learners to be of high quality and connected to those employer-led standards.
I was disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, was not down to speak in this debate, because we had a very interesting discussion today where, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, outlined, the key to what we are trying to do is to clarify the roles of a number of the institutions involved—IfATE, the OfS, which is relevant to the next amendment, Ofqual, the department and Ofsted.
We believe that the technical qualifications should cover the knowledge, skills and behaviours that are essential to an occupation. But the heart of the matter here, and one cause of the problems, is that although Ofqual accredits general qualifications such as A-levels and GCSEs, which are developed by awarding organisations, usually of the exam boards, in line with content set by government, the content of the majority of publicly funded technical qualifications is not specified or scrutinised centrally before the qualifications can be taught. That really is the nub of the problem here: Ofqual is not performing that function.
For parity of esteem, these reforms will bring the treatment of technical qualifications more in line with general qualifications. We have already done that process with T-levels, which were developed along with 250 employers to ensure that they met that standard. The content and employer-led standard then delivered, which could be by an FE college, is inspected and overseen by Ofsted. This process will raise the quality bar and deal with the issue of why we have, at level 3 and below, more than 12,000 qualifications, of which only about 800 are GCSE and A-level. As the Sainsbury review identified, we have had a proliferation of qualifications at that level, and many of them are currently created by the awarding organisations.
On the question of no one overseeing the content and it not being connected to an employer standard, we would not tolerate that in relation to GCSEs and A-levels, and someone needs to do that function. I have outlined the process for academic qualifications; the question then is who does that function. The institute currently manages the system of employer-led standards, and we believe it has the expertise to ensure that qualifications genuinely meet the skills of the economy, and the needs of learners and employers, and that it is right for the institute to lead this reform.
I explained some of these issues to noble Lords in the letter on 1 July. It is quite helpful that at the moment the position of chief regulator is being sorted out. Dr Jo Saxton, the Government’s preferred candidate, appeared last week in front of the Education Select Committee for the approval hearing, and was approved for the role. She was specifically asked about Ofqual and IfATE. She outlined that Ofqual will continue to play a key role with regulatory oversight of the standards of technical qualifications in live delivery, as it does currently. Ofqual and the institute are both needed as they contribute different and complementary sets of function and expertise. The two bodies will work together to assure, on Ofqual’s side, the consistency and reliability of assessment and awarding, as it does over the exam boards, and on the institute’s side the relevance to employers of the content of technical qualifications. When asked by the chair, she said:
“At its simplest, the curriculum side of it sits with IfATE. Once the curriculum has been agreed and approved to go forward, Ofqual’s job will be to make sure that any endpoint assessments and examinations continue to assess the curriculum that has been determined by IfATE and the employers and that receivers of the endpoint assessments and qualifications know that the awards they end up with accurately reflect what they know and can do. The relationship should work well. At its heart, it is essentially a separation between curriculum and regulation”.
I find that really helpful. That was the core purpose—she outlines why Ofqual was set up to be the regulator while the content of the curriculum was set out by the department.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for doing what she always does and giving comprehensive replies to almost all the points raised by noble Lords—not to anyone’s great satisfaction, I suspect, but, none the less, I think she has understood the points we have made without, perhaps, giving them as much credence as we would have liked.
This has been a really good debate, informed by contributions from many noble Lords who have considerable experience in the areas covered by these amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, the Minister should be wary of not taking cognisance of the wise counsel of those on her own Benches who caution against the path that the Government seem intent on following on the powers to be given to IfATE and those being taken by the Secretary of State himself. The concerns of widely respected former Education Ministers, as well as established organisations in this sector, such as the Federation of Awarding Bodies and the Joint Council for Qualifications, should not be cast aside either.
I fear that the Minister’s description of the relationship between IfATE and Ofqual—between, as I think she said, curriculum and regulation—does not convince within the sector, notwithstanding the comments from Ofqual that she read out, because the Government insist that the Bill merely formalises the existing relationship between IfATE and Ofqual, but I and other noble Lords contest that. Ofqual currently has sole regulatory and approval responsibility for all vocational and technical qualifications apart from T-levels and apprenticeships, but the Bill proposes to broaden IfATE’s remit to encompass the approval of other—as yet unspecified—vocational technical qualifications that may or may not continue to be regulated by Ofqual. As I and other noble Lords have said, Ofqual is an independent regulator, and IfATE much less so, as a non-departmental public body.
To return to where I started, this has been the most lively debate we have had today on any group of amendments. I look forward—and not just because I genuinely enjoy the contributions of all noble Lords who have spoken today—to returning to many of these issues on Report. But, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 59. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate. The Committee should know that the noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Young and Lord Liddle, have all withdrawn.
Amendment 59
“External Quality Assurance
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for Ofqual to provide external quality assurance of all apprenticeship end-point assessments.(2) Regulations under this section must prohibit the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education from providing such external quality assurances.(3) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places the external quality assurance (EQA) role that Ofqual exercises on a statutory footing.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson and, with the scratchers from this group, it looks as if it is just Front-Bench contributions.
If it is worth saying something twice, that is what I am going to do. The Bill currently gives the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, a non-departmental public body directly accountable to Ministers, the ultimate sign-off power for the approval and regulation of technical qualifications in future. So, despite the Minister’s extremely detailed and comprehensive reply to the previous group of amendments, I am going to press her further, because this amendment would ensure that, within six months of the passing of the Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulation, make provision for Ofqual to provide external quality assurance of all apprenticeship end-point assessments. Regulations under this section must prohibit the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education from providing such external quality assurances. Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament. This amendment places on a statutory footing the external quality assurance role that Ofqual exercises.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, this amendment, so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, raises an issue that engaged us at Second Reading—namely, the relationship between Ofqual and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education—and was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on a previous group. The matter of regulation is causing concern in the awarding sector, because it is not clear who has authority for end-point assessment for apprenticeships, and it is surely not desirable for there to be any confusion over which of these two bodies has most power, nor where the expertise lies.
The Minister tempted me to come in on the previous group and I nearly came in after her—but I knew I had the opportunity to speak on this group, so I thought I might as well save my thunder.
My noble friend Lord Addington referred to my connections with City & Guilds. I remember that it was the employers who set the curriculum, because they have always been involved with vocational workplace qualifications. Of course, there was heavy regulation of everything we did but, over many years, both BTEC and City & Guilds have developed a reputation for standards and quality. They are understood and trusted by employers, and BTEC has the added cachet that it is accepted by universities, in many cases, because of the academic rigour of its awards. Part of the work I did for many years at City & Guilds was talking to universities to see where they could accept City & Guilds vocational qualifications for their degree programmes. There were certainly some, in engineering and areas such as that, who were prepared to accept that people who had the right level of City & Guilds qualification had met the criteria for entry to a university programme. They are doing different things, by and large, so not many people went down that route, but it was possible. So this constant mention that employers are in control, as though it was something new, always concerns me, as it has been going on for over 100 years.
The noble Baroness also made a brief mention of copyright. I remember going through the Technical and Further Education Bill, which was cut short by the election, and having stunningly good amendments that were all of course dropped in the wash-up. The suggestion then was that the copyright of any of the awarding bodies would immediately be taken over by the Government. I objected strongly and said “You can’t do this. You can’t just assume the copyright of an organisation”. I got a phone call from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who asked me why I was objecting to his wonderful Bill. I said that it seemed to me outrageous that the Government could just take over the copyright of other organisations. He said, “Oh, I didn’t mean for that to happen at all”. I said, “Would you mind very much ringing up the department and telling them that?” I do not think he ever did, because nothing happened on it. But the issue of copyright is vital, because many awarding organisations earn income from the copyright of their qualifications.
