House of Commons
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
We have worked closely with the sector to ensure that international students will be supported and welcomed. Universities UK International has published bespoke self-isolation guidance for universities. The Government’s approach to the lifting of restrictions has been guided by data analysis and advice from public health and the scientific community.
Marion Fellows
The University of Stirling has offered international students who arrive from red-list countries free on-campus isolation accommodation that includes meals, polymerase chain reaction tests and airport transfers, saving the students more than £2,000. Given the huge economic benefits that international students bring to this country, will the Government consider financially supporting universities to replicate the good practice at Stirling?
Gavin Williamson
We work with the university sector throughout the United Kingdom to attract the highest-quality talent from around the globe to study at our universities. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out the important economic benefits that international students bring to the whole United Kingdom. We will continue to work closely with the sector to attract students, and with the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that their access to the UK is easy and properly supported.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my role as a governor of the Valley Leadership Academy. That school, among others in Rossendale and Darwen, sends lots of pupils to university to take vocational courses and to study for vocational qualifications. With that in mind, I thank the Secretary of State for the funding to rebuild two schools in Rossendale—Whitworth Community High School and All Saints’ Roman Catholic High School; will he also fund a new building at the Valley Leadership Academy for all the pupils who want to go on to vocational courses?
Gavin Williamson
I thought that if I gave my right hon. Friend two schools, it might shut him up, but he continues to ask for a third. I would love to make such a large promise for him at the Dispatch Box. I would be more than happy to sit down with him to discuss it and see what can be done. He is absolutely right about the value of technical education and how it delivers so much not only for youngsters themselves but for the economy.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Here we are in September and there is a certain sense of groundhog day, with campus chaos caused by the actions, or inaction, of the Government set to return. In November last year, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies published a report that showed that covid outbreaks on campus could be reduced through the provision of air-ventilation filters. The Welsh Labour Government have committed funding for such machines but the UK Government have not. According to a poll by Manor Interiors, the greatest concern among students returning to their accommodation is air ventilation, so why have the UK Government not provided funding to make campuses safe?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed quite a significant difference between this year and last year: we have rolled out one of the most successful vaccine programmes anywhere in Europe. We were one of the first countries to offer people not just one vaccine but two and to make sure that the adult population had that available. That is the big difference between this year and last year.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I hope that all our standards of dress meet your expectations, Mr Speaker.
It is good to be back, but in the previous academic year many of us were shocked to see the scenes of international students having to queue at a food bank in London because economic opportunities for them had dried up due to lockdown. What provision has the Secretary of State put in place to support international students should there be similar lockdowns during this academic year?
Gavin Williamson
May I say that you are brilliantly attired today, Mr Speaker, as you always are?
The hon. Lady asks an important question about international students. Such students have always had access to hardship funding, which is available to them as it is to domestic students.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
We are working to ensure that lawful freedom of speech is supported to the fullest extent, which is why the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill was introduced on 12 May. The Bill will strengthen existing freedom of speech duties and introduce clear consequences for breaches of the new duties.
Marco Longhi
Labour and the Lib Dems have described the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill as a distraction. Does my hon. Friend agree that the politicising of education, the tearing down of statues and the censorship of speakers who do not fit left-wing woke narratives are all completely indefensible, and that the protection of academic freedoms and freedom of speech in education settings should be a priority for us all?
Michelle Donelan
This Government believe that freedom of speech and academic freedom are a fundamental pillar of our higher education system and that protecting those principles should be a priority for our universities and never a distraction. That is why this Government have introduced a Bill to strengthen protections for free speech and academic freedom.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
We are supporting young people to ensure that they have the skills and the high-quality, secure and fulfilling employment through the plan for jobs package with £500 million of Department for Education funding. This includes the largest ever expansion of traineeships and an increased incentive payment of £3,000 for employers hiring apprentices.
Simon Jupp
Future skills and technical education are at the forefront of skills investment in East Devon following the Prime Minister’s visit to launch the lifetime skills guarantee. Exeter College has opened a groundbreaking future skills centre and has also launched a new Institute of Technology Digital and Data Centre. Does the Secretary of State agree that Devon must continue to diversify in education to improve skills and career opportunities to help provide a future for more young people in Devon?
Gavin Williamson
Having had the privilege of visiting Exeter College, I can say that, with its Institute of Technology, it is a brilliant example of how a college can expand its range of careers and opportunities for so many young people and ensure that they do not think that there is only one route, which is to go to university. My hon. Friend is right to highlight how important it is to have a broad range of opportunities, especially in the new and emerging technologies, which will be so vital in driving the economy forward in East Devon and the south-west.
Gary Sambrook
I recently spoke to staff and students on a visit to Construction College Midlands based at King’s Norton Business Park, which offers courses on scaffolding, roofing and road maintenance. Does the Minister agree that those skills are vital to our economy and that what he and his Department are doing will help people to gain these new skills and to change jobs mid-career if they want to do so?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend raises a key point about making sure that people can skill up throughout their career and have the opportunity to take different routes. So much of British industry has been crying out for certain types of skills, which they have sometimes had to look abroad for. What is so key is ensuring that we have those skills available not just for young people, but for all people so that we can meet those skills needs in this country.
Suzanne Webb
I am a great believer in the idea that a university education is not always the route to a high-quality job and that T-levels are a fantastic opportunity to provide not only the technical qualifications, but the industry placements, which are so important. Will my right hon. Friend support me in my drive and mission to encourage businesses in my constituency to come on board and provide those industry placements? It is a win-win situation not just for young adults, but for businesses because they can circumnavigate the recruitment process as they will have those candidates on board and can experience what they can deliver.
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend has identified the real opportunities that exist for businesses in working with young people and colleges and bringing them into their company. T-levels have been designed hand in glove with employers, making sure that they are not only fit for employers, but work for students as well. I join her in encouraging employers to take on placements for T-levels. We are seeing a big expansion this year and expect an even bigger expansion next year.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Scotland has the highest proportion of school leavers going into positive destinations anywhere in the UK. Free tuition in schools, colleges and universities saves Scottish students up to £27,000. Given that fees will be imposed on English students seeking vocational courses, can the Minister detail what assessment has been carried out on the impact of fees for vocational courses in England?
Gavin Williamson
We are working across the sector to ensure that there is an ever-expanded offer of higher technical qualifications. The lifetime skills guarantee has been introduced and has already had excellent take-up, which means that if people have missed a level 3 qualification, they have the opportunity later in life to take one completely free of charge in order to boost their future employment and earnings potential.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he is doing on skills and for the Government’s excellent holiday activities programme over the summer. The attainment gap between boys and girls is widening, with 62.3% of boys receiving A to C grades at GCSE, but 74% of girls receiving the same results. What is he going to do to ensure that boys are not left behind, including in the jobs market?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend and I are very much united in the same mission: to ensure that youngsters from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds are given every possible advantage to be able to do the very best in their life. There is a concern about the widening gap between boys and girls, which is why all the interventions regarding standards and small group tutoring are about driving up attainment and achievement. Some of the initiatives that we have introduced—such as the summer schools in which half a million students have taken part over the last few weeks and the tutoring programme—have started to have an impact, but I recognise that there is so much more to do. That is why we are absolutely committed to deliver on this.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Ensuring fairness is at the core of every decision that we have made regarding exams in 2022. Together with Ofqual, we have consulted on adaptations to GCSE and A-level exams in 2022, so that they take account of the disruption to pupils’ education. The consultation on the details of those adaptations was launched on 12 July and closed on 1 August. We plan to announce decisions shortly.
Sam Tarry
I wonder whether the Secretary of State and the Minister could aim higher in their grades next year. Last year we saw U-turns, not just on teacher assessments, but on the broken algorithm. Residents and teachers in Ilford South would really like some assurances in the year ahead that instead of dithering and delaying—like almost every other decision over the last 18 months—we will actually get clarity from the Education Secretary and his team, and that they will learn from their mistakes and provide a contingency plan in case exams cannot go ahead as normal in 2022.
Nick Gibb
It is, of course, our intention that exams will go ahead in 2022. They are the fairest method of assessing young people. As I have said, we have already announced the details of adaptations to those exams to ensure that they are fair. We are also working with Ofqual, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, on contingency plans in case it does not prove possible for exams to go ahead safely or fairly, and those plans will be published shortly.[Official Report, 14 September 2021, Vol. 700, c. 7MC.]
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Since the Government took over, the gap between state school and private school attainment has grown to a record degree. It is also growing at record speed. Is this the legacy that the Minister is proud of? If not, what is he going to do about it?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Gentleman ought to look at the record of the last Labour Government. The gap was narrowing throughout the years—
Nick Gibb
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will tell him our record. Under this Government, the gap between the independent sector and the state sector in terms of top grades for A-levels narrowed from 2009-10 to 2018, from 27 percentage points to 21 percentage points. If we go back further and look at the proportion of three grade As and A*s attained at A-level in independent schools versus the proportion achieving those grades in state schools, the gap widened under the last Labour Government, rising by 13 percentage points between 1994 and 2009. The gap was at its maximum in 2009, at 22.1 percentage points, before steadily declining by 15.8 percentage points by 2018-19.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Given the disparity between the predicted A-level grades awarded by state and private sector schools this year, does the Minister agree that in order to create a level playing field for all students, A-level exams should be marked and grades awarded before they apply to university? Do the Government remain committed to that policy?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are committed, as a Government, to looking at post-qualification applications to university to address the very real issues that he raises.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Whether in examinations or any other element of the education system, funding is crucial. Haringey borough has lost £690,720 of its pupil premium. When are the Government going to put that right?
Nick Gibb
The pupil premium this academic year will be £2.5 billion, up from £2.4 billion last year. This Government introduced the pupil premium because we are committed to ensuring that a child’s background should not reflect their outcomes in their education.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Institute for Government has estimated that it will take about three years for the dust around grade inflation to settle. Will my right hon. Friend tell us when the chair of Ofqual will outline a plan to tackle that; and will he please squash the ridiculous rumours about an A** or grade 10 being brought in?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I can assure him that there will be no change to the grading system for 2022 but we are looking at the longer-term issue about grading in GCSEs and A-levels.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Employers are facing skills shortages that we must act to address. It is vital in a fast-moving and high-tech economy that technical education closes the gap between what people study and the needs of employers. Our plans for reform of level 3 qualifications were published on 14 July. We will continue to fund high-quality qualifications that can be taken alongside—or as alternatives to—T-levels and A-levels where there is a clear need for skills and knowledge that T-levels and A-levels cannot provide. Those may include some Pearson BTECs, provided that they meet new quality criteria for funding approval.
Dame Diana Johnson
The DFE’s own impact assessment says that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds will lose most from scrapping BTEC funding, and that does not fit with what the Government talk about in their levelling-up agenda. Wyke Sixth Form College in Hull North, under the excellent leadership of Paul Britton, currently offers vocational BTECs in areas such as engineering, IT, computing, and health and social care—all highly relevant to our economic needs now. Given the growing problem of skills and labour shortages that the Minister has referred to, is not scrapping BTEC funding, with no tried and tested replacement, both damaging and short-sighted?
Gillian Keegan
We are not scrapping BTEC funding; we are upgrading our level 3 qualification offer to make sure that it keeps in line with the needs of today’s economy. T-levels were in design for many years. They were designed with 250 leading employers who said that the qualifications needed to be upgraded to keep up. Poor-quality qualifications benefit nobody, least of all those who are disadvantaged. All our qualifications will be high-quality and we will make sure that they offer clear progression routes into the workforce or into higher education.
Judith Cummins
Where learners over the age of 19 are returning to study, the removal of BTEC funding will mean that only those following an academic pathway will have the option to return to study or to skilled employment. How is removing learners’ options to progress to level 3 qualifications and to higher education or employment compatible with the lifetime skills guarantee offer? Can that be right?
Gillian Keegan
To be clear, the level 3 offer will also include T-levels; we are also considering access to those to a broader group. The lifetime skills guarantee is a level 3 offer specifically focused on adults that was introduced in April this year in more than 400 courses, all of which address a skills shortage. We are trying to make sure that when people put their time, and sometimes their own money, into study, it offers value to them and to the workplace. That is what is behind our level 3 qualifications review.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the outstanding work done by Lackham College in Chippenham—the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities—with regard to land-based training, agriculture, horses and animal handling, must be recognised in every possible way, and that many of these people deserve a BTEC? Will she also give some further thought to the question of how they fund resits, which at the moment are entirely unfunded?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) and I went to visit Lackham very recently and were delighted to see its investment in agritech facilities, which are groundbreaking and world class. It will mean that young people in that area will have the opportunity to study the very latest technology and techniques that will be required for our agriculture industry. In addition, there will also be a land management and agriculture T-level, which has been designed with the industry sector to make sure that many people across the country get the opportunity to study at that level with that investment.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Some 230,000 students have just studied BTEC level 3 qualifications. For the Minister to stand there, as she just has, and dismiss those qualifications as poor quality will disgust those students and many of the people who have supported them. The Minister suggests she has widespread support, but 86% of respondents to the Department for Education’s own consultation disagreed with the Government’s plan to scrap funding for qualifications that overlapped with T-levels. Even the former Conservative Education Secretary, Lord Baker described it as
“an act of educational vandalism.”
Why are the Government intent on removing the ladder of opportunity from so many students, particularly those from the most deprived communities, when there is such widespread opposition to this move?
Gillian Keegan
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would definitely not dismiss the BTEC qualification or its quality, and the reason I would not is that I am one of the very few people in this place who has taken a BTEC as part of their apprenticeship. I very much appreciated my BTEC as part of my apprenticeship, as I did my other qualifications.
T-levels are unashamedly rigorous. They are high-quality qualifications, and there is no point giving access to qualifications that are out of date and have not kept up with the requirements of the workforce. The skills gap between what our employers need and what young people study should not be there. This is an employer-led system. I will tell the House what is a tragedy—a tragedy is having young people not able to get on in the workplace because they have spent two or three years studying something that does not offer the value that employers need in this high-tech economy.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
As of 1 May, the borough of Bedford had nearly 18,000 state-funded primary school places and more than 14,000 state-funded secondary school places. Central Bedfordshire had more than 23,000 state-funded primary school places and nearly 25,000 state-funded secondary school places.
Richard Fuller
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the continuous funding support for Bedford borough and Central Bedfordshire, but he will be aware, given the emergency funding provided by the Government for Raynsford Academy so that it could convert to a primary starting in September, the issues around Langford village and parents not being able to get into the local school and the desperate need for a two-form entry in Sharnbook, that population growth in North East Bedfordshire, which is five times the average of that of all Members’ constituencies, puts continual pressure on school places. Will he and his Department work closely with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that we fully implement our commitment to infrastructure first?
Nick Gibb
Yes, of course. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss these issues in more detail. He will know that since 2010, we have seen an additional 8,300 primary school places in the borough of Bedford and an increase of 5,800 in primary school places in Central Bedfordshire. We have allocated £12.7 million just this coming year to provide new school places needed for 2023. That takes total funding to Central Bedfordshire for new school places between 2011 and 2023 to £105.3 million, but I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss future plans further.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
We have announced plans to work alongside music industry experts to develop a refreshed national plan for music education. This is aimed at shaping the future of music education and follows the publication of the non-statutory “Model Music Curriculum: Key Stages 1, 2 and 3” earlier this year. The curriculum is designed to ensure that children are introduced to a wide repertoire of music, as well as learning to read and write musical notation and being given knowledge about the important moments in the evolution of music in a range of genres and traditions.
Sir Robert Neill
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to refreshing the national music plan because, as I hope he recognises, music education is central to any civilised society and should not be regarded as an add-on or a nice-to-have. He will share my concern that in the 10-year currency of the previous plan, the number of pupils sitting GCSE music declined by 19%. Organisations such as the Bromley Youth Music Trust in my constituency do a great deal of excellent work outside school time, but will he assure me that the plan’s key objective will be to ensure that music education remains firmly mainstreamed within the curriculum and is not simply an add-on at unreasonable cost to parents?
Nick Gibb
I share my hon. Friend’s passion for music. It is important that music is part of a broad and balanced education in our schools. That is why it is compulsory at key stages 1, 2 and 3. We introduced the model music curriculum so that children have a good grounding that encourages them to go on to take music at GCSE. Over the past decade or longer, about 5% to 7 % of the cohort have taken a music GCSE. I would like to see that figure rise, and that is why we introduced the model music curriculum and are refreshing the national plan for music education.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Does the Minister understand that music should be not just taught as music but used to teach a whole range of other subjects? Let me take him back to the previous Labour Government, when I attended Egerton Park Arts College in my constituency as a governor and saw the Manchester Camerata perform a maths lesson using its orchestra instruments. It was absolutely mind-blowing. Do we not need more of that? Why did he scrap arts college specialist status?
Nick Gibb
I agree that music is an important part of a broad and balanced curriculum. We know there is a link between children who can play a musical instrument and, for instance, mathematics. We see that in schools such as Northampton School for Boys, which is very successful academically and also has more than 20 choirs, ensembles and orchestras, because it puts music at the very top of its priorities as well as sports. I accept everything that the hon. Member says about the importance of music in the school curriculum.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
The greatest disparity in educational attainment is due to levels of advantage and special educational needs. The Government have therefore focused on raising standards for all pupils but especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our education policies target extra funding through the £2.5 billion we will put into the pupil premium this year alongside the funding we put into high needs, rather than targeting by gender or ethnicity.
Nick Fletcher
Research produced by the all-party parliamentary group on issues affecting men and boys highlights how boys are reading far less than girls, especially in disadvantaged areas, and consequently have lower literacy skills. Does my hon. Friend agree that that disparity needs to be addressed? Will her Department consider running a campaign to encourage more parents to read with young boys to address the disparity?
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the benefits of early reading for a child’s later learning. I know how much he has enjoyed reading with his son. In England, we achieved the highest ever score in reading at primary level in the most recent progress in international reading literacy study, with that improvement largely attributable to the increases in the average performance of boys as well as lower performing pupils. He might like to look at the Hungry Little Minds website, which gives advice to parents on supporting early literacy. I am delighted that two thirds of mainstream primary schools have signed up to deliver the Nuffield early language intervention that is supporting our youngest children in reception with their speech, literacy and language development.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The education of girls is vital for a fuller society. Media reports, however, detail how educated Afghan women are burning their degrees, wiping their social media accounts and concealing their identities in the hope that the Taliban will not find them and seek retribution for their gaining an education. What discussions has the Department had with the Foreign Secretary to fund schemes in Afghanistan that will enable girls to continue their education?
Mr Speaker
Order. Just for the record, can we try to make supplementaries relevant to the question? I think the Minister is going to answer it.
Vicky Ford
The situation in Afghanistan, especially for girls and women, is extremely worrying; the Prime Minister is due to make a statement immediately after these proceedings. We are working really hard to resettle Afghan families for the children who have arrived in the UK. About half of those who arrived through the evacuation recently are children, and half of those children are pre-school and primary school-aged children. We are putting an extra £12 million into extra education funding to try to make sure that those children can get into schools, colleges and early years settings as soon as possible.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
As set out in the skills for jobs White Paper, we are implementing an ambitious reform programme. We are already offering free level 3 qualifications, skills boot camps and, from 2025, a lifelong loan entitlement that will ensure everyone can upskill to get great jobs in sectors that the economy needs.
Dr Mullan
South Cheshire College in my constituency has put forward ambitious employer-led plans to become an institute of technology, which will help address the employer skills gaps we have locally. That will deliver levelling up for not just Crewe and Nantwich, but the whole region. Can I encourage the Secretary of State to give his full support to its ambitious plans to become an institute of technology?
Gavin Williamson
South Cheshire College, along with many colleges up and down the country, has demonstrated the real value and worth that further education can deliver, working in conjunction with the higher education sector. I am afraid I cannot be drawn into an early awarding announcement, but we recognise the real importance of such colleges and the obvious success that the early, first-wave institutes of technology are already having in the communities they serve.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
T-levels are a fantastic new qualification, designed with leading employers to provide students with the best possible introduction to the world of work. We have provided a comprehensive package of support and investment to help trailblazing providers get ready to deliver. For example, we have made a total of £268 million in capital funding available for T-levels starting in 2020, 2021 and 2022, with £50 million-worth of projects having already been approved for providers delivering from this September and another £50 million-worth of projects for providers delivering from 2022. Additional revenue of £500 million per year will fund the extra T-level hours available, once fully rolled out, and we have also invested £23 million in T-level professional development to help teachers and leaders prepare for the delivery of T-levels.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I thank the Minister for her answer. I am proud that Truro and Penwith College in my constituency has been one of the first colleges to embrace the roll-out of the T-level courses. However, despite the successes of the first year, there is a need for greater flexibility—for example, with the 45 days of work placements in a part of the county where there is currently insufficient industry. Will the Minister agree to meet me and Martin Tucker, the principal of Truro and Penwith, to discuss how we can address that for the future?
Gillian Keegan
We are very grateful to Truro and Penwith College and all the trailblazing colleges that have pioneered T-levels. They launched T-levels in the middle of a global pandemic, and they have done an amazing job in getting the new qualifications launched. We have been implementing flexible models and approaches to make sure that we can deliver the work placements and that they are deliverable across all industries. Through the capacity and delivery fund, we have allocated nearly £165 million to providers to help them establish the infrastructure and resources they need to deliver industry placements. This will be a culture change: our businesses need to work with our education sector as well as the education sector working with businesses. We have also put in place a £1,000 per place incentive. Of course, I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
We are focused on levelling up opportunity for young people. A-level provision will benefit from recent increases in 16 to 19 funding of almost 10% per student in the 2020-21 allocation. Furthermore, our Opportunity North East and opportunity areas programmes are investing in improving outcomes for young people in many parts of the north.
Damien Moore
I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. A number of schools in my constituency are concerned about the increased number of parents electing to home-school their children. Can I ask my right hon. Friend how he intends to encourage those children back into the classroom, and what resources will be available to close the gap at A-level attainment between the north and south?
Nick Gibb
Many parents who educate their children at home do so extremely well, but in some cases children are not provided with a suitable education and we have provided support to help local authorities’ engagement with parents who have recently decided to home-educate. We also remain committed to a registration system for children not in school.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
We saw success this year for young people from all types of school who were aiming for top grades. Every year there are variations between types of school; as I said earlier, before the pandemic we were closing attainment gaps and we will redouble our efforts through our catch-up plans and broader work to level up.
Gill Furniss
On this Government’s watch the attainment gap between the richest and poorest students has rocketed. Since 2019 alone, GCSE students on free school meals have fallen behind their peers by almost a third. This adversely affects pupils in my constituency of Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, who are significantly more likely to receive free school meals. When will the Minister ditch this empty rhetoric and step up to the plate to resolve the fundamental underlying issues?
Nick Gibb
We totally understand the challenges many young people have faced during the pandemic. Up until the pandemic we had closed the attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their peers by 13% in primary school and 9% in secondary school, and the hon. Lady ought to look back at the Labour record we inherited in 2010. We accept, however, the challenges faced by young people during the pandemic, which is why we are committing £3 billion to catch-up funding and introducing a tuition revolution with 100 million hours of small group tuition for young people, because this Government will do everything we can to ensure that children can catch up from any lost education they have suffered during the pandemic.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
Higher education providers should complete suitable and sufficient assessments of the risk of covid-19 and identify measures to manage those risks, including ensuring adequate ventilation based on our comprehensive guidance. As autonomous institutions, it is for providers to put in place their plans based on individual circumstances, including allocating their own budgets.
Christine Jardine
Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments, there are still huge gaps in what needs to be done to provide a safe learning environment for students up and down the country. Students, including many from my Edinburgh West constituency, have already had two academic years disrupted and proper ventilation will be vital to preventing a third, so will the Minister make a commitment here and now that if the schools test pilot currently under way proves successful, it will also be rolled out in our universities?
Michelle Donelan
The hon. Member talks of Edinburgh university but I am sure she will understand that education is in fact devolved. She also refers to the CO2 monitoring devices that are being allocated this term to schools; however, technical limitations mean that CO2 monitors are likely to be unsuitable for many spaces in universities, particularly those with high ceilings.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
As previously mentioned, T-levels are the new gold standard that have been designed in collaboration with leading employers—250 of them—and our further education reform White Paper and Bill that will be coming before this place are focused on trying to put employers at the centre of our system, to make sure the skills people get give them real currency in the labour market and are backed up by significant funding. I have been lucky enough to visit many providers and speak to many students, and these qualifications are game-changing; the offer is unbelievable and I urge all Members to go out and meet their T-level students and encourage colleges in their area to offer them to students.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the Minister for that answer. The Careers & Enterprise Company has excellent potential to connect employers with schools but few businesses, large and small, I speak to in Thirsk and Malton have engaged with it and some have not even heard of it. What more can we do to raise awareness of it to make sure young people leave school with the skills that businesses need?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Awareness is often one of the challenges of Government and it is why careers are a key pillar of our Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. We are investing over £100 million in financial year 2021-22 to help young people and adults get high-quality careers provision. This includes funding for the Careers & Enterprise Company to roll out its enterprise adviser network, on which there has been excellent feedback with more than 94% reporting that they are happy with it. Schools, colleges and businesses will be working ever more together; over 3,000 business professionals are already working as enterprise advisers, but I urge any businesses that have not yet signed up to get involved. If they want to build their talent pipeline, that is the place to start. I also urge all Members to encourage businesses to get involved.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Literacy and numeracy, digital and life skills are essential for young people to succeed at work, but progress on closing the attainment gap has stalled—indeed, it has gone into reverse—so will the Minister say exactly what steps the Government are taking to ensure that all children reach their full potential?
Gillian Keegan
Obviously it is vital. There has been much disruption during the pandemic. The first thing is to ensure that all children are back in school and able to stay in school and enjoy all their lessons. All of us will have been to schools and seen the joy in children as they go back to where they belong.
In addition, as the Minister for School Standards has made clear, up until the pandemic the attainment gap was closing; it had narrowed by 13% at the age of 11, and by 9% at the age of 16. Of course, the pandemic has had implications. That is why we have put forward a considerable long-term plan to help recovery in our schools, and every school will be working on that in the next year or two, but we are always focused on the most disadvantaged children and on making sure that we narrow that attainment gap after the terrible record of the last Labour Government.
Kate Green
But today’s Institute for Fiscal Studies report shows that two in five children did not even get minimum learning time during covid school closures, half a million left school this summer having received no catch-up support whatsoever, and the Government are funding just 10% of what Sir Kevan Collins says is needed for recovery. Will the Government finally adopt Labour’s children’s recovery plan? When we say we will invest in the skills young people and employers need, we really mean it.
Gillian Keegan
We set minimum requirements for all schools for what was required in terms of lessons, and of course we provided extra support, with BBC Bitesize, the Oak National Academy, additional devices—all the support we could. Clearly, it took a bit of time, because we were responding to a pandemic. However, it is clear that under the education recovery fund, which will remain under review, we have millions and millions of student tuition hours still to be taken. Many students are signing up for it; many of them will be receiving that additional support right now in classrooms. However, this is not a short-term solution; there will be longer-term answers.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
I would like to update the House on what my Department is doing to support the successful return to education. We remain committed to reducing disruption to children and young people’s education, allowing schools and colleges to deliver face-to-face learning. Schools are maintaining proportionate protective measures such as testing, ventilation and extra hygiene to keep pupils and staff safe. On-site testing will be offered as students return, followed by regular at-home testing. Students aged 16 and 17, as well as younger children aged 12 to 15 in eligible groups, are encouraged to take up the offer of the vaccine.
Andrew Gwynne
Russell Scott Primary School in Denton had an extensive £2.7 million refurbishment a few years back. Unfortunately, the work was done by Carillion just before it went bump. Some £670,000 has been spent patching the structural problems caused by its works, but another £5 million is needed, and even then, Tameside Council is not convinced that the building will be fixed. This is serious, so may I ask the Secretary of State for an urgent meeting to look at how we can help Russell Scott give the children there the very best education in the very best buildings?
Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of Russell Scott Primary School. I know that my noble Friend Baroness Berridge would be very happy to meet him and other representatives to discuss in detail some of the challenges that the school is facing.
Mr Speaker
I just remind everybody that we need brief and punchy questions. I call Jason McCartney to set a great example.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
I would be absolutely delighted to meet my hon. Friend and colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on sixth-form education. He will no doubt be aware that we have already been putting extra resources into 16-to-19 education. An additional £400 million was awarded in 2019. We recognise that it is important to invest in the quality of estate, which is why we are putting £1.5 billion into upgrading that estate.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Earlier this year, in June, I stood at this Dispatch Box and confronted the Minister about the number of nurseries and childcare providers that were closing because of the Government’s inability to fund the early years sector properly. The Minister accused me of scaremongering. Since June, there has been a further loss of 500 childcare providers in the sector, which brings the net loss for this year alone to nearly 3,000. Will the Minister make up for dismissing the concerns of parents, children and carers by providing targeted funding for the early years sector from this Government?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
The Ofsted data from March shows a 4% dip in the number of childcare providers since 31 August, which is a fall largely driven by childminders and carers, not nursery settings. Sufficiency is the key measure and we have not had any reports of sufficiency issues in early years settings since they reopened in June 2020. We put £3.5 billion into our early years entitlements because we care about childcare.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
The Turing scheme has exceeded expectations, with 40,000 placements across 150 locations. Ministers met Scottish journalists and education providers when applications opened. A total of 28 Scottish institutions have successfully applied for over £7.8 million in funding.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Council for At-Risk Academics has called on the UK Government to set up a fellowship scheme for scholars at risk in Afghanistan similar to the PAUSE scheme in France. Will the Secretary of State consider implementing such a scheme?
Gavin Williamson
I think we all recognise the amazing work that academics and teachers did in Afghanistan, doing so much to support education there. We would certainly look very closely at all options to support people who are most vulnerable as a result of the Taliban regime.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that we will be reviewing the need for children to be doing home testing at the end of September. If there is not a requirement to do that, we will be looking at removing it. It is important that we continue to keep these matters under review. That is why we will be doing so at the end of this month.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Vicky Ford
We have increased the high needs budget by a record £2.3 billion, which is over a third over the past three years. We are also making good progress with the special educational needs and disability review, which has inevitably been a bit frustrated by the pandemic and changed the issues we are looking at, but we absolutely want all pupils to have access to the education they deserve. That is why our recovery funding has also been extra tilted towards those in specialist settings.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
We have seen a real revolution in maths over the last 10 years, with maths being the most popular subject to take at A-level. This has been supported not just by changes in the curriculum, in terms of how people are learning maths, but by the introduction of new specialist maths schools that are making sure that young people have the opportunity to excel in mathematics, which is so vital.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Michelle Donelan
I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member. I work very closely with my colleagues in the Home Office to assist them and make this as smooth as possible, as international students are vital to this country, not just economically, but culturally and for our society.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
It was incredibly moving to speak to Mark King and listen to his tragic experience of losing his son, Oliver—he was joined by Jamie Carragher as well. It really does focus us on the need to do as much as possible to encourage schools to have defibrillators. That is why we will look at changing the regulations, which are underpinned by secondary legislation, to ensure that all schools have defibrillators in the future and hopefully prevent such a tragedy visiting more families.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Vicky Ford
I absolutely agree that we need to have more for our young people to do, which is why it has been so brilliant over the summer to see our amazing holiday activities and food programme, which has given young people access to opportunities that they never had before and helped to give them confidence, build their wellbeing and close the attainment gap, as well as providing food. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member to find out more about what is happening in her constituency.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
It was great to visit the excellent Ilfracombe Church of England Junior School’s holiday activities and food programme, but this was one of only a handful of these programmes in my rural constituency. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that more students can access them in the future?
Vicky Ford
I thank all those hon. Members who visited their HAF programmes this summer. They had so much fun and I am delighted that participation was so high. It is the first time that we have ever had this type of project for our children. Local authorities are already setting out their plans for this Christmas. Let us make sure that we get to even more kids.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
We are committed to arts education. The proportion of those who are taking at least one GCSE in an arts subject has remained broadly stable over the past 10 years. We are also committed to very significant funding for arts and music projects, with £620 million over the past three years, including £79 million for the 119 music education hubs and £148 million for the music and dance scheme. We are very committed to the arts and to drama in our schools.[Official Report, 7 September 2021, Vol. 700, c. 2MC.]
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State kindly speak to the Secretary of State for the Home Department about getting visas for the 12 at-risk Afghan scholars—some still in hiding, some in Pakistan—who have been awarded sponsored places by high-quality British universities and who need the visas to take them up?
Gavin Williamson
I will most certainly undertake to do that. We have seen the education community in the United Kingdom coming together to support those who want to resettle from Afghanistan to this country; we also want to look at the opportunities for those brilliant, amazing people from Afghanistan and the part that they can play in our education system in the UK.
Afghanistan
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the situation in Afghanistan and our enduring effort to provide sanctuary for those to whom we owe so much.
Since the House last met, our armed forces, diplomats and civil servants have completed the biggest and fastest emergency evacuation in recent history, overcoming every possible challenge in the most harrowing conditions, bringing 15,000 people to safety in the UK and helping 36 other countries to airlift their own nationals. They faced the pressure of a remorseless deadline and witnessed a contemptible terrorist attack at the very gates of the airport, with two British nationals and 13 of our American allies among the dead. But they kept going, and in the space of a fortnight they evacuated our own nationals alongside Afghan friends of this country who guided, translated and served with our soldiers and officials, proving their courage and loyalty beyond doubt, sometimes in the heat of battle.
The whole House will join me in commending the courage and ingenuity of everyone involved in the Kabul airlift, one of the most spectacular operations in our country’s post-war military history. This feat exemplified the spirit of all 150,000 British servicemen and women who deployed in Afghanistan over the last two decades, of whom 457 laid down their lives and many others suffered trauma and injury. Thanks to their efforts, no terrorist attack against this country or any of our western allies has been launched from Afghanistan for 20 years. They fulfilled the first duty of the British armed forces: to keep our people safe. They and their families should take pride in everything they did.
Just as they kept us safe, so we shall do right by our veterans. In addition to the extra £3 million that we have invested in mental health support through NHS Op Courage, we are providing another £5 million to assist the military charities that do such magnificent work, with the aim of ensuring that no veteran’s request for help will go unanswered. The evacuation, Op Pitting, will now give way to Operation Warm Welcome, with an equal effort to help our Afghan friends to begin their new lives here in the United Kingdom, and recognising the strength of feeling across the House about the plight of individual Afghans.
Years before this episode, we began to fulfil our obligation to those Afghans who had helped us, bringing 1,400 to the UK. Then, in April this year, we expanded our efforts by opening the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. Even before the onset of Operation Pitting, we had brought around 2,000 to the UK between June and August—and our obligation lives on. Let me say to anyone to whom we have made commitments and who is currently in Afghanistan: we are working urgently with our friends in the region to secure safe passage and, as soon as routes are available, we will do everything possible to help you to reach safety.
Over and above this effort, the UK is formally launching a separate resettlement programme, providing a safe and legal route for up to 20,000 Afghans in the region over the coming years, with 5,000 in the first year. We are upholding Britain’s finest tradition of welcoming those in need. I emphasise that under this scheme we will of course work with the United Nations and aid agencies to identify those whom we should help, as we have done in respect of those who fled the war in Syria, but we will also include Afghans who have contributed to civil society or who face a particular risk from the Taliban, for example because of their role in standing up for democracy and human rights or because of their gender, sexuality or religion. All who come to our country through this safe and legal route will receive not a five-year visa, but indefinite leave to remain.
Our support will include free English courses for adults, and 300 university scholarships. We will shortly be writing to local authorities and the devolved Administrations with details of funding for extra school places and long-term accommodation across the UK. I am grateful for everything that they are doing, and, of course, for the work of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is the Minister for Afghan resettlement. I am delighted—but not surprised—that across our country, people have been fundraising for our Afghan friends, and we have received numerous offers of help from charities and ordinary families alike. Anyone who wishes to join that effort can do so through gov.uk.
Our first duty is the security of the United Kingdom, and if the new regime in Kabul wants international recognition and access to the billions of dollars currently frozen in overseas accounts, we and our friends will hold them to their agreement to prevent Afghanistan from ever again becoming an incubator for terrorism. We will insist on safe passage for anyone who wishes to leave, and respect for the rights of women and girls. Our aim is to rally the strongest international consensus behind those principles, so that as far as possible the world speaks to the Taliban with one voice. To that end, I called an emergency meeting of the G7 leaders which made these aims the basis of our common approach, and the UK helped to secure a UN Resolution, passed by the Security Council last week, making the same demands. Later this month, at the UN General Assembly in New York, I will work with UN Secretary-General Guterres and other leaders to widen that consensus still further. We will judge the Taliban by their actions, not their words, and will use every economic, political and diplomatic lever to protect our own countries from harm and to help the Afghan people. We have already doubled the UK’s humanitarian and development assistance to £286 million this year, including funds to help people in the region.
On Saturday, we shall mark the 20th anniversary of the reason why we went into Afghanistan in the first place: the terrorist attacks on the United States which claimed 2,977 lives, including those of 67 Britons. If anyone is still tempted to say that we have achieved nothing in that country in 20 years, tell them that our armed forces and those of our allies enabled 3.6 million girls to go to school; tell them that this country and the western world were protected from al-Qaeda in Afghanistan throughout that period; and tell them that we have just mounted the biggest humanitarian airlift in recent history. Eight times, the Royal Air Force rescued more than 400 people on board a single plane—the most who have ever travelled on an RAF aircraft in its 103-year history—helping thousands of people in fear for their lives, helping thousands to whom this country owes so much, and thereby revealing the fundamental values of the United Kingdom.
There are very few countries that have the military capability to do what we have just done, and fewer still who would have felt the moral imperative to act in the same way. We can be proud of our armed forces for everything they have achieved, and for the legacy they leave behind. What they did was in the best traditions of this country. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of his statement.
The heroes on the ground in Operation Pitting are the best of us: the ambassador stayed to process every case that he could, paratroopers lifted people from the crush, Afghan soldiers continued to serve alongside us to the end, and thousands of others risked their lives to help others to escape. They faced deadly violence and deliberately-engineered chaos with courage, calm and determination. Thanks to their remarkable efforts, thousands were evacuated, British nationals have returned safely to their families and Afghan friends are starting a new life here in Britain. Speaking directly to those who served in Operation Pitting, I say thank you: your service deserves recognition and honour and I hope that the Prime Minister will accept Labour’s proposal to scrap the 30-day continuous service rule so that medals can be awarded for your bravery.
The entire Army, our armed forces and veterans deserve proper support for mental health. The new funding announced today is welcome, but it is unlikely to be enough. Previous funding was described as “scandalous” by the Select Committee, and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is still being cut. All those involved deserved political leadership equal to their service, but they were let down. They were let down on strategy. The Prime Minister underestimated the strength of the Taliban. Despite intelligence warnings that “rapid Taliban advances” could lead to the collapse of the Afghan security forces, a return to power of the Taliban and our embassy shutting down amid reduced security, the Government continued to act on the assumption that there was no path to military victory for the Taliban. Complacent and wrong.
Those involved were also let down by a lack of planning. Eighteen months passed between the Doha agreement and the fall of Kabul, yet as the Prime Minister now concedes, only 2,000 of the 8,000 people eligible for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy—ARAP—scheme have been brought to Britain. A strategic review was published to much fanfare, but it did not mention the Taliban, NATO withdrawal or the Doha agreement. And the Prime Minister convened a G7 meeting on Afghanistan only after Kabul was lost.
Because of this lack of leadership, the Government have left behind many to whom we owe so much. In the last few weeks, MPs have had thousands of desperate calls from people trying to get to safety. Many remain in danger, including the Afghan guards who protected the British embassy. In my constituency—I am not alone; Members across the House will have had this—cases involve Afghans who applied for the ARAP scheme weeks and sometimes months ago and who were clearly eligible but were not processed quickly enough by this Government and did not make it to the planes. The stress levels for them and their families, and for all our teams and caseworkers, has been palpable in the last few weeks and months. A familiar and desperate story to many on both sides of the House.
The Government do not even know how many UK nationals and Afghans eligible under the ARAP scheme have been left behind to the cruelty of the Taliban. A national disgrace. Even if they could identify who they had left behind, the Government do not have a plan to get everybody out. Kabul airport remains closed to international flights, safe passage has not been created to Afghanistan’s neighbours and, whatever the Prime Minister says today, there is no international agreement on the resettlement of Afghan refugees. We have a Prime Minister incapable of international leadership, just when we need it most. [Interruption.] I know that that is uncomfortable. The terrible attacks from ISIS-K highlight the new security threat, and the Government must act quickly to co-ordinate international partners to ensure that the Afghan Government’s collapse does not lead to a vacuum for terrorists to fill. There is also a desperate need for humanitarian support. A return to 2019 levels of aid spending is necessary, and where is the plan to ensure that it does not fall into the wrong hands?
To those who have managed to escape Afghanistan and have arrived here in the UK, we say welcome: I know that you will give much to this country as you make it your new home. All you need is help and support. I am pleased that indefinite leave to remain will now be granted to all those who arrive by safe and legal routes. Local authorities across the country are trying to play their part, but they have been in the dark as to how many people they will be asked to support and what resources they will have to do so. We will look at the letter to which the Prime Minister referred and examine the details.
History will tell the tale of Operation Pitting as one of immense bravery. We are proud of all those who contributed. Their story is made even more remarkable by the fact that, while they were saving lives, our political leadership was missing in action.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not put many questions to me. He made the general assertion that the Government had not been focusing on Afghanistan but, as far as I can remember, he did not even bother to turn up to the first of my three statements on Afghanistan in the House this year—I do not know where he was—such was his instinct and such was his understanding of the importance of the issue.
Actually, the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s figures are quite wrong. Before April we helped 1,400 people to safety from Afghanistan and, under the ARAP scheme, between then and 14 August we helped a further 2,000. As he knows very well, between 14 and 28 August this country performed an absolutely astonishing feat, and of course we will do everything we can to help those who wish to have safe passage out of Afghanistan. That is why we will continue, with our international friends and partners, to apply whatever pressure we can on the Taliban, economic and diplomatic, to ensure they comply, as they have said they will.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman should, in all candour, acknowledge the immensity of the achievement of this country’s armed forces in, for months, planning and preparing for Operation Pitting and then, contrary to what he just said, extracting almost double the number they originally prepared to extract. It was a quite astonishing military and logistical feat.
One thing I welcome is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s congratulations to the armed forces for what they did.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Veterans and families, and indeed the wider public, are asking what it was all for. Afghanistan is back in the hands of a dictatorship, terrorism is once again allowed to thrive, the people of Afghanistan now face humanitarian disaster and, more worryingly, the limits of UK and western influence have been exposed. With America now adopting a more isolationist foreign policy, we have passed the high water mark of western liberalism that began after the second world war. This is a dangerous geopolitical turning point.
Does the Prime Minister agree there is now a void of leadership in the west and NATO? If Britain wants to fill that void, as we should, it will require a complete overhaul of Whitehall to upgrade our strategic thinking, our foreign policy output and our ability to lead.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend deserves to be listened to with great respect on Afghanistan. From his service, he understands these issues deeply, but I must tell him that people listening to this debate across the country could be forgiven for not recognising that this country ceased military operations in Afghanistan in 2014. What we are doing now is making sure that we work with our friends and partners around the world to prevent Afghanistan from relapsing into a breeding ground for terror, to make sure that we use all the levers that we can to ensure that the rights of women and girls are respected, and to make sure that everybody who wants safe passage out of Afghanistan is allowed it. That is what we are going to do, and we will continue to show leadership in the G7, the P5, NATO and all the other forums in which this country leads the west.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I thank all those who assisted in the evacuation from Afghanistan over the past few weeks? May I also thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of his statement? Normally we have a Cabinet Minister sent to the House to cover for the Prime Minister, but today we have before us the Prime Minister desperately trying to cover for a Foreign Secretary who should have been sacked weeks ago. In Committee last week, the Foreign Secretary failed to answer even basic questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). I genuinely hope that the Prime Minister is better prepared today.
There is barely an MP in this House who has not submitted urgent and sensitive information to the Foreign Office on UK and Afghan nationals desperate to find safe passage away from the Taliban. It is a disgrace that most of these urgent queries have been left unresolved and unanswered. It is a disgrace not for us, but for all those who have been left behind—UK and Afghan nationals who are now fearful and, in many cases, in hiding. Thousands of desperate people—people we have a debt of responsibility to—have been left with no clarity, no answers and no help. So let me ask the Prime Minister: what assessment has been made of the number of UK nationals left in Afghanistan, and what plans are there to assist them? How many Afghans who qualify under the ARAP scheme as interpreters or in other groups have been left behind? Will the Prime Minister apologise to those who have been left behind, left high and dry—those the UK has a responsibility to?
Last night, in correspondence from Lord Ahmad, the Government gave the excuse that delays in evacuating all those with rights were because the Foreign Office had received more correspondence than during covid. But there is a fundamental difference: no one knew that covid was coming. The Government had 18 months to prepare an exit strategy in Afghanistan. So can the Prime Minister give a firm deadline for when the massive backlog of applications will be processed and provide a new target date for when safe passage will be offered to those UK and Afghan citizens?
When Parliament was recalled, the Prime Minister publicly agreed to hold a four-nations summit on the UK’s responsibility to welcome refugees here. May I ask him to give us the date when that summit will take place? Finally, with all the talk of a Cabinet reshuffle, can the Prime Minister guarantee that the Foreign Secretary will finally be sacked in any reshuffle—or does he intend to reward incompetence?
The Prime Minister
I am always happy to meet representatives of the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations, of course.
The right hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions about the handling of requests from those still in Afghanistan and those who have been interceding on their behalf. I can tell him that by close of play today every single one of the emails from colleagues around this House will be answered—thousands and thousands have already been done. As for the question of how many ARAP candidates are remaining, I can tell him that the total number is 311, of whom 192 responded to the calls that were put out. I repeat that we will do absolutely everything we can to ensure that those people get the safe passage that they deserve, using the levers that I have described. But the contrast should be readily apparent to everybody in this country with the huge number—15,000 people—we were able to help just in the course of those few days in August. I think people will understand that it was a very considerable effort by our armed forces.
Mr Speaker
Just to help the House, let me say that we will be running this until around 4.45 pm. Not everybody is going to get in and people will be disappointed, but we are going to do our best, so let us help each other.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I join my right hon. Friend in commending all those involved with the Afghanistan airlift and all those of our armed forces who served in Afghanistan, 457 of whom, sadly, as we know, paid the ultimate sacrifice. We should all be proud of their achievements. Does he agree that as a result of NATO forces withdrawing from Afghanistan, the terrorist threat has increased? Will he confirm that all those involved in counter-terrorism work here in the UK will be given the necessary support to ensure that they can keep us safe?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. I know how much work she has done in her career to protect this country and to counter terrorism. As yet, we have no direct information on any increase in the threat, but I assure my right hon. Friend and the House that every effort will be made to make sure that our counter-terrorist agents have the resources they need to keep us safe.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I have received hundreds of emails about Afghanistan from constituents, and I have British national constituents—a husband and his pregnant wife—in Afghanistan. What discussions have the Government had with Afghanistan’s neighbours about keeping borders open for those at risk under the Taliban and supporting refugees?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that many colleagues in the House will ask similar questions. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been talking to the Government in Pakistan and other regional countries about what we can do to assist them, as I have described. As the hon. Lady knows, in addition to the ARAP programme we have the Afghan settlement programme, which will run up to 20,000 over the next few years.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
First, I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his increased funding for mental health care for veterans. I am sure he will keep that sum under review, in case it should need to rise.
Will the Prime Minister draw on the lesson that he has already learned from the appointment of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), as a single point of contact in the UK, and seek to have a single point of contact for those in Afghanistan who may need to access either the route to exit or support from Her Majesty’s Government?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend knows whereof he speaks. I have met people who have come from Afghanistan only recently who have helped us greatly in the past 20 years. As the House will understand, the key issues for them are where they are going to send their children to school and whether they can access the housing they need. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for what he is doing. My hon. Friend is quite right that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, is the single point of contact on which people should focus.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
We all saw the horrific carnage outside Kabul airport, where more than 180 people were killed. I join the Prime Minister in remembering all those victims, not least the two British nationals and the child of a British national. That airport atrocity was the work of the terrorist organisation ISIS-K. Everyone agrees that we must now work to prevent ISIS-K from becoming a threat to the British people, yet under this Prime Minister’s watch he has not only failed to agree a co-ordinated international strategy to take on ISIS-K but failed even to proscribe ISIS-K as a terrorist organisation, unlike other Five Eyes countries. Will the Prime Minister explain these failures on national security?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is in error. ISIS-K—ISIS Khorasan Province—is a subset of Daesh. It is part of Daesh. As he knows very well, one of the bitter ironies of the situation is that the Taliban themselves are no friends to ISIS-K, and whatever Government there is in Kabul will need help to fight them.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
We are proving our immense generosity by supporting those in dire need in Afghanistan with safe passage to the UK, but our ability to do so is strained by the continuing uncontrolled illegal migration across the English channel. What more can the Government do to prevent it?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right. The issue is that, very sadly, our friends across the channel in France are faced with a very difficult problem: large numbers of people who want to come to this country. We are doing everything we can to encourage the French to do the necessary and impede their passage. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is working round the clock to ensure that we not only encourage the French to stiffen their sinews and stop people making the journey but use every possible tactic available to us.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
May I raise a constituency matter with the Prime Minister? More than 800 local Afghani families have contacted me about their concerns over their relatives in Afghanistan. The thousands who are coming to this country are largely coming in through Heathrow and being quarantined in about seven hotels in my constituency. There is real anxiety, given the performance in the past on asylum seekers in hotels in my constituency, that those people could be trapped in those hotels for quite a long time to come. I would like the Prime Minister to arrange a meeting with myself and the relevant Minister or officials to discuss the plan to support those families—like everybody else, I welcome them, as do those in my community—but also the long-term relocation plan to make sure that they have all that they need to settle here for the future.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the issue. Some councils have responded magnificently, notably in the east midlands and elsewhere. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is putting substantial funding in place, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants a further meeting, I have no doubt that the relevant Minister will be only too happy to oblige.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I am working with incredible Stroud constituents who are dedicating their time to helping Afghan families under threat. These people are in hiding. The Taliban have been going door to door looking for them. Border options are dangerous and constantly changing. They are absolutely terrified. Will the Prime Minister help me to show those families that they should not lose hope and help us as MPs to provide timely and credible information about safe passage options?
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course. My hon. Friend is entirely right in what she says. That is why we are going to continue to put all the pressure that we can on the Taliban to ensure safe passage for the groups that I have described. We are joined in that by friends and partners around the world.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
May I join the tributes to our armed forces who have worked so hard?
There are still people being persecuted and hunted by the Taliban because they worked for the UK Government, but through contractors, not as direct employees. They have not had replies to their ARAP applications and the rumour circulating is that they may have to wait for the resettlement scheme, but also that many of the places on the resettlement scheme have already been allocated and that the scheme is almost full. Can the Prime Minister clarify the situation for those people, tell us whether some of the resettlement scheme places have been pre-allocated and if so how many, and say what will be done for those contractors as well as direct employees, to whom we owe an obligation?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady raises an important question. I can tell her that the ARAP places have not been transferred and that they continue to be valid—people on the ARAP scheme continue to be eligible. Nor is it correct to say that the initial budget of 5,000 for the resettlement scheme has already been filled. That is not correct either.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Council for At-Risk Academics has been rescuing scholars in danger from oppressive regimes since the Nazi period in 1933. The Home Office has been sent a list of 12 such scholars, some of whom are in hiding in Afghanistan and some in hiding in Pakistan for lack of documentation. Will the Home Office make their case a priority because in them lies any hope for the future of Afghanistan?
The Prime Minister
Yes, there are many difficult cases, but I thank my right hon. Friend for drawing attention to those particular individuals who are at risk. I will ensure that the relevant Foreign Office Minister is in touch with him about the specific cases that he raises.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We know that the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and the region is growing by the hour. A famine is expected and of course it will be difficult to get aid through. So what specific steps has the Prime Minister taken already to ensure that the famine is averted, but also that the region receives the international development aid that it requires to avert a further crisis?
The Prime Minister
Immediately that the crisis broke, I spoke to UN Secretary-General António Guterres about what the UN should be doing and what the UK was going to do to support. As the hon. Member knows, the UN continues to be in-country in Afghanistan and we have doubled our humanitarian support. We will be working with friends and partners at the UN General Assembly and beyond to ensure that we tackle the humanitarian crisis as well.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Certainly the last months have seen the shattering of many illusions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are tonight to help the people of Afghanistan, millions of whom are out in the open and will not be fed, we need to ensure that the whole international community focuses on doing so through the mechanism of the United Nations and probably through the traditional mechanism of a regional contact group, and that Britain—through its experience on these matters, its membership of the UN Security Council and its G7 chairmanship—is now in a pivotal position to help the people I mentioned?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is completely right to raise the contact group in addition to the other forums that I have described, and to pay particular note of the role of the UN; my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just talked to Jean Arnault, the UN Secretary-General’s special representative to Afghanistan. The contact group is a vital part of the way in which we should co-ordinate our efforts.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Some 80% of the world’s heroin and opium supply originates in Afghanistan, providing the Taliban with more than half their income and causing untold misery across the world. What steps is the Prime Minister taking in partnership with UK allies to prevent the Taliban and the organised criminal gangs with which they work from flooding our communities with yet more heroin, given that they are now in control in Afghanistan and have fewer impediments than ever to growing more opium?
The Prime Minister
Sadly, the rate of production and export of opium from Afghanistan has been increasing in recent years. I think that the global output is actually now even higher than the figure the hon. Lady suggests. What is needed, of course, is to insist that the Taliban stop this and do not allow Afghanistan to continue to be a narco-state, but the way to fight heroin consumption in this country is to have a strong crime-fighting institution such as the National Crime Agency, and I was privileged to see the United Kingdom’s crime fighters doing fantastic work near Glasgow.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be aware that, as a result of the NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, there is great concern that the terrorist threat to this country has increased. Can he reassure the people of this country that we maintain not only the military capability, but the political will, to take whatever action is necessary against groups such as ISIS-K in order to keep this country safe?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It is a question that a lot of people will have formed in their minds and which my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has answered before; of course we keep those options on the table and of course the Taliban are aware of that.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
There are many barriers facing people who are already in the immigration system. One is that some, including constituents of mine, have spouses and children whose original documents are with the Home Office and they only have photocopies. Another, of course, is the English language test. Are the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary proposing any movement on those issues in order to support people, particularly those already in the system, to get here as quickly as possible?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady should know that, of course, we try to help people coming from Afghanistan in the most expeditious way possible. This country cannot be faulted for the generosity of our offer on the resettlement programme and it certainly cannot be faulted for the sheer number of people we have already moved to this country.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Aside from the G7 and traditional partners to which the Prime Minister referred, what role does he envisage Pakistan, Uzbekistan and in particular China playing in the geopolitics of the region of central Asia in the months and years ahead?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend asks a very important question. I think the answer is that it is in the interests of every single one of the countries that he has mentioned to ensure that Afghanistan does not relapse into being a breeding ground for terror. That is not in China’s interests, in Uzbekistan’s interests or in Russia’s interests. Russia has abundant experience of the risks of Afghanistan. That is why it is so important that we work with friends and partners around the world—and, indeed, those who are not ordinarily classified as our friends—to achieve a common perspective on the pressure that we have got to apply to the Taliban.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have family members in Afghanistan who could be eligible for asylum in the UK under more than one route—for example, by ARAP, under the Foreign Office special cases criteria, or under family reunion. Yet there is currently no co-ordination between Departments. My constituents are being passed from pillar to post. ARAP is refusing cases where there may be an alternative route, and the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary are not replying to their emails. When will the Prime Minister sort out this lack of co-ordination across his Government?
The Prime Minister
I must reject that in the strongest possible terms. The House has paid tribute, quite rightly, to the work of the armed services over the last few weeks and months, but it should also pay tribute to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s rapid reaction team who went to Afghanistan, and to the Border Force officials who went out there, who worked hand in glove to help thousands of people come to this country in safety.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
In terms of protecting our country now that the risk from terrorists has undoubtedly increased, what is the Prime Minister’s assessment not just of the Taliban’s willingness to deal with terrorists operating in Afghanistan, but of their capability to deal with that terrorist threat, given what we saw from ISIS-K just a week or so ago?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the risks that the Taliban are themselves running, because they now possess the government of Afghanistan and it is their responsibility. They clearly face that threat from IS-K and indeed potentially other groups. Of course they will do everything, I imagine, to protect the public, but in the end we have to face the reality that the Taliban have now got the problem. We will do everything we can, of course, to ensure that we guard against future outbreaks of terrorism from that country, but it is in the interests of the new Government of Afghanistan to crack down on terrorism as much as anybody else.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Under the Nationality and Borders Bill, an Afghan woman who flees with her children and arrives in Britain by an irregular route will not be welcomed; she will be criminalised. Wales has declared our role in the world to be as a nation of sanctuary. Will the Prime Minister withdraw the Bill to enable us to fulfil our ambition and to make that warm welcome he spoke about?
The Prime Minister
No, I cannot accept what the right hon. Lady has said, because this country has been extremely generous—more generous than most countries around the world—not just in bringing people immediately from Afghanistan but in setting out a safe and legal route for 20,000 more to come. That is a big number and the route for those people is clear.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I am very pleased to hear about Operation Warm Welcome. Wiltshire, my county, is home to many thousands of British soldiers who have served with Afghan colleagues over the past 20 years. I hope the Prime Minister will join me in congratulating Wiltshire Council and the communities of Wiltshire, including the military communities, for the welcome that they are offering to the refugees. Will he assure the House that councils across the country will get the resources they need to support those evacuees?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend. Of course I congratulate Wiltshire Council on what it is doing, as I congratulate all councils that are stepping up to the plate and helping Afghans to settle and to integrate at this time. I can tell him that Wiltshire Council and all other councils involved will get the support and funding they need.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Like other Members, my constituency office and I have been doing everything we can to help constituents trapped in Afghanistan and to help their relatives who need to get out urgently, but it is clear that the Government are failing to do all they can to help these vulnerable people and are disgracefully putting even more people’s lives at risk. More widely, President Biden has called for an end to
“an era of major military operations to remake other countries”.
Given the huge loss of life in the disastrous and tragic wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere, is it not time that we do the same?
The Prime Minister
As I have just reminded the House, the UK ended its military operation in Afghanistan in 2014.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
Can I ask the Prime Minister what engagement he and the Foreign Secretary have had with non-governmental organisations, which are the only western organisations that are still on the ground in Afghanistan, and what steps he will take to protect them? Can I also ask what parameters need to be met to see the embassy reopened? The British diplomatic network is one of the finest in the world—that is surely the way to be able to help those who have been left behind.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the incredible work done by aid agencies and by NGOs. It is precisely to support those fantastic agencies that we have doubled our humanitarian aid to Afghanistan and the region to £286 million this year.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Later today, I will be reunited with an Afghan special forces commander whom I had the privilege of serving alongside. He is mightily relieved to be here, but understandably deeply concerned about the hundreds of his men and their family members who, although approved for relocation to the UK, were left behind. What can I tell him is being done to ensure that those who are in limbo are afforded safe passage, protection and unimpeded access to the UK?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to the service of the hon. Gentleman and, in addition, to the service of the Afghan special forces. He is absolutely right to draw attention to what they did. I believe that the 333—the Triples—were incredibly important. We will do whatever we can, as I have said, to ensure that those who have not yet come out do get the safe passage they need.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
The Prime Minister just said from the Dispatch Box that no veterans’ call for help will go unanswered, and I totally support that ambition. In fact, that was a central aim with the establishment of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs when he started it, but he and I know that he has consistently failed to take the measures required to make that a reality for veterans in communities like mine. What is he going to do differently to make veterans feel this has changed, rather than just reading about it in the newspapers or hearing about it from Westminster?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he did as Minister for veterans’ affairs and for his service in Afghanistan. I believe that he gravely underestimates what this country has done. Just today, on veterans’ mental health, the House will have heard the further support we are offering. This is a Government who are absolutely determined to support our veterans, and that is why we passed the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 and will continue to take steps to protect the veterans of this country.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I have cases involving more than 300 people who are still stranded in Afghanistan, and despite raising every case with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office, I have yet to receive a substantial response—not one. My constituents are desperate for information on how to travel to third countries and when the full resettlement scheme will be launched. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss these urgent cases, and promise that every email will receive a proper response from the relevant Department?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady. I expect that she speaks for many colleagues around the House who, like me, will have received messages from those who wish to leave Afghanistan. I repeat what I said earlier: every single email from colleagues is being responded to by close of play today.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Like many Members, I have had emails from Afghans in this country worried about their people back in Afghanistan. The Home Office and the Foreign Office have managed to get some of those people relocated, but I had the extraordinary situation where I had a very detailed email about Afghans who were being persecuted and who had worked for the British. It was very detailed and they produced all the documentation. The following day, my constituent wrote to me and said, “I am really sorry. It is a complete lie. These people are Taliban, and I cannot go through with this masquerade.” I just wonder whether we should be on guard against getting such people into this country.
The Prime Minister
I am sure that my hon. Friend, like many in the House, will be relieved to know that from the very beginning of Operation Pitting, the ARAP scheme and all the subsequent schemes we have put in place, the very highest possible security checks have been instituted to make sure that people are who they say they are and that we receive to this country the people who genuinely deserve to come here.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Will the Prime Minister clarify the situation that applies to Afghans who were in our asylum system in this country prior to the fall of Kabul? Will they too be given indefinite leave to remain? Surely there are no circumstances in which they will be forced to return of Afghanistan.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Member, who raises an important point. Many of those individuals will already be going through procedures in the courts, and we cannot interrupt them, so they will go on.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The whole House agreed with the Prime Minister when he celebrated the heroism of our troops, but that simply served to crystallise that this was not so much a defeat as a capitulation: an abandonment by the west of both people and principle. Does the Prime Minister believe that Tony Blair was right this morning when he said that western leadership was “naive” to believe that countries could be remade, or was it that our remaking of Afghanistan needed to last longer?
The Prime Minister
If Tony Blair was saying that it was naive to believe that countries could be remade and he was thinking of some of the things that he supported, I think he was spot on.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will know that after the calamitous collapse of the Government in Kabul and the disorderly retreat by western powers, there was rejoicing in parts of Mozambique, across the Sahel and, of course, in Somalia. Those are countries in which we have an interest because, if nothing else, they can be a source of terrorism here. What messages is he prepared to give about the UK working with partners to guarantee a proper, measured response that ensures we are not at risk of terrorism?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is focusing on exactly the right question and the right response from the western world and, indeed, the global community. We need to work together to ensure that, as far as we possibly can, we condition the new Government and new authorities in Kabul to understand that Afghanistan cannot slide back into being a cesspit of terror. That is our effort today.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Many lessons will have been learned and relearned from Afghanistan—not least the need for boots on the ground. With the US becoming more isolated, will my right hon. Friend look again at the disastrous plan to reduce the Army by 10,000?
The Prime Minister
The Government are proud of what we have done since we came in to increase the size of our defence commitments by the biggest amount since the end of the cold war. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about Afghanistan, the reality is that even when there were 130,000 western troops in the country, it was not possible to subjugate the Taliban, and I am afraid that we are living with the lessons of that today.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Last Friday, a young Afghan constituent told me through tears how his father—a British citizen—was turned away from the Baron hotel in Kabul on 28 August. He was trying to evacuate his other children, but he was refused permission to take two of them out of the country because they were aged 18 and 19. Can the Prime Minister imagine the pain of that family separation? All of them have stayed in Kabul, at huge risk to themselves. Will he look again at the family reunification rules and finally make it possible for families to stay together and not to have to face such a terrible choice?
The Prime Minister
The whole House will be full of sympathy to the family the hon. Member describes and the heartbreak they must have felt. I am sure there are many such cases in Kabul right now, but I think the record of this country in receiving people and being prepared to receive people in the future is very good. I ask her please to write to me or to the Home Secretary directly on the case of that particular family she is talking about.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Many constituents have understandably been in touch, desperately worried about family members in Afghanistan. They want to find out whether the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme will be an application or an allocation process, when it will open and what that process will look like.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend. We will be making sure that there is a process by which people can apply, but there is clearly a ceiling in the first year of 5,000 and then it goes up to 20,000 over the next few years.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Christians in Afghanistan are one of the many minorities facing persecution, and many have been forced to flee their homes. A church community in my constituency is working around the clock to support several Christian families to flee to Pakistan and to seek asylum at the embassy of a safe third country. They are not looking for asylum in the UK, but to get to Pakistan. What particular support will the right hon. Gentleman’s Government offer vulnerable Christians such as those whom the community in my constituency are working with, and to which Department should I direct my entreaties in the hope of actually getting an answer?
The Prime Minister
I thank the church community the hon. and learned Member describes for the work they are doing. On moving people to Pakistan, the Government are helping by increasing the funding available, much of which obviously already goes to Pakistan, and that is the purpose of the increase in the aid budget this year.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Even if we believe that the whole Afghanistan withdrawal was a US-made policy that was ill judged and poorly executed, can I ask my right hon. Friend to reject those voices calling for the United Kingdom to pull back from the United States and seek alternative alliances elsewhere? Surely the right response is to stick closely to our US friends, and to remind them that in an era of globalisation our economic and security interests will be threatened beyond our borders, that the United States is a force for good in the world, and that greater isolationism can only put us all in greater danger.
The Prime Minister
We helped 36 countries to repatriate their nationals or those they had helped, but we could not have done it had it not been for the bravery of the US military and the commitment of the US military, and I passionately agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said about the fundamental importance of our alliance with the United States of America.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Government leaving vulnerable Afghans and British nationals behind is unforgivable, but what is completely and utterly reprehensible is that the families of two of my constituents, including a seven-month-old child, were forcibly removed from flights and thrown out of Kabul airport on to the streets, the scene of the horrific suicide bombing hours before. I am absolutely furious, and I want to ask the Prime Minister how on earth this potentially fatal decision was allowed to happen, even after I had raised these matters with the Ministers sitting to his left and his right. How many others were ejected from the airport into harm’s way, and just what does he have to say to the families that the Government have now put in grave danger?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member very much for raising the case. I have to tell him that I am told we have no evidence of anybody being pulled off flights, but obviously I would ask him to raise the particular cases directly with my right hon. Friends beside me. But I can tell him that I think, when he looks at the overall record of the UK moving people out of Kabul and across the whole of Afghanistan, it was an astonishing feat.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Has he noticed that the Chinese Government, since our departure from Afghanistan, have used Afghanistan to up their threats on Taiwan, with hundreds of overflights threatening the Taiwanese and telling them that, when the war comes, the US will not be there to support them? Could my right hon. Friend take this opportunity, from the Dispatch Box, to say to the Taiwanese and others that we fully support their right to democracy and self-determination and we will be there to support them no matter what the Chinese say, and could we persuade the Americans to do the same?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend and am of course aware of the continuing issues between the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan. Indeed, I discussed that recently with the President of the United States, and it is one of the reasons why it is vital that this country continues to insist on the primacy of our relationship with the United States. The situation in Taiwan will continue to be difficult, and the only way forward is to continue to support American global leadership, and that is what we will do.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister knows, non-governmental organisations such as the excellent Kent Refugee Action Network provide vital support to those fleeing conflict—and, as he mentioned, that is via fundraising—but does he also acknowledge that the state has a duty of care regarding the mental health of traumatised refugees, including children? If he does, how can he assure the House that this will be possible given that the current average waiting time for young people to access a basic mental health assessment is two to three years?
The Prime Minister
The Government are absolutely determined to look after people coming from Afghanistan, and in particular to look after their mental health and address the trauma they might have suffered, and that is why we are investing massively in the services provided not just by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government but local government across the board.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
What extra funds will be made available for local schools and councils like the Derbyshire Dales District Council, which urgently want to help but want to make sure that additional funds are available?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and Derbyshire Dales District Council for stepping up. We will of course make sure that the funds are available, and she should make representations to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins).
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister’s handling of the planned departure from Afghanistan is, for those of us who are old enough to remember, akin to one of the farcical characters in “Carry on up the Khyber”. The Foreign Secretary was on a beach as the Taliban advanced on Kabul, unknown numbers of British nationals remain left behind, and the Taliban, and most probably ISIS, have been allowed to plunder military hardware and intelligence. Does the Prime Minister accept any personal responsibility for the mess left in Afghanistan, and does he agree that any notion of global Britain is in complete crisis?
The Prime Minister
No, and the hon. Gentleman is wrong in every respect, including what he says about military hardware because that was decommissioned.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Prime Minister has said that we should judge the Taliban by their actions not their words. The Taliban in Afghanistan have said that they will confine themselves to operating within the rules of Islam. As somebody who comes from a Muslim background and whose father is an imam, and whose grandfather and uncles were imams, I am not an expert on Islam but have a good understanding of the faith. One way forward for the Prime Minister and Government might be this: the Prime Minister might use his kind offices to ask the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, with 57 member states, to request that Al-Azhar, a leading Islamic school of thought, set out what Islam means for women and religious minorities, as that might give us a way to judge what the Taliban are doing and what Islam stands for.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion and I encourage it to be taken up. We need to ensure that the elements of the Taliban who are different, as I believe they are, from the Taliban of 1996-9 are encouraged and that we put the maximum pressure on them not to allow the more retrograde elements to have the upper hand. That is what this Government and others around the world are going to do.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Many communities, the city of Leeds included, have always given a very warm welcome to refugees, but we know that the poorest parts of our country have consistently taken a much higher proportion of refugees and asylum seekers than the wealthier areas. Does the Prime Minister think that is fair, and if not, what does he intend to do about it?
The Prime Minister
I believe the whole country should pull together and everybody should step up to the plate. I know that there are councils across the country that will want to help and are helping. I thank the people of Leeds very much for what they have done, both now and historically, and I hope that councils around the UK will follow their example.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, in which he referred to the fact that Saturday is the 20th anniversary of 9/11. Given that public confidence in the Government’s strategic thinking has taken quite a bashing from this episode, is it not now time for a cold, hard, strategic look at how well we have done over the last 20 years—what has gone well, the mistakes we have made, what we have learned and what should be done to implement those lessons? Will he undertake to ensure that that reflection takes place?
The Prime Minister
I think the best I can do is direct my hon. Friend once again to the integrated review, which I know that he has studied and I believe is now more relevant than ever.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Is he aware that there is a desire in industry to help provide refugees with housing and jobs? Two firms in my constituency, Willowbrook Foods and Mash Direct, are keen and willing to give jobs to the Afghans, and also have access to private housing. Goodness always shines through, and we should always remember that. What steps can the Prime Minister take, via the Treasury, to help the system incentivise firms that want to help those who served alongside British forces and whose lives are at risk for their commitment to freedom and democracy in Afghanistan?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. The labour market is full of vacancies at the moment, and there are obviously opportunities for hard-working people of talent and energy to come and make their lives across the whole of the UK. We will help them with training, with the English language and, as I have been saying, with what else they need.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
In stark contrast with the Leader of the Opposition, whose definition of leadership seems to be silence followed by 20:20 hindsight, I commend the Prime Minister for his leadership in this crisis. I ask him to continue that, on behalf of the UK and the G7, for women and girls in Afghanistan—both for their education and their wider participation in Afghan society.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. The UK is pulling together with our German friends, our Italian friends, our French friends, our American friends—all our G7 colleagues and others—to forge a collective global view, as far as we possibly can, about how to deal with the new regime in Kabul. It is by working together that we will get the best results. The UK, as the whole House knows, is in pole position in all the key institutions, and we will continue to exercise that role.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I realise that the Government’s focus at the moment is on refugees and dealing with the immediate crisis, but does the Prime Minister not think that, with tens of thousands of Afghan dead, thousands of American dead and hundreds of British dead, it is time for a full inquiry into the whole process that led us into Afghanistan and the whole notion of a foreign policy in which we intervene all over the world, and that we should start to re-examine our place and our role in this world?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman knows, because he has heard me say it before, that there was a full review after the end of the military operation in 2014—a review of what it achieved and of the legacy of those brave British men and women who served in Afghanistan. I think that was the right thing to do. As for the rest, I do not know whether he has read the integrated review from cover to cover, but I direct him to it.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Following our ignominious withdrawal from Afghanistan, where we were effectively dragged out on the coat-tails of our more powerful American allies, the world has changed and become a more dangerous place. Will my right hon. Friend share with the House his latest assessment of the so-called special relationship? Is it not time for another defence review?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, whose trenchant views I often agree with, but I think in this case the special relationship—at Carbis Bay I called it the irreplaceable or the indestructible relationship; I cannot remember exactly what phrase I used—is a basic geopolitical fact. On the special relationship rests much of the security of the last 100 years. It will continue to be of cardinal importance to this country. That is a fact that is as understood in Washington as it is in this country.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has turned his back on the EU, and Washington has turned its back on him. Since he stood on a platform of global Britain, can he tell us where Britain has more influence than we did before he became Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
Virtually everywhere is the answer to that. [Interruption.] We have our own sanctions policy. We have been able to set up new embassies and legations around the world. We are opening up in the south Pacific and in Africa. We are doing free trade deals; I think a total of 63 so far. Who knows—there may even be another one this week.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
As the Prime Minister will be aware, the majority of people who came to this country from Afghanistan came via Birmingham airport in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the team at Birmingham airport, Solihull Council and third sector organisations such as Entraide at Three Trees Community Centre, who have welcomed nearly 1,000 people a day, sometimes including many, many children and young babies?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I had the opportunity to thank the troops the other day, but I want to thank everybody who has been involved: Border Force officials and everybody in the councils who has been on the frontline dealing with this crisis. They have done it with exceptional humanity and compassion.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I have sent 143 cases of Afghans who are connected to my constituency to the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Home Secretary—all three of them, because there are three different channels. May I urge the Prime Minister to reflect on the idea, suggested by countless colleagues on the Opposition Benches, that there should be a single triage point, a single person who deals with all these cases? Since I sent in those names, one has been shot, one has been raped and one has been tortured. People are desperate to try to get the best result for these people. I am sure that Ministers want to help, but at the moment it feels as if the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
The Prime Minister
I am sure that the whole House sympathises very much with what has happened to those individuals in Afghanistan that the hon. Gentleman describes. We are doing our level best to help people as fast as we can. I want the Government to focus on helping people with a single point of contact. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) is the person in question.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
The men and women who serve in our armed forces are remarkable and make huge sacrifices, both personally and in their careers. Can my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirm that they will get the very best support and care when they return home, so that they know this nation is grateful for what they have done?
The Prime Minister
Yes. It is absolutely vital that those who have given so much and have served so bravely in Afghanistan, and indeed their families, should receive the lifelong support they deserve—and they will.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
My office and I have been trying for several years, through the Home Office, to reunite various Afghan interpreters who settled in Newport with their wives and families. Just hours before the withdrawal, their paperwork came through but they were not able to get through the crowds to flights. We understand that they are not eligible for ARAP. Does that mean that they are included in the resettlement scheme, and what happens now, given that the principle of them joining their husbands has been agreed?
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. I am very sorry to hear what happened at Hamid Karzai International airport. I hope they will be successful under the resettlement scheme. If she would be kind enough to send details through to the Home Secretary, I would be very grateful.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is very easy to apportion blame with the benefit of hindsight, but this is a really complex environment and the current situation is as much a failure of leadership in Afghanistan as anything else. While we may not want to engage with the Taliban, does the Prime Minister agree that we have no choice but to do so, perhaps with a forward presence in Kabul in the same way as our Chinese and Russian adversaries?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is very wise in what he says. I believe that it is inevitable for us to engage with the Taliban. Indeed, we have been: at the airport, British troops were working directly with their Taliban counterparts to ensure that the operation went through. That was an inevitability. We will of course look at further co-operation, but as I said to the House, we will judge the new regime in Kabul not by what they say, but by what they do.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Our troops did a great job at Kabul airport, but the events of recent weeks have exposed the limitations of our ability to act outwith the umbrella of the United States, even if we wanted to choose a different path. What is the Prime Minister’s response to the exposure of those limitations?
The Prime Minister
I do not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said. The particular case of Afghanistan was one in which America was very much engaged because of 9/11. It was America that supplied 98% of the air power—98% of the munitions dropped were from the US. It was overwhelmingly a US-led mission, but that does not mean that the UK cannot and will not co-operate with other friends and partners around the world. That is what we are going to continue to do.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
On 167 occasions, all told, I stood with the people of what is now Royal Wootton Bassett to see 345 of our comrades repatriated to this country. On no occasion did I hear anybody say, “Why?” Nobody ever said, “These lives were wasted.” Nobody was ever ashamed of what had happened. On the contrary, they were proud of the fact that these young people had given their lives for the service of their country, for the benefit of the people of Afghanistan and for the security of the world. Does the Prime Minister not agree that that should now be the litmus test of how we judge what is happening in Afghanistan? We should be proud of all we have done.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend; I believe he speaks for millions of people—quiet people—up and down this country.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will be aware that the entire House is united in offering our respect and congratulations to the people at the grassroots who made the evacuation of British passport holders and Afghans possible in recent weeks, but he must also be aware of how difficult it has been to get responses from Government Departments on behalf of our constituents who are terrified for their relatives and want to arrange safe passage for them. Will the Government give the House an undertaking that they will make sure that the relevant Departments have the resources and the people so that we can communicate with our constituents and give them some news at least?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Lady. She is repeating a point that has been made across the House by many colleagues this afternoon. The work so far has been extraordinary. I pay tribute to the speed with which British officials have done their best to respond, and every email, as I said, will be answered by tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Some Members did not get in, but hopefully we can pick those questions up in the next statement from the Foreign Secretary.
Afghanistan: FCDO Update
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the UK’s international response to the situation in Afghanistan.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out, over the last three weeks, through a shared effort right across Government and our armed forces, we have delivered the largest and most complex evacuation in living memory. Between 15 and 29 August, the UK evacuated over 15,000 people from Afghanistan. That includes more than 8,000 British nationals; close to 5,000 Afghans who loyally served the UK, along with their dependants; and about 500 special cases of particularly vulnerable Afghans, including Chevening scholars, journalists, human rights defenders, campaigners for women’s rights, judges and many others.
Of course, the work to get people out did not start on 15 August. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office advised British nationals to leave the country in April and again on 6 August; we estimate that about 500 did so. At the same time, the Government launched the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme for interpreters and other Afghan staff, getting more than 1,900 out before the airlift began on 15 August. As the security situation deteriorated, we accelerated that process throughout July and early August. In total, since April, we have helped more than 17,000 people to leave.
I place on record my thanks, and I pay tribute to the herculean efforts of our troops, our diplomats and our civil servants, who have done an incredible job in the toughest of conditions. As we remember their efforts, we also remember those in the UK armed forces who made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan trying to make that country a better place for the Afghan people.
Now that the evacuation has ended, we have moved into a new phase. We stand by our commitment to support those who have worked for us and to take all remaining eligible cases. Securing their safe passage out of the country is an immediate priority. We are working through our diplomatic channels to that end, and of course the Taliban have given assurances that they will provide safe passage for foreign nationals and those eligible Afghans who wish to leave. On 30 August, the UN Security Council passed resolution 2593, driven by the UK alongside the US and France, affirming the international community’s expectation and requirement that the Taliban should follow through on the assurances that they have given.
Last week, I visited Qatar and Pakistan. In Qatar, I met the Emir and the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Sheikh Mohammed, to discuss safe passage alongside the international community’s wider approach to dealing with the Taliban. We discussed ongoing efforts to re-establish flights at Kabul airport, where Qatari technical staff are working on the ground, and to see how we can co-operate in handling the organisation of future flights. I also announced our new non-resident chargé d’affaires for Afghanistan, Martin Longden, who is now working out of Doha.
In Pakistan, I met Prime Minister Khan and Foreign Minister Qureshi to discuss safe passage via third countries and the importance of holding the Taliban to their commitments. I also announced that we are sending £30 million in support to Afghanistan’s neighbours. This will provide life-saving support for refugees, including shelters, household necessities, sanitation and other hygiene facilities.
I dispatched last week a new rapid deployment team to the region, with an extra 22 staff in total. They will reinforce our embassy teams and high commission teams in neighbouring countries, processing British nationals or eligible Afghans who are seeking to leave via third countries. We want to do that as fast as we possibly can once they can leave, subject to the necessary security checks.
I also spoke to the Foreign Minister of Uzbekistan earlier today and the Foreign Minister of Tajikistan last week. Our Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth, Lord Ahmad, visited Tajikistan last week and will return to the region shortly.
I turn to the wider international strategy. The international community is adjusting, and must adjust, to the new reality in Afghanistan and is recalibrating its approach. The UK is playing a leading role. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister convened G7 leaders on 24 August to discuss a shared response to the situation. That followed a G7 Foreign Ministers meeting, and we are building a global coalition around four key priorities set out in a UK G7 paper that we have shared with those partners.
First, we must prevent Afghanistan from ever again becoming a safe haven or harbour for terrorists. Secondly, we must prevent a humanitarian disaster and support refugees, wherever possible, in the region. The UK has allocated £286 million in aid for Afghanistan this year. We are supporting Afghanistan’s neighbours, as I have set out, and the Home Secretary has set out our resettlement scheme, so we are leading by example, which enables us to encourage others to step up in what will inevitably have to be an international team effort.
Thirdly, we must preserve regional stability, which risks being shattered by the combination of renewed terrorist threat and an exodus of refugees. Fourthly, we must hold the Taliban and other factions to account for their conduct, including and in particular on human rights and on their treatment of women and girls. I am taking that forward through our bilateral partners; we have a G7+ meeting later this week, and the UK is also pressing for further discussions among the permanent members of the UN Security Council. We plan to host an event at the UN General Assembly later this month, as the Prime Minister indicated.
We will not recognise the Taliban, but we will engage, and we will carefully calibrate our actions to the choices that they make and the actions that they take. Given our strategic priorities—the ones that I have specified—we must also set some credible tests to hold the Taliban to the undertakings that they have made on safe passage, on terrorism, on humanitarian access, and on a more inclusive Government. We stand ready to use all the levers at our disposal—political, economic and diplomatic—in that effort. We continue to galvanise the international community and bring together the widest possible group of influential countries to deliver on those strategic priorities, and to exercise the maximum moderating influence on the Taliban that we possibly can. I commend this statement to the House.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
These have been a painful and sobering few weeks. Had it not been for the heroic efforts of the armed forces as well as the brave diplomats and civil servants involved in Operation Pitting, many more lives would have been lost and many more people left behind. They reminded us what courage looks like. I want to put on record my thanks to them and to all those who have served in Afghanistan over the last two decades, and also to add my condolences to the families of all those killed in the horrific bombing at Kabul airport.
If more lives are not to be lost, we need some urgent clarity today. What, specifically, is the advice to people trying to leave? Should they stay put and be hunted by the Taliban, or should they make their way to a border and risk being turned back?
Could the Foreign Secretary take care of some basic issues? The Home Office phone number provided for Afghans asks people to hold on for hours, and it is still chargeable. That is pretty easy to fix. Could he have a word with the Home Secretary and get it dealt with? He was not able to tell us how many British nationals are still there, but I imagine he must know by now, so can he tell us? We know that only one security guard from the embassy got out, so what is his plan for the rest? I did a quick check before I left my office today; there are still hundreds of unanswered emails from MPs, and many of them raised that question with the Prime Minister this afternoon. How many staff are now working on this in the Foreign Office, and why has it not been dealt with? If those Members are to get an answer by this evening, can the Foreign Secretary assure us that it will be a real answer and not just a holding response?
Can we have some clarity about who is actually eligible, especially under the ARAP scheme—it is welcome that the Secretary of State for Defence has stayed for the statement—because without clarity about who is eligible, people cannot risk heading to the border? It would be useful to have a much tighter idea of who the eligible people are, particularly the special cases. What is the assurance about safe passage that the Foreign Secretary believes that he has from the Taliban? Does it apply to all those with documentation, or just to the British nationals?
I understand that the technical problems at the airport have now been overcome, and that is welcome, but can the Foreign Secretary tell us a bit more about the diplomatic progress that has been made? How, for example, does he intend to square the circle to comply with the Taliban’s refusal to allow a foreign military presence, while also ensuring that those technicians from Turkey or Qatar, or whichever other country is chosen to oversee that operation, can be safeguarded? I very much support his view that it would be wrong to recognise the Taliban as a legitimate Government, but that presents a practical challenge to the countries that are considering stepping in to oversee the airport in respect of how guarantees can be upheld.
May I just say to the Foreign Secretary that the co-ordination between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, despite some very hard-working civil servants on the ground who are working round the clock, is still appalling? My office is in touch with a small number of Afghan workers, for example, who have been attached to intelligence and to MI6 in recent years. They are being treated as special cases under ARAP, and many of them have been waiting for months. I want to place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State of Defence, and also to the Minister for Afghan Resettlement, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who have made themselves available to many of us at all hours and at short notice to assist with some of these cases. Their personal intervention has made a difference, although that is no substitute for a system.
Could the Foreign Secretary also clarify some comments that he made to the Select Committee? He suggested that those who had been cleared to travel as part of Operation Pitting would now have to undergo security checks before being accepted on to ARAP. Were those checks not initially done, or is he now reneging on his promise? I have to say that both those scenarios concern us greatly. These are practical issues that are within the Foreign Secretary’s gift, and the fact that they have still not been dealt with sends a strong message that he has been more focused in recent days on keeping his job than on actually doing it. I want him to prove us wrong, because a lot rides on this, including the lives of many Afghans who assisted us.
Will the Foreign Secretary say a bit more about how the UK is going to get aid into Afghanistan to those who need it? I have been in touch with aid workers on the ground, many of whom are female and who have been banned from working by the Taliban. Those aid agencies are understandably saying that they will not operate with those conditions in place, but that means that they are not operating at all. On the refugee crisis, I say to him gently that countries in the region are not hugely impressed by the Home Secretary’s decision to cap the number of refugees that the UK will accept at 5,000 when they are dealing with a far greater refugee crisis. A bit of generosity from the UK would go a long way to helping to resolve the issues at the borders.
These are immediate concerns, but we are also concerned that for a generation of young Afghans, the future that they had expected is unravelling in front of their eyes. Can the Foreign Secretary say something about how the rights of the LGBT+ community will be upheld, as well as those of religious minorities? Can he outline the measures that he intends to take to set conditions for the Taliban regime, particularly that the situation of women and girls will be the cornerstone of any future engagement?
Our intelligence has been downgraded, our diplomats and troops are no longer on the ground and the Prime Minister appeared to say in his statement just now that the risk posed to the UK was unknown. The Foreign Secretary has suggested in a media interview that we would rely on open-source intelligence. Could he say some more about that, and about the possibility that we might be in a position where we are sharing intelligence with countries such as China and Russia? Given the significant national security implications of that, the House has a right to understand the Government’s strategy on it, if there is one. This has been nothing short of a disaster, so I ask him now to turn with humility to the world and to start to repair some of those broken relationships, trashed alliances and broken promises that have reduced us to a position where we are reliant on the Taliban for permission to safeguard our own citizens and negotiating with China and Russia in our own interests? In the cold, hard light of what has unfolded over this summer, surely it is time for him to rethink his approach to the way that Britain engages with the rest of the world.
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for what she said about the efforts of our UK forces and the cross-Whitehall teams who have delivered the biggest evacuation in living memory. She asked for specific advice, but she will understand that I am a bit reticent about giving personal advice generically. However, the travel advice that the FCDO is putting out is very clear. It has been changed to reflect the situation on the ground, and it is the right point of reference for constituents and for hon. Members around the House.
The hon. Lady asked about phone calls into the FCDO crisis centre. Since 11 August, it has handled more than 44,000 calls and we have surged 45 members of FCDO staff and 35 staff from other Departments. Since 19 August, we have answered well over 90%—93%—of the total number received, and on every day since 24 August, our call handlers have answered more than 94% of the calls that were made. Just to give the hon. Lady a sense of this, since 20 August the average wait times have been less than a minute.
The hon. Lady also asked about correspondence. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, we will have replied to all MPs’ emails received by 30 August asking for an update by today. That will signpost them to the specific advice relevant to the particular case that they are raising. We will also respond to all the other emails that we have received from members of the public. She also made the point, as have other Labour Members, about putting them all in together, but these are different cases. The eligibility for nationality is different from the resettlement scheme, which is different from ARAP, so it is right that they are triaged to the proper decision maker. That is the point of the exercise that we are engaged in.
The hon. Lady asked about the details of the ARAP scheme. They have been published, so the details are there—[Interruption.] If she is concerned about any particular aspects of it, she should of course approach the relevant Minister. She asked about safe passage and—[Interruption.] We cannot answer her questions in the abstract to give effect to the circumstances of the cases she is referring to. She asked about safe passage. The Taliban have given us an assurance that those nationals and those who worked for us and want to leave will be allowed to leave, but like a range of other commitments they have made, we will have to hold them to that. These will form one of the early tests for the Taliban, and they will be judged by what they do rather than by what they say. The hon. Lady talks about influence, and that was the reason that we passed the United Nations Security Council resolution—we led this with the French and the Americans—that reiterated, affirmed and applied the international community’s imprimatur on that demand of the Taliban. We will now have to see whether they can pass that test.
Kabul airport is not up and running yet, but there are ongoing efforts to deal with not only its operational and technical capacity but its security conditions. For most cases, whether British nationals, ARAP or special cases under the resettlement scheme, it would be most straightforward if we can safely see Kabul airport up and running. If not, we will have to look at third-country routes out, but of course many third countries in the region are very nervous. We have had conversations with all of them, which is why I was in Qatar and Pakistan, to look at the practical arrangements for delivery.
Of course we will make sure that we check the eligibility of those who want to come to the UK, so that seats on planes go to those we want to come, those who are eligible to come and those we need to come, and we will also make sure that the security checks are in place so that we avoid the wrong kind of people coming to the UK.
The hon. Lady asked how we can ensure that the aid going into Afghanistan gets to where it needs to go. As I announced last week, we have provided £30 million for neighbouring countries to deal with refugees in the region precisely because it is better for refugees to be dealt with closer to their home, but also because we recognise the burden that will be placed on the region.
On aid more generally and the rest of the £286 million, this is another of the early tests for the Taliban. If they want to avoid the collapse of Afghanistan’s social and economic fabric and if they want aid to continue flowing, they will need to provide a safe operating environment for the UN and other agencies. I spoke to the UN Secretary-General’s special envoy, Jean Arnault, about that.
We have further meetings this week with the G7+, and I will have further conversations—I am sure I will be travelling to the region. The UK has issued a G7 paper setting out the key priorities, from counter-terrorism to the humanitarian lifeline, and it has been very well received. Working with our partners, we now have to operationalise that paper.
The hon. Lady asked about non-G7 partners. The reality is that, if we want to influence the Taliban in the most effective way possible, we need a broader caucus, particularly with regional countries that have a relationship with the Taliban, to exercise the maximum moderating influence, and that is just what we are doing.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I too am grateful for advance sight of the statement.
The impression we have been given of ministerial communications with Members of this House on constituency cases is not as rosy as has been put forward by Ministers. I constructively suggest that there needs to be a proper review of how adequate things actually were, because our experience is that communications were not as good as we have been told.
I am glad to see that the new resettlement scheme is now moving, but I would like to unpack what 20,000 people over the coming years actually means. It is a good line, but I fear it will not stand analysis. Does it mean that the scheme will close if 20,000 Afghans apply and are processed in the first few months of next year? In that case the scheme is wholly inadequate. Or does it mean there is an annual quota? How long do the UK Government think vulnerable Afghans should wait while the Taliban hunt them down? In that case the scheme is similarly inadequate. We would like to see the scheme expanded and we would like much more clarity, which I understand is coming for the devolved Administrations and local government, particularly on how family reunion will be counted within those numbers—that is a crucial point for Afghans who are already here and those who are concerned.
On the Foreign Secretary’s line about safe and legal routes to this country, in the name of policy coherence surely now is the time for the UK Government to pause the Nationality and Borders Bill because it would penalise many Afghans arriving by other routes. Afghanistan is in chaos, and they will not be able to form an orderly queue in the way one might like. Surely, in the name of policy coherence, one part of the UK Government should not be penalising Afghans arriving here while another part of the UK Government is trying to save them and keep them safe.
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks; he asks perfectly reasonable questions. On the correspondence, I have already set out for the House how we are dealing with that. I just say to him that we had, of course, a surge of cases and indeed requests for updates in the final days of the evacuation. At that time, rightly, we took the decision, and I took the decision, that our focus ought to be on getting as many people as we possibly could out of Afghanistan, on to flights and back home to safety. That is how we have achieved that remarkable figure of more than 15,000 in the space of just a couple of weeks, but of course we want to make sure that colleagues in this House are updated and signposted to the right advice, and that those who have emailed or called directly get the advice they need.
The hon. Gentleman asked a range of questions on the resettlement scheme. Those are probably more for the Home Secretary than for me, but let me tell him that the plan is for 5,000 to be resettled this year, with 20,000 over the course of the next few years. That comes on top of the ARAP scheme. I believe we are right not only to lead by example in the way I have described and, on aid, to provide the £30 million to the neighbouring countries so that we can support them in taking those refugees, but to use that leadership by example to corral and cajole other countries to step up. We are not going to be able to take all of the refugees or those wishing to leave Afghanistan. We do our bit, but we also then call on others and use the example we have set to cajole and encourage others to do the same. Further details on the scheme will be set out by the Home Secretary.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we would strip out the legislative checks that are applying more broadly. I do not think that is the right thing to do and I do not think our constituents would want us to do it, as we are, in a good-hearted way, making sure that this country is taking in not just our nationals, but those fleeing Afghanistan because they have worked for us or for other reasons. Our constituents will want to see us take a responsible approach and have the checks in place to make sure that that system is not abused.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Congratulations to all involved in Operation Pitting, including my right hon. Friend. It seems unlikely that the Taliban are going to continue to co-operate on the safe passage of Afghans to the UK—in order to safeguard those individuals from the Taliban—so the focus will shift, sadly, to refugee camps in countries surrounding Afghanistan. What read-across does he see between this situation and the highly successful Syrian resettlement programme? In particular, what measures has he discussed with the UN to triage people, so that we take from among the most vulnerable, as we do with the Syrian programme? Has he engaged with other countries, as we engage with Turkey, for example, in trying to ensure that we take those who are most vulnerable and relocate them back to the UK, to locations such as Wiltshire, where my constituency has done its part in helping people from that particularly challenged part of the world?
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend and pay tribute to his time as a Foreign Office Minister. He is right; we are already consulting the UN. The Prime Minister has spoken to UN Secretary-General. I have spoken to his special envoy for Afghanistan, Jean Arnault,, to talk through these issues and make sure that we get the eligibility and co-ordination right. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is also right to refer to the Syrian precedent. We want to learn the lessons from it, and there was much that was a success there. Of course, the circumstances in Afghanistan are different, and the Home Secretary will set out further details in due course, once we have completed that. It will feed in all of the conversations we are having, not just with the UN, but with allies, including Turkey and other countries around the region.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. May I ask him about the number of requests the Government have already had in respect of Afghan citizens who do not qualify for the ARAP scheme as they did not work directly for us, but who want and need to flee here from Afghanistan and have already asked? I know that the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme is not yet open, but he must already know how many have, through Members of this House or other organisations, already asked to come here because of the Taliban. Can he tell us how many have done so? How will the Government decide who is going to get into the 5,000 cap? The criteria for the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme are yet to be announced, but we know that it is for those who are highly vulnerable to the Taliban because of what they have done in support of the values we and the previous regime were committed to, in particular, women and girls, equality, democracy and human rights. There are bound to be so many more than 5,000, so how will the Government in practice decide between those who will be the lucky 5,000 and be allowed to come here, and those who, although meeting the criteria, will, because of the 5,000 cap, be refused and face a terrible fate at the hands of the Taliban? The reality is that the unless the Government increase the 5,000 cap, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme is going to end up as a lottery of life and death.
Dominic Raab
I know how passionate the right hon. and learned Lady is about this issue and how assiduous she has been on it. It is difficult to give a precise number of the applications and claims, not least because there is some duplication in the multiple emails and correspondence we have had. She is right to say—frankly, this would be true even if we doubled or tripled the quota—that the number of people who flee Afghanistan is going to outstrip what the UK would be able to take alone. That means that we need to look very carefully at the criteria, as the Home Secretary and I are doing across Government, to make sure that we prioritise the most vulnerable and those with a particular link to the UK, as well as co-ordinating with the United Nations. Further details will be set out by the Home Secretary.
As I mentioned earlier, the UK is doing our bit, alongside the aid we are providing, including to support third countries that take refugees. The UK will not be able to deal with the demand alone—of course we would not do so—but by taking action and showing leadership, we will help to corral and cajole other countries to follow suit. That is how we will have a comprehensive and effective response to the Afghanistan situation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I do want to try to get everybody in, but we need to finish the exchanges on this statement by around 5.50 pm. I hope colleagues will bear that in mind.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The Taliban want cash, international recognition and propaganda coups. I am gravely concerned by the international direction of travel towards recognising them, so will my right hon. Friend reassure me that we are doing all we can to prevent other partner countries from doing so and from giving them any cash? Will he consider using the conflict centre to set up an international mechanism for atrocity management, to make sure that we know exactly what is happening on the ground, that we are monitoring it and that we can reveal the Taliban for who they truly are, internationally and around the world?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right about holding the Taliban to account, particularly in relation to human rights and the approach they take to women and girls. Getting access on the ground is the main challenge, which is why we need to have humanitarian access, first, to provide that lifeline, but also to give us the information that my hon. Friend described.
On recognition, we will not recognise the Taliban—in fact, the UK Government do not recognise Governments as distinct from states. We are encouraging our allies and partners in the region to do as we have done, which is set some early tests for engagement with the Taliban on safe passage, on a permissive environment for humanitarian groups operating on the ground in Afghanistan and on the Taliban’s commitment never to allow Afghanistan to be used as a safe haven for terrorism. If the Taliban follow through on those things and show that they can be a constructive partner—albeit at a level of expectation different from that we would have in respect of more like-minded countries—we can see what that can develop into. It is important to engage without bestowing legitimacy on the Taliban regime.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary said in his opening remarks that we must prevent Afghanistan from ever again becoming a haven for terrorist groups, and of course we all agree with that. Did the Foreign Secretary agree with what the Prime Minister said to the House earlier, when he talked about the Taliban cracking down on terrorism? Is that a credible statement from our Prime Minister?
Dominic Raab
There is clearly a difference between the Taliban and groups such as ISIS-K and al-Qaeda. Indeed, there is a suspicion—I would not say more than that—that part of the intention of the ISIS-K attack at Abbey Gate was to target the Taliban. Clearly, if the Taliban want to be an effective Administration of some sort and to avoid all the disastrous mistakes made previously, they will have to live up to the assurances they have made to avoid Afghanistan becoming a harbour or safe haven for terrorism. I share the right hon. Lady’s measure of scepticism, but it is right for the international community to hold the Taliban to their commitments, as we did with the UN Security Council resolution last week, and to test what the level of engagement can produce in terms of constructive results.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I welcome the inclusion in the Prime Minister’s statement of sexuality as an identified risk for Afghans who need to be rescued. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a direction on the issue early in the crisis, and in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee I will report how things went thereafter. I am afraid it was unsatisfactory.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that unlimited objectives—as we set ourselves in Afghanistan when this exercise began—with only limited means will always run the risk of failure? Does he agree that the failure in this case has done awful damage to our values and reinforced the appeal of our enemies? Will he confirm that the Chicago doctrine, which is one of the roots of this situation, alongside a wilful ignorance of history, will have no part in our values and his understanding of how global Britain will operate in future?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know that he has already raised LGBT rights in relation to the vulnerability of Afghans and the resettlement scheme. I have discussed that directly with the Home Secretary. I understand its importance and we want to make sure that, with the details of the resettlement scheme, we cover all of those who are particularly at risk, and that group clearly is particularly at risk. He asked about interventionism more generally. I think he will see in the integrated review not just a strategic policy for the United Kingdom for the 21st century on tech, on trade, and on the UK as a force for good, but a rigorous approach to reconcile ends with means, and he is right to say that there are lessons for that over 20 years in Afghanistan.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I welcome the news that, last week, the Foreign Secretary visited Pakistan, a key player in the region. However, does he accept that it is simply unacceptable that he did not call Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, in the six months before the Taliban takeover given the UK’s overwhelming interests in the region at a time of crisis?
Dominic Raab
We have an excellent relationship with Pakistan. The hon. Lady is right that, on my visit, I saw Prime Minister Khan and Foreign Minister Qureshi. The Minister of State, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad, had visited Pakistan in June. All of us—the Prime Minister, through me, and right the way down—made sure that we were in constant contact. The bilateral relationship as well as the country’s relevance and importance on Afghanistan is something very dear to our hearts and we discussed it at length when I was there.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I sincerely thank the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence for their help in evacuating several Kensington-related families. I still have British nationals with Afghan dependant minor children and spouses in Afghanistan. May I encourage my right hon. Friend to urge the Home Office to publish the details of the Afghanistan resettlement scheme as quickly as possible so that these families know where they stand?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thank her for paying tribute to the cross-Whitehall teams that worked so assiduously under immense pressure. Of course, cases like the one that she describes could be eligible under the nationality criteria, depending on the nature of the dependants, or separately under the resettlement scheme. The particular circumstances will be relevant and important, but, of course, we will make sure that the full details of the resettlement scheme are published shortly.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Government say that the number of British nationals left in Afghanistan is in the low hundreds, but in my constituency alone, I have 11 constituents stuck, including an 18-month-old baby, many of whom witnessed horror at Kabul Airport and, fearing the Taliban, they are now petrified and in hiding. When I contact the Foreign Office about these cases, all I get is cut-and-paste responses. What will the Foreign Secretary do to guarantee their security. Will he give his word that these British nationals will get home safely?
Dominic Raab
Of course we will do everything we conceivably can. One reason why we did not get everyone out was that some were afraid; the conditions on the ground were objectively very challenging. None the less, we are committed, both through our efforts with third countries and also in seeing when and how Kabul Airport can be reopened, to make sure that, as well as the resettlement scheme, we do everything that we can for her cases, in relation to the UK nationals, the qualified independents, the Afghans who worked for us and the other special cases. I am very happy to continue to support her in that endeavour.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What succour will the Foreign Secretary give to the resistance in the Panjshir?
Dominic Raab
We are watching the developments on the ground very carefully, but it is fair to say that the Taliban are in control of the vast majority of Afghanistan. I do not think it is the right thing at the moment to start supporting other groups, notwithstanding our previous role. I say to my right hon. Friend, with an understanding of his passion and knowledge of the issue, that we have to adjust to the new reality on the ground.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I have to say that my blood ran rather cold when the Foreign Secretary suggested that the Home Secretary would have anything to do with helping refugees. However, there are Members around the House who have been supporting Afghan nationals to try to get them out of Afghanistan—people who have now burned their documents, deleted electronic records, and have even seen their internet profile and footprint deleted by organisations for which they used to work. Can we have a categoric, cast-iron assurance from the Secretary of State today that no one entitled to support to leave when the routes are open will ever be turned away for the absence of a piece of paper or an electronic record?
Dominic Raab
I do not think that the Home Secretary or I—both the children of refugees—need to be lectured on this subject by him in the terms and tone that he used. We will do everything we can to get those who are eligible home, but we are not going to dispense with the basic checks—he calls them “a piece of paper”—that we need to ensure that we keep this country safe from those who are not eligible and would put our safety at risk.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The Taliban’s values may not have changed, but their use of technology has. What assessment have the Government made of the ways in which the Taliban may be using technologies such as social media to track opponents and spread disinformation, and how can we work with our allies and social media companies to counter this?
Dominic Raab
I am not going to go into too much of the operational detail, but it is fair to say that the new iteration of the Taliban are a more sophisticated operator in many ways—with regard not just to the comms that they are engaged in, but their ability to use technology. That could, at least at one level, have a positive effect, but it also creates new risks and threats, which we will monitor carefully with our allies.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I pay tribute to everyone who worked on the airlift from 15 August.
We had 18 months’ notice that this situation would come about, but I have to say to the Foreign Secretary that the organisation here—for us, raising cases on behalf of our constituents—was nothing short of chaotic, with different phone numbers, a lack of information and a lack of feedback. We still do not know whether anything that we wrote and passed in on behalf of our constituents had any effect whatever. The Foreign Secretary has said that the work to get people to safety started long before 15 August and that 500 UK nationals got out. That does not sound like many. What of those people we had an obligation to in Afghanistan—the Afghanistan nationals who worked with our Government? How many of them did we get out before 15 August?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman issues a fair challenge, but I am afraid that there is an equally fair and reasonable answer. We have standing evacuation plans in place for all high-risk embassies. As I have made clear before, although we considered all eventualities, our central assessment was that there would be a slow deterioration in security from the end of August, after NATO troops were withdrawn. From April, in the run-up to our June G7 summit, I was focused on securing the US assurances to allow us to shift our embassy from the green zone to the airport.
The hon. Gentleman asked about what we were doing in the months that preceded the evacuation. From April, we sped up the relocation of former Afghan staff under the ARAP programme. In answer to his question, in that period from April onwards we relocated nearly 2,000 people. We changed our advice in April and again later on, so from April we have been very clear in advising British nationals to consider leaving Afghanistan. Our timing, by way of international comparator, was in sync with our NATO allies. I also point out that commercial flights were running until 14 August. No one—not even the Taliban, I think—had expected them to gain ground as rapidly as they did. I think that is the view among NATO allies. It was certainly also the view of regional partners when I was in the region, in Qatar and Pakistan, last week.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
On the resettlement of the Afghan families—the British citizens and those with the right to remain here—how confident is my right hon. Friend that agreement will be reached with the Taliban and other Governments of neighbouring countries, including Pakistan, so that those needing to cross the border will not be prevented on the one side or turned away on the other? Will that include Iran, for those who have already crossed the border at Herat, and when does he expect the processes and resources will be in place so that we can update constituents?
Dominic Raab
On my last update, although it is changing and very fluid, I think that all the borders have been closed with the exception of Iran’s. When I was in Pakistan, the border with Afghanistan had been closed, so let us be very clear: this is going to be a challenge. We want to make sure that we have arrangements in place so that the willingness and the ability to process British cases, whether they are nationals or ARAP-eligible cases, will be seen by these third countries as taking some of the burden off them. At the same time, it would be much more straightforward if the airport at Kabul could be made up and running, but there are not just technical capacity issues with that but the security situation on the ground. We are alive to all these risks. We are working all of them through, including with our allies, and that is why I was in the region last week.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
About 10 days ago, I met Oxford’s Hazara community, one of whom described how they had paid exorbitant amounts of money to human traffickers for their family to get to the Pakistan border and then get over the border itself, but they had been turned away because they were not of the right tribe. Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that the Hazaras are considered a vulnerable group, because history, and the present, tells us that they are? When he talks about safe passage, is he specifically considering how people get to the border and over the border, not just what happens to them when they get to the border, because for many of them that is not a possibility?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that ethnic groups—Hazaras and others—would be considered as part of the eligibility in the same way as LGBT people. Effectively we are looking at risk, which will depend on the individual but also the group, and she is right to raise ethnicity as a risk. In relation to getting to the edge of the Afghan border, that will require the Taliban to allow safe passage. I have explained to the House how we are working on that. We are also engaging with all the regional partners—this is why I was in Pakistan and why I spoke to the Uzbek Foreign Minister earlier today. We want to be clear that we have the capacity to process and give them the assurance to let those individuals across the border, and that we will take them directly back to the UK. I have deployed a team of 15 additional rapid deployment team experts to support that process in the region. But the crucial question at the moment is: will the Taliban offer safe passage and will those other countries in the region be willing to allow at least a measured and controlled opening of their borders?
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) mentioned Herat. There are 572 miles of western border between Iran and Afghanistan. Some 780,000 refugees from Afghanistan are in Iran, and perhaps two or three times that number unregistered. Is there any possibility that we can use exit routes via Herat or elsewhere in Afghanistan to get people to this country?
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend. I know how much first-hand experience he has of these matters from his time in active service. Of course the relationship with the new Government of Iran remains one that will have to be tested, but I can tell him that both through the joint comprehensive plan of action and more broadly, I had a consistent and constructive dialogue with the previous Foreign Minister, and I will certainly remain open to continuing that with his successor. That would allow us to address these wider issues, which I think will be in Iran’s interests as well as obviously those of the UK and other countries.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, I have been receiving concerns from people across the United Kingdom regarding the vulnerability of people with disabilities who are at risk. They cannot get to safety in Afghanistan and cannot get to the airport. This is particularly those who are part of ethnic minority groups or religious groups, such as Christians. Will the Foreign Secretary link with the all-party group to make sure that the resettlement programme is inclusive for the most vulnerable and that those with disabilities are never left behind?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for the work that she and the APPG are doing. She raises a really important point. It is a practical point, but one that will only exacerbate people’s fear and anxiety, particularly if they are disabled or from an ethnic minority, as she described. I urge her to send me and the Home Secretary any papers or recommendations that the APPG has.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Given the way in which the Taliban have taken a lot of NATO equipment to strengthen their hold on the country, how could we send aid in without the Taliban using or abusing it for their own purposes?
Dominic Raab
We will not give aid to the Taliban. The Taliban have a choice and a set of decisions that they have to make about whether they want to preside over the wholesale economic and social collapse of the fabric of the country. If not, they will have to give certain assurances. I think that will particularly apply to the permissive environment we would need for aid agencies in order to continue our aid. Again, that falls within the category of early tests for the Taliban, which is why we will engage with them without recognising them.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I also had constituents who could not get to the Baron Hotel as a result of illness and disability. On Saturday, it was reported that British citizens seeking to flee into Uzbekistan were not able to cross the border, while citizens of other states, such as Germany, were able to do so. What steps will the Government take to ensure that British nationals and Afghans eligible for support here are able to safely cross borders and get to safety?
Dominic Raab
I think what the hon. Lady says about the Germany case is not quite right. My understanding is that there was a previous German case that was allowed onward passage, but the border has been closed. I spoke to the Uzbek Foreign Minister earlier today, as I have been speaking with the Foreign Ministers around the region, to try, as we have done in Pakistan, to set up a workable system so that British nationals, Afghan workers and, indeed, other cases that we are willing to take—and we can give that undertaking—can be allowed into Uzbekistan for onward passage to the UK. We are doing everything we can to make sure that that is possible.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
The positive impact of 20 years of education for millions of girls and young women in Afghanistan has changed countless lives for the better. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will be using every tool at their disposal to place pressure on the Taliban and protect the progress made on the rights of women and girls?
Dominic Raab
British aid allowed 10 million more children to get access to a decent education over that last 20 years. Four out of 10 of them were young girls, who would have never seen a school otherwise. I think that is absolutely one of the crucial social gains that we need to try to consolidate and avoid being rolled back. Whenever I have spoken to any of my G7 partners, or partners in the region, there has been clarity that we need to work together to exercise the maximum moderating influence that we possibly can to make sure that those gains are not lost.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
In the last quarter of 2020, the Home Office was rejecting more than half of all asylum applications from Afghan nationals. Will the Foreign Secretary back up some of the language that he has used today and urge his colleague the Home Secretary to ensure that all Afghan appeals under review are assessed for suitability for a grant of asylum before they are listed and heard in court?
Dominic Raab
I would just say to the hon. Gentleman that I understand the passion with which he speaks. We have taken more than 17,000 people. Many of those are British nationals, but there are also Afghan nationals. We have allocated over the next few years that we will take 20,000, but we cannot take all of them, which is why it is right to check eligibility and to work with partners in the region and across the world to make sure that they can also bear the burden.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend might like to note that the Council of Europe will be debating Afghanistan in a matter of weeks. I wonder whether he has seen the pictures that appeared today of musical instruments that have been smashed by the Taliban, who have banned western music. I encourage him to take a special interest in girls and women, particularly those of the Afghan women’s orchestra, who are threatened by the Taliban at the moment.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting such cases and pay tribute to his work on the Council of Europe. We are clearly going to face challenging times and need to adjust our thinking to the new reality, but of course we will do everything we can to protect and preserve the gains in relation to girls’ education as well as wider social activity, including music.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Earlier, the Prime Minister said to the House,
“tell them that this country and the western world were protected from al-Qaeda in Afghanistan throughout that period.”
The Foreign Secretary furthered that by saying:
“First, we must prevent Afghanistan from ever again becoming a haven…for terrorists.”
I agree entirely with both statements, but we are putting a lot of trust in the murderous, medieval Taliban. What do we do if the training camps and terror networks return?
Dominic Raab
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern, which is probably the single biggest concern of hon. Members across the House. In the last analysis, we reserve the right to exercise the right of self-defence, as we always do. It is not quite right to say that we trust the Taliban or that we can trust the Taliban. We need to be willing to engage and set some early tests—of which this is one—and then monitor them carefully and judge them by what they do, not just what they say.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
Like every Member of this House, I have many constituents who are desperately concerned that they have friends and relatives at imminent risk of reprisals by the Taliban. For them, the crisis is now, not evenly spaced over five years. Will the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues therefore show some flexibility to ensure that, as part of the scheme being worked up, we can rescue those at the time of need?
Dominic Raab
I understand my right hon. Friend’s point. It is right to have the resettlement scheme over a number of years, because history tells us that we will be dealing with this challenge for some time. We have also catered for and addressed the immediate short term. We have got more than 17,000 people out, including about 500 special cases of Chevening scholars, female judges, female rights activists, journalists and many others. We are trying to get the right balance between a sustainable long-term strategy and dealing immediately with those fleeing persecution.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Many of my constituents’ families are still facing difficulties in getting out, including the family of a 17-year-old constituent who made it to the visa application centre in Islamabad only to find that part of their family reunion paperwork had been lost by officials. Others are awaiting DNA tests and tuberculosis paperwork. What will the Foreign Secretary do to address the paperwork issue? Can I have a meeting urgently to discuss the other 85 cases and over 100 Afghans that my office is supporting?
Dominic Raab
That is one of the reasons why I went to Islamabad, where I talked to the high commission team dealing with and supporting those applications and cases. We are trying to work through them as assiduously as we can. If the hon. Lady has examples of cases that she feels have not been handled properly, she should send them to me and I or Lord Ahmad will be happy to sit down with her.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that he is doing and that his team are continuing to do. I appreciate that it is incredibly difficult, but can he give any further detail on his assessment of the timeframe to help those British nationals still stuck in Kabul?
Dominic Raab
I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. The reality is that it will depend on two factors. The first is the ability to get Kabul up and running. That is in many ways the more straightforward, because by engaging with the Qataris in particular, we could not only get easier and more direct access out of the country but look at what we could do on eligibility pre-checks and such things.
If not, the alternative is third countries. I imagine that many of the third countries are anxious about a potential exodus, so we must approach them with a view to supporting them to take cases that would come to the UK. I cannot give my hon. Friend a definitive timeframe, but I was out in Qatar, which is helping on the airport, and in Pakistan, which of the neighbouring countries is probably the most likely destination for those leaving, precisely to work through those arrangements and to make clear what we will do to co-operate and co-ordinate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. If we have very short questions and short answers, we will possibly get through everybody.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
As of this morning, I had received urgent, heartbreaking pleas from 289 constituents of mine about well over 1,500 of their loved ones desperate to get out of Afghanistan. My team and I have been doing everything we can to help, but we need the Government to respond and to be clear about what options people might have. Can the Secretary of State make it clear whether the response the Prime Minister promised today will include a specific response to the inquiries that I and other MPs have raised, and can he confirm when the eligibility for the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme will be published?
Dominic Raab
We will do everything we can to support the hon. Member, and indeed hon. Members across the House. The thing to understand is that there are three separate ways of being eligible to come to the UK. We want to triage the cases, and point people in the direction of the right port of call and give them the right advice for each one of those three channels, rather than mixing them together, given that they do not have the same eligibility criteria.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that it is strange to hear the Labour party criticise the Government for unnecessary withdrawal from Afghanistan when the shadow Foreign Secretary said that the mission had “outlived its usefulness” only in July?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The truth is that throughout this crisis we have had a litany of critique without really very serious or credible suggestions for doing anything alternative. The reality is also—I want to recognise this—that beyond the Labour Front Bench there are hon. Members across the House who have very legitimate and genuine concerns, and we are doing everything we can to support those.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Does the Foreign Secretary believe he would be more successful in his attempts to persuade the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan to keep or indeed make sure that their borders are open to refugees if our country took more than a desultory 5,000 as a limit, and saw that as a minimum number of refugees we would take rather than a maximum?
Dominic Raab
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes, but I think there is no country proportionally doing more, if we take not only what we are doing on the resettlement scheme, but the 17,000 who have come back to the UK and the £30 million that I announced at the end of last week to support those third countries. I think it is right that we do our bit, but I have to say to him that I also think it is right, as a matter of policy and of moral responsibility, to try to allow refugees to be settled closer to their home so that in the future they may be able to return.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of China’s growing involvement in Afghanistan, the geopolitical consequences and the UK’s response to that?
Dominic Raab
I have spoken to my counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and I will speak to him again in the near future. There is a lot of talk about how China wants to rush in and fill the vacuum in Afghanistan, but I have to say that I am not entirely convinced that it does want to bear the entirety of the burden, whether it is the security and the terrorist burden or the financial burden of a country in such a precarious, fragile position. While we have many areas that are challenging with China, actually this is something where there are some commonalities of views and interests. I think in a situation such as this, whether it is China or other countries in the region, we need to try to work together, because we are much more likely, if we do so, to exercise maximum moderating influence on the Taliban, and that is what will yield results.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
With the Taliban takeover, many of my constituents who are Hazara Shi’a fear for their families’ safety. There is also a minority Uyghur community in Afghanistan who are in hiding, scared that they will be handed over to China. What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to protect these minorities?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who I think raises a very real issue. As I have already said to the House, we will make sure that vulnerability based on ethnicity will be considered in the resettlement scheme, and it is crucial—and I refer to the G7 paper the UK has put forward—that one of the things on which we will have to judge the Taliban and one of the early tests will be whether they are serious about being a more inclusive Government, and that will mean human rights obviously in relation to women but also their treatment of ethnic minorities.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
When we designed the Syrian resettlement scheme, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees played a crucial role as an independent and neutral party to identify those eligible for resettlement and then make the connections with the authorities of the countries willing to take them in, including the UK. What discussions have taken place between the Government and the UNHCR doing this work, and if it is my right hon. Friend’s view that the UNHCR is not going to be able to undertake that in this different situation, who does he feel is best placed to undertake that key role?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend raises a good point. The Prime Minister has spoken to the UN Secretary-General, including on this, and I spoke to Jean Arnault, the special representative on Afghanistan. Without giving all the details, I can say that of course the relationship with the UN will be one of the critical factors we consider in shaping the resettlement scheme.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill would see hundreds, possibly thousands, of Afghan asylum seekers arriving in this country in the months ahead and being prosecuted in criminal courts and imprisoned for up to four years. How can the Foreign Secretary possibly justify that proposal?
Dominic Raab
We want to be a safe haven for those fleeing persecution, but we also want to encourage people to take legal and lawful routes, and that is why we have set them out. We do not want to encourage the kind of situation we see across the channel; we want to ensure that people come through the right channels. That is the right, balanced approach, and I think it is what our constituents would expect.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
While the Taliban’s PR skills seem to have improved over the past 20 years, it is not yet clear that the new regime is any less evil or oppressive. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that there should not be any question of either Britain or our international partners recognising the Taliban Government until we can be sure they will meet their commitments on human rights, terrorism and humanitarian access?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend nails it: we do not intend to recognise the Taliban. The UK Government do not as a matter of practice recognise Governments, and the reason why is that that allows us to engage, and measure and calibrate our level of engagement, based on what the authorities do, not just what they say. The issues and tests that he identifies are the right ones, and we will be watching very carefully what the Taliban do in the weeks and months ahead. I would just say that while my scepticism runs quite deep, there was some evidence in the engagement we had on the ground in relation to the airport that it is possible to have a rational and constructive engagement and be able to test whether they will keep their word. That was an early test; the ones that my hon. Friend described will be the next ones we have to face.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister spoke earlier about helping Afghan friends of this country, but having been approached by some concerned constituents and having corresponded with the Home Office, the MOD and the FCDO, it was extremely difficult to get any clarity about plans for the evacuation of British Council employees, former employees and their families. Eventually I was advised that even current British Council staff are not eligible for early relocation. Can the Foreign Secretary explain this very disappointing decision, and what plans are now being put in place to help these Afghan nationals who put their own and their families’ lives in danger by supporting the British Council over the past 20 years?
Dominic Raab
I do not think that is quite right: we have been willing to look at British Council cases, although of course this depends on the level of association. More generally, if the hon. Lady has particular examples where she thinks that that has not been done, she should write to me and I will look at them personally.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary say a little more about his assessment of the characteristics of the Taliban, and does he agree that one feature they have demonstrated is extraordinary patience over 20 years, so that if, as some had called for, the occupation by allied forces had remained for longer the Taliban would simply have waited that extra time before making their move for power?
Dominic Raab
It is difficult to assess and judge that with any precision, but one thing is clear: the Taliban have proved a very effective military force. The question is whether they can turn that into not just governing Afghanistan in a way that is more inclusive and moderate but demonstrate the technical skills and capacity to, for instance, set a budget or get the airport up and running. These bread and butter issues away from the polemics of whether the Taliban have had a wholesale Damascene conversion will be among the most important tests in the weeks ahead. The Taliban at a political level are currently engaged in the process of forming a Government, and we will be looking very carefully at the character and composition of what is announced in due course.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
What engagement will be undertaken with regional multi-state security collaborations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, whose members all have an interest in checking international terror groups based in Afghanistan?
Dominic Raab
That is probably more the Home Secretary’s domain than mine, but we will of course want to assess very carefully with all our key partners and all the sources at our disposal the nature of the security threat, and we are monitoring that in real time.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
How careful are the Government going to be about not revealing very large numbers of names of people with a claim to come here to the Taliban until we know they will assist them in coming here rather than lock them up?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are going to have to test this; this is one of the early tests. The evidence from the period of the evacuation suggests, given the numbers we referred to—over 17,000 people, with a huge number of Afghan nationals, and the 500 cases of particularly vulnerable Afghans such as journalists, judges, Chevening scholars and women’s rights activists—that the Taliban are able to give an assurance and then keep to it. The question is whether we can build that into a steadier understanding to deal with the outstanding cases.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has said that the Taliban have agreed for British nationals to leave Afghanistan. Does that include eligible immediate family members? Can he confirm what exit routes have been agreed with the Taliban and say more about the timescales—are we looking at days, weeks or months? Finally, can he also say more about the economic leverage the Government and our allies have over the Taliban?
Dominic Raab
In terms of the eligibility of dependants, the Taliban have not gone into that level of granular detail, but if there is a clear case of a British national and immediate dependants we would expect to be able to include them, and so far through the evacuation that has been the case. The hon. Lady asked a series of other questions which are perfectly legitimate. We will have to see whether the Taliban are willing to allow safe passage. At present the challenge is that most third countries have locked their borders, so that challenge is coming externally, but for understandable reasons we are working and willing to engage not just with the Taliban but with all the countries in the region so that any of our cases that get to the border can be processed.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
First, may I thank the Foreign Secretary for all he has done and for today’s statement? I have a specific question. The Prime Minister has said that we are looking to set up a contact group or broader coalition. What is the timeline for setting up this contact group and what will be the specific criteria for membership—counter-terrorism, humanitarian, nation building? Also, will the format be based on P5 plus region and plus other countries from the middle east to get the money?
Dominic Raab
The truth is that all the points my hon. Friend made are relevant considerations. Ideally, we would want the UN to co-ordinate as that would give it independence and objectivity. All the groups he described would need to be considered. Of course they do not all get on with each other, so this is also about the art of the possible, but I am following through on that this week. We are trying to establish a core of a P5 consensus although that is not entirely straightforward, and then we will want to consider all the different regional partners, which do not all have perfect relationships with each other. This is partly about the factors my hon. Friend described but it is also about the art of the possible. It is clear, however, that we need a much broader group to be more effective in exercising a moderating influence on the Taliban.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Did the right hon. Gentleman’s Department provide a risk and needs assessment to help the Home Secretary draw up the figure of 20,000 as the proper number of people to be resettled? What advice is it providing about identifying the 5,000 most in need to come in the first year? What advice is it providing to the Home Secretary about selecting the next 15,000? They need help, but not for a few years apparently. What support are they going to get in intervening years before they are allowed to come to the UK?
Dominic Raab
Of course, we are advising and working very closely with the Home Office on the new resettlement scheme and the eligibility criteria, in the way that the hon. Gentleman described. If we had just made a year 1 commitment, he would probably be saying, “But what about year 2, year 3 and year 4?” I think it is right that we look at both the short term and the medium term, and the Home Secretary will set out full details in due course.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
People in Stroud were really distressed to see the footage of a baby being handed over to an American soldier at Kabul airport. We know that there are thousands of orphans stranded in Afghanistan, and they are at risk of radicalisation and abuse. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that children and orphans are a focus of UK support and say a little more about how we are achieving that?
Dominic Raab
No one could fail to be moved by the heart-rending scenes at Kabul airport—the one my hon. Friend described and others. We will of course look at what we can do in relation to orphans and unaccompanied minors. The real challenge will be getting verifiable details about their parents—whether they are still alive or whether there are members of the wider family. In the first instance—this has been our experience more generally across the middle east and in war-torn countries—we want to try to see whether it is possible to reunite children with either their parents, if it is safe to do so, or wider members of their family.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As is the case for many MPs, many of my constituents who are British have family dependants in Afghanistan, and a number are saying that they want to go to a third country, such as Pakistan, to get them out. I am advising them to wait until they get advice from the Government, but is the Foreign Secretary having serious discussions with the Home Secretary about expediting cases that are already in the system, with the biometrics and paperwork already in place, to see whether we can get those people through quickly to avoid clogging up the infrastructure in those third countries?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Of course, if there is a stock of cases that are good to go because those checks have already been done, we want to make sure that we are ready for the first flights out of Kabul, or indeed the first access that we can get via a third country, so that is very much on my mind and the Home Secretary’s.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Over the past 20 years, and especially in the most recent weeks, we have been able to see and hear so much about what is going on in Afghanistan thanks to the bravery of many local journalists—especially women, who of course were not allowed even to work under the previous Taliban regime. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising them for their courageous work, and can he confirm that those who now feel at risk and need to leave the country are included in the category of special cases?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only are they included, but among the broadly 500 special cases that have been evacuated out of Afghanistan, there have been a significant number of journalists. Of course, we will continue to process those kinds of cases.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Thanks to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), we are all cognisant of the fact that the Foreign Office was acutely aware of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan in July—22 July rings a particular bell. Despite that, the Foreign Secretary still proceeded to go on his holidays. When is he going to find a backbone and resign?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman referred to the risk report that the management board received in July. That is a standard monthly report that goes to senior officials. It did not contain any novel or new intelligence assessment. What the July document made clear was that our central planning assumption at the time was that the peace process in Afghanistan would probably run for a further six months. We followed all that advice while at the same time preparing our contingency plans for the evacuation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Chris Law. Ah, not here. Brendan O’Hara.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
An easy mistake to make, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Spirit Aid, the charity founded by the Scottish actor David Hayman, currently has doctors, teachers and others, and their families, stranded in Afghanistan. On 25 August, 28 August and again on 3 September, I contacted the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. I have no idea whether those emails have even been opened. Will the Secretary of State commit to open the emails and read the names of the people on those lists? When will he be in a position to tell me and, more importantly, those terrified people in Afghanistan exactly where they stand?
Dominic Raab
I explained why there was a backlog of emails; it was partly due to the surge of new contact that we received in the narrowing window of the evacuation and the decision consciously to focus on the resource of getting people on to the flights. However, as has already been said before the House, we will make sure that we give a response to all the hon. Members’ emails that we have received by close of play today, with the relevant triaging and signposting to the specific Department that is processing that type of claim.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I have a constituent, a British national, who was left behind when the evacuations ended. The Foreign Office has point-blank refused to even take his contact details or name. He has since risked his life to get to the border, as instructed, but been refused entry to both Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, while watching other foreign nationals freely enter those countries. Will the Foreign Secretary please confirm why it has taken until today to speak to his counterparts in those countries and when he expects to get an agreement so that British nationals can enter those countries to return home?
Dominic Raab
I am afraid that the hon. Lady is not quite right. Most of those countries have closed their borders. We have spoken to all of them, pressing for a third-country facility to get any UK nationals, or indeed other ARAP cases, out. They are obviously concerned about encouraging a flow of refugees. If she has had specific problems with a case, she should get in contact with me, and I or Lord Ahmad will reply and look personally at that case.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the last 20 years, Christianity has grown greatly in Afghanistan. More than 200 missionaries have come from different parts of the world to preach the gospel and have made that very clear. Many Afghans have accepted Christianity as their faith. The fall of Government means that those Christians across Afghanistan are under great threat. Never has there been a fear quite like it. What can be done to help Christians in Afghanistan at this time, to get them out and get them into the free world again?
Dominic Raab
Of course, those fleeing persecution or in fear for their life because of not just ethnicity but religious belief will be part of the considerations for the resettlement scheme. More broadly, providing some reassurance to those different communities in Afghanistan will be a critical first test for the Taliban. As the UN Security Council resolution that the United Kingdom pressed for makes clear, we will be holding the Taliban to those commitments and assurances that they have made.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on covid-19 and our vaccination programme.
Earlier this summer, we took the fourth step on our road map. We were able to take that step because of our vaccines and the way that they are working. The latest data from Public Health England estimates that our jabs have prevented over 100,000 deaths, over 143,000 hospitalisations and around 24 million infections. Across the United Kingdom, we have administered over 91 million vaccines; 88.8% of people over 16 have had their first dose, and 79.8% have had their second dose. Our jabs are building a vast wall of defence for the British people.
But this vital work is not yet complete. With the delta variant sweeping around the world, we have seen how it thrives on pockets of unvaccinated people. Last week, across the UK, we saw an average of 34,000 new cases and 938 hospitalisations each day. It is vital that we continue to plug the gaps in our defences and widen and deepen our wall of defence.
Over the summer, we have continued to do that in several ways. In August, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommended that vaccines should be offered to 16 and 17-year-olds. It also recommended jabs for 12 to 15-year-olds with specific underlying health conditions and household contacts of someone who is immunosuppressed. We accepted both recommend- ations, bringing us into line with countries such as Sweden. In recent weeks, 16 and 17-year-olds have been coming out to do their bit in droves, travelling with schoolmates and family members to get the jab.
We are taking the jab to people, too, with walk-in and pop-up vaccination sites at football stadiums and shopping centres, and of course at university freshers’ fairs; I think we have got to 20 universities. Over the bank holiday weekend, NHS pop-up sites at the Leeds and Reading festivals made picking up a jab as easy as getting a beer or a burger. As a result of these kinds of efforts, more than half of 16 and 17-year-olds across the United Kingdom have received their jabs since becoming eligible last month. That is in addition to over three in four—76.3%—18 to 34 year-olds, who have already had at least their first dose. Much of young people’s enthusiasm, I believe, comes from the fact that they have seen at first hand the chaos that covid-19 can bring. They have sacrificed so much and shown that age is no barrier to public spirit. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking them for playing their part in helping us all to live safely.
On Friday, the JCVI outlined its recommendations on the vaccination of children aged 12 to 15 years who do not have underlying health conditions. It concluded that while there are benefits to vaccinating this cohort, taken purely on health terms the benefit is finely balanced. Building on the JCVI’s advice, we will now consider advice from the UK’s four chief medical officers and make a decision shortly. We have already accepted the JCVI’s recommendation that 12 to 15-year-olds with the following conditions become eligible: haematological malignancy, sickle cell disease, type 1 diabetes, congenital heart disease and poorly controlled asthma. That will amount to an extra 200,000 teens becoming eligible.
I also want to take this opportunity to address vaccination in pregnant women. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives have both recommended vaccination as one of the best defences for pregnant women against severe covid infection. Extensive real world data show our vaccines are safe and highly effective for pregnant women. We now know that pregnant women are more likely to become seriously ill from covid if they are not vaccinated. In fact, 98% of pregnant women in hospital due to covid-19 are unvaccinated. Yet we also know that not one single pregnant woman with two jabs has required hospitalisation with covid-19. I urge pregnant women to continue to come forward and get the jab. Our new Preg-CoV trial is advancing knowledge on how we can even better protect pregnant women and their babies.
Taking all of that together, our overarching ambition is to widen our wall of defence so that we can protect more and more people. As well as widening that wall of defence, we are deepening it. Last Wednesday, 1 September, the JCVI advised that people with severely weakened immune systems should have a third vaccine dose as part of their primary covid-19 vaccination schedule. It will be offered to people over 12 who were severely immunosuppressed at the time of their first or second dose, such as those with leukaemia, advanced HIV and recent organ transplants. This, I must stress, is separate from any potential booster programme for the rest of the population. The JCVI is still investigating who should receive boosters. Our cov-boost study is comparing immune responses produced by third doses of different brands of vaccines.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. This is a statement, so the hon. Gentleman can bob up later if he needs to.
Nadhim Zahawi
As ever, whatever the clinical decision from the JCVI, the NHS will be ready. We will proceed with the same sense of urgency we have had at every point in this campaign.
Vaccines remain our most important line of defence, yet they are not our only line of defence. Regular testing continues to play a crucial part in returning this country to something that feels a bit more like normal. PCR tests remain freely and easily available, and anybody with symptoms should make sure to get tested. Children are returning to classrooms across these islands. I am sure all hon. Members welcome that, as did the Secretary of State for Education at questions this afternoon. They return to an immeasurably better set up: no more home schooling, no more bubbles, teachers vaccinated, and all 16 and 17-year-olds offered a first dose before returning. That matters because we know that face-to-face education is the best place for children and young people.
Rapid testing can uncover hidden cases of the virus at the start of term. Whether it is our constituents or our children, we must encourage people to do it. On their return to school and colleges, students should take two rapid tests on site three to five days apart. They should then continue to test twice weekly at home. To university students, I would also say this: make every effort to get fully vaccinated before going back. It has never been easier to drop in and get a vaccine and the necessary testing. These are straightforward steps, but they are essential in stopping the spread.
Finally, I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming the additional £5.4 billion cash injection we are putting into the NHS. This investment will go straight to the frontline, supporting our covid-19 response over the next six months. The funds include £1 billion to help to deliver routine surgery and treatments for patients, and tackle our backlog. The funds take the Government’s total support for health services in response to covid-19 to over £34 billion this year alone.
We are widening and deepening our wall of defence. We are getting jabs to more people and getting some people more jabs. We are getting the NHS what it needs. The ask of our NHS colleagues continues to be complex and challenging, yet they rise to it day in, day out. I pay tribute to everyone involved in these lifesaving efforts. We must keep going, and I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Like him, I praise all our NHS staff. I particularly want to associate myself with the remarks about the safety of the vaccine for pregnant women.
Children’s health and wellbeing has always been a driving priority of mine. Children may not have been the face of this pandemic, but they have certainly been among its biggest victims. The record will show that I have been asking in this House about the vaccination of adolescents for some months. I of course understand the position of the JCVI and welcome the review on the wider implications for children’s wellbeing by the chief medical officers. Should vaccination be recommended and the chief medical officers do recommend vaccination, that will command our full support on the Labour Benches. If the chief medical officers recommend vaccination, will the Minister guarantee that our public health workforce, our health visitors and our school nurses, as well as primary care, will have the resources they need to roll out that vaccination?
Children are back to school. In Leicester, children have been back in school for two weeks. In Scotland, children have been back in school for some weeks also, putting upward pressure on infection rates. If the chief medical officers recommend vaccination, how long does the Minister think it will take to roll out that vaccination? Are we talking months? Are we talking weeks? Are we talking days? If he could give us an indication, I am sure we would all be grateful. The Education Secretary has removed many of the infection control mitigations in schools. We urged Ministers to use the summer holidays to install ventilation, air filtration units and carbon dioxide monitors in schools. How many schools have now had those systems installed?
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) is the Minister for vaccines. Primary and secondary school children are due to receive a flu vaccine, yet not only is the NHS apparently running out of blood test tubes, with certain vital tests delayed, but we are now told that flu vaccination will be delayed, because deliveries are delayed by two weeks, and GPs are cancelling flu vaccination appointments. This is before we head into what could be one of the most difficult winters in living memory. What will the Minister do to get a grip of this situation and avoid a flu crisis this winter? If there is a delay in flu vaccines, does he expect that to knock on to any booster jab campaign? Less than a month ago, the Health Secretary said he wanted booster jabs to be given at the same time as flu jabs and he said that they would start this month.
Finally, we of course welcome the new funding for the second half of the financial year and we welcome that it would appear that Ministers have listened to our calls for the discharge to assess funding to be extended, but I think the whole House would agree that surely one of the most heartbreaking, and in my view frankly unforgivable, episodes in the pandemic was the failure to protect care homes and to put that protective ring around care homes as we were promised. If covid has taught us anything, it is that a long-term plan for social care is long overdue and that it should be funded in a fair way. The Minister, along with every Conservative Member, was elected on a manifesto that promised a social care plan and promised no rise in national insurance. The Prime Minister guaranteed no rise in national insurance, but we are told to expect, tomorrow, a rise in national insurance—a tax on workers to pay for a regressive social care policy that simply will not improve the care that people need and deserve. In this House, the Minister used to call national insurance a “tax on jobs”. What would he call a manifesto-breaking national insurance rise now?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his support and his words on the vaccination of pregnant women and the protection that the vaccine offers them.
On the right hon. Member’s question about the JCVI advice on 12 to 15-year-olds, the JCVI looked at the very narrow impact of the vaccine on 12 to 15-year-olds, because that is very much its remit. It also advised that the chief medical officers should take a wider look. That is what they are doing as we speak. Panels of experts from local public health as well as other experts are looking at the impact of the vaccine on mental health and the disruption to education specifically for 12 to 15-year-olds. They will come back with recommendations. The JCVI is observing those panels and is very much in the room, as far as that is concerned.
It is also worth reminding the House that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has looked at the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and has approved both vaccines as safe and eligible to be administered to 12 to 15-year-olds. It is not worth our pre-empting the report of the chief medical officers of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Throughout the pandemic, we have operationalised the vaccine programme; we prepare early and we prepare well. To give the right hon. Member a direct answer to his question, the NHS is prepared to administer a vaccine within five working days of any recommendation. That does not pre-empt any recommendation. We did the same when none of the vaccines was approved. Some colleagues will recall Brigadier Phil Prosser explaining at the press conference that we had built the equivalent of the infrastructure of a national supermarket chain and were growing it by 20% every week. We have done the same thing when it comes to all outcomes of the deliberations at the JCVI and what it will ultimately recommend.
On education, the Secretary of State for Education addressed many of the issues on the mitigation and controls in schools, as well as testing and the very successful adult vaccination programme that we have delivered, which is now also delivering protection for 16 and 17-year-olds.
I really want to address the point about flu and I hope that we can have a sensible discussion on it. We are being very ambitious on flu. The interim advice from the JCVI is wherever possible to co-administer flu and covid vaccines. Traditionally, flu vaccination begins earlier—it begins now. One of the suppliers, Seqirus, has had a border issue with its Spanish fill-and-finish factory, which it has used for many, many years. This is the first time that it has had this issue. It is meeting the Spanish regulator to see what the issue is. It is being very careful and estimating a one or two-week delay. This will not delay the overall flu vaccination programme at all. Its German and Belgian supply chain has been flowing normally. It is one of the suppliers, so I urge the right hon. Gentleman not to, as a knee-jerk reaction, talk about flu vaccine shortages. We are being incredibly ambitious on flu vaccines—including procuring centrally as well as the traditional procurement through GPs and pharmacies—with a big, big programme.
Wherever possible, we will co-administer. The only caveat I would place on that is that the JCVI has given us only its interim advice on covid. We are not yet there with the cov-boost data, which it will look at. It will give us its final advice on covid. If it chooses a vaccine that requires, for example, a 15-minute observation period, we have a very different challenge in co-administration, but nevertheless, wherever possible, we will co-administer. We have made it possible for vaccinated volunteers to administer flu and covid vaccines.
Finally, on funding, I am glad that the right hon. Member agrees that the £5.4 billion announced today is a good thing. I urge him not to speculate on how we will pay for social care and to wait for the announcement; I am sure that we can then discuss it in this place and in the media.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I have great respect for the excellent job that my right hon. Friend is doing. He will know that Israel shows that even a good vaccination programme does not stop the Delta variant driving up hospitalisations. However, Israel also shows that a booster programme brings down those hospitalisations in as little as two weeks. Given that the big lesson from last year is that acting early can stop the need for lockdowns, as happened in Taiwan, Singapore, Korea and a number of other places, is this not a moment for Ministers to say, “Look, we understand that the scientists want to take their time, but we have a reasonable idea of what they are likely to recommend, so we are going to get on with this booster programme before it is too late”?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s excellent question. I would say two things: first, in many ways, the decision taken by our chief medical officers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to increase the dosing interval, including for the vaccine that Israel uses—the Pfizer vaccine—from three to 12 weeks, with it now at an optimal eight weeks, was actually an inspired and clinically incredibly important decision, because it demonstrates, in real-world data, that the durability of the protection is increased over people who have had two jabs with a three-week dosing period. So we are in a slightly more advantageous position, if I can describe it as such.
My right hon. Friend makes an important point on boosters. The booster programme is probably the most important piece of the jigsaw yet to fall into place before we can transition this virus from pandemic to endemic status. I reassure him and the House that the NHS has all the plans in place to deliver the booster programme in what will, in some weeks, probably break our record, which we set in phase 1 of the vaccination programme. The JCVI has given us its interim advice on who needs to boost. It has added, obviously, the immunosuppressed to categories 1 to 4 and it has rightly recommended that we go big on flu. I am equally worried about that. Flu has been non-existent because of the severe social isolation of lockdowns and a big flu season could be detrimental as well. We are ready to go. As soon as cov-boost reports, which is imminent, we will be able to operationalise a massive booster programme.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and the update on the vaccination roll-out for pregnant women and the roll-out to young people and those who are most clinically vulnerable. I thank our NHS staff across the four nations, who have dealt with wave after wave of the pandemic and are now at the forefront of the vaccination strategy.