Anyway, the noble Baroness very kindly sent us a chart of Ofqual and the institute, showing where they all were, and the complexity of it is absolutely mind-boggling—I am sure that a brighter soul than me would reckon that it is all very straightforward. The institute has responsibility for the curriculum, but Ofqual has end-point assessment. Ofqual provides advice to the institute with regard to the validity of technical education qualifications submitted for approval and the reliability of assessment, but the institute will be responsible for reviewing technical education qualifications to determine whether they continue to meet the criteria. This seems to be an incredibly complicated way of running these qualifications. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that it is obviously more appropriate that responsibility lies with Ofqual, which is an independent regulator, whereas IfATE is of course less independent, as a non-departmental public body.
We have no information about how IfATE’s approval fees would be regulated, how often the fees would be charged and how accurate the estimation costs are. Would the fees be per qualification, per sector, annually or for the lifetime of the qualification? That is not clear. There is a lot of obscurity around the setting up of these qualifications.
I find it very strange that, as has been mentioned, Ofqual has regulatory and approval responsibility for all vocational and technical qualifications apart from T-levels. I thought that T-levels were supposed to be the be-all and end-all of vocational qualifications, so why have they been split off into another body? I am afraid that I am a simple soul and I find this very complicated, so perhaps the Minister could enlighten us and clarify it all for us.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the external quality assurance of apprenticeships’ end-point assessment is a vital tool in ensuring that all apprentices receive a robust, high-quality assessment. In this amendment, we are now dealing with what is an Ofqual function. Ofqual does not set any curriculum for A-levels or GCSEs and neither would it, in our view, be the appropriate body to set any content for any level 3 or level 2 technical qualifications. It oversees the assessment process, seeing whether grading is fair and examinations are being run properly.
The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education introduced an external quality assurance framework in 2019 in order to bring consistency to the sector. Following this, the institute put the matter of external quality assurance out to public consultation between February and May last year. This resulted in the institute taking the decision that the EQA for most apprenticeship end-point assessments would transfer to Ofqual to bring further consistency and quality to the assessment of apprenticeships. This is Ofqual’s bread and butter: overseeing examinations.
There are a small number of exceptional standards—chartered surveyors, for instance—where an existing statutory regulator oversees entry to a profession. The best way to quality assure these standards is currently being worked through with those regulators. I would like to make it clear that the Office for Students must continue to provide EQA for integrated degree apprenticeships—because Ofqual does not have statutory jurisdiction over degrees and therefore cannot provide EQA for apprenticeships at that level.
I will specifically address the noble Lord’s suggestion that regulations under this proposed amendment must prohibit the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education from providing EQA. While the institute is stepping back from direct delivery of EQA, it is an employer-led organisation, working to develop apprenticeships that meet the needs of employers. It is right that it should continue to have responsibility for securing the quality assurance of apprenticeship assessment in order to retain an independent, impartial voice in the sector and to maintain clear focus on supporting employers to develop the right apprenticeship skills for the labour market.
Regarding the suggested six-month timing for the transfer proposed in the amendment, the pace of the EQA transition currently taking place from the institute and other EQA providers to Ofqual has been carefully planned to ensure the development of a balanced end-point assessment offer to continue to develop a high-quality apprenticeships system. The first phase of the transition is well under way and is focused on transferring the majority of standards that currently have the institute as the named EQA provider. This phase will conclude at the end of the year. The second phase is to transition to Ofqual the remaining standards that are externally quality assured by other EQA providers, excluding the standards that will be regulated by OfS and statutory regulators, as aforementioned. This will conclude at the end of September 2022.
The sector is made up of a great number of end-point assessment organisations of different sizes and natures, some covering single standards, some covering around 50 standards. To attempt to transition all these organisations and standards over to Ofqual in a six-month period would cause severe disruption in the sector and would negatively affect the apprentices’ experience. The proposed amendment would also place a great burden on universities, as under this amendment they would be required to be regulated by the OfS and Ofqual, rather than just by the OfS, as is currently the case. I hope I have set out that, as the successful transition of EQA is already under way, it would have a detrimental effect if we were to remove the institute from the process entirely.
In relation to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, on fees, any future approach that is developed will be proportionate and take account of the operational costs of institute approval in the reformed landscape. This may differ across qualification categories and levels.
On this basis, and with the explanations and reassurances I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel comfortable to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the further explanation. I will analyse it in greater detail when I read it in Hansard tomorrow. The point from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, about regulation being a matter of concern is absolutely correct. Indeed, employers have always been involved in qualifications. I am afraid that I am unsure of the background of many of my fellow Peers, but I can assure noble Lords of the quality standards of BTEC qualifications because I taught them for many years, alongside A-level qualifications, which are another quality qualification—I actually wrote A-level examination papers, as I was a principal examiner for the AQA examination board.
Nevertheless, the principle remains that we need responsibility and accountability. That is what Ofqual would give. I am sure we will return to this issue on Report, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 62. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate. Before I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I inform the House that, again, the noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Young and Lord Liddle, have all withdrawn.
Amendment 62
Lord Addington
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision to require ITT(FE) courses to include special educational needs awareness training relevant to the students of ITT(FE) courses within an institution.”
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the intention of this amendment is straightforward. It is to probe and clarify. When you are training teachers in this field, can they be sure of the 20% to 25% of their students who have been identified as having special educational needs? When you get to further education, the proportion of those with special educational needs often rises. Those who have passed all their exams are not doing level 1 and level 2 qualifications, so in that situation you have a higher density.
Anybody who ever doubts this just needs to look at the number of people who we know have a neurological condition that is passed on. The figures make it clear. You are going to have a higher number of people. If we look at the number of people who have been identified as having these needs in the school system, many more will be unidentified. The maths just tells you that from the genetic stock and the numbers we have got.
What I am trying to get out of this is whether people will be trained to identify and train those people in front of them correctly. People will have different learning pathways. If someone cannot take notes from a blackboard very easily, can we do something else? Does the teacher know how to spot these people? Remember these are not the people who have been identified and have the plan; it is those who are on the edges.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, once again, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Addington on special educational needs. I am sorry that we seem to have seen off all the Back-Benchers. It gets a bit lonely when you have only the Front-Benchers in these debates, but I hope that some of them will come back for the next group, because we value the contributions from those who are not on the Front Bench.
We on these Benches have long campaigned to ensure that initial teacher training encompasses awareness of special educational needs, and it is important that those training for further education should be fully aware. As my noble friend said, in some respects, it is more important for FE, because those with special educational needs may well be drawn to the provision within FE, which tends to be more practical and less academic. So the amendment is a no-brainer.
We should ensure that all FE students, whatever their educational needs, have every opportunity to learn skills appropriate to their abilities. Some special educational needs are quite difficult to identify, so teachers need to be trained to spot them.
My noble friend is particularly expert in dyslexia, and I remember, years and years ago, when I was at school, a girl at school was always labelled as thick. She went on to be a very successful businesswoman, having been diagnosed late in life with dyslexia, but her school days were pretty miserable, because she could not do the things that everybody else could and the teachers thought she was just not trying. We had a pretty untrained set of teachers, obviously.
This is a very important amendment, and I hope that the Minister will see that it deserves serious consideration.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to signify our support for Amendment 62 and commend the passion with which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke, as he unfailingly does on matters relating to those with special educational needs.
The Government must surely accept this amendment because page 30 in the Bill’s policy summary notes, under the heading, “What is the Government doing to support the teaching of SEND in FE?”, states:
“The government is also funding an in-service training grants programme to support those training in-service to teach maths, English and SEND. In Academic Year 20/21, 24% of bursaries and 73% of grants were awarded were for teaching SEND.”
Therefore, to add the requirement that SEND awareness training is included is an entirely logical follow-on to that. However, I await with interest the ingenious, perhaps even tortuous, argument that the Minister’s officials have crafted for her to tell us that it is not really necessary. That really would be unfortunate. I say, in a relatively gentle way, that the Government need to understand that accepting that something they have drafted could possibly be improved or even complemented is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of strength.