We welcome the additional funding and I seek reassurance from the Minister that, particularly when it comes to young people, there is a holistic approach, so that we deal with not just the physical health aspects, but the mental health aspects. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary health group, I have been inundated with concerns from people across the United Kingdom who cannot access services for young people with eating disorders, for those who self-harm and require crisis intervention, and for those who require the diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder to receive the support that they need. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has described a “mental health crisis” that could plague the current generation of children for years to come. Will the Minister acknowledge that a holistic approach is needed, alongside the vaccination strategy, to make sure that we support young people’s mental health and mental health across the generations, as well as to make sure that the funding also reaches the mental health needs of the population at large?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s words of support and for her focus, quite rightly, on mental health. She will know that prior to today’s announcement of £5.4 billion, we also delivered £270 million to primary care for GPs to deal with capacity issues, because they are dealing so well with the covid vaccination programme. However, she makes a very important point that we are very cognisant of and focused on.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
As my hon. Friend said, the Government have referred the question of the mass vaccination of healthy children to the chief medical officer, asking him to take into account wider benefits such as the avoidance of disruption to education. However, school closures and restrictions are a political choice, not a scientific inevitability, as the wide variation in school days lost by children in countries around the world shows. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the CMO should base his recommendation on the benefits and risks to children’s health and wellbeing from the vaccination itself, rather than on any potential political decisions that may be taken in future?
Nadhim Zahawi
Without putting words into the mouth of the chief medical officer for England, Chris Whitty, I can tell my hon. Friend that the work that he is conducting with his fellow chief medical officers looks specifically at the impact on 12 to 15-year-olds. However, the JCVI looked particularly at the area in which its competence lies and made a recommendation that the chief medical officer should look beyond that to mental health and other areas. That is why he is convening a group of experts from local public health, as well as the royal colleges.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Minister has some quite fantastic figures about the 16-to-17 cohort, but as a mum of one in west London, may I say that my own boy and all his circle are being diverted to the national booking system? Their generation like doing things at the last minute, so instead can we have more pop-ups and more festivals like the scenes that we saw at Twickenham earlier this year? They do not want to go down the oldies’ routes. Failing that, there are schools, which in my day meant the nit nurse.
Nadhim Zahawi
Yes, absolutely. We are making it as easy as possible for them to simply walk in and get their jab.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Given the overwhelming evidence, both moral and practical, against covid vaccine passports, will my hon. Friend rediscover the courage of his own convictions, as he once described the proposal as “discriminatory”? If the idea behind the scheme is not his own, will he kindly convey a message to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to desist from his machinations?
Nadhim Zahawi
This is an incredibly difficult area, but let me try to describe the challenge here. To keep industries such as the nightclub industry open and sustainable, especially in the next few months, we have to look very seriously at how we keep them safe and not have super-spreader events. We have seen other countries having to shut down nightclubs the moment they reopen them. The worst thing for the industry is to open and shut, open and shut, which is why we are looking to introduce a covid certificate by the end of September for domestic use in large gatherings indoors, especially where we have seen mass spreader events.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister will be aware that there are 3.7 million clinically extremely vulnerable people in this country who had to shield for many months. Many have continued to shield or take far greater precautions than the rest of us since restrictions have eased, and they have had very slow and inconsistent guidance at times. Will he prioritise that group in totality by prioritising booster jabs for the whole group, not just for the half million most at risk? We really need to keep the most vulnerable people safe.
Nadhim Zahawi
I do not disagree with the hon. Lady; I know what she is talking about. She will have seen the interim advice from the JCVI on phase 1, which is for categories 1 to 4, and phase 2, which is for categories 5 to 9—including category 6, the largest category of those people she describes. The JCVI has yet to deliver its final advice post the cov-boost study data. As we have done throughout the deployment, we will follow the JCVI advice.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The JCVI has assessed the known risks and benefits of the covid vaccine for 12 to 15-year-olds and has not recommended it. As the Minister said, the Health Secretary has now referred the matter to the chief medical officers so that they can look at it from a so-called “broader perspective”. Now that children are attending school, half of them have had covid already, they do not need to isolate unless they test positive and they do not need to isolate if they are merely a contact, does the Minister agree that disruption to education will now be much less severe? Furthermore, does he agree that it is not reasonable to use political decisions about schools as leverage to force vaccines on a population of children?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s very thoughtful question. I can reassure her that there is no political decision making; the process that the chief medical officers are undertaking is unencumbered by any political motivation whatsoever. We will absolutely follow their advice, and the JCVI is in the room as they are deliberating. It is important to recall that the JCVI advice was that vaccination is marginally more beneficial to healthy 12 to 15-year olds than non-vaccination, but not enough to recommend a universal vaccination programme. It is also worth reminding the House that we have been vaccinating 12 to 15-year-olds who are more vulnerable to serious infection and hospitalisation, as the JCVI recommended.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
On vaccine passports for nightclubs, the Minister said yesterday:
“The best way we can keep those industries open…is to work with the industry”.
Does he recognise that industry representatives do not support the proposal? The Night Time Industries Association has said that
“it will cripple the industry.”
Not only is it impractical and indeed unworkable, but it could potentially lead to an increase in illegal events, raves and large house parties—the kind of super-spreader events that the Minister is worried about. In those cases, there will be fewer safety measures. This is a hammer blow for an industry that has suffered more than almost any other over the past year and a half. Will he take its concerns into consideration and think very carefully before bringing such a proposal forward?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Member raises important points from the industry and we will always make sure that we look at them. One piece of feedback from our earlier consultation was that to be able to check IDs, for example, we would want to make this process equally straightforward for the industry.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I completely support—the whole House will concur—the fantastic work that the NHS has done through the vaccine programme. It is great news that they are coming forward and are ready, but the army of volunteers I saw and worked with in my constituency are exhausted. They need to know up front how often and when they will be needed, because the programme cannot happen without not just vaccinations from the NHS, but the army of people who come forward and put their own lives at risk so others can be safe.
Nadhim Zahawi
My right hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point that we look at every single day. In my ops meetings, we have a section dedicated to the workforce and specifically to the volunteers, so that we can make sure that they are put on notice of where and when we think we will need them. The only caveat that I would add is that we have built a very large infrastructure, but it has to flex depending on the advice from the JCVI, the MHRA and, of course, our chief medical officers.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It will not be lost on many people that the various lines of defence that the Minister listed in his statement did not actually include his plans for vaccine passports, presumably because they do not offer us any defence at all. Taking a leaf from the book of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), may I remind the Minister of what he said on Twitter on 12 January? He wrote:
“We have no plans to introduce vaccine passports…No one has been given or will be required to have a vaccine passport.”
When no less a person than Claire Fox said,
“Good to hear. Again. Can we hold you to this?”,
the Minister replied:
“Yes you can Claire.”
For Claire and the many others like her who want to hold the Minister to his words, may I ask when we will get the vote that he promised us?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s question. It is an important question that I want to address head-on, because it is about statements on Twitter; I understand that I am “trending” on Twitter.
I was asked about this by Tom Swarbrick, who replayed to me my February interview. I said to him that the difference between then and now was first that the Delta variant is so much more infections than the previous variants—it takes only a very few particles for someone to be infected—and secondly that we have learnt from the experience of other countries which attempted to reopen sectors such as the nightclub sector and then had to close them rapidly because of super-spreader events. We do know that 60% of people who have had two jabs will not become infected with the Delta variant and therefore cannot infect someone else, although 40% will and can. This is a relative risk that we want to avoid: what we do not want to do is open the industry and then have to shut it down again because of those super-spreader events.
I hope that I have explained myself to the House. It is important that when politicians have new evidence—new data—they are able to change their minds.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
All UK adults have now been offered a first dose, and I think it is worth reflecting on what a remarkable achievement that is on the part of the country, the volunteers and indeed the Minister, who deserves a great deal of credit. We have long since protected the vulnerable, and surely very soon we will offer them that booster jab.
Until this point I thought I had understood the strategy completely, but now I am not so sure. What is it? Is it about case numbers, which we still broadcast every day? We never did that when I was in the Minister’s Department and influenza was having a bad year.
My question goes to the heart of the stuff about covid status certification, and about vaccinating healthy children. In short, what is the strategy now? What do the Government mean when they say we must learn to live with covid? Could the Minister give us his view?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s important and thoughtful question, and for his words of encouragement as well.
Let us look at what the vaccines have achieved. We have achieved a situation in which we have weakened—severely weakened—the link between cases going up rapidly, serious infection, hospitalisation and death. We are in a very different place today. This new equilibrium is where we want to be able to head to in steady state. The challenge that will come over the next few weeks and months is that there will be upward pressure on that equilibrium. We may break it in the wrong way because schools are reopening, there will be a higher number of infections, and those infections could seep through to the older age groups who are much more vulnerable. The booster campaign would help to push it the right way, with the infection rates being forced up but not leaking into the most vulnerable. That is why the JCVI stressed that we should boost the most vulnerable first.
I hope that this next challenge will enable us to demonstrate to the world that we are one of the first major economies in the world to bring about the transition of this virus from pandemic to endemic and then live with it over the years to come, through an annual vaccination or inoculation programme.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is interesting to note that the Minister has a short-term job in some respects, as the vaccines Minister. He should perhaps recognise that some of us are in favour of covid passports because they should also be a short-term measure, and it will probably be a sign of his success if they are.
My main point, however, is that the Minister dangled in front of us—although I know that this is not in the written statement that was circulated—the extra money going into the NHS. I have mentioned the short-term nature of the Minister’s job in some respects, but it is long-term funding that is needed. We know that money injected at short notice in large amounts is not always spent very well, even by our beloved health service, and I have direct experience of recruitment processes whereby posts have become pretty much redundant by the time people have been recruited to them. What is the Minister’s Department doing—and what is he doing personally if he has some responsibility in this regard—to ensure that the money will be spent well, and that there is a long-term financial plan for recovery?
Nadhim Zahawi
I have grateful for the hon. Lady’s words, including those about the issue of vaccine certification, on which I agree with her. No one in this Government, and certainly not this Prime Minister—as I said at the weekend, it goes against his DNA—wants to curtail people’s freedoms, so we will not do this lightly at the end of September. As for her question about the funding, let me try and give her some more details.
The £5.4 billion cash injection over the next six months in response to covid-19 includes £1 billion to help tackle the backlog, delivering routine surgery and treatments for patients. As I said in my statement, the total Government support for the health service is £34 billion in this year alone. The funding will go towards helping the NHS to manage the immediate pressure of the pandemic. As I have said, it includes an extra £1 billion to help tackle the backlog, along with £2.8 billion to cover related costs such as those of the enhanced infection control measures that are so important to keep staff and patients safe from the virus, and £478 million to continue the hospital discharge programme, freeing up beds.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Six years ago we lost 28,000 people to seasonal flu. Can the Minister assure me that we will not prioritise the jabbing of 12 to 15-year-olds over the seasonal flu programme, given that the number of children whom we would lose to covid would be vanishingly small in any event? Can he also assure me that in his planning he has considered not only the 15-minute wait that the Pfizer jab requires, but the extra time and effort that are required to get truly informed consent from children whose motivation cannot be clinical, must be altruistic, and may be subject to peer pressure?
Nadhim Zahawi
Let me try to unpack my hon. Friend’s question. First, no decision has been made on vaccinating 12 to 15-year-olds who are healthy. We are vaccinating those who are vulnerable. We will not pre-empt the important work that the chief medical officers are doing and on which they are experts. Operationally, we have the infrastructure to be able to deal with both programmes.
The flu and covid booster campaigns are the largest endeavours. As I said earlier, in some weeks we will probably break the record that we set in the original covid vaccination programme. The flu vaccine is traditionally delivered through the brilliant work of GPs and, of course, community pharmacies, and they are doing that again. They have raised their ambition and ordered more than they did last year—which was a record-breaking year—and we have procured centrally as well. I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is our priority. I worry very much about a bad flu season this year, which is why we have been so much more ambitious in that regard, as well as on the covid booster campaign.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
In his statement, the Minister emphasised that universities should get double jags, but before the recess I highlighted the case of students who had had a jag in Scotland and a jag in England, and had been unable to travel abroad because their covid certification was not clear. At the time, someone from NHS Digital said that they were working on doing the same in England with the NHS covid pass. Given that people who have jags in different parts of the four nations may be discriminated against by vaccine passports, can the Minister provide an update on how that is progressing?
Nadhim Zahawi
I will go back and check, but I am almost certain that the NHS England system is now able to take in data from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in terms of jabs—or jags.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and also for recognising the young people who were at low risk but have taken up the offer of a jab to protect more vulnerable people in their families, workplaces and communities.
The figures that the Minister presented on pregnant women needing hospital treatment for covid were very stark. Can he reassure me that pregnant ladies are obtaining advice at the earlier possible opportunity from their GPs or midwives, and are themselves being reassured that the jab is safe for them and for their unborn children? Those figures would certainly hit home with them.
Nadhim Zahawi
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We have a pretty substantial outreach programme, including webinars with midwives so that they are given all the available tools to ensure that pregnant women are given the protection that they so vitally require.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The effective cut-off for care home staff to get their first jab in order to comply with the Government’s deadline is just 10 days away, and those who are not double-jabbed in time will not be able to work in care homes. However, there has yet to be any unequivocal guidance on who will be exempt from this, and care home managers in my constituency are desperately concerned, especially in the light of the most unprecedented care home staffing crisis in a generation. They are desperate for that guidance. Will the Minister provide it today?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: 11 November is the date by which care homes and care home providers will have to comply with the legislation on the vaccination programme. I would be happy to share with him the guidance and the communication that we have sent out to the sector, and I will write to him after this statement.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I particularly welcome what the Minister had to say about pregnant women. My own daughter is expecting a baby in January, and she found it very difficult to get such definitive advice earlier in the summer, although she has now had her jab. I want to ask the Minister specifically about another issue. How can UK citizens who have had their vaccinations abroad ensure that those vaccinations are held up as valid here in the United Kingdom? For example, I have a constituent who had his AstraZeneca vaccinations in Saudi Arabia and is struggling to have them recognised here.
Nadhim Zahawi
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; we are working flat out. We have the pilot scheme in which we recognise vaccinations from America and Europe, and we are looking to expand that to other countries so that people who have had a vaccines from a list of approved vaccines in those countries can benefit from the same freedoms that people who have been double-vaccinated in the UK have.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Can he reaffirm that no child will be vaccinated without explicit parental consent, and that, should consent not be given, that will not affect the child’s education in terms of school outings, sporting events or residentials? Does he believe that this protection needs to be further enshrined in law?
Nadhim Zahawi
I repeat to the House that no decision has been made on vaccinating 12 to 15-year-olds. We have to allow the chief medical officers to do the work that they need to do, with the JCVI in the room, and to come back to us. I will return to the House and share with Members the decision that is made. In terms of school-age vaccination programmes in general, parental consent is always required, and the NHS is well-versed in effectively receiving that consent. On the rare occasions when there is a difference of opinion between the child and the parents, the child’s competence and level of understanding of the vaccine come into play. NHS clinical advice is very much that that is a rarity, and parental consent is required for school-age vaccination programmes.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The vaccination roll-out has been excellent; no one can dispute that. However, I have two issues, one of which has just been covered, on the proposals to vaccinate young people. First, if the benefits of doing that are so small and we are vaccinating children to protect the wider public, should we not be asking the many adults who have not yet been vaccinated to get vaccinated now and stop placing further pressure on our young people who have suffered enough to protect the elderly throughout the pandemic? Secondly, if we still decide to offer vaccinations to 12 to 15-year-olds, does my hon. Friend agree that this should ultimately be the parents’ decision? I fear that removing the responsibility that parents have for their children in this area, and in many others, could have unknown consequences for family relationships for many years to come.
Nadhim Zahawi
I reiterate that the work that the chief medical officers are carrying out is looking at the impact of this—whether it be educational, psychological or relating to the public health impact—on 12 to 15-year-olds. As I say, they will then come back with their advice, having had the JCVI in the room for those deliberations. Parental consent is required in any school-age vaccination programme, but I do not want to pre-empt this decision. No decision has yet been made, but parental consent would be required. On the very rare occasions when there is a difference of opinion, Gillick competence applies.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
May I take this opportunity—the first one after lockdown, I think—to thank the Minister, his officials and the whole of the national health service for the fantastic job that they have done and for their brilliant roll-out of the vaccine? Will he join me in congratulating the Order of St John, which has done a huge job in carrying out the vaccinations and in training and co-ordinating volunteers? It has done a brilliant job, and it is worthy of our thanks.
Nadhim Zahawi
I will absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating St John’s volunteers, who have done a phenomenal job. They really rose to the challenge when we contacted them and said that we needed them. They delivered in spades. I thank my hon. Friend for all his words: this has been a massive team effort involving the health service, the public sector and of course the private sector as well.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I would like to thank my hon. Friend for the incredible vaccine roll-out; many lives have been saved by it. My question is about domestic vaccine passports, and I have to apologise because I get a bit confused by the nomenclature of what is being proposed. On the one hand, we have what I understand to be vaccine-only passports, which say simply that someone has been vaccinated and that that is all that counts. Then we have covid status certification, which can also include negative testing and proof of recent infection. Crucially, this is not just about whether someone has been vaccinated, because as I understand it, a lateral flow test negative result is the best evidence that someone is no longer infectious. Is my understanding correct that the proposal for the end of September is for vaccine-only domestic vaccine passports? If that is the case, why has that moved from covid status certification?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just before the Minister answers, I must point out that we need to finish this statement fairly shortly. Colleagues should keep their questions very short, and the answers should be correspondingly short.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend for his question. I guess the reason for the shift by the end of September, when all 18-year-olds will have had the opportunity to get two jabs, is that testing provides a limited protective assurance and allows for the potential for self-testing fraud. The effectiveness of testing-based certification can also be undermined by a single incursion into a setting. Transmission, serious illness and hospitalisation are reduced using vaccination-based certification, even with incursions, so that is the thinking behind this. I reiterate that nobody does this lightly. We do not curtail people’s freedoms lightly; this is purely so that we can keep industries and sectors open and not have to close them down again if there is a super-spreader event.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the excellent Minister for coming to the Dispatch Box. When are we going to get the debate and the vote on vaccine passports?
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend reassure residents in Scunthorpe that the very welcome booster programme will make full use of pharmacies and our fantastic vaccination hubs and, if possible, those routine contacts such as winter flu jab appointments and asthma checks, to ensure that we do not lose any GP appointment time over these much-welcomed boosters?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend is quite right to say that GPs need to do more than just the vaccination programme, the booster programme and the flu vaccination programme. We also have to recognise that they do an incredible job in protecting the most vulnerable from flu, and that they were the backbone of the covid vaccination programme. We are continuing to work with primary care networks, but we have enhanced the pharmacy offer as well. I will be able to set out more detail on that when we begin the booster programme.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I am sorry to press the Minister on a hot topic, but although I understand the need for limited and specific use of vaccine passports—perhaps in nightclub settings, which are particularly risky, as he has said—the admission yesterday that the proposal had been expanded to include larger venues and gatherings is really beginning to concern my constituents, especially when we have vaccinated around of 80% of the population. Will this be a high water mark for their use, and when will the criterion potentially end?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend has heard me say today that no one embarks on this lightly, and it is not in the Prime Minister’s DNA to curtail people’s freedoms. It is purely so that we can have sustainable continuation of an open economy that we would introduce such programmes. I do not know—if anyone claims otherwise, they are foolhardy or foolish—when we can definitely say that the virus has transitioned from pandemic to endemic status.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Medical autonomy on vaccinations has been removed from workers in care home settings, so when will medical autonomy be removed from nurses, doctors and consultants in the NHS?
Nadhim Zahawi
In the original consultation on social care conditions of deployment, which we eventually introduced and have discussed today, part of the feedback was that we should consult on the wider health service, including frontline healthcare workers. By the way, I commend both social care and healthcare workers because the majority of them have come forward to be vaccinated. Indeed, more than 94% of frontline healthcare workers have had both doses. We will bring forward a consultation on this, because there is a duty of care for those looking after vulnerable people in hospitals or care homes to be protected against covid.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Delivering covid booster jabs alongside flu vaccinations presents additional operational challenges. Will my hon. Friend do everything possible to co-ordinate these jabs, to ensure that we have very high uptake and to ensure the jabs arrive in Stoke-on-Trent in good time?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is there any risk to older age groups who, because they are more vulnerable, had both jabs earlier, that the effectiveness of those jabs might wear off sooner and that there might be a gap of vulnerability before they can get their booster shots?
Nadhim Zahawi
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight that there is a group of older patients who received both doses with a three-week dosing interval, not a 12-week dosing interval. They will be our priority when it comes to boosters. The data from Cov-Boost is imminent, as I said earlier. The system is ready and primed to go as soon as we have that data, so that we boost the most vulnerable, including the group to which he refers, as quickly as possible to offer that additional protection.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
During the summer I visited the “Grab a Jab” van in Aylesbury, which proved especially popular with younger people. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating everybody involved in rolling out that vaccination programme and in encouraging all 16 and 17-year-olds in the Aylesbury constituency to get their jab so that they can live a full life, whether studying, working or just having a good time?
Nadhim Zahawi
I certainly urge all 16 and 17-year-olds to come forward to get their jab and the protection and freedoms that go with it. I thank the “Grab a Jab” team in Aylesbury for all the work they have done.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The strongest incentive for getting the vaccine is obviously to protect yourself and your loved ones. Although the risk of covid to secondary school-age children may be low, the risk to those they live with could be much higher. Will the chief medical officers consider offering covid vaccines to 12 to 15-year-olds who live with immunosuppressed or other extremely clinically vulnerable people in their household?
Nadhim Zahawi
My understanding is that, for 12 to 15-year-olds who are healthy, the chief medical officer is looking at the impact on them specifically, whether it be their mental health or the other impacts of disruption to education. He is consulting widely with local directors of public health and the Royal Colleges.
Point of Order
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have told the other Member concerned of my intention to raise this matter tonight.
Over the past two weeks or so, several thousand of my constituents have been direct mailed political material in two names, one of whom is the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and the other holds no elected office of any kind. In this literature the hon. Lady is referred to as the local Member of Parliament, and constituents who receive it are encouraged to contact her with any queries, rather than me.
Is it in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, for a Member of Parliament to target large numbers of residents in a neighbouring constituency with literature that is clearly calculated to create the impression that they, and not me, are the local Member of Parliament? If it is not in order, what corrective action might you suggest?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I completely understand his concern. I am sure he will understand that I am not responsible for Members’ communications with their constituents, and I have not seen the leaflet in question. I am pleased that he has informed the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) of his intention to raise this point of order.
Of course, all hon. and right hon. Members should be accurate in the material they provide to constituents. That includes ensuring that leaflets describing an hon. Member as the local Member of Parliament are, indeed, distributed only within the relevant constituency.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) has put his point on record, and I am pleased he has been in touch with the other hon. Member concerned. Having made that general point about the need for accuracy, which I stress, I hope the two hon. Members can now resolve this matter speedily.
National Insurance Contributions Bill
Monday 6th September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions Act 2022 View all National Insurance Contributions Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 6 September 2021 - (6 Sep 2021)
19:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 15 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before we begin debating the new clauses and amendments to the Bill that have been selected, I want to remind the House that the scope of this debate is limited to whether or not the Bill should be altered or added to by any or all of those amendments and new clauses. This is not an opportunity to debate the Bill as a whole or the national insurance fund in general, and still less to discuss how to fund the NHS or adult social care. I expect that the House will have the chance later in the week to hear from Ministers, if and when they have any new policies to announce with regard to what I have talked about.
New Clause 1
Zero-rate contributions for employees of green manufacturing companies
‘(1) This section applies where—
(a) a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b) of the 1992 Act in respect of earnings paid in a tax week in respect of an employment,
(b) the green manufacturing condition is met (see section [Green manufacturing condition]), and
(c) the employer (or, if different, the secondary contributor) elects that this section is to apply in relation to the contribution for the purposes of section 9(1) of the 1992 Act instead of section 9(1A) of that Act or section 1 of this Act.
(2) For the purposes of section 9(1) of whichever of the 1992 Acts would otherwise apply—
(a) the relevant percentage in respect of any earnings paid in the tax week up to or at the upper secondary threshold is 0%, and
(b) the relevant percentage in respect of any earnings paid in the tax week above that threshold is the secondary percentage.
(3) The upper secondary threshold (or the prescribed equivalent in relation to earners paid otherwise than weekly) is the amount specified in regulations under section 8.
(4) For the purposes of the 1992 Acts a person is still to be regarded as being liable to pay a secondary Class 1 contribution even if the amount of the contribution is £0 as a result of this section.
(5) The Treasury may by regulations make provision about cases in which subsection (2) is to be treated as applying in relation to contributions payable in respect of a tax week in a given tax year only when—
(a) that tax year has ended, and
(b) all contributions payable in respect of a tax week in that tax year have been paid.’—(Richard Thomson.)
This new clause provides National Insurance contributions relief for businesses engaged in green manufacturing
Brought up, and read the First time.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Green manufacturing condition—
‘(1) The green manufacturing condition is that the employer is engaged in the manufacture of products within the categories designated under subsection (2).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State must by regulations designate categories of products that in the opinion of the Secretary of State are manufactured with the aim of increasing environmental standards.
(3) The categories of products designated must include—
(a) wind turbines, and
(b) electric vehicles.’
This new clause is linked to NC1.
New clause 3—Scottish Government Covid payments: exemption from primary Class 1 contributions—
‘(1) A primary Class 1 contribution is not to be payable in respect of any Scottish Government Covid payment.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a “Scottish Government Covid payment” means a payment of £500 pro rata to any NHS Scotland or social care worker in accordance with the announcement made by the Scottish Government on 30 November 2020.’
This new clause provides exemptions for Scottish Government Covid payments to NHS Scotland and social care workers.
New clause 4—Employment allowance for national insurance contributions—
‘(1) In section 1(2)(a)(1) of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014 (employment allowance for national insurance contributions), for “£4,000” substitute “£16,000”.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) will remain in force until 30 September 2023 and will then expire unless continued in force by an order under subsection (3).
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer may by order made by statutory instrument provide that the provisions which are in force will continue in force for a period not exceeding two years from the coming into operation of the order.
(4) No order will be made under subsection (3) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament a review of the effects of the provisions in subsection (1) on employment, the performance of small businesses and GDP growth no later than 30 September 2023.’
This new clause would quadruple the employment allowance from £4,000 to £16,000 for two years. At the end of the period, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be required to assess its effects and would be able to seek parliamentary approval for the policy to continue for up to a further two years.
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(e) the employer pays, as a minimum, a living wage to all staff it employs, and
(f) the businesses operating in the freeport in which the employer has business premises have collectively—
(i) put in place a strategy setting out how the freeport will contribute to the target for net UK emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 as amended by the Climate Change Act (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019,
(ii) put in place a strategy setting out how the businesses will ensure that no goods passing through the freeport are the products of slave labour, and
(iii) carried out an environmental impact assessment of the operation of the freeport.”
This amendment provides conditions to businesses in freeports. These include a strategy on how the freeport will contribute to the target for net UK greenhouse gases emissions, a strategy ensuring no goods passing through the freeport are products of slave labour, and an environmental impact assessment of the freeport.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 11, at end insert—
‘(4A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(e), the living wage per hour—
(a) for the financial year 2021-22 is—
(i) £9.50 outside of London, and
(ii) £10.85 inside London; and
(b) for each year after the financial year 2021-22 is to be determined by the Living Wage Foundation.’
This amendment defines the living wage, payment of which is one of the conditions businesses would have to meet under Amendment 1.
Government amendment 3.
Richard Thomson
I rise to support amendments 1 and 2 and new clauses 1 to 3 in my name.
I went over the reasoning for these amendments in some detail on Second Reading and in Committee, so I am sure the House will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to go into quite that level of detail again. The arguments I made then still stand, that the Government should not forgo tax revenues or give advantages to some businesses that are not available to others in terms of national insurance exemptions without securing meaningful commitments in return and in advance.
For that reason, we believe reciprocal benefits should be baked in from the start, both in the strategic economic objectives that we presume are being sought and in ensuring the very best employer behaviour, so that we are incentivising the kind of corporate behaviour that we want to see and encouraging future manufacturing to develop in that way.
We particularly wish to see greenports evolve—greenports are the Scottish Government’s model for freeports—to help tackle the climate crisis and to ensure the protection of workers’ rights. SNP amendments 1 and 2 would help to ensure that freeports and greenports do not end up contributing to a race to the bottom on workers’ rights and broader standards.
New clauses 1 and 2 get to the heart of the matter, by ensuring that employers within the designated freeports pay, as a minimum, a living wage to all staff they employ; by setting out how businesses can ensure that no goods passing through freeports are in any way the product of, or have benefited from the contribution of, slave labour; by setting out how freeports can contribute towards achieving legally binding climate change commitments; and by ensuring that the environmental impact of freeports is properly considered in each case, so that they can be seen as an exemplar, rather than simply being compliant with existing legislation.
We believe firmly that if national insurance exemptions are to be made available, they should be for enterprises that are helping us to transition towards a low-carbon economy. In those new clauses, we have specified two categories of manufacture—wind turbines and electric vehicles—that we consider should be covered. The opportunity is inherent within new clause 2 for the Secretary of State to designate a much wider range of products that also can contribute towards that objective.
We have a choice here: we can grant these incentives and hope—this depends on one’s political taste—that we let 1,000 flowers bloom or that the invisible hand of the market will somehow deliver the economic and social objectives being sought; or, with some judicious framing of the Bill, we can help to increase the likelihood of achieving a set of positive outcomes from those objectives.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I understand the purpose behind the new clause, but new clause 1 refers to “green manufacturing companies”, whereas new clause 2 talks about manufacturing products that “include” wind turbines and electric vehicles. So could those companies not undertake all kinds of very polluting activities within their business but still qualify for the exemption for all their employees if they make some wind turbines and electric vehicles? That is how this seems to be drafted.
Richard Thomson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I do not believe that is the outcome. If we are looking to incentivise, these are a substantial set of incentives, and they have to be for the promotion of what I have described. A phrase that may be familiar in his Thirsk and Malton constituency is, “You shouldn’t get owt for nowt”. That is simply the intention here: to make sure we are getting these objectives that are being sought.
Kevin Hollinrake
They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The intention may be something different, but the way the new clauses are drafted and the fact that new clause 2 says “include” means that so long as a company does some of those things, it could burn coal to produce electricity and still qualify under the new clause. That is the position as far as I can ascertain, but the hon. Gentleman may be able to explain the difference.
Richard Thomson
As I say, the hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to disagree on that. If the Minister or the Government do not believe the new clause can meet the objectives in the way I have set out, it is open to them to try to achieve those objectives in some other way. I have no huge expectation of this new clause making it into the Bill, but the intention is clear, the new clause is clear and the Government should be using this incentive to drive exactly the sort of outcome I have set out.
On new clause 3, the Scottish Government are to be commended for the way in which they have sought to recognise the contribution of our health and social care heroes and how they have responded magnificently throughout the pandemic. It remains a source of great disappointment that the UK Government have not followed suit or supported that by allowing one-off payments to be made free of tax and national insurance, instead treating them as a top-up to wages rather than as a bonus. Rather than having the Scottish Government gross up those payments, as the Minister has previously argued should happen, surely it would be better if the UK Government were simply to exempt the payments from NI. I am certain that if that power was devolved to the Scottish Government to exercise, that is exactly what the Scottish Government would do. This shows the limitations of the current devolved fiscal settlement and the requirement to operate within what are, in essence, fixed budgets, which would make it impossible for the Scottish Government to make those payments net without impacting on other spending lines.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I rise to speak to my new clause 4, which would quadruple the employment allowance from £4,000 to £16,000 for two years. I tabled it for several reasons. The Government’s Bill rightly identifies that changes to national insurance contributions for both employees and employers have a role to play in stimulating economic activity. That is why they wish to have special NI provisions for freeports and, elsewhere in the Bill, for veterans, to help them back into work and stimulate economic activity in freeports. Interestingly, the Government are indicating in this Bill that they see a role that national insurance contributions can play in stimulating economic activity. I will not labour the point, because Madam Deputy Speaker has made the rules clear on that, but we expect to see further announcements later in the week on NICs, which I think will contradict what this Bill is seeking to do.
NICs have an important role to play in stimulating economic activity, and I wish to speak particularly about our small and medium-sized enterprises. So many of them have been hit badly by the pandemic, especially those in our retail, hospitality and tourism sectors. One thing that many of us here can agree on is that as we come out of the pandemic we expect to see some big changes to the way business operates. We expect possibly to see more online working and more working from home, and we may well see new businesses come in to replace old businesses that did not survive the pandemic to deliver the new services that will support new ways of working and perhaps new ways of living. People will live further away from town centres. What new opportunities will there be in suburban constituencies such as mine, and even rural constituencies, to deliver services for people who would not previously have spent as much time there? So this is an interesting time, but I believe the Government should, above all, be prioritising economic growth and most particularly employment at this stage.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
What assessment has the hon. Lady made of the cost to the Exchequer of her new clause?
Sarah Olney
I have not made an assessment of the cost, but that is partly because it would be difficult to manage that against the extent to which my proposal could, as I said just a minute ago, stimulate the economy, which is what we should prioritise at this time, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. If we can, we should stimulate SME growth, particularly in new sectors that may well benefit from changes in the way we do business in this country. The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) commented in particular on businesses that pursue carbon-free ways to deliver goods and services, which are such a priority. These are big areas for growth and we should be pursuing them.
In particular, we should support employment in new industries. In the past few weeks we have seen a great deal about skills shortages. We really need to improve skills development in existing industries—we have seen massive skills shortages in respect of drivers of heavy goods vehicle and care workers—but there are also lots of opportunities in the new industries and particularly in the green economy. We really need to support employment and encourage people to develop the skills they need to take their place in what I think will be the new, future economy.
Sarah Olney
I would like to make some progress, if that is okay.
We should at this time pursue economic growth and job creation above all other concerns, because we face an uncertain few months in our economy. We could face a wave of closures and redundancies as the various support schemes that the Government introduced to get us through the pandemic come to an end. There could well be lots of redundancies as the furlough scheme closes. Business rates exemptions and deferred VAT payments are coming to an end, so if we can reduce the pressure on businesses by relieving them of some of their national insurance payments, that will help them to ride out the coming period when they will need to repay some of the costs. VAT on hospitality is going back to 12.5% from the end of this month. All such financial pressures are coming at a time when we think prices will rise and the universal credit cut may well hit household incomes and supress demand.
I propose new clause 4 because instead of a selected NICs cut for companies in freeports, I would prefer that we target the cut at SMEs, at this urgent time when we want to stimulate economic growth and support employment.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Report on behalf of the Opposition. As we have made clear throughout the passage of this legislation through the House, we will not oppose the Bill. We have, however, used the opportunity of the debates we have had so far to raise important questions with Ministers about some of the approaches they have decided to take.
As we know, clauses 1 to 5 introduce a new zero rate of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions for employers who take on employees in a freeport. The zero rate will apply from April 2022 and allow employers to claim relief on the earnings of eligible employees of up to £25,000 per year for three years. Clauses 6 and 7 also introduce a new zero rate of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions, in this case for employers of armed forces veterans.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is important to address the amendments before the House at this point. We will have the Third Reading debate later.
James Murray
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall briefly address the amendments we have been discussing as they relate to veterans’ employers’ national insurance relief. As we made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, this is a vital issue. Veterans deserve the Government’s full support as they seek civilian employment after their service to our country. The Minister may remember that on Second Reading and in Committee I asked him and his colleagues to explain why the employers’ relief for veterans is for 12 months—much less than the three years of relief for employers in freeports that the Bill also introduces.
Mike Wood
I wonder whether the shadow Minister could help me: which amendment is he currently speaking to that addresses employers’ relief for veterans?
James Murray
If the House would rather I did not address the issue of veterans’ employers’ relief, I am happy to move on, but it is an important one to address. I would welcome your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are considering just the amendments before the House. You will have an opportunity to talk much more widely on the whole Bill when we come to Third Reading, which will follow immediately after the votes.
James Murray
Thank you for that clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. In that case, let me decide where in my speech to pick up. Forgive me for the slight procedural difficulty—if it is okay, I shall reserve my right to speak later.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) was not able to revisit his greatest hits from Committee or other previous stages of the Bill, but unfortunately he is required to speak to the new clauses and amendments before us, which is what I will do.
The Scottish National party has tabled new clauses that would create a new zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs for employers classed as “green manufacturing companies”, including those that produce wind turbines and electric vehicles. As the House will know, the Government take support for the green economy extremely seriously. For example, since 2013 the Government have provided £150 million per annum to the Aerospace Technology Institute—investment match-funded by industry—including £84.6 million of investment to develop zero-emission flights and further support for other potential zero-emission aircraft concepts.
In addition, the Government are to spend nearly £500 million in the next four years to support the UK’s electric vehicle manufacturing industry as part of our commitment to provide up to £1 billion for the development and mass production of electric vehicle batteries and the associated supply chains. The funding is available UK-wide and will boost investment in the UK’s strong manufacturing base.
Of course, the Government have also stated their ambition to deploy 40 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030, alongside a commitment to invest £160 million in ports and manufacturing infrastructure. The goal of that investment will be to encourage up to £20 billion of much-needed private investment in coastal areas and to support up to 60,000 green manufacturing jobs by 2030. The Government’s commitment to support green manufacturing is therefore quite clear.
Unfortunately, new clause 1 would introduce a major change to the tax system of a magnitude that would require the careful consideration of costs and benefits and, in fact, goes far beyond what should be included via amendment in a Bill such as this one. The design of a sector-focused tax relief is not straightforward and would add complexity to the tax system. By contrast, there has been no consultation on, costing of or impact assessment made in relation to the measure proposed in new clause 1. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject it.
On new clause 3, covid-19 has proven to be the biggest health and economic threat faced by the UK in decades. Key workers, including NHS staff and social care workers, have done extraordinary things, as the House recognises, to keep the public safe in the continuing fight against the virus. For their part, the Government hugely value and appreciate such important contributions to the covid-19 response. However, as I will explain, the Government do not believe that the new clause is appropriate or necessary. Under long-standing rules, any payments made in connection with an employment incur income tax and national insurance contributions. Such payments also count as income for the purposes of calculating entitlement to certain benefits.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland, we have done something just a wee bit different. It is a £500 bonus, and if the 20% of tax and the national insurance at 12% are added in, that means that the Northern Ireland Executive is paying £735 per individual. Is the Minister aware of that, and would he replicate it in the rest of the UK?
Jesse Norman
I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the £500 payment has been offered across devolved Administrations. It is important that he has made that point, and I recognise it, but that does not really affect the point at issue in relation to the new clause, which is about the £500 payments that the Scottish Government are making to health and social care workers, which they are using to function as a top-up to wages. We therefore consider that these payments are taxable as earnings under the normal rules.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Mr Thomson, do you intend to withdraw new clause 1?
Richard Thomson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Employment allowance for national insurance contributions
‘(1) In section 1(2)(a)(1) of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014 (employment allowance for national insurance contributions), for “£4,000” substitute “£16,000”.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) will remain in force until 30 September 2023 and will then expire unless continued in force by an order under subsection (3).
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer may by order made by statutory instrument provide that the provisions which are in force will continue in force for a period not exceeding two years from the coming into operation of the order.
(4) No order will be made under subsection (3) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before Parliament a review of the effects of the provisions in subsection (1) on employment, the performance of small businesses and GDP growth no later than 30 September 2023.”—(Sarah Olney.)
This new clause would quadruple the employment allowance from £4,000 to £16,000 for two years. At the end of the period, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be required to assess its effects and would be able to seek parliamentary approval for the policy to continue for up to a further two years.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
It is good to get the voting back to normal, isn’t it? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We have missed it.
Clause 6
Zero-rate contributions for armed forces veterans
Amendment made: 3, page 4, line 25, leave out “the 1992 Act” and insert
“whichever of the 1992 Acts would otherwise apply”.—(Jesse Norman.)
This amendment corrects an error by replacing a reference to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 with a reference to that Act and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.
Third Reading
Jesse Norman
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I must say that I too am delighted that this Bill has been the occasion for our return to proper voting procedures in this House.
I am very grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members who have participated in the passage of this legislation, particularly in Committee. I also thank the Committee’s Chairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), for helping the Committee to take the Bill through its scrutiny so effectively.
I begin by reminding the House of the Bill’s provisions and overarching goals. It contains four measures: an employer NICs relief for employees in freeports; an employer NICs relief for employers of veterans; an exemption for Test and Trace support payments from self-employed NICs; and changes to disclosure of tax avoidance schemes legislation with regard to NICs. In addition to those measures, the Government tabled a minor technical amendment to ensure that the policy intent is met in the Bill.
As you will be aware from your intimate scrutiny of the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, the employer NICs relief applies to employees in freeports. The measure will support the delivery of the Government’s freeports programme. In so doing, it will help to attract new businesses to freeports and regenerate communities by creating jobs, boosting investment and spreading prosperity. It is the Government’s intention to designate freeports in all four devolved nations. Therefore, while the legislation currently provides for a relief in England, Wales and Scotland, it is the Government’s intention to legislate for this relief in Northern Ireland as soon as it is practicable. In fact, the Bill gives the Government the power to set out the detail of the employer NICs relief in Northern Ireland in secondary legislation once engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive is complete.
Secondly, the Bill contains an employer NICs relief for employers of veterans. I do not need to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that our veterans provide an extraordinary national service, as recent events have reminded us, but we know that some of them face difficulties in obtaining secure and fulfilling employment. It is only right that we do all we can to change this situation. This measure provides full employer NICs relief on earnings up to £50,270 in a veteran’s first full year of civilian employment. It amounts to a saving of up to £5,500 per hired veteran and it will constitute a real boost to their employment prospects.
Thirdly, there is the exemption for test and trace support payments for self-employed NICs. As Members will recall, and as we have recapitulated already, last September the Government announced a £500 support payment for low-income individuals told to self-isolate but who could not work from home and would lose income as a result. Shortly afterwards, the Scottish and Welsh Governments announced similar schemes. Last year we introduced regulations to exempt payments under support schemes from employee and employer class 1 and class 1A NICs. This Bill will extend the exemption to the self-employed. It will ensure that these workers are treated consistently with their employed counterparts and that they do not have to pay NICs on support payments. It will retrospectively exempt test and trace support payments from class 2 and class 4 NICs to the 2021-22 tax year and it will ensure that in future these test and trace support payments will not be included in profits liable to class 2 and class 4 NICs.
Finally, the Bill includes a measure that makes changes to the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime for NICs. Legislation in the Finance Act 2021 enhanced the operation of the DOTAS regime, and the Bill includes changes to an existing regulation-making power in the Social Security Administration Act 1992. This will ensure that HMRC can act decisively when promoters fail to provide information on suspected avoidance schemes. It will also enable HMRC to warn taxpayers about suspected avoidance schemes at an earlier stage than at present.
As I have outlined, this Bill contains a range of relatively small yet significant measures that will advance this Government’s policy objectives. It supports the levelling-up agenda and regional growth, it boosts the prospects of our armed services veterans, and it strengthens the Government’s powers to tackle promoters of avoidance schemes. I reiterate my very strong and sincere thanks to Members who have engaged in the series of stimulating discussions and debates that we have had on these measures over the past few weeks. On that note, I commend the Bill to the House.
James Murray
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this Bill’s Third Reading on behalf of the Opposition. As I have made clear several times, we are not going to oppose the Bill, but we have used the various debates on it to raise important questions about some of the approaches that Ministers have decided to take. I would like to use the opportunity of Third Reading to reiterate some of the sticking points where we do not feel that we have had enough clarity.
I spoke earlier about clauses 1 to 5 and then moved on to discuss clauses 6 and 7, which introduce a new zero rate of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions for the employers of armed forces veterans. As I made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, we believe that this is a vital issue. Veterans deserve the Government’s full support as they seek civilian employment after their service to our country. Other Members may remember that both on Second Reading and in Committee I asked the Minister and his colleagues to explain why the employers’ relief for veterans is for 12 months—much less than the relief for employers in freeports, also introduced by the Bill, which is three years.
In Committee, I made it clear that I felt that the Exchequer Secretary’s response during Second Reading had failed to address my question about why the Government had chosen to make veterans’ employers’ relief available for only one year. The Financial Secretary responded by expanding on the Government’s position. In relation to the relief for freeport employers, he said that the intention was
“to create circumstances in which they can have long-term secure employment, in particular with all the employment rights that come with more durable employment.”––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2021; c. 18.]
At another point in Committee, the Minister said about the Government’s plans for freeport employers:
“The way in which this measure has been structured is focused towards longer-term employment, as the relief runs for three years…From that point of view, it reflects a commitment by the Government to create high-quality and stable longer-term employment.”––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2021; c. 6.]
What my colleagues and I find hard to understand is why the Government, despite what the Minister has said throughout the passage of the Bill, do not seem to want to design a system for veterans that both supports transition into civilian life and, at the same time, like the scheme in freeports, seeks to create long-term employment with employment rights.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I am sorry that I was not party to those discussions, but perhaps I can contribute as an ex-serviceman and a former armed services Minister. It is in the first 12 months out of the armed forces when a serviceman finds themselves in a completely different arena. I understand this. In my first six months, I re-joined the armed forces because I could not settle and I could not find the right sort of employment. That was the sort of help our veterans needed then and that is exactly what this part of the Bill does today.
James Murray
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for adding to the debate. I certainly recognise what he says about the importance of supporting veterans into civilian employment in the first six months and the first year. The question from the Opposition to which we did not have a satisfactory response is why, in addition to that, there is not a consideration or an option of support for long-term durable employment with employment rights. As that point was made several times by the Minister in relation to the relief for employers in freeports, why does the same support for longer-term employment not apply to veterans as well?
During discussions in Committee, the Minister pointed to a consultation with interested parties about how to design the scheme and mentioned how different parties had been “well sighted” on the options, so I looked at the Government’s consultation to understand what different parties had said. I was expecting to see questions about the length of the relief and whether 12 months or longer would be appropriate, but all I could find was a statement saying:
“The Government has announced that this relief will be available for the first 12 months of a veteran’s civilian employment.”
There did not seem to be any option or question about whether a longer relief would be appropriate.
Moving on to other measures we debated during the passage of the Bill, clause 10 provides a national insurance contributions exemption for payments made under a self-isolation support scheme. As we have heard, that ensures that these payments are not taken into account for the purposes of computing profits liable to class 4 NICs or for the purposes of class 2 NICs. As I set out on Second Reading and in Committee, we welcome this exemption from national insurance contributions for payments made under a self-isolation support scheme. It is crucial that people who need support to self-isolate receive it, so we welcome any steps that make the system for self-isolation payments more effective and less subject to administrative burden.
The Minister may recall that during the debate in Committee there was a brief discussion about why the exemption for class 2 and class 4 contributions was not implemented earlier. We discussed the comments that the Exchequer Secretary made on that point on Second Reading, and in Committee I asked the Minister to confirm exactly when the Treasury announced, by way of ministerial statement or other appropriate means, that the exemption for national insurance contributions would be extended to class 2 and class 4 contributions for payments made under a self-isolation support scheme. The Minister responded by saying:
“I do not have the date that he describes at hand, and I am happy to write to him on that.”––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2021; c. 22.]
I am sure he will forgive me if I have missed his letter on this matter, but my office and I cannot find a record of its having been received, so perhaps he could write to me this week, for the first time or again, to confirm that point.
We also debated clause 11, which widens existing regulation-making powers so that regulations can be made for national insurance to mirror the amendments to the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes procedures—DOTAS—that are included in the Finance Act 2021. As I made clear in earlier debates, we welcome any measures that help HMRC to tackle tax avoidance. In earlier debates I also took the opportunity to draw Ministers’ attention to a point made by the Chartered Institute of Taxation: that it believes there is a hard core of between 20 and 30 promoters of tax avoidance schemes, identified by HMRC, who clearly do not play by the rules. I asked the Minister whether he recognised this number, and, as he may recall, welcomed his confirmation that HMRC recognises the number of 20 to 30 hardcore promoters. He said, however, that he did
“not think that it would be prudent to make an estimate or assessment of what the appropriate number of promoters is or could be.”
It is therefore important that we have a better understanding of what progress we have actually made. The Minister said that
“over the past six years, more than 20 promoters have left the market.”––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2021; c. 24.]
However, he did not sign up to a commitment or a target for the coming years. I would welcome him writing to me in the coming days to explain what the number of hardcore promoters was six years ago, so that I can understand whether those who have left the market have been replaced by new promoters.
Finally, to conclude—I am very conscious, Mr Deputy Speaker, of your and Madam Deputy Speaker’s steer about what not to focus on in this debate—it is frustrating to rely only on newspaper briefings to know what is going on. I had hoped, as the Treasury Minister is the first to address the House of Commons since we first heard that the Government might be considering a national insurance rise, that we could have heard the position from him directly today. I leave the thought in his head that we would like to know why the Government’s plan for social care is one that hits hardest low earners, young people and businesses creating new jobs.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
On Third Reading, allow me to place on record, as I believe is customary, my grateful thanks to the Clerks for their support throughout and my thanks to my party’s researchers, Scott Taylor and, in particular, Salma Saade, for the assistance they have given me throughout the passage and scrutiny of this Bill.
This Bill could have done a great deal more, and we regret very much that it does not. There is some irony, as the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) said from the Opposition Front Bench, that while there is a discussion raging outside this House about national insurance, that is not what we have been touching on in the debate this evening. We should recognise that national insurance is a tax that affects the young and the lowest paid disproportionately. Exemptions that are targeted effectively, as I have tried to draw out through the passage of the Bill, can achieve much, but blanket increases simply increase and exacerbate existing inequalities in our society. It is not a burden for the Minister to carry solely by himself, but I hope very much that in the coming hours and days the Government will reflect carefully on that.
In drawing my remarks to a close, I thank the Minister for his engagement throughout. I hope that that engagement continues with the Scottish Government as we proceed to deliver the outcomes that this Bill on its own perhaps now will not.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I put on record my thanks to the Minister and the Government for bringing forward the Bill. It is good to see the finished article. On behalf of my party, and given where we stand and what we want to put forward, may I say that we were very happy to support the Government tonight.
I will make a couple of very quick comments. The Minister and I had an exchange earlier about new clause 3, but I was dismayed and shocked to hear from a Marie Curie nurse that her covid thanks package was subject to tax and national insurance. The central office was administering that in Scotland. In Northern Ireland, we understood that the bonus was an income, yet the Northern Ireland Executive made the decision to make payments of up to £735 an individual. That meant that those who qualify for the full award, which many do, pay tax at 20% and national insurance at 12% and still receive approximately £500 in their pay packet at the end of the month. We very clearly made that decision, and I think the Government have recognised that, because it is a recognition that these public service staff deserve a substantial boost and need it.
I very much welcome the Minister’s comments about freeports. I know that the final decision lies with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and he has referred to that already. I very much look forward to us in Northern Ireland playing our part and taking advantage of what the Government have brought forward here tonight.
The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) was right in his intervention that the first 12 months for any veteran are really important, because that is the time they need support most. I am therefore very pleased to see that measure. I also welcome the Minister’s decision to ensure that there is no ambiguity with regard to the Northern Ireland aspect of the Bill, as amendment 3 replaces a reference to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 with a reference to that Act and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.
As I highlighted in my previous contribution on the Bill, it seems that we have to remind Europe almost daily in this House that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the UK. It is determined to treat us as a third nation when it suits for duty free and taxation, but not when it does not suit for representation and European healthcare. If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, I put on record that this week, my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) will be making a major statement on this issue. I hope that the Government will take note of what we are doing and what we are saying, because it has some effect on the future and where we are in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol.
I believe that the capacity is here to work together for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is always my hope that we do that, and I hope that that is what the Minister has put forward today will do. I look forward to working with the Minister through the Northern Ireland Assembly if that is possible and if it is still in place. We will wait to see what happens.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Medicinal Cannabis
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have had a number of indications from Members who now wish to speak in this debate. As we have finished the main business early, we are able to facilitate that, but I ask Members please to stand and indicate that they wish to speak. They will be called in at least the order that people have come up to me in the Chair.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is in some ways a pleasure to speak in this debate, but in others it is a huge disappointment that we are still debating this issue years after we thought it was in fact settled. I go back in this issue to my first face-to-face meeting with my constituent, Karen Gray. It was in London, curiously—not Edinburgh—in the pouring rain. We were meeting to hand in a petition to Downing Street calling for the legalisation of medicinal cannabis. I had been in touch with Karen and her son, Murray, before that day and was aware that Murray had a rare form of epilepsy that was blighting his childhood, with multiple seizures, hospital admissions and missed school days; his parents feared for his life.
Since then, my team in the constituency have experienced all the ups and downs of the journey with Murray and Karen—the hope, the frustration and the disappointment, but always, always optimism that the medication that he needs will be there and available on the NHS. We thought the job was done in November 2018 when, after a powerful public campaign in which the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) played a pivotal role as a Health Minister, the then Home Secretary, now Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) made medicinal cannabis oil—the substance on which so many were pinning their hopes—legal.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will elaborate later in a speech, but the crucial thing about when the law was changed was that it was about the prescribed medical use of cannabis oil by a specialist consultant, not a GP. It was not about a spliff behind the bike sheds or anything like that; it was prescribed medical use that saved children’s lives. I agree with the hon. Lady that it is a disgrace we are still here today, debating it.
Christine Jardine
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I share his frustration and annoyance. The measure was specifically designed in the way that it was, and it had the support of the Government at the time. The Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and the whole Department for Health team were behind this move, which we thought would change so many children’s lives. Sadly, the job was not completely done, because Murray is still unable to access that life-changing treatment on the NHS. His family have to find the money themselves every month. It is not just Murray; it is not just about his case and his life; it is not a one-off. I stand here tonight for him, and also for all those who know exactly what that feels like.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for access to medical cannabis under prescription, having taken over from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). One of my constituents, Maya, is nine years old and has a rare form of epilepsy. Her family are having to pay up to £2,000 a month for medical cannabis, despite the revisions of the guidance. I thank the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who is in her place, for the good work she has already done, and I am very grateful for the correspondence that she and I have exchanged, but does the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) agree that the Government can do much more, particularly on liaising with clinical commissioning groups to get this medicinal cannabis to the children who need it?
Christine Jardine
I thank the hon. Member for making an excellent point. The APPG has done astonishing work over the past few years in support of this, but yes, the Government could do so much more for those families who know what it is like to get to the end of every month, and of every prescription, and face the huge bills of which he spoke—up to £2,000 a month. The strain and financial burden of that is all on the families. Surely that is not how any of us in this place anticipated it would be or wanted it to be.
When the then Home Secretary agreed that medicinal cannabis would be legal for use in the United Kingdom, I think we all believed that parents would no longer be forced to watch their children suffer, knowing that a treatment was available. What has happened since is heartbreaking. In the intervening years, they have been forced to source medication themselves, sometimes travel abroad—again at huge cost—to collect it, challenge the medical authorities and face rejection and repeated appeals for NHS prescriptions.
Surely no one in this place wants even to contemplate what it would mean to have a loved one—husband, wife, partner, brother, sister, friend or child—who had to pay for the medication they needed simply to go on with day-to-day life. Think of the diabetic without insulin or the asthmatic without an inhaler; this is no different, but it is new. With so much red tape and inflexible guidelines, too many people face being left alone, helpless and simply unable to afford life-changing treatment. In fact, since November 2018, just three NHS prescriptions have been issued for the type of medicinal cannabis that is life-transforming for these children.
Clearly, guidelines are not empowering medical professionals to do the job they want to do and provide the best possible care for their patients, knowing that they have the establishment’s support. Critics often point to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and say it has restricted medicinal cannabis, but only a few months ago it said that there was no ban and that prescriptions should be done on a case-by-case basis. Still parents are told that the medical profession does not have the confidence to prescribe the medication because of a lack of evidence and that clinical randomised control trials are needed. However, that will not work, because this medication does not come in a standard dosage and the balance of ingredients needs to be changed to suit individual patients. Even if medical trials did work, they would be of no use to those children who are already benefiting from medicinal cannabis. Trials would be both unethical and unsafe, because those children would have to stop taking the medicine that is working for them, perhaps for a placebo, and risk a return of life-threatening seizures.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for making such a powerful presentation with great passion. Does she share my frustration—I am sure she does—that the debate around medicinal cannabis is often confused with people who just want to smoke dope and drop out? It frustrates me enormously, because people such as Murray, Karen and Jorja are all suffering from life-threatening, debilitating illnesses and we are talking about precise, prescribed medical treatments. Unless we can quickly sort out the authorisation of medical practitioners to continue to prescribe to these existing children and patients, we will be in a very dark place.
Christine Jardine
I could not agree more. We must address that quickly. As the hon. Gentleman said, it should not be mixed up with the scenarios he described; it is often children—adults as well—on a carefully prescribed medication that the Government have supported.
There is also the argument of there being no evidence because of the lack of clinical trials. Well, there is an abundance of observed evidence that medicinal cannabis works, so the clinical trials explanation falls short. There are also those who point to the medicine Epidiolex being available on prescription for two rare forms of childhood epilepsy, but I understand that that is less effective for many sufferers. Scientists say that the medicinal cannabis that these children need is effective for 95% of children.
Alberto Costa
I thank the hon. Member for giving way for a second time. On that point, one thing I have discovered in the debate is the lack of confidence in the medical profession. In fairness to the Government, they do not have a role at all in enforcing the medical profession’s prescription of medication. Does she agree that the medical profession ought to listen to her and others in the House tonight, put its shoulder to the wheel and encourage its members to listen to the science and help those children across the country who need the medication badly?
Christine Jardine
The hon. Member makes exactly the point that I would make. I think we all appreciate that the Government do not have the power to make the medical profession do anything, but they can be encouraged to put their shoulder to the wheel and get behind this cause.
Sir Mike Penning
I thank the hon. Lady for being generous. Fortunately, we have time to debate this massively important subject this evening, which is what it deserves. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who co-chairs the all-party parliamentary group that I used to chair, is that specialist medics out there are writing the prescriptions, but they are being blocked and regularly threatened by other senior people in the medical profession. They are told, “Even though you are the expert and that would save a child’s life, if you do this, we will stop you.” It is right that it is not a politician’s job. The will of the House is very important, as I will come to in my speech, but if the top-expert clinicians are writing prescriptions, some of which are honoured by the NHS—I will also come to that—and they are being blocked by other medics, somebody has to step in and sort the mess out.
Christine Jardine
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We do have that overwhelming body of observed evidence of the efficacy of cannabis oil. I have seen at first hand the difference that medicinal cannabis has made to Murray Gray’s life—it has transformed his life. When his mum, Karen, first came to see me, he was a very unwell wee boy who was, as I mentioned, constantly in and out of hospital with dozens of seizures a day, and his family were worried that they could lose him. Since being prescribed cannabis oil, he is seizure-free and a happy youngster who plays football with his dad. When he came to visit me in my office, he explained everything I have ever need to know about dinosaurs. It was a joy to see him so happy. The medication has given him a life that he may not otherwise have had.
It is time for the Health Secretary—just as he did when he was Home Secretary—and his team to intervene to make the case that the medical profession should put its shoulder to the wheel. It is time to close the huge gulf between what the Government promised—and, I believe, wanted—and what has been delivered.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is the best-placed person to move the debate forward, because he was the one in government in the Home Office who changed the law. Does the hon. Member agree that we need action now?
Christine Jardine
I agree 100% with the hon. Lady that we need action now—it is actually overdue—and that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is the very person who can give us what we need.
Because this is not a political football kicked between party politicians—it never has been and never should be; we have always resisted that—a little over a year ago, more than 100 MPs across the House from the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, and Labour and Green parties wrote to the former Health Secretary to demand action.
Christine Jardine
And the Democratic Unionist party; I do beg your pardon.
Nor is the debate any longer about the proper use or otherwise of cannabis oil. As I have said, the evidence that it is life-changing for those in need is already overwhelming. So it appears that the debate comes down to the willingness of the medical profession. The clock is ticking, however. There are currently only two physicians in this country prescribing the medication, and one of them retires shortly. Add to that the fact that for many families, the Grays included, there will come a time when they cannot afford the medicine their loved ones need and will no longer be able to raise the money. We cannot wait for the creaking bureaucracy of the medical profession to turn.
As we have said, when the current Health Secretary was at the Home Office, he responded to the parents’ appeals, listened and made medicinal cannabis legal. Now the ball has once again found its way into his court and he can help, so my appeal is straightforward. I know a little of it personally: I have had a seizure— I have come to and seen the fear and the relief in the eyes of loved ones—and it is terrifying. What it must be like for a child I do not know. Until a more widespread solution for prescribing can be agreed, and it must be, the Government should save these families the pain of paying for prescriptions. Surely, when the quality of life for a child—so many children—is on the line, it is the right thing to do. I have always been optimistic, and I have confidence that I am right to have optimism and belief that this Health Secretary will take this opportunity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind the House that those who were here from the start of the Adjournment debate—they had to be here for the opening speech by Christine Jardine—are able to make standalone speeches, but anybody else who came in after the opening speech can make interventions, and clearly it is up to the person on their feet as to whether they take such an intervention.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
As I said earlier, is it not great that we have a couple of hours to debate this subject, which is so important to the family and loved ones of the children who have suffered so much, and we can do something about that? But is it not a crying shame that we have had this debate not just in this Chamber time and again, but in Westminster Hall as well? It was there that I responded to the debate as the police and counter-narcotics Minister, when I actually said on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government that the Government were willing to look at the prescribed medical use of cannabis for certain treatments, particularly for seizures in children with the very rare form of epilepsy that some have.
There are myriad other illnesses, which we might get to, that cannabis could help, but this is about the closed mind of some members of the medical profession—these so-called experts who took an oath to protect lives and to protect the human beings they are responsible for—who are blocking other medics. As we just heard, fewer and fewer medics are able to prescribe, frankly because in many cases they have been scared off and threatened, or are now coming close to retirement. So what will these parents do? I ask hon. Members in the House this evening what they would do if they were a parent of one of these children. God forbid.
I remember so well Hannah Deacon bringing Alfie Dingley in to see me. Alfie was having in excess of 100 seizures a week. I think the figure was actually greater than that, but that is the figure that sticks in my head. Every time he had a seizure, Hannah and her husband did not know whether he was going to come through it, because all the other medication they were giving him was not working. We have heard this story from constituents around the country, but if I may, I will just concentrate on Alfie for a second. He was given products off-label that were never designed for children to try to help him. Doctors were willing to do that with products that were never ever medicated, designed or regulated for children, but because they were off-label, GPs could write a prescription and they did that on the NHS—trying to keep him alive in that way, while in others blocking the help he could have had.
I praise the End Our Pain campaign of Peter Carroll and his team. They have worked tirelessly over the years, and I will give him a name-check because it is very important that people understand that he has never taken a penny for running such campaigns. There is all the media coverage we have had from lots of famous people, but at the end of the day it is his team who have pushed this. There is the bravery of the parents of these children—some out of desperation. But now, as hon. Members will hear in my speech, they want to make sure it does not happen to other families and other children who are desperate to make this change happen.
I made that speech in Westminster Hall with the full permission of the Home Secretary at the time, who then became the Prime Minister—my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—and we started that process. The process then progressed because it was nothing to do with the Department of Health at that stage; this was a Home Office matter. I remember going to No. 10 with Alfie, and he was his usual naughty self, which was fabulous because that is how we want our young children to be to experience life. We were due to meet at No. 10 the police Minister at the time and some of the experts, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came into the room, sat with Alfie and his mum and dad, and talked to them. She said, “We will do something about this: we will change the regulations and the law,” and to her credit, that is exactly what she did. With the help of the Home Secretary, who is now the Health Secretary, we changed the law.
The bit I am so upset about is that if we had not changed the law fully to move this into the Department of Health, other children would be getting the prescription that Alfie and some of the others are getting. They were not given that prescription free on the NHS by the Department of Health; they were actually given it by a committee in the Home Office. We had not moved it across through the legislation, so it was done by that committee, based on evidence that it was going to save the life of this little boy and the lives of subsequent other little boys and girls.
Then we got this impasse. The children got the prescription for free—there are not thousands of children out there; this is a really very rare condition—but when this moved across to the Department of Health, it stopped. They carried on getting their free prescriptions, but even though prescriptions were being written, they could only be written as private prescriptions, and we have heard about the cost of medication for families trying desperately, from all means, to raise the money to get this prescribed medical use of cannabis. There are different types and we could go into the different mechanisms and what is in them, but at the end of the day that is a medical or doctors’ decision, not a politicians’ decision.
Believe it or not, I had to phone the Home Secretary several times and say that there was a family at Stansted airport, at passport and customs control, who were having the medication taken away from them even though it was perfectly legal in this country to have that product. Parents had raised the money and they went to Holland—most of them went to Holland—and saw the specialist, went to the pharmacist and brought it back, and then had it taken away from them. Believe it or not, when we eventually got the authorities to agree to let them have it, they tried to charge the parents for the transport cost of moving the product back to the family. That is ignorance, a lack of knowledge, but we are beyond all that now.
We are now in this situation for the families. I spoke fairly recently to Hannah Deacon, the mother of Alfie. Alfie is what we would expect a boy of that age to be—he can ride a bike and he can have a relationship with his sister that he has never had before, and vice versa. At times he is a naughty boy; hey, that happens. Is that not what we want for our children? Yet families are still in this limbo situation of having to raise money—beg, borrow, I am not going to use the word “steal”, but all of us in the House this evening know where I am coming from; they have to desperately try to raise money. The Government could use their power to buy this product so the families would not have to pay £2,000 for it; if the Government bought the product it would be vastly cheaper as it would not cost the NHS £2,000 per prescription.
Adam Afriyie
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful and passionate speech, and I thank him for his work in the Home Office and in pushing this through. Does he share my frustration that in many other countries around the world, including Germany, manufacturing is coming up to speed and producing well-defined products that could be exceptionally helpful, but because of the impasse we have here among the medical profession it will prove almost impossible to introduce those products here even though, based on the evidence we have, they are perfectly safe?
Sir Mike Penning
We are not reinventing the wheel, as my hon. Friend says: we started this but are now lagging behind the rest of the world. The product is slightly different—the oil has different forms of THCs in it. The Minister used to be my Parliamentary Private Secretary all those years ago—how the mighty fall, and how the mighty have risen up the greasy ladder—and she is passionate about trying to help on this, but it is not about Epidiolex; it is about the particular product being prescribed actually working, and it is normally to do with the levels of THCs.
I think this problem might be to do with the terrible word “cannabis” that we use in this country. This is not anything to do with cannabis, really; I wish we could invent another name for it and just say “oil with TCHs in it”, because that would eradicate much of the fear that there is at present—and it is not just fear, it is dangerous to the argument.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I feel a little sorry for the medical profession, because a slight correction should be made. Fifty years ago in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 we pretty much classified cannabis as a poison. That is why the medical profession has not felt confident enough to use it, test it and research it; it simply could not. Now we are saying, “You guys have got to catch up and catch up quick,” and the Government have a role to play in facilitating that. Research is kicking off now, which is great, but although some say the medical profession should have been doing that for all these years, it could not do so because this place stopped it. On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, let us call it “medical hemp”.
Sir Mike Penning
I completely agree on the medical profession and know exactly where the Home Office stood when I was at the Department. I would love to say that the whole of the Home Office and my civil servants in the narcotics part of it were thrilled by what I said in Westminster Hall all those years ago, but I can assure colleagues that they certainly were not, to say the least; fortunately, I had covered my back with the Home Secretary.
We need to move on from this, however. This is not about reform of the 1971 Act. It is about whether there is a group of children who we know get benefit from this, and whether, as we all know from our constituency postbags, there are other conditions that could also benefit from this type of oil with a THC product in it. That is where we are struggling.
We need to roll back this debate and talk, as I did at the start of my speech, about children—children who deserve the best possible start in life and just happen to have been born with a medical condition that the medical profession, in its infinite and great wisdom, has not quite got an answer for. This product is part of the answer, although it only alleviates the condition. As parents have said to me on many occasions, it does not take away the condition but it does let the children live a life as close to normality as possible; it is not normal, because it involves dropping oil on a little boy or girl’s tongue on a daily basis, but it is as normal as we can get.
Tonia Antoniazzi
It was a pleasure to serve with the right hon. Gentleman as co-chair of the all-party group on medical cannabis under prescription. On the point he makes about children, we have Bailey Williams in Cardiff, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and that case highlights that these children are no longer classified as children after four years; they become adults. Bailey Williams is now 18, and the question arises of how things will change for him in a different health system with different rights. What would the right hon. Gentleman say on that?
Sir Mike Penning
The hon. Lady was a brilliant co-chair with me for all those years; we agreed on most things even though there is a tiny number of things we do not agree on. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I have a constituent who has now turned 18, although it is not the THC but another medical component that particularly helps her. People come out of the care of one part of the health service and there is a little bit of a transition period but there is very little research on the evidential base going forward, and we need to do that research.
Let me touch for a second on what has been said to me by senior medical people in the Department of Health and Social Care. They said, “We need to do trials, Mike. We need to use placebos. We need to find out whether this actually works or whether it doesn’t work.” What parent on this planet is going to take their child off a medication that actually works, with the risk that they may get a placebo, have a seizure and die? Is that where we are in the 21st century, really and truly?
We had a statement earlier from the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). We are a world leader in doing medical things. We have done things in this country around the vaccines that no one dreamed possible, yet we are talking about giving placebos—and those people were serious. I can tell the House that the parents were very serious, too. I cannot repeat some of the comments I got from some of the parents, but they quite rightly said—I will speak politely on their behalf—“Not in a million years.” Let us put it in those terms.
I know that the Minister will do her level best, but this is not about the Government taking over Epidiolex. Yes, they need to pay for research—I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) about that—and research in this area could change the whole way that pain is addressed and perhaps get us away from using so many opioids, but this is actually just about having trust in the expert who has written the prescription for a child who may well die if he does not get that oil with the THC component on prescription.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I am sorry for intervening on the right hon. Gentleman again. The NHS keeps asking experts, but those experts are not experts in medical cannabis; they are experts in the condition of epilepsy but have no insight into that. Where is the foresight and vision to help these children with intractable epilepsy?
Sir Mike Penning
I alluded earlier to the narrow-mindedness of people who have taken an oath to protect people and protect children. No one, I would have thought, goes into the medical profession to hurt people, but at the end of the day, we have a group of children—not thousands, but a small group—whose parents are crying out, “Please listen to my specialist. Please listen to me, as a parent trying to save my child’s life.”
Alberto Costa
I thank my right hon. Friend for the good work that he did as my predecessor on the APPG. Does he agree that, given that there is such a small number of children across the country who suffer from severe forms of epilepsy, a temporary measure would be for the Government to be bold and simply cover the cost of private prescriptions until we develop the proper framework, along with the science that demonstrates conclusively the efficacy of this medicine?
Sir Mike Penning
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more strongly. That was what we did in the Home Office, which is why Alfie and some of the other children got their prescriptions paid for by the NHS. We set the committee up and we did it. I say again that I feel personally guilty, because we worked in all good faith to get the issue across to the Department of Health and it still has it, and those parents feel guilty, because they feel that other children should be having the benefits that Alfie is getting.
Surely, given the will of this House, the will of the Government, the will of previous Prime Ministers, the cross-party support, the fact that the previous Health Secretary came and met the parents here in the House and made them a commitment, and the fact that the Home Secretary who changed the legislation is now the Health Secretary, it must be a no-brainer. Let us look after these kids.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on bringing this debate forward, and it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). He is a man who speaks with great passion for what he believes in, and I have been very fortunate to be able to support him in bringing this issue forward.
I rise to speak about one of my constituents. Darren and Danielle are the parents of little Sophia. I have absolutely no doubt that the reason why Sophia has improved so fantastically, way beyond what we ever hoped, is because of medicinal cannabis. Parents, as parents do, speak for their children and want the best for them. I brought Danielle over here and we met the previous Health Minister, who heard her story for the first time. As a result of hearing that story, he did his best to help us move forward to the next stage. A lot of people have helped. We would never have done any of these things without myriad people, including the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead and his friends and colleagues. Sophia is a lovely bright wee girl whose life was a litany of multiple seizures. She is a different girl today because of medicinal cannabis. I am very clear about what I want to see in relation to medicinal cannabis. I see its specific benefit for young people.
I am very fortunate to be a member of many organisations back home. One is the Royal Black Preceptory, and who were there at the side of the road in Newtownards on the last Saturday in August but Sophia, Danielle and Darren? That wee girl, who I had not seen for ages—for a couple of years at least, because of covid—was at the side of the road and she was as bright as a bean. Her mum and dad were pointing me out in the parade so they could say thank you for all we had done. Honestly, what did we do? All we did, really, was what any parent would do for their child, and that is what it is all about.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for pointing out just what it means to families to have this opportunity. In my own constituency, Cole Thompson and his mother Lisa Quarrell have really fought and campaigned to pay for this medication. Aside from the financial costs, I hope he agrees that we must also recognise the psychological stress and turmoil we are continually putting these families through month after month after month. It really is incumbent on the Government to address that, because it is simply not fair: it is not fair on the children and it is not fair on the families.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That is exactly how I feel, and I think it is exactly how we all feel as elected representatives on behalf of our constituents. I can well recall the bad old days of the pressure that was on the family: the pressure on the parents, the pressure on the child and the pressure on their friends, with all the multiple issues they had to address. There is an evidential base. It is as clear as a bell. I can see it in that wee girl Sophia. I can see it in the improvement that she has quite clearly made. That is why I totally support this product. I believe the evidential base is overwhelming. I can vouch for that, as I see that lovely wee girl and the improvements she has had.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) sent me a letter, which I will record for Hansard if I can, written by his constituent, a fellow called Robin Emerson, whose daughter is a wee girl called Jorja. There is also an evidential base in her improvement. My hon. Friend very kindly gave me a copy of the letter last week, which refers to
“an important intervention to enable a number of children suffering with epilepsy to receive a treatment containing Cannabidiol (CBD) and Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This has made a crucial difference to their quality of life over the past two years”.
In some cases, quite honestly Mr Speaker, I believe they save lives. They definitely do. In my heart I believe that, which is why I am here tonight to speak on this matter. I feel it is so important.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point. Does he agree that there is no other medical intervention suitable for these children? It is intractable epilepsy. Nothing else has been found to give them that quality of life. Does he agree that we have to move forward in this debate?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we do have to move forward, and that is the message from us all in the Chamber tonight. I know that Robin, on behalf of Jorja, and Darren and Danielle, on behalf of Sophia, tried almost every other thing that they could before they came to medicinal cannabis, and they have seen the difference almost right away.
Sir Mike Penning
I am sorry to come back in because I did speak at length, Mr Deputy Speaker. Some of the medics have tried all the other medications. Many of those, as I alluded to in my speech, are completely off-label, were never intended for this and have not worked, but they are willing to block the medical use of cannabis oil with THCs. Why?
Jim Shannon
I bow to the expertise of the right hon. Gentleman and I wholeheartedly agree with him.
We need the Government and the Minister tonight to give us an assurance that they will cover the prescription beyond September. The letter I referred to asked the Government
“to clarify the guidance which enables children…to continue to receive this vital treatment”
via their GP
“under guidance from a specialist and funded by the NHS.”
The clinical trial for a treatment manufactured by MGC Pharma, which is due to begin in the autumn, was also referred to. Until that happens and until those trials are completed, we really need to recognise the proof that each of us as MPs have, on behalf of our constituents, and confirm that medicinal cannabis improves quality of life.
I also want to mention my sister and her son, Jake. Jake never had medicinal cannabis when he was young. I wish he did, because I tell you what: I can see the improvement that he would have had at a very early stage, which he does not have today because of all those years of epileptic fits. It grieves me greatly to realise that the opportunity that Sophia and Jorja had was something that wee Jake did not. If we had had that years ago, perhaps his improvement would have been much greater.
I support the hon. Member for Edinburgh West tonight and the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead and everyone else who will speak afterwards, including in interventions—I thank all those who have intervened. We are all united tonight on retaining medicinal cannabis for our constituents. We as MPs, on behalf of these parents and children, can see the evidential base, and what an evidential base it is. We always say, “Let’s have the evidence.” Well, we have the evidence. We have it individually and on behalf of those families, and tonight, I look to our Minister to give us the reassurance that we need on behalf of our constituents back home.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing the debate and on her brilliant timing in doing so on an evening where we can debate not only the narrow issue being focused on by the wonderful campaign End Our Pain—the plight of these epileptic children. I do not have one of those children in my constituency, but a number of us do, and by goodness, if I did, I absolutely would be championing their cause. However, this discussion also needs to take place in the context of the whole debate about medicine and how we need to improve our nation’s and people’s access to medicines that work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) was behind me on the day that I asked the urgent question that followed the march and the petition that we presented to Downing Street. It was when he leaned over to me in the Chamber and said, “We don’t agree about very much, Crispin, but I support you on this,” that I realised that what I would have regarded as the Taliban, as far as drugs policy was concerned, had come on side. With enthusiasm, we embraced my right hon. Friend’s help because of his influence with the Prime Minister. Having worked with him, I will not disguise the fact that we come from a very different place on wider drugs policy; he managed to get me a splash in The Sun when he was taking the Psychoactive Substances Bill through the House, which was my moment of notoriety in the Chamber. However, the context of what we are considering today is a drugs policy in the United Kingdom that is nothing short of catastrophic.
We need to work towards creating institutions that can advise the Government with evidence, authority and expertise. The truth is that we have proceeded with drugs policy for more than five decades on the basis not of evidence, but of reputation and what people think—exactly what my right hon. Friend was saying about the implications of the word “cannabis” and what people adduce to it. We have not proceeded on the evidence.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for making that point, because if we were to adopt the same approach with opiates, we would be giving people “heroin” as pain relief: we call it morphine, but it is heroin by another name. If we continue to talk about medicinal “cannabis”, stigma will continue to attach to the part that gives a hallucinogenic effect. That is the part that everyone will focus on unless we start to change the direction, the language and the naming, which is why the medical profession is blackballing it on every occasion.
Crispin Blunt
The hon. Gentleman has landed on the core of the problem: the reputational issues that we are dealing with.
We owe it to our constituents to do just a little better. We owe it to them to try to understand the evidence and create institutions that will advise our Government based on the evidence. We have a duty not to be stampeded by the popular press in a particular direction about the particular meanings of words, but we have done so for 50 years in regard to cannabis: it was shoved in schedule 1 to the regulations made under the 1971 Act, which governed the most dangerous narcotics, and we kissed goodbye to 50 years of understanding within the medical research sector of what might be possible.
We were then left with the situation that we faced in 2017: after my two and a half years’ experience as prisons Minister, the evidence was plain throughout the entire justice system, as it is today, that our wider drugs policy is an unqualified disaster. We have watched the frog in the pot as the temperature has risen and risen over five decades; it is now boiling over and shreds are coming off. We have the worst drugs death rate in Europe and our drugs policy has dominance over the criminal justice system, driving half of acquisitive crime in the UK. Those issues elide into the narrow issue of medicine from cannabis, but we owe it to our constituents to understand the context.
I say this to the Minister particularly: if we can get the change of approach right, there is a huge opportunity. It is not just about the magnificent campaign by End Our Pain and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead for the 17 identified epileptic children and their families, although of course there are duties that we all owe to them, and they raise the question of what we would do in their position. I was in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend said that he and Frank Field would be at customs to deliver the bottles of medicine—and an absolutely splendid occasion it was, too.
It is not just about epileptic children; it is also about people with multiple sclerosis. An estimated 50,000 people in this country are growing their own medicine, at peril of a 14-year prison sentence, all to try to make themselves better. From those 50,000, there is a huge amount of research evidence, all of which is lost to the legal system: people are growing particular plants and adjusting the exact balance of the cannabis product that they produce to best use for their condition.
Adam Afriyie
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I have chaired the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, and it seems to me that medicines generally arise because of people’s behaviour beforehand. People were chewing bark because they felt that it relieved pain, and now we have aspirin. I think that much of the development of medicines—very precise and targeted medicines—comes from the experience of people and what they do themselves. As my hon. Friend says, there is a body of evidence, and it is a matter of collating that evidence, but it is also a matter of the people who adopt these methods at an early stage taking on a risk for themselves, and we should use the information and evidence that we gain from that to build on the scientific knowledge that we have.
Crispin Blunt
I was delighted to take that intervention from my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: this is about science and technology. It is about finding a route to a Government who can deliver policy based on evidence. We have heard very clearly why randomised controlled trials and placebos are not going to work in this case and are a completely inappropriate way of providing proof, and that there is a vast amount of observed evidence out there. What we need to do is understand the context. The case is unanswerable for these epileptic children—of course it is, and of course their treatment should be should be paid for privately if it cannot be provided by the NHS because all these barriers have appeared—but behind them sit a vast number of other people who are not being served by our system of developing drugs that will work for their conditions.
Tonia Antoniazzi
The hon. Gentleman has made some very valid points about the wider issue of drug reform, and I agree with much of what he has said. As he well knows, when I first came to the House the late Paul Flynn, then Member of Parliament for Newport West, was a doughty campaigner for medicinal cannabis. I had many conversations with him about it, and much account was taken of what he said. He advanced valid arguments about people with multiple sclerosis, many of whom were our constituents, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman too has a genuine argument in that regard. Tonight, however, we are focusing on the cost of medicinal cannabis to end the pain of epileptic children, and our real ask of the Government is a fund to provide them with money immediately, although we will work together on the wider debate.
Crispin Blunt
I wholly agree with the hon. Lady, whose leadership of the all-party parliamentary group on access to medical cannabis under prescription, along with that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead, adds to the whole discussion and illuminates the fact that our drugs policy is in a serious state of strife. It is not based on evidence, and we have to drag it in that direction. Behind the hon. Lady sits my friend the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), with whom I have the honour of co-chairing the all-party parliamentary group for drug policy reform. We took over from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and from Paul Flynn. My objective, as the first Conservative to take his place, was to drag this conversation into the mainstream, which is where it belongs.
However, we need to remember just what got this over the line in the first place. The Dingley family behaved perfectly within the rules. They made applications and everything else, and indeed we had an urgent question on the subject. I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead interrogating the then Policing Minister, who had taken on the responsibility, about when this was going to happen, particularly for Billy Caldwell.
What got this over the line, however, was the fact that Bill Caldwell’s mum, Charlotte, was brave enough to obtain the medicine in north America, present it to customs and have it confiscated. Her son was then hospitalised and was fitting, and within three days the overseeing consultant was on the steps of the hospital saying, “I do not care about what is going on here; it is unbelievably cruel to take a medicine that works away from a child.” The following day, the then Home Secretary—now, wonderfully, the Health and Social Care Secretary: what a brilliant repositioning that is—authorised the return of Billy’s medicine, or at least some of it, from customs so that he could receive his treatment.
Sir Mike Penning
While we are name-checking colleagues, we should mention one chap who is not here because he has left the House, and that is Frank Field. My hon. Friend referred to Frank—[Interruption.] Oh, he is in the other House now, is he? Lucky fella! Frank and I were absolutely adamant that the following day, we were going to go to Holland and come back, and that unless a change to the legislation had been indicated the following day, we would be arrested. But what a great reason to be arrested, trying to save someone’s life! It was Frank’s idea, and I jumped on with him—we should also acknowledge other people including Billy Caldwell’s family and Alfie’s family; I completely agree with that—but without Frank jumping in as well, we would really have struggled.
Crispin Blunt
This is where we come to the cost, to which the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) drew my attention. In order to get Alfie Dingley’s prescription over the line, it would have taken £5,000 for the person who was going to make the application, who happened to be on holiday in the Galapagos Islands and who then had to be interviewed by Home Office officials before he was allowed to make the application; £5,000 for the pharmacy to get a licence to bring it in; £5,000 for the pharmacy then to hand it out to the doctor; and then £5,000 for the licence for the prescribing doctor. I mean, I ask you! It might have been possible to pay in that case, but behind the case of Alfie Dingley, there is not just a score of epileptic children.
Tonia Antoniazzi
On that point, I made two journeys to The Hague with families—out of my own pocket, which was absolutely fine; it was not funded by anybody—because they needed the support to go over and get those medicines. They do not have the extra money and they do not have the time, which is why we stand by them and why we have to help them.
Crispin Blunt
The hon. Lady has behaved as the best of constituency MPs would. Indeed, I am sure that all of us, faced with the opportunity to help people in that way, would want to do so.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, despite the legalisation in November 2018, the system remains broken. It remains broken in respect not only of cannabis but of the psychedelics. A wave of interest came into medicine as a result of cannabis; it came from North America where a significant amount of investor money was going into the new industry because people could see the opportunities that were available there. However, we could not do the research here because it was a schedule 1 drug, and hardly any universities had a schedule 1 licence to do that research. The level of oversight was far greater than that for heroin, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) said, so it is no wonder that there has been almost no research on all this down the decades.
As far as I can see from the 1960s, the psychedelics got shoved into that group as well because pop stars used them. Then, in 2008, we managed to dismiss the chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs because he had the presumption to say that riding a horse was a damn sight more dangerous than MDMA. That is what we do to the scientists who produce the evidence: we refuse to listen to the evidence because it will be politically inconvenient and subject to misrepresentation in the media. We owe our constituents way more than that, and it would be remiss of us if we do not examine this whole area on the evidence. I implore my hon. Friend the Minister to listen to it.
I have spoken about MS, and the hon. Member for South Antrim and others have referred to pain relief. As an alternative to opiate-based medicines, given all the difficulties of the opiate crisis in the United States, cannabis-based medicines offer a serious group of advantages if they can be deployed properly. Meanwhile the psychedelics still sit in schedule 1, making research incredibly difficult and expensive.
Let us consider depression, addiction and trauma. Of the veterans who have come back from their service in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years, 7,500 have post-traumatic stress disorder, about a third of whom are beyond treatment within the current treatments available. However, the evidence is that the prescribed and overseen use of psychedelics can get to the relevant part of the brain and enable the psychotherapy to take hold and teach people to acquire the tools with which to manage and deal with their trauma. That can also work for depression and addiction. We are potentially talking about millions of people, if we enable the research to happen. Are we a country that will be on the frontline of bioscience? Are we serious? There is an opportunity for our pharmaceutical industry to get this to scale, and millions of people can be helped.
A huge cost is currently imposed on our economy by these medical conditions, so surely it makes sense to enable my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as Minister for medicines, to draw on evidence-based advice. Sitting alongside the MHRA ought to be some kind of cannabis authority, as has been done in Denmark, Holland and Germany, for Ministers to get the advice they need to be able to advance policy confidently, and it needs to be within a wider office for drug control that engages all the relevant Departments. A Department of Health and Social Care lead would be good, but a Cabinet Office lead that brings together everyone who has an interest in this area would be a fine thing, too.
Adam Afriyie
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, although I do not entirely agree with all his views on the legalisation of drugs. I was shadow Minister for Science back in the day when Professor Nutt was forced to resign for making comments that were factually accurate, and the House is now very different. I feel quite optimistic today, like the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), because I sense the mood of the Chamber and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. If there were some mechanism to bring in the clearly available research on people who have already been using these refined substances, I think the Government and this House are in the mood to take those views on board.
Crispin Blunt
I largely agree with my hon. Friend, apart from on the views he imputed to me. He decided what my views are on the legalisation of drugs, but I simply want policy based on evidence.
All I will say is that the current situation is a catastrophe, not just here but around the world. It is the basic reason why we were run out of Helmand province. The farmers around Didcot were growing poppies for the legal medical morphine market, but we did not allow the farmers in Helmand to grow poppies, so they were driven into the heroin market. We then decided to go and burn their crops, reducing them to penury. And we wonder why they changed sides and were against us. We were run out of Helmand, even with 20,000 American troops coming to the aid of our soldiers.
This issue permeates the world. It is a global issue. We simply need to proceed on the basis of the evidence, so we need to create the institutions that can give us that evidence. There should be an office for drug control, promoting all the science and bioscience of which this country should be capable, within which ought to be a cannabis authority of some kind that could give the Minister and her colleagues the advice they need. The opportunity for the Department of Health and Social Care is huge, and the opportunity for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in sponsoring our science is enormous. The opportunity for the Treasury is not exactly minuscule either, and there is an opportunity for the Home Office to have a policy that contributes to the whole of the public interest, not just a very narrow part of it that has done so much damage. The policy of preventing things from happening has been in the lead in the drugs policy area, so this proposal is long overdue.
I beg the Minister to have this discussion with me and the think-tank I have established. I have no financial interest to declare, as I take nothing from the Conservative Drug Policy Reform Group. I set it up to give me research and scientific evidence on which to help advance these arguments. I am passionate about this issue, and it is one of the issues on which I wish to use my remaining time in public life. Having seen what I have seen as Prisons Minister and in my own experience, I know the opportunities are as great as the opportunity to end the terrible mess of our wider drugs policy. If we can grasp the science opportunity, the medical opportunity follows. There would be a huge advantage for patients in the United Kingdom.
Tonia Antoniazzi
The work the hon. Gentleman does with his think-tank is brilliant. How much would this cost? How much does he think the Government need to put aside—we are talking about the cost of medicinal cannabis—to reform policy? Are there any figures? Are there any plans to put that in place?
Crispin Blunt
The machinery of government changes can be made at very little cost. This is about getting the right advisers and the machinery of government advice. Obviously, we would then have to recruit the people into the cannabis authority who understand the issue, and allow them the authority and space to be able to advise Ministers and the office of drug control. However, the up-front cost would be minimal. The opportunities and the number of people we can really help by having far better drug provision in the UK are huge. All of us have a duty to engage properly with that and to be able to disaggregate all the issues and negative connotations associated with the use of cannabis and heroin. Let us focus on the evidence and get this conversation into the mainstream as a means by which we can make huge advances for our country. I look forward to the ongoing conversations with the Minister, who as the Minister for medicine could make a huge impact if she were able to deliver on this part of her agenda.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Thank you very much for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just jumped up quickly before you changed your mind! [Laughter.]
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for securing this debate, which has been great; we were looking forward to a 30-minute Adjournment debate, a battle through and a quick exchange of views, but because nobody cares that much about national insurance contributions amendments, we have been given this extra time. I will not take too much more, because a lot has been covered by the previous speaker and there is no point going over old ground. I would genuinely like to say that at 9.10 on a Monday evening there is nothing I would rather be doing on my birthday than fighting the cause of something I truly believe in.
On 19 March 2019, the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that medical cannabis “would be made available”. If I had heard those words as the parent of a child who would have benefited, I would have been thinking that it was going to be made available. I would not be expecting to jump through hoops or to have to raise thousands of pounds to pay for it. My hopes would have been raised. A child with such a condition would, typically, have 30 seizures a day and so over 900 days we are talking about 27,000 seizures. If they had had medical cannabis, we could be talking about zero seizures. However, it will be made available some day. After this time, the general frustration in this Chamber is, “Why are we still talking about it?” We have said this a number of times in Westminster Hall, and here and there, and we know everything that has been said today.
I am genuinely glad that the Minister has informed us that we are now manufacturing some of these medicines here in the UK, as that is a big step forward. However, we are still reliant on private prescriptions and, as was pointed out earlier, the main provider of those is about to retire. Yet again, if I was a parent in that situation, would the sword of Damocles not be hanging over me? This is the same idea as what happened when we left the EU—we could not get the medicines in and we had to have an extension to January, to July and now to next year. That is a ticking timebomb hanging over those young lives that we just do not need to have there. The long and short of it is that people who cannot afford it or cannot raise the funds for it—during covid, raising funds for many a charitable cause has been incredibly difficult—simply go without. They go without and so there are 27,000 seizures because they have to go without a medicine that they know is available and know would do the job for their child. It should not be this way. In less time, we have developed, tested and rolled out a covid vaccine throughout the United Kingdom. The vaccine did not exist, it had to be tested, and we have done it. It concerns me that these kids are less of a priority.
What are the UK Government going to do? How will they finally going create a legal framework in which GPs are comfortable writing prescriptions for cannabis-based medical products? If we could do that, it would be a game-changer. I am not playing politics with this issue, but I have contacted the Scottish Government, and in Scotland if people get an NHS prescription, the Government will pay for it. The same thing has to apply down here, so let us facilitate that. Let us go to doctors, explain what it is we are asking them to do and give them the confidence to stand up and do it. If a senior clinician can do it, a GP can do it.
Tonia Antoniazzi
The point the hon. Gentleman is making is really interesting. With covid, we have seen so many families really struggle and their children have been hospitalised—we are talking about such vulnerable children—so his point is so valuable. I thank him for all his work on this issue because together, across party lines, we will take this issue forward.
Ronnie Cowan
I thank the hon. Lady very much. The point that this is very much a cross-party issue should not be missed. We are not going to split down party lines or fall out over this. We will fall out over other things—I am absolutely sure of that—but this issue has strong cross-party support. I look around the Chamber at the Members present and I know the different politics we have, yet we are united behind this cause. The Government should take real note of that. I know they have a working majority of 80 or so, but people in the Conservative party are rightly backing this issue.
I shall not keep the House any longer. I fully acknowledge that the past 20 months have been incredibly demanding for the Department of Health and Social Care. We all get that—we all appreciate what has been done during that time—but the time for talking is well and truly over and the time for action has well and truly arrived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing this debate. I agree with colleagues’ comments: it has been incredibly helpful to have time to talk about this issue. As I sat on the Front Bench, the debate highlighted to me, first, the needs of these children and their families, and secondly, the complexity of the whole situation. We can make statements, but there are no easy solutions. This issue involves the medical profession, licensing and trials.
Let me thank all those who have contributed to the debate. In no particular order, so as not to upset anybody—I have met many of those who have contributed on numerous occasions—I thank my hon. Friends the Members for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) and for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for South Antrim (Paul Girvan).
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who is not in his place but with whom I have met. As is the constituency MP for Hannah Deacon and Alfie, he has contacted me and spoken to me on several occasions.
I thank the hon. Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) and for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), to whom I shall not forget to wish a happy birthday.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) said, we have known each other a long time and I have carried his bags on more than one occasion—
Jo Churchill
Not no more, but I understand where his passion comes from.
I can also see in their places the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith)—we have spoken about this matter—and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt).
At the heart of this debate for me are Alfie; Billy; Eddie Braun, who was not mentioned; Murray; Jorja; Maya; Bailey Williams, mentioned by the hon. Member for Gower; Sophia; and others. It is about those children. I have personally met several of the families and heard at first hand how it feels not to be able to have anything more. To be honest, as a mum of four, I can say that sympathy feels a bit useless when it comes to a mother who, in some cases, can watch their child fit 100 times a day. They have explained to me the relief that applying Bedrolite under the tongue brings to their children. They have spoken about the financial challenges, but I would like to use the time available to go over some of the challenges that I am trying to wrestle with to get to a solution.
We have had an accordion debate tonight. Initially, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West said that this debate was about access to NHS prescriptions. However, many others also spoke about how much this might benefit multiple sclerosis sufferers and those with chronic pain. Indeed, Lord Field in the other place has written to me on this subject and spoken about the relief of chronic pain that I think he himself gets from using a cannabis-based product. However, there does have to be an evidence base that is more than observational.
Tonia Antoniazzi
There has been a lot of talk about randomised control trials this evening, and I understand the difficulty that the NHS has with this. We have had numerous meetings with NHS England and with pharmacists on this. The issue is that the RCTs are a no-goer. They are just a no-goer. I would never take my child off a drug if I knew that it could possibly kill them in order to enable the NHS to prescribe. We have to overcome that hurdle. I would like to see a push from the Minister to make that change happen. We have seen it with covid and we have seen it with the vaccine. What the NHS has done is incredible. I would really love to have the Minister onside to be able to push the NHS forward to change its mind over the RCTs.
Jo Churchill
I understand that point and I have said to those parents that I would struggle. In fact I would probably find it impossible to offer my child something else when they were already gaining relief from something. However, as we have debated here today, there are probably two issues here: the treatment of those children who are already on Bedrolite; and the need for an evidence base, particularly when we start to talk about expanding the use of cannabis medicines for those suffering from a large range of other medical issues, be it MS sufferers and so on. This is where the challenge comes. Clinicians rightly want to prescribe based on the evidence so that they do their patients no harm. Many people have said that this is the place of last resort for these parents, but we have this difficulty.
Jo Churchill
I will go on to explain why after my right hon. Friend’s intervention.
Sir Mike Penning
I have two points. The first is that it is not all Bedrolite. A lot of these parents do not have Bedrolite. There are myriad specialist ones with different THC levels, but they have been prescribed by a consultant. I know what my hon. Friend said, but these are consultants, and they do want to prescribe the drug and they have prescribed it, but they are not allowed to put it on an NHS prescription unless you are Alfie, Billy or any of the others. It just does not make sense.
Jo Churchill
I agree that there are other medicines, but one of the challenges is how we treat people with ongoing needs as their conditions vary, if we do not have the ability to understand how the body is responding.
I will push on a little bit. Let me provide an update on Bedrocan oils from the Netherlands. As stated previously, the commercial agreement between Transvaal Apotheek and the UK special medicines manufacturer, Target Healthcare, is progressing. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Home Office are working with those companies to ensure that all regulatory standards for manufacturing these medicines in this country are met. We continue to work closely with the Dutch Government, Transvaal, the Home Office and the MHRA—which I have met with and which says it will look at the international evidence—to ensure continuity of supply until domestic production has been established. We have had movement; I can sense the frustration in the House tonight, but we are moving forward. I will continue to keep the House informed of progress.
On the main topic of the debate, it is undeniable that it is incredibly hard for many of the patients and their families. As many Members have said, the challenges have done nothing but worsen during the covid-19 pandemic. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), when he was Home Secretary, changed the law to allow unlicensed cannabis-based products for medicinal use to be prescribed by doctors on the General Medical Council’s specialist register. This removed legislative barriers to legitimate use as a medicine. However, there is still caution across specialists in their ability and willingness to prescribe. [Interruption.] Indeed. However, with respect, if the prescribing of these medicines by a clinical specialist was that seamless, we would have more of it, but we do not.
The whole thing comes back to the fact that clinicians want to rely on an evidence base, and that includes clinicians in Scotland. We recently received a letter from the Scottish Government, outlining that Dr Rose Marie Parr, former chief pharmaceutical officer, had chaired a teleconference with key paediatric neurologists from specialist centres. The clinicians had a clear and united view that, following the GMC and British Paediatric Neurology Association guidelines, they would be unwilling to prescribe CBPMs containing THC, including Bedrolite, until there is clearer, published evidence available following a clinical trial.
Jo Churchill
All three Members rose at the same time. I will make my next point before I take interventions.
While the evidence base remains limited, I am sure that everybody, including clinicians in this place, will agree that decisions on whether to prescribe, as with any other medicine, have to remain clinical decisions. A doctor would not appreciate me in their consulting room telling them that they did not know their job as a doctor.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I would just like to point out to her that that is not the case. There are three NHS prescriptions. If the law was changed, why are there those three NHS prescriptions? Either these medicines are safe or they are not. They must be safe. I understand what she is saying about the clinicians, but let us look at the risk-benefit for the particular group of children we are talking about. We know that “First do no harm” is how our clinicians treat their patients, but they have to move forward. Hannah Deacon is a classic example. She is continuing to campaign because she sees the unfairness and injustice that Alfie has his prescription but other children do not. Please, Minister, help us to move this debate forward.
Jo Churchill
Hannah has said those exact words to me. That is why I say that we have to look at this in a selection of doable, achievable pieces, because it is not possible to look at it for every condition. We are talking about those children with refractory epilepsy, and trying to find solutions there is my main focus currently.
Christine Jardine
I am not a medical person; I am a parent. I think back to the start of covid-19 when we were told that it would take years to do the clinical trials and to do everything that was necessary to have a safe vaccine, but now we have it, and a successful roll-out, because there was the will to do it—to think out of the box. I think for many people the frustration comes from the question of why the medical profession are not being encouraged to look at an alternative way of finding the reassurance that will enable them to be looking at the observational evidence from abroad and taking it on board. They will be looking to the Government to encourage them to do that.
Jo Churchill
I would like to reassure the hon. Lady that we do look elsewhere, but it fundamentally comes back to the fact that observational trials on very small cohorts are not the best way to develop the policy, going forward, to treat these individuals. That is notwithstanding the fact that the observations of all the parents I have met, and others who have seen their children benefit, are the foundation for making us try to put our shoulders to the wheel in order to do better. I think there is that tension.
Looking across other countries, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) said, “If they can do it, why can’t we?” What is needed to support routine prescribing is the evidence base of safety and efficacy, public funding and cost-effectiveness. This is the system that we use in the UK for all medicines and medical devices, and it is really difficult to see a case for why cannabis should be treated differently from that on a broader spectrum, particularly when we take into account the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) that there is a need to look at how these medicines may help others suffering from chronic pain. I have been told that multiple sclerosis and palliative care are other areas, and so on. If we are going to broaden this, then we must look to do the job properly.
Dr Cameron
I thank the Minister for grappling with what is a very complex matter. I totally understand what she is saying. I can understand some clinicians’ reluctance because they do not want to prescribe something when they do not know what is contraindicated in relation to other conditions and they do not want to do harm. But this must potentially be done where the children are already benefiting from some kind of expedited process to ensure that they can have the prescriptions and that parents are not having to try to fund that in so many different ways, causing that stress. There must then be some kind of expedited clinical trial that shows that clinicians more broadly can have the confidence that they are prescribing medications that will support conditions, do no harm and would not be contraindicated or cost children or adults their lives if prescribed to the wrong individuals.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Lady because she encapsulates in a nutshell what the challenges are. This is extremely difficult without that knowledge of what the contraindications are. I was trying to suggest, perhaps not as eloquently as I could have done, that we need these different bits in order to make the policy work. As the House has heard, the current Health Secretary was the Home Secretary when he changed the law, and at our very first meeting, he told me it was one of the things he was very keen to see us move forward on.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jo Churchill
I am going to make a little progress, because at this rate we will go up to the end of the time. I will come to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead.
While saying that it should remain a clinical decision for doctors—indeed, that was very much what I took from the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, because it would be inappropriate for Ministers in Whitehall or the Scottish Government to influence individual prescribing decisions—with the exception of three licensed medicines, cannabis-based products for medicinal use are not first-line medicines and are not routinely funded. Most cannabis-based medicines are unlicensed medicines, and that means they are yet to have their quality, safety or efficacy assured by regulators here or, indeed, anywhere else around the world. Nor has their cost-effectiveness been decided by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which is how we administer medicines. Those are the foundations of NHS decisions about routine funding. The cost of treatments sought privately remains the responsibility of the patients, and I am not cloth-eared to how difficult that is and why we need to try to find a solution.
Sir Mike Penning
The Minister is being very generous, although we have plenty of time. I think we have until half-past 10, Mr Deputy Speaker, should we or you wish. I have two questions. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) asked a specific question: how is it safe on the NHS for three prescriptions to be given to three children, paid for by the NHS, but not any others? Is it safe, or is it not? The Minister referred earlier to clinicians not having the confidence to give the prescriptions. Is she aware that one of the clinicians was reported to the General Medical Council for writing a prescription and was exonerated? That is why they are scared; they are scared for their careers. How can it be safe for three children, but not the other children whose lives can be saved?
Jo Churchill
I thank my right hon. Friend. I have met clinicians, as well as the families. Like just about every other area of medicine, there is divergence in how they approach it. There are those who prescribe and those who do not. I have also spoken to Alfie’s general practitioner, who was very articulate in describing the benefits that Alfie saw from taking medicinal cannabis. However, it is still fundamentally the decision of the clinician who has the child as the patient. One thing that has been said to me is that it is important, as we try to move forward and do better, to ensure that private specialists also have conversations with those who are treating the children for other issues in their NHS care, because of contraindications and so on, as was referred to earlier.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the Minister for being so generous with her time. The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) has made a real point about there being a culture of fear within the NHS and with clinicians, who are too scared to prescribe because they do not know what the consequences are. The Minister has a role to play here in enabling them to have the confidence to prescribe and work with the drug that we refer to as cannabis. In this House, we should not be using the word “cannabis”, because it strikes that fear into the hearts of many, many people across the UK. Most other drugs have a single active ingredient; medical cannabis has many. If the Minister does not accept that randomised control trials are not applicable, we are in a Catch-22 situation and we are forever stuck. This is not acceptable.
Jo Churchill
I do not believe we are stuck, but we should proceed with caution. I think that is a totally acceptable way to go on. I think it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh West who asked why it is any different from insulin or the other drugs she listed. It is different, so we must proceed with caution.
Jo Churchill
One minute. The cost of parents accessing private treatments remains the responsibility of patients. I am aware that the cost remains high and has brought immeasurable hardship to some families. However, the Government cannot stipulate what companies charge for these products. Furthermore, these are controlled drugs that are specially manufactured or imported for the treatment of an individual patient with an unmet clinical need. In such cases, there are also international treaties with which we have to abide, which mean that companies exporting or importing controlled drugs incur fees to support the necessary governance processes.
We have done an enormous amount within the constraints of the treaties to reduce the costs, making clear what the rules are about and how much can be imported under each notification, and allowing licensed importers to have a small additional supply so that children can get hold of a supply. The supply can be drawn from when a prescription is given by a specialist doctor, reducing the amount of time that a patient might wait for their medicine and helping to ensure continuity. However, the export of finished Bedrocan oils from the Netherlands is currently restricted under Dutch law, so the latter change does not apply to those products. The licensed cannabis-based products Sativex, nabilone and Epidiolex, for which there is clear evidence of safety clinical trials and cost-effectiveness, are provided routinely on the NHS for their licensed indications. Indeed, last month, the licensed indication for Epidiolex was expanded to those with tuberous sclerosis complex. I have heard from parents who have tried some of these drugs and found them not to be successful for their children, but it is important that as we build a better reference for cannabis-derived medicines, we have a suite of products that we can draw on.
Christine Jardine
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being incredibly generous with her time. I would like to say, however, that when I referred to insulin and inhalers, I was not comparing medicine with medicine; I was talking about the principle of having to pay for something that makes such a fundamental difference to people’s lives, and how families are having to pay when, as other hon. Members have said, NHS prescriptions have been issued.
Jo Churchill
One second. On the expansion of Epidiolex, NICE will work with the manufacturer to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the medicine in the indicated patient group before making recommendations for routine prescribing and funding on the NHS. That is the proof. Where there is the will and investment in clinical trials, cannabis-based medicines can achieve the medicinal licence that is the gateway to routine funding. They have become a useful tool for clinicians in treating diseases where other licensed treatments have failed, but the licensing process also provides for the development of the evidence and information that doctors rely on to support their treatment decisions, as was laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt). The MHRA is well equipped to provide advice to any prospective applicants wishing to conduct clinical trials or marketing authorisations. Indeed, there have been 13 trials ongoing in the UK in the past 12 months, and six other trials of this type of medicine have been completed.
On refractory epilepsy and the children we are specifically interested in tonight—that is not to exclude any other patient group—NHS England, NHS Improvement and the National Institute for Health Research have confirmed in principle support for two randomised control trials on early onset and genetic generalised epilepsy. These will compare medicines that contain cannabis oil, CBD only and medicines that contain CBD plus THC with placebos. While, like many other projects during the pandemic, there have been delays on commercial discussions, these are nearing completion. Once supply contracts have been finalised, the study team will be able to initiate the formal trial set-up process and confirm a date for patient recruitment. This is a pioneering area of research, and we are keen to support patients by progressing these trials as soon as possible. I feel keenly the frustration that they have taken so long, and I hope to be in a position to make a further announcement on these clinical trials in the next few weeks.
Jeff Smith
The Minister is being very generous in giving way, and I know she wants to find a solution to this problem. I tried to get in earlier when she referred to some parents who had used medical cannabis and found that some of it worked and some of it did not work. It sounds like an evidence base was being created there. I understand that she does not want to create a system for all our medical regulation based on observational trials, but there are many experts who say that randomised control trials will not work for cannabis and we need another way of getting the evidence. Given that we clearly have a system that is not working, is there not a case for this particular condition and this particular type of medicine being a special case? We need to find a different way of creating such an evidence base to give the clinicians comfort.
Jo Churchill
I will focus on the end bit. We do need to give clinicians comfort if they are going to prescribe medicines that help alleviate children’s pain. The challenge with the observational trial, as anyone who has been involved with medical trials will tell you, is that the smaller the cohort, very often the greater the problem is with the confidence intervals, and so on and so forth. There is a need to look at things by perhaps turning the telescope the other way up to see whether we can focus ourselves on approaching this in a different way to find solutions. However, the bottom line is that we need good evidence, because we have also been in this Chamber talking about drugs where the challenge to the patient has then transpired, and we later we have been here talking about the damage.
Crispin Blunt
Particularly in the light of what my hon. Friend has just said about turning the telescope around and thinking about this in a different way, this is not just about the United Kingdom; this is global. There is evidence all over the world that we can use, and we do have a terrible tendency of “not invented here” in some of this. There are other countries in which the authorities are finding a positive way to license this medicine. While obviously the focus is on these particular children now, behind them sit tens of thousands of people self-medicating on cannabis and making themselves criminals in the process. Behind them sit our 2,500 veterans who have untreatable trauma, who are being driven into the hands of dealers to find ways of managing that trauma. We are turning heroes into junkies because we are not advancing the science base as fast as we should.
We should be really supporting the research, which is why I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has just said. Let us really go for this. We can underpin the bioscience base of our country if we do so. We have just seen Dr Carhart-Harris, a leading researcher in the whole application of psychedelics, disappear from doing research in London to the United States. It is exactly the parallel argument with medicine from cannabis. We need to get behind the scientists and the researchers, and let them help our people and teach our medical profession what is available to them to help their patients.
Jo Churchill
That is true. However, people have to come forward with clinical trials designed in a way that is acceptable and gives us robust outcomes. We have discussed this and Psilocybin, and many other things, at some length in the past, and although tonight is not the time to carry that on I am sure we will do so again.
We take into account literature and evidence from other countries, and the guidelines published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were developed in accordance with well-established processes based on internationally recognised and accepted standards. This ensures a systematic, transparent approach in identifying the best available international evidence within the scope of guidance at the time of the NICE evidence review. However, NICE found that current research is limited and of low quality, and that makes it difficult to assess just how effective these medicines are, and we need to make sure they are safe.
Adam Afriyie
I empathise with the Minister; this is tricky, because one does have to introduce medicines in a safe way according to a set formula and we have quite a good system.
I have two points. First, we were talking about prescribing to children untested or unvalidated medicines, yet in some treatments we are prescribing adult steroids to children. Will the Minister say something about that, as it seems slightly inconsistent? Secondly, there are patients, in particular children, who shortly will have no prescription whatsoever when the last specialist who can make these prescriptions retires. How are we going to cover that?
Jo Churchill
I am obviously very cognisant of the latter point, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead mentioned a court case. This adds to the need to find solutions to the problem. On adult steroids, that is a clinical decision by a doctor, and my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on that, because we are dealing here with incredibly poorly children, and our heart goes out to them.
Jo Churchill
The hon. Lady is looking at her phone intently and jumping up again, so I will give way.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the Minister for her generosity in giving way, and she is right that I want to make yet another observation.
One of the reasons why we all came into this House was to make change happen, and I know the Minister feels exactly the same. Maybe her hands are tied, but under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 the Secretary of State has the power to commission an investigation and research into new medicines. End our Pain has shown this to her officials several times; it has even been cited by a Queen’s counsel, whose opinion is that this is possible. This would be a great way to run an observational trial at no cost to parents; why will the Minister not take this option?
Jo Churchill
It is not in my gift to take that option, but I will take that comment back to the Health Secretary and have further discussions. As I said, in our very first meeting he highlighted this as an area where he wanted to see movement, and we are determined to get some movement.
We need the evidence base and we need trials to be ongoing to help inform future commissioning decisions. NHS England has also established a patient registry to collect uniform outcome data from licensed and unlicensed products. The refractory epilepsy specialist clinical advisory service has been established to provide expert impartial advice for clinicians treating complex cases while we await the outcome of clinical trials.
I hope I have managed to convey how committed I am, because I do believe that we ought to be able to find the solution for these children, and I was very aware of the hon. Lady’s point about what happens when they reach adulthood. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead has spoken to me about the fact that as children move through and medicines gets better they thankfully survive longer, but then we have the added complexity of having to look at the system, which is why we want to make sure we find a solution. Finding the right solution is what we are after, because it will take time to generate further evidence and see the results of clinical trials. I do understand, however, that patients and families continue to access these medicines privately, and that the cost of doing so is very high. There are no easy or quick solutions, but I am committed that the Department will reconsider what action the Government may reasonably take with regard to access to unlicensed cannabis-based products for medicinal use where clinically appropriate.
The health of the children and adults dealing so courageously with these difficult-to-treat conditions is of paramount importance. I think it was Hannah who said to me that for every time Alfie does not end up in hospital having fitted repeatedly, there is a saving to the system.
Alberto Costa
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) made the point that the Government did supply the medication from a different Department, at no cost to the parents. I have suggested to the Minister that the Government, only on a temporary basis, should cover the cost for the very small number of children across the country who desperately need this medication, which they obtain through private prescription. Can she commit today from the Dispatch Box that she will at least try her best to find the money from her Department to cover those costs on a temporary basis?
Jo Churchill
I hope that I outlined earlier that a mixture of solutions is needed to crack this problem. We are not taking anything off the table. We are looking at every option that we can to ensure that we get the right support. Health is devolved, and the access to and funding of medicines is a matter for the relevant devolved nation. I hope, however, that hon. Members have seen that we are all trying to work on the challenge together, because there should not be a difference. As people have said this evening, this is not partisan; it is about making sure that we get the right care to the children.
I will commit that the health of children and adults is of paramount importance. It is of paramount importance to the Secretary of State and to me. I can assure hon. Members that I will carry on making sure, with my team, that we are doing as much as we can to try to get us to a solution that helps these children in the short term but also the long term, while having as the second strand of work the evidence base that we need to support the wider prescribing of any drug, because we need to make sure that we are doing it with care.
Question put and agreed to.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, may I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission? Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk. Similarly, any officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers—not that they will need your help, of course.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 718).
The regulations were laid before the House on 21 June 2021. Sir Gary, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship to tackle this snappily titled SI, which will probably take me longer to read than to cover.
The past 18 months have been a huge challenge for all of us. We have started to lift the restrictions, and I am sure that everyone here shares my optimism that the early signs of a strong recovery signal a return to normality, but clearly many businesses are not out of the woods just yet. We have listened to the concerns of the business community and have been swift to act, providing affected businesses with the help and support that they need to survive. Many businesses have benefited from the economic package of support totalling £352 billion through furlough, the self-employment income support scheme, and support for businesses through grants, loans, and business rate and VAT relief. However, although we have now gone through the road map, many businesses continue to feel the longer-term effects of the pandemic.
The instrument before us has continued to help companies by extending one measure first introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020: specifically, the temporary suspension of issuing statutory demands and a restriction on company winding-up petitions until 30 September 2021. This measure has been extended several times by regulation, most recently from the end of March to 30 June. This instrument seeks to extend it one further time, providing confidence to businesses that they will be able to continue to trade as the economy gets back to normal. Since its introduction in June last year, the measure has protected many viable companies from aggressive creditor enforcement during really difficult trading times, and the temporary restriction on company winding-up petitions has meant that anyone who wants to wind up a company that has not paid its debts must satisfy a court that those debts are not covid-19 related.
As of today’s date, all businesses are able to reopen and trade without restriction. This extension aims to give the many companies that would be viable, were it not for the pandemic, much-needed time to get back on their feet as the economy begins to return to normal. The measure is intended to help companies that may be subject to aggressive creditor enforcement, but the Government have always been clear that it is not to be seen as a payment holiday. Where companies can pay their debts, they should do so. The added protection that this measure gives also allows those companies with unavoidable accrued arrears caused by the pandemic time to take advice from restructuring professionals and to negotiate and reach agreements with their creditors wherever possible, without facing the threat of being compulsorily liquidated while they do so.
I know that many businesses and their representatives will welcome the continued support that these regulations will give them. I also recognise that this measure will mean a further period of uncertainty for creditors, during which their rights to enforce recovery of debts will be temporarily restricted. However, as I have said, the measure is intended to help those in financial difficulty as a result of the pandemic, and should not be used as an excuse to avoid payment. Where a company can pay its debts, it should do so. We do not take this action lightly; we are aware of its impact on creditors, and we are continuing to monitor the situation carefully and consult with stakeholders and the business community to determine what further action may be necessary when these regulations expire at the end of September. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary. Labour welcomes this extension to schedule 10 of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, having worked previously both privately and publicly to extend the time period for the provisions, which were also supported by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). I agree with the Minister that those businesses that can pay their debts should do so, but this was an important step to support and protect otherwise viable businesses from, as he alluded to, aggressive creditors seeking to use statutory demands and winding-up petitions to recover debt and trigger insolvency procedures.
Although we are starting slowly to emerge from the pandemic, businesses up and down the country still face significant challenges. The supply chain crisis is now seriously disrupting the flow of goods to and from businesses, with covid being one of the several underlying causes in the UK and abroad. We have called for measures to tackle that urgently, with a new five-point plan that Members may have seen over the weekend, step 1 of which is a dedicated Minister to lead and co-ordinate efforts across Departments to tackle those issues and support business recovery. Staff shortages have forced businesses either to reduce the amount that they are open or, indeed, to close. In July, around £6 billion-worth of debt accrued during the crisis was owed to commercial landlords.
It is right that businesses facing financial difficulties continue to receive support. Although we may have, thankfully—we hope—passed the worst of the pandemic, our economic recovery is still subject to uncertainties and challenges, particularly in the months and years ahead. There are still huge hurdles for businesses, and the recovery is not equal across all sectors. We must not remove our support and let viable businesses fall at the last moment. Many small businesses, particularly in aerospace, aviation, steel, hospitality, travel, tourism, culture and retail—many sectors that may have started in recent weeks to see demand increase—will still be experiencing particular issues and, in many cases, a cash crisis.
That brings me to the key issue with the extension, which obviously we support. It is similar to the issue raised by my predecessor. How do we know that 30 September is the right time to end the support? What assessment has been done in choosing that as the right time? What evidence do the Government have that otherwise strong businesses will not continue to face financial difficulties after September, especially given the ongoing covid-related staff shortages and the supply chain problems that I have highlighted? The Government must not let previous covid support end up being for nothing by pulling away the provisions, sometimes too early, causing businesses to suffer at the last moment. We want to understand what the evidence is for the end of September as the new, extended, date.
A significant amount of the debt that businesses face comes from owed rent. Despite the commercial rent moratorium, landlords could still attempt to recoup rent from businesses by serving statutory demands and, subsequently, winding-up petitions. Schedule 10 of the 2020 Act, as the Minister alluded to, rendered statutory demands served on companies during the relevant period effectively void. Once the provisions are brought to an end, how will the Government support businesses that may face rent-based statutory demands and winding-up petitions?
The rent moratorium may be in place until March 2022, but how does that sit alongside the ending of the protections in schedule 10? It seems that from 1 October a landlord will not be able to evict a commercial tenant but will be able to seek to have the tenant liquidated through a winding-up petition. Do the Government recognise that there is a paradox in that? They are legislating for businesses to be protected from eviction but not from rent-induced liquidation. It would be very helpful to understand how some of those policies fit together, or indeed whether there is a contradiction.
People up and down the country might be enjoying the lifting of restrictions, with the caution that is certainly being encouraged still, but we must not pretend that businesses are no longer struggling or no longer need support. There will be a particularly difficult hit as furlough comes to an end, giving businesses a double whammy of reduced support and protection at the same time. Labour therefore supports the extension of these important provisions, but we seek assurances and detail from the Government on why the extension is to the end of September, and what the Minister assesses the situation for businesses will be from October onwards.
May I also ask what more the Government are doing, as the Minister alluded to, in terms of advice and support from insolvency professionals? What are the Government doing to ensure that businesses can seek and get good early advice on addressing debt repayment, so that insolvencies that can be avoided in the next year, are avoided? We must not pull that support too early and let viable businesses fall at the last hurdle, with the pathway to recovery still uneven for many different businesses and sectors.
Paul Scully
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s support, her party’s support and the support of her predecessor, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who was patient in returning to this Committee Room and others to talk about these statutory instruments and regulations. I beg the hon. Lady’s patience to do likewise over the next few weeks.
We do not want to keep any measures in place for a day longer than we need to, so that we can return to the free market. However, I talked about the £352 billion-worth of support that the Government have given to businesses. That gives us 352 billion reasons why we need to shape the next bit, to ensure that we can avoid the cliff edges that the hon. Lady talked about and viable businesses can start to work through their recovery, so that we do not lose the implicit gains that we have made by being able to support jobs, businesses and livelihoods.
We know that these measures have had a significant impact on the normal work of insolvency legislation and the rights of creditors, which is why it is important that we get the balance right between allowing recovery and allowing the market and creditors to return to normal. We will keep the measures under review and continue to work with colleagues across the House to keep them abreast of our thinking and our stakeholder reviews, as they develop.
Many landlords are demonstrating best practice by working closely with tenants to find solutions that work for both parties, and we are grateful to see those discussions taking place. As the hon. Lady said, the Government have extended the commercial rents moratorium to March 2022. We will introduce legislation to support the orderly resolution of commercial rent arrears for tenants that were affected by restrictions during the pandemic. That legislation will ring-fence the rent debt accrued and set out a process of finding arbitration between landlords and tenants.
We recognised the potential for cliff-edge scenarios, including the role of the accumulation of unpaid debts becoming due when restrictions and Government fiscal support expire. Work is ongoing to develop solutions to enable a viable exit from these measures. We hope to make an announcement soon.
The points raised today have highlighted the importance of the measures in the legislation. This regulation will provide much-needed continuing support for businesses to concentrate their best efforts on continuing to trade and build on the foundations of our economic recovery un-impinged by that threat to their viability.
I sincerely hope that companies and their creditors will come together in good faith to maintain their future trading relationships and secure the benefits to both themselves and the economy as a whole. I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Police presence in Kensington
Planning applications in Richmond Park
Independent assessment in family courts
Sandbach Cemetery
Proposals for higher taxes on the super-rich
Santander Bath Road branch
Written Statements
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Government Shareholding in NatWest Group
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I can today inform the House that on 22 July 2021 the Government announced a trading plan to sell part of the Government’s shareholding in NatWest Group (NWG, formerly Royal Bank of Scotland, RBS). This is a further step forward in the Government’s plan to return NWG to the private sector.
Rationale
It is Government policy that where a Government asset no longer serves a public policy purpose the Government may choose to sell that asset, subject to being able to achieve value for money. This frees up public resource which can be deployed to achieve other public policy objectives.
The Government are committed to returning NWG to full private ownership, now that the original policy objective for the intervention in NWG—to preserve financial and economic stability at a time of crisis—has long been achieved. The Government only conduct sales of NWG shares when it represents value for money to do so and market conditions allow. The announcement of this trading plan represents a further step forward for Government in exiting the assets acquired as a result of the 2007 to 2008 financial crisis.
Format and timing
The Government, supported by advice from UK Government Investments (UKGI), concluded that selling shares by way of an on-market trading plan will deliver value for money.
A trading plan involves selling shares in the market through an appointed broker in an orderly way at market value over the duration of the plan. Trading plans are an established method of returning Government-owned shares to private ownership, while protecting value for the taxpayer. This method was used in the sell-down of the Government’s stake in Lloyds Banking Group (in that case, from a lower starting point in terms of the Government’s percentage ownership).
This is the first use of a trading plan for disposals of NWG shares by the Government. This follows previous disposals of NWG shares via accelerated book builds in August 2015 and June 2018, a directed buyback selling shares to the company in March 2021, and a further accelerated bookbuild in May 2021. UKGI and HMT will keep other disposal options open, including by way of further directed buybacks and/or accelerated bookbuilds. The decision to launch the trading plan does not preclude the Government from using other disposal options to execute future transactions that achieve value for money for taxpayers, including during the term of the trading plan.
The trading plan commenced trading no earlier than 12 August and will run for 12 months, terminating no later than 11 August 2022. Shares will only be sold at a price that represents fair value and delivers value for money for the taxpayer. The final number of shares sold will depend on, amongst other factors, the share price and market conditions throughout the duration of the trading plan.
The Government will provide Parliament with further details at the end of the term of the trading plan.
[HCWS259]
Sheffield Forgemasters: Acquisition
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has acquired Sheffield Forgemasters International Limited (SFIL), allowing HM Government to refinance the company and secure the supply of components for critical current and future UK defence programmes.
The MOD also intends to invest up to £400 million in SFIL over the next 10 years for defence-critical plant, equipment and infrastructure to support defence outputs. The acquisition has been assessed as the best value for money for the taxpayer due to SFIL’s unique capabilities and circumstances. The immediate cost of the acquisition is £2.56 million for the entire share capital of the company, plus debt assumed.
SFIL is the only available manufacturer with the skills and capability to produce certain large-scale high-integrity castings and forgings from specialist steels in an integrated facility to the highest standards required for specific defence programmes. SFIL’s ownership by the Government will not prevent other UK based manufacturers bidding for MOD contracts, which will continue to be run in an open and fair competition.
The MOD has already started working closely with the company to implement best practice governance that will ensure appropriate financial oversight to secure the company’s future success, with the aim eventually to return the business to the private sector.
[HCWS261]
Armoured Cavalry Programme: Ajax
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
I wish to provide a further update to Parliament on the Ajax equipment project being delivered as part of the armoured cavalry programme.
Health and safety
Extensive work has been undertaken on the health and safety aspects of the noise and vibration concerns raised on Ajax. The report is being undertaken independently of the Ajax delivery team by the Ministry of Defence’s director of health and safety.
While the report has not yet been concluded it is apparent that vibration concerns were raised before Ajax trials commenced at the armoured trials and development unit in November 2019. In December 2018, an army safety notice introduced restrictions on use in relation to vibration and identified that, in the longer term, a design upgrade was needed to reduce vibration.
I will publish the health and safety report once it is finalised, which will contain a full timeline in relation to health and safety issues. Key themes likely to emerge from the report will include:
The importance of having a culture that gives safety equal status alongside cost and schedule.
The overlapping of demonstration and manufacturing phases added complexity, technical risk and safety risk into the programme.
The value of having strong risk governance for complex projects that promotes access to expert technical advice on safety issues.
Independent certification and assurance of land environment capability should be adopted and modelled on best practice elsewhere in Defence.
Following the report’s conclusion, we will consider what further investigations are required to see if poor decision making, failures in leadership or systemic organisational issues contributed to the current situation not simply in relation to health and safety but more broadly as necessary.
Update on personnel
Initially 121 personnel were identified as requiring urgent hearing assessments as a result of recent noise exposure on Ajax. Subsequently, the MOD broadened the scope of those who should be tested to all those who had been exposed to noise on Ajax. To date, a further 189 individuals have been identified who should be offered an assessment, giving a total number of 310 personnel. Of these 304 have been contacted successfully; the remaining six are UK service personnel who have recently left service and are in the process of being traced.
The health of our service personnel is our top priority. Some 248 personnel, including 113 from the original cohort of 121, have now been assessed. The Army continues to identify and monitor the hearing of all personnel exposed to noise on Ajax, with additional testing put in place where required. The Army is also in the process of identifying any health effects in those potentially exposed to vibration. Veterans who have been exposed to noise or vibration on this project will be supported throughout and will have access to the same assessments as those still serving. I will update the House on the number of personnel affected by noise and vibration in due course, including if any trends become apparent once the data has been analysed.
Technical issues
At present all dynamic testing and training on MOD’s Ajax vehicles remains paused. A safety assurance panel for Ajax, comprising duty holders from MOD, General Dynamics, Millbrook and independent advisers, has been established to assure that independent testing can recommence safely at Millbrook proving ground. Subject to the panel’s final endorsement and General Dynamics’ own safety approvals, Millbrook trials are expected to resume imminently, initially deploying General Dynamics crew in MOD-owned vehicles, with real time monitoring of vibration and in-ear noise.
The independent trials at Millbrook are essential to provide the evidence to support fundamental root cause analysis and to enable the safe resumption of wider trials and training activity. The focus for the MOD and General Dynamics remains on identifying the root causes of the noise and vibration issues to develop long-term solutions to ensure Ajax meets the Army’s need.
I have made clear that no declaration of initial operating capability will be made until solutions have been determined for the long-term resolution of the noise and vibration concerns. Work continues on both with General Dynamics heavily committed to delivering a safe resolution.
Over the summer, work has been conducted to examine design modifications to reduce the impact of vibration. A design modification to reduce the risk of noise through the communication system is in development and is currently being tested. These may represent part of the overall solution but considerable work needs to be undertaken before any such assurances can be given.
Until a suitable suite of design modifications has been identified, tested and demonstrated, it is not possible to determine a realistic timescale for the introduction of Ajax vehicles into operational service with the Army. We will not accept a vehicle that is not fit for purpose.
As is often the case with defence procurement process, there have been a number of limitations of use (“LOUs”) placed on Ajax vehicles during the early phase of use. LOUs restricting speed and the maximum height for reversing over steps have now been removed and work continues on removing other LOUs.
Ajax is an important capability for the Army and we are committed to working with General Dynamics for its delivery. We have a robust, firm price contract with General Dynamics under which they are required to provide the vehicles as set out in the contract for the agreed price of £5.5 billion.
To assist in the delivery of Ajax we have identified the need for a full-time, dedicated senior responsible owner who will preferably be able to see the project through to completion, or indeed advise if the project is incapable of being delivered. A shortlist of candidates is currently under consideration. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority is also providing MOD with expert support to establish a recovery plan for the programme.
[HCWS260]
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment (Nadhim Zahawi)
Through the covid-19 vaccines programme, we have administered over 90 million vaccine doses in the UK, with recent PHE data suggesting that this has prevented over 24 million infections, 105,900 deaths and 82,100 hospitalisations in England alone. The vaccines are the most effective way of protecting the most vulnerable and minimising hospitalisations and deaths.
The independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) continues to consider emerging data. When Parliament was in recess the Committee provided advice in favour of:
offering initial vaccination to all remaining 16 and 17-year-olds;
offering a third dose in the primary vaccine schedule to all those aged 12 and over defined as severely immunosuppressed;
and expanding the groups of 12 to 15-year-olds defined as at risk.
Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) reviewed and accepted the advice. All four parts of the UK have accepted the JCVI’s advice and will align their deployment in each nation.
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members to bring to their attention the contingent liabilities relating to the expansion of the covid-19 vaccine programme taken during the summer recess.
Initial vaccination to all remaining 16 and 17-year-olds:
JCVI published further advice on the vaccination of children and young people on 4 August.
JCVI advised that all remaining 16 to 17-year-olds should be offered a first dose of Pfizer-BNT162b2 vaccine. This is in addition to the existing offer of two doses of vaccine to 16 to 17-year-olds who are in “at-risk” groups or in roles which present a high risk of transmission to vulnerable people.
Third dose in the primary vaccine schedule to all those aged 12 and over defined as severely immunosuppressed:
JCVI published its advice on vaccination for individuals with severe immunosuppression on 1 September.
JCVI advised that a third primary vaccine dose be offered to individuals aged 12 and above with severe immunosuppression in proximity of their first or second covid-19 vaccine doses in the primary schedule with a preference for mRNA vaccines for those aged 18 and over. Whether patients are eligible will be determine by their specialist clinician. For young people aged 12 to 17 years, the Pfizer-BNT162b2 remains the preferred choice.
A third primary dose is recommended for individuals with severe immunosuppression in order to bring these individuals up to nearer the same level of immunity that healthy individuals achieve through two primary doses, and this group will become eligible for a booster dose as part of a routine booster programme from around six months after their third primary dose, pending further advice.
Expanding the groups of 12 to 15-year-olds defined as at risk:
JCVI published further advice on expanding the vaccine offer to certain children and young people on 3 September.
JCVI advised that the offer of a course of vaccination should be expanded to include children aged 12 to 15 years with the following conditions:
Haematological malignancy
Sickle cell disease
Type 1 diabetes
Congenital heart disease,
Other health conditions as described in Public Health England’s Green Book
This is in addition to the conditions specified in the existing advice on at risk 12 to 15-year-olds published on 19 July. JCVI advised that this group is offered a two-dose course of vaccination with Pfizer-BNT162b2 vaccine as the preferred option.
With deployment of additional doses of vaccines to severely immunosuppressed individuals and new groups of young people over the parliamentary summer recess, I am now updating the House on the liabilities that HMG have taken on in relation to further vaccine supply via this statement and attached departmental minutes containing descriptions of the liability undertaken. The agreement to provide indemnity with deployment of further doses to the population increases the statutory contingent liability of the covid-19 vaccination programme.
Deployment of effective vaccines to eligible groups has been and remains a key part of the Government’s strategy to manage covid-19. Willingness to accept the need for appropriate indemnities to be given to vaccine suppliers has helped to secure access to vaccines with the expected benefits to public health and the economy alike much sooner than may have been the case otherwise.
Given the exceptional circumstances we are in, and the terms on which developers have been willing to supply a covid-19 vaccine, we along with other nations have taken a broad approach to indemnification proportionate to the situation we are in.
Even though the covid-19 vaccines have been developed at pace, at no point and at no stage of development has safety been bypassed. The MHRA approval for use of the currently deployed vaccines clearly demonstrates that this vaccine has satisfied, in full, all the necessary requirements for safety, effectiveness, and quality. We are providing indemnities in the very unexpected event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures that have been put in place.
I will update the House in a similar manner as and when other covid-19 vaccines or additional doses of vaccines already in use in the UK are deployed.
HM Treasury has approved the proposal.
[HCWS257]
Written Parliamentary Questions 155392 and 170718: Correction
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I would like to inform the House that I wish to correct the formal record in relation to written answers to the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) on 2 March 2021 and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on 25 March 2021.
The reply suggested that NHS England and Improvement was developing a case definition and model of care for children with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH).
The correct response was that NHSEI had run an initial workshop on long covid to discuss how best to develop a case definition and model of care for children at which the RCPCH was present.
The response was phased in a way that overstated the role of the RCPCH in producing clinical guidance. NICE is responsible for developing the clinical case definition of Long covid.
I would like to thank the RCPCH and its members for their contributions more broadly in improving the understanding of long covid in children.
[HCWS258]
Statutory Storage Limits for Gametes and Embryos
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Minister for Innovation (Lord Bethell of Romford) has today made the following written statement:
Family units and family formation in the UK are vastly different today than they were when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (the HFE Act) was introduced and last reviewed. In a modern society, some individuals are choosing to start their families later in life and are increasingly choosing to use new and effective techniques to freeze their eggs, sperm, or embryos to preserve fertility. The reasons for this are diverse but can include not being ready or able to start a family, medical conditions that might lead to premature infertility, or undergoing gender reassignment.
The HFE Act currently sets the statutory storage limits for eggs, sperm, and embryos at 10 years, with the possibility of extension up to 55 years for those who can demonstrate a clinical need. The Government recognise that these current arrangements are increasingly disadvantageous towards women and unnecessarily restrictive of individual freedom of choice about when to start a family.
In view of the significant scientific innovation and societal changes, the Government launched a public consultation on 11 February 2020, to seek views about changing the statutory storage limits. The consultation ran for 12 weeks and closed on 5 May 2020.
The Government are today announcing the publication of the Government response to the consultation.
We received 1,222 responses to the consultation, including 17 from key sector organisations. The responses were analysed and carefully considered by the Department of Health and Social Care giving due regard to the importance of equality, facilitating reproductive choice, administrative burden, and public acceptability.
In the light of these factors and the public response, the Government are announcing a change to this policy; to increase the statutory storage limits for eggs, sperm, and embryos for everyone, regardless of medical need, to 10-year renewable storage periods, with a maximum limit of 55 years. The legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.
The regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), will provide oversight during the introduction of these changes to ensure they are rolled out effectively and safely.
The proposed policy change is intended to facilitate greater reproductive choice and will allow for less stressful decision-making in family formation. Importantly, it will provide equity for all, regardless of medical need, and will help reduce administrative burden for clinics and the regulator.
A copy of the Government’s response to the consultation will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
A regulatory triage assessment has also been published alongside the consultation. It can be accessed on gov.uk and will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-09-06/HCWS256/.
[HCWS256]
Essex Mental Health Independent Inquiry: Terms of Reference
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
On 21 January 2021, I announced the establishment of a non-statutory, independent inquiry into the circumstances of mental health in-patient deaths at the former North Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, the former South Essex Partnership University Trust and the Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, which took over responsibility for mental health services in Essex from 2017.
I am pleased to inform you that I placed a copy of the inquiry’s terms of reference in the Libraries of both Houses on 24 August 2021.
This follows a consultation by the inquiry on its terms of reference which commenced on 26 May and concluded on 3 August 2021. The inquiry team reached out to and heard from affected families, patients, local community groups, charities, and other individuals and organisations with an interest in the issues laid out in my earlier statement.
The terms of reference have also been published on the inquiry’s website https://www.emhii.org.uk/.
[HCWS255]
Housing Delivery Test
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
The covid-19 pandemic has tested our country’s resilience like nothing else has during peacetime. The public have endured great sacrifices, but access to a home—whether owned or rented—should not be one of them. Therefore, despite the unprecedented challenge facing us, we must not lose sight of the need this country has for more homes.
The Housing Delivery Test exists to offer greater transparency on the level of housing delivery in an area. It is an annual percentage measurement calculated over a rolling three-year period, taking into account the homes delivered in an area against the homes required. The Housing Delivery Test will remain a key part of the reformed planning system under proposals set out in Planning for the Future White Paper.
The 2020 Housing Delivery Test measurement used data relating to financial years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. To respond to the disruption to local authority services and the construction sector caused by the first national lockdown in March 2020, the Government made a one-month adjustment to the 2019-20 housing requirement. Since then, the Government have been engaging closely with local authorities and the housing industry across the country and stands ready to support recovery. Ministers have been listening to our stakeholders and will continue to do so.
The 2021 Housing Delivery Test measurement will be calculated using data relating to financial years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. Over the course of the 2020-21 measurement year, there were considerable variations in levels of housing delivery as local authorities and construction industry continued to face disruption on a national, regional and local level due to the pandemic. As a result, the Government aim to publish the 2021 Housing Delivery Test as intended later this year but will apply a four-month adjustment to the housing requirement figures for 2020-21 in order to account for these fluctuations. This means that there will be a deduction of 122 days to account for the most disrupted period that occurred between the months of April to the end of July. The thresholds for consequences for under-delivery will be maintained, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
A nuance of the Housing Delivery Test is how the calculation is carried out for local authorities that undergo reorganisation to create unitary authorities. Until now, recently reorganised authorities anticipated having their Housing Delivery Test calculated at their former authority boundaries in only the first year following reorganisation. However, from the 2021 measurement, in order to support new unitary authorities, they will be able to choose to use their former authority boundaries or their new unitary boundaries for the purpose of the measurement until the fifth anniversary of the new authority’s existence. We will be updating planning guidance to reflect this. In such cases, unitary authorities will still be expected to deliver housing in line with their identified need.
This Government’s ambition is to deliver 300,000 homes per year by the mid-2020s and one million homes over this Parliament. Therefore, it is vital that work continues to support and facilitate housing delivery. It will help us to build back better, support the economy to rebound strongly from the pandemic and ensure the homes needed across England are provided.
We have been making strong progress. Last year alone, around 244,000 homes were delivered—this is the highest number of new homes for over 30 years, and the seventh consecutive year that net supply has increased.
This written ministerial statement only covers England.
[HCWS254]
Civil Cases: Extending Fixed Recoverable Costs
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
The Ministry of Justice is today publishing its consultation response on extending fixed recoverable costs (FRC) in civil law cases in England and Wales. This follows the 2019 consultation paper, Extending Fixed Recoverable Costs in Civil Cases: Implementing Sir Rupert Jackson’s Proposals, which was based on the recommendations in Sir Rupert Jackson’s report on FRC, published on 31 July 2017. This consultation response has been delayed, principally because of the covid-19 pandemic.
As we build back a better justice system, we continue with renewed vigour to modernise the courts and how users interact with them. One area in need of further reform is costs, and particularly those that a losing party must pay the winner. This is especially true in lower value civil claims which people and businesses are most likely to face, either as claimants or defendants. Currently, the costs of these cases are too uncertain. Without being able to predict what the costs may be, it is difficult for either side to take an informed decision on the best way forward. We want cases to be resolved as early as possible, including those that proceed to litigation, with costs that are certain, proportionate, and fair to both sides.
FRC is a way of controlling the legal costs of civil litigation in advance by prescribing the amount of money that can be recovered by the winning party at set stages of litigation. They reduce overall costs, keep them proportionate, and enhance access to justice. FRC is already an important part of our justice system in lower value personal injury cases: their extension will be of particular benefit to those of more modest means, including individuals and small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and those who may otherwise be unable to litigate.
The Ministry of Justice has carefully considered the way forward in the light of responses to the consultation and developments since, including the Government’s desire to extend the use of FRC in other cases not covered in this response, such as clinical negligence claims and immigration and asylum judicial reviews. As is set out in our response, we propose to extend FRC to all cases in the fast track—generally those up to a value of £25,000, and to implement a new regime for ‘intermediate’ cases—simpler cases between £25,000 and £100,000. We will work with the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to ensure the smooth delivery of these reforms, to be implemented over the coming year.
The case for extending FRC remains strong: uncertainty of costs hinders access to justice, whereas certainty of costs set at a proportionate and fair level enhances it.
[HCWS253]
Civil Aviation Noise: Independent Advice to Government
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
The aviation sector is vital to our future as a global trading nation as well as playing a critical role in local economies and in the Government’s commitment to level up the economy. However, aviation noise can affect the health and wellbeing of individuals and communities in the vicinity of airports and underneath flightpaths.
Since the onset of the covid-19 pandemic there has been a reduction in aircraft movements in most areas, and with it a reduction in associated noise, but as the Government focus on building back better and ensuring a successful UK aviation sector for the future, aviation noise will increase from current levels. It is therefore vital that Government have appropriate and credible advice on aviation noise related matters.
The Government established the Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise (ICCAN) in November 2018 to help ensure that the needs of local communities are properly taken into account when considering the noise impacts of airport expansion, and to help ensure that noise impacts of airspace changes are properly considered.