My main concern regarding Clause 16 is its intention. It seems to fit the pattern of the excessively hands-on and controlling position that the Government are adopting in many aspects of education. It is already happening with regard to initial training for schoolteachers. The policy summary notes address this question, again on page 30, under the heading, “How do these proposed changes align with the Initial Teacher Training (ITT) market review for school teachers?” It answers its own question:
“The government is not seeking to replicate the reforms taking place in the schools ITT system ... However, officials within the Department for Education are working together to ensure a coherent relationship between our reforms in the two sectors”—
hence my fears and those of many others in the teaching profession at school and college level.
The Government may protest that there is no connection between the two but, as politicians, we naturally do not believe in coincidence. Perhaps the Minister can explain just what is meant by
“a coherent relationship between our reforms in the two sectors”
because there is uproar in the teaching profession and among those who provide teacher education at the Government’s highly controversial and potentially damaging proposals for the review of initial schoolteacher training which are currently out for consultation.
On the FE ITT system, the policy summary notes say:
“The government believes that the FE ITT system could be much better than it is”.
Can the Minister enlighten noble Lords about the evidence for that? There is no clamour in the sector for such a change. I have to say that, again, that Clause 16 smacks of an increasingly voracious government appetite for centralisation and control, with Great Smith Street the control centre. If the Minister believes she can gainsay that impression, I am sure I would not be alone among noble Lords in being very interested to hear it.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for this amendment. It highlights the importance of equipping teachers to identify and support learners with special educational needs. Further education teachers must be trained to identify and support the needs of all learners, enabling them to overcome barriers to their learning and allowing them to meet their full potential.
I concur with the noble Lord’s intention and I understand that he intends it as a probing amendment. He may be unsurprised to hear that I do not believe it is necessary to specify such a requirement in the Bill. Other mechanisms for achieving the same aim are more appropriate, and steps are already being taken.
Our reforms to teacher training are founded on a new occupational standard for FE teaching, which will specify the knowledge, skills and behaviours expected of FE teachers. This standard is being developed by a group of employers—colleges and other providers, so organisations which employ teachers—from across the sector, who bring a wealth of experience and expertise and are well placed to determine the right content for teacher training that will meet the needs of all their learners. We fully expect that the new standard will be explicit in its requirement for further education teachers to meet the needs of all learners, including those with a wide variety of special needs as well as learners from diverse backgrounds. We anticipate that the standard will be in place in time for the next academic year. It will form the basis of a new FE teaching apprenticeship, and we will support the reform of FE teaching qualifications so that they are also based on the standard. If, in future, the content of FE teacher training was considered of insufficient quality to meet the needs of all learners, this clause would give the Secretary of State the power to take appropriate steps.
To address the point I think I have understood from the noble Lord, Lord Watson: the reason we do not believe this amendment to be necessary is that we do not intend to use the powers in this Bill to take greater control or gain more centralisation of FE teacher training. We believe that the sector is doing the work needed to set out that standard and that steps will be taken within it to make the right provision for the training with regards to special educational needs. To allay his fears in relation to initial teacher training reforms for schools, I undertake to write to the noble Lord to further clarify that point.
I hope that with those brief remarks the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is assured that we are already taking steps to ensure that teaching in the FE sector meets the needs of all learners, including those with a wide range of special educational needs. On that basis, I hope he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is an odd one. Actually, I do not think that response really hit it, because there is supposed to be a report. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, pointed out that it is supposed to be out now. I cannot quite match the withering sarcasm he put into it: “Oh, autumn then, maybe.”
The entire education system is squaring up to the fact that special educational needs is not working in our schools at the moment. There is a series of cock-ups made by other bits of legislation, for which I have some of the blame for not spotting them coming down the line. Unless you are going to be specific about having somebody in there who can spot, transfer and change the way they are dealing with at least some of the most commonly occurring conditions, you are guaranteeing a degree of failure and underachievement. We might have a conversation about how this works, and there might be something behind this that I need to hear, but what I have heard today convinces me that this needs some more time.
I would have intervened on the noble Baroness if the process was going through, but I suspect we are going to have a more robust Report stage than normal because of this. It is not the noble Baroness’s fault, unless she wrote the brief herself. I think we have opened up something here. Teacher training is the best way of dealing with this so that you can deal with those who have moderate difficulties and certain patterns of behaviour. Small changes and a bit of reassurance—telling them they are not thick—are the best way to get a reaction out of many of the groups that I deal with. Saying “Hey, I think you’re dyslexic or dyspraxic or have ADHD; here are a few quiet, basic strategies; by the way, you’re not an idiot” dramatically improves the outcomes of that group, which is about 20% of the whole group we are dealing with. Dealing with that type of action enables them to start that process to take them on to somebody else, and that is so important.
The transition I am looking at is away from: “I have somebody in my classroom who is a pain, can’t concentrate and won’t spell. Oh, God, can we get rid of him?” And it is towards: “Oh, I think he needs a bit of help and support.” It is not about the dramatic ones who are easy to spot, who are going to get the plan. It is that level of expertise that we need.
Can we please engage so that we actually know what is coming? At the moment, there is a review going on. There should be more there. I hope that the next time we raise this, the noble Baroness, if she is still with us—I should not have opened that one up —or whoever answers this, provides better answers. Good intentions have always been there. The problem remains.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I will briefly respond to the noble Lord, because I do not think I will get the opportunity to take this conversation forward with him ahead of Report, although I am sure that others will be happy to continue that conversation.
The point of differentiation here is specifically about the approach to regulating teacher training in FE colleges versus the regulation of teacher training in schools. The latter is subject to a regulatory regime that allows the Secretary of State to set conditions for its content and delivery, but we do not have that equivalent provision for FE teacher training as the content is determined by the sector itself, working with organisations. Although this clause as drafted would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe course content if desired, with a view to improving the quality of FE initial teacher training courses, the initial intention is for the sector to do that work itself. The points that the noble Lord makes about how important it is that SEND is properly accounted for in this and the widest understanding—and not just those with education, health and care plans but the broadest spectrum, and those who may not have been identified before—are an integral part of that. With regard to specifying that as part of the reforms to the initial teacher training, we would hope not to use the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in this area at the moment and would rather do it through collaboration with the sector.
I thought it might be useful to say just one or two words. That is not the end of the conversation, but someone else will take it forward with the noble Lord.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for bending the rules quite positively there. There will be a continuation of this discussion but I thank her for that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 63. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate. I inform the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has withdrawn.
Clause 17: Office for Students: power to assess the quality of higher education by reference to student outcomes
Amendment 63
Lord Lucas
“and,
(b) by reference to— (i) the degree to which the mental health and wellbeing of persons who undertake a higher education course with the institution are sustained and improved while they are attending the institution;(ii) the quality improvement and response to mental health crises among persons who undertake a higher education course with the institution;(iii) the pastoral and academic care of students attending the institution.(5A) In this section “quality improvement” has the same meaning as in the report by The King’s Fund, Quality improvement in mental health, published in 2017.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that higher education institutions should be evaluated on the basis of their care for students as well as purely academic measures.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome Clause 17. There has long been a lack of satisfactory information available to prospective students on the outcomes of a degree. What happens afterwards, other than a degree, first, second or even third class, as in my case, awarded on obscure criteria—although no doubt correct in my case—but with no indication to a prospective student of what comes afterwards? How do students who have been through the degree course look back on their time at university? Are they appreciative of what was done for them? Have they suggestions about what could have been done better? What sort of careers have they secured?
This can be very different in further education, where a good FE college, running a course in, say, golf course management, will have an immense network of alumni with whom it will work to improve the course and with whom it will be in correspondence about the prospects for their current students. It will be able to portray to someone who intends to take on the cost of a course exactly what the outcome will be. For such a substantial personal investment by students, universities owe prospective students a much better set of information about what their prospects are.
My interest in this clause, though, is in the opportunity to broaden it to include mental health and well-being because, in my experience, this is an area that universities have been much less good at than they ought to be. I agree that this has, to a certain extent, come up on them. It is the result of increased parental interest in university education—that is, in parents wanting to make sure that they are launching their children on a good course. I have been a champion of that for a long time. I do not think that it sits easily with universities, which have historically taken refuge in the mantra that their students are adults and therefore do not need support from home, and communication with home is inappropriate.
I sense that that is changing but, for it to change to good effect, it needs some kind of support from the Government. Universities need to know that they are being watched—that information will reach prospective students as to how good their mental health and well-being services are and how well they look after their students. This will form part of a student’s decision on which course to take. If we do not have that kind of visibility, we will see a continuation of the inaction that has been my experience of universities’ response to this over the past 10 years or so.
I am sure that we all have stories about a mental health crisis hitting a friend’s child at university, perhaps even to the point of suicide. Mine, fortunately, has a happy ending. The son of a friend of mine went to a Russell group university, found that the course they were on did not really have its own social life, went back to university accommodation, which likewise had no social life, and fell into a cycle of despair. Bar a casual acquaintance knowing someone who knew his mother and getting a message back, that might have been the end of it. Fortunately, he had a very active mother who whisked him out of university and helped him to find a course that was much better socially adapted to his needs. He flourishes still.
There are many, however, for whom the outcome has been much less good. Universities have not traditionally seen themselves as having a duty of care in looking after their students. I remember—it must be about 10 years ago—trying to tell universities that they should pay more attention to teacher recommendations, that they could use some kind of online reputation system to score the teacher recommendations in the light of their experience of the student when they arrived at university, and that this would enable them to reach through the surface of qualifications to look at the underlying person and maybe start to use that to address the inequalities of access that were very apparent then.
The answer I got from universities was, “Can’t do that. We never get to know our students well enough to know whether that teacher recommendation is accurate or not”. I contrast that with my experience of the better degree apprenticeships and the way in which a company looks after children of the same age whom it has recruited into much the same circumstances. It can be extraordinarily good. I single out JCB in that respect: the way they look after young people who arrive in the wilds where the JCB factory is set and look after them through their degree is absolutely exemplary. JCB is, however, by no means alone. It has set a standard, in the minds of parents and people like me who advise parents, for what we now expect of universities, and I would really like the Government to take a hand in moving the needle.
I am not in any way committed to the particular formula in this amendment. It is a formula that is necessarily stated by its circumstances; it has to fit in with the structure of this Bill. I am not at all convinced that having a scored measure—an outcome measure—at the end of the day for mental health and well-being is the right way to go, but we have to get to a point where universities know that they are being observed and where accurate information finds its way to prospective students.
In the Good Schools Guide, if a school is a place that is a difficult environment for the less robust, we say that. It is fine. You can happily say that you have to be pretty rumbustious to get on in this school, and students and parents know what you mean. It will absolutely suit some people. Others will be put off by it and will find a place that is better suited to them. There is no reason why all universities should be the same, but it is absolutely obvious to me that prospective students and their parents should be given the information needed to make good judgments as to the environment at the university and whether their child will flourish there.
I also hope that, by doing that, we will raise the standard of universities generally. This is a move that Universities UK talks very strongly in support of, and some individual vice-chancellors are clearly ahead of the crowd in this. We ought to be out there supporting them, helping this change to happen and helping universities generally to up their standards. At the end of the day, these are children, and it is a big transition between home and local school to university in a strange city a long way away with completely different customs. We want them to be cared for; we want them to be looked after; we want to be a part of that, where we have a relationship with our children that will support that. We want the university to be strong and active in looking after them. If we cannot do that through this amendment, I hope that the Government will confirm that they have plans in this direction. I beg to move.
Lord Willetts (Con) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 69 very much in the spirit of the powerful speech that we just heard from my noble friend Lord Lucas. We definitely need more information about student outcomes. One way in which that information can be presented is the absolute information on the absolute outcomes. I am sure that the Minister will be eloquent on that. There is nothing in my amendment that tries to suppress any of that sort of information—far from it. However, the way in which the legislation is currently drafted means that it goes out of its way to exclude a different sort of equally valuable and relevant information: how our higher education institution is doing relative to the types of students that it has. That is a measure of distance travelled; it is a measure of how a university is performing, given the students that it recruits.
We have heard several important interventions in the course of our debate about students with special educational needs. A university that recruits an unusually high proportion of students with special educational needs, within the approach set out by Ministers, will not be able to signal that it does that; it may just appear to be a less well-performing institution. To offer a second example, which I know is a source of deep frustration and shame to us all, we should look at the performance of students from ethnic minority backgrounds. For any given level of academic qualification, a graduate from an ethnic minority background may do less well in the labour market than a graduate of similar academic achievement but not from a minority ethnic background. That is shocking; it is also a description of the British labour market as it is today. This would mean that, on the approach set out by Ministers, a university that had a disproportionately high number of graduates from ethnic minority backgrounds would do less well on labour market outcomes without the university being able to display its commitment and what it was doing.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments, because I think everybody would agree that universities as institutions have a duty of care to their students. They are adults, but most of them are only just adults. I must declare an interest here; I have an 18 year-old daughter who is expecting to go to university—and not only go to university, but a university in another country: Wales in this case, but there we are.
Lord Addington (LD)
At least I have got that confirmed; I thank the noble Baroness for that aside.
The point here is about “Students like us, how do they do and what do they go through?” I have heard it from many people, and indeed from members of my own family. Two of my nephews are of mixed race and are wondering “Where do we go where people like us are?” We have to get this information out, because it is a perfectly normal thing. You are leaving the support structure of home and your parents, but there is some way of intervening.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, referred to special educational needs. We have a universal package there called the disabled students’ allowance. We have a structure within universities that means you actually have to give things. Members of the Front Bench have sparred with me on this—I think “sparred” is quite accurate—in the past. There is a structure of support and a standard, and you can take action if that standard is not fulfilled. That is difficult, but it is there. You have a support structure going through.
So having more information about what happens here and what goes on will not hurt. It is not that big an ask. People are posting about entrance requirements and groups are coming across—it is happening at the moment. I suggest that having more information gives a better guide to what can come out of the experience and what other people are experiencing on their way through. I think this information is being gathered in many places anyway, usually for internal commercial reasons by the institutions. It would not hurt to have it in there.
I do not know whether the Government are in the mood for accepting amendments at the moment. I always remember when it happened to me many years ago; it stunned me into silence for the rest of the evening. It may be a bit late in this day for doing that, but I just throw that out. It would be something that would be quite good to have. I would hope that the Government at least give us some idea that they are encouraging, if not requiring, people to do it.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, this is a particularly important group of amendments and the debate on it has been very good. I support all the amendments in this group. They have been very well spoken to by the people who put them down. I really want to add support and try not to go over the same points again.
They fall, basically, into two groups: the first on mental health and well-being and the second on how we measure outcomes. I will briefly comment on both. I very much support the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the way in which he put them forward. I was going to say that I was not sure the amendment was the right way to solve the problem, but he said it beforehand, so I see the amendment as very much drawing the issue to the attention of the Government and wanting a response.
My experience really came from when I was chair of council at one of the London colleges. I had the honour of giving out degree awards at the ceremonies twice a year. There is nothing as heartbreaking as giving out a degree posthumously to the parents of a student who has passed away through suicide. It is absolutely heartbreaking, and it happened more than once. That was just my experience at a relatively small college, and it will be replicated throughout universities.