Following an independent review of ICCAN conducted earlier this year, I have concluded that many of ICCAN’s functions would be more efficiently performed by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which already has a wider environmental remit. This will help ensure that noise is considered alongside other policy outcomes on the basis of high quality research and advice.
As a result, I can confirm that ICCAN will be wound down this month (September). This will be followed by a transitional phase during which my Department will work with the CAA, which will take on the majority of ICCAN’s former functions from April 2022. The CAA also plans to establish a new environment panel to provide it with independent expert advice on a range of environmental issues including carbon, air quality and noise. ICCAN’s existing functions not transferred to the CAA will remain within my Department.
[HCWS251]
International Travel: Summary of Updates
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
This statement provides an update on developments on international travel and on changes to the traffic light system made over the summer recess period. At 4 am on 8 August: At 4 am on 30 August: Austria Canada Germany Denmark Latvia Finland Norway Liechtenstein Romania Lithuania Slovakia Switzerland Slovenia The Azores At 4 am on 8 August: At 4 am on 30 August: Georgia Montenegro La Reunion Thailand Mayotte Mexico
Global travel taskforce July checkpoint review
As announced on 29 July, and as part of the second global travel taskforce checkpoint review, the Government extended the policy on fully vaccinated passengers arriving from amber list countries to include those who have been vaccinated in Europe (EU member states, European Free Trade Association countries and the European microstate countries of Andorra, Monaco and Vatican City) and US residents vaccinated in the United States. These changes came into force at 4 am on 2 August and mean that amber list arrivals vaccinated in the US and in Europe no longer have to take a day 8 test or quarantine. However, they are still required to take a pre-departure test before arrival as well as a PCR test on or before day 2 after arrival.
Children (under 18s) who are ordinarily resident in the US or Europe are also exempt from quarantine and the day 8 test, the same as children ordinarily resident in the UK. Children aged 11 and over will still need to complete a pre-departure and day 2 test. Children between the ages of five and 10 will only need to complete a day 2 test, and children aged four and under do not need to take any tests.
Passengers vaccinated in Europe with a vaccine approved by the European Medicines Agency are required to provide proof via an EU digital covid certificate, and those vaccinated in the US are required to provide proof via the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccination card. The policy does not currently cover those who have proof of recovery from covid-19.
Additional restrictions for France were applied on 19 July due to the persistent presence of cases in France of the beta variant. These temporary additional restrictions were removed at 4 am on 8 August and the fully vaccinated policy now applies to France.
Unvaccinated passengers, or passengers whose vaccines were not provided in the UK, Europe or United States through MHRA, EMA and FDA-approved vaccines, respectively, arriving in the UK from an amber list country are required to quarantine at home, provide a valid notification of a negative test result prior to travel and take a test on day 2 and 8 after their arrival.
The Government will explore how to expand this approach to other countries, where it is safe to do so.
Further to this, international cruises also fully restarted on 2 August. Passengers travelling on international cruises are subject to the same rules as other international passengers and should therefore follow the traffic light system. FCDO advice has been amended to encourage travellers to understand the risks associated with cruise travel and take personal responsibility for their own safety abroad.
Traffic light system review
During parliamentary recess there have been two reviews of the country allocations within the traffic light system, on 5 August and 26 August. The following countries and territories have been added to the Government’s green list:
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 or before day 2 of their arrival in the UK.
The following countries have been added to the amber list at 4am on 8 August:
Bahrain
India
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
The following countries and territories have been added to the red list, reflecting the increased case rates in these countries as well as presenting a high public health risk to the UK from known variants of concern:
Passengers arriving from these destinations, irrespective of vaccination status, are 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.
Managed quarantine service
From 12 August, the cost for staying in a managed quarantine facility when arriving from a red list country increased to £2,285 for a single adult and £1,430 for a second adult to better reflect the total costs involved. The price remains unchanged for children.
Testing
Testing remains an important part of ensuring safe international travel. The Government continue to work with the travel industry and private testing providers to further reduce testing costs, while ensuring travel is as safe as possible. The Government have recently reduced NHS test and trace costs for travel testing for a second time to £68 and £136 for day 2 and days 2 and 8 testing packages respectively, to send a clear signal to industry and encourage a reduction in private sector pricing.
The Health Secretary has asked the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to conduct an urgent review of private testing providers to explore whether individual PCR providers may be breaching their obligations under consumer law; to report on any structural problems in the PCR market affecting price, reliability, or service quality; and whether there are any immediate actions that the Government could take in the meantime. The CMA has also sent and published an open letter to providers of PCR tests on how they should comply with consumer law.
On 23 August the Government also announced that, following a rapid review of the pricing and service standards of day 2 and day 8 testing providers listed on gov.uk, more than 80 companies have had their misleading prices corrected on the Government’s website and given a final warning, and a further 57 firms have been removed. The action will help ensure consumers can trust the testing providers listed on gov.uk and only the most reliable companies are available.
While public health is a devolved matter, the Government work closely with the devolved Administrations on any changes to international travel and aim to ensure a whole UK approach.
[HCWS252]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Grand Committee is about to begin. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Committee approve the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) (No. 2) Regulations 2021, which were laid before the House on 21 June 2021.
The emergence of the Covid-19 virus has posed the greatest threat to our way of life in a generation, and the past 18 months have been a challenge for us all, both as a nation and as individuals. The essential restrictions placed on our day-to-day activity have saved lives and limited the spread of the virus, but they have of course placed unprecedented pressures on many businesses. I am sure all noble Lords will share my optimism that the early signs of a strong recovery signal a return to normality. However, many businesses are not out of the woods just yet.
The four-step road map offered a road back to normal life while our world-class vaccination programme was successfully rolled out. Each step of the road map was implemented to safely reintroduce social contact for businesses, schools, activities and events based on the contemporaneous data. Step 4 was successfully launched on 19 July and led to the removal of all legal limits on social contact and the reopening of many premises. I am delighted to report that as of today, 6 September, more than 60% of the UK population are now fully vaccinated, and 71% have received their first dose.
Since the start of the pandemic, the Government have put in place an economic support package totalling £352 billion through the furlough scheme and the Self-employment Income Support Scheme, support for businesses through grants and loans, and business rates and VAT relief. In March, during the Budget speech, the Chancellor announced a generous extension of economic support for businesses and individuals, with many schemes continuing well beyond the end of the road map to help businesses to bounce back. The Government continue to support businesses by once again extending this key protection to prevent companies being forced into liquidation where their debts are due to the effects of the virus.
It has been widely reported that although many businesses are now open and trading they have continued to feel the effects of the periods of shut-down and limited trading over many months, and it will take some time for them to get back to normal financial health. This instrument will help companies while they get back to more normal activity by extending to 30 September 2021 a measure first introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020: specifically, the temporary suspension on issuing statutory demands and the restrictions on company winding-up petitions.
This measure has been extended several times by regulations, most recently from the end of March to 30 June, and this instrument seeks to extend it a further time, giving businesses the chance to trade free from creditor action to liquidate them for debts that arose because of the unique situation that many businesses have been in. This extension will allow them to sort out any financial difficulties that have arisen during the enforced restrictions over the last year or so, while the economy gets back to normal.
Since its introduction in June last year, the measure has protected many viable companies from aggressive creditor enforcement action during really difficult trading times. The temporary restriction on company winding-up petitions means that anyone who wishes to wind up a company that has not paid its debts must satisfy a court that those debts are not Covid-19 related. This extension aims to give many companies much-needed time to get back on their feet as the economy begins to return to normal: time for them to generate income, take advice, reach out to their creditors and, where appropriate, time to restructure.
The Government have helped companies while they had to stay shut, and, now that they are able to open, it is crucial that we do not withdraw that help prematurely before they are given the chance to trade back to financial health. Although this measure is intended to help companies that may be subject to aggressive creditor enforcement, the Government have always been clear that it is not to be seen as a payment holiday. Where companies can pay their debts, they should do so.
I know that many businesses and their business representatives will welcome the continued support that these regulations offer, but of course I also acknowledge that this measure will mean a further period of uncertainty for creditors where their rights to enforce recovery of their debts are temporarily restricted. We do not take this action lightly, and we are very aware of the impact on creditors. However, as I have said, the measure is intended to help those in financial difficulty as a result of the pandemic and must not be used as an excuse to avoid payment. So where a company can pay its debts, of course it is right that it should do so.
We will continue to monitor the situation carefully, consulting with stakeholders and the business community to determine what further action may be necessary when these regulations expire at the end of this month. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest. Since we last debated this subject, I have become a non-executive director and chairman-designate of Manolete Partners plc, an AIM-listed company involved in insolvency litigation. Therefore, I have a vested interest in addition to my other business interests.
I again congratulate the Government on the swift and decisive action taken with the introduction of this legislation in responding to the economic crisis. We did not agree on every aspect of the legislation, particularly some details of the moratorium, but we did agree on the direction of travel and the effect that all this has had. This debate is of course in respect of regulations which, as I understand it, expire at the end of this month, so although necessary, because of the way the regulations are drafted, it is probably the shortest-term effect of any regulation that has gone through this House.
More important is to know and understand what will happen after the end of this month. A number of us would argue that the time has come to relax these regulations and to rely on the market in which this Government have such faith. The market will determine which companies should have more capital allocated to them, which companies are zombie companies and which companies do not have a future. That will be decided partly by creditors and partly by people choosing whether to invest in companies that need such cash to face creditors.
It is interesting to look at the situation regarding creditors’ voluntary liquidation. Creditors’ voluntary liquidation is essentially when directors decide to throw in the towel because the business cannot carry on of its own volition. The figures published by the excellent Insolvency Service just the other day show that the level has returned to pre-pandemic levels, about 2,800 companies in the last quarter, which is roughly where it was pre-pandemic and is constant. So the market is returning to normal where it can. I very much hope that the Minister can give us an indication soon of the Government’s thinking on this extremely important issue.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, there are many industries that are still not fully on a path to recovery, good examples being hospitality and events management. If we are thinking about terminating this legislation at some stage, surely before we do that the Government will have to present us with some evidence of what the impact of the cliff edge will be on those and other industries.
Clearly a cliff edge is looming, although the can continues to be kicked down the road. What will happen when suddenly, as has been said, you let the market forces rip? What will be the effect of this legislation upon creditors who would perhaps have expected to have some recovery but who now must wait to recover? Clearly there is a knock-on effect, but the Government have not really presented any estimate of that. When the cliff edge comes, what restraints will be exercised by banks, private equity, hedge funds and other secured creditors, or will they all simply be rushing to collect their resources, collect their money, and put businesses into liquidation? That will clearly have a huge negative effect.
The Government need to present us with a plan. What exactly is the value of the debts that are affected? How many businesses? How many creditors? We have heard absolutely no information from the Government. When market forces are allowed to rip, what exactly would be the constraints on the insolvency practitioners who charge mega sums for insolvency fees that actually worsen the crisis? The BHS liquidation began in 2016 and is still not finished. Carillion began in 2018 and is still going. Thomas Cook is still going. Maplin is still going. Monarch Airlines and many others have been going for decades and decades. There seems to be absolutely no check. If the Government are really planning ahead, they need to present a plan about how they are going to constrain the insolvency industry. We have not really heard anything about that. I have asked in PQs for information about the values that unsecured creditors may lose. I am told that the Government have no figures. Again, I ask: what is the Government’s plan to deal with the cliff edge ahead?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest. I am chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has reviewed these regulations, but I speak this afternoon not as its chairman, nor indeed for the committee at all; I speak entirely in a personal capacity.
My noble friend the Minister will be aware of my interest in these matters, and it would be right for me to begin by thanking him and his officials, led by Paul Bannister, for the time they have given me and other interested Members of your Lordships’ House over the past few months to look at aspects of the particular problem we are dealing with this afternoon. Indeed, they have given us not just time but action in the sense that we have had some really sensible regulations about pre-packs, which have become a feature of choice and often with connected persons. The regulations which the Government have produced have done much to block that loophole and, judging by my postbag, they seem to be working well so far, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has pointed out, the point of maximum strain will of course come when we reach the end of the subsidies, whenever that may be.
I have a couple of points to make this afternoon. The first is about how we judge when “can’t pay, won’t pay” moves to “can pay, won’t pay”. My noble friend the Minister will say that paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that that is when the court is satisfied that the company’s inability to pay is not due to coronavirus. That may a possibility for a large and well-resourced company, but it is certainly beyond the resources of a small or medium-sized enterprise to go to court to try to prove this issue, which is pretty hard to prove anyway. I do not think that the Government should think that this offers anything other than the largest companies a proper balance in the argument about “can’t pay” and “can pay, but not bothering to pay”.
Of course, one understands, and has an instructive and instinctive view, that one should be helping people whose lives, efforts and companies have been set back by the pandemic, an issue over which they have no control. Of course you feel sympathy for them. However, we always have to balance that sympathy with the knowledge that this is a zero-sum game. One person’s gain is another person’s loss. I may be a supplier and may therefore be caught up in this; I may be unable to get paid and my business may be affected. It is always tempting to think that one should be trying to help those who are in difficulties and forgetting those who are strong. We need to avoid, or at least to minimise, situations where businesses that are already weak—perhaps for reasons beyond coronavirus, although that has created an additional strain—are kept afloat at the expense of suppliers and landlords.
In summary, we need to avoid taking policy decisions that benefit the weak and weaken the strong. When my noble friend winds up, it would be helpful if he could give us a stream of consciousness that will guide us as to how the Government judge all this. I understand the magic references to constant review in the Explanatory Memorandum; viable but cash poor is in there as well.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, we are back again debating measures to extend the restrictions on the use of statutory demands and winding-up petitions. I think this is the third time we have debated them, and every time we welcome, as we would from our Benches, the Government extending the safety net for businesses in distress because of the pandemic.
Just as we supported the emergency legislation last year, we welcome any measures to support the businesses that closed to keep us safe. As the Minister knows well by now, we argued then that the protections in the Act should be extended over a long period. As the Government extend them again, we reiterate the point, as we have before, that these short extensions cause real uncertainty and worry for businesses in the run-up to each expiry date, concerned as those businesses are with the cliff edge.
As the economy opens and restrictions end, it is right that these measures are kept under review, but we must also remember how many people are still affected by insolvency. The Government’s recent statistics, from July 2021, showed that there were 1,094 registered insolvencies. This was 13% higher than the number registered in the same month in 2020. Does the Minister expect this yearly increase to continue for the rest of 2021? Before he gets into the stream of consciousness response which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, so eagerly anticipated, perhaps he could answer a few other questions as well.
Will this be the last extension of these measures, or will we be back in a couple of weeks, or a month or so, since the current extension is only to the end of September? What has changed since the last SI is that some support was not extended beyond the end of June. This includes the small supplier exemptions from the termination clause provisions and the suspension of viability for wrongful trading provisions. The Government have said that these measures were allowed to lapse to enable a gradual return of the insolvency framework to its normal operation. Can the Minister explain how this decision was made? What evidence was it based on? What impact has it had on businesses since June?
As we return fresh from recess, can we hear from the Minister about any new plans the Government have for wider reform of our insolvency laws, including providing some greater protection and support for key industries and their key workers? As Covid support continues to be pulled away, we must ensure that we do not see a whole wave of insolvencies during the latter end of this year, provoking rises in unemployment and making businesses less certain of the environment in which they will work. We need to get the right support to thrive in the post-pandemic period, whenever we feel that comes.
Having listened to noble Lords around the Committee, I think we are all in need of some reassurance. Some colleagues here want to see market forces let rip, but I do not think that doing so is necessarily the best option here, although of course we all want to return to normal. I look forward to the noble Lord’s reassurances and some answers to those key questions, as well as to those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank all noble Lords for their interesting and, as always, valuable contributions to this debate.
It is worth reiterating that, since the emergence of Covid-19, businesses have received billions in loans, tax deferrals, business rate relief and grants to support them and, vitally, to help them to preserve jobs. The Government’s road map for the staged lifting of restrictions has in my view been a success in protecting the UK from the spread of Covid-19 while the vaccine programme was rolled out, and we can all begin slowly to return to normality.
However, we must recognise that many businesses and others have suffered from the impact of the pandemic for over a year now, and in many cases it will take time to return to full pre-Covid financial health. The Government will continue to do what it takes to support businesses through this period of economic recovery.
The points raised have highlighted the importance of the measure being extended by these regulations and the necessity of extending it once more so that businesses can continue to benefit from it. These regulations will provide the much-needed continued support for businesses to concentrate their best efforts on continuing to trade, preserve jobs and build the foundations for our economic recovery. I sincerely hope that companies and their creditors will come together in good faith to maintain their future trading relationships and secure the benefits for both themselves and the economy as a whole.
I will answer some of the points that were quite fairly put to me in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and my noble friend Lord Leigh asked a very pertinent and relevant question about what will happen when these measures come to an end in a little over three weeks’ time. The Government recognise that there is potential for what I think both noble Lords referred to as a cliff-edge scenario involving the accumulation of unpaid debts becoming due when these restrictions and government fiscal support expire. I can tell noble Lords that work is ongoing with businesses and key stakeholders to develop solutions to enable a viable exit from these measures. All options are being considered, and I hope to make an announcement on this very shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked what the Government are doing to support creditors who are unable to recover their debts and who are putting their own businesses at risk. To reiterate, this is a temporary measure that is intended to help struggling businesses during the continuation of the pandemic. It does not, as I said initially, permanently prevent the possibility of a creditor serving a statutory demand and/or presenting a winding-up petition. When the legislation expires, a creditor will be able to pursue their debt. We expect this to encourage businesses to continue, wherever possible, to meet their ongoing liabilities as far as they are able to do so.
There is a range of other legal options available to creditors seeking to recover debts which are unaffected by the changes being made here. If is, for example, possible to bring a civil claim to recover a debt. Also, where a company’s inability to pay is not related to Covid-19, it will still be possible to present a petition for winding it up, notwithstanding the points correctly raised by my noble friend Lord Hodgson. There is evidence to suggest that winding-up petitions are still being presented in appropriate cases.
Alcohol Licensing (Coronavirus) (Regulatory Easements) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Alcohol Licensing (Coronavirus) (Regulatory Easements) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations contain modest measures to help to support the hospitality industry’s recovery from the economic impact of closures and restrictions on its operation during the Covid-19 pandemic. The measures will help hospitality businesses to recoup some of the revenue they have lost since March of last year. They will also allow greater flexibility in the way in which licensed premises operate if circumstances change.
Data from trade organisations and other sources show significant financial losses for the hospitality industry as a consequence of the pandemic. Curren Goodden Associates, a data and research company, reports that around 6,000 licensed premises closed in 2020 across Britain. The British Beer and Pub Association has estimated a year-on-year decrease in beer sales of £7.8 billion in 2020. Office for National Statistics data up to the end of May this year showed that payments to suppliers from food and drink businesses remained at around half their pre-pandemic levels.
The statutory instrument contains three measures to help. The first will extend provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020 to allow for a further year, until 30 September next year, sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises to licensed premises that did not have that permission. This will allow up to 38,000 licensed premises that did not have permission to make off-sales when the Act commenced last year to continue selling alcohol for consumption outdoors, to take away or for home delivery.
The second measure amends the limits prescribed in Section 107 of the Licensing Act 2003 to increase the allowance for temporary event notices that a premises user can give in respect of a premises from 15 to 20 and increases the maximum number of days on which temporary events may be held at such premises from 21 to 26, in each of the calendar years 2022 and 2023. The increase in premises allowances of temporary event notices will enable unlicensed premises to host more revenue-generating events, such as wedding receptions and markets where alcohol is sold, as well as enabling licensed premises to extend hours by way of a temporary event notice to accommodate celebratory occasions.
Finally, the statutory instrument amends existing regulations, the Licensing Act 2003 (Permitted Temporary Activities) (Notices) Regulations 2005, to make consequential amendments to the relevant forms for temporary event notices and counter-notices. All businesses should still comply with the latest government guidance on working safely during the pandemic.
I reassure the Committee that, before this order was laid, Home Office officials consulted the National Police Chiefs’ Council about the effects that the temporary off-sales permission has had thus far. The view of the police then was that it had not caused any increase in crime and disorder.
Alongside the extension of the temporary off-sales permission, the statutory instrument will extend an expedited review process which allows responsible authorities to quickly alter the licensing conditions granted to premises or to remove the permission for sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises. I know that noble Lords will appreciate the impact which the pandemic has had on the hospitality industry, and I hope that the Committee will support these measures to aid its recovery. I commend this order to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Jones (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her cogent introduction to the regulations and for the copious, detailed, helpful Home Office Explanatory Memorandum. I am sure that all of us seek progress for these regulations. It is so good to see my noble friend Lord Coaker in his Front-Bench seat. I recollect his determination, diligence and command of subject in another place. Can the Minister throw any further light on how previous provisions for Covid have fared in Wales? Was there easy acceptance or did her department detect some resistance? How did her department liaise with and consult the Senedd in Cardiff? Speedily, was it? Or was it dilatory? What form did the consultation take? Was it ministerially, face to face? I think not, from paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum. Was it official to official? Again, paragraph 10 is specific. Why was it not ministerially face to face? Were there problems? Surely the Minister will surely dispel those considerations. Has the department made any assessment of the differences in the reception of and obedience to the previous post-Covid provisions? What was the link between her department and the department of health? How were these links between departments managed?
Finally, the Committee may know that many decades ago there was a referendum in Wales to determine Sunday opening for public houses. Nonconformist opinion rallied negative forces. The referendum was lost and many remained thirsty on Sundays. I hasten to say that Wales is not a land of hypocrisy and whitewash, but in those days in much of Wales every Sunday there was a procession of buses carrying thirsty Welshwomen and Welshmen to borderland English pubs. Several decades later the second referendum was positive, possibly because the chapels were emptying. I remind the Committee that the great Welshman and Prime Minister Lloyd George enacted legislation that impinged strongly on pub opening times, but the World War I war effort was judged to be the better for it.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these regulations. I am concerned that the information that she gave to the Committee appears to be somewhat out of date. For example, she gave information about the sale of beer until May this year. Looking at the press, the evidence is that the hospitality sector has recovered extremely well in recent months, what with staycations and people enjoying their newfound freedom. I wonder whether she has any more up-to-date information about why these regulations are necessary.
Of the three measures, the last one is consequential in terms of applications for temporary event notices, and the increases to the limits for temporary event notices are only marginal. My major concern, which we have previously discussed, is about on-licence premises being allowed to sell alcohol to take away. When we discussed this previously, I expressed concern about alcohol being sold in open containers, allowing customers to purchase alcohol and then to walk down the street unsupervised, to the annoyance of passers-by and local residents. Of particular concern was if the alcohol was served in containers made of glass which could be broken and used as weapons.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to be here discussing this important SI. I say at the outset that we support the regulations but, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and my noble friend Lord Jones, there are some questions which quite rightly people will want asked. However, I thank the Minister for a helpful introduction, particularly in trying to answer some of the questions before we had asked them—for example, on the consultation with the national police chiefs.
My noble friend Lord Jones got off to a good start by saying how well I did in the other place—so I thought his was a brilliant speech. e made some important points. It is interesting to look at the history of Wales around the referendum on drinking on a Sunday, some of the implications of that and changes that have taken place over the years. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is absolutely right: the Explanatory Memorandum talked about all the difficulties that there have been, with 6,000 licensed premises closing and over £7 billion lost, but the point of the regulations was to help. It would be helpful, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was saying, to ask what the positive outcome of some of that was. How many places would have closed and how much money would have been lost had that not happened?
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that there clearly is a real problem. You cannot drive around the country without seeing closed restaurants, closed hotels and closed pubs. I am not a statistician but I can see where I live—Cotgrave in Nottinghamshire—that there were two pubs and now there is one, which is working as hard as it can but is facing difficulty. The hospitality industry needs support and help. I accept the point about the need to be positive, particularly as some of the regulations have been relaxed, so what additional benefits are there? That is an important point about why the regulations are necessary and what we say to the public about them. From the evidence of my own eyes as I drive around, I cannot believe that there has not been a disastrous effect. I have a number of questions, as it has made a difference to the industry as a whole.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about crime and disorder as there are questions we need to ask about that. When the SI went through before, my colleagues raised a number of issues which were taken on board, including the cost and the increased workload for local authorities. What assessment has been made of that? What support has been given to the licensing authorities in local authorities to deal with it? Have any problems emerged as a consequence? I will come on to anti-social behaviour and the potential for crime.
On access to toilets, I am bemused by the fact that the availability of public conveniences is shocking across the country. I know everybody blames everybody else. Whoever’s fault it is, it is a real problem. If you look at the night-time economy, there was a problem before and there continues to be a problem with shop doorways being used and so on. The issue has been raised before, and is important. I do not know whether people are embarrassed to talk about it or just assume the worst, but the reality is that we all need a toilet and sometimes a public toilet is not available and perhaps it should be. We raised that as the SI went through before.
The availability of support for smaller breweries is an issue. They provide so much of the local pub scene. Has any work been done to see whether the help for them has been significant?
The Minister answered a question about the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It would be interesting to see whether there are any differences between what it is saying and what local police forces say. The Local Government Association talks about informal discussions with it. I am not sure what the Minister said about what it said, unless I missed it. I notice from the Explanatory Notes that no formal review of the impact of the regulations will take place. I think everything needs to be reviewed. It can be a quick review, but it is important to look at what we have seen and what we can learn from it.
I want to make a suggestion on crime and disorder that I hope the Minister will take on board and find helpful. It may answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Paragraph 23 of the Explanatory Memorandum explicitly says that there may well be an increase in crime and disorder. The Government’s publication in evidence states that we could see an increase in crime and disorder because of pent-up demand for alcohol, that it is possible that it may be at a greater than previous level due to pent-up demand for drinking alcohol in a public house social situation, and that there is considerable uncertainty around the impact given that the current situation is novel and has few comparisons. There is clearly potential for a problem here. That is not to say that the regulations should therefore be imposed but, given that the Government think there is a potentially a problem, the public, the police, local authorities and the sector itself would expect something to be done about it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have made points during this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, follows in a fine tradition from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who always ends his speeches with about 20 questions. He has not disappointed there—and I look forward to further discussions of this nature.
On the first points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, he is absolutely right to raise the matter of Wales. The measures cover England and Wales. The department spoke to Wales very early on, although that has not happened recently with the Department of Health and Social Care—but we have regular catch-ups with that department. He asked about Minister-to-Minister engagement, and I do not have an answer on that, but I know that we speak regularly with the devolved authorities and they have been satisfied with the approach that we have taken. I hope that is sufficient for the noble Lord, Lord Jones.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, talked about the additional workloads on local authorities. Absolutely, they do have them—and were this to be on a permanent basis it would require a change in legislation. Of course, because of the very temporary nature of it, that sort of impact has not had to be substantially considered.
On public toilets, I spent my life in local government talking about public toilets. It is something that really interests the public. I am not sure that there has been a decline in the number of public toilets over the past couple of years, but the fact that people are drinking outside certainly means that public toilets have needed to be more accessible for them. I do not know whether it is the same in the noble Lord’s area, but I have found that the attitude of various premises towards people being allowed to use their toilets has been much more sympathetic and empathetic because of the difficulties that we have all faced. I totally agree with him about local breweries. I do not know how many of them have been forced to close, but I am sure that local breweries have benefited from some of the business support that the Government have given.
On whether there has been any difference of opinion between the NPCC and local police forces, the NPCC speaks for everyone as a whole. I am sure that there have been differences of opinion across the 43 local police forces. If I have any information on that, I will give it to the noble Lord. On what happens if the public object, the public are part of the licensing system. The police, the licensing authority and the public all have a say. If the public object—particularly if there is noise nuisance—the licensing authority can revisit its decision.
The noble Lord also asked, on the back of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, why it was necessary at this stage to extend the provisions. Over the year, pubs and licensed premises have really suffered. The last few months have clearly been quite positive in terms of what they have been able to do. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about why it is necessary—
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, if I may continue, picking up where I left off with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on why it might be necessary to continue, businesses in particular have a long way to go before they get themselves back on their feet. Particularly for small premises, this extension will give additional capacity that those businesses might need. He made a very good point about how much money would have been lost without the regulation; I do not know whether we have quantified or assessed that, but a lot more businesses would certainly have gone to the wire without our assistance.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made a point about Westminster council and pavement licences. They are entirely a matter for it. Local authorities must have that say over what happens in their locality. He also made a point about Covid passports. I do not know that anything has been officially decided on that, but he is right that there has been a lot in the press about them. Even so, it is obviously a matter for DHSC, not us, although I know his story of having been vaccinated several times and the problem of having one country accept another country’s vaccines and the other problems that leads to.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to other powers that the police and councils will have. Under Section 76 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, they can issue a closure notice if there are reasonable grounds to consider
“that the use of particular premises has resulted, or … is likely … to result, in nuisance to members of the public”.
In terms of off-sales leading to anti-social behaviour, under Section 76 they can also issue a closure notice if they see fit.
Alongside the extension of the temporary off-sales permission, the statutory instrument—I might have said this already—will extend an expedited review process, which allows the responsible authority quickly to alter the licensing conditions granted to premises or remove the permission for sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises.
I hope I have covered everything noble Lords have asked.
Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the Grand Committee do consider the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2021.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this instrument was laid on 7 July in accordance with Paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 to the International Organisations Act 1968. It confers privileges and immunities in support of the 26th Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: COP 26. That will take place in Glasgow from 31 October to 12 November this year. This order is required so that the UK can comply fully with the obligations of the host country agreement that we have negotiated with the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
As president of COP 26, we are hosting the biggest event of this kind that the UK has ever seen. It presents us with a unique opportunity to demonstrate our global leadership on the issue of climate, delivering our objectives to accelerate worldwide action to tackle climate change and to deliver a green recovery and sustainable jobs. We are committed to delivering a whole-of-society conference in Glasgow and are working with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure an inclusive and ambitious conference for the whole of the United Kingdom.
During the opening days of COP 26, we will host a world leaders’ summit. We are expecting up to 120 world leaders to accept the Prime Minister’s invitation to attend in person. The summit will set the stage for 12 days of talks. Teams of negotiators, government representatives, businesses and citizens will work together to develop solutions to the challenges that are now global priorities for us all. While interlinked, the world leaders’ summit and COP 26 are separate events in administrative terms. This SI deals with COP 26 only. Separate provisions are being made for participants in the world leaders’ summit.
A core principle of this framework is that functional immunities be accorded to all those performing functions in connection with the conference and all those invited to the conference. Ensuring that all participants feel that they can discharge these functions without fear of official or legal consequences is a fundamental requirement of a successful COP. We expect to welcome more than 25,000 participants to Glasgow and recognise the need for them to be able to perform their functions freely. If we were to accord privileges and immunities to all, however, we would be going far beyond what we would consider functional need. In particular, protections regarding freedom of expression and freedom of assembly already exist under UK domestic law.
Negotiations have taken place with the UN, at the highest levels, to keep the number granted privileges and immunities as small as possible without compromising participants’ freedom to function. We have reassured the secretariat and the UN that the extensive protections that exist in UK domestic law as regards freedom of expression and freedom of assembly negate the requirement for the widespread granting of privileges and immunities.
I am pleased to confirm that we have been successful in reaching agreement that we shall confer privileges and immunities on only three categories: UN officials who do not already enjoy them; the delegations of member and observer states, otherwise known as the parties; and core personnel from the Clean Development Mechanism, the Green Climate Fund, the Adaptation Fund and the Global Environment Facility. These privileges and immunities include immunity from arrest and detention and from suit and legal process for certain individuals while they are exercising their functions in connection with the conference. It does not grant personal immunity or inviolability, nor will it extend to British nationals, permanent residents or their spouses or partners.
We have carefully considered the effects of the ongoing pandemic and the interplay between privileges and immunities and a COP held in that context. We have agreed with the UN Secretary-General and the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC that a robust Covid management plan will be put in place and that the observance of those provisions will be enforced through a code of conduct which all participants will be required to accept.
Along with our colleagues in the Scottish Government, Glasgow City Council, public health bodies and the UN system, we are continuing to monitor the pandemic and are developing a comprehensive package of measures to help protect participants and the local community from the risk of Covid transmission during COP 26. The measures we have identified include vaccination, quarantine arrangements, bespoke test, trace and isolate procedures, hygiene protocols and enhanced ventilation. We are strongly recommending that participants be vaccinated, and the UK will work with the UN to provide vaccines to COP 26 participants who would otherwise be unable to secure them.
This instrument forms a necessary part of the UK’s compliance with the obligations in the host country agreement to be signed by the UK and the UNFCCC secretariat. It balances, on the one hand, the desire to limit the granting of privileges and immunities to a minimum, and on the other, the COP’s founding principle that all participants should be able to voice their legitimate opinions without fear of legal repercussion. It avoids setting unwelcome precedents for UN conferences held in countries which do not have the level of personal freedoms that we enjoy here in the UK, for instance by limiting freedom of assembly, which can allow the general public to express views through peaceful demonstration. It is a fundamental element of success as we demonstrate to the world that the UK is a global power that respects the rules-based international system and can respond to an ever-changing global environment.
We will continue to join forces with our global counterparts, civil society, the private sector and those on the front line of the fight against climate change to inspire action ahead of COP 26. We are firmly resolved to uphold the principles of freedom of expression, inspire debate and lead a movement towards consensus. In this way, we can achieve our ambitious goals to reduce emissions and rebuild through a green economy.
The UK is clear in what we want to achieve through our COP presidency. This instrument is an important step in welcoming the world to Glasgow so that the international community can agree decisive action to win the fight against climate change. I beg to move.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI, which is obviously necessary in line with our obligations as host nation. He talked about the three categories of people who will be granted immunity. Can he give us an indication of how many in total that will be? Can he also go a little further in explaining the extent of immunity from suit? He said that it related only to actions relating to the duties of these delegation members in connection with the conference. However, if they act illegally while attending the conference outside it are they immune from prosecutions for, for example, being drunk and disorderly?
Can the Minister tell us what is the nature of the privileges and immunities relating to personal baggage, which is mentioned specifically, and does that mean that baggage is exempt from searches? If so, how will the Government ensure that these privileges are not abused and what degree of scrutiny, given what I imagine is a fairly large number of individuals, will there be to ensure that such immunities are not provided to individuals who could pose a security risk?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Oates, in saying that the instrument is an essential part of hosting COP 26; it is a long-standing convention with summits held away from the UN headquarters. As the Minister said, we are also implementing a host-country agreement. With COP 26 now only a short time away, the Government must use it as our last and best hope of a global breakthrough to limit temperature rises to 1.5 degrees.
As we have heard, the order reflects the immunities and privileges instruments that the House has debated in recent months, such as the order on the Bank for International Settlements. In this case, privileges and immunities will be received by representatives of parties and observer states, officials of the specialised agencies of the UN and select other representatives, such as those from the Adaption Fund, the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility. While that is standard practice for the first group—representatives of parties and observer states—I reiterate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Oates: what risk assessment has the department made of the possibility of hostile individuals or states abusing their immunities and privileges while in the UK? Also, in relation to the privileges granted to UN officials, the list in the order includes only specialised agencies. Does that mean that attendees from other UN bodies, including the UN Environment Programme, will not be given immunity? Was that issue raised during negotiations on the host agreement?
The period for which immunities and privileges apply is between 31 October and 12 November, which reflects the slightly extended duration of the summit, which is now set to begin on 31 October rather than 1 November. When the decision was made to extend the summit, the reason given was that it would allow additional time to complete its work. Can the Minister expand on that and explain why the summit was extended? I have no objections, certainly if it means that we reach agreement, but it would be good to have a better understanding of the decision.
I turn to the host agreement which the instrument relates to. In addition to agreeing to the immunities and privileges, which the Minister mentioned, as well as Covid arrangements and all the requirements that we are undertaking to make the summit safe, one of the other commitments made in the host agreement is that we must
“provide facilities that are environmentally sound and in accordance with the ideals provided for under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change … the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.”
Can the Minister explain exactly what steps we have taken, along with the devolved Government in Edinburgh, to meet that objective? Given that the host agreement also refers to a “separate supplementary agreement” for “pre-sessional meetings”, can the Minister confirm whether any further instruments are expected as a result of that agreement? Will we be extending immunities for those particular sessions?
In conclusion, this is a decisive decade in the fight against climate change and environmental breakdown but the world is currently not on track to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. Therefore, COP 26 is a critical moment for our planet and our country and we can all hope that the Government will use this event to keep alive the hope of limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees centigrade. I look forward to the Minister’s assurance on the questions I have put to him.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Collins of Highbury, for their questions and points on this statutory instrument. I am grateful too for their recognition that this is in line with the obligations on us as the president of COP and, indeed, with long-standing precedent. I will address the questions that they have posed today, and if I miss any, I hope that they will forgive me for writing with further detail, but I shall attempt to cover all the points that they raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked about the extent of the immunity. The UNFCCC requirement is to grant
“immunity from legal process in respect of words spoken or written and any act performed … in connection with”
participation in COP 26 to the registered COP 26 participants under the agreed Article 2 categories. Many participants in COP 26 and associated meetings will already enjoy privileges and immunities by virtue of their function or position if they are a Head of Government or have diplomatic status, for instance. It is standard practice, as the noble Lord recognised, for host Governments to grant appropriate privileges and immunities to UN-associated international conferences, based on the UN general convention of 1946.
The privileges and immunities accorded to participants in COP 26 and associated meetings will apply only when participants are exercising their official functions at the conference and associated meetings. The purpose of the privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure that they are able to perform their official duties smoothly and efficiently. We expect all participants to respect our laws and regulations. I hope that addresses the question on the extent.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked how many people will be combined within the three categories mentioned. Obviously, it depends on those participating in person, but I can give a figure of around 12,000 people. The noble Lord also asked about personal baggage. That will not be immune from search, but official papers and baggage will be protected.
The noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Collins, both asked about security risks. We are partnering with the United Nations, and the UK will have the opportunity to vet all participants. Their privileges and immunities granted under this SI are limited to their official acts.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked about visas. Visas for other meetings will depend on the status of the meeting, so if it is part of COP 26, the COP rules will apply. That is primarily a question for the Italians as it will apply from 28 to 30 September but I will certainly follow up the points he raised, particularly on Africa.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, asked about the rationale for the extension of the dates. I cannot speak about the policy extent of COP more broadly today but, from the point of this statutory instrument, the dates cover the dates where we would expect people to be in Glasgow performing those official duties. He asked whether other statutory instruments would be needed for supplementary meetings. We do not think other statutory instruments will be required.
I hope that addresses all the questions but, as I say, I will make sure that I consult the official record and provide answers to any that I have not. With gratitude for noble Lords’ support, I commend this order to the Committee.
Occupational Pension Schemes (Administration, Investment, Charges and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee do consider the Occupational Pension Schemes (Administration, Investment, Charges and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this instrument, which was laid before this House on 21 June. Subject to approval, these regulations will continue the Government’s reform of occupational defined contribution—DC—pension schemes and prepare them for the opportunities that lie ahead.
With more than 10 million workers now saving for retirement in an occupational pension thanks to the success of automatic enrolment, we want these savers to achieve the best possible outcome in retirement. These regulations put improved member outcomes at the centre of the defined contribution occupational pensions market in the UK and ensure that the best interests of pension savers are driving the administration, governance and investment strategies of schemes.
By introducing a new “value for members” assessment for schemes with less than £100 million in assets and which have been operating for at least three years, we will ensure that members are not languishing in poorly governed and under-performing schemes. By requiring the trustees of certain occupational DC schemes to publish information on the performance of their investments for the first time, we will ensure that competition on overall member value replaces a narrow focus on cost.
By allowing occupational DC schemes to smooth performance fees over a multi-year period within the charge cap, we will make it easier for trustees of such schemes to pay higher fees for products where they have evidence that this will provide greater returns to members.
The Government are committed to building on the success of automatic enrolment with a consolidated, innovative, member-focused market for saving in occupational DC pension schemes. These regulations take significant action to this end. I am satisfied that the Occupational Pension Schemes (Administration, Investment, Charges and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Occupational defined contribution schemes, or DC schemes, are the future of occupational pension saving. The Government are committed to ensuring that the DC market in this country can continue to grow and deliver the best possible outcomes for the millions of workers now saving in a DC scheme. These regulations take forward several measures which amend a number of existing sets of regulations. The first of these, which is made by Regulation 2 of this instrument, is the introduction of a new “value for members” assessment for occupational DC schemes with less than £100 million in assets. While there is currently more than £100 billion of pension savings in occupational DC schemes, this is split among more than 3,000 schemes. This system risks inefficiency and creating inequality. For example, some people, as a result of the scheme their employer chose, possibly years ago, may be getting a lower return on their savings, paying higher charges or having a worse customer experience, therefore limiting their engagement with their pension and outcomes in retirement. We aim to change this.
That is why this instrument amends the Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Administration) Regulations 1996 to require trustees of relevant schemes, a term which covers most occupational DC schemes, with less than £100 million in assets and which have been in existence for at least three years to conduct an annual assessment of the value that the scheme offers to its members. The regulations specify the criteria that must form part of this assessment. They include the quality of the scheme’s record-keeping, the promptness and accuracy of administration and the extent to which existing requirements in the Pensions Act 2004 concerning trustees’ knowledge and understanding are being met.
However, the most important aspect of this assessment is the comparison between the scheme’s net investment returns, ie the performance of its investments less costs and charges, relative to three larger schemes. Larger schemes are likely to be better governed and to achieve greater investment returns than a smaller scheme with limited expertise, capacity and budget. We expect that the majority of schemes will not perform favourably in this test.
Regulation 3 of this instrument requires schemes to report to the Pensions Regulator the outcome of this “value for members” assessment. If schemes in scope determine that they do not offer value for members, Regulation 3 of the Register of Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes Regulations is amended by these regulations to require such schemes to inform the Pensions Regulator of whether they intend to wind up the scheme or to explain the reasons for not doing so and the immediate improvements that will be put in place. These measures will encourage a quicker pace of consolidation in the occupational DC pension schemes market and help members who are stuck in schemes that are delivering sub-optimal retirement outcomes for them. Scheme consolidation is a priority for DWP so that members are able to benefit from the economies of scale and access to a diverse range of asset classes that larger schemes bring.
The other measures in this instrument aim to broaden the range of asset classes available to occupational DC schemes. At present, occupational DC schemes are primarily invested in traditional assets such as listed equities and bonds. Only a small number of the largest schemes are accessing so-called illiquid assets, such as infrastructure, property, private credit and private equity. These illiquid assets have the potential both to diversify an investment portfolio and deliver greater returns. As a result, Regulation 2 of this instrument amends Regulation 23 of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Administration) Regulations 1996 to require occupational DC schemes to report, for the first time, the return on investments after deduction of any charges or transaction costs, known as net investment returns. We believe that members deserve to know how their investments are performing and how they fare relative to other schemes.
This will also catalyse competition between pension providers not just on cost but on overall value. Employers, consultants and members should be able to assess a scheme based on this metric, and competition should incentivise trustees of occupational DC schemes to explore illiquid assets and other innovative investment strategies. This is essential given that net investment returns have a much greater effect on retirement outcomes than whether a scheme charges its members 0.3% or 0.4%.
Both these measures, the new “value for members” assessment and net investment returns reporting, have been introduced alongside statutory guidance entitled Completing the Annual Value for Members Assessment and Reporting of Net Investment Returns, which will help trustees of schemes that are in scope to meet these requirements.
Finally, this instrument makes additional changes to regulations to improve governance of occupational DC schemes. All occupational pension schemes will be required to report on the total assets of the scheme annually to the Pensions Regulator at the scheme year end.
The changes to regulations in this instrument will also require schemes to produce costs and charges illustrations for all funds and not just those currently available. They will exempt wholly insured schemes from some governance requirements and ensure that occupational DC schemes “with a promise”—a small number of schemes that contain a commitment to members—report on their statement of investment principles to those members.
In conclusion, the measures in this instrument offer opportunities to improve member outcomes and help prepare the occupational pensions market for the challenges that lie ahead. I therefore commend the instrument to the Committee and beg to move.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, we certainly agree with the policy aims and mechanisms of this instrument and endorse the Government’s actions to make sure that
“members do not languish in sub-optimal arrangements that do not meet governance requirements and are unable to take full use of investment opportunities, to the benefit of the end saver’s eventual retirement outcome”,
as the Explanatory Memorandum states.
As the Minister has said, paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum explains that Regulation 2 requires that schemes holding assets worth less than £100 million and which have been operating for three or more years are to compare charges, transaction costs and the return on investments with three other schemes. We are not clear how those schemes are to be selected and who is to select them. Is it the trustees, for example? Are there selection criteria other than that they have assets of more than £100 million and are personal pension schemes? If it is not the trustees, who selects the comparator schemes?
Paragraph 7.8 states:
“Where the trustees have reported that the scheme does not provide good value for members, they are also required to report whether they propose to wind up the scheme and transfer the members’ rights into another scheme or explain to TPR why … not … and what improvements they are planning to make.”
What happens if these improvements are not acceptable to the Pensions Regulator and what powers does the regulator have based on compliance or non-compliance with Regulation 3?
We would probably all agree that it is a good idea to encourage smaller funds to transfer rights or improve if Regulation 2 comparisons show poor performance, but what about larger funds? Should there not be a requirement for them to undertake the same comparisons and take the same actions if their schemes show poor value for money for their members? It is easy to see why small funds should be encouraged in this way but hard to see why larger firms are not similarly encouraged. I would welcome the Minister’s clarification on these points.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests, particularly as trustee of a large master trust and the Telefónica pension scheme. I thank the Minister for the clarity of her explanation. It is a pleasure to talk face to face, rather than digitally, for once.
Of the three main provisions in these draft regulations, one requires smaller DC schemes with less than £100 million to demonstrate overall good value. If they cannot, the expectation is that they will wind up and consolidate into another scheme. The regulations also require schemes to take their net investment returns and increase flexibility to take account of performance fees when calculating the 0.75% pension cap on pension savings.
I support the focus on smaller schemes and the drive to consolidate them into larger schemes. The TPR evidence reveals that many smaller schemes struggle to match the governance, investment opportunities and charges delivered by schemes operating at scale, but the Minister’s aspirations are high. I quote Guy Opperman, who wrote:
“It is not my intention to stop at £5 billion”,
and that
“There is no doubt in my mind that there must be further consolidation”,
and that
“further action will follow”.
However, even a threshold of £5 billion goes beyond small and will catch all but the very largest of DC schemes.
The Minister believes that consolidation drives better member outcomes, a view again with which I agree, and I accept that scale matters. The Minister wants to understand the barriers to further consolidation through two lenses. He stated:
“I am particularly keen to understand how the creation of greater scale in the DC market can benefit members through economies of scale and access to alternative investments.”
However, the Government have to recognise that they created some of those barriers, even though the case for scale was well documented at the time. When auto-enrolment was introduced, they took the view that there should be an open market with virtually no barriers, or few barriers, to entry, with the inevitable proliferation of provision and the acceleration of small pot numbers that followed, which made decisions for employers even more complex. The transfer of the cost of market failure on to the members of the growing number of poorly regulated master trusts was eventually recognised and led to the new authorisation regime. At the start of that authorisation regime there were 90 master trusts; 37 were granted authorisation, a reduction in the overall size of the market by 58.8% in a little over a year, perhaps an indication of how inefficient the original policy had been. Is it anticipated that the drive to accelerate the consolidation of schemes will lead to a further reduction in the number of authorised master trusts? Will the TPR be expected to modify its approach to the authorisation criteria? Given the Minister’s aspiration and the Government’s drive for greater consolidation, what do they consider would be the optimal outcome in terms of the number of schemes? How do they define optimum scale in terms of assets under management?
The Government’s policy that consolidation into fewer and larger DC schemes will facilitate greater investment into a wider range of assets and bring benefits to scheme members and the UK economy was captured in the letter of 4 August from the Prime Minister and Chancellor, entitled Igniting an Investment Big Bang: A Challenge from the Prime Minister and Chancellor to the UK’s Institutional Investors. They called for the need to,
“seize this moment … to unlock the hundreds of billions of pounds sitting in UK institutional investors”—
particularly pension schemes—
“and use it to drive the UK’s recovery”,
and growth. They added that the Government were,
“doing everything possible—short of mandating more investment in these areas as some have advocated—to encourage a change in mindset and behaviour among institutional investors, and we remain open to addressing further barriers”.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for her remarks. She has obviously been much more deeply involved than I have been. I have come to these regulations pretty fresh, but a number of points strike me about them, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.
It is important to appreciate that we are only talking about the default schemes. To get a feel for the significance of this impact, we need some idea of how significant default schemes are. My understanding, having seen figures, is that virtually everyone joins the default schemes, but this applies only to the default arrangements within a scheme. Does that mean that those people who for whatever reason choose the non-default arrangements are left uninformed about these important arrangements? Surely value for money is just as important? I accept that they are very difficult to judge, but value for money applies as much to the non-default arrangements as to the default ones.
The other exclusion from the regulations is that of small, self-administered schemes and EPPs. The notes are a bit weak on justifying that exclusion. There was probably more debate during the course of the consultation, but the comment is made that most small businesses do not run their own schemes. Well, “most” implies that some do run their own schemes. Will they be left to drift? Why do they not fall within the remit of this protection for members?
Regarding small schemes, I never believe very round figures, and £100 million is an extremely round figure. The table in the Explanatory Memorandum had the number of schemes in different sizes. The issue comes up of why, if we are going for £5 billion, why not to go for £5 billion? I think that I am echoing my noble friend’s question. Another question lies behind that. Is this really just a way of getting rid of small schemes? Are we establishing a bureaucratic mechanism that will make small schemes think that it is just not worth the candle? Which of those small schemes that we are envisaging will say: “We are prepared to go through this process, we believe that we are providing value for money, and we want to continue?” Which are the schemes that this regulatory structure is being introduced to cater for? Would it not be more straightforward just to say “£5 billion is it” and that you want to get rid of small schemes?
On the policing of the process, the question of who selects the three comparators is being asked. Is there some scope there for gaming the system? What protection do we have on which schemes get selected as comparators? Advisers could have 10 comparator schemes that were not really suitable. Will the Pensions Regulator have the power directly to prevent the choice of inappropriate comparators? It may be explained somewhere, but I can see nothing explaining how the choice of comparators will be policed.
It comes back to the question of what is perceived by the Government and/or the regulator as the endgame here. Is this a one-off, and we will continue with this situation, or is this just one step in a longer term process of eliminating smaller schemes and ending up with a relatively limited number of mega-schemes catering for this particular market? I am not convinced that this is necessarily in the members’ favour. It would be good to have an idea of whether this is part of a longer process, whether there is an endgame here and this is just one move on the chessboard, with other complicated moves coming up later, or whether it is just there on its own terms?
Then there is the more important question. In setting up this structure and this process, how meaningful is the information that is going to be provided to members? Is this the sort of information that members are looking for? Is it the sort of information they will understand? Has there been any research into the value and effect of providing this information for members? We also need a bit more clarity, which perhaps the Minister cannot give. I believe the Pensions Regulator could be clearer as to what exactly it will do if the trustees produce a report saying that they are not providing value for money, in effect—I am sure they will dress it up in particular words—but in practice are not going to do anything about it. We need greater clarity on what steps the regulator will then take in response. It is all very well having the information that a scheme is not providing good value for money, but the regulator needs to be clear in exactly what it will do in response to that situation.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her careful explanation of these regulations. I must say it is a pleasure to see her in person across the Dispatch Box once again, especially on so exciting a subject. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed today.
There have been so many policy and statutory interventions into the private pensions scheme post auto-enrolment that I have to say that I am slightly with my noble friend Lord Davies here. It is quite hard to follow the long-term strategic objectives and outcomes that the Government are seeking to achieve. I get that this set of regulations is designed to take forward government policy to enable and encourage DC schemes to invest in a more diverse set of growth assets, including private equity and venture capital, in the belief that this will benefit both the British economy and the interests of pension scheme members.
We have heard the headlines today. Trustees of smaller schemes will have to do a more holistic annual “value for members” assessment and, if the regulator does not think that they can demonstrate good value, they will be pushed to wind up and consolidate. Trustees of all relevant schemes will have to give net investment return statements for default and self-selected funds. Then there is an amendment to the charge cap regulations to smooth the impact of performance fees over five years.
As we have heard, the Government in their call for evidence are seeking views on how to accelerate the pace of consolidation of schemes and are looking ahead to the second phase of consolidation for medium to large schemes with assets of between of £100 million and £5 billion. As my noble friend Lady Drake was hinting, £5 billion is way more than small. Obviously, strengthening the regulatory framework in pension schemes is welcome and, presumably, here the aim is to do that through more stringent “value for members” assessments, reporting on investment performance net of fees and the promotion of consolidation into larger schemes to create scale and leverage to deliver value, drive down charges and consider more diverse and innovative investment strategies that will benefit members. However, given the Government’s intention to drive greater consolidation, even of schemes with assets of above £5 billion, we really do not have much detail as to how and when this accelerated consolidation into a much smaller number of very large schemes is going to take place.
My noble friend Lady Drake was pushing into this subject. We need to know what the optimal number of schemes is against which the Government are benching their drive to consolidation. I think the Committee deserves to have a clear answer to that. If we are to be asked to approve one set of interventions after another, it is only reasonable to be given a vision of the end state the Government have in mind once they all work their way through the system.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank everybody who has taken part in this interesting debate for their contributions. I shall take some of the points that noble Lords have raised and will deal with them as they come.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her positive endorsement of the regulations. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked how the schemes are to be selected. We would expect trustees to choose the scheme to compare their scheme to, and master trusts are likely to be the best schemes to compare against.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Sherlock, asked about the Government’s plans for future DC consolidation. The Government have been very open that consolidation is key to the future of the defined contribution pension market and that the pace of consolidation must increase. Consolidation will improve governance and enable more occupational DC schemes to reach the critical mass needed to access a broader range of investments and drive down costs through economies of scale. In September 2020, DWP consulted on new regulations to require trustees of occupational DC schemes with less than £100 million in assets to justify their continued existence via a new “value for members” assessment, and this will come into force this autumn. This was phase 1, and now we turn to phase 2, which will look to drive consolidation further and faster.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, both raised a question about the call for evidence, which was launched on 21 June, being far too ambitious. We know from other countries such as Australia that scale is among the biggest drivers in achieving value for money for savers and ultimately better retirement outcomes. It is therefore important that we move quickly, and I echo the commitment made by the Minister for Pensions. However, we recognise concerns about the pace of change. That is why we have developed a phased approach, starting with occupational DC schemes with less than £100 million in assets. The call for evidence closed in July. We are currently considering the responses received and will issue a response in due course. We are exploring options for consolidation, and, as the Minister for Pensions said, this is likely to include all schemes, including master trusts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, made the point that the PM and the Chancellor are calling for an “investment big bang” and that these measures could wrongly force schemes to invest in illiquid assets. The Government do not wish to direct the investments of trustees of pension schemes. Trustees must invest in line with their fiduciary duty—that is, in the best financial interest of their beneficiaries. Instead, we are seeking to remove barriers to investments in illiquid assets. The provisions in this instrument have received support from the pensions industry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised the point that the Government believe that high charges are fair. We want to ensure that net returns are considered, which balances cost against performance. Low-charging investments can deliver value for money, but cost should not be the only factor.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, there is a Division in the House. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, referred to the PM and the Chancellor calling for an “investment big bang” and said that these measures wrongly force schemes to invest in illiquid assets. The Government do not wish to direct trustees of pension scheme investments. Trustees must invest in line with their fiduciary duty; that is, in the best financial interest of their beneficiaries. Instead, we are seeking to remove barriers to investments in illiquid assets. The provisions in this instrument have received support from the pensions industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about default schemes. He is correct that almost all members save into the default arrangement. Those who self-select still receive regular information on charges and are generally engaged. He raised the subject of the threshold for “value for members” assessment being set at less than £100 million, which had increased from £10 million at consultation. He asked whether it would increase further in future. The Government increased the “value for members” assessment threshold following consultation with industry. The reason for this was to capture as many potential poorly performing occupational DC schemes as possible. We have evidence that the smaller a scheme is, the more likely it is to be poorly governed. By our moving the “value for members” assessment threshold from assets under £10 million to £100 million, more occupational DC schemes will have to undergo this rigorous new assessment. This will mean that more members will benefit from improved governance, administration and returns as a result. We will review the assets under the £100 million threshold regularly but have no plans to change it at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked how meaningful to members the information would be. The Government are taking forward several measures—dashboards and simpler statements among others. The SI is about how these schemes are governed internally. We are intervening to prevent members languishing in poor schemes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised a point about CDC. I am advised that we will write to her on that. She also asked what the instrument would mean for the future of look-through and said that the Government had said that they would advise on a policy in July. The instrument does not amend the Government’s policy on treatment of such costs. In our consultation response on improving outcomes for members, published on 21 June, we state that occupational DC pension schemes should continue to look through closed-ended funds as they would all funds of funds and incorporate such costs within their regime of charges levied on members.
If there are points raised by noble Lords that I have not dealt with—
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister. Could she write to me with that last point, as I did not quite catch the bit about look-through funds and look-through operations of closed-ended funds? I asked two questions. First, my noble friend Lady Drake and I both asked what the Government’s optimal number of schemes is. Would it be one big or enormous scheme—would that be fine? Is it fine to have lots of schemes? Can the Minister give some idea what the centre is in that? The other thing I asked about, which I do not think she answered, was what guidance would be given to trustees or employers who might want to consolidate but were concerned that the moving goalposts would mean that they could end up simply being moved again and, potentially, again. If she did respond to that, I apologise for having missed it.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I will write to the noble Baroness on the three points she has raised and put a copy in the Library for everybody to see. If there is anything, having looked at Hansard¸ that we have not dealt with, other than that which the noble Baroness raised, I will write to all noble Lords.
This instrument makes several different changes to several different sets of regulations. It has one theme at its core: improving outcomes for pension savers. We have a duty to ensure that those who have engaged in pension saving in their workplace as a result of automatic enrolment can rest assured that their occupational DC pension scheme is on course to deliver the best possible outcome for them. This instrument does this by tackling poor levels of governance, shifting the attention of the market from a narrow focus on cost to overall value, and removing barriers to schemes allocating to a wide range of different assets. I therefore commend it to the House and beg to move.
Pensions Regulator (Employer Resources Test) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pensions Regulator (Employer Resources Test) Regulations 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this instrument, which was laid before the House on 28 June 2021. Subject to approval, these regulations provide essential details on the new employer resources test that was introduced by the Pension Schemes Act 2021 in connection with changes to the contribution notice regime.
The new employer resources test will enable the Pensions Regulator to overcome existing challenges of assessing the “act” or “failure to act” that has affected the financial strength of the sponsoring employer, and therefore its ability to support the scheme, rather than damaging the scheme directly.
These regulations outline that the profit before tax measure will be used to assess the resources of the employer. This measure is widely known and understood by the industry and gives the most appropriate picture of net profits available to provide support for a defined benefit pension scheme. The regulations set out specifically how the value of the resources of the employer is to be determined, calculated and verified.
I am satisfied that the provisions in the regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Part 3 of the Pension Schemes Act 2021 strengthens the powers of the Pensions Regulator. It fulfils our manifesto commitment to take action against those who think they can plunder the pension savings of hard-working employees. These regulations provide essential details on the new employer resources test which forms part of the Pensions Regulator’s contribution notice regime. This regime enables the Pensions Regulator to demand that money is paid into a pension scheme from those found to have caused it detriment. A recent example is Dominic Chappell, who was ordered by the Pensions Regulator to pay £9.5 million into the British Home Stores pension scheme.
The new employer resources test, which these regulations relate to, will enable the Pensions Regulator to overcome existing challenges of assessing the “act” or “failure to act” that has affected the financial strength of the sponsoring employer and therefore its ability to support the scheme rather than damaging it directly.
With these new provisions, we will also avoid the associated challenge of having to project into the future to assess the likelihood of members receiving their accrued benefits. The purpose of the employer resources test is to provide the Pensions Regulator with a tool to make a simple snapshot assessment of the impact of the act or failure to act on the employer at the time. This allows for the act or failure to act to be assessed on its own terms, relative to the employer’s current potential exposure to the scheme, rather than an assessment of what could happen in future. Assessing whether the act or failure to act has reduced the value of the employer’s resources is just one part of the wider employer resources test. The Pensions Regulator, in addition to looking at the health of the employer, also has a focus on the scheme, where it is required to assess whether the reduction of the employer’s resources was material when compared to the scheme’s estimated Section 75 liability.
On the specifics of these regulations, what constitutes the resources of the employer is determined as being the employer’s profits before tax. This is a widely known and understood measure used by the industry and gives the most appropriate picture of net profits available to provide support for a defined benefit pension scheme. How the value of the resources of the employer are determined, calculated and verified are set out in these regulations. The general approach assesses the annual profit before tax position of the employer had the act or failure to act not occurred, which is then compared to an assessment including the act or failure to act. An adjustment is then applied to the profit before tax position that represents the impact which is expressed as a pound figure. The calculated figure would then be assessed against the scheme’s Section 75 debt immediately before the act or failure to act occurred. When the employer resources test has been met, the Pensions Regulator will follow the existing contribution notice process, whereby it will consider other factors, including the reasonableness of issuing a contribution notice.
Working in tandem with these regulations is the Pensions Regulator’s code of practice, which aims to provide further clarity to the industry on how it will interpret and use the powers. The Pensions Regulator launched a consultation in May 2021 on its contribution notice code of practice, which included clear examples covering scenarios of how the different tests would apply. The consultation concluded in July, and the Pensions Regulator is reviewing the responses with a view to publishing the code later in the year.
In closing, we remain committed to ensuring that there should be no hiding place for those who put workers’ retirement savings at risk, and these regulations will play a vital role in enhancing the Pensions Regulator’s ability to take action to protect pension scheme members. I commend this instrument to the Committee and beg to move.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, enabling the TPR to use contributory notices more widely to correct any detrimental action or failure to act is very welcome. However, I have a few questions about the method chosen for defining employer resources.
The Explanatory Memorandum refers to other methods being considered— EBITDA, or earnings before interest tax depreciation and amortisation, and a holistic measure based on covenant strength—but they were dismissed. Can the Minister explain why they were rejected, particularly the holistic assessment based on covenant strength? She will be aware that in very large university superannuation schemes, the level of contributions is affected by covenant strength. Can she explain why a snapshot of net income or profit before tax provides a better approach than this? If the snapshot route is to be followed for defining employer resources, what about the strength of employer assets? What part do they play in any assessment? I also question whether it is reasonable to allow the TPR absolute discretion in determining what are or are not exceptional or non-recurring items. I would welcome the Minister’s clarification on these points.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of these regulations. I welcome them, but I would like to raise one or two questions which seek some clarity.
The Pension Schemes Act 2021 gave the regulator new moral hazard powers with the introduction of two new criminal offences and by extending the flexibility available to the regulator to make connected parties such as group companies and directors liable for pension scheme deficits, and make payments to a scheme, by issuing a contribution notice. The Act introduces two new tests for imposing contribution notices: when the regulator considers that an act or failure to act materially reduces the employer debt likely to be recovered if a Section 75 debt has fallen due immediately after an insolvency event or reduces the resources of the employer in a manner which was material when compared to the debt in the pension scheme—the employer resources test, which is the subject of these regulations.
They set out that employer resources test for assessing whether a relevant act or failure to act reduced the value of the employer’s resources and whether that reduction was materially relevant to the pension scheme’s debt. I read in detail that the employer resources will be assessed through the pre-Act normalised annual profit before tax measure, under which non-recurring or exceptional items are removed, and then the impact of the act or failure to act on that profit is determined. If that impact is material, the regulator can start to build its case for a contribution notice. Indeed, it is a measure akin to the employer’s ability to support the scheme. The measure is sometimes used in the preparation of an employer covenant analysis undertaken for trustees.
For the record, as it is not clear, can the Minister say how dividends, including payments within a group of companies, will be treated in the normalised annual profit before tax measure and in the assessment of material detriment? That certainly proved a controversial issue of concern during scrutiny of the Pension Schemes Act 2021, and it is not clear—certainly not to me—how those will be considered under the new test. From a pension scheme member’s point of view, if the resources of the employer sponsoring the scheme are weakened through transferring assets or dividends, leveraging more debt or some other reason, the employer basically may be less good for the money and pension benefits will be less secure. They will look to the cavalry at the regulator to come over the hill and issue a contribution notice, and they need to have the confidence that that will actually be done with more focus, positivity and speed of action than the past has demonstrated.
In their response to the consultation published on 29 June, the Government set out their reasoning for the employer resources test. In summary, it said that, in the majority of past contribution notice cases, the regulator faced
“difficulty in forecasting the medium and long-term performance of a business for the purposes of the … ‘material detriment test’.”
This is because it had to extrapolate from an employer-related act into the future, with the uncertainty and challenges that causes evidentially. Indeed, trustees can experience exactly those similar difficulties in trying to assess those implications for the employer covenant, because there is no industry consensus on how to value the employer covenant. Therefore, the employer resources test removes the need to forecast how the employer might or might not have performed in the absence of that act and assesses the impact on a snapshot basis. So it is quicker, sharper and more efficient.
However, the regulator still will not be able to issue a contribution notice if a party can show that they meet the conditions for a statutory defence and can provide reasonable excuse. The three premises are that they gave prior consideration to the test and to the extent that the failure or failure to act would reduce the value of the employer’s resources in a material way; that they took all reasonable steps to mitigate any such detrimental impact; and that it was reasonable for them to conclude that the act would not detrimentally affect in a material way the likelihood of the scheme members receiving their benefits.
I sighed a little because, even after applying the employer resources test, the regulator still has to conclude that it would be reasonable to impose a contribution notice, taking into account all relevant factors including the extent of any mitigation provided and a broader assessment of the employer’s strength. I just wonder whether we are going to face a potentially long and drawn-out process, which the employer resources test was intended to remove, in the way in which the defence arguments can be applied and whether the Government’s intention of deploying an employer resources test as a quick and efficient snapshot—rather than on a holistic basis—could be undermined.
I ask the Minister: what powers or processes are relied on to prevent the statutory defence conditions undermining the policy intention to have a quick and efficient employer resources test? Is it the intention to issue fuller guidance on how measures to mitigate the detrimental impact on pension schemes of an act or failure to act will be assessed as to whether they are sufficient to meet the statutory defence? These are the kind of realities that trustees will need to understand and employers will need to know.
Just as a concluding line, poor behaviour affects not only the value of members’ benefits paid but, as the Pension Protection Fund is funded by a levy, it affects those businesses which abide by the rules but end up bearing the costs and subsidising those businesses which seek to avoid their pension liabilities. Good employers and trustees or members have an interest in these new regulations working efficiently.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, it seems like quite a long time ago that we were last in this Room. In fact, I think the last time I spoke in this Room was in the discussion on pension schemes, so it is nice to see a lot of old faces. There is a nice feeling of déjà vu about it. These regulations are reassuringly brief, so I will try to keep my comments equally brief, if I can.
First, I was a bit confused by the name of this, which refers to an employer resources test, that test being profit before tax. Profit before tax is not a measure of a company’s resources. It is a backward-looking measure of a company’s profitability. I question the comments in the Explanatory Memorandum that
“profit before tax … is less subjective than other options”.
Notoriously, profit before tax can be made to be whatever one wants it to be. A cash-flow measure would be an altogether less subjective, more objective measure. Profit before tax also does not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, has said, take account of other forms of leakage of resources out of the company, be they dividends, share buybacks or massive capital expenditure. It is perfectly possible for a company to be highly profitable and highly indebted at the same time and therefore to have very low levels of employer resources.
I was a bit confused by the title, and would therefore like to add my name, as it were, to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, about why the Government did not go down the holistic route of looking at multiple measures that give a full picture of the employer resources rather than this one very narrow picture which is only a backward snapshot.
I have two other questions that relate to the discussions we had at the time of the Pension Schemes Bill. This instrument is obviously relevant to the subject of dividends that companies with deficits pay. The noble Baroness will remember that we had quite a lot of discussions about that back then. Indeed, the Minister at the time agreed that the Government would keep the question of dividend payments by companies in deficit under review.
I have two questions. First, can the Minister explain what assessment the Government have made of the impact that these regulations might have on the ability of companies to pay dividends? There has been some speculation in the press that it might significantly depress the payment of dividends by companies, something which on the whole is a good thing, but there could be situations where that could be a negative. Secondly, I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that the Government are still keeping under review the question of payment of dividends by companies that have deficits, as they promised.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I am glad that it was an accountant who made the comment that profits can be whatever you want them to be, which was my concern. However, I am struggling to grasp what role this is playing. In some ways, I suspect that we could overengineer the definition of “resources” and make it very complicated. There are strong arguments for keeping it as simple as possible so that the regulator can take a holistic view. This is what I understood the process to be. My guess is that the regulations will enable the regulator to do what we always thought it could do in the first place, and it tripped over some regulatory legal point. There are strong arguments in favour of keeping it simple and leaving it essentially to the judgment of the regulator.
Whenever I mention the regulator, I have to add my qualification that of course it does not represent scheme members in any way. It does not have the accumulated knowledge of unions and employers who actually do the business of agreeing pension schemes. I have questions about the Pensions Regulator but the ideal should be a Pensions Regulator that knows the field and can apply the test proportionately.
I have one specific question. I have no idea what this means. Regulation 4(8) says that
“the Regulator must take into account all relevant information in its possession”.
Well, yes, it is not going to take into account information that is not in its possession. However, it goes on to use the word “verification”. I am not sure what “verification” is doing in that paragraph.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the reasoning and intent behind the employer resources test, and all noble Lords who have spoken. I too welcome a move to strengthen the power of the Pensions Regulator. We should say that most employers with DB schemes act professionally and responsibly and maintain good relations with their scheme trustees. However, the Pension Schemes Act 2021, from which these regulations flow, rightly gave the Pensions Regulator stronger powers to deal with the small number of circumstances where parties decide to evade their obligations to their pension schemes or behave recklessly. The test is whether these measures will enable the regulator’s approach to be clearer, quicker and tougher. This is what we are exploring today, so I hope that the Minister can help to reassure us on that point.
I will not go back over what the regulations do, but as we have heard, employer resources will be assessed through normalised annual profit before tax, with non-recurring or exceptional items removed. The Minister explained how that would happen: you would take NAPBT, the regulator would then look at the impact on NAPBT caused by the act or the failure to act, produce an adjusted NAPBT and then decide whether to issue a contribution notice. It would compare the two and then argue that the reduction was material in relation to the estimated Section 75 debt.
The case for the test must be that it removes the evidential challenges and uncertainties in forecasting how the employer might or might not perform in the future— absent the act or failure to act—and therefore presumably would provide a quicker measure of assessing the employer’s ability to support the scheme and reveal whether a reduction in resources was material.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
Again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I shall start with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on why we do not have a holistic measure. There is no industry consensus on how to value an employer’s covenant strength, and we believe that introducing a holistic measure would introduce a number of uncertainties. There is a statutory requirement for the regulator to consider whether it is reasonable to impose a contribution notice, which includes an obligation to take account of all relevant factors, including the broader assessment of the employer’s strength. We therefore believe that the wider regime should provide comfort to those concerned that the regulator will not take a holistic view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, raised the issue of earnings before interest, tax and depreciation. I confirm that we looked very closely at the suitability of this and concluded that it is unsuitable, as it is not covered by the financial reporting standards relating to accounting practice published by the Financial Reporting Council and is therefore not audited. We think that it is relevant to have the interest charge allowed for in the figure, which earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation does not take into account, because that could be where the detriment was reflected if the company raised more debt.