We think of those children as adults, and they are: they are legally adults and they do adult things. But to begin with they are only a year out of school. By the time they graduate, they are only three years out of school, and children—young people, adults—develop at different rates. Somehow, we put a whole chasm between the pastoral support they get by the end of school, and the lack of pastoral support they get at the start of university. Somehow, we have to build a bridge between the two, particularly with academic high-flyers. There is often an emotional inability to cope with failure. One university lecturer said to me once that they had had an overseas student who committed suicide. They had to greet her parents from China and go through what had happened. They did not know, but their view was that it was the first time the child—the young woman—had ever found it difficult to come top of the class. She has come top of the class right the way through everything; she gets to a Russell group university and she does not come top of the class. She did not have the resilience to know how to deal with that.
We could spend a week discussing this, but the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, got this absolutely right. Universities hitherto have been slow to see this as an issue that they have a role to play in addressing. I should give credit to the Government, because I think I am right that they did something recently that means universities can tell parents if they feel their child is at risk. Certainly, in my day, when I was chair of council, legally a university could not phone up the parents without the young person’s permission, to say they were at risk.
The only way in which I would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is that I am not sure they need to be “watched”—I think that was the phrase he used. Universities need to be worked with to make them realise that this is a core part of their job. Once they can see that, they will extend their considerable prowess and commitment and care for their students into pastoral health, mental health and well-being, as much as they offer academic support. But they are at the beginning of that journey and anything the Minister can offer in this Bill, to give them the powers or the freedom, or just the direction, to do this, I certainly think would be a step worth taking.
I also want to say a little bit about the other amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, spoke. This is also exceptionally important, because I absolutely agree with the premise that universities ought to be measured by student outcomes. It would be silly not to take into account student outcomes. We take them into account in schools. Why we would stop doing it when we get to universities, I am not quite sure.
I do not think we have a great record so far in deciding what outcomes universities should be measured by. I will not go into it, but I am a bit critical of some of the teaching excellence framework, the TEF criteria for success. One measure is whether their students are in employment 12 months after they finish their degree. For some subjects, they are not likely to be in employment in a degree-level subject. People in the creative arts very often make do for a year while they are finding their feet. They very often work in a pub or a restaurant while they are doing the creative work. Measure them in five years’ time and they will be flying, and that is a credit to their university, but it will not get the credit if they are not in a degree-level job after 12 months.
One measurement that is not used by the teaching excellence framework but is regularly used by the newspapers that publish the tables is the A-level mark needed to get into a university. If universities want to take risks and bring on young people who got Ds and Es at A-level and say, “We believe in them and want to give them a chance; they come from an area of disadvantage”, they get marked down in the league table. Why on earth would they do that? I thought that was what we wanted to do.
I do not think there is a very good record of getting the outcome measurement right. Universities are partly at fault because they did not want this and did not engage in the discussion. I think they left others to decide what the measurement outcome should be and are paying the price.
I have a couple of specific points. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—why would we not want this extra information? Why would we not want to know what universities have achieved, in terms of outcomes, with specific groups of students? It adds to what we know about universities and it means that when we are developing policy, we can do so with more knowledge about how existing policy affects different groups of students and different institutions than we would have without this information. I cannot see one good reason for not requiring that information at this level should be collected. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Clause 17(7) says:
“The OfS is not required”
to collect this information. I think it should be required, but will the Minister confirm that neither is it banned and that it could collect it if it wanted to? The noble Baroness is nodding, so I take it that it is allowed to collect it. That leads us to the question of whether it should be up to the Office for Students to decide whether this information is collected. It should not be up to the OfS, because it is useful to other people as well. I want to know it, as somebody who is involved in education and interested in policy-making. The Government should want to know it; the universities should want to know it; employers should want to know it. Why should the Office for Students not collect it so that others can have that information? Whether the OfS or the Government do anything with it is a different discussion, but not to collect it means that no one else can do anything with it.
My last point is that the world of schools is far more advanced in collecting data about pupil progress: it is 20 or 30 years more advanced. It has been through a lot of pain and made a lot of mistakes, but it is in a better state now than the universities. I just hope that the Office for Students learns lessons from those decades of trying to get the collection of data improved in schools.
One thing that ties into the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is that, to begin with and for many years, Ofsted and the examiners did not discuss with schools what the outcome measurements would be. All it created was a very poor relationship that has not done well for children, teachers or schools. We are still trying to get over it, so I very much support the amendments proposing that the Office for Students, in developing these measures, should discuss them with universities and all higher education providers. We are setting the framework now for the next stage of using measurements of outcome for university; it is really important that we get it right and I very much hope that the Government’s response to these amendments will give us greater clarity and perhaps highlight areas where further attention is needed.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and shall talk about Amendments 63 and 66 in particular. For far too long, pastoral care in these institutions has been inconsistent, sometimes even unprofessional and neglectful, to the great detriment of students’ achievements and well-being. Like other speakers, I personally know of suicides and cases of severe depression among students that I think could have been prevented, and there are plenty more in the statistics. It is only right that the institutions should be evaluated on these grounds.
On Amendment 66, because discrimination is often associated with mental health vulnerability, there are many such cases among those in the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities who have struggled through obstacles to gain entry into higher and further education. It is important to publish different student characteristics to get a proper handle on the data, as this amendment proposes.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I begin by making a general comment in expressing concern about the way in which this Government and others have sought to judge and rank higher education institutions and have directed the Office for Students to do so. I associate myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, about universities being penalised for welcoming students who have succeeded in their school and college studies despite the socioeconomic odds.
I want to add a more general concern about the ranking of institutions by the level of pay or classification of jobs that graduates attain. Education should be for life, not just for jobs. We know that there is often an inverse relationship between the levels of pay in a role and the contribution that it makes to society. An anthropology graduate who goes into community organising, say, might never earn much at all but is making a huge contribution to our society in a highly fulfilling role.
However, it is encouraging to see that the amendments all seek in some way to make judgments fairer, so they are to be welcomed. I shall go through them in turn. Speakers have already concentrated quite a lot on Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and backed by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal. In this context, it is worth pointing to an important report from the British Psychological Society in 2019 entitled Mental Health and Wellbeing in Higher and Further Education. I should perhaps preface what I am about to say by saying that this contains some disturbing material.
At least 95 university students took their own lives in 2016-17—and while the rate of suicide is lower than in the general population, it is a serious concern for the sector—and one-third of students experience a serious psychological issue that requires professional help. Some 94% of higher education providers reported an increase in demand for counselling services. And of course that was in 2019, while all the evidence and anecdotes that we have suggest that the situation is likely to be significantly worse now. The professional report says that all higher and further education institutions should make mental health and well-being a strategic priority. I think it particularly focuses on the need to train all staff and on how to assist them in signposting to the right support. There is also an important note in the report about UCAS needing to update the application process to reduce stigma, removing the need for applicants to disclose mental health conditions as a disability.
Let us think about the practicalities of this. The report cites Student Minds research that found that many academics feel ill equipped to assist students when they encounter difficulties or are approached by them. This is a pretty obvious problem when you think about it: a PhD or postgraduate studies in physics or medieval history do not necessarily equip you to deal with situations that you might face. This has a substantive negative impact on the well-being of academics as well.
I turn to the series of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, although I am slightly handicapped by the fact that they have not really been properly introduced. I am not going to cover them in great detail, except to note that Amendment 65, which calls for consultation with providers over the way in which these assessments are made, is essential. The assessment needs to be embedded in real-world experience and practical possibilities of what is deliverable.
I come to Amendment 66, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, to which I have attached my name and for which the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, expressed support. It seeks to ensure that the OfS reflects in its outputs
“differences in student characteristics, different institutions or types of institution, different subjects or courses, or any other such factor.”
I am drawing here on my experience as a school governor. Of course, in schools, we have increasingly sought to look at what value has been added, acknowledging that students start from many different starting points. That is true at all levels of our school system, but it is also very much true of our higher education sector. A university that caters particularly well to students who perhaps have not had a great experience at school or college deserves to have its successes acknowledged fairly in the assessment.