The noble Baroness raised a point about why we have selected the profit before tax measure. The purpose of the employer resource test is to provide the Pensions Regulator with a tool to make a simple snapshot assessment of the impact of the act or failure to act on the employer. Profit before tax was selected for measuring the resources of an employer because it is a term widely understood by the industry and regulator. We believe that it is less subjective than other options that would be indicative of the employer’s ability to support the scheme.
The noble Baroness also raised how the Pensions Regulator would determine and remove exceptional and non-recurring items from an employer’s annual accounts. The Pensions Regulator would not ordinarily exercise its discretion in relation to exceptional and non-recurring items in audited accounts which mirror the prescribed test period because an audit process will already have examined them. When no accounts are produced, for example, non-recurring and exceptional items will be determined by the regulator, which must have regard to the financial reporting standards relating to accounting practices published by the Financial Reporting Council.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised a point about how dividends will be treated in the profit before tax test, and I am advised that we will write to clarify that and, of course, place a copy in the Library for everyone to see. The noble Baroness also raised a point about the regulator’s guidance. The Pensions Regulator launched a consultation on the revised code 12 contribution notices code of practice, which includes clear illustrative examples covering scenarios of how the different tests would apply. This would provide further clarity on how the regulator will interpret and use the new powers. The regulator has received useful feedback from stakeholders as part of the consultation which it is currently analysing, and I understand that the regulator intends to use that feedback to strengthen certain aspects of its policy and further illustrate the approach that will be taken and where its interests lie in terms of acts and conducts pending from any decisions from the courts on these points.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, understandably raised the question of why we selected the profit before tax measure. The purpose of the employer resource test is to provide the Pensions Regulator with a tool to make a simple snapshot assessment of the impact of the act or failure to act on the employer. Profit before tax was selected for measuring the resources of an employer because it is a term widely understood by the industry and the regulator. We believe it is less subjective than other options and will be indicative of the employer’s ability to support the scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, also raised the issue about the new pension rules change threatening to scupper a big dividend pay-out. We do not wish to crowd out investment, nor do we wish to prevent the payment of proportionate dividends to shareholders. During the passage of the then Pension Schemes Bill through Parliament, the Government opposed and defeated opposition amendments which sought to subject dividend payments by companies with a pension scheme funding deficit to approval by the Pensions Regulator. We argued that it could deter investment and undermine employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised the point of verification. The regulations set out that the Pensions Regulator is making a determination and must take into account all relevant information in its possession. The prescribed methodology set out in the regulations also makes it clear that annual accounts will be used which will have already been verified. In terms of verifying the regulator’s determinations, ultimately, any target can make representations to the regulator about the determination, and any decision to impose a contribution notice can also be referred to the Upper Tribunal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the question of reasonableness of statutory defence, and whether the Pensions Regulator has a way to determine if this is met. The Pensions Regulator will publish a code of practice and guidance that will illustrate how the tests will apply. The noble Baroness raised the very important issue of charities, and I am advised that we will write to her with clarification on the points she raised.
The noble Baroness also raised the issue of recovery from overseas employers. Again, we will continue to review the situation. She also asked whether this will create an influx of clearance requests and whether the Pensions Regulator is resourced to handle them. The Pensions Regulator does not expect that there will be a significant increase in clearance requests coming in but, if this is the case, the regulator is used to reprioritising its resources and activities, as it has demonstrated during the recent Covid crisis.
To confirm, the draft regulations debated today provide greater security for members’ defined benefit retirement savings by setting out the details of the employer resources test that the Pensions Regulator can use in combating acts of those seeking to avoid their responsibilities to pension schemes. I commend this order to the Committee.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Retirement of a Member: Lord Beecham
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from 1 September, of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Covid Precautions
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, before we begin the business for the day, I would like to note that this is the first day in 18 months that we will be operating under our normal procedures, with a few innovations from the hybrid House which your Lordships decided to keep in July.
That does not mean that the pandemic is over, and Members will have read my message last week summarising actions we can all take to lessen the risk of Covid to ourselves and to the staff of the House. I particularly emphasise the position agreed by the commission that all Members should wear face coverings in the Chamber, Grand Committee and Select Committees unless they are speaking. This is an important thing we can each do to protect other people. I also remind Members to remain socially distanced from staff working in the Chamber.
Afghanistan: Security
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the security situation in Afghanistan.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the security situation in Afghanistan remains extremely volatile. There is an ongoing and high threat of terrorist attacks. As set out in UN Security Council Resolution 2593, we remain concerned about the security situation and call on the relevant parties to work with us and international partners to strengthen security. This resolution reaffirmed
“the importance of upholding human rights, including those of women, children and minorities”
and encouraged
“all parties to seek an inclusive, negotiated political settlement, with the full, equal and meaningful participation of women”.
The British embassy in Kabul has suspended in-country operations and is, for the time being, based in Doha. We intend to re-establish the embassy in Kabul as soon as the security and political situation in the country allows.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated at the Human Rights Council that she had received “credible reports” of “summary executions” of civilians and Afghan nationals who had been in the security forces. The hundreds of British citizens and Afghans who have helped us along the way and are now trapped in Afghanistan have asked for advice from the FCDO. The advice they have been given is to stay in a safe place within Afghanistan. Where is safe for them in Afghanistan?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend’s very valid point about the importance of the service given by people across Afghanistan in the security services and other areas where they were very much part of the NATO operations and the work on building Afghanistan. The advice that has been given to British nationals, their dependants and others is based on the internal situation, which I know my noble friend is following very closely and is very fluid. I can share with your Lordships’ House that discussions are under way, as noble Lords will be aware, about ensuring secure and safe passage. We will certainly work with all key partners and, at an operational level, with those currently in control in the country to ensure safe passage. At the moment some of this work is very discreet and I can go no further, but I know my noble friend will appreciate what I say.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, nation building in countries awash with arms, with a narco economy, marred by corruption, with a totally different culture and where large portions of the population are opposed to change is a fool’s game. When a maritime nation such as ours tries to do it in the middle of central Asia, it is even more crass. I hope that we have learned the lesson. In Afghanistan’s case, it is exacerbated by the fact that it is landlocked by Pakistan and the ISI bears a huge responsibility for encouraging terrorism in that country. The shambolic departure of the US and allies was caused by a number of factors but would seem to indicate a failure of intelligence. Will the Government agree to the ISC’s request to analyse all intelligence assessments which cover the outlook for the regime with regard to the final withdrawal of the United States and coalition forces from Afghanistan?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I note the noble Lord’s request and assure him that that is being, and will be, looked at. I think this is a moment of reflection. I agree with the noble Lord that with any intervention, we need to consider carefully the intent of intervening in a particular country; the purpose that we go in for; and, equally, the situation that we leave at the end. If we reflect on recent interventions, even in my own lifetime, these are questions that the Government—and, indeed, others, I am sure—ask themselves. It is important that the lessons that we have learned from our interventions continue to remain a focus of what we do in the future. Equally, for the here and now, I assure all noble Lords that we remain very focused on ensuring that the people in Afghanistan who are seeking to leave remain our key priority.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Foreign Secretary was saying the other day that we should be talking to China and Russia about the next stage in the Afghanistan tragedy, despite, obviously, disagreeing on many other issues. Surely he is right. Afghanistan should not be a forum of hegemonic struggle but, clearly, nor is it a suitable area for the USA as a world policeman, as we have seen. Can my noble friend say whether these talks have been initiated in any way and what the main issues might be?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on my noble friend’s second question, of course, the issues about security and safe passage of those wishing to leave Afghanistan are in front of us. The issues of human rights and humanitarian aid are all very much part of our discussions. We have engaged with China and Russia, in the formulation of the Security Council resolution that was passed. Further discussions are under way, and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will announce those in the near future.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his tireless efforts on behalf of those who have worked with the United Kingdom and those who have already been recognised under the ARAP scheme. What advice should be given to individuals who have been called forward and are now in Kabul but have not been allowed out of the country? Some of them have had no food and are having to move from safe house to safe house, which, after a while, cease to become safe for anybody at all.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and many across your Lordships’ House and in the other place. The last three weeks have been an extremely testing time for all of us. The stories of courage that we have heard from individuals stuck in Afghanistan to whom we owe a responsibility are very clear. In this regard, I thank all noble Lords and those in the other place who have worked tirelessly across party lines to ensure that we do the right thing and get people out. That remains a central objective. The noble Baroness is right about the ARAP scheme. First and foremost, an assurance has been given that those who have been called forward, if they go to a third country, will be processed and brought back to the United Kingdom. The important issue is of safe passage. On the humanitarian side, today Qatar landed the first aircraft, which has provided humanitarian assistance, but the issues of security and stability in Afghanistan must remain primary in our minds. Anyone whom we seek to assist will have that particular context in relation to the advice that we give them. On ARAP specifically, anyone who is called forward through a third country—I assure the noble Baroness that we are working on that—can hold us to the obligation that we have given.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, as distressing as it is to see a Taliban Government in Kabul and particularly galling for those of us who have served there, if we want to achieve our objectives of delivering humanitarian aid to the Afghan people and preventing Afghanistan becoming a hotbed of terror, governance in the country is needed, even if it is not good governance. I ask my noble friend: what are the Government going to do when it comes to managing this dilemma and engaging with the Taliban? What are our red lines?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I assure him that we are doing just that. At an operational level, we are already, through our diplomatic efforts, engaging with those on the ground to ensure that we can provide access and security and hold the Taliban true to their assurances of security within the country. Engagements with the near neighbours are equally important. In that regard, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I have just returned from various visits to the region, where we are also seeking to ensure safe passage of British nationals and others who seek to come to the UK eventually, but also seek a safe haven away from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, how many Afghan interpreters who have already relocated to the UK had to leave behind wives and children still to be processed? While the Minister obviously cannot go into detail, can he at least give a firm assurance to the House that security arrangements which are proactive and targeted will be made so that these eligible dependants can come safely to the UK without delay?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Baroness is right, and there are many heart-rending stories in this respect of choices having to be made not in days or minutes but in seconds. In this regard, we have of course ensured the safe passage of 15,000 to 17,000 people —2,000 came through the ARAP scheme before the actual crisis unfolded in Kabul. However, in the short time that we had, over 15,000 people under three categories—British nationals, ARAP and others—were evacuated from Afghanistan. I assure the noble Baroness that, as I have said already to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the issue of security is important, and, in any support that we give, it has to be paramount before we can ensure safe passage. This is exactly what we are working on, including by engaging with the Taliban from an operational perspective—not through any issue of recognition, but to ensure that they remain true.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Every lever, especially economic ones, needs to be used to protect our security and prevent Afghanistan becoming once again a safe haven for international terrorism. I hope that, this afternoon, we will hear from the Prime Minister a clear diplomatic road map for the way ahead. I welcome the steps at the UN that the Minister has referred to, but can he say a bit more on how we are working with our partners to deliver on the ground the essential humanitarian support that is most needed at this moment?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first I apologise to your Lordships’ House for overrunning. In seeking your Lordships’ indulgence, I hope that noble Lords will excuse me on such an important issue. In this regard, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is right: we are working with key partners, including the Qataris and the Pakistanis as well as others, including through the UN and other vehicles, to ensure that exactly the points that the noble Lord raises are prioritised.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Residential Social Care: Staff
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Laming
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the (1) training, and (2) remuneration, of staff in social care residential services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, we are incredibly proud of our health and care staff. As a nation, we are indebted to their selfless dedication, particularly over the last 18 months. The Government fund a range of training opportunities to support the development of care staff, including through a core workforce grant of £23.47 million. However, the vast majority of care workers are employed by private sector providers, who set their pay independently of central government.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful, but the Minister will understand that, very often, the impression is given that the only qualification needed by these splendid staff is that of a kind heart. This is despite the fact that they are caring, day by day and hour by hour, for the people in our society with the most profound needs. Does the Minister accept that, in these circumstances, it is remarkable that the median pay for these staff is £8.12 per hour? Is it any wonder that there are 112,000 vacancies in this field? Could the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to support these staff with professional training and give them a fair salary?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I endorse the noble Lord’s key point, which is that value is seen not through salary but through the skill, love and determination of our social care staff to do a fantastic job. We are extremely proud of the service that they provide. The provision of care in this country is being looked at in the spending review settlement, and the need to support the sector will be addressed in that.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the best technique for improving and regulating the wages and conditions of those engaged in the sector is through sectoral collective bargaining—a technique that was established by legislation in 1909 and abolished in 2013—namely, the wages councils. These were designed specifically for the low-paid and those less well organised in trade unions. Is it not time that there was a wages council for social care?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the insight of the noble Lord in this matter, in which I know that he is a great expert. However, he should of course remember that social care is provided through independent providers and local authorities. Social care workers are free to organise themselves as they wish, but that is not the arrangement that we have in this country.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
Last week, three-quarters of providers in the United Kingdom Homecare Association said that recruiting social care workers is the hardest that it has ever been. In July, they warned that they faced a perfect storm of losing staff through Brexit and increased pay in retail and agriculture making their wages uncompetitive. They are at breaking point. One-third said that they are handing back some or all of their care contracts to local authorities because they cannot fulfil their contracts now—this is before they lose any unvaccinated staff—so what steps are the Government taking to urgently help the elderly in our care homes, the care homes and their staff going through this crisis?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am aware of the anecdotes that the noble Baroness alludes to, but they have not been seen through the figures that we have in the department. However, we are providing support to providers: we have a national recruitment campaign that is running in the autumn; we have put in free and fast-track DBS checks for staff recruited in response to the pandemic; and we have the promotion of adult social care careers in our jobcentres.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, while we await the announcement of the Prime Minister’s social care plan, after two frustrating years of non-action and delay, the continuing crisis in care homes needs to be dealt with now. With a possible 68,000 jobs now predicted to be lost in the light of the Government’s 11 November deadline for all care staff to be vaccinated, feedback from care providers shows that both care workers and the most senior and experienced staff are leaving the care workforce, with registered nursing staff constituting a much higher proportion than other care staff. What action have the Government taken to address this potential crisis in both the staffing and the management of care homes, particularly since the number of nursing jobs, for example, has decreased by 17,000, or 33%, over the past year?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not completely recognise all of the noble Baroness’s figures, but I acknowledge that recruitment in many sectors of the economy is tough at the moment, and that is why we are putting in the measures that I mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I add that we are doing an enormous amount to fund: we have put £1 billion of additional funding into social care for 2021-22, on top of the significant support provided to the sector during Covid-19 over the last year. This is money directly to address the issues that she is concerned about.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, Plymouth’s university trust had to shut to new admissions, except for emergencies, partly because 100 beds had people in them who would have been better off at home or in residential care. This was only last week. Does the Minister agree that any CCG or local authority contracts let to provide social care in residential settings should include allowances for the cost of staff, their training, PPE, sickness and annual leave, and be funded at least at the equivalent of the local living wage, so that we can get back to a normal NHS care situation?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I take on board the anecdote that the noble Baroness has just mentioned—I will look into that. I did not know about the arrangements at the Plymouth trust. On the whole, the arrangements for discharge have moved on a long way during the pandemic, and the financial arrangements for discharge have improved dramatically, so I am disturbed to hear the story that she tells, and I will definitely look into it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, a disproportionate part of the proposed rise in national insurance will fall on low-paid workers, including those in the care sector. When this announcement is made, I hope that the Minister will come forward with plans to ensure that staff in the sector get a decent living wage.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that taxes have to be spread across the whole country, but I remind him that the national living wage has risen by 2.2% in the last year, which benefits everyone across the population.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, a number of local authorities, including Croydon, are insolvent. Have the Government or the Minister’s department made an assessment of the impact of that on the viability of care providers and the capacity of people who need social care, and are entitled to it under the Care Act, to get the services that they need?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the pressure that local authorities are under. We do indeed keep in very close contact with local authorities that have financial pressure; I assure the noble Baroness that we will not be in a position where we breach the Care Act and that we keep very close tabs on the financial support that social care needs.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, there is a recruitment and retention problem in social care and a problem of youth unemployment. Does the Minister believe that his responses provide a basis for any young person to consider a career in social care, particularly his response to my noble friend Lord Hendy?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, many young people do seek a career in social care. Many of them see it as interchangeable with work in retail and in hospitality; in fact, we have seen an enormous amount of displacement between those sectors during Covid. We have to make sure that as retail and hospitality open up, those who have moved to social care continue to stay in that setting. That is one reason we are investing in the kind of education arrangements I described.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as the shortage of HGV drivers has led to a hike in their wages, does the inevitable increased staff crisis in care homes—effectively 40,000 to 60,000 workers will be sacked because of the illiberal mandatory vaccine for front-line workers—mean that they might get a decent amount? But seriously, does the Minister agree that any social care policy should prioritise improving working conditions and renumeration, and that this is key to the better protection of care residents and far more of a priority than obsessing about Covid at this stage in the pandemic?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the average turnover rate in social care is high, as noted by many noble Lords, as it is in some other sectors, including retail and hospitality. However, turnover rates are 8.1% lower in the past year among social care workers, down from 37.2% to 29.1%, which reassures us that many have in fact found it a fulfilling career.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say what improvements have been made to staff training in light of the Out Of Sight—Who Cares? report from the Care Quality Commission, which highlighted the excessive use of restraint, seclusion and segregation in the care of people with learning disabilities and autism in residential settings?
Lord Bethell (Con)
We are enormously grateful for that report, which has made a huge impact. I am not sure of the specific impact of the measures the noble Baroness describes, but I would be glad to write to her.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
EU Bilateral Agreements for Asylum Seekers
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in negotiating bilateral agreements with European Union member states for the return of asylum seekers arriving in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, we are in discussions with a number of EU member states and other third countries to reach bilateral arrangements for the return of asylum seekers and intend to open further talks with others. The political declaration agreed by the UK and the EU alongside the TCA noted the importance of this issue and our intention to engage bilaterally with member states on such arrangements. These take time and it would be inappropriate to disclose the nature of those talks.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer, but is not the answer that very little progress has actually been made? It would be nice if she acknowledged the fact that it is because of Brexit that we have lost the right to return asylum seekers who could have claimed asylum in other EU countries. More to the point, without these agreements, does it not make the Government’s plan to legislate to make all unauthorised arrivals on UK shores illegal not only unjust and possibly in breach of our international legal obligations but completely unsustainable?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I say to the noble Lord’s final point that everything we are doing complies with all our international obligations, including the refugee convention. I see the noble Lord shaking his head, so let me underline that this allows for differentiated treatment where a refugee has now come to the UK directly from a country of persecution and did not
“present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”
That is from Article 31.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, care and justice for asylum seekers is obviously a matter very close to the heart of the Church, Jesus himself being a refugee. Last week, the Church of England published a toolkit for the many churches that have asked us what they can do to support Afghan refugees. The Minister will know that the Church and other faith communities are among the main support works for asylum seekers. There are more than 3,000 Afghan nationals with existing asylum claims waiting for a decision, some of whom have been waiting a long time. What steps are the Government taking to expedite procedures for dealing with existing or new asylum claims by Afghan nationals, given the very changed situation and the particular stress and trauma felt by these people?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I say to the most reverend Primate that I thank the Church of England in particular for everything it has done to support asylum seekers; the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has been the first person to take part in community sponsorship. The work of the Church has been incredibly important. Clearly, we will be trying to expedite asylum claims as quickly as possible. We have suspended returns to Afghanistan—understandably so—and I hope that the claims of all those who are waiting in the queue will be seen to as quickly as possible.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that asylum seekers, who are not required to take any PCR test when they land in the United Kingdom—unlike double-vaccinated Members of this House—are put at a great disadvantage? Does she envisage that they will be required to take a PCR test before they can be sent back anywhere?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It would be helpful to outline the process here. All migrants are tested on arrival with a lateral flow test and any refusing are treated as though they are infectious and are isolated. Due to a small possibility of false positives associated with lateral flow, any individual who receives a positive result at a residential short-term holding facility in England or an immigration removal centre will be offered a PCR test to confirm the result, and any detained individual with symptoms of Covid, or testing positive for Covid, will be placed in protective isolation for at least 10 days.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, is there not another question for the Home Office? Given the difficulties of last year’s endless reporting on Windrush and the Wendy Williams report that said the Home Office was institutionally racist and ignorant, how will it handle new asylum and refugee cases? Is this the right department to handle the increasing number of asylum seekers and refugees? Given that the United Kingdom is one of the poorest countries for receiving refugees and then processing asylum claims, and noting that the BBC reported this morning that from 2008 to 2019 the UK sent back almost as many Afghans as we have just received, is the Home Office the right department to be operating this scheme?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I disagree with the noble Lord on a number of points. I think this country is incredibly generous in terms of how it supports and welcomes people who need our help. He mentioned Wendy Williams. I very much look forward to welcoming her back later this month when she reports on the findings of her first report. I am also very pleased that the Minister appointed for Afghanistan refugee resettlement is my honourable friend VickyAtkins, who will be a very compassionate and suitable candidate for the role.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, returning to the original Question, is not the truth that the Home Office has been unable to negotiate any bilateral agreements—indeed, none is in sight in the near future—causing chaos and confusion? The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has said that we are breaching the 1951 agreement. The truth is also that if we were still in the European Union, we would have the common European asylum system, which worked extremely well. Is this not all a self-inflicted disaster?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear me say that no, it is not a self-inflicted disaster. Of all EU states, we have been one of the most generous. As I said previously, we do not think we are doing anything that breaches our international obligations.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Minister claims that the UK is very generous but, according to the Home Office, in 2019, there were around five asylum claims per 10,000 people living in the UK, compared with the EU 28, where there were 14 asylum claims per 10,000 people. What success does the Minister expect to achieve in returning asylum seekers to the EU when the UK does not appear to be taking its fair share?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I absolutely dispute that. We have granted protection or other forms of leave to 2,742 children alone, and to more than 47,000 since 2010. As I previously said, in 2020, the UK received the second highest number out of all European countries—nearly 3,000—of asylum applications from unaccompanied children.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, there appear to have been agreements involving money reached with the French authorities in connection with what the Government regard as irregular migrants who are trafficked across the channel in small boats. First, how much has been paid to the French authorities over the past five years and how much is still due to be paid? Secondly, since record numbers of people fleeing desperate situations have already crossed the channel this year, against what specific criteria do and will the Government assess whether that money paid has or has not delivered on whatever it is the Government expect from the French in return?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I fear that I do not have details of payments made to the French, but I can say that, so far this year, up to 25 August, our co-operation with French law enforcement has helped to prevent more than 10,000 migrant attempts. That compares to just over 4,000 for the previous period, in 2020. Clearly, how we are working together is having some effect.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that asylum seekers who sometimes risk their lives in small, leaky boats, desperately trying to rebuild shattered lives, are human beings deserving of compassion, not unwanted objects to be shuttled between countries—particularly between countries that call themselves Christian?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I have no hesitation in agreeing with the noble Lord that asylum seekers are human beings who deserve our respect; they are not objects. Our Nationality and Borders Bill seeks to address the point that the people who are so culpable here are the criminals, who have no regard for lives, vulnerable or otherwise, and seek only to make money out of other people’s vulnerability.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Deep Seabed Mining
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have (1) to support, and (2) to campaign for, an international moratorium on deep seabed mining.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has a strong and respected voice in negotiations at the International Seabed Authority, where we continue to emphasise the need for the highest possible environmental standards. The UK has committed not to sponsor or support the issuing of any exploitation licences for deep sea mining projects unless and until there is sufficient scientific evidence about the potential impact on deep sea ecosystems and strong and enforceable environmental regulations and standards are in place.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that the rules to which he just referred are unlikely to be in place by July 2023, when, under current international regulations, full-scale mining, not just exploration, can commence—expert observers say that they are unlikely to be in place then? Further, does he think it acceptable that the International Seabed Authority—the licensing body for mining—benefits from revenue from that mining, giving it a clear conflict of interest, and that it has never turned down an exploration application?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The problem with the noble Baroness’s call is that if we just announce a moratorium, it will have no practical effect—other nations would just get on and negotiate treaties accordingly. We think the best, most constructive thing to do is to engage and make sure that strong and enforceable environmental standards are in place before any mining takes place.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
Notwithstanding the answer given just now by my noble friend, and bearing in mind that Her Majesty’s Government have said that they will not instigate any damage to the seabed until the scientific evidence is there, does it not surely make sense to encourage a moratorium—although, as he says, discussions should still take place?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think my noble friend has said essentially the same thing: we should take part in constructive discussions; anything else is just rhetoric.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, deep seabed mining is associated with the fragmentation of ecosystems and the loss of marine species. As we know, one of the best solutions is recycling and reusing minerals such as magnesium, cobalt and zinc, which are often the targets of deep seabed mining. What plans do Her Majesty’s Government have to accelerate this principle of recycling? Can the Minister explain a little more about the consultation and discussions with the ISA?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct. The net zero campaign that we all contribute to and support will produce massive demand for many of those minerals, so investing in two new interdisciplinary circular economy centres—one on technology metals and one on circular metals—will help. Separately, Defra will be consulting later this year on new measures that will ensure that we better manage electronic waste and do more to drive up reuse and recycling, because of course that is a much preferable solution.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
Does the Minister agree that it seems deeply ironic that we are now about to dig up these nodules from the ocean without full knowledge of what that will do environmentally? We did the same with oil, and now we are trying to retract. As was just mentioned, recycling is one method of finding the metals that we need, but scientists now know that there are many other ways to produce the necessary batteries and technologies. In the same way that solar and wind power have now taken over from fossil fuels, we can avoid digging up the ocean. I would call for a moratorium, and I should like the Government’s opinion on how much R&D is going in the right direction.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that the noble Baroness is a big supporter of our net-zero policy, but many of the critical minerals found on the deep seabed are important and often irreplaceable in electric vehicle batteries, offshore wind turbines and other technologies. But of course we need to pursue alternative research and development, and find alternative battery technology, and, as the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, said, reuse and recycling will also be very important.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
In the light of what the Minister just said, what metrics will the Government use to balance the need to reduce carbon emissions by encouraging the use of sustainable energy sources for the development of electric batteries against the potential for ecological damage caused by the extraction of seabed minerals used in battery production?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is important to say that there are no mining projects ongoing at the moment; there is a discussion about possible mining projects in future. Our position is that we need to ensure that, before any projects take place, strong environmental regulations and controls are put in place, and we are playing a critical role in helping to ensure that.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, yesterday the congress of the IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, agreed the wording of a motion calling for a moratorium on deep seabed mining. How do our Government plan to vote on that?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are engaging closely in the process. We will possibly abstain on the final resolution, but we are working closely with our international partners to drive this and ensure strong and sustainable progress.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, the problem is the environmental degradation inherent in mining for manganese, nickel and cobalt, whether you do it from the seabed or on land. This issue has been mentioned already. Will the Government commit themselves to doing the massive research project that is required so that we can have batteries for our electric cars that do not require that sort of environmental degradation?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. Indeed, we are doing just that, with the Faraday challenge and many of our other R&D technologies. We have an extensive programme of research into new technologies. Of course we have to do that; I completely agree with the noble Lord.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the integrated review quite rightly stresses the need to be an international lawmaker, and the United Kingdom should play a vital part in that. Given that the International Seabed Authority is part of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and that the United States has still failed to ratify that convention, will the Government use COP 26 and any other forum to ensure that the United States signs up to these international agreements?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right: the US is not part of the UNCLOS treaty; a number of other states are also not part of it. Of course we continue to engage with all our friends and partners internationally to encourage them to take part in these initiatives.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that, of the 12 countries on the list of countries that have exploration licences, a large number are clearly very small? They are reportedly relying on major international contractors to do all the work for them, including representing them on the International Seabed Authority. Does he therefore agree that there is a need for more independent technical expertise before this goes any further?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We work very closely with the companies based in the UK, including those to which we have issued exploration licences and those conducting R&D. That has produced a tremendous amount of research—something like 70 scientific papers so far—which of course we will seek to draw from. But we need to be responsible. The UK deciding not to take part in this and issuing a moratorium does not of course prevent other countries from doing it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, undoubtedly a moratorium is required. In view of this, will the Minister outline what steps the Government will take to safeguard our precious fishing industry and unique fish species?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, safeguarding the marine environment is extremely important. We would engage in extensive public consultation ahead of making any decision to issue or sponsor any deep-sea mining exploitation licences. That of course would include engaging fully with the fishing industry.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, BMW, Volvo, Google and Samsung are saying publicly that there should be a moratorium on the proposals to dig up metals from the deep sea and that other ways should be found to extract cobalt to make batteries to fuel the future switch to electric vehicles and increased mobile phone use. Can the Minister advise the House of the Government’s position on the views expressed by these major car and technology companies?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Well, of course they are entitled to their position; I would just advise the noble Baroness to read carefully exactly what they said in their declarations. The World Bank has estimated that something like 3 billion tonnes of metals and minerals will be needed to fully decarbonise the global energy system by 2050, so we must be careful, proceed with caution and do all the appropriate scientific analysis. But there is widespread support in this House for the net-zero challenge and we must provide the means to do it.
Grenfell Tower: Demolition
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to demolish Grenfell Tower and what discussions they have had regarding the safety of the site and whether they have consulted with the survivors, families of the victims and the local community regarding the future use of the site.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given private notice. In doing so, I refer the House to my relevant interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
The Government recognise how important and sensitive this decision is, particularly for bereaved families, survivors and local residents. Following important independent safety advice, the Government are engaging closely with the community as we consider what the future of Grenfell Tower should be. No decision has been made.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, over the weekend, survivors, victims’ families and the local community found out about the plans to demolish Grenfell Tower through reports across the media. The decision to speak to the media before any consultation with those affected was completely wrong. Can the Minister confirm what discussions have taken place with structural engineers and other professionals regarding the demolition of the tower and the future of the site? Can he also confirm that full discussion and consultation on the demolition of the tower and the future of the site will take place urgently with survivors, victims’ families, Grenfell United and the local community, and that he will ensure that there are no more of these lapses and no more of this frankly disrespectful treatment of those people by the Government? Also, will he take the opportunity now to apologise for the briefing over the weekend and the reports in the media?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I want to be absolutely clear that this was not a briefing by the Government; it had nothing to do with the Government. On Friday, I had a meeting where it was made very clear that no decision had been taken—so I was as surprised as the noble Lord by what we read in the Sunday papers and subsequently. The Government have embarked on a phase of concentrated engagement on the future of the tower; this started around a year ago and has intensified since May, when we published a series of engineering reports that included a peer review of the major review that was carried out by Atkins. I can certainly continue to make the point that the Government will proceed by very carefully engaging with and consulting the community on this very sensitive matter.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that this site reminds one of the failures of building safety provisions? It has been there for too long now. The noble Lord on the Opposition Benches is right that we need to move on. Against that background, will my noble friend make sure that the project he has just outlined does not drift and that, certainly this side of Christmas, there will be a clear and concise provision of what is to happen?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I underline that no decision has been taken, but we are aware that we have had unambiguous advice from engineering experts that the tower should be carefully taken down. We have published those studies, but I reiterate that no decision has been taken. Obviously, a decision on this cannot be put off indefinitely, and one will be made in due course—but not via the media.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Secretary of State is in receipt of a report that says that the physical infrastructure of the tower is extremely damaged and creates a potential hazard to a nearby local school, as well as other buildings, in terms of its safety? If that is the case, does he accept that it is vital that the residents surrounding the tower are also consulted on its future, alongside the victims’ families?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to clarify that there has been ongoing engagement not only with the bereaved and survivors but also with the community. I also want to put on record that there are no immediate safety concerns and that safety and maintenance are ongoing as part of a programme of works that will be completed only in the spring of 2022. Therefore, the coverage reporting that the school is in danger is absolutely wrong. At this stage, the tower is safe and is being kept safe until next spring.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the register of interests. As we all know, Grenfell Tower is the site of an appalling tragedy. The sight of it is a constant reminder of the building safety and fire safety crises that Grenfell exposed. Does the Minister agree that the demolition of Grenfell is also the removal of that potent symbol, which is a much-needed reminder of the absolute necessity that the Government solve the cladding and building safety crises that are destroying the lives of thousands of leaseholders? Does he also agree that demolition before the end of the Grenfell inquiry might remove some absolutely important information and facts that could lead to the resolution of this problem?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I have been very clear that the police have said that they do not require any evidence from the tower as part of their investigation. I am also aware that we need to engage very carefully on the future of the site. That is why we have asked an independent commission—the Memorial Commission— to look at options for the future. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, no decision has been taken at this point.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, as I am sure many noble Lords know, my colleague, the Bishop of Kensington, and other community, Christian and faith leaders, have been hugely involved with survivors’ and victims’ groups in Grenfell, where there is, of course, much pain and anxiety caused by the newspaper reports over the weekend. Although it is good to hear the Minister say that there will be discussions with those community groups, I urge him to consider working with the Church and other community leaders to have these discussions as a matter of urgency, because there is such concern raised at the moment and people feel as though—whether the feeling is correct or not—they are not being consulted.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I thank the most reverend Primate for making those points. It is important to engage with faith communities and local residents as well as the bereaved and survivors. I assure the House that there have been weekly meetings with particular groups, fortnightly meetings, monthly meetings, online sessions and face-to-face meetings throughout the pandemic. We will continue to do our best to engage with the community, the bereaved and survivors.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I speak as a former councillor for the adjoining ward of Golborne, and someone who has a London base within sight of Grenfell. Grenfell obviously should go: there were massive failures by the local authority in the past in respect of consultation. Now there appears to be a very different view on the part of the local authority and a much greater readiness to consult, and this is very welcome.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, in addition to the consultation by the site team of my department, MHCLG, the local authority is engaging reactively. I heard from the leader of the council this week that it has another meeting to look at mental health and other well-being issues, and it has asked my officials to join that meeting. The Government at every level have a duty to do their best to make sure that we learn from this tragedy and that we continue to engage with the residents, bereaved and survivors.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will know that the Kensington Aldridge Academy is located at the base of the Grenfell Tower. It had to move out following the fire and move back in 2018. What consideration has been given to the future of that school in the discussions referred to by my noble friend?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, despite the reporting, I can assure my noble friend that the school does not require any move or decant in the future. The tower is safe; there are no immediate safety issues. As I said, the programme of safety maintenance continues until the spring of next year.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, picking up on the points raised by the most reverend Primate, will the Minister tell the House what proportion, if any, of those who were displaced immediately following the fire and had to be found temporary accommodation are still in temporary accommodation? Of those, how many are still in the borough and how many have had to go elsewhere?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I know that the vast majority of people have found secure, settled and long-term accommodation. I will have to write to her about the absolute number of people still in temporary, but relatively stable, accommodation and the number of those who are outside the borough.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on coming before the House at such an early stage and subjecting himself to questions on this important matter. That is a token of good faith. I hope that, when the final decision is taken, there will be a suitable memorial for what has happened. The point about lessons to be learned is something of which we all need to take note. There will need to be an appropriate memorial, not only to the lives that were lost but for the reasons those lives were lost.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, as someone who was made a Minister in March of last year and entered this House only the following month, this is certainly a new experience for me. Actually, it is slightly more enjoyable than what we have experienced, as we are able to see more faces on these Benches. I can assure the House that the work of the independent memorial commission is designed to do precisely that: to find a fitting and long-term memorial to mark the greatest loss of life in a fire since the Second World War. We want to make sure that we get that right and the commission needs to do its work in time.
Procedure and Privileges
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Sitting times of Grand Committees; Timetabling of Thursday debates; Legislative Consent Motions for Lords Private Members’ Bills (2nd Report, HL Paper 61) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the three proposals in the report before the House concern matters previously considered by the House in July 2021 and October 2020. Noble Lords will recall that the first two issues fulfil undertakings in the report that the House agreed on 13 July. That report established the nature of the business in the Chamber from today, as we return from hybrid to physical sittings. Accordingly, the report before the House makes a recommendation on the sitting times for Grand Committee, bearing in mind, among other things, the new timings for Oral Questions and Private Notice Questions. It also makes a recommendation on a more streamlined way for timetabling Thursday debates.
The third issue concerns Private Members’ Bills. In October 2020, the House agreed to a proposal from the committee that Ministers should explain to the House before Third Reading any circumstances where a devolved Assembly has not provided its legislative consent to the Bill. This requirement does not fit well with Lords starting Private Members’ Bills, for which the normal expectation is that legislative consent is sought before Committee stage in the other place. Should we fail to address this, a ministerial Statement will almost always be needed, but will add no obvious value to the House and will risk asking devolved Assemblies to spend their time considering questions of legislative consent on measures that may have little prospect of reaching the statute book. I beg to move.
Environment Bill
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 22, Schedule 1, Clauses 23 to 48, Schedule 2, Clause 49, Schedule 3, Clause 50, Schedule 4, Clause 51, Schedule 5, Clause 52, Schedule 6, Clause 53, Schedule 7, Clause 54, Schedule 8, Clause 55, Schedule 9, Clauses 56 to 66, Schedule 10, Clauses 67 to 72, Schedule 11, Clause 73, Schedule 12, Clauses 74 to 82, Schedule 13, Clauses 83 to 94, Schedule 14, Clause 95, Schedule 15, Clauses 96 to 110, Schedule 16, Clauses 111 and 112, Schedule 17, Clauses 113 to 126, Schedule 18, Clauses 127 to 133, Schedule 19, Clauses 134 and 135, Schedule 20, Clause 136, Schedule 21, Clauses 137 to 145, Title.
Environment Bill
Monday 6th September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 43-II Second marshalled list for Report - (6 Sep 2021)
16:36 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 179 - Amendment 1 agreed.
17:51 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 166 - Amendment 2 agreed.
19:30 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 181 / Noes: 159 - Amendment 4 agreed.
Lord Teverson
“Purpose and declaration of biodiversity and climate emergency
(1) The purpose of this Act is to address the biodiversity and climate emergency domestically and globally. (2) As soon as reasonably practicable and no later than one month beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Prime Minister must declare that there is a biodiversity and climate emergency domestically and globally.(3) The Government must have regard to this purpose and declaration when implementing the provisions of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would have the effect of the UK Government declaring a climate and biodiversity emergency.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it has been two months since we debated the Bill in Committee over a period of three weeks, but the planet has not stood still over that time. First, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the IPCC—released its sixth report prior to COP 26, on which the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr António Guterres, commented:
“This is code red for humanity.”
This is an absolutely accurate declaration to my mind.
However, this is not just theoretical: let us look at other things that have happened during the end of July and beginning of August. First, we could look at fires: we have had forest fires in the northern hemisphere, almost unknown before, in California, Canada and Siberian Russia, where some 4 million hectares of forest have burned down and are still burning in parts of Siberia even today.
In terms of flooding, we have seen flash floods just now in New York. It was almost unexpected there, let alone down in the southern states of the United States. We have now had some 300 deaths in the north-east of the United States from those flash floods. Earlier, in July or August, some 300 people died in Henan province in China, many of them in underground metro systems, again in flash floods—something that had never happened in that way before. Of course, nearer home, in Europe—in Germany and close-by states—we had some 200 deaths because of flooding, which was unprecedented and unpredicted in terms of conventional weather forecasting.
In terms of temperature, in Lytton in British Columbia we had the highest temperature ever recorded in Canada at 49.5 degrees centigrade. More staggering was the fact that that was 5 degrees—I repeat, 5 degrees—more than the previous record. All those incidents and that report have happened since we last debated this legislation in this House.
We have also had, in July, the Government’s response to the Dasgupta report on biodiversity. They accepted, quite rightly, that we have to reverse biodiversity loss by the end of this decade; it is something that has been going backwards for decades and we have to amend that within a period of nine years.
We are now a month closer to the beginning of COP 15 next month, the biodiversity equivalent of COP 26, the first half of which will be centred around Kunming in China. Of course, we are now only 56 days away from COP 26 opening in Glasgow on 1 November. I also remind Members of the House that we had a report in June, again from the IPCC—the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change—and the secretariat of the biodiversity equivalent, which made it quite clear that these two crises, climate change and biodiversity, are absolutely and inextricably linked. You cannot solve one without solving the other. That is why this is an important area, an emergency, a real area and a place where the planet is globally changing.
We want this to be a landmark Bill; in fact, the Government declare this to be very much a landmark Bill, and we all want it to be so. But what I find it difficult is that it is not yet that. I welcome many of the Government’s amendments that they want to put forward, but it is not yet a landmark Bill, as the Climate Change Act 2008 was at that time. I do not believe that it is credible that this House, this country, can have what will become an environment Act without pointing out and declaring the obvious—that we have at the moment a climate change and biodiversity emergency.
I am sometimes asked whether this is the way we do things in the United Kingdom, and I had some arguments with the Public Bill Office around this when I put down this amendment. But I remind Members that over 200 local authorities in our land have already declared a climate emergency, and many of those are now also declaring a biodiversity emergency. I believe that what is right for them is right for us as a Parliament. Also, the way that we in the United Kingdom show unity in parliamentary politics is through legislation, because that brings the two Houses together, together with the Government. Having a declaration in an Act of Parliament brings together the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Government, and I believe that this is absolutely what is needed to make this a landmark Bill.
I believe this amendment would achieve leadership for this country—globally as well as nationally—in both those crises. I believe it will give us extra credibility and leadership at COP 26 and COP 15. I believe it will make this Bill something like the Climate Change Act for the future, and that it will also bring biodiversity, which is so important to this Bill, up to a similar status to the Climate Change Act. As I said, I think it brings together the two Houses and the Government in a unity that is important and that we saw in the citizens’ climate assembly.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I am very happy to support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, I joined up a little too late.
Biodiversity is all too often seen as the poor relation of climate change and somehow less important. It is not. It is just as important and life threatening as any weather patterns, droughts or floods—and they are indeed all connected. So what is it? In essence, it is the variety of life on earth and all its interconnectedness. But it is also the product of millions of years of learning—of trial and error—by all the creatures, flora and fauna on earth to arrive at a system where this planet flourishes and where we can exist on it. Everything is in its place and everything is doing its bit—sometimes large, sometimes microscopic—and it keeps our planet in the healthy state that we want to preserve.
I have heard what we are doing now described as “burning the library of earth”. To take something really complex that we have made, let us think of an aeroplane going to New York, carrying 600 people. Out falls one rivet—not too bad. Out come two—maybe not a big deal. But suppose 10, 20 or 30 come out; at some point that aeroplane is going to come crashing down to earth—and that is what we are doing now with the complex world of our biodiversity. We do not know quite when we will pass the tipping point, but we are clearly very nearly there.
I have a few examples relating to the insect world, which is endlessly dismissed, but—as Einstein, apparently, famously said—the planet would survive without us, but it would not survive without insects. They are essentially the unseen rivers that keep the planet functioning, yet we have not managed to identify them all—and yet we are cutting down their environments. As I said, no one knows how close to the edge we are, but in China they are pollinating apples and pears by hand. In Bengal they are doing the same for squash plants. In Brazil it is passionfruit, and it is blueberries in Canada. Even the French beans in Kenya are now having to be mechanically pollinated because we have trashed the insects.
Clearly, many parts of the world—and, indeed, under the oceans; we have the temerity to think that we should destroy the ocean bed like we have destroyed the land above—have a huge value: trillions of dollars, or around double the world’s current GDP. In Europe alone it costs the 3% of GDP that we get from our natural services.
I thoroughly support the amendment. This is an emergency. That message needs to come from the Prime Minister and it needs to be made clear to everyone that we have only one planet and that we have to protect it. Biodiversity is extraordinary and amazing. It is up to all of us in this House to ensure that this becomes part of the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I support both these amendments: Amendment 1, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and backed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to which I am pleased to have attached my name; and Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
In introducing his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, looked at what happened in the timeframe from when we last debated the Bill to today. I will take a different timeframe and go back to when the Bill was first introduced on 15 October 2019. A lot has happened since then. Obviously, we have had, and still have, a global pandemic, which is related to our biodiversity and climate crises, but in reaction to it we have seen enormous, massive and rapid change. We have seen the invention from scratch of highly effective new vaccines from a range of technologies. We have seen billions of doses of those vaccines already delivered. We have seen transformation on an almost daily scale of our entire way of life. The previously obscure word “lockdown” has become daily currency. International travel has almost stopped. “Zoom” has become a verb.
What has happened to the climate in those two years? Emissions fell in 2020, chiefly because of the pandemic, but a lot less than people expected. They then started to rise again. We have seen Extinction Rebellion out on our streets regularly and the climate strikers have become part of the national life of countries all around the world. But we have yet to see the scale of reaction that is needed to these emergencies, which are on the same scale as the pandemic. Just look at the contrast between those two scales of reaction and the fact that the Bill was written two years ago. In the age of shocks, with time moving so fast, that is an age. Amendment 1 would update the Bill to be fit for today, as it must be, and create the frame for it to be fit for the future.
I will briefly address Amendment 21. It is particularly important because we are starting to see the word “resilience” in news coverage, which was once an extremely rare occurrence. It is starting to rise up the news agenda. I speak as a former journalist. Amendment 21 seeks to address the risks, identify them and report on them.
I will focus in particular on proposed new subsection (2)(c), which would ensure that the views of 11 to 25 year-olds in the United Kingdom are continuously engaged in debating these risks. I reflect on that because yesterday I was in Sheffield, where I joined the Young Christian Climate Network, which is on a deliberately very slow pilgrimage from Truro to Glasgow, stopping in as many communities up and down the land as it possibly can to engage communities, particularly young people, on this issue. Climate strikers, young pilgrims and Extinction Rebellion are leading. The amendment would ensure that the Government and the Bill are at least in the right place to catch up.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 1, to which I added my name. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his helpful amendment. We agree that assessing long-term environmental risk should be an essential part of setting environmental targets and improvement plans.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, very much for setting out why recognising our climate and biodiversity emergency is so important. He and other noble Lords set out the case with clarity, passion and commitment. As he said, this is indeed code red for humanity.
We had a number of excellent contributions in Committee which all strengthened the importance of having Amendment 1 underpin the Bill. It has of course become commonplace for government and civic society to acknowledge that we have a climate change emergency. The recent global evidence that the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Bennett, referred to reinforces this view. Quite frankly, it has made a mockery of the dwindling band of climate sceptics.
However, we still have some way to go to put the biodiversity crisis on an equal footing with the climate crisis, with comparable attention and resources. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, biodiversity is seen as the poor relation, yet, as we have heard, the evidence of a biodiversity emergency is all around us. At a UK level, the RSPB’s State of Nature report showed that 41% of our species are declining and one in 10 threatened with extinction. We are one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. At a global level, the WWF has documented the international failure to meet the UN biodiversity targets, with an average 68% of species decline across the world. We see the impact of this decline in our gardens, countryside and waterways. For many of us, it is personally heartbreaking to see nature suffering and declining in this way.
We now understand more than ever that nature is not just a “nice to have”; it underpins our very existence and regulates the earth’s climate. As the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee’s report concludes:
“Biodiversity and well-functioning ecosystems are critical for human existence, economic prosperity, and a good quality of life.”
Of course, this echoes the previous conclusions of the much-quoted and seminal Dasgupta report.
That is why Amendment 1 is so important. A government declaration of a climate and biodiversity emergency would be more than symbolic. It would make it clear that the two issues are inextricably linked and that both require action on an urgent scale. In Committee, the Minister acknowledged these arguments. He said:
“We absolutely recognise the extent of the crisis”
that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and I had relayed. He went on to say:
“There is no doubt that the facts on the ground tell us that we are in crisis territory”,
but he also acknowledged that international action on climate change is well ahead of any comparable action on biodiversity. As he said:
“It remains the case … that of all international climate finance, only 2.5% to 3% is spent on nature-based solutions.”—[Official Report, 21/6/21; col. 37.]
This lies at the heart of the problem. A group of us were involved in debates on the Financial Services Bill earlier in the year. It was clear then that banking and businesses in the UK are slowly waking up to their climate change commitments, but I do not recall much mention of biodiversity in their strategies for the future. So far, it seems that biodiversity and nature-based solutions are seen as Defra issues, not government-wide issues. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity or commitment on this issue, but the evidence seems to show that the department is struggling to get other government departments to take this issue seriously. This is why it is important that the Government as a whole recognise the joint emergency of climate change and biodiversity, and why the Prime Minister needs to recognise the emergencies and put action on both issues at the heart of government policy for the future.
Nature will not wait. We are spiralling into levels of extinction that cannot be reversed. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, this is the right time to make this declaration. I therefore hope that noble Lords will heed our call and support our amendment if it is put to a vote.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the very powerful arguments that have been made. I believe that what is happening with biodiversity is more of an emergency than the climate. I am not certain that I like subsections (2) and (3) of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and I do not like Amendment 21, which is grouped with Amendment 1 but is not consequential on it. That would make it harder for the Government to pursue their environmental improvement plans and 25-year plan. There would be unnecessary duplication with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I am very happy with subsection (1) of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The purpose of this Act is to address the biodiversity and climate emergency domestically and globally. Once that is in print, it will be acknowledged by the Government as an emergency. Surely that meets the noble Lord’s point, and if my noble friend the Minister accepts subsection (1), I will be perfectly happy.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a curious experience to be standing up without being called.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has made the classic Conservative error of separating biodiversity from climate. It is all interconnected: you cannot talk about either without accepting that each has an impact on the other. Every noble Lord must understand that we have a climate emergency, and therefore this government Bill is not good enough. We all know that–it is why there are so many amendments at Report. It is our job to improve the Bill and it is the Government’s job to listen and, I hope, accept our improvements.
Lord Deben (Con)
I hope that your Lordships will remember the words of the Pope in Laudato Si’, when he said that climate change was the symptom of what we had done to the world. That brings together bio- diversity, imposed poverty, the lack of fertility in our soil, modern slavery and a whole range of other things. Climate change is the planet crying out for the elimination of its disease.
I was not present for his speech but I read carefully what my noble friend said about his commitment to both these things. I hope that, when he comes to answer this debate, he realises that it is extremely difficult for us in the Climate Change Committee to explain to people why biodiversity is part of the answer—putting that right is just as important as a range of other things, and we cannot divorce them from each other. It is difficult, because we have already started doing that, making climate change one sort of thing and these other things different from it. I hope that the Government will understand why this amendment has been put down and why it is important to connect these things. If I have a difficulty, it is that a lot of other things ought to be connected as well, but these two are particularly important this year, given the nature of international negotiations in this area.
I hope also that my noble friend will think to himself a very simple thing: if the Government will not accept the amendment or rewrite the Bill—my noble friend Lord Caithness may be right; I am not arguing in detail about the particular amendment—it is perfectly possible for them to come forward and make a statement in the Bill which makes it clear that the biodiversity and climate emergencies are intimately and intricately connected. I hope my noble friend will realise that, if he cannot say it, he will be showing that the Government are not prepared to say it. That would be really worrying. The reason the Government have to say it is that there is a fundament problem with government: it has a series of silos, and if we are not careful these big issues get caught up in some ministries and not others. Unless we make it clear that this should be a driving force in, say, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport as much as in the Department for Education, Defra or BEIS, we will not win this battle.
I hope my noble friend will recognise that the House is asking for a very simple statement. If it is refused, I really would not blame people outside for questioning the commitment of the Government as a whole to these two essential parts of the same problem. I look to him if not to accept these amendments then to at least tell the House that, at Third Reading, he will introduce an amendment that will assert publicly the Government’s commitment to these being urgent, necessary issues that deserve the title that we have asked for. I hope he is able to say that; if he is not, it will send the wrong signal, at a time when we should be united in sending the right signals, so that in all discussions people will know precisely where Britain stands.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, in supporting the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I draw attention to a particular feature that has been mentioned but perhaps could be made more explicit. It is a feature of both the climate emergency and the biodiversity emergency: the discontinuities that will arise as a result of incremental change. My noble friend Lady Boycott alluded to this in talking about the rivets in an aeroplane: it does not matter, perhaps, if one, two or three rivets fall out, but when more than a critical number fall off there is a discontinuity and the plane falls out of the sky. This is true, as we know from the IPCC and others, of the climate emergency. We hear over and over of the notion of dangerous climate change, whereby if we exceed a certain boundary then we will tip into a new world in which life becomes intolerable and many regions of the planet are uninhabitable for the human species. That is equally true of the biodiversity emergency.
I am an academic ecologist, and so I will refer back to the scientific literature. Back in 1969, an American ecologist, Robert T Paine of the University of Washington, drew attention to the notion of keystone species. He was studying a species of starfish that lives in the intertidal zone of the north-western United States—Washington state. If this species of starfish disappears then the whole ecosystem flips to a new state, because the starfish is the keystone species that maintains the equilibrium of the intertidal ecosystem. The same will be true in many other situations.
It is not just the number of rivets that fall out of the plane that is important; it is particular, key rivets. The sad thing is that, if we lose some of these keystone species, we will be among the ones that suffer, because we will suddenly find that the systems we rely on to produce food, purify our water and provide other ecosystem services will simply not exist any more. A genuine emergency is created by crossing these thresholds: once we have crossed them, it will be too late.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, in the Book of Common Prayer, the Lord’s Prayer says:
“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
in earth as in heaven.”
I repeat, “in earth”. It was not the work of some liberal conspiracy in the Church or the Liturgical Commission but, somewhere in the last 300 or 400 years in the popular saying of the Lord’s Prayer, it somehow changed from “in earth” to “on earth”. This tiny change encompasses for me all that is wrong in our relationship with the earth of which we are a part. We used to understand that we live in it, we are part of it, we depend on it and that, as good stewards of the earth, the earth depends on us. Then, somehow, we decided that we did not live in it any more but on it; it was ours and we could do with it as we wanted.
Therein lies the whole challenge to the human race. What I want to hear from the Government on this crucial amendment is a clear signal that we have recognised—as a human race, as a nation and as the Government of this land—that there is an emergency, and that what is happening to our climate and to biodiversity is completely connected. At the same time there must be recognition of the terrible responsibility that we bear for having imagined that we lived on the earth rather than in it. By giving that signal, everything else could follow.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Caithness. The Government are to be congratulated on the first major piece of environmental legislation in two decades; I congratulate them on this. It will set a world-leading framework for environmental improvement and vigilance. I believe that the Government—certainly my noble friend on the Front Bench and our excellent Minister in the other place—recognise the scale of the crisis. That has been said in the House already.
It is inevitably the case that the climate change emergency is much better recognised than the biodiversity emergency, yet the two are so linked. Indeed, it is frightening to see the decline in biodiversity. The figures announced by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for example, are a telling reminder of the dangers to our precious planet and the interconnection between all species on earth. Part of my religious belief is founded on the amazing magic that nature produces. This world has been created for us, yet we are in danger of ending the precious balance that has, in my view, been created for us. I hope that those who do not agree with my underlying religious belief on this matter will forgive me.
I hope that my noble friend might be able to accept the first part of Amendment 1, which aims to address the biodiversity and climate emergency both domestically and globally. I am not convinced that proposed subsections 2 and 3 are clear in what they imply. What does this mean? What do these extra bits add? What we want—and I think this House is keen to see—is that we are addressing a crisis in biodiversity and in climate change. Of course, there is pollution and waste management. All these things are incorporated in this crisis. I cannot support Amendment 21, but I hope that my noble friend will be able to speak to the first bit of Amendment 1.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I wish very briefly to endorse everything that my noble friend Lady Altmann said a moment ago. There is a great deal to be said for clarity and simplicity and I believe that the first part of this amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, frankly, says it all. We do not need the encumbrances. We need this clear, unambiguous, emphatic statement. If my noble friend the Minister will agree to give us that, I think it would be unwise of the House to seek to vote on the composite—as the trade unions would call it—resolution. This is what we need.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York put it very well when he quoted from the Lord’s Prayer. We are in earth. As president of the Prayer Book Society, I always say that and would not say anything else. I beg my noble friend the Minister to take on board the wise words of my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lord Deben—how good it is to have him back in the Chamber—and that he will accept this; then, we can move forward.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
I am delighted to be back debating the Environment Bill on Report and not least to be able to do so in person. I thank noble Lords for continuing to meet me and my officials over the Summer Recess.
Off the back of much of that engagement, as well as the many insightful contributions in Committee from right across this House, noble Lords will have seen that we have secured and tabled some significant amendments to the Bill. I outlined these in a letter to your Lordships last week and I look forward to discussing these in more detail as we progress the debate.
Moving on to the important issues at hand, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his Amendment 1. He described an emergency; I reassure him that the Government fully recognise the seriousness of both climate change and biodiversity loss, which, as a number of noble Lords have said, must be addressed in tandem if we are to protect the planet. There is no credible pathway to net zero that does not involve the protection and restoration of nature on an unprecedented scale. Indeed, there is no pathway to meeting our sustainable development goals—any of them—without massive efforts to protect and restore nature. We know that those people who depend most on the free services that nature provides, and which have been described by a number of speakers today, are in the most vulnerable and poorest communities. As we destroy nature, we destroy those services and plunge people in huge numbers into base poverty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out that of total global climate finance, less than 3% is invested in nature-based solutions to climate change. An attempt to shift that balance and get that 3% much closer to 50% is at the heart of our ambitions as the president of COP. In addition to committing to double our own international climate finance to £11.6 billion, we have committed that nearly a third of that will be invested in nature-based solutions, including forests, mangroves, seagrasses and more. As part of our diplomatic efforts in the run-up to COP, we are talking to other donor countries on a regular basis to try to persuade them to do something similar. There has been some progress and I hope that, by the time we reach COP, I will be able to present significant movement in that area.
My noble friend Lord Deben, who I too am very pleased to see here and who is an authority on climate change, quoted the Pope; I am not sure whether it was the current or previous Pope but he quoted a Pope. The point he made was absolutely right. Climate change has been described by others—perhaps from a less theological point of view—as a fever caused by decades and generations of our abuse of the natural world. The more we can see it in that way, the more likely we are to deliver appropriate solutions. COP will be a nature COP; this is at the heart of what we are attempting to do with our presidency.
I take issue with one suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Deben made: that we need to make it clear to others where the UK stands on these issues. I would not pretend that there is a country in the world, including the UK, that is doing enough. The gap between where we are and where we need to be is vast; that is true of every country on earth, and that is why we are having this discussion today. But where the UK stands on climate change and nature already sends a pretty powerful message to the world. I think we are regarded internationally as leaders: we were the first major economy to legislate for net zero by 2050; we have committed to ending taxpayer support for fossil fuel projects overseas, which the noble Lord has been urging for many years; we are the first to make our land use subsidy system conditional on environmental outcomes; we have doubled our international climate finance, as I said; and we have committed to a third of investment into nature-based solutions. As COP president, we are all engaging in intense diplomacy to try to raise ambition across the world.
Lord Deben (Con)
I think my noble friend misunderstood my point. My point was that, given the opportunity to declare this simple thing in an Act, the Government, if they do not take it, cannot avoid the fact that many will say they do not want to. The Government have the opportunity. I do not want the rest of these amendments; I just want the statement, and then no one can argue. If he cannot give that, I merely say that people outside will think we are not willing to do so.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his intervention, and I will address his question directly.
The Environment Bill contains numerous world firsts as well—for example, legislation to move illegal deforestation from supply chains, which we are trying to persuade many other countries to emulate, and with which we think we are making some progress. Biodiversity net gain is, I believe, a world first. I am delighted to introduce a legal requirement, which we will debate later today, to everything the Government can do to bend the curve of biodiversity loss by 2030. The Bill will enable us to improve air quality, address nature’s decline, deliver a resource-efficient economy, tackle the scourge of single-use plastics and ensure we can manage our precious water resources in a changing climate. All climate change legislation in England will be part of the enforcement remit of the office for environmental protection, including enforcement of the net-zero target. The OEP will work closely alongside our world-leading Committee on Climate Change on these issues, ensuring that their individual roles complement and reinforce one another.
Through the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, the Government set out steps to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. This innovative programme outlines ambitious policies and includes £12 billion of government investment to support up to 250,000 green jobs, accelerate our path to reaching net zero by 2050 and lay the foundations for a green recovery by building back greener from the pandemic. The Government have also published their energy White Paper, transport decarbonisation plan and hydrogen strategy, and we will bring forward further proposals, including a net-zero strategy, before COP 26—a strategy that all government departments, without exception, are working on. We will continue to tackle these interrelated crises in an integrated way, internationally, as hosts of COP 26 and by playing a leading role in pushing for the development of an ambitious post-2020 global biodiversity framework to be adopted at the CBD COP 15.
Briefly, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who talked about the need for action alongside this but questioned the action taken during the passage of the Bill, most of the examples I gave earlier are things that have happened during the passage of the Bill but, in addition to that, the Government announced a few months ago the £3 billion green investment fund to create thousands of green jobs and upgrade buildings; a £2 billion green homes grant; the England peat action plan, produced by my honourable friend Rebecca Pow in the other place; the England trees action plan, which was part of my portfolio; and a £5.2 billion fund to better protect properties from flooding, increasing amounts of which will be invested in nature-based solutions to try to deal with numerous problems using the same investment. We are taking action.
In response to the amendment, but also to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben: it is clearly the action against which a Government will be judged. Any Government can make declarations, as we have seen. As we approach COP, every declaration made so far in relation to deforestation globally has been missed. The Aichi targets were missed catastrophically. I cannot think of a single grand statement about the environment, biodiversity or climate change that has in fact been met—not a single one. It is the steps—the actions—that Governments take against which they should be judged.
A number of noble Lords have described an environmental crisis, a biodiversity crisis and a climate crisis. I have, in the short time I have been in this place, described those crises myself. Indeed, the reason I am in politics is to tackle those crises. It is hard to talk about the scale of the crisis. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, gave the example that the populations of key species have declined by nearly 70% in my lifetime, and that would not even qualify as a nano-blip in evolutionary terms. One more nano-blip like that and we are in very serious trouble. Of course this is an emergency; there is no doubt that we are describing, combating and tackling a biodiversity and climate emergency. But adding this proposed new clause to the Bill would not, we believe, drive any specific further action. It does not change the nature of what we need to do or of the action we are already taking. While I agree completely with the sentiment behind the noble Lord’s amendment—and I think the Government have demonstrated, in the steps they have taken, that they share that sentiment—respectfully, we do not see that this amendment would have any material impact.
Amendment 21 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, but he has not spoken to it, so I hope it is okay if I address it. I am not sure what the protocol requires, but I will do so unless I am told not to. I firmly believe that environmental risks are already accounted for under the Bill—in numerous ways, such as the environment improvement plan and annual reports that will consider risks related to improving the natural environment and be actively managed through ongoing performance management. These reports will be published and scrutinised by Parliament and the office for environmental protection. Furthermore, the Government report publicly on specific environmental risk, including long-term environmental trends and high-impact environmental risks, through Defra’s annual reports and accounts and the outcome delivery plans for each government department. These are all available online.
Regarding youth engagement, a point raised by a number of speakers, we have consulted the Youth Steering Group and are exploring new approaches to youth engagement as part of the EIP review due to take place in 2022. In addition, the emphasis being placed by the COP president-designate on the value of youth engagement and youth involvement cannot be overestimated, and that is demonstrated through the actions he is taking and the plans he is making.
The Bill and the actions we are taking elsewhere will deliver on the sentiments behind both amendments. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down: if the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, or anyone else for that matter, brought back at Third Reading proposed new subsection (1) of Amendment 1, which is merely a headline, would my noble friend pledge to accept that it does not detract one iota from the Bill? Yet headlines can be useful—they can be pointers—and I would urge my noble friend to do that. It is a pity to start on a Division when we all agree that that is the one thing on which many of us feel particularly strongly.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his intervention and his earlier comments, but the reality is that I, the department I work for and the whole of the Government will be tested and judged against the actions we take—actions and commitments we make in the run-up to COP and alongside the Bill. My view, and that of the Government, is that accepting this amendment and writing these words into the eventual Act would have no material impact on policy whatever. The reality is that securing changes to a Bill requires a great deal of heavy lifting. There are areas where I hope noble Lords will see that the Bill has improved considerably in recent weeks as a consequence of arguments put forward by noble Lords in this House. But those are material changes that will have a material impact on our stewardship of the environment.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, if my noble friend is not prepared to give the very simple assurance that at Third Reading he will have some form of declaration, he is being politically most unwise. What is more, he is setting himself up to have a great deal more trouble with this Bill than he otherwise would.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I simply say to my noble friend that I am not in a position to accept this amendment. If the House feels strongly on this issue, then it is important that it tests the amendment in a Division. Accepting it is not something that I am able to do or, frankly, that I think would make any material difference to government policy.
Lord Deben (Con)
I do not want this to start off so badly, but the fact is that many of us do not want to have various bits of this amendment and it is not our fault that my noble friend has been offered the opportunity to make this statement. I have to ask him: is he really going to stand up and say that, if just that bit were put in at Third Reading, he would whip his side to vote against it? If he did that—and that is the only way in which he could stand behind refusing such an amendment—then that seems to open up the reality of the question that he has been asked.
I agree with him about statements. I am constantly attacking the Government for not doing the things that are necessary to achieve the ends that they have so nobly accepted, so he must not accuse me of being in favour of declarations. However, when he has been asked to make a declaration and he does not do so, that seems to me to be a very different circumstance.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Perhaps I have misunderstood my noble friend. If he is asking me to acknowledge, as I have done many times in this House and outside it, that we face a biodiversity and climate emergency then I believe I have already done so. However, it is not for me to unilaterally accept an amendment on behalf of the Government that would have no material impact. As my noble friend says, we have made some big commitments; accepting the amendment would not change our commitment to net zero or to reversing biodiversity loss by 2030, or indeed in relation to any of these issues. I am afraid I have to come back to my noble friend and others by saying that if the feeling is strong then this issue needs to be put to a Division.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
I would just like to get clarification on this. Since it is now so difficult to table an amendment at Third Reading, it needs my noble friend to say that he would consider it before Third Reading. As I understand it, that would allow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to bring it back at Third Reading. If my noble friend is point blank saying that he will not even consider it, then the noble Lord has no alternative but to divide the House.
As I said, I like subsection (1) of the proposed new clause but not the rest of the amendment, which puts me and indeed quite a lot of us on the Benches behind my noble friend in an extremely difficult position. I think it is essential, as my noble friend Lord Deben said, that we get subsection (1), but we would have to vote for the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in order to get it into the Bill.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Could I summarise what I think I have heard the noble Lord say?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid the noble Baroness cannot summarise. The rules in the Companion are quite clear that interruptions on Report are solely for points of clarification. I think we should let the Minister move on with this.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I have been told to finish but I am not sure how; this is the first time I have been asked to finish in these circumstances. I will repeat what I said earlier: all I can suggest to the House is that if feelings are strong then this question should be put to a Division. I do not see an alternative to doing so.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, in all my time in this House, this is the first time that I have got to a point where the Minister is calling for a Division on an amendment that he does not agree with. We have perhaps made history this afternoon.
This is a very serious matter. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. If subsection (1) had been accepted by the Government then I would have been in a great dilemma, because it does not quite say what I wanted to say but gets pretty close to it. The reason why it is written as it is, I have to say, is partly because of the Public Bill Office. I would have appreciated the Government’s help in getting it right and we could have done that at Third Reading, but we are not in that position.
I want to be quite clear about this. These are key issues where what we say matters as much as what we need to do. All of us here believe there is no difference between saying what we want and actually doing it; we all know that we need both of those, not just one. The Bill goes on to do a lot of what we need in some of those areas.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her in-depth look at biodiversity. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Bennett, and other Members have said, biodiversity has to be brought into greater focus. The point is that, in public life as in private, there is a big difference between acceptance and public declaration. That is why the amendment is so important for the Bill and why I, like the Minister, would like to test the opinion of the House.
“(e) soil health and quality.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment indicates that soil health and quality are a priority area for environmental improvement.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Amendment 2 appears in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Curry of Kirkharle and Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I thank them all for their support, as well as others who would have offered their support had there been space under our procedures.
We have here a very simple amendment, but an improved amendment from Committee. As I listened to the discussion in Committee, it became obvious that we really needed to ensure that this amendment addresses both the health and quality of soil. I am simplifying slightly—I refer noble Lords to the discussion in Committee—but in a sense, in recent decades we have come to realise, in a way we had not before, that soils are complex ecosystems in their own right. The “health” element of this amendment very much addresses that biology aspect, whereas the “quality” element speaks more specifically to the chemical and physical composition of the soil. It is interesting that in our first debate today, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, highlighted the importance of soils when we are talking about biodiversity and climate. That is a useful introduction to this debate.
We debated soils at great length in Committee, so I will just briefly summarise some of the points raised. The UK loses more than 3 million tonnes of topsoil every year. Soil is degraded even while it remains in situ; almost 4 million hectares are at risk of compaction—the life and air squashed out of the soil, mostly by the passage of heavy farm machinery. Soil can also be contaminated through dangerous, damaging substances being swept or blown or landing on it—or still sometimes, sadly, being deliberately placed on it through error or fraud. We are also just beginning to understand micro- plastic pollution, something that cannot be escaped anywhere on this planet. Soils are stores of carbon too, of course. They are rich ecosystems and stores of life and biodiversity on a scale that we have barely begun to understand.
It is important to acknowledge that the Government, at least in some quarters, recognise the scale of this issue. The 25-year environment plan—supposedly the big, set-piece document outlining what the Government intend to do on many pressing issues—says that England’s soils must be sustainably managed by 2030. To drive home that point, that is little more than eight years away. In terms of farming practice, farmers are buying new machinery now that they might expect to use for many decades. In terms of the need urgently to plant trees, which is a soil health and quality issue as well as one in so many other areas, eight years is obviously not very long at all for them to reach any kind of size. Food manufacturers will have to think about their plans for the future and what crops might be available to them.
I credit the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for highlighting in Committee how your Lordships’ House, after a long wrestle, got a significant reference to soil in the Agriculture Act. This is very much its sister Bill, so surely we have to do the same thing here to get the two fitting and working together. In the priority areas of this Bill we have air and water quality, then there is a gap where soil obviously belongs and where this amendment puts it.
I want to address a couple of the points the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond, made in Committee. One response was that
“the Bill gives us the power to set legally-binding long-term targets on any aspect of the natural environment”.
A Secretary of State could set a target at any time, but given that there are a scant eight years to reach the Government’s own aim of 2030, why wait? Why would a world-leading Government wait?
The second response from the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was that there is not enough information and knowledge about soils to know what the targets could be. I acknowledge, as I did in Committee, that there is a dreadful shortage of information on and understanding of soils. This is a result of the failure to fund independent agricultural research extending over decades and the outsourcing of it to agrochemical companies that have advocated highly profitable—for them—practices which have had such a disastrous impact on soil health and quality. I suggest that the Minister then contradicted himself when he said:
“Developing targets is an iterative process”.
In other words, this is something that is developed, evolved and finessed over time. These targets can be set, improved, developed and worked through. What we need in this Bill is a statement that soil has to be there with air and water.
Without this amendment, we have a Bill that is a two-legged stool. Someone pointed out to me that they were once used in dairy farming because you could wobble by hanging on to the cow, but that is not quite a practical arrangement for a legal process. Stools need three legs. What this small, modest, but important amendment does is put that third leg on the stool. In our Committee debate, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said that soil
“warrants its own independent priority status”
and added that
“we are in danger of giving it a permanently second-tier status”—[Official Report, 21/6/21; cols. 87-93.]
without the addition of this amendment. If we are going to be able to grow our food, cultivate and support our natural world and store the carbon that we must in the coming years, decades and centuries, this amendment has to be in this Bill.
Noble Lords will note that the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, who might be expected to be in his place and commenting on this amendment, having attached his name to it, is not here. The noble Lord asked me to send his personal apologies for being unable to be here and to share some of his thoughts. He said: “I have attached my name to this amendment because it is illogical not to include soil health and quality as a key environmental indicator. Soil is our most precious asset, and its status will determine whether or not we achieve net zero by 2050 and whether or not we can feed 10 billion people by 2050. Nothing can be more important than these two objectives. The Republic of Ireland has just committed €10 million to carrying out a nationwide soil testing programme to establish a baseline of soil health and quality. We have the opportunity to do the same through the ELMS if we specify the standard of testing required and create a national database. Why could we not take this unique opportunity to position ourselves as global leaders in this crucial area, particularly with COP 26 approaching?”
I have indicated informally and will now indicate formally that, unless I hear an acceptance from the Minister that the Government will put the final leg on the stool, I intend to push this amendment to a vote. I really feel we can do nothing else; we will be utterly failing the future if we do not do this. I beg to move.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, the Climate Change Committee has made it very clear that the soil is a crucial part of our remediation policies to deal with climate change. I declare an interest because, in a small way, I am an organic farmer and I have a son who is particularly interested in and works with those who want to use soil for sequestration. Whatever one’s interests may be, it is quite clear that the importance of soil is universal; it is a world problem. We have reduced the fertility of our soil almost universally over the past 40 and 50 years. I often want to say that five a day is worth about what four a day might have been some time ago. I am not sure that is scientifically accurate, but it expresses what the difference is—not only is it the fertility of the soil, but the trace elements in the soil.
What is rather curiously called “conventional farming” suffers from the problem that is does not put back the richness of the soil in the same way that historic methods of farming have done. We have to recognise that we have to change, because we cannot go on doing this. If you come, as I do, from the east of England, you know that more and more conventional famers are recognising that the way we farm gives us very few more harvests because we are denuding the soil.
The first reason that soil is crucial is because it is getting far less useful—if we only want to look at it from a utilitarian point of view. The second reason is because we need it to be better able to sequester. That means we really have to bring the soil back to the kind of strength that it had before the war.
The third reason it is crucial is that there are particular soils with special issues. I draw my noble friend’s attention to the question of peatland, which is a remarkable and wonderful sequester of carbon. But if it is ruined or torn up, it becomes the opposite and it exhales carbon, so we have a double whammy. The fact is that the Government have not even embarked on a peatland policy that will reach the level the Climate Change Committee says is essential to meet net zero—to restore all our peatlands by 2045. If we do it at the speed which is, at the moment, being celebrated by Defra, we will not get there.
It is crucially important—some sort of animal has just landed on me and clearly wishes to sequester upon me—to note that, unless we act on soil, we have very little chance of reaching net zero, because the “net” bit of net zero is about sequestration. It is not just about planting trees, although that is crucially important; it is about the whole way we deal with soil, including how we deal with the bare period, which should be covered, and the sorts of things that we can do and which we have to make sure are part of ELMS when it comes to the detail. All those things are essential.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to a very interesting thing: of earth, air and water, earth is the first. Again, one comes back to the words of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, who reminded us of the nature of the Lord’s Prayer.
It is very important that soil should be part of this. My reason for speaking is simply because we have made that very clear in the Climate Change Committee’s report—which has been accepted by the Government and is the basis of our commitment to net zero and the way in which we are going to get there. It would be a great pity if we cannot find a way of including soil. It may be that the way the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, wants to do it has some technical problem which I have not so far seen, and I am perfectly prepared to be led down some path which enables some other way of doing this. But if we do not include soil, we are again saying something. There is no such thing as being able to negative something without making a statement. Therefore, we either have to do what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would like us to do, or we have to find another way of making sure that soil is part of this.
I end by saying to my noble friend that there is a particular reason why Defra should be saying this: we have not heard enough from Defra about how we are going to improve the soil—we have not heard enough about the details. Therefore, we are not sure that Defra has really taken this on board. The Climate Change Committee is, I think, trying to say to Defra that this is central. For example, we have not yet banned horticultural peat. What on earth are we doing making it worse? We could do that immediately; the industry is ready for it, but we have not yet done it because we are still talking. Climate change gives us no time to talk about this—something that we should have done a long time ago. Please can we have this in the Bill, so that we know where we are and the Government can be held to it?
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the way that she presented it and added a few more points from the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in his absence. Now, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has spelled out most of what I was about to say. The reality is that this is a very straightforward amendment and one which would be easy, sensible and logical for the Minister to accept.
In relation to the back end of the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, Defra really has no excuse now. I have to admit that, 20 years ago, when I was a Defra Minister, soil management was not very high on the agenda; it was there, and it was vaguely there in the common agricultural policy and agro-environment schemes, but it was very low priority. And yet it is such a central issue to life on this earth and the future of the human race that we have a soil—both cultivated and in the wild—that will continue to be sustainable and be resilient enough to provide the multitudinous plants that sustain life for ourselves and for almost every other species on earth.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment very strongly. First, I declare my interests—for the whole of Report—as a farmer and landowner, as chair of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and as chair of an internet parking business.
For too long, in this country and elsewhere, we have ignored the importance of the 1 billion bacteria that should exist in every teaspoonful of our top-soil. We have ignored their vital importance for the foundation of life on our planet—food, habitats, everything. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has just said, the situation is particularly serious in sub-Saharan Africa, where we are losing good agricultural soils at a devastating rate. While obviously this Bill can do nothing about that, it would be good if the UK could lead by example and set the model for others to follow. Having soil as a priority area in our Environment Bill, and later, when we come to Amendment 18, having a serious soil management strategy, would be a good way to do this and would create a model for other countries to follow. I commend the emphasis on soils in this amendment and look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment very strongly. I speak as the chair of the Adaptation Committee of the Committee on Climate Change. In June this year, we gave our advice to the Government on climate risks faced by the UK, and three of our eight urgent priorities are to do with the impacts of the changing climate on our soils—so it is not just those historic and current farming practices but the fact that our soils now have to put up with droughts, floods, high temperatures and wildfires. Of course, these are unfortunately only going to get worse. This means that we are giving them a very hard time—yet we are expecting them to sequester carbon and support the 30,000 to 50,000 hectares of trees that we need to be planting per annum to meet net zero, and we are expecting them to support increased food productivity to make room for planting those trees. We are expecting a lot from our soils; they need the support of this amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I added my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I was pleased to do so because I, like others who have spoken, realise the importance of soil. In fact, I doubt that there is anyone in this Chamber today who does not appreciate that.
The question is whether we should put this where it is on the face of the Bill. As has already been said, my noble friend Lord Caithness’s amendment about a soil strategy will come later. I am very taken with the idea of putting this in the Bill. However, I have one note of caution. The next amendment, which I will speak to, will put in something else that I think is a priority, and I dare say that there are plenty of, or quite a few, others that people could put forward as priorities—we have our own pet subjects. I really want to hear from my noble friend the Minister—I know that he believes in this—what Defra and the Government are taking seriously about this and how they will deal with it. This may not be the way to put it forward in the Bill, but at the moment it seems like the best way. I am very taken with my noble friend Lord Caithness’s amendment that we will come to later, which might be a better alternative. That said, I shall listen to what my noble friend says.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to be of good cheer and believe that this is the solution—because it seems to me that we have heard, from many noble Lords of high esteem, just how important soil is as a fundamental part of the environment. Indeed, two of the Government’s priorities in Clause 1(3), “water” and “biodiversity”, are crucially dependent on soils, apart from anything else. It is true to say that, as well as very many noble Lords being able to lay down the case very clearly for soil being part of the Government’s priority list, the Government themselves have said that: in their 25-year environment plan, they mentioned soil quality 17 times, so it does not seem to me to beyond the wit of man to believe that that looks like a bit of a priority and probably ought to be in this list.
I know that, in Committee, the Minister said that the science will not let us measure soil health, but there has been research on soil quality for the last 50 years, and lots of measures have been put forward as indicators of soil health, ranging from microbes to organic matter to earthworms. The Government just need to make a stab at a basket of indicators and get on with measuring and incentivising improvement.
Although I have banged on for many years about government needing to incentivise people to produce outcomes, in this particular case I want to recant from that and ask for the reverse practice, which is to incentivise practices that have a proven effect for good on soil health. If we can get farmers, land managers and others who have an impact on the soil to do the right things, good soil quality will result.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked about a few of those things, such as minimum tillage, crop rotations, applications of manures and composts, use of cover crops and effective management of field margins. If farmers and land managers were incentivised to do all of those, we would be almost absolutely guaranteed to be improving the health of the soil. As such, I urge the Minister: soil health is too important to say, “It is too difficult” and to leave it out of the Government’s priority list.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Randall for pointing out that my Amendment 18 is coming up, complementing this amendment in that it asks the Government to “prepare a soil … strategy”. No one could have put it better than the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, just now, and much of what she said is reflected in the wording that I have in Amendment 18, which we shall come to.
However, the Government must include plans for the integration of soil management with environmental objectives, such as climate mitigation, flood-risk minimisation, water-quality measures and policies relating to food production. All of this is so integrated that, unless one has a comprehensive approach to it, one will fail. In my view, it is very sad that the Government have got policies for air and water but no statutory policy for soil. My Amendment 18, which I will not speak to at length because I am speaking to this amendment, is equally as important as this amendment.
My noble friend Lord Deben mentioned that soil is a great sequestrator of carbon. Indeed it is, but saying “soil” is like saying “fruit”—there are so many different types of soil that a different approach will have to be taken on most farms, probably, because the soil varies so much. Some of the sandy soils are not terribly good sequestrators; they could be made much better with improved farm management, but, if you have a heavy clay soil, you have an inbuilt advantage for sequestration from day 1.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said how little Defra spent on soil. It is rather frightening that only 0.4% of the environmental budget is spent on soil—that is a catastrophically low amount of money, which is why this amendment is so important and why my Amendment 18 is equally important. The whole question of soil and research needs much more expenditure and we need to be clearer on it, but let us have one basic fact in mind: about 25% of our biodiversity is in our soil. That is why we need to get this amendment—and mine —in the Bill.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I should note, for the record and for the whole of Report, my interest as a Devon farmer. For many years, we have been adding organic matter to our porous red sandstone soils to increase sequestration, combat run-off, build resilience to drought, decrease the need for chemical fertilisers and provide Teignbridge District Council with somewhere to put all the garden waste.
In Committee, we debated a number of potentially priority areas in Clause 1(3). I am glad that this one in particular has returned, and I will strongly support it. I would have added my name to it if it had not been so eminently oversubscribed. I am less keen on Amendment 3, the light-pollution amendment, which pales in comparison and importance to this one.
The prior debate on these amendments only explained how important this is. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that our understanding of soils is
“not as complete as it should be.”—[Official Report, 21/6/21; col. 95.]
He begged for more time to gather the necessary data. There is simply no more time to do so: our soils are in a crisis and have only a few harvests left, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords. If it is not a priority, how will we ever gather that data? How will Defra be instructed to gather it? The absence of data is seriously damaging the debate on environmental matters, and it is encouraging a number of extremes.
Take the debate on grass-fed meat and dairy. It is a topic close to the hearts of all Devon farmers. We all agree on the negative impact of indoor lot-fed meat and dairy consuming grain and soya in terrible welfare conditions, but no one knows the net environmental impact of beef and sheep fed on the ancient green pastures of the West Country because the data and the science are not there and everybody has an argument. This was confirmed to me just last week in discussions with an eminent environmental scientist at Exeter University. We really need that data, and this amendment needs to be made to encourage Defra to collect it.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, we very much thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for moving this amendment on soil. As noble Lords have mentioned, if we do not have soil as a priority area, how will we have the sustainable food we need in future and how will we support the essential microbial organisms that live in and on the soil? Indeed, as noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, asked, how will we manage our carbon sequestration and net-zero targets without that? It is absolutely essential that the Government make soil a priority.
We accept some of the arguments put forward by the Minister in Committee—the noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred to them—concerning issues that the Government have had. The progress achieved has not yet resolved the definition and description of soil quality. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said in Committee, it is something of a chicken-and-egg situation. Do you have the research base first so that you can sort out the targets or do you need the targets first to ensure that you then get the information?
That pertinent point has informed our thinking on this because there are other ways in which the Government could show that soil is the priority it needs to be. For example, they could go along the route of the soil strategy of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. It is a compelling approach; he sees it as complementary. Perhaps that is another route. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, this House wants the Government to show that soil is a fundamental, critical issue and, as the Member’s explanatory statement says, to indicate
“that soil health and quality are a priority area for environmental improvement.”
That is the purpose of the amendment. The question is whether the route taken—having a long-term target—is the best way forward. I must say, I have gone back and forth in my mind about whether it is, but I have come down in favour of supporting the noble Baroness’s approach should she press this amendment to a vote because, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said, we must undertake this research to ensure that we can define and describe soil quality. It is a fundamental requirement for us to get the point where we can achieve what we need to on soil quality.
In my mind, if we do not set soil as a priority area, there is a real risk that the Government could choose to spend money in other areas. In future years, there will be myriad requests of Defra for research in the environmental field. We have so much to do in such a short space of time. Projects will come in left, right and centre, looking for money to take forward. If we do not specify that we have a long-term target for soil health, there is a real fear that future Defra budgets will be under serious constraints to deliver that necessary work.
Therefore, unless the Minister can, in summing up, assure the House that there will not be a curtailment of finances to resource this essential work on soil in future—we have to do that work to protect soil for all the important reasons outlined so eloquently by others —we will support the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has spoken eloquently on this issue, both in Committee and during this stage of the Bill.
By failing to list soil health alongside air, water and biodiversity in the Bill, the Government have missed the opportunity to list the important aspect of monitoring soil health as a means of improving the environment. I hope that they can address this and show that they mean business by giving the important issue of soil health the attention it requires. We are all aware of the firm commitment to improved soil health in the new Agriculture Act, yet, to reverse the degradation of our soils and return them to a healthy state nationally, we need a long-term commitment to monitoring at both the farm and national level.
The simple truth is that, without a functioning monitoring programme, we are being kept in the dark over the state of our soils. A freedom of information request made by the Sustainable Soils Alliance revealed that, unlike for water and air, no single policy instrument exists to improve and protect them, and they are suffering as a result. As a BBC article states, the alliance discovered that
“just 0.41% of the cash invested in environmental monitoring goes on examining the soil”—
a point also made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. The article goes on:
“That’s despite the fact that soils round the world—including in the UK—are said to be facing a crisis. The figures are startling: £60.5m goes to monitoring water quality, £7.65m to checking on air—but just £284,000 to auditing soil … Its director … told BBC News: ‘This figure is staggering—but not surprising. It reflects the widespread under-investment in soil health compared to air and water. We could be actually saving money—and the environment—by investing in soil monitoring because understanding soil would tell us a great deal about the health of our water and air too.’ … A report by the Commons Environment Audit Committee in 2016 warned that some of the UK’s most fertile fields were losing so much soil they could become unproductive within a generation … The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) told BBC News”—
this was in March last year—
“it was planning to design an indicator for healthy soils, and to establish a new national soil monitoring scheme. It says powers in the Agriculture Bill could be used to support the monitoring.”
What is the update on this? Currently, we see no evidence that Defra will commit to funding soil monitoring.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made the point that we just have not heard enough from Defra. My noble friend Lord Whitty said that there can be no time for excuses from Defra. What does the Minister plan to do to address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and noble Lords across the House regarding the lack of references to soil health in the Bill, and to ensure that soil health is not left as an afterthought? I know that he will refer the House to the power in Clause 1 to give the Government the ability to
“set long-term targets in respect of any matter which relates to … the natural environment, or … people’s enjoyment of the natural environment.”
However, this power must be used actively to focus government action on environmental improvement in areas where the need is greatest.
We urge the Government to address the clear desire for stronger action on monitoring soil health through the target development process that the Bill will establish. This must be done holistically and transparently with early and effective stakeholder engagement. The Government should publish a timetable and plan for how they intend to progress targets. On current performance, they are failing soil health and, ultimately, the environment.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in particular, for tabling Amendment 2 on soil health. She made a compelling speech, as she did in a previous session, describing soil as an ecosystem in its own right: an ecosystem—or ecosystems—that we are plundering and destroying at an extraordinary rate of millions of tonnes every year.
It is often cited as an example of extraordinary human progress that we have managed to treble food production in the past 40 years, and that is true, but we have done so at the expense, undoubtedly, of many future generations. It is the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, pointed out, that many of the bread baskets of the world have been pretty rapidly converted into deserts. According to the latest data that I have seen, at least 500,000 small farmers in the world are currently having to deal with diminishing yields as a consequence of their impoverished soils. As a Minister in the FCDO with some responsibility for part of our ODA budget, this is something I am trying very hard to shift the focus towards, so that it is a problem that, I hope, the UK will be able to have a positive impact on.
Bringing this back to the domestic, I would like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that we are working out now how to develop the appropriate means of measuring soil health. It is complicated but we are doing that work and its results could be used to inform a future soils target. However, as I outlined a number of times in Committee, long-term targets set under the framework of the Bill have to be capable of being objectively measured. If we commit in the Bill to setting a target by 2022, without the reliable metrics needed to set a target, and then measure its progress, we could be committing to doing something that ultimately we cannot deliver or might not even know whether we have delivered it. We therefore cannot commit to set a soil target in the Bill, but I can assure the noble Baroness of a number of things.
The first is that we are focusing our efforts already on developing a soil health measuring and monitoring scheme, which will produce a baseline assessment of soil health against which change can be measured. This, as I said, could inform a future long-term soil target. Secondly, we are currently identifying soil health metrics as the basis of a healthy soils indicator. This will complement a future soil health monitoring scheme by providing a straightforward measure—
The Earl of Devon (CB)
Does the Minister accept that under Clause 1(2) we need to set only a single metric? Is he saying that there is not a single metric that Defra can set that would impact soil? Is that correct?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I was coming to the point made by the noble Earl. As part of the soil health measuring and monitoring scheme, we are developing methodology to enable visual field assessments of soil health to be carried out by farmers and land managers across all land uses and all soil types. That will be supported by the development of field protocols and the production of field guides instructing land managers how to do the sampling. That work will, we hope, be a user-friendly and relatively easy way of measuring long-term trends, which I think is what the noble Earl was getting at—trends that can easily be understood by those on the ground who actually manage the soil. Data collected by land managers will then provide a baseline for an informal, non-statutory target, which in turn could inform the future, robust and well-evidenced soil health target that will be established under the Environment Bill. The data from the soil structure scheme would feed into future soil health monitoring.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, we are also proposing additional actions that support land managers and farmers to achieve sustainable soil management. For example, the sustainable farming incentive scheme—she referred to it as ELM, but I think it is now referred to as the sustainable farming incentive scheme—includes practices such as the introduction of herbal leys, the use of grass-legume mixtures, cover crops and so on.
I make two additional points. The first, very briefly, is that by setting, as we are committing to do in the Bill, a 2030 biodiversity target, and having already set, on the advice of the Climate Change Committee, a net-zero target by 2050, in addition to all the other targets that are either in the pipeline or already committed to, it is inconceivable that we could achieve either of those headline targets without addressing soil, for all the reasons mentioned and explained so well by noble Lords today: we cannot get to net zero without addressing soil.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned peatlands, which are particularly important for the reasons he described. Although I think we shall debate this issue later—potentially today in response to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—I just mention that earlier this year we published the England Peat Action Plan, setting out the long-term vision for large-scale management, protection and restoration of our peatlands, which are critical carbon stores but, when mismanaged, can become a source of carbon. This will enable them to deliver a huge range of benefits for people, wildlife and the planet. It sets out a number of policies to achieve that vision: the announcement of a nature for climate peatland grant scheme, through the Nature for Climate Fund; an immediate commitment to restoring 35,000 hectares through that fund; a commitment to end the use of peat in amateur horticulture by the end of this Parliament; longer-term plans that we are setting out, as all departments are, in our net-zero strategy—peatlands will be a critical part of getting to net zero; and a new spatial map of England’s peatlands to enable us to make more robust estimates around the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands and to prioritise investment in restoration.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I thank the Minister very much for allowing me to intervene briefly. I want to wind back a few moments in his response to this debate, in which he said, as I heard it, that we will not be able to achieve the biodiversity target without improving soil health. I want to clarify what was meant by that. Does it mean that, in the indicator species that will be part of the biodiversity target and halting species decline—the billion bacteria to which my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington referred, as well as the tens of thousands of protozoa and fungi in a single teaspoon of soil—they will be part of the species abundance target and therefore soil health will be folded into that objective?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. We will talk in detail about the target shortly—perhaps even next—but my point is less about the individual fungi or bacteria; it is that you cannot deliver a reversal of our catastrophic biodiversity loss without tackling ecosystems and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, make plain in her speech, soil is the basis of so much of our biodiversity and ecosystems, so it is logical that you cannot do one without the other—and likewise with net zero, for all the reasons that my noble friend Lord Deben pointed out.
So, as I have outlined, we are very much on the case. We are developing a metric and prioritising soil health in numerous ways, through this Bill but also other actions. The amendment would undoubtedly pre-empt the process of developing that metric and, for that reason, we cannot accept it—but, with the assurances I gave, I hope that the noble Baroness can be persuaded to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I think this has been some of your Lordships’ House at its finest and I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. It is extraordinarily striking that, from all corners of this House, we have seen overwhelming support for Amendment 2.
I do feel I must address the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who signed the amendment and then expressed some concern about it. I do not believe that there is any form of conflict or competition between this amendment and Amendment 18 from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. This amendment sets out that there must be a target; Amendment 18 sets out a process, scheme and operational activity. So they are not in competition. I strongly urge your Lordships’ House to support the noble Earl’s amendment. Indeed, I attempted to sign it, but, as with a number of others, it was already oversubscribed.
I should love to go through so many contributions—each has added something to the debate—and acknowledge them all, but I know that some of the people who are keen for the Bill to progress would be right on my case if I did that, so I will not. But I shall pick out just a couple of contributions, because I think they are particularly important. They are from two members of the Climate Change Committee: the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. This is the expert view saying that the amendment needs to be in the Bill; that is the independent view, in all senses. The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, made a point that no one else has made in our long discussion of soils, about the way in which climate change is putting pressure on soils: drought, flood, fires and all the extra damage to what has already been done.
I also want to note the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. She has been a particularly fervent supporter of this amendment, and I thank her for that. I also thank her for counting the number of times that soil quality appears in the 25-year plan; I confess that I had not done that. That shows that the Government kind of see the issue but are just really not engaging with it in the Bill.
So I will address a couple of points that the Minister made. He talked a lot about what Defra is doing operationally and what it is setting out, but he did not really address my point that the 25-year plan says that we will have sustainable management of soils by 2030. How can we do that without having this long-term target to progress towards—without, indeed, having the noble Earl’s strategy? It was particularly telling that one of the other chief points of the Minister’s argument was, “Oh, well, we deal with these other things—biodiversity and water—and that will fix soils”. That is making soils a second-order issue, which is putting it in profoundly the wrong place. This amendment puts it in the right place: in the Bill. As we have discussed in so many other areas, whatever the department might be doing under one Secretary of State, there is no guarantee that it will continue under another Secretary of State. Issues must be put in the Bill.
I well understand the pressures in your Lordships’ House against calling votes; I understand the desire to progress the Bill. But, having listened very carefully to the Minister and having heard the very strong support for the amendment from all sides of your Lordships’ House, I must ask to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“(e) light pollution.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to set a commitment to act on matters which relate to light pollution that are currently omitted from this Bill. It aims to ensure that the Government must produce targets to reduce levels of light pollution in England.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 3 in my name is also in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to whom I am grateful. I declare my environmental and conservation interests as on the register, and it is also relevant—although not registerable—that I am a member of Buglife, the invertebrate NGO. Perhaps one of the flies which have been annoying my noble friend Lord Deben is an agent.
Artificial lights disrupt the world’s ecosystems, human health and, I submit, society in general. Most of the earth’s population is affected by light pollution, as 80% live under skyglow, and very few in the UK can experience a natural night sky from where they live. Those few who do see a night sky naturally without light pollution are amazed by what they see on a clear night.
Light pollution is increasing from a variety of sources, including residences, public infrastructure such as lighting along motorways, and industrial activity such as energy infrastructure. Ironically, the rapid switch to LEDs is contributing to the installation of brighter lights, in places increasing light pollution and missing the opportunity to reduce it. That is ironic because LED is much better for the environment if used appropriately.
The 25-year plan for the environment states:
“We must ensure that noise and light pollution are managed effectively.”
However, no indication of how existing light pollution will be reduced has been proposed by Her Majesty’s Government. As far as I can see, the Environment Bill does not currently offer a suitable location for this form of pollution to be addressed. The amendment would ensure that the Government set out how they will reduce light pollution levels.
In Committee, 12 noble Lords spoke in favour of my very similar amendment on light pollution, covering a range of issues including the impact on invertebrates, astronomy, human health and bats, among other things. I was extremely grateful for their powerful arguments and I am extremely grateful for the many who support today’s amendment in the Chamber and elsewhere. Noble Lords shared their own experience of light pollution and provided compelling reasons why this issue should be included in the Bill.
In his reply, my noble friend the Minister did not seem to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of environmental and health damage. His response, as drafted, was disappointingly focused rather narrowly on uncertainty about whether it has been proved that light pollution is the main driver of insect loss. That is one of the main reasons why I tabled this amendment: because I do not think we had a proper discussion of some of the other harmful effects of light pollution. Perhaps his department was unaware of the recent science review “Light pollution is a driver of insect declines”, published by Owens and others in 2020. Since that debate, many noble Lords may have seen that newly published evidence has confirmed that light pollution has a negative effect on local moth populations. The response given in Committee also did not address the other issues raised in the debate or recognise the cross-departmental benefits that reducing light pollution would bring.
In recent years, evidence of the impacts of light pollution on species and ecosystems has grown and consolidated. Increased artificial light at night is now directly linked to measurable negative impacts on energy consumption, human health, and wildlife such as bats, birds, insects, reptiles, amphibians, mammals and plants. As I mentioned in Committee, noble Lords who saw the David Attenborough documentary will have seen turtles, instead of going towards the moon as they go back to sea, going back to some taverna on a Greek shore. This resulted in many of their deaths.
Unnecessary artificial light increases financial costs and contributes to greenhouse emissions. I submit that light pollution should be treated with the same disdain with which we treat other forms of pollution. As I mentioned, recent studies from Germany suggest that a third of insects attracted to street lights and other fixed-light sources will die. This results in the death of an estimated 100 billion insects in Germany every summer. As many noble Lords will recognise, insects are an incredibly important part of our whole ecosystem.
My amendment aims to set a commitment to act on matters relating to light pollution that are currently omitted from the Bill and would ensure that the Government must produce targets to reduce levels of light pollution in England. I will not go through all the examples I have written down, because I think that many people know them for themselves; besides which, we are a little pressed for time. However, speaking as a trustee of the Bat Conservation Trust, I know that artificial lighting can cause many problems for bats, including disrupting their roosting and feeding behaviour and their movement through the landscape. In the worst cases, that can directly harm these protected species. Even hedgehogs have been shown to avoid lighting, restricting their movements in areas of high artificial light.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on one of his and my pet topics. He has covered the issue extremely well. We have all had a very good briefing from Buglife, which I thank very much, supported by Butterfly Conservation, the Bat Conservation Trust, Froglife, the Mammal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society. This comes from a lot of areas of expertise. They all draw attention to the fact that light pollution impacts on humans and other species. I argue that it also impacts on the planet in terms of energy consumption and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, whether we use LED lights or not. It deserves a place in the Environment Bill.
The last comprehensive consideration of this issue by the Government was the 2009 report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Artificial Light in the Environment. Almost none of its recommendations have been implemented, and tackling this cannot be achieved by planning alone. There is also the fact that humans have evolved to rely on the cycle of night and day to govern our physiology. I am a very primitive soul: I would actually like to go to bed when it gets dark and I always wake up at first light, so I am extremely vulnerable to light exposure at the wrong time. I would like the Government Whips to note that when they insist on keeping us here beyond 8 pm. It is inhuman; it goes against human health, and it leads to underperforming. There is also a link to health conditions. We are much better off if we understand that light pollution is not good for us and it is not good for other species.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned several species. I would like to add birds that migrate or hunt at night: they navigate by moonlight and starlight, so artificial light might cause them to fly to lit areas, which may or may not have their prey. Many marine species, such as crabs or zooplankton, are attracted to artificial lights, and that can disrupt their feeding and life cycle. All in all, it is an important environmental issue that we really should not ignore.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, there is very little that I can add to the speeches of the two noble Lords who have spoken already, but I will make one small point. The opportunity to prevent species’ decline and improve our environment is certainly presented by this Bill, and this amendment would assist. Addressing light pollution offers a simple solution for the species that we are trying to enhance and protect. We should bear in mind, however, that the pollution that we are trying to address does not linger when the source is dealt with—it is an easy win. It also has the added advantage of reducing carbon gases, so these two are major issues that are worth considering in relation to this amendment.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I spoke in favour of my noble friend Lord Randall’s similar amendment in Committee. I confess to being a little disappointed that the Minister has not brought forward an amendment to deal with this. While I think that adopting too many targets that cannot be realised is not necessarily a good thing, to adopt a target for light pollution would at least show that the Government accept that it should be included together with other types of pollution. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has just pointed out, it is certainly true that it can be dealt with immediately—unlike the soil—by just switching off lights or reducing the number of lights.
There is strong evidence that light pollution has a detrimental effect on birds, bats and insects. I am certainly no lover of clothes moths, and would love to find a way of introducing light pollution to my cupboards to protect my clothes, which have been devastated during lockdown. However, the Government are committed to increasing biodiversity, which means a wide range of species, including insects. Studies from Germany are among the clearest, as my noble friend Lord Randall pointed out, in showing how serious a problem light pollution is for insects, frogs, bats, birds and hedgehogs, among other species.
As for homo sapiens, we have indeed evolved to rely on the cycle of night and day to govern our physiology. We all know how exposure to light at the wrong time affects our mental functions. Light pollution is not included within the existing priority areas in the Bill. My noble friend’s amendment would provide clarity on how the Government could reduce the impact of light pollution on nature and, especially, on people’s enjoyment of it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have not yet participated in the discussion of light pollution during the stages of this Bill. That is not due to idleness: it is because at the times the Committee or the House were discussing the light pollution issue, I was double-booked on the Charities Bill or the Dormant Assets Bill, in both of which I have a particular interest. That failure means that I should be very brief this afternoon, and indeed I will be. I add my support to the very important point made by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and others, and will just make a comment about the all-pervasive nature of light pollution.
I have a house in Shropshire, on the Welsh border, well in the country, 500 feet up. If you go into my garden at night, the whole of the eastern horizon is suffused by the glow of the conurbation from Birmingham. If you swing your eyes round, you hit Kidderminster; south is Hereford; and even when you turn to the West—to Wales—there are frequent patches of light from small towns and villages. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give due weight to the very important points made by people who are much more expert in this area than I am.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, to which I have added my name. The noble Lord set out the case for this amendment previously in Committee and has reiterated his arguments this afternoon. I agree with him and the other speakers—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I declare my interest as a member of the APPG for Dark Skies and am lucky enough to live in a village with no street lighting. I appreciate, however, that street lighting is an issue that can divide communities. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that light pollution is not as important as soil quality, but it nevertheless has a place in this Bill.
Street and security lighting, which are on throughout the night, can have a number of serious side effects. For plants, there is no real darkness in which to rest; nocturnal animals, birds and insects become confused, and this affects their well-being and, subsequently, their numbers. As has already been stated, moths, in particular, being attracted to light, struggle to maintain their normal life patterns. This is particularly damaging, as moths are essential pollinators, which is something we do not always recognise as happening at night. The lack of a plentiful supply of insects and moths has a knock-on effect on bats, for whom they are the main food source. Over recent years we have seen a steady decline in the number of bats. For us humans, exposure to excessive artificial light can lead to sleep deprivation, which affects our overall health and well-being, as was so eloquently demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
A number of amendments will be debated over the next two weeks that seek to address climate change and redress the loss of biodiversity and species. Light pollution is undoubtedly contributing to this loss, and adding this amendment to the Bill would contribute towards halting and redressing it. The evidence is slim that switching off streetlights late at night causes a spike in crime. Security lights, which cause the greatest distress when excessive, should be focused on the ground, not pointing upwards towards the night sky.
There is also the effect on children’s development. The wonder of the stars at night is lost to millions of children who live in urban areas, where streetlights are never switched off at night. I am lucky enough that I can frequently go out and optimistically think that I can look for a UFO. I never see one, but I nevertheless look up into the dark sky.
The satellite illumination profile of our country shown on TV news programmes clearly demonstrates the level of light pollution over the whole country. There are very few dark sky areas. The exceptions tend to be the national parks, such as Exmoor, which has declared itself a dark sky area.
Light pollution may seem like a very minor issue for some people, but for me, it is absolutely vital that each one of us should be able, if we choose, to go outside at night and enjoy the night sky and the creatures that should, by right, be able to thrive in the darkness. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and hope that the Minister will, on this occasion, have some encouraging words for us.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has made important and eloquent points in relation to light pollution throughout the passage of the Bill. Not only is this crucial for our insects and wildlife, but it is important that we can see the stars and better understand our place in the universe.
The 25-year plan for the environment states:
“We must ensure that noise and light pollution are managed effectively.”
However, no indication of how existing light pollution will be reduced has been proposed by the Government and, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, indicated, the Environment Bill does not currently offer a suitable location for this form of pollution. The Minister needs to acknowledge and deal with this important area, as encouraged by the Government’s draft environmental principles, encompassing both precaution and prevention.
The briefing from Buglife, which, to be honest, the noble Lord might have authored himself, stipulated that light pollution is a real contamination of our environment. It affects not only human, animal and bird health but insect health—not only how they function but how they can act as pollinators. There are serious environmental consequences of light pollution.
In Committee, the Minister’s response did not acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of environmental and health damage, focusing narrowly on uncertainty about whether it has been proven that light pollution is a main driver of insect declines. I know we cannot vote on everything we care about, as we will never finish the Bill, but I use this opportunity to ask the Minister again what action the Government will take to reassure us and provide clarity on how they will reduce the impact of light pollution on nature and people’s enjoyment of it.
Existing UK law and regulations relating to light pollution do not provide sufficient guidance and are not strong enough to tackle its increasing impact. There are now several examples of countries that have introduced a national policy on light pollution, such as Germany, France, Mexico, South Korea, Croatia and Slovenia. Will the UK also produce a national plan intended to prevent, limit and specifically reduce light pollution, including a series of targets and a programme of monitoring?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for his Amendment 3.
As my noble friend campaigned for, the Bill requires the Government to set a legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030, and we will talk more about that shortly. But to meet a species abundance target we will need to address the multiple interacting causes of nature’s decline, including light pollution. This does not mean that we need to or should set targets for each and every cause of nature’s decline. The species abundance target will drive the right mix of policies and actions. For light pollution, this includes measures such as planning system controls for street lighting improvements. Through the designation of the dark sky reserves that a number of noble Lords mentioned, we are also working to protect exceptional nocturnal environments that bring great natural, educational and cultural enjoyment to members of the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, made a compelling case, as he did in Committee. I should start by saying that if I appear to play down the importance of light pollution, the seriousness of the issue or its impacts on a whole range of things, including biodiversity, that certainly was not my intention. I say that in response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Khan, as well. The noble Lord powerfully summarised the impacts of light pollution. He gave the example of insects in Germany, the turtle hatchlings which a number of us saw on that powerful Attenborough programme, and bats. I also saw the Buglife briefing, which was full of examples as to why this is such an important issue. I thank the noble Lord for bringing some of those recent papers to my attention. I can tell him that my officials are already in touch with many of the academics and researchers behind that work, as well as with the NGOs that have been cited by him and others. That work is happening.
Although I cannot accept the amendment, I can commit to the noble Lord that we will continue to take action both to minimise risks and to improve our understanding of the impact of light pollution. We will continue discussions with PHE—Public Health England—and DHSC, focusing on the impact of light pollution on human health and the best approaches with which to tackle it. I am also happy to relay the noble Lord’s points on the planning system and light pollution to ministerial counterparts in MHCLG, and I will ensure that his remarks both now and from a couple of months ago are conveyed to them.
It is probably worth noting that the National Planning Policy Framework includes consideration of the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation, but I do not think anyone pretends that this is an issue that has historically received the attention that it should. I hope that, using his powerful words, I will be able to move things a bit in MHCLG. I am also happy to confirm that we will continue to work with our academic partners to keep emerging evidence under review, and the Government can set a target in secondary legislation if it is judged to be the best way to deliver long-term environmental outcomes and subject to this review.
I hope this has reassured noble Lords that the Government are taking serious action to act against light pollution and that they agree that these amendments are therefore not necessary. I hope this reassures noble Lords and I beg the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I would like to thank my noble friend the Minister very much. He has gone a lot further than he was able to in Committee, and for that I am very grateful. I am also extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have lent their support and spoken in this debate. It is a very important issue and something that we will continue to hear about. While the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, is looking for UFOs, I tend to look for the drones from the Whips’ Office to keep an eye on me at these crucial stages of Report. So far, they have managed to keep away from me.
As I said, I am extremely grateful; we have had a good debate. I think the things my noble friend has said about the other departments are also very important, particularly planning. I have attended many planning meetings over the years, and I am not sure that that has ever really come up. Perhaps that is another tool that some people, when they are having big developments, should look at. So there are some good things. As the noble Lord opposite said, we cannot vote on everything. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—(a) be less than or equal to 10µg/m3, (b) so far as practicable, follow World Health Organization guidelines, and(c) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHO guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 4 and speak to Amendment 12. Both are in my name and the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and I thank them for their support.
Amendment 4 would ensure that the new legal target for fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, commits the Government to reducing this pollutant to within the existing World Health Organization guidelines by 2030 at the latest. Amendment 12 would ensure that the importance of protecting health is reflected in the target review process set out in the Bill. But before I get into the detail of why these amendments are so important, I express my thanks both to the Minister and to the Defra officials for their time in meeting with me and others during the Recess and for the detailed information provided on their work in this area.
In his response to our amendment on air quality in Committee, the Minister said that
“the Government recognise the importance of reducing concentrations of PM2.5 and the impact this has on our health.”—[Official Report, 23/6/21; col. 306.]
Air pollution is also recognised by the UK Government to be the single largest environmental risk to public health that we have.
In Committee, noble Lords drew the Minister’s attention to the role that air pollution played in the death of nine year-old Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. I was privileged recently to meet her mother, Rosamund, who shared with us her frustration at the Government’s lack of urgency in tackling damaging toxic air, despite recognising the serious health implications for people and communities. The motivation driving her campaign is simple: to make sure that what happened to her daughter does not happen to other people’s children. Amendment 54, in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, seeks to enshrine in law the recommendations of the coroner’s prevention of future deaths report into Ella’s death, and we strongly support it.
Sadly, air pollution accounts for eight to 12 deaths every year in London alone, and it is 13 to 15 year-olds who are most at risk. Until our air is clean, our children will continue to die. The Government must grasp the urgency of this. The UK currently complies with the less ambitious existing legal limit of PM2.5, which is double the WHO guideline. Reductions in this pollutant have stagnated in recent years, so setting a more ambitious target in the Bill would drive action to better protect people’s health. The Minister assured the Committee that the Government’s target on PM2.5 would be ambitious, and he acknowledged the gravity and urgency of the situation. However, we then heard that until the Government completed the ongoing work and consulted the public again about the kind of restrictions that would be needed to be placed upon us, particularly in large cities, it would not be appropriate to write that limit into law.
We understand that reducing PM2.5 to meet the WHO recommendations is not easy—there are uncertainties about the future and the impact of climate change, and there are natural ways in which these particulates are produced so we can never bring the limit down to zero. However, we are deeply concerned that the Government are still researching, modelling, discussing what to do and looking at further consultations two years after the publication of the clean air strategy and after the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, which provides independent advice to the Government, said that reducing concentrations below the WHO air quality guidelines would benefit public health.
We have SIs promised for October next year but no indication as to exactly what the targets will be. It worries me that the Government’s unwillingness to accept this target and put it in the Bill might reflect their concern that the target is simply not achievable. The Minister has previously informed your Lordships’ House that
“at this stage the full mix of policies and measures required to meet the current WHO guideline level of 10 micrograms per cubic metre is not yet fully understood”,—[Official Report, 23/6/21; col.306.]
yet in 2019 Defra had technical analysis from leading scientists at Imperial College London and King’s College London which concluded that achieving the WHO guideline of PM2.5 was technically feasible. The analysis also highlighted that the measures the Government have already committed to as part of their clean air strategy could take us 95% of the way towards the WHO recommendation for what should be the basic level of protection.
Further independent analysis by King’s College London commissioned by the Greater London Authority, which I referred to in our previous debate, has subsequently shown that, with additional action, achieving the WHO guideline of PM2.5 is feasible by 2030 in our most polluted city in this country. Surely that should remove the main barrier to achieving this goal. The Minister also referred to the Mayor of London study, confirming that officials were going through it and taking it into account. Does his department now agree with its findings, and what action is being taken as a result of it?
Today we have seen the publication of a report, funded by the Greater London Authority and carried out by researchers at Imperial College London, that provides a comprehensive overview of the most credible evidence of the links between air pollution and Covid-19. We already know that air pollution has harmful effects on the lungs, but until now it has been most associated with non-infectious or non-communicable diseases that cannot be directly transmitted between people—for example, the links between air pollution and cancer, stroke and asthma are all well established. Covid-19, however, is an infectious lung disease, and questions have begun to be asked about whether air pollution played a role in the spread of this devastating disease.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 54 in this group. Like my noble friend Lady Hayman, I had the privilege of meeting Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. I was at the meeting that she had with the Minister last week, and I thank him for being generous with his time. I am sure that, like my noble friend Lady Hayman, he could not help but be impressed by Rosamund’s humanity and commitment, and her determination to ensure that her daughter’s tragic death is not something that will happen to other families. That is why I have tabled this amendment, which I also tabled in Committee. I also very much support Amendments 4 and 12 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman.
In our meeting we were all in agreement—the Minister and Rosamund agreed about everything—until at the end there was the problem of the “but”. The Minister said, “Of course we will have to do some more consultation and look at this a bit further. We are with you, but”. Probably the only difference on both sides now is that “but”; apart from that, I think we are all in agreement. I hope that the Minister can go further than that today and give us some good news. If not, I know my noble friend Lady Hayman will test the opinion of the House on Amendment 4, and in those circumstances, I hope the House votes for it.
I want to talk about what happened to Ella. Rosamund and Ella lived near me in Lewisham. Ella died at the age of nine while suffering from one of the most serious cases of asthma ever recorded in the UK. Her chronic condition lasted 28 months. She suffered greatly, and fought to breathe right to the very end. On Ella’s final night in Lewisham, the borough recorded one of its worst spikes ever in air pollution. She had been hospitalised 28 times in 28 months, admitted to the ICU five times, and had fought back many times from the brink of death. Her condition meant that her lungs constantly filled up with mucus and made her feel that she was suffocating.
In December 2020 there was a landmark victory for Ella and her family. She became the first person in the UK—and the world—to have air pollution listed as a cause of death. The coroner, Philip Barlow, found that she had died of asthma that had been contributed to by exposure to excessive air pollution, and the primary source of that was traffic emissions.
Eight years after Ella’s death, we have also learned that between 36,000 and 40,000 people in the UK die prematurely due to exposure to air pollution annually, and that all of us suffer from its negative health effects. Thousands are impacted every year and, across the UK, 22 to 24 young people die of asthma, eight to 12 of them in London. The UK has one of the highest death rates from asthma in Europe. In countries such as Finland no child dies from asthma. Toxic air impacts on the health of all of us, from cradle to grave. It is now a public health emergency, and Covid has highlighted the inequalities in health.
This is, in many respects, a very good Bill, but it completely fails to address the issue of air quality. That is why we are tabling these amendments. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and give us more than the “but” that we got at our meeting with him last week. If not, I hope, as I have said, that my noble friend will divide the House. I will support Amendment 4 tonight. I support all the amendments: Amendments 4 and 12 and Amendment 54, to which I am speaking now.
All we are asking is that the Government adopt the World Health Organization’s guidelines and targets. That is a pretty reasonable way forward: the World Health Organization’s particulate matter targets. I hope that the Minister can give us some good news in his response to the debate.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I support Amendments 4 and 12, and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for the superb way in which she introduced this group and encapsulated the strength of feeling about the importance of these amendments.
I remind the House that air pollutants reach every organ of the body. They affect growing foetal tissue, not just adults. They affect organs as they develop in children and throughout people’s lives. Very small particles are a particular problem because they stay suspended in the air for prolonged periods and have a propensity to penetrate the deep parts of the lung. Ultrafine particles are especially problematic because in many respects they behave like a gas. As particles become smaller—into the nano scale—their surface area increases exponentially, so chemicals carried on their surface are released into cells and become bioavailable as toxins in the mitochondria within cells. The damage goes throughout the body.
The WHO guidelines are health-based and due to be revised downwards. They will not remain at their current level for many years: they will get tighter, because large epidemiological studies have shown that there are no safe levels of pollutant exposure. I remind the Government that as far back as 2001 their own advisory committee on air quality stated:
“Impact analysis of policies or specific developments, whether for industry, transport, housing etc, should take account of the interlinkages of emissions of air quality and climate change pollutants”.
That has still not occurred.
To increase the relevance of air pollution controls in environments where people live and move around requires greater input that takes into account real-life exposures in different settings, especially urban environments where people work and live close to busy roads and the foci of traffic congestion.
It has been shown in the bay area of California that there is a direct link between health impacts and the levels of pollutants in the air. There are enormous impacts, even from a single two-hour commute in a car. That has been shown to increase human stress metabolism, with very clear differences between people with normal lungs and those who are asthmatic. People with asthma are particularly vulnerable to air pollution.
I stress that point because, in addition to the growing evidence that air pollutant exposure increases susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, as has already been said it enhances the severity of, and likelihood of death from, a lot of other lung diseases. It is all linked to the social determinants of health. Ella’s death illustrates the tragedy for many.
I remind the House again: the UK has the worst death rate for asthma in Europe and one of the highest incidences of asthma. I worry that short-term finance is driving resistance from the Government, because monitoring levels of these very small particles requires different equipment from that in use at the moment. To avoid doing this properly, however, is a real false economy. Quite apart from tragic deaths, there is the cost to the health service and social care. By installing equipment to measure particulates equal to or less than 10 micrograms per metre cubed, the Government will be prepared and able to set an example to other nations when the WHO guidelines change.
This amendment sets a quality target with a deadline far enough ahead to be achievable. Delay will simply mean that we will be playing catch-up, rather than providing the leadership that is desperately needed.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have been working on the issue of air pollution for more than two decades. I thank Simon Birkett of Clean Air in London and Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, who are fantastic campaigners, and so tenacious. It moves me that I am able to present some of what they think and are fighting for. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, on her excellent opening speech—it was far better than anything I can do, I am sure, though I will try.
Amendment 4, on which we may divide, is crucial: it could save your life. The other two amendments are great, because they will help with your health as you go through our filthy London streets, but Amendment 4 is basic. We have to reduce PM2.5. Exposure to these fine particles is the main cause of death for most people who die early from air pollution. These are tiny bits of soot and grit that are so small that they not only stick to the lungs but can pass through them. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, explained it much better. We must understand that this is incredibly difficult to control without targets.
Amendment 12 is also extremely important, because the World Health Organization is due to publish its updated air quality guidelines this month, possibly within days. I try never to use the words “air quality”, because we do not have air quality—we have air pollution. We have to remember that. It is filthy and harmful. Many countries around the world follow the previous World Health Organization guidance, which was issued 16 years ago, but we still have nothing. We have a public health crisis leading to tens of thousands of premature deaths and we have identified the main cause, but still we do nothing.
Incinerators can be built and ignore this pollutant. Heathrow can be expanded and ignore this pollutant. Local authorities and national government are making decisions that will potentially damage human health and increase these emissions, but we allow it because we ignore the scientific advice. That really should not be acceptable.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
The noble Baroness is making a very important speech; I will just add to what she has said. In addition, the Mayor of London covered up the monitoring stations on the roads leading to the Olympics. Otherwise, the pollution would have been worse than it had been in Beijing four years previously.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
But he did put potted plants there; let us give him some credit.
Amendment 54 is also incredibly important, because it would achieve three important outcomes. First of all, it would put health at the heart of government policy-making. I am an ex-Southwark councillor, like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. On the old town hall, there was a translated Latin quotation:
“The health of the people is the highest law”.
That is what this Government absolutely ignore.
Secondly, Amendment 54 would ensure that air quality targets are based on WHO air quality guidelines and achieved as soon as possible. Thirdly, it would ensure that air pollution is properly monitored, particularly where it is a problem, and that people are warned about it.
Please understand that this is a public health crisis. I have tried to get the issue of air pollution into other Bills, but I was always put off and told that whatever Bill it was was not the right Bill to put air pollution in. When we are talking environment, this is the Bill to add air pollution as a serious issue.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I am still a vice-president of Environmental Protection UK, which for most of its lifetime was the National Society for Clean Air. In that capacity, I was a bit remiss in not putting down an amendment myself. I was originally fooled by the Government; it does not happen very often, but it did on this occasion. I thought that by having this as the second clause and PM2.5 right up front in the Bill, they had really seized the opportunity. I did not read it properly.
Clause 1 sets a particular status for long-term targets that then run through the rest of the Bill, but this clause says the target for PM2.5
“may, but need not, be a long-term target.”
Parliamentary draftsmen are usually comfortable putting “may”, because that gives them a certain amount of flexibility, but on this occasion they put “but need not” very clearly. That means that the target envisaged in this clause, as it stands, does not have all the overriding principles and follow-through in the rest of the Bill that a long-term target has. That is why the clause, as it stands, has to be amended.
I support all these amendments. I just want to say two or three other things that colleagues have not yet covered. Before I do so, I say to the House that, in the debates on air quality over the years, one supporter was the late Viscount Simon, a lifelong sufferer from asthma who normally took part and had a lot of insight; we will miss him.
I point out, first, that the WHO targets were set on the basis of health information from over a decade ago. Hopefully, the new ones will be updated. The limits that we have been working to on EU standards were largely set—and I speak as a pro-European—by what the German motor manufacturers would put up with. Even then, they fiddled the testing. So, what we put in as our targets here have to be robust, health based and universally recognised.
It is also important to mention something else. There is a bit of an assumption that, since traffic has been the biggest contributor to air pollution, this is being resolved as we move away from diesel cars. It is not. A lot of pollution from traffic comes from brakes and friction between tyres and the road. In any case, of course, traffic is significantly increasing. The problem will not automatically resolve itself. We need new measures, both for vehicles and for the way we manage traffic. Also, as I believe is covered more fully in a later amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, there are a lot of non-traffic-related sources of PM2.5 and other forms of pollution. They have to be covered just as rigorously.
Thirdly, as my noble friend Lord Kennedy pointed out, the tragic death of Ella Kissi-Debrah happened because of where she lived: on the South Circular, an already heavily polluted road. I would ask local councils of all political complexions not to alter their traffic arrangements to divert the heaviest traffic to areas where the poorest live and where there are likely to be more pedestrians and more children. Moving air pollution around is not a solution. I hope that is recognised.
I support these amendments as they stand. I hope that the Government will be prepared to take at least some of them on board and we can start making a dent in what is a truly terrible aspect of urban life and the health of our people.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 4 and 12 to which I have put my name. Before I come to that, I will say something about Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I particularly liked the last two provisions—subsections (2)(e) and (2)(f) of his proposed new clause —on the training of professionals and, especially, on public information. I strongly believe that, if the public had any idea of the fatal effects of PM2.5 and their effects on health, they would be much more likely to accept some of what might otherwise be quite unpopular actions that needed to be taken to reduce the concentration of those particles. I very much support that.
I now come to Amendments 4 and 12. I have spent the last 18 months conducting my work in your Lordships’ House remotely via the wonders of modern technology, from rural Wales and, occasionally, Scotland. In those parts of the UK, air pollution, including from PM2.5 particulates, is low. Yesterday, I came back to London. As someone who suffers mildly from asthma, I noticed the difference immediately. I am now inclined to wear my mask outdoors on the street as well as indoors, not just to protect myself and others from Covid-19 but to avoid breathing in unfiltered London air.
The challenge of reducing the amount of PM2.5 in our air is a complex and difficult one, which the Government, assisted by dozens of scientists and economists, are already tackling to some extent. I do not underestimate the difficulty of reducing our national and local concentrations of these particles to below 10 micrograms per cubic metre. These materials are produced by many human activities, and some natural weather systems, which are beyond our control. Controlling some of them also requires international co-operation. But just because it is difficult does not mean that we should not set out to do it—and do so expeditiously.
The reason is, of course, that polluted air is the greatest danger to health of our time. PM2.5 causes damage to health from before birth, when it affects children’s brain and lung development, right up to old age, causing pulmonary and cardiac disease, liver damage, and damage to the brain—probably including dementia. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has explained all that in great detail, so I need not go into any more detail. Everybody knows that polluted air can be fatal—sadly. That is why I support everything the Government are doing, including their dual target to reduce both national levels and population levels, particularly where pollution levels are high and health inequalities are greatest. To do that, they must support local authorities—but that is a debate for another time.
Our Amendments 4 and 12 do not impact on any of these activities or targets. The 10 micrograms in our amendment is not a target but a maximum—and if the WHO guidelines suggest a lower maximum, we should follow that. In other words, nobody will be happier than me if we can reduce it further. The Government tell us that they will announce their target and the date by which it should be achieved in October next year. Well, we all know how these things slip. Setting a target is one thing; achieving it in practice by a certain date is quite another. Our amendments simply hold the Government’s feet to the fire to achieve what Ministers themselves, including Mr Michael Gove, have said they want to achieve. This is for the sake of the health of the whole population, as there is no safe level of PM2.5, according to the WHO.
However, there are two other very important reasons why I want to see this target minimum level in primary legislation, and they concern wider climate-change policy. The Government have set the target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, but as yet there is no detail as to how this will be achieved: no road map. There are many possible routes and combinations of policies and technologies that could lead us to achieving net zero. By setting in primary legislation the maximum PM2.5 emissions at 10 micrograms per cubic metre of air—or whatever the current WHO-recommended level is—we will influence the Government to choose those routes to achieving net zero which do not contribute to small particulates in the air.
Some people might think that surely all activities which reduce CO2 emissions must necessarily contribute to clean air—but this is not so. For example, the burning of biomass might emit less CO2 in the long run than burning fossil fuel, but this combustion emits small particulates—which is why wood burning stoves should be banned, at least in towns and cities where pollution is already high. There is more than one route to net zero, and we should choose the cleanest and healthiest. I accept that the Government will want to convince themselves of the feasibility of the target they set, but many scientists have advised us that the 10 micrograms maximum can be done by 2030, and I would like to see the Government set out seriously to do so.
My final reason is that the Government’s record on air quality has not been of the best. In one of its final judgments before the UK left the EU, the European Court of Justice—which was instrumental in enforcing environmental protection—judged that the UK had “systematically and persistently” broken legal limits on air pollution, which, as we know, hastens the death of 40,000 people per year. The replacement for this enforcement body is the OEP, which is introduced by this Bill, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and a cross-party group of Peers are trying to amend the Bill to ensure the new OEP is properly independent and has teeth. It is also why we who have put our names to this amendment seek to ensure that the Government are legally obliged to set and achieve ambitious targets for air quality.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, in the midst of all this great technical expertise, I would like to follow up one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, touched on, which is how all this will be achieved. This amendment asks that a further metric be added to those already in the Bill. The Secretary of State is tasked with setting targets for the annual mean level in ambient air, and an amazing combination of statistics will be needed to get that.
Clause 17 asks the Secretary of State to prepare a policy statement, but who is actually going to produce all these measures? The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, hinted at what local authorities could do, but is the Government’s policy to pile all these tasks on to local government? Who will be blamed if the measures are not produced? Are the Government considering what the financial demands are likely to be? The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has given us some indication that they may be considerably more than is currently the case.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I think the later contributions have shown that it is vital, in this connection, for the Government to focus on changing the materials that produce this. It is one thing to say, for example, that we want to go to zero carbon by a certain date. Well, surely we should have that kind of system applied to the way this development arises. Nobody wants to kill people, yet there is a substantial amount of this trouble arising in our country, and the remedy must be focused on getting rid of the particulates as far as possible. That is a very high aim, which is not always made prominent in the literature and the policies.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I would like to thank all noble Lords for another important debate and to reassure the House that the Government view this matter as one of the utmost seriousness. As I have set out in previous debates that we have had on this issue, we are committed, through this Bill, to set at least two air quality targets. They will complement each other to fundamentally reduce air pollution in the worst areas, while driving continuous progress to benefit the health of all citizens across England.
Turning first to Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I would like to thank her for the time she has given me over the past few weeks, discussing this and other issues. I know she has also met with my officials and Professor Alastair Lewis, chair of the Air Quality Expert Group, to better understand all the other work we are doing on PM2.5. I thank her for her time in all those meetings.
I will start by reiterating the assurance provided in Committee, first, that the Government want stretching and ambitious targets, like everyone who has spoken in the House today, and, secondly, that the Government are following a robust and evidence-based process to set those air quality targets, which will focus on delivering the greatest possible public health benefits.
The Government are committed to working with internationally renowned experts to deliver evidence to inform air quality targets. We regularly engage with independent expert groups, such as the Air Quality Expert Group and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, to ensure the process is informed by their advice and reflects the latest evidence, which includes WHO air quality guidelines.
In July, advice from the Air Quality Expert Group and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants was published. This showed that both groups support the proposal to set a concentration target and an exposure reduction target for PM2.5, though both acknowledged the difficulty in setting targets in this area. The Air Quality Expert Group highlighted the substantial challenges associated with modelling future PM2.5 concentrations, a point made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, including the many uncertainties and significant unknowns. For example, as our climate changes, the potential to reduce PM2.5 concentration also changes, because climate and weather strongly influence pollution levels. We may experience more rain and wind, which disperse pollutants and clean the air, or conversely more heatwaves, which lock in and exacerbate pollution. Some sources of pollution, such as shipping in the English Channel, require work with international partners to reduce emissions. This point was also made earlier.
As we take action to reach net zero, policies such as active travel will have co-benefits, but others may create tensions, as we see with anaerobic digestion and biomass burning. Many of these issues are not easily resolved or modelled, and this demonstrates why we should not be pre-empting or short-cutting the evidence required to underpin long-term target-setting decisions. While it is absolutely necessary to continue to achieve reductions in key pollutants in the air we breathe, the inherent complexity and diverse range of sources of PM2.5—both natural and manmade—means that significant reductions are much more difficult to achieve in practice.
Before setting these targets, it is vital to ensure that both the Government and the public understand the kinds of actions needed and the restrictions which may be required for them to be achieved. This is why we will be consulting on proposed targets and actions required, which may include significant changes to how we heat our homes and travel within towns and cities, early in 2022.
I will briefly respond to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the timetable slipping. On the assumption that the Bill becomes law in its current form, or even in an amended form, allowing the timelines to slip would be a breach in law. We would be breaking the law and that is not something the Government could do, so we will not see this timeline slipping.
We are still working to understand the full mix of policies and measures that would be required to meet the WHO guideline of 10 micrograms per cubic metre, but we know that a range of restrictions on activities are likely to be needed in urban areas to meet any ambitious target. Meeting 10 micrograms would likely require policies, as I said in previous debates, including
“reducing traffic kilometres across our cities by as much as 50%”
and
“a total ban on solid fuel burning”.
As I said in Committee, I do not think it is
“right for us to set a target … that would impact millions of people and thousands of businesses”—[Official Report, 23/6/21; cols. 306-7.]
without first levelling with people about what would be needed and ensuring that we bring them with us in understanding the health benefits of achieving that target. Without fully understanding the policies needed to meet such a limit, we cannot know where the burdens of these policies will fall.
To date, this debate has focused primarily on the concentration target but, again, I remind noble Lords that we are setting two targets that will work side by side. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, we have to set a long-term target under Clause 1 and the PM2.5 target under Clause 2. It is not a choice we have; it is inherent in the Bill. This dual-target approach is strongly supported by experts.
In addition to the concentration target, we are developing a new type of target that focuses on reducing people’s exposure to pollution. The population exposure reduction target will be a more important driver for achieving health benefits, both at national and local level. Experts tell us, and a number of speakers today have made plain, that there are no safe limits for PM2.5.
The long-term exposure reduction target will drive a process of continuous improvement to reduce people’s exposure across the whole country, even in locations where the concentration target has been achieved. It will inform how local interventions need to be targeted, particularly where the most people are exposed to elevated levels of pollution. The concentration target that we have spent much time debating serves to provide a general minimum standard and will focus on reducing levels where concentrations are highest, but it is not by any stretch the whole story.
As I have repeatedly set out in debate, in letters to the House and in meetings over the past year, we are working at pace on this. But it would not be right for us in this House to set a target without understanding the measures needed to meet it and bringing the public on board. The Government are therefore not able to accept this amendment.
Amendment 12 was also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I assure her that, as air is part of the definition of the natural environment, it already falls within the scope of the significant improvement test. In future EIP reviews, we expect new evidence—including updated WHO guidelines, emerging scientific evidence and the like—to be relevant to an assessment of whether further measures are needed to meet interim and long-term targets. The intent of the noble Baroness’s amendment is therefore already delivered by the Bill as drafted and I ask her not to press it.
On Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, I thank him for meeting me and Rosamund Kissi-Debrah the week before last. I can say only that if I was not already convinced of the urgency of the case, I certainly would have been by that conversation. Rosamund is an extraordinary campaigner and speaks with huge authority; of course, what happened to Ella is heartbreaking on every level.
In setting these air quality targets, it is as crucial to have a scientifically reliable understanding of the pollution sources and their dispersion as it is to have in place sufficient means to monitor progress and assess compliance. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that the Government are working extensively with experts to seek advice on this and that the details of the targets, including monitoring requirements, will be set out in secondary legislation following a public consultation.
Making sure that information about air pollution is publicly available is clearly important; we already have legal obligations to do so. We do this through a range of channels, in particular the UK-AIR website, which carries an air quality five-day forecast and live information about pollution levels around the country. We are committed to improving the accessibility and usefulness of that information to a wider range of users, and we will undertake a thorough and comprehensive review of the UK-AIR website and the daily air quality index to ensure that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing.
In addition, the Government are funding work with health professionals in a number of therapeutic areas to develop advice for patients about air pollution. They are also looking at working with relevant health charities in longer-term campaigns aimed specifically at the most vulnerable groups.
The amendments tabled by my noble colleagues are hugely important contributions to this debate. I think we all agree that air pollution, particularly fine particulate matter, needs to be reduced urgently to protect the nation’s health. We know that, in setting both the concentration target and the population exposure reduction target, we need to be ambitious. Indeed, we are determined to be ambitious; that is a view shared right across government.
However, we also have to be realistic in how we set that ambition and consider the practical challenges and costs before enshrining new targets in legislation. It is so important to bring society with us and therefore consult properly and meaningfully on the measures that we are likely to need to implement to achieve those significant reductions in air pollutant levels in the future; that is something we will have to do.
I hope that I have managed to reassure at least some noble Lords of the seriousness with which we take this issue, and I beg them not to press their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, could he confirm that I understood him aright that the current situation, where we do not know the origin of 80% of the particulate matter, is not satisfactory and that the Government will fund more and better research so that we have a grip on where this is coming from?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
That is a really important point. In this debate and previous debates, I have said that our knowledge base is not complete, and it needs to be much more complete. It may not ever be totally complete, but the Government—particularly Defra, working with the Department for Transport and Public Health England—are researching the issue exhaustively, with a view to informing the targets that we are obliged to set in the short term.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I will be very brief because I know that we are all looking forward to a break. I will not go into any detail about individual contributions, but I thank everyone who has spoken in support of my amendments—it is very much appreciated, and it has demonstrated that there is a lot of very strong feeling in the House about the concerns that we have raised.
I come to the points that the Minister made. Having met Defra officials on a number of occasions, I do not doubt at all that they are working extremely hard on this issue—for example, the planned exposure targets are extremely important—but that does not alter my frustration, and that of many others, that the urgent action that we need now is simply not happening and is being put off yet again. We have heard time and again that this is a health emergency, and I do not believe that the Government are treating it as an emergency. If that was the case, these amendments would be accepted, in my opinion.
We believe that our amendment is critical to drive the progress that we need. We also believe that a lot of existing evidence and information is already available in order for the Government to start taking action. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 4.
House of Lords Appointments Commission
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Norton of Louth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to place the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this debate is limited to one hour. That is very tight and, in order to give time for the Minister to respond, all noble Lords apart from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, need to stick strictly to no more than two minutes.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord True will note the number of Peers contributing to this short debate. Each, as has been mentioned, will have two minutes. My noble friend will have 10 minutes to say what he could probably say in 10 seconds: namely, that the Government have no plans to put the House of Lords Appointments Commission on to a statutory basis. They should have: for some of us, this is unfinished business.
I have the honour to be convener of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. My noble friend Lord Cormack chairs the campaign. We formed it more than 20 years ago to make the case for strengthening the existing House in the valuable work that it does. The key changes that we sought were embodied in the House of Lords Bill introduced by Lord Steel of Aikwood. Some of what we included in that Bill we have managed to get enacted, primarily through the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. The House of Lords Bill included a clause establishing the House of Lords Appointments Commission—that is, putting it on to a statutory basis. I wish to explain why it should be done and how it can be done.
In an Ipsos MORI poll in 2007, respondents were asked which factors were important to determine the legitimacy of the House of Lords. The option attracting the most support was “Trust in the appointment process”—75% of respondents ranked it as “very important” and 19% as “important”. Trust in the appointment process ranked higher than “The House considering legislation carefully” and “Having many Members who are expert in their field”. I note that it considerably outstripped “Having some Members elected by the public”. How appointments are made is thus crucial to how the House is seen by the public. At present, the process falls short. At times it is mired in controversy, and there is little transparency in the selection of nominees. However worthy the individual nominees may be, their merits are lost in media criticism of the process and public perceptions of the type of person elevated to the peerage.
The existing Appointments Commission examines all nominations and puts forward nominations for Cross-Bench Peers, but it is limited in two significant respects. It can examine nominations only in terms of propriety, not suitability, and it is the creature of the Prime Minister. Having an Appointments Commission that is not only independent of the Prime Minister but is seen to be independent strengthens both the Prime Minister, confirming the merits of the persons nominated, and the legitimacy of the House.
Putting the Appointments Commission on to a statutory basis is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Powers will have to be vested in it and, I shall argue, can be without jeopardising the Prime Minister’s role as principal adviser to the sovereign in recommending individuals for peerages. How, then, can it be done? As noted in the Library briefing for this debate, I have introduced a Bill that has now had its First Reading. I have sought in it to ensure that the commission can have an impact through vetting nominations to ensure that they meet a high-quality threshold, through requiring the Prime Minister to await the advice of the commission before putting forward names to the Crown, and through ensuring transparency in the process by requiring the Prime Minister, and other party leaders as appropriate, to inform the commission of the process by which the names were selected to be put forward. As noble Lords will see, it also includes provision for the Prime Minister to have regard to the principles that I believe are widely supported by the House, not least in terms of size.
The case for putting the commission on to a statutory basis has been made by a number of bodies, including the Government, over the past two decades. It was made by the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. It was a proposal that was accepted by the Government but not acted on. I served on the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill, which also endorsed the proposal. As I said, it was a key provision of the House of Lords Bill that was variously debated and widely supported in your Lordships’ House.
The proposal itself is modest relative to the report of the royal commission, which recommended transferring the power to nominate Peers from the Prime Minister to the Appointments Commission. My proposal would retain the existing position whereby the Prime Minister recommends names to the sovereign, although he would be required to wait until such time as he had received the advice of the commission. The Government, in 2001, proposed that the commission should have responsibility for managing the balance and size of the House. My Bill provides for the commission to offer advice on how to reduce the size of the House, but does not empower it to determine the size. This, therefore, is a modest proposal, and it may be prudent for the Government to accept it rather than wait until overtaken by more radical demands for change.
When questioned on the issue of reform of this House, my noble friend Lord True said that the Government did not support piecemeal reform. Well, as a Conservative, I do—and so, too, to judge by their election manifesto, do the Government. The 2019 manifesto stated that the Conservative Government had enacted legislation to enable Peers to retire and to remove those who committed a serious offence. That was not strictly accurate. What they had done was support, or at least acquiesce in, the passage of the Private Member’s Bill that I drafted, which was introduced in the Commons on behalf of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber by Dan Byles and taken through this House by Lord Steel. That was piecemeal reform, which I believe has proved its worth.
The same applies to the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. She is unable to be here for this debate, but she would very much like to have been, to support the case for putting the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis.
Even if my noble friend Lord True says that the Government have no plans to place the commission on a statutory basis, he could indicate a willingness on the part of the Government not to oppose such a move. Simply saying that there are no plans does not mean that the Government do not accept the merits of the case. My noble friend has not really engaged with the principle. He has the opportunity today to say whether he accepts the principle. The Government need not commit significant resources, including time, to getting a measure through. They can instead facilitate the passage of the Bill or another Private Member’s Bill with a similar aim. The important thing is to get it on the statute book.
In short, it can be done. My contention is that it should be done. It will not undermine the position of the Prime Minister but rather bolster it, certainly in the case of a confident Prime Minister, in making nominations, and it will enhance the legitimacy of this House.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, in my priceless two minutes I will raise a couple of issues that I believe any statutory appointments commission would need to address. The first is the question of political balance. Since the House of Lords Act 1999, which removed most of the hereditaries, it has always been assumed that the governing party should never have an overall majority of those taking a party Whip. There was never any possibility of the last Labour Government dominating politics in the Lords. Indeed, for eight of Labour’s 13 years in office, the Conservative Opposition had more Members than the Labour Government. Even at its highest point in 2010, the number of Labour Peers was 235 and the number of Tories was 214. How different things are today, after 11 years of Tory Government. There are now 263 Tories and just 173 Members of the Labour Opposition.
Perhaps even more significant is the balance between the Government’s supporters on the one hand and the main opposition parties on the other. Today, for the first time since the 1999 Act, the Conservative Party in the Lords has a majority over Labour and the Liberal Democrats combined—something no one thought was ever likely to happen under any Government. That is why I believe that any appointments commission should have a remit to report on the effects of its decisions on the political balance in the House—not to make those decisions, but to report on their effect.
Very briefly, I cannot make reference to a possible statutory appointments commission without mentioning its impact on the system of by-elections for hereditary Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, in his excellent Bill says that
“the Commission must have regard to the diversity of the United Kingdom population.”