Amendment 68, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, makes the related point that it must
“ensure that the … measure of student outcomes does not jeopardize widening participation for students from disadvantaged and underrepresented groups.”
Finally, I will mention Amendment 70, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, which says that
“The OfS must work together with the devolved authorities”.
I somewhat feel that I should have a hymn-book, because I speak on this in practically every Bill that we discuss, but it is clearly in the interests of prospective students and employers that these assessments are conducted fairly.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
My Lords, I particularly want to support Amendment 63, but also the others in the group. Just last month, in June 2021, the DfE itself published a report, Student Mental Health and Wellbeing, based on research done before the pandemic. It points out that 96% of institutions ask their students about their mental health but only 41% ask them about their general well-being. It also notes that only 52% of universities would say that they have a “dedicated strategy” for the mental health and well-being of their students. So the DfE’s own report, from last month, highlights that there is plenty of work to be done on universities having proper, dedicated strategies around mental health and well-being—particularly on the well-being side.
We know that Covid has highlighted the issues further, particularly around loneliness. Just today, the head of the OfS, Nicola Dandridge, spoke of her concern that more than half of the student population feels that their mental well-being has not been supported enough this year. I have not had time to explore her comments more fully, but it is notable that she made them today, when we are having this debate.
Well-being has to be covered by a whole range of services, and I note here the value—which you certainly cannot put into legislation—of universities having chaplaincy teams. During the pandemic, the chaplaincy team at Durham University was given an award for being the most important group of people in the university over the last few months. In the University of Sunderland, the vice-chancellor decided that the chaplaincy team should be awarded extra money so that it could do further work in the future, on the basis of how significant its input had been to student well-being during this time. So when we look at mental health and well-being, we need to look at counselling services and all sorts of other support, but it should include the work and role of chaplaincies.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, has raised a really important point in suggesting that this is put in the Bill. The overall well-being of students really matters as much as their academic outcomes. This needs to be known, seen and observed. I also support the amendments, and particularly their probing nature, of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the intent of those of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, to look at other social outcomes. They are significant and should be in the Bill.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is rapidly becoming my noble friend at this rate. I support all the others in this group, which are concerned with the mental health of students, well-being, student outcomes and widening participation.
Because of this Committee stage, I was sorry to miss a meeting this afternoon on lifelong learning, which was sponsored by Graeme Atherton, a brilliant champion of widening participation. He has done more than most to promote access to higher education, through such wonderful programmes as Aimhigher, which introduced so many non-typical students to university, with some inspirational results, before having its funding withdrawn—such is life.
The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, bear witness to their tireless support for disadvantaged students and those suffering from poverty of family, opportunity or aspiration. Of course, the pandemic has caused additional stress for our students, who have been very badly affected in many cases by being locked up and not being able to have classes or socialise in the way that they might have expected.
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that universities should not be penalised if they accept young people with lower school exam results if they come from disadvantaged backgrounds, where they have actually achieved a great deal just to get the results they have. I think we should bear that in mind. Of course we have to ensure the quality of our great institutions, but, at the same time, we have to make sure that our students are properly cared for and have all the opportunities that they can.
I think this is a very worthwhile set of amendments, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in responding to this excellent debate I will also introduce my Amendments 65, 66, 67, 68 and 70—albeit, I apologise, too late for the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, whom I thank for her support. Together, my amendments are designed to draw out from the Government the approach that is to be taken regarding regulating higher education providers, especially on quality and standards.
To start, despite lots of research, I still do not know whether this Bill will change the powers that the Office for Students has at the moment. We are told that this is a technical clause required
“To put beyond doubt the Office for Students’ ability to regulate in relation to minimum requirements for quality.”
But can the Minister tell us: is this Bill needed to ensure that the OfS can keep doing what it does now without risk of legal challenge? Or is it to enable it to do something different, for which it needs extra powers, and if so, what?
The OfS currently applies a series of conditions, in categories A to E, for an institution to be registered. The B conditions focus on quality and standards, and I am most interested in B3, which says that
“The provider must deliver successful outcomes for all of its students”,
measured against minimum standards for student continuation, completion and graduate careers. My Amendment 65 says that the OfS must consult the HE sector before determining those minimum standards. We had a general OfS consultation, which closed in January, but no response has yet been issued. Another is due any day now on most of the B criteria, but the key one—these B3 metrics—will not be consulted on until much later in the year. Given the concerns we have heard about the direction of travel, and since that consultation will take place after this Bill becomes law, it is really important that it is full and meaningful. It needs to be clear on what metrics are proposed, how they will be measured, where the data will come from and how they will be applied. It should provide the evidence for any metric being advanced as a proxy for quality, assess the impact of any proposed move away from benchmarking, and be transparent about how the baselines will be set. Are they objective standards which, in theory, all institutions could meet, or are they designed to cull the lowest performers, irrespective of absolute scores? Can the Minister give us some assurances on this? Can she tell the House how Parliament can express a view on these hugely important decisions which will be taken by the OfS?
Amendment 66 is designed to flush out the Government's intentions on contextualisation. I understand that Ministers do not want different outcome standards for different groups—this is a probing amendment; I am not proposing a new scheme—but there are clearly differences in student outcomes between groups which reflect prior experience, advantage or the lack of it, or their current circumstances, rather than academic ability. I shall not repeat the excellent points made by my noble friend Lady Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, on the whole issue of contextualising data, but I look forward to hearing the Minister explain why we are legislating to enable the OfS to refuse to collect that data.
Amendment 68 would ensure that the OfS’s student outcome measures do not jeopardise the goal of widening participation for students from disadvantaged and underrepresented groups—a matter of concern to many in higher education. MillionPlus points out that
“if you remove the ability to contextualise, you also remove the ability to assess”
value-added—or distanced travelled, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said. MillionPlus also points out that setting minimum thresholds on student outcomes while removing any need for benchmarking
“sits incongruously in a Bill designed to diversify access to higher education and boost mature and part-time study.”
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, Section 23 of the Higher Education Research Act 2017—HERA—which relates to the assessment of the quality of higher education provided by registered providers, currently places no restrictions or stipulations on how the OfS might make an assessment of quality or standards. Clause 17 provides some much-needed clarity, or so we hope. It puts beyond doubt the ability of the OfS to determine minimum expected levels of student outcomes. These levels would be taken into account alongside many other factors, such as the context in which a provider operates, when the OfS makes its overall and well-rounded assessment of quality.
Amendments 63 and 64, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, seek to add provision for the mental health and well-being of students to the outcomes measures that higher education institutions are evaluated against, in addition to academic and post-study progression measures, and to allow for more than one measure that institutions are expected to meet. I reassure my noble friend and other noble Lords that student mental health is something that this Government and the OfS take extremely seriously. The testimony that we have heard from many noble Lords in this debate has shown exactly why this issue is so important.
We continue to work closely with the higher education sector to promote effective practice. Higher education providers are autonomous bodies, independent of government, and have a responsibility to support their students, including those with mental health conditions or mental health needs. They are experts in their student population and best placed to identify the needs of their student body. The Government therefore strongly support Universities UK’s step-change programme, which focuses on the need for a whole-institution approach and in doing so supports the spread of good practice and the agreement of guidelines for co-commissioning and the provision of mental health and well-being services. In addition, the Government actively back the sector-led university mental health charter which aims to drive up standards in promoting student and staff mental health and well-being and invites universities to meet high standards of practice, including in areas such as leadership, early intervention and data collection.
While it is for higher education providers to determine what welfare and counselling services they need to provide to their students to offer that support, the OfS provides funding, support and guidance to providers to support students’ mental health. Noble Lords are right to say that sufficient attention has not been paid to this issue in the past and that, while steps are being taken to put this right and move in the right direction, there is more to do. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, noted, that may not be best addressed through more legislation or regulation. However, I reassure noble Lords that, if the OfS wished to impose a condition of registration that related directly to mental health, the exiting legislation under HERA is flexible enough for it to do so.
The Government and the OfS do not see that as the right route at this stage. Rather, the aim of Clause 17 is to put beyond doubt the ability of the OfS to set minimum expectations of quality and performance by reference to objectively measurable outcomes. My noble friend Lord Lucas acknowledged that there may be some difficulty in defining those outcomes on something such as mental health provision. I confirm to my noble friend that the existing legislation can be read so as to allow institutions to be subject to more than one measure, so Amendment 64 is not required.
I turn to Amendments 65 to 68 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I first reassure the noble Baroness in relation to Amendment 65 that not only does the OfS already have a statutory duty to consult before determining or revising its regulatory framework in relation to outcomes, it has already undergone one round of consultation, as she has already noted, and a further consultation on specific outcome levels is planned for late autumn.
With regard to Amendment 66, leaving out “not”, as the amendment does, completely reverses the purpose of this clause. Driving up quality and standards in higher education is a priority for this Government and a fundamental part of the levelling-up agenda. This amendment would mean that students would be expected to accept that they might achieve different outcomes—and in some cases, lower ones—depending on their background. That cannot be right. That is why we included the provision in this clause to make it clear that there is no mandate on the OfS to benchmark the minimum levels of standards it sets based on factors such as particular student characteristics. Benchmarking or setting minimum levels by reference to the outcomes the OfS would expect from students with certain characteristics or certain types of providers risks entrenching disadvantage in the system.
I hope I can clarify one point and reassure a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Morris. Subsection (7) means that the OfS is not obliged to set minimum expected levels of outcome based on these factors. It does not prevent the OfS collecting data or considering the type of students a provider has. Indeed, the OfS will look at this when reaching a rounded judgment of quality.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether this is about clarifying the existing approach or giving new powers or a new approach. The OfS is already regulating based on absolute student outcomes data. In practice, the amendment will not affect the OfS’s current approach but will put beyond doubt its ability to continue to operate in this way. I will return to this point later in relation to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Willetts.
Amendment 67 seeks to probe the OfS’s powers of intervention at subject level. The current drafting in subsection (7) is intended to make it clear that the OfS is not required to determine and publish different minimum levels to reflect differences, including differences in the subjects being studied. While this does not preclude the OfS from doing so, the intention here is for minimum levels to be set by reference to the outcomes set out in subsection (5).
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked me to clarify her understanding, based on correspondence with Bill officials, of the powers of intervention at subject level. The OfS can intervene at subject level. As the noble Baroness noted, the OfS has an obligation to be proportionate in its interventions. However, any conduct that the OfS has decided constitutes a breach can be enforced, whether that conduct relates to all subjects or an individual subject. Courses could also be included in extremis.
The noble Baroness also asked how the OfS may assess quality when it comes to modular provision, given the changes that we are aiming to make in the LLE. The Government and the OfS are working closely together as part of the development of the lifelong learning entitlement. The OfS quality measures are designed to be flexible and used effectively by the OfS across a diverse provider base and different courses, for example part-time courses. As we will come on to, the OfS is currently consulting on its approach to regulating quality and standards. This includes consideration of its approach to modular and flexible provision. The OfS will consult on the indicators it proposes to use and how it proposes to take the context of the provider into account as it makes regulatory judgments. The purpose of Clause 17 is to provide clarity on the ability of the OfS to use absolute outcome measures, not to remove its ability to use other contextual or relative information.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the support of those who have spoken. The question of supporting students and getting their mental health needs looked after is one for which I—and, I suspect, a very large number of other parents—absolutely have a minimum expected level. I therefore find my noble friend’s statements of government policy in this area uncomfortably flabby. The Government support UUK—good. They back the mental health charter—good. However, universities have been subject to this sort of pressure for a long time and have not moved.
In the spirit of the Bill and of a minimum expected level, I really hope that the Government will consider what else they might do. It absolutely does not need to be measurement under Clause 17; it would work very well if, to pick up on the spirit of the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, someone with character and reputation set out as an individual to work with the universities to get them to the place they should be. Such people are not impossible to find. However, we need something to make universities focus, and which says, “This isn’t just one of the other things that the Government find important but one of the things which we must do, and we know that, even if it can’t be expressed as a number, there is a standard which we have to reach”.
Not surprisingly, I listened with interest to my noble friend Lord Willetts’s explanation of his interest in this area. The question “How are people like me doing at this university?” absolutely ought to be something that interests the university just as much as the student. They should be looking at, for instance, students they have recruited with high and low qualifications relative to the average of a class and asking, “How do they do? Why are students dropping out? Is there stuff here we should be feeding back to their schools because perhaps they have not had the advice that they ought to have had there? Do we really understand the needs of particular types of children, whoever they might be? Are we seeing effects that might reflect something we could improve in this university?” There are lots of different ways of cutting that cake. The self-improving university comes from an attachment to data and a care for its students, rather than just a care for process; that is what we must strive to inculcate, improve and increase in our universities. That human side of the interaction is the foundation of making sure that the physical university survives in a virtual world.
As I said, I am grateful for all the support that I have received. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 72. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 18: List of relevant providers
Amendment 72
Lord Aberdare
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that relevant providers will not be charged further costs when a provider’s contract for services with the Education and Funding Agency already requires a contractor to maintain at its own cost a policy or policies of insurance.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, this is a probing amendment intended to explore more fully the Government’s intentions in respect of independent training providers—ITPs—and their role in relation to the provisions of the Bill. I was delighted that my noble friend Lady Greengross raised this issue right at the beginning of our debate, so it has in a sense been bookended by ITPs.
According to the Bill’s impact assessment, there were 3,737 ITPs in 2019-20, about half of them small businesses. Some 700 of these are members of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, delivering vocational learning and employability support to 350,000 employers. They train around three-quarters of apprentices and young people on traineeships, as well as delivering adult education and programmes for the unemployed.
Some ITPs are large and well resourced, but the great majority are small, demand-led specialist businesses, often in towns and rural areas not served by colleges. There are 1,186 towns in England, I gather, but only about 170 FE colleges. Employers choose them because they are responsive and fleet of foot, as my noble friend Lord Bichard pointed out at Second Reading, and reach the parts other training bodies cannot reach, filling gaps in available training provision. The quality of their training is evidenced both in Ofsted reports and in employer and learner satisfaction surveys, with generally higher ratings than FE colleges. As such, they are an extremely important part of the education and skills landscape, and should be fully involved in the development and delivery of LSIPs. They should also receive a fair share of the funding available under government-supported schemes, whether directly or, more often, as subcontractors to larger providers. This is by no means always the case: frequently the funding available to ITPs is capped or reduced, with the result that they are unable to deliver the level of training for which they have capacity, for which there is demand, and on which their business plans have been based.
The main focus of the Bill, in respect of ITPs, is on protecting students from the effects of providers making unplanned exits from the market and failing to complete delivery of contracted training. There have of course been such failures, some of them high-profile and resulting in learners being left with debt on their loans but no course to complete. Again, according to the Bill’s impact assessment, 60 ITPs made unplanned exits in 2019-20, but there are many reasons for unplanned exits and it is not clear how many involved scandal or fraud, or what impact there may have been on learners. I have seen little evidence to justify the unduly negative reputation of the ITP sector, nor am I convinced that the measures proposed in the Bill would resolve the problems that exist. On the contrary, I fear that they might have the opposite effect, by forcing providers out of business, or discouraging new entrants to the market, thereby reducing innovation, competition and availability of needed training. The Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill admits that the measures
“are likely to have a significant impact on small or micro businesses from a resource and cost perspective.”
There was no mention of a list of providers in January’s White Paper, and there has been no consultation on the proposal, although this is promised for next spring, by which time the Bill will no doubt have been passed. The Bill would create a new list of relevant providers, and to be eligible to receive government funding an ITP would have to be included on this list, which would require it to meet a series of conditions and to pay a fee. I have no problem with the idea of such a list, nor with its being a prerequisite for receiving government funding. There is already a register of apprenticeship training providers, including many ITPs, and a broader register of training organisations that, somewhat ironically, is being decommissioned at the end of this month.