I, of course, want the by-elections to end, but any statutory appointments commission must surely apply that principle of diversity to the hereditaries as well as to the life Peers. I remind the House that the 92 hereditaries include no women and no ethnic minorities—and that, to put the icing on the cake, 50% of the hereditaries elected under the by-election system went to Eton. So I would require the Appointments Commission to report on the extent to which the register of hereditary Peers meets the requirement of having regard to the diversity of the United Kingdom—and all I can say is good luck in doing that.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, we have to recognise that Mr Johnson has damaged this House in three ways. First, he has not followed the advice of the Appointments Commission on a point of propriety, damaging his own reputation but also ours. Secondly, the flow of Peers coming here on the recommendation of the commission seems to have dwindled to zero. Thirdly, of course, he has ignored the Burns report, ignored the restraint of his predecessor and reversed all the progress that we had made in reducing the size of the House. So, let us be realistic. Of course the commission should be on a statutory basis, but what is the chance of the Prime Minister agreeing to do that? What is the chance of the Prime Minister agreeing to limit his options, to fetter himself even very loosely? I think there is no chance at all, unless we separate the honour from the job, as the Burns report in fact recommended.
Detailed legislative work is an acquired taste, and it is clear that some of the recent creations have no desire to acquire it. So be it. If they do not want to do the job, why could they not just join the majority of Peers who do not sit in this place and do not receive a Writ of Summons, the majority being those culled in 1999 and their successors, as well as the growing number of us who have wisely decided to retire—a number that would grow much faster if the Burns “two out, one in” recommendation were accepted? The commission’s scrutiny of candidates to work in this House could then be confined to only those willing to work here, and not to the unwilling who would not come. Thirty years ago, the Queen was good enough to give me a knighthood. She did not require me to pick up a lance and get on a horse. It is was an honour with no equestrian duties attached—which was a relief to me and could be a precedent for the House.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I remind noble Lords that the time limit is two minutes.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, on a day when the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has been credited by the Daily Telegraph with world-leading rules on online child safety, and scientists and technologists as distinguished as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, have shared with us their vast expertise on the Environment Bill, no further reminder is needed of how the effectiveness and reputation of this House have been enhanced by Peers recommended for appointment by the Appointments Commission. It is a shame, as my noble friend Lord Kerr has just said, that this stream of talent has recently slowed to a trickle. As one of just five Cross-Benchers since 2015 to have enjoyed the good fortune—the outrageous good fortune, in my case—of appointment by this route, I support the Private Member’s Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and his remarks in opening this debate.
Another appointed second Chamber, the Canadian Senate, has been transformed over the past five years by the creation of an independent advisory board made up of federal and provincial members. The board recommends five non-political appointees for each vacancy and the Prime Minister chooses between them. Independent Senators now outnumber those with a political affiliation. The House of Lords Library reported last year that almost 60% of Canadians thought that these changes would improve the Senate in the longer term.
The constitution of Canada prevents the board being established under statute, but no such constraint exists here. So I hope noble Lords will share my view that this is not only a “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative”, as the award-winning headline famously had it, but an idea that we could and should build upon.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, whether or not the Appointments Commission is made statutory or not is a sideshow. The real issue is whether the Prime Minister has the final say on appointments to your Lordships’ House, and whether he can therefore determine its size. I am clear that he should retain that power. Opinions from the commission on individual appointments or the size or composition of the House should never be binding on the Prime Minister or otherwise inhibit his actions.
Ironically, the commission itself has provided the best evidence for not changing the existing constitutional arrangements. Let us look at the commission’s record. For the last 20 or so years of its life, it has recommended the appointment of 74 new Cross-Bench Peers—how successful has that been? From the early days, it was clear that there was a desperate search for diversity, but the most important diversity—that of perspective and thought—seems to have been ignored. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Cross Benches have become more representative of metropolitan liberal groupthink. They cannot be relied upon to reflect the views of the British public. Our debates and votes on Brexit in 2019 are all the proof that is needed of that.
As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has observed, this House has become a House of opposition to the Government. It is a no-brainer that the Prime Minister must tilt the balance back, even if that means increasing the size of the House. He should not have to wait for the opinions of a commission to do so.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the comments made this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and his Bill. As he said, successive reports have recommended that the House of Lords Appointments Commission should be on a statutory basis, and we have had several Bills to that effect. I fail to understand the Government’s rationale for their reluctance and resistance to doing so. Other significant appointment commissions, namely the Judicial Appointments Commission and the Civil Service Commission, are on a statutory basis. Would the Minister agree that unconstrained power of the Prime Minister in making appointments of public significance is inappropriate, and that statutory checks and balances are needed in the appointments process to maintain legitimacy and the trust of the House?
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I was very taken with the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that there should be a division between those who came here to work and those who received a peerage as an honour. Indeed, it reminded me of something the late Lord Weatherill said to me many years ago. He said that the trouble with this House was that it was never decided whether it was an honour or a job. I think that remains true, unfortunately. I certainly regard it as both an honour and a job, and this is why it is important that we have a commission set up on a statutory basis to look more closely at the suitability of candidates, particularly their willingness and ability to work. That should be a dominant and key theme when anybody is looking at a potential candidate to come to this place. We do not want those who just enjoy the honour but do not do any of the work.
It is also extremely important, and a great possibility of the commission, to widen the spread geographically. There is sometimes a thought that too many people come from the south-east, but I think that overlooks the fact that many people have come from different parts of the United Kingdom and settled here in the south-east because of—what should we call it?—the gravitational pull. None the less, it would be a wonderful opportunity for the commission to look at the further reaches of the kingdom—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the far-flung parts—and so get a better balance. This would be a particularly helpful way of proceeding.
I am conscious of the time, so any further remarks will remain with me.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, recent appointments to the Lords have been scandalous on four counts. The first is cash for honours, under which the Government have bestowed peerages principally to party donors—the most outrageous being when the recommendation of refusal by HOLAC was overruled by the Prime Minister for the first time ever.
Secondly, many of those ennobled, including the noble Lords, Lord Spencer, Lord Bamford, Lord Cruddas and Lord Ranger, have hardly spoken or asked a question since their appointment. They bring this House into disrepute.
Third is the blatant contempt for the views of this House by the Prime Minister, ignoring our decision that the size of the House should be reduced, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, rightly said.
Finally, there is the appointment of so many Brexit fanatics, including some who purported to be Labour, solely because they campaigned with the Tories on Brexit. Incidentally, they might have the courtesy to sit on the other side of the House, where they belong, when they are in here.
The Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act and the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act could and should be invoked. Until HOLAC attains a degree of independence, which statutory provision would give it, I fear we are in for much more of this corruption.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I give general support to the idea put forward by my noble friend Lord Norton, but I reflect on the words of my noble friend Lady Noakes that any appointments commission would probably end up appointing people like itself. That concerns me. For a start, I doubt I would be here if there was such an appointments commission. I also doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, would be here, because he tends to step out of line from time to time. I am happy with there being an appointments commission, but I think it should have clear criteria for turning people down, and that should then be the end of things; it should not be able to be overruled.
I also think we need to look again at political balance. Although my party has far more than the other parties, I do not think it healthy for this to carry on. I would like to see some agreement on political balance, because one of the strengths of this House is that it can defeat the Government. As was said to me when I first came here by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who was then the Chief Whip, the difference between here and the Commons is that in the Lords you must win arguments and in the Commons you can just win votes. That is an important principle of this place.
My final point is that we need to distinguish between honorary peerages and working Peers. I came here to work but some people did not. Basically, they take up a place that they should not be taking up, so we also need to look carefully at having working Peers.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, the old saying goes that hard cases make bad law. I would like to paraphrase that a little and say that lone cases make bad law. It appears that we are having this debate today because the Prime Minister chose to ignore a recommendation from the House of Lords Appointments Commission as to the fitness of a certain noble Member to join our ranks. In some quarters, this has raised a terrible stink because the Prime Minister has, shock-horror, exercised his powers of patronage. In our political universe, if anyone should have powers of patronage it is surely the Prime Minister, the democratically elected Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, elevated to the leadership of his party by a vote of its members and elected Prime Minister by a stonking majority by the people of this country. Against this background, the notion that he should be stopped from deciding who to send to this House by placing an unelected commission on a statutory basis is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut—and a poorly aimed one at that.
The day will come when we are reformed, though it is unclear how. That will be the moment to consider these things. In the meantime, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that it would be better to let sleeping dogs lie?
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I fear that I take a rather contrary view to the noble Baroness, but then perhaps I am a rather awkward nut. I will contribute a few words from the point of view of another person who, like my noble friend Lord Anderson, joined your Lordships’ House through the HOLAC route. This gave me an impressive insight into the workings of the commission and convinced me that this must surely be the most democratic route into your Lordships’ House that exists. Although it would be naive to think that the support of highly regarded and influential Peers does not play an important role, that is true in any walk of life where references are required.
I assure your Lordships that the stages of submission and interview are no doddle. I recall being thoroughly put through my paces by the late Lord Hart of Chilton—Garry Hart. In the same year, 2013, my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox was the other recommendation—so, in that year, an internet expert and a musician were ennobled. Thus, the desire to have the commission bring in people who might widen the expertise of the House but would not perhaps emerge through the political system of nominations was continued, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
Given its impressive work, HOLAC surely deserves and needs to be put on a statutory basis. Otherwise, we risk insulting people who do hours and hours of work thinking very carefully about who should and who should not be Members of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I fear that putting the commission on a statutory basis would not conceal our Achilles heel: the fact that we are so unrepresentative as an institution, particularly on disability. The presumption of privilege that permeates how your Lordships’ House operates only, sadly, emboldens those who would deride us as a relic of a bygone age, ripe for abolition.
We know that the demographics of your Lordships’ House do not reflect the diversity of the people whom we serve. Indeed, the whole Westminster bubble is still made up of, exists and functions for non-disabled people. It is where the UK’s 14 million disabled people are always the other—for and to whom things are done.
Today, in 2021, you can be the chief executive of a hugely successful FTSE 250 company while also being a wheelchair user—yet the layout of this Chamber and that of the other place make it impossible for a wheelchair user to speak from the Dispatch Box. However inadvertent, disability discrimination is built into the very fabric and modus operandi of your Lordships’ House. It is the status quo, and it is a completely untenable situation.
I appeal to the Prime Minister to send us more new blood that reflects the richness of the UK’s diverse talent pool and to the House authorities to redouble their efforts to put our own House in order. We do not need a statutory commission to make that happen; we just need the political will.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, according to today’s Times, the publisher of Burke’s Peerage put in a draft letter to Mahfouz Marei Mubarak, saying that his donations to Prince Charles’s charity would ensure him a knighthood, followed by membership of the House of Lords. We do not know if that letter was sent, but we do know that Mr Mubarak received a CBE and that the author of the letter was instrumental in getting that. We also know that this episode can only add to the belief that membership of your Lordships’ House can be purchased.
Unfortunately, the actions of this Government have given credence to this view—most notably, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has pointed out, in the case of the Prime Minister’s decision to appoint as a Peer someone whom the House of Lords Appointments Commission had vetoed but who had given large sums to the Conservative Party. That this decision was rewarded by the new Peer making a further substantial donation to the party perhaps should not have been surprising.
It will only further damage the standing of this House if such behaviour occurs again. The noble Baronesses, Lady Meyer and Lady Noakes, may defend the power of patronage in the Prime Minister, but surely that power can exist only if it is to be used responsibly. Putting the Appointments Commission on a statutory footing would ensure that it could only be used that way. The noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, who chaired the commission between 2008 and 2013, expressed the view even then that it needed the powers of a statutory body, and that is even more the case today.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, being a Member of your Lordships’ House is something that we treasure, but it is clearly important that the principles of the Burns committee are properly accepted and that we do not continue to inflate our size. Being here should be regarded as a vocation to public service, and those who are honoured in another way do not have to come here, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, indicated.
There are rumours swirling around even as I speak that another 30 Peers are to come here next month. I profoundly hope that that is wrong, because it is important that we have balance. It is important that no single party has an overall majority. There is no point or purpose in your Lordships’ House unless it truly scrutinises legislation and has the opportunity to ask the other place to think again, and it cannot do that unless the Government of the day are defeated from time to time. They can always put it right; the other place has the final word. That is as it should be for an elected House, but we should be able, without fear or favour, to scrutinise, to suggest improvements and amendments, and to be prepared to press them up to a point if we believe that necessary.
It is crucial, however, that there should be a degree of true impartiality in the selection of those who sit here. That can be brought into effect only if we have a proper statutory Appointments Commission. As my noble friend Lord Norton indicated, his Bill allows the Prime Minister to have the last word, and that is right—but he is not the fount of all knowledge and should not be the fount of all appointments.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I quite agree with the proposition that we should have a statutory commission, but I argue that that is not the problem with this House. The problem is that this House has no legitimacy of its own. It is not an elected Chamber, and its only legitimacy comes from the fact that one elected person—the Prime Minister—will be trusted to make the correct appointments.
I know things go on which should not go on, and I know that many of the people here work very hard and are not here only for the honour. But, unfortunately, the honour is such that more people desire it than really deserve to be here. Unless we improve the legitimacy of this House—noble Lords will not be surprised that I would like it to be elected—we can devise as many appointments committees as we like, but the legitimacy will come only from the Prime Minister and no one else. That is our problem.
Every time this House defeats the Government, the Government are tempted to add another three dozen Members because they want this House to comply with what the other place does. That is our problem, and statutory commissions are not going to cure it, no matter how honest and good they are.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, everyone likes the idea of a neutral expert. One of the most depressing things in politics is how easy it is when you are on “Question Time” or “Any Questions?” to get a round of applause by saying about virtually any subject: “This is too important to be a political football. Why can’t all those elected politicians back off and leave it to the professionals?” Yet I have to tell noble Lords that there is no such person as a disinterested patriot who can raise his eyes above the partisan scrum and describe the true national interest. No such person exists; we all have our assumptions and prejudices. The only distinction is that some of us have to test those in elections and others do not.
I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, just said. We have, at the moment, a system where the power of appointment is with one elected person, directly elected in a constituency and then indirectly elected in another place. You might make an argument, as he did, that we should go further and have an appointments body made up of the electorate as a whole. That is a good, consistent, coherent argument. But moving in the other direction and placing the oligarchic power of appointment in the hands of an unelected group that, by definition, will like to appoint people who share its own assumptions and opinions is a step away from accountable government and would be a retrograde step.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, we should put the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis. Yes, it is a piecemeal change, but evolution not revolution is the Conservative way, and it is the way we should handle things when we change the constitution. We should ask the Appointments Commission to make sure all appointees are committed to and are capable of working in this place. We should ask the Appointments Commission, in respect of its own appointments, to ensure diversity both of roots and of thought, and to act in an advisory capacity to political parties in that regard. It should also be commenting on the percentage make-up of the House and its size.
It should operate under a mandate from Parliament. I thoroughly agree with what my noble friend Lord Hannan just said: that it should not be an oligarchy but a creature of Parliament. It needs to have that accountability. I am unimpressed by what the Appointments Commission has achieved to date in terms of working pattern and diversity. If we give a body the powers contemplated by my noble friend Lord Norton, we must be able to hold it to account.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, attacks on the alleged metropolitan elite entrenched on the Cross-Benches and on these Benches by wealthy Conservatives who grew up in the Home Counties and made their careers in the City of London are absurd. For the record, I spent the Recess on the outskirts of Bradford, not in Islington or Surrey.
Fundamentally, as the Minister will recognise, this is about the power of the Prime Minister to exercise prerogative powers without restraint. As the ability of the monarch to constrain her Prime Minister shrunk, the exercise of Crown prerogative powers by the Prime Minister was moderated by the willingness of successive political leaders to behave within the limits of what was regarded as acceptable behaviour. Eton educated political leaders were assumed to be the most trustworthy in this respect. They had been taught the importance of conventions and constraints on power, and the sense of shame for those who broke them.
Now we have an Etonian Prime Minister who does not accept the importance of constraints or of advisory bodies in ensuring that conventions are observed and who appears to have no sense of shame. Today we are discussing the Lords Appointments Commission, but this also applies to observance of the Ministerial Code, the appointment of non-executive directors to Whitehall departments and to many other aspects of the standards of our public life.
When politicians refuse to observe established conventions of appropriate behaviour, it becomes necessary to strengthen those rules by statute. Decisions on the size of our second Chamber and the qualifications for membership of it have constitutional implications. I accept that David Lloyd George in his time abused prime ministerial power in Lords appointments. That was corrupt. Boris Johnson is abusing prerogative power in the same way. To paraphrase Lord Acton, all power corrupts; unconstrained power corrupts without constraints.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, one of the clearest things this debate has illustrated is the pride and the value that we place in our work as Members of your Lordships’ House. As has been pointed out, as an unelected House we do not have the legitimacy or authority of elections, which is why the integrity of appointments is all the more important. We value that integrity.
Looking at reform of your Lordships’ House, I do not think that just putting the commission on a statutory basis does what the noble Lord says, and he did not argue that as a standalone. But contrary to the idea that we cannot make any reform unless we have a big bang reform—that piecemeal reform should be derided —we should accept piecemeal reform to address some of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin and Lord Grocott, about the social balance of your Lordships’ House. We should not deride or ignore piecemeal reform.
The fact that we do not have the authority or legitimacy of elections in no way reduces the commitment or integrity of our membership. In fact, it makes it all the more important that we have that confidence. The role of the commissioners of the House of Lords Appointments Commission is to advise and make recommendations to the Prime Minister, and I think that is the right way to do things. But they are obliged by their code to abide by the highest standards of impartiality, integrity and objectivity, and I use that as an illustration of the expectations this House has of the members of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The noble Lord made a powerful case in that regard.
The urgency in looking at this now is because the Prime Minister rejected the advice of HOLAC. This could not possibly have been the first time a Prime Minister did not agree with had been said by HOLAC, but it is the first time it has been overridden in such a blatant way. In looking at how the House of Lords Appointments Commission operates, we should take note of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has said previously about having the resources and the ability to look in more detail at its work. This raises wider issues, and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, talking about the political balance of your Lordships’ House and what has happened under Conservative Prime Ministers—first David Cameron and now Boris Johnson—is equally important to the integrity of how we work.
I have to say that attacks on Cross Benchers because they do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is really not the way this House should operate. Every Member of this House is equal. Some of us bring party political affiliations, and I make no apology for those, but others do not. We have to accept that if they do not have party political affiliations, sometimes they will agree with us and, as I found on many other occasions, sometimes they will disagree.
I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue. The Minister has more than his 10 minutes to reply, and I look forward to perhaps a more positive response than we have had previously.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, it is very good to see the old House back. I fear that one thing that might not change is that from this Dispatch Box I am not necessarily able to give the noble Baroness opposite the delightful response that she might wish.
I thought it was an interesting short debate, and it is right that we debate these topics. The only speech to which I took exception, which I am sad about, because it was by a noble Lord I greatly respect, was by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who talked about scandal and corruption. There was a sub-theme that was taken up by one or two others who spoke. It serves none of us to present an image of this House or any political party as imbued and filled with scandal, corruption and fixing of the kind which the noble Lord implied. It helps no one. I could say that those in glass houses should not throw bricks, but I am not going to go back over ancient history that does not help any of us.
I thank my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth for the spirit and intelligence with which, as ever, he put forward his arguments. He spoke with the authority of, as he described it, the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. I always feel, when that great pressure group is mentioned, that I should go to the House of Lords Library after the debate and look out for the minutes of this extremely powerful group that seeks to influence the composition of Parliament and the avowed list of its members. Those matters may well be available in your Lordships’ House, but given that we have heard from a spokesman for that group, I think that many in the House would like to know more about it.
I thank my noble friend for this opportunity to discuss the important work of the House of Lords Appointments Commission; it is important work. As many of us will recall, the commission was set up in 2000 after a period in which—I am sorry to remind the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, of this—there had been, shall I say, considerable comment on the nature of appointments to your Lordships’ House. It is an independent, advisory, non-departmental public body and its purpose, as noble Lords well know, is to recommend non-party-political appointments to this place as well as to advise on all House of Lords appointments for propriety. I think it would be fairly acknowledged by noble Lords on all sides of the House that this is a job that the commission does well and has done well. In doing that job, it is treated with all due respect—full respect—by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, as it was by preceding Prime Ministers.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made a point that is important in an appointed House. As he knows, if we have a non-elected House and there is an elected House, the public decide the balance between the parties. However, the balance of political strength in the House is obviously always an issue for discussion and consideration; my noble friend Lord Balfe made a similar point. I remind the House of what was said by my noble friends on this side: a commanding majority was given to my right honourable friend Mr Johnson in the last election. Despite what was said, it is a travesty to say that the Conservative Party is in a position to dominate your Lordships’ House. I respectfully refer noble Lords to the three Divisions that have already taken place today and the others that I suspect will take place after dinner. The fact is that, numerically, the Conservative Party is 130 short of a majority; of course, it is far more than that in mathematical terms because the appointment of more Peers would increase the number.
The background is that, at the end of the period of the struggles over Brexit, this House fell away from one of its duties, which is to pay due respect to the opinion of the public. We lived through a period in that zombie Parliament in which the House of Commons and some Members of your Lordships’ House made it difficult for the Government to be carried on. One of the fundamental principles of our Parliament is that a Government must be able to get their business. That does not mean that they must win every vote—the Government do not ask to win every vote; they wish to listen to the points of view put forward by your Lordships’ House, and indeed always do—but, at the end of the day, the Government must be able to get their business. That is the background to this debate; I will come back to it a little later.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, made an interesting point, which was taken up by others, including my noble friend Lady Fookes. He asked whether it was necessary that everyone who wishes to have a peerage, or who is felt worthy of having one, needs to be a Member of your Lordships’ House. That is an idea that I have heard mooted before. It is not something on which I am going to comment in this debate, but I will simply say that I thought the noble Lord made an interesting point.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, complained about the representation of Cross-Bench Peers in the House. Setting aside the category of non-affiliated Peers, about which many of us with different points of view may have opinions, Cross-Bench Peers currently account for 23% of the composition of your Lordships’ House. Almost any proposition for reform that has come forward in the time that I have been following your Lordships’ House has said that somewhere between 20% and 25% is probably about right for the independent Cross-Bench element.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I would like to clarify that I made no such complaint, and no such complaint was intended.
Lord True (Con)
I am grateful that it was not intended. What I heard was a complaint that not enough Cross-Bench Peers were being appointed, and I think Hansard will show that the noble Lord made that point. One of the considerations regarding who is to be appointed is the overall balance in the House, a point that has been made from every perspective in this debate. To me it is perfectly legitimate, in the light of the noble Lord’s complaints about the number of appointments, to point out the current level of composition of Cross-Bench Peers.
The commission has two main functions, which are to nominate and recommend individuals for appointment as non-party-political life Peers and to vet nominations for life Peers, including those nominated by the political parties, in order to ensure high standards of propriety. I repeat that I believe it does this well. I am not going to follow any personal attacks on any Member of your Lordships’ House. I believe in the traditional principles of this House that all noble Lords stand on their honour and behave honourably, and I believe that those who are sent here and will serve here will demonstrate that they can aspire to and deliver those high standards.
It is worth noting that the conclusions reached by the House of Lords advisory committee regarding nominations are advisory. That is the gravamen of this debate although, as far as I can hear, no one who was arguing for a statutory commission said that it should be more than advisory. Everyone concedes—including even my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth; it is in his Bill, as I read it—that the Prime Minister should be able, in exceptional circumstances, to ignore and appoint outside the advice of the appointments commission. The conclusions reached by the commission are considered by any Prime Minister, alongside other wider factors, on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, it is for the Prime Minister to recommend which individuals should be appointed to the House of Lords. As my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out—firmly, I accept—it is the constitutional position in this country, as was also implied in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about the disfavour into which David Lloyd George fell, that ultimately there is accountability for a Prime Minister in the way in which he uses that power.
I do not wish to pick an argument with my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth on opinion polls, but while he was speaking I looked up the 2017 poll to which he referred. In it, when people were asked which were the most important factors in determining how legitimate the House of Lords was as a Chamber of Parliament, the first, with 37%, was the view that the House should make decisions in accordance with public opinion, while the second was that the House should consider legislation carefully. My noble friend Lady Noakes alluded to one of the problems with those who have been appointed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. This is no criticism of the commission; it is a fact. When it came to the first big vote in 2017 on seeking to obstruct Brexit, the Cross-Benchers who had been appointed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission between 2001 and 2015 were split five to one against the Government, a few months after a 52% to 48% referendum.
On the advice of the Prime Minister, the sovereign, who is the fount of all honour, formally confers all peerages, and I believe that should continue to be the case. The House of Lords Appointments Commission has an important advisory role, but it is advice. That is the situation that was created by a Labour Government and operated by them for 10 years, by the coalition for five and by a Conservative Government for six.
The Government have no plans to change the role or remit of the Appointments Commission. The organisation’s legal status does not affect its remit. It will continue to advise on appointments in the same way that it does now. I can assure the House that the Prime Minister will continue to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made a courageous point, which is never welcome to your Lordships’ House, but I do not think it is specifically germane to the question of my noble friend Lord Norton.
To sum up, the Government consider that the House of Lords Appointments Commission performs an important role in advising the Prime Minister on appointments. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton. The Prime Minister continues to place great weight on this advice, and the Government have no plans to place the commission on a statutory footing.
Environment Bill
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:15 - Division on Amendment 8 - Ayes: 81 / Noes: 107 - Amendment 8 disagreed.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would set a clear requirement for a target to halt the decline in the abundance of species by 2030.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to move Amendment 5 in my name, which has also been signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. This is something that we raised in Committee, and during the Summer Recess—or just before—we had a very useful meeting with a few chief executives of environmental and conservation NGOs and the Secretary of State. We reinforced our view on this, and I am delighted now that they are giving fulsome praise, because the Minister and his Secretary of State obviously persuaded those elements of government that were reticent about some of this. They have seen the error of their ways and introduced government Amendment 6, which is exactly the sort of thing that we have been asking for. In fact, this amendment was the one thing that I was really prepared to die in a ditch for. Although some people might be disappointed to find that the ditch is now unoccupied, there may be other ditches in future, but for the time being, I remain extremely happy. I trust that other people at that meeting are as well, although I can see another amendment that possibly just pushes it a little further, but it is always worth a try—that is the way I would put that.
The other amendment in this group that I want briefly to speak to is Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, to which I put my name, on habitats. I do not want to dwell on it for too long, especially because we have the amendment to get the target to halt the decline in the abundance of species, but I will say—I am sure we will hear a lot more from a much more erudite Member of your Lordships’ House—that species decline is inextricably linked with habitats. I promised the Secretary of State that I would be good on this if I got what I wanted, but I cannot resist saying that habitats are extremely important too.
I beg to move but I will withdraw my amendment; I do not know the procedure for that. I will move it, but then I won’t.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, after that stunning introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I feel I ought to speak to my amendment, although I do not think I can be as erudite as he thought. I am delighted that he, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, are my co-signatories.
First, in anticipation of him moving it, I thank the Minister for government Amendment 6, which toughens up the commitment to halt species decline. That is fine, but I am less well behaved than the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I am a bit like Oliver Twist—I want more—so I also support Amendment 7 from my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which would go further and quite rightly seeks not just to halt but to begin to reverse species decline. It is a bit like target golf: I am not entirely sure that you could halt species decline without being on a trajectory that will take you towards recovery anyway. No doubt my noble friend will illuminate us.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, was absolutely right in saying that species are not sufficient and we need to talk about habitats as well. The twin currency of biodiversity conservation has for generations been both species and habitats, so in speaking to my Amendment 9 I am trying to lay out that we need targets to be set to improve the extent and condition of important wildlife habitats by 2030 as a complementary and twin part of the effort towards the species recovery targets also being debated.
My amendment has three prongs. The first is an increase in the area of the national protected sites network, which is not complete yet. The second is an increase in the area of the important habitats that are not protected sites. Many of our important habitats have no protection whatever at the moment. Noble Lords have heard me bang on about ancient woodland many times; I promise that I will bring on more when we get to the tree bit of the Bill. The third prong is that at least 60% of our sites of special scientific interest—these jewels in the crown of nature conservation—need to be in a favourable condition.
Why should the Minister accept this amendment? I will give him five reasons; I will be brief. Protected sites, by which I mean sites of special scientific interest, European protected sites—heaven knows what they are called now; they used to be called Natura 2000 sites—and even sites such as national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty have been, as I said, the jewels in the crown of our nature conservation effort for more than 70 years. It would be nothing short of weird if a government commitment to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 made no reference to this network of sites and ecosystems, because they support the species that we want to see recover. They are fundamental; they are the webs of life within which these species exist.
The second reason is that sites of special scientific interest are the most wildlife-rich places we have. They are absolutely fundamental for species recovery, yet we have gone backwards rather than forwards in improving their condition. Over the past decade, many of our SSSIs have not been monitored at all. Our current estimate is that only 39% of SSSIs are in favourable condition, so a commitment is needed urgently to improve their condition.
The third reason is ancient history. I am very old, in common with many Members of your Lordships’ House, and, once upon a time, in the 1990s, the NGOs worked incredibly hard and produced a detailed recovery plan for nature, the biodiversity action plan. This was so good it was adopted by government. It was judged essential that it contain action plans not just for declining species but for important habitat types, with measurable actions and outcomes. So why would we feel less able to do this now? That is ancient history, and they did it then.
The fourth reason why the Minister should adopt the amendment is that habitats are easy, not less easy, to assess and monitor. I know that his officials in Defra are telling him that habitats are very difficult to monitor, but that is absolutely not the case, especially with modern technologies such as satellites and drones. Habitats are big stretches of land; they do not move around; they are not complicated, like beetles with no names; they are pretty straightforward to assess and monitor.
Lastly, and this is my trump card, the Prime Minister’s father phoned me up and pointed out to me—I hope the Minister noted that, but I am sure he pointed it out to the Minister as well, because he told me he had—that the latest draft of the global biodiversity targets for 2030 under the convention on biodiversity, the CBD, which will be agreed in China, or remotely through China, in October at the Conference of the Parties 15, combines species abundance and habitat extent and quality. So if we do not have targets that combine the two, we will be out of step with what is being aimed at by the rest of the world. I know that the UK Government are playing a key leadership role in COP 15, and it would be pretty strange if they were settling here, back home, for a less effective target based solely on species abundance and not habitats.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 7 at the end of July, before the Government’s Amendment 6 was tabled and was public knowledge, because I think species abundance really matters. I am one of those, perhaps because I am a countryman, who gets worried about the state of our biodiversity. I worry that the CBD and COP 15 are almost never heard of in the press and in public, compared with COP 26—because COP 15 matters as much, if not more, to the future of our planet as COP 26 on climate change, although I realise completely that they are inextricably linked. In many ways, I am very glad that COP 15 has now been delayed until next spring, because the extra time might enable us to get better commitments from the rest of the world. To my way of thinking, government Amendment 6 is as good a way as any of throwing down the gauntlet to the rest of the world: “Copy that”, we are saying. Hopefully, with the extra time now available before COP 15 meets, it might encourage some countries to respond in similar vein. I am always eternally optimistic.
I give the Government credit, first, for introducing Clause 3 in Committee and now for giving it the greater commitment of Amendment 6. I realise that, in government terms, setting a target of this nature is quite a bold step. After all, 2030 is not so far off and, in spite of all the new habitats we hope to create before 2030, from ELMS, net gain, conservation covenants, local nature recovery strategies, et cetera, no one can really predict how nature will respond to these incentives and whether we will get our habitat creation exactly right first time. I suspect not, but it is great that the Government have given it such a priority and, as I say, challenged the rest of the world to follow their example. So I thank the Minister, whose personal hand I detect here, and the Defra team involved.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I join other noble Lords who have already spoken in warmly welcoming government Amendment 6, which accepts the spirit of the amendment we had put forward. To halt the decline in species by 2030 is a very stretching target and I congratulate the Government on their clear ambition.
For many species, reversing the declines and halting them will require dramatic changes in land use and in habitat restoration. It will involve responding to the vagaries of unpredictable events, such as extreme weather and disease that could easily set progress back. So it is, without doubt, a very stretching target. I will ask the Minister to clarify a few points about it—perhaps, even if he cannot now, he might be able to subsequently in writing. First, what will be the baseline from which the target of halting will be judged? Secondly, which species will be included in the target? Thirdly, how will a composite measure of halting declines be computed if, as seems likely, some species will continue to decline while others do not? Fourthly, who will carry out the independent monitoring to check whether the target has been met: will that be the role of the OEP? Last but not least, who will be accountable if the target is not met?
I now turn to the two other amendments in the group. The amendment to which my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington has just spoken seeks to go further by requiring the Government to reverse the declines. I support it, but, as my noble friend said, this should be a longer-term aim. If the near-miracle of halting declines by 2030 is achieved, I think, inevitably, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, the measures put in place to halt declines will, in the longer run, result in reversal of the declines—for example, by habitat restoration or creation.
That brings me neatly to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, to which I have added my name, along with those of my noble friend Lady Boycott and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, no one would dispute the fact that, if you wish to maintain or restore species abundance, you have to create, maintain or restore the habitats on which those species depend. Therefore, this amendment is, in effect, a necessary precursor to government Amendment 6. Achieving the objective of halting and eventually reversing species decline will depend entirely on our understanding of and restoration of the habitats on which those species depend.
Habitat restoration is in itself a subtle art. In Committee, I referred to the example of the large blue butterfly and the complexity of its habitat requirements that have led successfully to its recrudescence in the south-west of England. Habitat heterogeneity is often crucial. Ecologists agree that one of the important ways in which agricultural intensification has caused dramatic declines in wildlife is because it has replaced a patchwork of different habitats with uniform monocultures. The relationship between species abundance and habitat heterogeneity is complex and needs to be understood.
Finally, in relation to habitat restoration, the so-called Lawton principles, put forward by Sir John Lawton in his review, Making Space for Nature, emphasise that not only do habitats have to be improved—be bigger—but they also have to be better connected, so that fragments of high-quality habitat are connected and crucial individuals and species can move between them. Amendment 9 is part of the package for halting species decline, and I hope that the Minister will accept that it is an essential precursor and adjunct to Amendment 6.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I briefly offer my support for Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to which I thought I had attached my name; it was an administrative failure on my part that I did not. I also support Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. Both amendments have strong cross-party support. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. Indeed, his questions about how the Government plan to define and measure biodiversity are questions that we canvassed extensively in Committee. I do not believe—I would be happy to be corrected if I am wrong—that we have received any answers to them. It is essential for the understanding of this Bill that those things are defined and set out because, as we discussed in Committee, there are many different aspects of diversity, from genetic variance within a population to the number and range of species, and indeed the range of their habitats.
I will comment briefly on Amendment 6. Like other noble Lords, I welcome it, in that one always has to welcome progress and acknowledge the huge amount of work done by campaigning NGOs and campaign groups to get us this far. There is, however, a thing called “shifting baseline syndrome”. In the brilliant State of Nature reports, which are issued regularly by our NGOs, the baseline is often the 1970s. To quote one figure, more than 40% of species have declined since the 1970s. However, based on the figure from 50 years earlier than that there has been a massive decline. If you go further back, it becomes evident that we live in an incredibly impoverished landscape. In the UK we have lost 133 species since the 1500s. These include obviously charismatic species like the lynx and wolf, but also the apple bumblebee, Mitten’s beardless moss and the common tree frog, which fails to live up to its name.
I was reading, in preparation for this debate, a book called An Environmental History of Wildlife in England, by Tom Williamson. It speaks of 17th century England teeming with wildlife. The polecat and pine marten were present in every county. The great bustard was still a common sight on open land. We should be aiming to restore those kinds of wild landscapes, at least in part, and stopping decline does absolutely nothing to get us to that destination. That is where the habitats amendment, Amendment 9, is really important.
I was once lucky enough to visit in France one of 234 sites that are called—I apologise for my French, which I am told I speak with a broad Australian accent— réserves biologiques intégrales. They started in 1953 and that are quite small pockets of land that have essentially just been left untouched. I was lucky enough to visit one of these sites, and what amazed me was a depth of lichen on the trunks of the trees that you could touch; you felt that your hand sank into it and it went on for ever. That is a depth of richness of wildlife that we are so far away from now but need to start to head back to.
I strongly commend Amendments 7 and 9 to the House, but particularly Amendment 7. This is where I am afraid I will disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in that I do not think that halting decline is an ambitious target. It is holding us in a state of extreme poverty of nature. We have to do better.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate to listen to. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing forward his amendment. I made up my mind to speak when I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. He put his finger on something very important but then moved off it. Which species are we going to keep? Who is going to decide which species will be protected? One thing that is absolutely certain is that the law of unintended consequences will continue: human beings will get involved in one area that will help some species but will be to the detriment of others. So I hope that my noble friend will tell us how exactly this part of the Bill is going to work.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said that success relies entirely on habitat, but, thank goodness, he changed his mind a little later and went on to say that it is part of a package. Habitat alone will not solve the problem and halt the decline of biodiversity. We need proper farming practices, we need habitats, we need winter feed and spring feed, which farming practices have all but eliminated on agricultural land, and we need predator control. It is a hugely complicated and difficult area. To give a simple example, many of us feed birds in our garden and think that we are doing a great job for nature. We are benefiting some birds; blue tits have certainly increased. But, as a result, a lot of other birds have not increased, because blue tits are quite territorial and quite vicious towards other birds. In this mix, we have some species increase but also some species decline.
To move to a perhaps more rural aspect, one could look at the work that the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust has done with the Allerton Project. It has been trying for years to bring back waders, but unsuccessfully. If my noble friend says that we must bring back waders and even the Allerton Project cannot do so, how will this succeed and what will be the price?
My noble friend the Minister is, I know, terribly keen on white-tailed eagles. They are one of his specialities and he mentioned them in Committee, but they are vicious birds and not terribly good breeders. They are vicious in that, in parts of Scotland that I know, they have driven out the golden eagle. They fight golden eagles and kill hen harriers and peregrines. That is the nature of white-tailed eagles. They are lovely birds to look at, but if you get too many of them you will destroy a whole abundance of species that have been living happily on the moor for hundreds and thousands of years. As they are not terribly good breeders, man will have to intervene to make certain that the numbers were maintained by bringing in hand-reared chicks.
Whatever we do, we are upsetting the balance of nature. Can my noble friend explain how he and the department, and subsequent Ministers, are going to handle this? To me, this is crucial. I thoroughly approve of not only halting the decline but turning it round, but we must be cognisant of the fact that some species will be far worse off. Who will make that decision? Will it be transparent, so that we can all decide whether those are actually the species we want to see decline and the other species increase?
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, government Amendment 6 is truly world-leading. Here in the UK it will be pivotal in delivering the Government’s ambitions through the Environment Bill, and indeed it could be pivotal globally—as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said—by ensuring that, in the run-up to the CBD next year, other countries deliver the level of ambition that we have.
I am grateful to be one of the co-signatories of Amendment 5, which the noble Lord, Lord Randall, so eloquently introduced. I hope he helped apply a little pressure, as this House did, to ensure that this state-of-nature amendment was strengthened. It was not just us four—we would never dream of thinking we were that influential. The House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Select Committee, which I am privileged to chair, made a strong case, I believe, to the Secretary of State to do likewise. I pay tribute to the many hundreds of small charities and organisations and thousands of individuals who have been part of the state-of-nature campaign and who put pressure on the Government to deliver this amendment. As I say, it is a truly world-leading amendment, and the Government are to be congratulated. I will come back to that in my final remarks, but I want to say two brief things about Amendments 7 and 9.
As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, says, it will be enough of a stretch to achieve the target outlined in Amendment 6, let alone that in Amendment 7. For my money, Amendment 7 has served its purpose. We created a strong pincer movement to ensure that the Government felt the full weight of pressure, and Defra was perhaps able to persuade other departments that there were far worse pressures out there if they did not acquiesce to Amendment 6. While I accept the case, I think it has served its purpose.
On Amendment 9, with apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, with whom I rarely dare to disagree, on this occasion I again feel that there are times in politics when you just have to stop, look the opposition in the eye—in this case it is the Government—and say thank you, recognising the enormity of what has been done in Amendment 6. Therefore, we will make no further requests on this issue. There will be plenty more on many other issues, as I know the Minister will expect, but it is time to stop and say thank you.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 7 in my name, and to support Amendments 5, 6 and 9. We had an extensive debate in Committee on the Government’s new clause setting out the need for species abundance targets, and many of the arguments have been reiterated today. It followed the excellent work of my colleagues in the Commons, who set out proposals for setting out and meeting a state-of-nature target, which we still believe is a clearer and less ambiguous concept than species abundance.
The flaws in the Government’s new clause were clear for all to see when it was published—in particular, the lack of determination to meet the new target and instead only a requirement to
“further the objective of halting a decline in the abundance of species.”
It also remained unclear which species would be covered by the target and whether they would be given equal weight. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, quite rightly raised those questions today, as well as asking about the baseline, metrics and monitoring. Those questions still remain to be answered, and I am sure the Minister will address them.
However, since the debate, we have been grateful to Ministers for meeting with us and discussing whether the commitment in the Bill could be tightened up. We are obviously pleased that the Government have now tabled a further amendment to the Bill, making it clear that they now commit to halting species decline by 2030. But unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, I regard this as only a partial success. I very much thank my noble friend Lady Young, the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for sticking with me on Amendment 7 and continuing to support it. The government amendment is a far cry from the action that is really needed and from the Government’s promises on this issue.
I will not rehearse it all again but, in Committee, we heard about the Secretary of State’s Delamere Forest speech, in which he made it clear that this is about not just halting the decline of nature but stemming the tide of the loss and turning it around. We know that the G7 communiqué states
“our strong determination to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030”.
So my question for the Minister is this: if not in this Bill, when will we see the actions necessary not just to halt the decline in species but to begin to reverse it? Surely our credibility at COP 26 will rest not just on the pledges and promises of our leaders but on their determination to make the commitment a reality. This is why we tabled Amendment 7, which would make it clear that the objective is to halt, and then begin to reverse, the decline.
In Committee, the concept of bending the curve was raised several times; it has been repeated again this evening. This is what our amendment seeks to address. Regretfully, we are still on a downward spiral of biodiversity decline. We cannot halt the decline overnight, but we can begin to slow and reverse that trend so that the curve begins to go in a positive direction by 2030. Indeed, the Minister confirmed in his response at the time that
“We are on a downward trajectory both here and elsewhere in the world. That is why our challenge and our objective is to bend that curve.”—[Official Report, 23/6/21; col. 339.]
That is what our Amendment 7 will deliver, with nine years to halt and begin to reverse that downward trajectory. The alternative, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, would be a state of nature destined to be much worse than it is now, with no way back. This is why we think that our amendment is simple and modest, and why it is the logic of everything that the Minister has argued up to now.
Nevertheless, we accept that the Government have listened on this issue. As I said, we welcome their Amendment 6 in the spirit of compromise, because I know that it was not an easy decision. We all know that the target to halt the decline of species abundance, although vital, is a stretched target and will not be easily reached. We pledge to do everything that we can to support the Government in delivering this commitment and begin the reversal of the decline, so we will not put our amendment to a vote. But we sincerely hope that such a reversal is the ultimate outcome of the pledge that the Minister has given today.
I want briefly to say something in support of my noble friend Lady Young’s Amendment 9. As ever, she set out the arguments with huge authority and clarity, and I will not attempt to compete with her. She rightly made the point that species recovery and habitat protection should go hand in hand. Individual species need suitable habitats to thrive. What we need are equivalent targets for habitats, also to be delivered by 2030, which would contribute to a positive state of nature by then. Whether it is hectares in the national site network or sites of special scientific interest, we need stronger measures to enhance and preserve them. I hope that, in his response, the Minister will be able to assure my noble friend that this is the Government’s intention and that these two strands of nature recovery will work in parallel and to the same timeframe.
On that basis, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
Again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It is clear, as it was in previous debates, that there is strong support from all sides of the House for restoration of our precious species and the habitats they call home.
Government Amendment 6 is relatively straight- forward. It requires the Secretary of State, when setting the species abundance target, to be satisfied that meeting the target would halt a decline in the abundance of species. The amendment puts beyond any doubt the Government’s existing commitment to nature. It is a credit to the tireless campaigning of noble Lords across the House, notably my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge—who texted me rather too many times on the issue—the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Hayman and Lady Parminter, whom I thank for her very kind words, as well as numerous green groups, such as Greener UK, the RSPB, Wildlife and Countryside Link and Wildlife Trusts, and over 200,000 members of the public who signed a petition on this issue. I am extremely grateful to them all for applying the pressure they did.
We are leading the way internationally in requiring a target like this to be put into legislation, and I hope that your Lordships are as delighted as I am that we are breaking new ground. I hope this will encourage international partners to make similarly ambitious commitments. The ambition for this target is in line with the previous commitments made by the Prime Minister at the G7 summit, in the G7 nature compact and in the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature, which the UK was very much involved in drafting.
The target is particularly important because it will strengthen our hand as we encourage other countries to make similarly ambitious commitments during the 15th Conference of the Parties for the CBD—the Convention on Biological Diversity—in spring 2022. Only with a global and truly collaborative approach will we be able to turn the tide on the global loss of nature.
I again thank noble Lords and all the various campaign groups who worked so tirelessly on this hugely important issue. I thank my noble friend Lord Randall for indicating his intention to withdraw his amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for indicating that she will not press hers.
To answer some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, nature has been in decline for decades, as he observed, and halting the decline of species in the timeframe we have—by 2030—will be a major challenge. Through the target we are committing ourselves to an undoubtedly ambitious objective, and we are leading the way internationally in doing so. But we are working now with scientific experts to try to model species outcomes—this also addresses some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Caithness—so that we can set a target that is evidence based and so that the Government understand what has to be done in order to deliver it. We do not have all the answers now; those answers will have to emerge as a consequence of that process. We will also need to ensure that the metric used to evaluate the success of this target is based on the best available data, that we have high confidence that it will continue to be collected, and that trends will be clearly identified over time.
In answer to the noble Lord’s question about who will hold the Government to account, that will be the OEP. It will hold the Government to account on progress towards the targets, and every year it will be able to recommend how we can make better progress towards meeting those targets. The Government, as ever, will have to respond.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about shifting baselines. This is a well-documented phenomenon for land but also particularly in relation to ocean abundance. I hope that she, like me, will take some comfort in trends in recent years with the re-emergence of the pine marten, the proliferation of the beaver—with a green light from Defra, more or less—and the increase in the number of wildcats and other species, not all as charismatic, as well.
In response to my noble friend Lord Caithness, the truth is that no one can fully predict what is going to happen as nature recovers. It is just not possible. I do not think that anyone would have been able to predict the full impacts of the introduction of the beaver to certain environments. The impact has been phenomenal and profound, and it has created more dynamism in nature and more biodiversity than I think anyone would have been able to predict in ways that people were not able to predict. Likewise, the experience in Ireland is that the pine marten has a hugely disproportionate impact in terms of driving out the grey squirrel in a way that—again—I do not think anyone was able to predict. In those areas where wild boar proliferate, that comes with various problems, but there is no doubt that the presence of the wild boar in certain ecosystems is also enormously beneficial for lots of different types of species that might not otherwise flourish. So it is very difficult.
We are not starting this process on the assumption that we know all the answers. We do not know the answers—I do not think that anyone does—but we will put details in secondary legislation, and we will be conducting as robust and full a public consultation as we can early in 2022, to which I hope numerous noble Lords will contribute. I am afraid I am not giving my noble friend the specific answers he was looking for, but I do not think those answers exist.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, we have had a very good debate, and I have a new vision of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, as Oliver Twist. I was thinking which Dickensian character I might be; I was hoping for the Artful Dodger, but after my procedural mistakes earlier, I am only going to be Mr Bumble.
I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and who have also worked very hard to get where we are, and particularly to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State, when setting or amending the species abundance target, to be satisfied that meeting the target or the amended target would halt a decline in the abundance of species.
“Environmental targets: plastics reduction
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations set a target (the “plastics reduction target”) in respect of a matter relating to reducing plastic pollution and the volume of non-essential single-use products (including but not limited to plastics) in circulation.(2) The specified date for the plastics reduction target must be by 31 December 2030.(3) Accordingly, the plastics reduction target is not a long-term target and the duty in subsection (1) is in addition to (and does not discharge) the duty in section 1(2) to set a long-term target in relation to resource efficiency and waste reduction.(4) Before making regulations under subsection (1) which set or amend a target the Secretary of State must be satisfied that meeting the target, or the amended target, would further the objective of reducing the volume of non-essential single-use products (including but not limited to plastics) in circulation.(5) Section 1(4) to (9) applies to the plastics reduction target and to regulations under this section as it applies to targets set under section 1 and to regulations under that section.(6) In this Part “the plastics reduction target” means the target set under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a target for reducing plastic pollution and the volume of non-essential single-use products (including but not limited to plastics) in circulation in the economy and society.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving Amendment 8 and speaking to Amendments 10 and 36 in my name, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for adding their names in support. We are now moving on to a different but equally important issue.
These amendments would require the Secretary of State to set an overall target for reducing the amount of single-use and other plastics in circulation by 2030. Amendment 8 provides a specific obligation that would require more urgent action than the longer-term measures in the 25-year environment plan. Amendment 10 would require draft regulations to be set before Parliament by October 2022, and Amendment 36 would create a new clause to deliver an overarching “plastics strategy” to Parliament. This would include a reduction in plastics use, waste and pollution as well as avoidance of harmful substitutions and measures to help to mitigate impacts on climate change.
We believe that these are necessary because current UK legislation, and indeed the proposals in the Bill, address only four of the top 10 types of plastic pollution—and, even then, only in part. Yet we are surrounded by evidence that plastic pollution is suffocating our planet: it is choking our wildlife and it is in the food that we eat and the air that we breathe. This is why we need a target and a strategy to reduce plastic pollution overall, rather than dealing with it piecemeal. This is what our amendments would deliver.
Meanwhile, the current target, in the resources and waste strategy, of eliminating all avoidable plastic waste by 2042 is simply not bold enough. We had an excellent debate on this issue in Committee, and it attracted widespread support. There was huge frustration that the Government are not being tougher on this issue. Noble Lords all had excellent examples of how waste plastic was damaging their local habitats and waterways, how discarded fast-food containers were littering the streets, how wet wipes were blocking the sewers and how single-use plastic bags were fouling our rivers and destroying marine life. Then there are plastic sachets of cosmetic goods, single-use plastic masks and polystyrene packaging—the list goes on and on. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, rightly made the point that health issues also arise from plastic waste, which is increasingly being digested by humans in the food chain, with as-yet unknown consequences for public health.
All the evidence shows that the public want to see urgent action to limit the use of plastic. They increasingly understand the environmental damage that it can cause. Almost 80% of British people are trying to use less single-use plastic—but, although they are doing their bit, they also want action by businesses and government to address the main causes of plastic pollution, so there would not be a political problem in moving more quickly on this issue.
I acknowledge that the Government have taken some action already: the action on microbeads and plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds is welcome, as is the increased charge for plastic bags. However, with the best will in the world, these issues are just the low-hanging fruit; they do not address the major causes of plastic pollution. We know that just 10 products, including plastic bags, bottles, food containers and fishing gear, account for three-quarters of global ocean litter. Plastic bottles and beverage containers alone contribute 33% of plastic pollution in our oceans and are a major source of street litter, despite the fact that alternative, recyclable drinks containers already exist.
It is a step forward that the Government have now announced that they are taking action on plastic knives, forks and plates—but this involves yet another consultation on a very small part of the plastics mountain, with an implementation date of 2023 at the earliest. We will make very slow progress if the Government are going to have a separate consultation on every knife, fork and spoon in production. Meanwhile, the EU and the devolved nations are already moving ahead on implementing a ban on these items.
The fact is that action on plastics so far has been painfully slow and beset by delays. As it stands, the Bill simply gives the Secretary of State powers to act on these issues; it does not set meaningful deadlines for change. In his response to the debate in Committee, the Minister talked about needing
“a more holistic approach to reduce consumption, not just of plastic, but of all materials.”—[Official Report, 23/6/21; col. 255.]
He said that that was why he felt that a long-term approach was needed—but we do not need to wait until 2042 for this holistic approach to be rolled out.
We all want to see a more circular economy with more resource efficiency and less waste. We also understand the need to guard against undesirable substitutions for plastics, but we believe that our deadline of 2030 is quite modest and would deliver the more holistic approach we all recognise is necessary. I therefore hope that noble Lords will see the sense of our amendment and give it support. I give notice that I am minded to press it to a vote, depending on the Minister’s response. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 8 and 36. It has been four years since “Blue Planet II” seared on our minds the image of the pilot whale mother refusing to let go of her dead calf. In the commentary, David Attenborough tells viewers that it could have been poisoned by its mother’s milk, contaminated with microplastics she had absorbed from the plastic pollution in the ocean. It thrust into the public mind the unseen blight of microplastic pollution on our planet, which is destroying the health, and often the lives, of billions of creatures. New studies show that it is also having an adverse impact on human health.
This pollution comes not just from broken down plastic packaging and products but from microbeads in our cosmetics. As the Minister has said repeatedly during this Bill, the Government want to deal with this problem holistically. However, the clauses he cites to support this claim and the action the Government have already taken to reduce plastic pollution will give neither a holistic response nor the means by which it can be measured.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitchurch, mentioned the ban on microbeads in rinse-off personal care products. It is important to emphasise that, while this is laudable, the ban still allows trillions of microbeads from cosmetic and sunscreen products to pollute our seas. This now represents nearly 9% of microplastic pollution. Of course I welcome the Government’s ban on plastic stirrers and cotton buds and the consultation launched on plastic cutlery and plates, which is to take place this autumn. These are supported by voluntary agreements, such as Textiles 2030 and the plastics pact. All these measures are important, but they are piecemeal attempts to deal with a massive planet-wide problem. To tackle such a huge issue, we need to look at the economy as a whole and for this country to lead the world in creating a path to resolving the dreadful scourge of plastic pollution. Equally importantly, we need to know that, beyond the warm words, progress is being achieved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has explained the deficiencies in the 2018 government resources and waste strategy. It is a very ambitious document; I spent much of the first lockdown reading it and felt that the Government had the issue in hand when I first read it. However, the target to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste by 2042—although excellent and most welcome—misses out the steps to achieve that target. To reach any target you need milestones along the way that allow industry and consumers alike to organise a progressive and achievable series of intermediary targets. That is what proposed new subsection (2) of Amendment 8 offers, with an earlier target of 31 December 2030. I fear that without progressive plastic reduction targets for the coming years, we will not succeed in beating one of the great scourges of our times.
I am aware that there are doubts about the targets for measuring microplastic pollution and how it can be measured. In the past there have been similar doubts about measuring carbon emissions. However, scientists have come up with amazingly accurate metrics in this field. The same is being achieved for plastics pollution. The Joint Research Centre of the EC worked with 100 laboratories across the globe last year and came up with 16 different methods for measuring plastics in the water. If a target is included in the legislation, I hope the OEP can work with these scientists to harmonise the best ways to measure and monitor the problem.
It is in the Government’s interest to focus the public’s minds on the steps they are taking to reduce plastic pollution. If they can prove by December 2030 that they are being effective, the public support will be enormous. Recent polls show that 92% of people in this country are concerned about this issue. It is easier for the public to monitor visible plastic pollution such as litter and discarded plastic masks; however it is harder to focus the public’s minds on the invisible microplastic pollution which makes up 50% of plastic pollution in the ocean. I ask the Minister to respond to public concern by having a target for reduction in nine years’ time, which can quantify the effect of the Government’s action.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have signed Amendment 8, and I support the others in this group. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, not just on an excellent, very clear introductory speech but on her relatively simple, clear Amendment 8. Is it not obvious to everybody that we need to reduce the volume of non-essential single-use plastic products—and more than just plastic, but plastic predominantly?
Plastic is the most incredible material. I could not function without it. But, before lockdown, my partner and I had reduced our single-use disposable plastic to virtually nothing. Covid put a hole in that, because so much food is wrapped up and there was not much choice. But now we do have a choice, and it is obvious to everybody that we have to encourage a policy environment that diverts food manufacturers and retailers towards, for example, compostable materials for food-contact packaging instead of plastics. Of course, we have to make sure we can compost those materials easily and not just by some special arrangement with local authorities.
A Plastic Planet is a global solutions organisation, and it has the single goal of inspiring the world to turn off the plastics tap by working with politicians, the UN, scientists and industry to convey the importance of the situation and to take action in reducing the use of plastic. It has created several schemes. Our Government could just pick up many of those schemes and use them immediately; they are ready-made and oven-ready.
According to 2020 figures from WRAP, flexible plastic represents a quarter of all UK consumer packaging, and plastic packaging is 40% of global plastic production. It is a problem. Only 4% of that consumer plastic packaging is currently recycled. The rest ends up in landfill or incineration, contaminating other waste streams such as food waste or, worse, our oceans and natural habitats where wildlife is threatened. It is threatened not just by contamination but by direct injury. We have all seen photographs of animals tied up, and birds tied up in plastic and dying. As WRAP acknowledges in its road map:
“Urgent action is required to address the complex challenges that underpin this: poor design, collection infrastructure, inconsistent communications, sorting challenges, reprocessing technology, capacity and unstable end markets.”
The Government claim to be a leader in tackling plastics pollution, but Greenpeace pointed out that they are actually fuelling the plastics crisis. The UK is the biggest contributor to this waste production behind the USA. What we do is force our waste on other countries. Some have refused, but, apparently, 40% of our plastic waste is sent to Turkey, where of course it is producing serious health problems for the people in the surrounding areas, such as respiratory issues, nosebleeds and headaches. So the Government are fuelling not just the nature emergency but health crises as well, and you have to take responsibility for that.
The Green Party has a long-term policy whose aim is to have no more than 20% residual waste and to recycle and compost more than 80%: also, to have the costs of disposal charged to all district councils in direct relation to the quantity of waste collected for disposal by each district. This provides an incentive to district councils to promote waste reduction and increase recycling, as they will save directly on disposable costs. I hesitate to put more pressure on councils, because they are already incredibly strap-cashed—I mean cash-strapped; it is getting very late for me, it is 50 minutes past my bedtime. They are already deprived of funds by this Government, so they would have to be funded to do this.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am very persuaded by my noble friend’s argument for a holistic approach to waste. Could my noble friend take this opportunity, in the context of these amendments, to set out how his approach would differ from the circular economy which we were signed up to when we were members of the European Union? I hate to deprive the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, of her beauty sleep, but, at the risk of doing so, I will ask my noble friend why we are continuing and indeed increasing our export to countries such as Turkey and, I understand, other third countries, considering that we have the facilities to dispose. We are a first-world country and have much better facilities to dispose of this. My understanding is that landfill sites, certainly in England, are full and that many have already closed. I just wonder how, in the context of disposing in particular of plastic waste, we will address this issue as a responsible Government.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but I was getting increasingly worried, over the years, that I was tending to agree with so much of what she said. Then I realised, when I saw her sitting temporarily behind me, that she might be a closet Conservative after all. I was quite overwhelmed and thought how much more joy there is over one sinner that repenteth than over 99 just persons.
I was tempted to support these amendments, even to the point of a vote. When I heard the announcement last week from my noble friend at Defra that they were planning to ban single-use cutlery and plastic plates, I asked myself: if a Minister has the power to do this without putting anything in the Bill, can he extend it to other plastics as well? That is my main question for him. If he can do that, I would like him to target my bête noire which, initially, is polystyrene. There is absolutely no justification now for any polystyrene food dishes whatever: whether they are used as takeaways, for carry-outs or plastic cups, there are paper alternatives.
The other totally unjustified use of polystyrene—without rehearsing the speech I made in Committee—is in packaging material, whether it is those awful plastic bubbles that go everywhere and get stuck to everything under the sun, or large pieces of polystyrene holding televisions or tape recorders and so on. There is no need for them whatever, because cardboard can do the job infinitely better—it is just as sound and can protect valuable material. I also suggest that that should be a target: one could move on that very quickly indeed. The polystyrene used in house construction is another matter; it could take longer to come up with an alternative.
There is a final form of plastic I would like the Minister to tackle. If one buys ready meals, for example, some seem to come in grey containers, some in white containers and some in black containers, but I understand that if they are all mixed together in recycling, the whole thing is useless—only some of them are recyclable. So I simply say to my noble friend that, if he has powers to do so, can he start to compel the food manufacturers and supermarkets to go for a plastic microwavable dish that is recyclable and get rid of those which destroy the recyclability of the good ones?
Those are the only points I wish to make to my noble friend and I come back to my question: can he reassure me that he and Defra have all the necessary powers, in due course, to ban any other forms of plastic, whether it is horrible little sachets with shampoo in them, plastic food containers or polystyrene? That is all I seek from my noble friend tonight.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, there is an emerging consensus that plastics are worse for the environment than other substances used in single-use products. The plastics tax scheduled to be introduced next year will create an incentive for suppliers to shift away from plastics towards other substances, such as glass, aluminium and cardboard. However, this will not necessarily benefit the environment in all cases. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Blencathra just said about polystyrene, but the situation as far as plastic bottles are concerned is different. The carbon footprint released by the manufacture of glass and aluminium is around five times greater than that released by PET manufacturing. In other ways, too, PET has advantages over other substances for water and soft drinks bottles. Do we want a return to the days when there was a significant risk of cutting your foot on broken glass discarded on a beach?
Furthermore, there is growing public acceptance of a higher proportion of recycled material within bottles on the market today. Many brands of bottled water now supply bottles containing 50% recycled material. As far as plastic bottles are concerned, the answer is surely to introduce a deposit return scheme similar to that in operation in Germany, which should enable us to equal the German achievement of recycling 98% of plastic bottles compared with our record of around 68%.
Amendment 36 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, would introduce a plastic strategy for England. I think it should cover other materials besides plastics. It is also essential that discussions with the devolved authorities result in the adoption of a single coherent strategy for the United Kingdom as a whole. The Scottish deposit scheme, for example, requires producers to provide a great deal of detailed information, but, bizarrely, does not require labelling to state clearly whether a product can be recycled. This is very difficult for small brewers that sell through wholesalers that distribute products in England and Scotland.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness and her co-signatories recognise the conflict inherent in subsection (3) of their proposed new clause. Subsection (3)(a) seeks to achieve
“a reduction in single use plastics”.
This is surely incompatible with subsection (3)(b), because the shift to greater use of glass and aluminium will result in increased carbon emissions.
As far as bottles are concerned, if we can move to a culture of recycling based on an effective deposit return scheme, there are reasons to retain PET. We should not throw the baby out with the bath-water.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point: we must not condemn plastic out of hand if it is a better option than another. Regarding Amendment 36, which is the one that I like in this group, his concerns will be covered under proposed subsection (2), where the Secretary of State sets out his objectives. If the objective quite clearly states that plastic is the best material for a particular process and preferable to another for carbon, the strategy would take that into account.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise mainly to speak to Amendment 8, though my observations are also relevant to the other proposals. I share the mover’s desire to reduce plastic use and plastic waste, especially given the damage they are doing to our rivers and oceans and the creatures they support. We have all seen the horrific pictures of fish throttled by plastic, and there is growing awareness of the growth of plastic use and its irresponsible disposal—but this amendment would not provide the best way to achieve the desired objectives.
The proposals are inappropriately interventionist and wasteful of administrative effort and political capital. They are also insufficiently radical, as they mainly focus on single-use plastic. Using a bag, a cup or a fork—or, indeed, a plastic car part—twice is only marginally better than using it only once. The question is whether the use of the resource is justified or whether the need could be satisfied in a way that did not use damaging plastic.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, given the hour, I will try not to duplicate the contributions of others. I will speak to Amendment 8, which I have signed, and I support Amendments 10 and 36 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and others. The noble Baroness introduced this important group of amendments with knowledge and passion. Others have also spoken with passion and repeated their comments from Committee.
Plastic pollution is all around us, yet we seem unable of our own free will to tackle its use, reduce its impact and move to alternatives. It is therefore imperative that we use the opportunity of the Environment Bill to take bold steps to legislate to ensure that plastic use and pollution are reduced as quickly and effectively as possible. It is, of course, true that not all single-use items are made of plastic. Other items have a limited use, and it is time to move away from a throw-away society. Plastic is the most invidious and long-lasting material, contaminating our countryside, waterways and seas. It kills our wildlife, which becomes entangled in its web, and poisons those animals and birds that unwittingly eat it.
A target for reducing the use of plastics must be set for December 2030. This target must be stringent to be effective. Vital to achieving reduction in the use of plastics is a properly thought-out plastics strategy. This should be laid before Parliament by March 2023. This is not an unreasonable target for completion. Plastic reduction was trailed in the 25-year environment plan, and much work has been done on this subject already.
I welcome the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and agree that we should not be exporting our waste to other countries; I spoke to that in Committee. Microplastics are present in all areas of our life: our oceans, landscapes and mountains. All around us, microplastics are polluting our lives and wildlife. Plastic bottles and polystyrene packaging and food wrap, however well designed, are still causing pollution. Microplastics, which occur from plastics breaking down into tiny pieces, must be tackled. Legislation to ban microbeads in wash-off products was welcome, but this dealt with only 1% of plastic pollution, whereas beverage litter contributes to 33% and tyre dust to 18%. It is really time that we met this challenge head on and produced both targets for plastics reduction and a proper plastics strategy to ensure that this happens, with milestones to ensure that progress is being made.
The country as a whole is extremely concerned about the use of plastic and the pollution it produces, the effect it is having on our wildlife and the unsightly detritus around our countryside. Now is the time to show that the Government are taking this matter seriously. If the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, presses the amendment to a vote, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches will be supporting her.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. The Government of course share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, regarding plastic pollution, and we are already working hard to address this urgent issue. Building on the action taken to date on the most commonly littered items, we announced just a few weeks ago that we will carry out a consultation this autumn on banning single-use plastic plates, cutlery and polystyrene drinks containers. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will be pleased with the last one, and I confirm that the answer to his question is yes: we already have the power to extend that ban to any items that cause environmental damage. I strongly agree with his condemnation of the foam used to protect televisions, sachets and all the rest of it. I hope that we will be able to go much further than we currently have.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made the point about the carbon footprint of plastic versus the alternatives. He is right in some circumstances—a paper bag versus a plastic bag, for example—but it is not just about carbon, as a number of noble Lords have said. The damage that plastic does when it gets into the environment goes far beyond its carbon impact, as we saw in those extraordinary David Attenborough images.
Regarding Amendments 8, 10 and 36, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the Government’s view is that publishing a separate plastics strategy and setting a plastics target in isolation from the wider waste agenda risks detracting from the action that we are taking now to achieve our overarching circular economy ambitions. It is worth emphasising that our profligate attitude to resources is doing immeasurable harm to the natural world, and not just our use of plastic. Extraction and processing of those resources in the round contributes to about half of the total global greenhouse gas emissions, as well as 90% of biodiversity loss. And the problem is growing. Globally, we extract three times the amount of resources from nature as we did in 1970, and that figure is set to double again within a generation unless we change course.
The Government are committed to reviewing the resources and waste strategy every five years, and this provides an opportunity to set out further detail on our approach to tackling plastic pollution within our transition to a circular economy. The Bill already requires the Government to set and achieve at least one long-term target on resource efficiency and waste reduction, and we intend to set a target to reduce consumption of all materials, including plastic. In addition, the Government are already exploring packaging recycling targets, under the proposals for extended producer responsibility for packaging. We have made progress to increase reuse and recycling and combat unnecessary single-use plastics. The Government introduced bans on plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds last year, and I have already outlined our next steps to build on that. Following the success of the carrier bag charge in reducing consumption of single-use carrier bags by 95% in the main supermarkets by 2020, the Government have increased and extended it to all retailers in May this year.
In addition, this Bill includes a number of measures targeting all stages of a product’s lifecycle, which will enable the Government to further tackle plastics and plastic waste as well as drive toward a more circular economy. These measures include powers to enable us to apply extended producer responsibility across a wide range of material and product streams, introduce deposit return schemes and establish greater consistency in the recycling system—a point made by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. The Bill will also allow us to place charges on single-use plastic items, set minimum resource efficiency and information requirements for products, and ban the export of plastic waste to non-OECD countries.
In response to a comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, local authorities have always been, and will always be, under pressure, but we have committed that any additional cost incurred as a consequence of this Bill will be covered by central government.
On the international front, we are very much engaged in trying to encourage other countries to tackle their waste problems. We set up the Commonwealth Clean Oceans Alliance, and well over half of Commonwealth members have signed up and committed to it. Many of them have already introduced legislation to reduce single-use plastics. We are one of the leading countries calling for an international plastics treaty—a sort of Kyoto agreement for plastic—and we are very active members and funders of the Global Ghost Gear Initiative. More than half of the waste in our oceans is actually ghost gear, abandoned fishing gear, as opposed to plastic bags and the like. We are doing a great deal internationally. We can and should do more, but we are objectively world leaders in relation to the international campaign.
This Bill provides a robust approach for ambitious targets and takes action to achieve them. The amendments are therefore worthy but unnecessary. I hope the examples that I have put forward reassure the noble Baroness that we are very much on the case in tackling single-use plastic as well as plastic more broadly, and I beg that she withdraws her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Once again, the examples that people have given underline the scope and scale of the task. I think there was also consensus on the need for urgent action.
I have listened carefully to what the Minister had to say. I absolutely accept, of course, that there are consultations taking place, but our concern always has been and continues to be that they are happening on a piecemeal basis. It is also true that the Bill gives Ministers powers to take further action but, again, there are no deadlines in the Bill for those measures, so we are left waiting—step by step, item by item—for progress to be made. I know that there is a lot of activity, but not much is landing at the moment in terms of practical measures to cut back on the use of plastic.
The fundamental problem here is that the Bill has a fragmented approach to reducing plastic pollution rather than, as I was saying earlier, a holistic approach to tackling all plastic pollution. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that our Amendment 8 is not just about single-use plastics; it is about an overall reduction in the plastic in circulation, setting a precise target that we believe will focus minds and deliver what the public are crying out for. There is huge public pressure for this.
The Bill has measures on resource efficiency and waste production, and those are welcome, but, as it is framed, it is likely to miss out, for example, lightweight plastic products and microplastics, which have little monetary value but cause huge damage to the ecosystem —one of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was making. It is also true that it says very little about other important issues, such as discarded fishing gear, plastic pellets and synthetic fibres, which are part of the campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that there is the continuing scandal of exporting our waste. I heard what the Minister said about that and I am pleased to hear that those talks are taking place but, again, this requires more urgent and immediate action.
Fundamentally, we believe that our amendment is practical and achievable. In a sense, it is much easier than some of the complex issues that we were talking about earlier, to do with tackling soil and air quality. This is something to which we know the solution now—we know the answers. For most of the issues that we are talking about, there are alternatives to using plastic. It is not as though we are waiting for the science to catch up with us.
A plastics strategy is required to reduce the use, manufacture and sale of single-use plastics. We need to make sure that we avoid switching to more damaging alternatives, but those issues can and should be delivered by 2030, in line with the other shorter-term measures in the Bill. It would require ambition and leadership, and that is what we expect from this Government.
Amendment 8 says that we should set a deadline for an overall reduction in the use of plastics. I am sure that everybody here agrees with that and believes that this is what needs to be done. We need to write it into the Bill, so that we can make sure it happens to a sensible deadline. It can be done by 2030, and we believe it should be.
I regret that the Government have not felt able to embrace our proposal, and on that basis I would like to test the opinion of the House.