I do worry, however, about the specific conditions likely to be required for inclusion on the list, and the fact that they appear, albeit only as possibilities, in the Bill before there has been any consultation. These conditions include requirements for student support plans, for insurance cover, for providers to be fit and proper persons, and for the provision of information to, and taking action on directions from, the Secretary of State. The Bill also makes provision for fees to be charged for entry on to the list. Some of these conditions seem perfectly acceptable, and indeed are already required under existing ESFA contracts—which is where I believe they are more appropriately based—but I would argue that imposing this additional level of centralised regulation and cost is disproportionate and potentially damaging. It is based on the idea of a unified system of protection for all learners, without recognising the substantial differences between small independent providers and more established publicly funded bodies, such as FE colleges and schools.
There are particular concerns over the possible insurance condition. ESFA rules already require providers to maintain a range of insurance cover, including professional indemnity, employers’ liability and public liability insurance, but the Bill’s impact assessment seems to envisage a new form of insurance to offset costs to the Government in the event of a provider failure. Such insurance does not currently exist, and it is not clear how it might work in practice, let alone what it might cost. My amendment therefore proposes simply removing the mention of insurance cover from the list of example conditions in the Bill.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 74 probes the charging of fees in connection with entries on the list of relevant providers. The Bill would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide for a list of post-16 education or training providers, including independent training providers.
We have no argument with the principle of introducing legislative measures to protect the interests of learners, and agree wholeheartedly that those who run providers on the proposed list of relevant providers should be “fit and proper persons”. But we are concerned that many of the provisions appear to be just piling costs upon ITP delivery without any consultation or rationale as to why they are necessary. Can the Minister explain why no such exercise has taken place and assure the Committee that meaningful consultations will take place before any new requirements for providers are introduced via regulations?
Under the proposals, any provider not on the approved list will not be granted funding agreements or be allowed to subcontract with another provider that is on the list, so this will not be an option going forward. Yet being on this list does not guarantee future financial sustainability, given that the Government admit that listing will have a “significant impact” on the costs of smaller providers because of the need to pay to join and the imposition of mandatory professional indemnity insurance, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in his Amendment 72.
If this is in response to concerns about provider failure, I too fail to see how enhanced liability insurance and more stringent entry registrations will have any impact or give protection to learners. Meanwhile, it risks destabilising the entire ITP sector at a time when the economy desperately needs more skilled staff as we emerge from the pandemic and as the effects of Brexit on the labour market are felt.
The Association of Employment and Learning Providers has also raised concerns about the practicality of this indemnity requirement, given that it is not aware that the insurance product that the Government may have in mind actually exists, despite such a requirement being written into primary legislation. I hope the Minister is able to address this in her response.
There is also understandable concern in the sector that increasing costs may be a backdoor way to reduce the number of ITPs in the market. Can the Minister confirm whether this is indeed the Government’s intention? If it is, I am concerned that such a policy could backfire spectacularly and have significant adverse consequences for learners and communities.
ITPs deliver three-quarters of all apprenticeship, traineeship and adult education budget programmes. While many are small, they provide crucial and valuable opportunities and bring much-needed responsiveness, innovation and competition to the skills training marketplace. Many ITPs are either specialist providers or serve areas out of easy reach of a local college—indeed, there are 1,186 towns but only 170 FE colleges in England. Does the Minister recognise that ITPs are very good at reaching out to small businesses in small towns and rural areas which do not have a local college, including the Chancellor’s Yorkshire constituency and some red wall areas? Does she agree that they have a major contribution to make to the Government’s levelling-up agenda?
I hope the Minister can provide some clarity on these issues and assure the House that independent training providers will be able to continue to provide value opportunities, which will be crucial to the country’s post-pandemic recovery.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the agreement in principle that a list of independent training providers is a requirement, as I believe it was suggested in this House in previous legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is correct: the core focus of the list is to protect learners and reduce the significant disruption to learners that provider failure can cause. We value highly the role of relevant providers, including independent training providers and in particular those small providers noble Lords have mentioned. We are not unduly negative at all about their role in providing a diverse and innovative learning offer. They provide a great deal of variety to many learners.
The provisions in Clause 18(7) include a requirement for a provider to have insurance for examples of conditions that may be specified in regulations that providers must meet in order to be on the list. In a similar way, subsection (10) gives examples of provisions that may be specified in regulations in connection with the keeping of the list, which would ultimately help deliver a well-functioning, transparent and fair scheme to all those involved.
We propose that the student support plans we envisage providers having will, subject to consultation—which I will mention further—follow the approach in the HE sector, where the Office for Students requires a statement of the level of risks to the continuation of study. We must remember this is study paid for by the taxpayer, and obviously it is in everybody’s interests that that course of study is completed.
I would like to allay the fears of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox: as the clauses require, we will consult on the conditions and provisions for being on the list, prior to making the first set of regulations, to help ensure that those conditions manage and mitigate the risk of disorderly exit. That consultation will allow us to fully take into account the views of those affected by the scheme, particularly the small providers noble Lords have outlined.
I turn to the specifics of the amendments. Amendment 72 is intended to ensure relevant providers will not be subject to further costs relating to obtaining insurance cover. The introduction of insurance, or an equivalent, may be useful in preventing or mitigating the risk of provider failure and assist with learner transfers at that point. If we were to introduce a condition in relation to insurance, the aim would be for learners to benefit from greater continuity of provision. Clause 18(9) allows different conditions to be applied for different descriptions of providers. It is not one size fits all. This would ensure that, where appropriate, we could make the scheme as flexible as possible.
Amendment 74 is intended to probe how the charging of fees in connection with entries on the list will be regulated. It is reasonable to expect that some fees may be necessary to recover the costs—I emphasise “costs”—of administering the list. It is important that we retain the ability to introduce fees if they are deemed necessary to run an effective and fiscally responsible scheme. I can, however, offer an assurance that this would be the sole purpose of any fees. They would be set to a reasonable level, with reasonable notice and with consideration of the impact on providers of all sizes. There would be no intention to make a profit at the expense of providers.
Regulations to create the list are subject to the affirmative procedure, so there will be further opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of any conditions or provisions specified. This includes regulations relating to any requirements for providers to have insurance or an equivalent, if proposed in the regulations following consultation, as well as any requirement to charge fees. If regulations setting out the basis for charging fees were to change again in the future, those amending regulations would also be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I therefore hope the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will feel comfortable in withdrawing his amendment and that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, will not feel the need to move her amendment when it is reached.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who made some good points, very strongly. I entirely agreed with her.
Despite the Minister’s hope, I am rather less comfortable with her response. This is going to have a very big impact, particularly on the smaller ITPs. The Minister talked about it being designed to avoid significant disruption to learners. What is this “significant disruption” and where are the examples? I have heard of two major cases, and a lot of others where nobody can produce any evidence at all, so I am not clear whether the problem being addressed justifies the scale of the sledgehammer being used to address it. I appreciate that the conditions in the Bill are examples, but the fact that they are there seems to make it very likely that they will turn up as conditions when the actual contracts get written. I would much rather see that left to the ESFA or the contracts, or whatever.
I think the Minister also mentioned that the approach was based on the higher education sector, but there is no comparison at all between a university and some of these small ITPs. It is just ludicrous to have the same sort of requirements placed on them as would be placed on a university. I very much hope that this consultation will be serious and deep, and taken great account of when it happens. I also hope that the fee will indeed be reasonable.
Before I withdraw my amendment, as the only Back-Bencher left standing I congratulate those on the Front Benches who remain in place, and particularly the two Ministers, on their efforts today, unhappy as I am with this final response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.